6 ms·

They are not responsible in the same that car manufacturers are not responsible when one of their toys gets driven into a crowd of people.

actsasbuffoon 8y ago
Self driving cars and autonomous braking may change that some day.
uhtred 8y ago
Cars are not designed with the sole purpose of killing people though are they?
- kbenson 8y ago
  Many guns are not designed with the "sole purpose" of killing people. Plenty are designed with the purpose of hunting, or protection (which may or may not be used to kill someone, but might be useful in a way that doesn't even require firing). If you disagree with that assessment, then I think you'll most likely have to agree that some automobiles are designed with the purpose of killing people. Military vehicles with attached guns or cannons, for example. There's a direct parallel to swords and knives. Swords may not be appropriate for being in public, but I think few people object to a pocket knife. That said, we don't often get people saying "blades are designed with the sole purpose of hurting/killing people". I think that people use absolutist terminology and statements with regard to guns is more indicative of the poor communication and polarization of the topic than anything else, and is also why it's very hard to make any headway on the issue. Gun advocates are afraid to cede any ground on the issue as they see it as a slippery slope to more and more constraints on what they see as a constitutional right. It's hard to say they're wrong in that when people jump in with stuff like "the sole purpose of a gun is killing people".
  - baby 8y ago
    > the purpose of hunting Alright, no more hunting then. I think most people will be fine with that. > or protection Not working that well in your mass shootings > to swords and knives How many people can I kill per seconds using knives? > the sole purpose of a gun is killing people I honestly don't care about all the other purposes, they do not need to exist. If we're talking about hunting and range shooting then people can take up on other hobbies like painting, playing the guitar, coding, etc..
    - kbenson 8y ago
      >> or protection > Not working that well in your mass shootings The number of people killed in mass shootings is statistically insignificant. That said, they are horrible, and their impact can be lessened through good gun legislation. Outlaw (or make it very hard to get) automatic/assault weapons, or my preference, also outlaw hand guns. > How many people can I kill per seconds using knives? Are you actually defending the assertion that the only thing guns are for is killing by just noting that some guns can kill a lot more people a lot faster? A couple sticks of dynamite thrown into a crowded space will likely kill more than either, but dynamite has been used usefully commercially for over a century. > I honestly don't care about all the other purposes, they do not need to exist. Well, I guess it's good you think so. I'm sure all those people that view guns as an essential check on governmental power and a personal right will have no problem with you dictating what they can do. Problem solved.
  - uhtred 8y ago
    I think you are scraping the barrel a bit by bringing military cars into it. We are obviously talking about cars for civilian use. A Ford focus is not designed for killing. As for guns having other uses such as protection or hunting; well I view shooting animals as something only psychopaths do, and as for protection, protection from what? Most countries don't allow civilians to own guns, yet those civilians are not coming to any harm as a result of not having a gun. In fact they are safer! People in developed countries outside of America are safer, did you know that? And they don't have guns! How absurd!
    - kbenson 8y ago
      > I think you are scraping the barrel a bit by bringing military cars into it. We are obviously talking about cars for civilian use. A Ford focus is not designed for killing. Some guns are designed for military use, others are not. Anything designed for military use should probably be kept away from civilians. > As for guns having other uses such as protection or hunting; well I view shooting animals as something only psychopaths do, I have relatives that in the not too distant past (30 years or so), relied on hunting during portions of the year to have enough to eat because otherwise they couldn't afford both food and housing, and this is was in the continental U.S. People live in this state around the world. Dictating that that they shouldn't hunt because it makes them a psychopath when it's actually how they survive is fairly hypocritical. > Most countries don't allow civilians to own guns Are you sure about that? Perhaps you should research this. I just did. You might be surprised. You can get a license for a firearm in the UK, and the EU doesn't disallow firearms either (but individual member states might). Here's a handy table with comparison of laws by country.[1] > yet those civilians are not coming to any harm as a result of not having a gun. In fact they are safer! People in developed countries outside of America are safer, did you know that? Well, since it's not due to completely doing away with firearms, the question is where is the safety coming from? Is it from sane gun laws and license requirements? That's fine, let's do that. It's not really evidence that completely outlawing guns makes people safer though, since most these countries you are talking about allow people to obtain a gun that want one and show responsibility. To be clear, my position is for sane gun licensing requirements and restricting certain classes of guns, while the only way I can see to interpret "the sole purpose of a gun is killing people" is for a position to completely ban all firearms (why would you allow them if they are only for killing). So what position are you actually trying to advocate? Most your evidence doesn't really support a complete ban on guns, but your wording implies that's what you're arguing. And if it's not what you're arguing, that was my whole point. Purposefully inflammatory language doesn't help people come to an understanding. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overview_of_gun_laws_by_nation#Comparison https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overview_of_gun_laws_by_nation...
webkike 8y ago
The reason that guns were created was to fire high powered projectiles into people. Cars weren't created to run people over.
- drhodes 8y ago
  I don't think your response demonstrates why the gun manufacturer is at fault. Does the same hold for steak knives? What about assault knives? All weapon makers share responsibility for the deaths involving the weapons they make if the makers claim the object was created to kill people. That's the argument, but I don't think it holds up to scrutiny.
  - falcor84 8y ago
    > All weapon makers share responsibility for the deaths involving the weapons they make if the makers claim the object was created to kill people. I quite strongly agree with this statement. Indeed some inventors, like Alfred Nobel, have felt this way. Would you mind arguing why it doesn't hold up to scrutiny?
- dleslie 8y ago
  And yet Cars are very good tools for doing just that. Duct Tape wasn't created to be the handy man's secret weapon, and yet here we are.
- naasking 8y ago
  > The reason that guns were created was to fire high powered projectiles into people. Cars weren't created to run people over. Except why or how these items were designed or created is not really relevant is it? Knives, clubs/bats, bows and arrows were all designed and used for violent purposes, but we're not talking about banning knife juggling or baseball or archery as a sport. We don't blame the manufacturers when someone gets hurt by a bat, intentionally or otherwise. Plenty of people use guns for recreational purposes only, and that's legitimate enough of a purpose, so long as the manufacturers are specifically not pushing them as items to kill people you don't like.
  - 8y ago
seunosewa 8y ago
I think the difference is that guns are designed to cause deaths. Cars are not designed to be in accidents.
- TearsInTheRain 8y ago
  Imho, I don't think that that matters. Guns have plenty of legitimate, beneficial, and legal uses. Sure it is easy to use them illegally, but similarly it is also easy to use a car illegally, so I think my analogy still stands.
  - falcor84 8y ago
    The way I see it, the question is not whether the instrument in question has legitimate uses, but rather whether there are (reasonable) non-violent uses for which this is the best tool.
  - seunosewa 8y ago
    Aren’t car manufacturers allowed to be sued if their cars cause deaths?
  - baby 8y ago
    > Guns have plenty of legitimate, beneficial, and legal uses Completely outweighed by their prime use for killing.
InitialLastName 8y ago
Cars have a function to society other than killing things (and the threat thereof).

