General Discussion

Tommy_Carcetti

(44,510 posts)

53. Intent and design is certainly not irrelevant.

Reply to OneTenthofOnePercent (Reply #36)

Fri Jul 27, 2012, 01:31 PM

Jul 2012

And the primary purpose of a gun is to hurt, kill, or assault (legally defined as putting one in imminent fear of danger), regardless of whether it is self defense or not. Even if used for hunting, the gun's primary purpose is to kill. And yes, it could be used strictly for target practice, but target practice is nothing but a simulation of using a gun to hurt or kill. (Hence why you often see gun targets shaped in human form.)

And again, I'm not saying using guns for hunting or target practice is wrong, or that guns cannot be used in self defense, or that all guns should be banned.

The only thing I'm saying is that I'm fed up with the false assumption that the threshold of caution for guns is no different than it is for cars.

Cannot edit, recommend, or reply in locked discussions

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

63 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Okay, for the last time: A car is NOT the same thing as a gun. [View all] Tommy_Carcetti Jul 2012 OP

Some cares are built to put people in fear... lapfog_1 Jul 2012 #1

I don't think that was built for fear Matt_in_STL Jul 2012 #2

It was built to be loved. Tommy_Carcetti Jul 2012 #6

Why shouldn't it be at least as hard to legally operate a gun as a car? pnwmom Jul 2012 #3

Yeah, its really difficult to hop in a car and start driving, even without (GASP) a license! cleanhippie Jul 2012 #5

There are penalties for driving without a license. There should be penalties pnwmom Jul 2012 #12

There ARE penalties for improperly using a gun. cleanhippie Jul 2012 #17

you only need the license to operate on public roads... belcffub Jul 2012 #32

Correct. cleanhippie Jul 2012 #35

You are correct kctim Jul 2012 #4

Just to clarify.. cleanhippie Jul 2012 #8

As part of a "well-regulated militia." The Constitution doesn't rule out regulations. n/t pnwmom Jul 2012 #15

And there are THOUSANDS of regulations in place already. cleanhippie Jul 2012 #18

Quality is as important as quantity. There were no regulations, pnwmom Jul 2012 #22

Indeed it was. cleanhippie Jul 2012 #30

I would like to see a return of the Assault Weapon Ban that expired in 2004, pnwmom Jul 2012 #58

Considering that mass killings with "assault rifles" are the exception rather than the rule hack89 Jul 2012 #60

Not so. Lizzie Poppet Jul 2012 #42

You usually hear it in the context of product liability badtoworse Jul 2012 #7

I'm not denying they can't be used for lawful reasons. Tommy_Carcetti Jul 2012 #13

It depends on the context in which the comparison is made badtoworse Jul 2012 #24

Which one kills more people in this country every year? Bake Jul 2012 #9

That's the wrong question to be asked. Tommy_Carcetti Jul 2012 #11

well, you won't hear it from me. It's one of their stupidest arguments, amongst MANY... CTyankee Jul 2012 #10

YAwn zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz L0oniX Jul 2012 #14

Thank you for that wonderful use of bandwith. nt Tommy_Carcetti Jul 2012 #20

Better use than your OP. Clames Jul 2012 #29

Curious as to your own thoughts then. Tommy_Carcetti Jul 2012 #31

That may be but death is still death. Lionessa Jul 2012 #16

Most deaths by cars are by accident. Most deaths by guns are not. Tommy_Carcetti Jul 2012 #21

No, I don't agree with either the premiss or the concept. Lionessa Jul 2012 #34

As I said in the OP, I'm not arguing all guns should be banned. Tommy_Carcetti Jul 2012 #45

We're talking about it being preventable treestar Jul 2012 #52

Drunk driving is more than an accident - depraved indifference is a crime. nt hack89 Jul 2012 #38

But typically drunk driving will not gather more than a manslaughter or VH charge. Tommy_Carcetti Jul 2012 #43

It is more complex than that hack89 Jul 2012 #56

Sure it can. I'm not arguing that with you. Tommy_Carcetti Jul 2012 #59

It is the misuse of a product that is at issue hack89 Jul 2012 #61

"for the last time"? -..__... Jul 2012 #19

Not worth it nadinbrzezinski Jul 2012 #23

Would you sue Ford if a drunk driver in an Explorer killed a bunch of people on the road? badtoworse Jul 2012 #26

Nope, not worth it nadinbrzezinski Jul 2012 #37

Those were manufacturing defects. Big difference. nt hack89 Jul 2012 #39

"They are exempt from ANY AND ALL LIABILITY, including, PRODUCT DEFECTS " badtoworse Jul 2012 #44

That's simply not true. Lizzie Poppet Jul 2012 #47

Nope, not worth it nadinbrzezinski Jul 2012 #50

I've read it. It does NOT protect against liability from injury caused by defects. Lizzie Poppet Jul 2012 #54

Not just wrong... dead wrong... -..__... Jul 2012 #55

your making things up here belcffub Jul 2012 #48

I'm glad to see that you understand the concept of analogy. aikoaiko Jul 2012 #25

A failed analogy is not an analogy at all. Tommy_Carcetti Jul 2012 #28

If there any points of similarity then you can't really say its a failed analogy. aikoaiko Jul 2012 #33

George Clooney and a golden retriever are both mammals. Tommy_Carcetti Jul 2012 #40

No, that's more of a bad syllogism aikoaiko Jul 2012 #51

Oh please. Tommy_Carcetti Jul 2012 #57

Techincally speaking a guns main purpose justanidea Jul 2012 #27

To kill living beings or to help the insecure fantasize about killing people ProgressiveEconomist Jul 2012 #41

Oh, the hyperbole! cleanhippie Jul 2012 #46

Context is everything. OneTenthofOnePercent Jul 2012 #36

Intent and design is certainly not irrelevant. Tommy_Carcetti Jul 2012 #53

They are both tools. Nothing more or less. OneTenthofOnePercent Jul 2012 #62

I agree treestar Jul 2012 #49

Locking SunsetDreams Jul 2012 #63