Baths kill more Japanese then guns kill Americans

[Pholus]

138. And I quote:

"Design and intended purpose of the tool used is entirely irrelevant?"

If it is ENTIRELY irrelevant then you must believe you can use a car to defend your house, irrespective of what the car was actually designed for.

Apparently, based on your other thread since "it can happen" is the grounds for the utility of a car's practicality as a weapon you believe that you should be able to EFFECTIVELY defend your house with nothing but a car.

Why do you need the gun again?

Your argument is in shambles. I feel like I am done here so have every last word you want.

Now just for you, a quote from the Monty Python fruit skit finally demonstrating the difference between your position and mine. You say that design is irrelevant. That makes you on the side of 'Arrison in this skit. Me, I claim that certain things are built as special application tools. That places my sympathies with the Sergeant.

Sgt.: Sorry, Mr. 'Arrison. Come at me with that banana. Hold it like that, that's it. Now attack me with it. Come on! Come on! Come at me! Come at me then! (Shoots him.)

Chapman: Aaagh! (dies.)

Sgt.: Now, I eat the banana. (Does so.)