Ohio school gunman kills self, wounds 4

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Again in every single incident of this type - Columbine, Virginia Tech, the off-duty police officer and the kid in the OP article - guns were used, not cars.

Noone seems to want to address why that is... or even what can be drawn from it.

As pointed out early on - the bad behaviour of a few has resulted in the past in a wholesale crackdown. Noone seems to flutter an eye about taking off their shoes at the airport just because one random nutter decided to stuff dynamite into his shoes - here the compromise is justified, restricting gun ownership is not - despite the relatively high frequency of occurrence of this kind of rampage killing.

[SMOKE 1,426]

you people type entirely too damn fast! i don't even finish reading a post & two more are there.

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

Who is arguing otherwise in relation to who's responsible? I don't think I have ever stated that it was the gun's fault, or the car either.

However, there is no comparison between shooting guns at people and drunk driving. Guns are weapons, cars are not, period. However stupid or irresponsible a drunk driver is, and I don't think anyone here is prepared to argue that drunk driving isn't stupid and irresponsible, it is not the same as taking out a gun and shooting it at people. I think you will find that drunk drivers can be sentenced extremely harshly, and rightly so though.

With the some guns are less harmful than other's thing, are you not giving my argument more credence than your own? I was prepared to admit that not all guns are equal, some being more lethal than others particularly when not being used by an expert but if you are telling me otherwise. I stand corrected.

your statement that there is no comparison between a gun and car might be argued by those killed by a drunk driver. they were still killed by someone doing something againt the law. i've covered above that all guns are not equal. a shotgun won't do anything but annoy you past several hundred yards. within 40 yards and it's another matter entirely.

I think what PH is trying to say is that a gun is designed with one purpose in mind -- to harm (and possibly kill) another individual. How the firearm in question is used is irrelevant in this case. It doesn't change that fact that the gun is still used first and foremost as a weapon, since that's how it was designed.

A car (since that's the example being used) is designed primarily as a means of transportation. Just because it can be used as a weapon, doesn't automatically make it a weapon. Anything can potentially become a weapon. I could probably strangle someone to death with my mouse cord or use a screwdriver to stab someone to death. Are those weapons? In those specific scenarios, yes. But neither of those items were designed for the purpose of causing injury or death, so a mouse cord and a screwdriver are not categorized as weapons.

try carrying one on an airplane and see if that flies

[DeadPoolX 9]

Again in every single incident of this type - Columbine, Virginia Tech, the off-duty police officer and the kid in the OP article - guns were used, not cars.

Noone seems to want to address why that is... or even what can be drawn from it.

As pointed out early on - the bad behaviour of a few has resulted in the past in a wholesale crackdown. Noone seems to flutter an eye about taking off their shoes at the airport just because one random nutter decided to stuff dynamite into his shoes - here the compromise is justified, restricting gun ownership is not - despite the relatively high frequency of occurrence of this kind of rampage killing.

Well... a gun does fit a bit easier into one's pocket or under a coat than a car does.

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

you people type entirely too damn fast! i don't even finish reading a post & two more are there.

link

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

the person used the gun at school to kill ... did it with intent to kill. a person driving drunk ... did it with the intent to drive drunk knowing this act will kill too. Could be that being killed by another human being after that person makes a series of intentional choices ... is something to think about.

given the amount of knowledge and messaging about drinking and driving ... how could it be called .... intentionally getting drunk and intentionally driving ... negligence?

For both cases (guns and drunk driving) it comes down to the person causing the issue and being a responsible person who respects life and rules of safe conduct.

Where does the responsibility for your actions start/ stop?

In killing another human being ... using a gun ... it's been said it's your responsibility. It is also your responsibility for getting drunk and driving (after all you are the person who got loaded and went off).

No matter how it's spun ... both are willful acts. In both cases the target can live (poor shot placement or managed to drive safely) or the target can die.

It doesn't matter whether they're both wilful - its still not comparable. Drink-driving is about general irresponsibilty rather than a specific intent to kill, regardless of whether the driver is aware that their driving impaired is more likely to result in a crash (you can't say 'will kill' - 'may' is the operative word here).

