The latest murderer

[Tommy_Carcetti]

235. Objects that only accidentially or negligently cause harm are not by definition "weapons."

And yes, sure, a person can always use a good number of objects as a weapon, secondary to their intended use. Including cars.

But something being used as a weapon is not always the same as something being a weapon, and therein lies the difference.

And I believe 99%+ of those 35,900 car related deaths in 2010 were not as a result of something deciding to intentionally plow one's car into another person, hence those are not weapon related deaths. And sure, James Holmes could have chosen to use a car to kill people instead of shooting them, but he didn't. And most people who want to intentionally kill someone don't chose to use a car. It comes off bulky and inefficient, not to mention the fact that it could likely cause injury or death to the driver, and not everyone who wishes harm to another person wants to injure or kill him/herself in the process.

You compare the number of intentional homicides with guns with the number of intentional homicides with cars and it would be incredibly lopsided. And that goes to the whole intended purpose of the object at hand, so it shouldn't be a surprise that a person would use an actual weapon versus an object that could be used as a weapon.

It is always important to try to understand why someone is driven to kill. That was the big question after September 11th, if you remember: "Why do they hate us?"

But motive and means are two seperate and independent entities. And trying to determine underlying causes that may lead to someone killing should not preclude examining the means in which they are killing.