A car is not a gun

[Rust in Peace]

Running someone over is considered assault with a deadly weapon.

Thread over.

[shadey]

Actually, guns do kill people, at least this one does...

It even has a magic wand sticking out of it

[Sunseeker]

While I dont believe in Gestapo like gun control I am sick of hearing the bogus argument that " If a drunk driver kills someone do you blame car manufacturers too?".

Guns are specifically designed to kill and maim. Cars are transportation devices designed to get from place to place. Its incedental that they are dangerous. If all the danger could be taken out of cars, they would, and they would still be cars. Take the danger out of a gun and it essentially becomes something else. You are not doing your side any favors by using this comparison.

So please stop using this ridiculous, bullshyte argument that you heard somewhere, thought it was clever, and decided to regurgitate it because you cannot construct an original thought...thank you

Before you gun nuts start flaming me. I AM NOT FOR GUN CONTROL! I just hate hearing this ridiculous comparison.

The point of the argument isn't that the comparison is accurate, but that a car is capable of killing a person when used for that purpose, or when not used properly. A gun, while designed to kill, is not necessarily designed to kill people. It can(like a car) be used for a variety of other purposes ranging from friendly competitions to hunting. They're both tools with particular functions that when misused can kill people.

The point of the argument is to demonstrate the flaw in the logic that guns are bad. You can kill a person with just about anything, from a pencil to a laptop to a car or a gun. But when someone kills a person with one of those things, we don't blame HP for making a 7 lb laptop that can kill a person. We don't blame Ticonderoga for making their pencils so deliciously hard and sharp. We blame the person. Which is why gun-blaming arguments are so ridiculous in the first place. A PERSON is always at fault. Not their tool.(even if they are a tool)

[bearxfoo]

I think the comparison is made more for people who can't seem to grasp the "over all" concept of the issue at hand.

I think, if viewed in a "larger" way, so to speak, that the comparison makes sense. A gun, by itself, does not kill people. A car, by itself, does not kill people either. Yes, both a gun and a car have different purposes; a gun is designed to actually cause harm, and a car is meant for transporting. But both can be misused. If you drive reckless, your chances of taking somebody's life is rather high. If you shoot your gun recklessly, the chances of taking somebody's life is rather high.

[xylophone]

hydrostatic shock, blood loss and organ failure dont kill people. Lack of brain activity does. Legislate our brains.

This is fun

Just try legislating my brain! I got my tin foil hat ready for you

[Elguappo]

I think the comparison is made more for people who can't seem to grasp the "over all" concept of the issue at hand.

I think, if viewed in a "larger" way, so to speak, that the comparison makes sense. A gun, by itself, does not kill people. A car, by itself, does not kill people either. Yes, both a gun and a car have different purposes; a gun is designed to actually cause harm, and a car is meant for transporting. But both can be misused. If you drive reckless, your chances of taking somebody's life is rather high. If you shoot your gun recklessly, the chances of taking somebody's life is rather high.

I have to disagree.

If you use your gun to shoot someone or something (regardless of legality), you are using your gun for exactly what it was designed for.

When you drive your car into someone you are using your car as a weapon. The cars primary function and reason for the cars manufacture is for transportation. Not as a weapon.

[xylophone]

I have to disagree.

If you use your gun to shoot someone or something (regardless of legality), you are using your gun for exactly what it was designed for.

When you drive your car into someone you are using your car as a weapon. The cars primary function and reason for the cars manufacture is for transportation. Not as a weapon.

So when I use my gun at the range its a recreational device but when I shoot a person its a weapon?
So when I drive my car to work its a vehicle but when I run a guy over its a weapon?

[Elguappo]

So when I use my gun at the range its a recreational device but when I shoot a person its a weapon?
So when I drive my car to work its a vehicle but when I run a guy over its a weapon?

Again, I have to make this distinction.

I will answer your question with a question.

Suppose ( hypathetically) you could make a car that had no inherint danger associated with it. You could run it into anyone at any speed and would not harm anyone. It would still be a car, a vehicle, a transportation device and serve its primary function

We cannot say this about guns, take away their ability to kill, maim, hurt and it loses it primary function - a weapon

THAT is the distinction!!!

[Nightcloak]

Regulating guns makes guns harder to obtain illegally. The harder it is to commit a crime, the less crime there will be. Where do you think all the illegal guns come from? They are bought legally and resold.

Wrong. Places with some of the highest gun control laws like Washington DC have some of the highest crime rates. Why you ask? Because the people who commit crimes have many illegal ways to come by guns. When you crack down on legitimate citizens attempting to buy guns or just say lets ban them outright for the average person, you effectively make the criminals the only ones with access. Which means unless the police show up in a very timely manner, said average citizen is completely at the mercy of the gun toting criminal.

[dokilar]

I have to disagree.

If you use your gun to shoot someone or something (regardless of legality), you are using your gun for exactly what it was designed for.

When you drive your car into someone you are using your car as a weapon. The cars primary function and reason for the cars manufacture is for transportation. Not as a weapon.