The gun rampage is about intent over responsibility - a person who decides to go kamikaze in a public place with a firearm with the specific intent of taking as many people with him as possible cannot in any way be described as responsible or indeed sane.

The way your rationalising this - it seems there's no room to distinguish a violent psychopath apart from a drunken idiot. Whether you want to admit it or not - there is a very big difference.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Again in every single incident of this type - Columbine, Virginia Tech, the off-duty police officer and the kid in the OP article - guns were used, not cars.

Noone seems to want to address why that is... or even what can be drawn from it.

As pointed out early on - the bad behaviour of a few has resulted in the past in a wholesale crackdown. Noone seems to flutter an eye about taking off their shoes at the airport just because one random nutter decided to stuff dynamite into his shoes - here the compromise is justified, restricting gun ownership is not - despite the relatively high frequency of occurrence of this kind of rampage killing.

Well... a gun does fit a bit easier into one's pocket or under a coat than a car does.

That and dorm room corridors are rather narrow...

Also rather tricky to drive a car through the 10th floor of an office building.

The way this thread is going you'd think there was absolutely no difference between Paris Hilton and Hannibal Lecter.

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

Again in every single incident of this type - Columbine, Virginia Tech, the off-duty police officer and the kid in the OP article - guns were used, not cars.

Noone seems to want to address why that is... or even what can be drawn from it.

As pointed out early on - the bad behaviour of a few has resulted in the past in a wholesale crackdown. Noone seems to flutter an eye about taking off their shoes at the airport just because one random nutter decided to stuff dynamite into his shoes - here the compromise is justified, restricting gun ownership is not - despite the relatively high frequency of occurrence of this kind of rampage killing.

Well... a gun does fit a bit easier into one's pocket or under a coat than a car does.

That and dorm room corridors are rather narrow...

Also rather tricky to drive a car through the 10th floor of an office building.

The way this thread is going you'd think there was absolutely no difference between Paris Hilton and Hannibal Lecter.

i didn't know hannibal made a porn movie!

[DeadPoolX 9]

Again in every single incident of this type - Columbine, Virginia Tech, the off-duty police officer and the kid in the OP article - guns were used, not cars.

Noone seems to want to address why that is... or even what can be drawn from it.

As pointed out early on - the bad behaviour of a few has resulted in the past in a wholesale crackdown. Noone seems to flutter an eye about taking off their shoes at the airport just because one random nutter decided to stuff dynamite into his shoes - here the compromise is justified, restricting gun ownership is not - despite the relatively high frequency of occurrence of this kind of rampage killing.

Well... a gun does fit a bit easier into one's pocket or under a coat than a car does.

That and dorm room corridors are rather narrow...

Also rather tricky to drive a car through the 10th floor of an office building.

The way this thread is going you'd think there was absolutely no difference between Paris Hilton and Hannibal Lecter.

Hey, c'mon now! They both like to appear on video and "swallow meat."

[Caladan 19]

Have people been seriously arguing that guns weren't designed as weapons? I don't think guns magically run about and kill people either, but if you're trying to argue that they're just the same as cars, either pass the crackpipe, put down the crackpipe, or write me an essay on how driver's licenses infringe on the 2nd amendment because of the right to bear arms.

Which are just like cars!

[natty bumppo 297]

the person used the gun at school to kill ... did it with intent to kill. a person driving drunk ... did it with the intent to drive drunk knowing this act will kill too. Could be that being killed by another human being after that person makes a series of intentional choices ... is something to think about.

given the amount of knowledge and messaging about drinking and driving ... how could it be called .... intentionally getting drunk and intentionally driving ... negligence?

For both cases (guns and drunk driving) it comes down to the person causing the issue and being a responsible person who respects life and rules of safe conduct.

Where does the responsibility for your actions start/ stop?

In killing another human being ... using a gun ... it's been said it's your responsibility. It is also your responsibility for getting drunk and driving (after all you are the person who got loaded and went off).

No matter how it's spun ... both are willful acts. In both cases the target can live (poor shot placement or managed to drive safely) or the target can die.

