Quote:
Originally Posted by Polar Bear
The gun is designed to shoot things. It is used for nothing else. The automobile is used for...naaahhh...I'm not going to complete saying something that is so patently obvious.
By the way, I noticed your avatar. You know dogs kill a lot of people. And yet you display those weapons as though they're just some innocent objects.
|
Thank you for once again making my point for me. Yes dogs can and have killed people, and when they are used by people to kill or hurt someone, at that point they would be considered weapons. As to my two little guys, they might think that they are larger breeds at times, but unless someone has an absolute fear of dogs, I find it hard to believe that either of my dogs would strike fear in the heart of a perpetrator.
Please show me where I even alluded to guns not being designed to shoot, or that cars were designed to kill?
Yes guns shoot and cars do not. Your position appears to be that the design/intent of the object is the basis for whether it is a good thing or a bad thing. Is this correct? Please tell me when and where an honest, law abiding citizen has taken a gun and
randomly shot someone?
Or is your position that the presence of guns makes it easier for the "evil" person to obtain them? If that is the case, then please explain:
1) The use of vehicles to kill more than 1 or 2 people at a single time (note that there were two separate examples already provided in earlier posts). Why didn't the perpetrators of those crimes grab assault rifles and use them instead? Perhaps they thought that the criminal penalties would be less since they didn't use a gun?
2) Chicago, which has very strict gun laws, still has over 500 gun related homicides a year. I am sure that if every gun, or even a narrow majority of the guns used by the bad guys were obtained legally, that would be part of the headlines. Oh and by the way, the vast majority of those killings involve a handgun, not a rifle.
I will again return to the original topic of this string which has to do with driving under the influence. Why do you continue to refuse to accept that when a car is being driven by someone who is intoxicated and not able to drive the vehicle in a safe, law abiding manner, that they are in possession of a
potential weapon? Once they hurt/kill someone, by definition the car was the weapon used, or is Merriam-Webster wrong in regards to the definition of a weapon? Remember that the offender in this case not only was speeding, but also DUI, and driving under a suspended license. This person would appear to be in callous disregard not only of the driving laws, but of the lives of other people on the road. Please explain how his motor vehicle was not a weapon.
How can you continue to argue that something involved in
29 deaths per day is not a potential weapon? My point is you can't.
Why is this not being addressed in as rabid a manner as the anti-gun campaign? Are the lives of people killed by drunk drivers less worthy than those killed by a gun?
Automobiles are a way of life so they get a "pass". No enforceable regulations or safety devices to prevent
criminals from repeatedly drinking and driving. Cars get a "pass" because if Joe Smith had to blow in a breathalyzer
each time he went to turn on the ignition, well that would be inconvenient and add to the costs of the car purchase. Perhaps if instead of a slap on the wrist, a drunk driver spent a significant amount of time in jail, including a life sentence when they take a life, things will change. If only the anti-drunk driving campaign had as rabid a base as the anti-gun campaign, perhaps we would see changes. Maybe if there was the same type of regulations for drinking and driving that there were for owning a gun, that might make a difference as well-or not. There will still be people who don't follow the law, be it a gun law or drinking and driving. In either case, when they are not obeying the laws, we are talking about criminals, not law abiding citizens.