There is a flaw with your logic, guns are not created for the sole purpose of killing people. Guns are used for recreational purposes such as shooting targets, or shooting clay pigeons.

Banning guns doesnt solve anything. Criminals who want/need/desire to have a gun is going to get one regardless of what the law says. If theyre going to rob a bank I dont think theyre going to care about breaking a gun law.

If we're going to ban guns we might as well ban other dangerous objects as well. Knives, baseball bats, golf clubs, silverware. Anything that could be used as a weapon we should prolly ban.

[xylophone]

Again, I have to make this distinction.

I will answer your question with a question.

Suppose ( hypathetically) you could make a car that had no inherint danger associated with it. You could run it into anyone at any speed and would not harm anyone. It would still be a car, a vehicle, a transportation device and serve its primary function

We cannot say this about guns, take away their ability to kill, maim, hurt and it loses it primary function - a weapon

THAT is the distinction!!!

Primary intended use is irrelevant, I can use a broadsword to cut wood, I can use a pen to gouge someone's eyes out. The argument is that the person using the gun to murder or maim is responsible, not the inanimate object he uses.

[Elguappo]

There is a flaw with your logic, guns are not created for the sole purpose of killing people. Guns are used for recreational purposes such as shooting targets, or shooting clay pigeons.

Banning guns doesnt solve anything. Criminals who want/need/desire to have a gun is going to get one regardless of what the law says. If theyre going to rob a bank I dont think theyre going to care about breaking a gun law.

If we're going to ban guns we might as well ban other dangerous objects as well. Knives, baseball bats, golf clubs, silverware. Anything that could be used as a weapon we should prolly ban.

Before you comment you should read the entirety of what was written in this post. I am NOT for banning guns. I am simply against the comparison explained in the OP.

I should have known that this was gonna decend into a gun control argument. PLEASE. Read the original post and stay on topic

---------- Post added 2011-02-24 at 03:11 PM ----------

Primary intended use is irrelevant, I can use a broadsword to cut wood, I can use a pen to gouge someone's eyes out. The argument is that the person using the gun to murder or maim is responsible, not the inanimate object he uses.

When did I say person using the object was not responsible?

Primary intended use IS relevent when comparing 2 objects. Your letting your views on gun control blind you to the true nature of the topic at hand.

[surfire117]

i've gone to jail for illegal street racing and they were telling me in court, can't remember exactly it was a few years back but when you hit a certain speed your car is considered a weapon or somehere along that line.

[NineSpine]

All 50 states fall under the Brady waiting period for new firearms, assault weapons bans, taxes, reporting requirements and databases, and other restrictions. Those are all Federal laws and what the states are doing is placing additional restrictions on certain weapons. Again, layers of enforcement and legislation. Thousands of pages of rules about use, purchase, transport, storage, etc. Guns are THE most highly regulated legal commodity in the United States.

ps - source on your "only 17 states" comment please.

pps - your little snide insults like "back here on Earth" just make your argument look weaker.

There are no Federal requirements for waiting periods in private sales or reporting requirements/databases, and the "assault weapons ban" expired quite a few years ago now.

Here's your source:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sourc...rKC66Q&cad=rja

[Rushro]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toront...e-hurt241.html

I'll just leave that there.

[dokilar]

You stated that guns were only designed to kill people. I was simply telling you that youre wrong. Thats not the only thing guns are/were created for.

The bottom two sentences were directed at people who think banning guns will fix anything

[NineSpine]

Wrong. Places with some of the highest gun control laws like Washington DC have some of the highest crime rates. Why you ask? Because the people who commit crimes have many illegal ways to come by guns. When you crack down on legitimate citizens attempting to buy guns or just say lets ban them outright for the average person, you effectively make the criminals the only ones with access. Which means unless the police show up in a very timely manner, said average citizen is completely at the mercy of the gun toting criminal.

1. That's only true for Washington D.C., and D.C. is a statistically anomaly in about five thousand different ways. It has the most egregious wealth disparity in the country, and it takes fifteen minutes to walk to a place with lax gun control.

2. Registration, background checks, and licensing do not prevent legitimate, responsible gun owners from obtaining guns. They simply don't.

3. It's extraordinarily rare that a weapon is used for self-defense, as opposed to being used to commit a crime or cause an accident.

4. Gun control laws are a hilarious joke as long as you can drive over state lines, walk into a gun show, and walk out with $20,000 in weapons without a background check. Unless the requirements are nation-wide, trying to point to an area where gun control is high but so is crime is just a joke. Where do you think those guns came from? Someone drove an hour away, bought them legally, and brought them back.

[Qwell]

And cheese isn't beef! And pants aren't desks! Purple, because ice-cream doesn't have any bones.

[Drunkenvalley]

For the record, a single good reason for why guns are inherently more dangerous is...
...because guns are far more likelier to kill.

Sure, I can attack you with a pencil. But the chances of surviving such an encounter is much higher than being shot by a gun.

[xylophone]

And cheese isn't beef! And pants aren't desks! Purple, because ice-cream doesn't have any bones.

What if i do homework on my lap? Are pants a desk then?