Ohio school gunman kills self, wounds 4

[DeadPoolX 9]

For those here who fail to comprehend the difference between a car and gun, maybe they should go to sleep tonight with a full gassed-up Honda under their pillow.

The really funny thing about this entire debate is that I am, in general, against gun control laws and I own a firearm!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

For those here who fail to comprehend the difference between a car and gun, maybe they should go to sleep tonight with a full gassed-up Honda under their pillow.

The really funny thing about this entire debate is that I am, in general, against gun control laws and I own a firearm!

It's pretty weird though that some of the people who have posted here who own guns, can't seem to admit to what they actually are. Equating them to cars in a specific context like this is really ludicrous.

[derekkj 0]

Why is it so difficult to understand the concept here?

No one -- I repeat no one -- is debating the fact that both guns and cars can kill. Far too many people, every day, are killed in motor vehicle accidents. This is a fact and one that cannot be intelligently disputed. However, a firearm and a car were also designed (there's the key word: designed) for distinctly different uses.

A gun, no matter how you slice it, was created to injure or kill another live target -- unless you're skeet shooting or merely "practicing," in which you'll be firing at inanimate paper screens. The usual target, however, is either an animal or a human being. Both are living, breathing creatures and the objective of the gun is (as stated before) to wound or kill them.

A car, on the other hand, is designed to transport people, animals, or objects from one place to another. That doesn't mean it can't be used as a deadly weapon (it can and has been many times), but that was not why it was created. The sole purpose of the car was "quick and easy" transportation, since the main avenues before it were horses (with or without carriages) or trains.

As I stated before, nearly any object could be used as a weapon, given the opportunity. Regardless, that doesn't mean the object was created with that intention in mind. A plastic bag, for all intents and purposes, is designed to carry items (usually those bought at a store), but it could also be used to suffocate someone. Is that a weapon? Depending on the circumstance, it could very be one. But that was not why it was created -- when the designer of the plastic bag rolled it out, he didn't think to himself, "I'll bet I could kill a whole lot of kids with this puppy! If only I could get it mass produced... oh, I know! I'll have every store use plastic bags and then hopefully, children will begin suffocating themselves and each other!"

No, that didn't happen. The same is true with the invention of the car. The invention of the gun, however, was quite different. It was designed for no other purpose but to cause damage (and possibly kill), so I can't see the logical comparison between a firearm and something such as a car. It makes no sense whatsoever.

I guess what I was trying to get at was that a gun can be used as something other than weapon as well, be it trap/skeet shooting or any of the other shooting sports, and that many people, including myself, have never shot at a living target and probably never will. For me shooting is a sport, plain and simple.

And it's the misuse of any object, be it a deranged pyschopath with a gun or a woman high on crack plowing her car into a crowd of innocent shoppers, that pisses me off.

Strange that you should use the plastic bag scenerio. We actually have some freak here in Arlington, VA that is sneaking up behind women, throwing a plastic bag over their heads and then trying to sexually assault them. Fortunately he seems to be incompetent and all of the women have gotten away.

Edited October 12, 2007 by derekkj

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

But fundamentally - a gun IS a weapon. I'm just surprised that noone can honestly admit that.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

But fundamentally - a gun IS a weapon. I'm just surprised that noone can honestly admit that.

So is a steak knife and a baseball bat.

[DeadPoolX 9]

Why is it so difficult to understand the concept here?

No one -- I repeat no one -- is debating the fact that both guns and cars can kill. Far too many people, every day, are killed in motor vehicle accidents. This is a fact and one that cannot be intelligently disputed. However, a firearm and a car were also designed (there's the key word: designed) for distinctly different uses.

A gun, no matter how you slice it, was created to injure or kill another live target -- unless you're skeet shooting or merely "practicing," in which you'll be firing at inanimate paper screens. The usual target, however, is either an animal or a human being. Both are living, breathing creatures and the objective of the gun is (as stated before) to wound or kill them.

A car, on the other hand, is designed to transport people, animals, or objects from one place to another. That doesn't mean it can't be used as a deadly weapon (it can and has been many times), but that was not why it was created. The sole purpose of the car was "quick and easy" transportation, since the main avenues before it were horses (with or without carriages) or trains.

As I stated before, nearly any object could be used as a weapon, given the opportunity. Regardless, that doesn't mean the object was created with that intention in mind. A plastic bag, for all intents and purposes, is designed to carry items (usually those bought at a store), but it could also be used to suffocate someone. Is that a weapon? Depending on the circumstance, it could very be one. But that was not why it was created -- when the designer of the plastic bag rolled it out, he didn't think to himself, "I'll bet I could kill a whole lot of kids with this puppy! If only I could get it mass produced... oh, I know! I'll have every store use plastic bags and then hopefully, children will begin suffocating themselves and each other!"

No, that didn't happen. The same is true with the invention of the car. The invention of the gun, however, was quite different. It was designed for no other purpose but to cause damage (and possibly kill), so I can't see the logical comparison between a firearm and something such as a car. It makes no sense whatsoever.