It doesn't matter whether they're both wilful - its still not comparable. Drink-driving is about general irresponsibilty rather than a specific intent to kill, regardless of whether the driver is aware that their driving impaired is more likely to result in a crash (you can't say 'will kill' - 'may' is the operative word here).

The gun rampage is about intent over responsibility - a person who decides to go kamikaze in a public place with a firearm with the specific intent of taking as many people with him as possible cannot in any way be described as responsible or indeed sane.

The way your rationalising this - it seems there's no room to distinguish a violent psychopath apart from a drunken idiot. Whether you want to admit it or not - there is a very big difference.

the use of a firearm is no guaranty of a death to the target. ... just like your drunk driver.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

the person used the gun at school to kill ... did it with intent to kill. a person driving drunk ... did it with the intent to drive drunk knowing this act will kill too. Could be that being killed by another human being after that person makes a series of intentional choices ... is something to think about.

given the amount of knowledge and messaging about drinking and driving ... how could it be called .... intentionally getting drunk and intentionally driving ... negligence?

For both cases (guns and drunk driving) it comes down to the person causing the issue and being a responsible person who respects life and rules of safe conduct.

Where does the responsibility for your actions start/ stop?

In killing another human being ... using a gun ... it's been said it's your responsibility. It is also your responsibility for getting drunk and driving (after all you are the person who got loaded and went off).

No matter how it's spun ... both are willful acts. In both cases the target can live (poor shot placement or managed to drive safely) or the target can die.

It doesn't matter whether they're both wilful - its still not comparable. Drink-driving is about general irresponsibilty rather than a specific intent to kill, regardless of whether the driver is aware that their driving impaired is more likely to result in a crash (you can't say 'will kill' - 'may' is the operative word here).

The gun rampage is about intent over responsibility - a person who decides to go kamikaze in a public place with a firearm with the specific intent of taking as many people with him as possible cannot in any way be described as responsible or indeed sane.

The way your rationalising this - it seems there's no room to distinguish a violent psychopath apart from a drunken idiot. Whether you want to admit it or not - there is a very big difference.

the use of a firearm is no guaranty of a death to the target. ... just like your drunk driver.

So what. We're talking about psychopathic people and their distinct tendency to use guns, as opposed to not cars to carry out their "blaze of glory" fantasies.

[natty bumppo 297]

Again in every single incident of this type - Columbine, Virginia Tech, the off-duty police officer and the kid in the OP article - guns were used, not cars.

Noone seems to want to address why that is... or even what can be drawn from it.

As pointed out early on - the bad behaviour of a few has resulted in the past in a wholesale crackdown. Noone seems to flutter an eye about taking off their shoes at the airport just because one random nutter decided to stuff dynamite into his shoes - here the compromise is justified, restricting gun ownership is not - despite the relatively high frequency of occurrence of this kind of rampage killing.

Well... a gun does fit a bit easier into one's pocket or under a coat than a car does.

That and dorm room corridors are rather narrow...

Also rather tricky to drive a car through the 10th floor of an office building.

The way this thread is going you'd think there was absolutely no difference between Paris Hilton and Hannibal Lecter.

humm ... why do a limited population inside a dorm corridor ... or office building

with a car just wait until class changes (or lunch hour)... and rip through the crowd thats walking between buildings.

guess this means someone doesn't need to be bothered trying to get the car into a building.

I wonder if someone will develop a video game depicting this example ... to desensitize kids and glorify killing with cars

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

humm ... why do a limited population inside a dorm corridor ... or office building

with a car just wait until class changes (or lunch hour)... and rip through the crowd thats walking between buildings.

guess this means someone doesn't need to be bothered trying to get the car into a building.

Except they don't. Do they.

[natty bumppo 297]

humm ... why do a limited population inside a dorm corridor ... or office building

with a car just wait until class changes (or lunch hour)... and rip through the crowd thats walking between buildings.

guess this means someone doesn't need to be bothered trying to get the car into a building.

Except they don't. Do they.

just two quick finds with cars crashing into crowds ...

Car 1

Car 2