I guess what I was trying to get at was that a gun can be used as something other than weapon as well, be it trap/skeet shooting or any of the other shooting sports, and that many people, including myself, have never shot at a living target and probably never will. For me shooting is a sport, plain and simple.

And it's the misuse of any object, be it a deranged pyschopath with a gun or a woman high on crack plowing her car into a crowd of innocent shoppers, that pisses me off.

Strange that you should use the plastic bag scenerio. We actually have some freak here in Arlington, VA that is sneaking up behind women, throwing a plastic bag over their heads and then trying to sexually assault them. Fortunately he seems to be incompetent and all of the women have gotten away.

I understand what you're saying. The same could be said for archery. It could be done purely as a sport or used as a combative technique. After all, a bow and arrow can do a lot of damage, especially in the hands of an expert.

However, I would like to point you out to the portions of the quoted text (both yours and mine) which I have put into bold. This shows that I did take into account skeet shooting.

Edited October 12, 2007 by DeadPoolX

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

But fundamentally - a gun IS a weapon. I'm just surprised that noone can honestly admit that.

So is a steak knife and a baseball bat.

Prince Philip said something like that. Still I'd like to see him polish off 30-odd people with a cricket bat, rather than a gun.

Outside of Braveheart and Conan the Barbarian it can't be done.

[derekkj 0]

I understand what you're saying. The same could be said for archery. It could be done purely as a sport or used as a combative technique. After all, a bow and arrow can do a lot of damage, especially in the hands of an expert.

However, I would like to point you out to the portions of the quoted text (both yours and mine) which I have put into bold. This shows that I did take into account skeet shooting.

Oh, I know, that's why I mentioned it. I just get the impression that there are few people out there (not you, btw) that think that all gun owners are about killing burglars and Bambi.

Good thing we are all allowed to agree to disagree.

Now I am going to go home and ask Derek about the whole loonies/stripper thing.

[Peikko 1,575]

I just get the impression that there are few people out there...that think that all gun owners are about killing burglars and Bambi.

You might have gained that impression, but I am rather curious as to which particular posts have led you to that conclusion. Again, the main bone of contension to me is, why it is so important for some gun owners to liken guns to something that isn't designed to be a weapon, in particular a car?

We have all agreed that almost anything, including plastic bags, could be used for the purpose of killing someone/thing.

However, guns were invented to kill and maim and most guns are extremely efficient at doing this while plastic bags and cars are not. This is why armed forces use guns and not plastic bags and cars when they are engaged in conflict and why guns are locked away in armouries when not in use and cars and plastic bags are not.

I have absolutely no problem with the responsible use of guns and sports shooting comes into that category, as do most hunting activities. I am repulsed by hunters who take pleasure in the death of animals and those who kill animals without thought, but then that's my sensibilities I expect.

[Caladan 19]

But fundamentally - a gun IS a weapon. I'm just surprised that noone can honestly admit that.

If they're not arms, they're not covered under the second amendment.

[DeadPoolX 9]

But fundamentally - a gun IS a weapon. I'm just surprised that noone can honestly admit that.

If they're not arms, they're not covered under the second amendment.

Now you've done it. I bet someone (probably a martial artist) is going to sue over the fact their legs aren't listed as a "weapon" under the 2nd Amendment.

[natty bumppo 297]

But fundamentally - a gun IS a weapon. I'm just surprised that noone can honestly admit that.

nobody said differently ...

any object can also be a weapon ... depends on the usage.

[natty bumppo 297]

For those here who fail to comprehend the difference between a car and gun, maybe they should go to sleep tonight with a full gassed-up Honda under their pillow.

The really funny thing about this entire debate is that I am, in general, against gun control laws and I own a firearm!

It's pretty weird though that some of the people who have posted here who own guns, can't seem to admit to what they actually are. Equating them to cars in a specific context like this is really ludicrous.

a mechanical device misused is the problem when there is a serious lack of responsibility … be it a car, gun, baseball bat, knife ... etc.

your kitchen probably contains lots of objects designed specifically for the cutting of flesh … or should I say weapons.

[Peikko 1,575]

No, the problem is that you seem to want to fudge the distinction between guns (designed to kill and efficient at so doing) and other items, not designed to kill and therefore less effective. How much less effective? Well, a lot less really, that's why guns haven't so far been replaced by any of these household objects when it comes to armed combat.

If x takes his car/plastic bag/knife/base ball bat and sets out to wreak havoc he is going to be less successful than his gun toting counterpart. To argue otherwise is to be blind to what a gun is in my opinion.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

No, the problem is that you seem to want to fudge the distinction between guns (designed to kill and efficient at so doing) and other items, not designed to kill and therefore less effective. How much less effective? Well, a lot less really, that's why guns haven't so far been replaced by any of these household objects when it comes to armed combat.

If x takes his car/plastic bag/knife/base ball bat and sets out to wreak havoc he is going to be less successful than his gun toting counterpart. To argue otherwise is to be blind to what a gun is in my opinion.

Exactly.