actsasbuffoon 8y ago

Self driving cars and autonomous braking may change that some day.

uhtred 8y ago

Cars are not designed with the sole purpose of killing people though are they?

kbenson 8y ago
Many guns are not designed with the "sole purpose" of killing people. Plenty are designed with the purpose of hunting, or protection (which may or may not be used to kill someone, but might be useful in a way that doesn't even require firing). If you disagree with that assessment, then I think you'll most likely have to agree that some automobiles are designed with the purpose of killing people. Military vehicles with attached guns or cannons, for example. There's a direct parallel to swords and knives. Swords may not be appropriate for being in public, but I think few people object to a pocket knife. That said, we don't often get people saying "blades are designed with the sole purpose of hurting/killing people". I think that people use absolutist terminology and statements with regard to guns is more indicative of the poor communication and polarization of the topic than anything else, and is also why it's very hard to make any headway on the issue. Gun advocates are afraid to cede any ground on the issue as they see it as a slippery slope to more and more constraints on what they see as a constitutional right. It's hard to say they're wrong in that when people jump in with stuff like "the sole purpose of a gun is killing people".
- baby 8y ago
  > the purpose of hunting Alright, no more hunting then. I think most people will be fine with that. > or protection Not working that well in your mass shootings > to swords and knives How many people can I kill per seconds using knives? > the sole purpose of a gun is killing people I honestly don't care about all the other purposes, they do not need to exist. If we're talking about hunting and range shooting then people can take up on other hobbies like painting, playing the guitar, coding, etc..
  - kbenson 8y ago
    >> or protection > Not working that well in your mass shootings The number of people killed in mass shootings is statistically insignificant. That said, they are horrible, and their impact can be lessened through good gun legislation. Outlaw (or make it very hard to get) automatic/assault weapons, or my preference, also outlaw hand guns. > How many people can I kill per seconds using knives? Are you actually defending the assertion that the only thing guns are for is killing by just noting that some guns can kill a lot more people a lot faster? A couple sticks of dynamite thrown into a crowded space will likely kill more than either, but dynamite has been used usefully commercially for over a century. > I honestly don't care about all the other purposes, they do not need to exist. Well, I guess it's good you think so. I'm sure all those people that view guns as an essential check on governmental power and a personal right will have no problem with you dictating what they can do. Problem solved.
- uhtred 8y ago
  I think you are scraping the barrel a bit by bringing military cars into it. We are obviously talking about cars for civilian use. A Ford focus is not designed for killing. As for guns having other uses such as protection or hunting; well I view shooting animals as something only psychopaths do, and as for protection, protection from what? Most countries don't allow civilians to own guns, yet those civilians are not coming to any harm as a result of not having a gun. In fact they are safer! People in developed countries outside of America are safer, did you know that? And they don't have guns! How absurd!
  - kbenson 8y ago
    > I think you are scraping the barrel a bit by bringing military cars into it. We are obviously talking about cars for civilian use. A Ford focus is not designed for killing. Some guns are designed for military use, others are not. Anything designed for military use should probably be kept away from civilians. > As for guns having other uses such as protection or hunting; well I view shooting animals as something only psychopaths do, I have relatives that in the not too distant past (30 years or so), relied on hunting during portions of the year to have enough to eat because otherwise they couldn't afford both food and housing, and this is was in the continental U.S. People live in this state around the world. Dictating that that they shouldn't hunt because it makes them a psychopath when it's actually how they survive is fairly hypocritical. > Most countries don't allow civilians to own guns Are you sure about that? Perhaps you should research this. I just did. You might be surprised. You can get a license for a firearm in the UK, and the EU doesn't disallow firearms either (but individual member states might). Here's a handy table with comparison of laws by country.[1] > yet those civilians are not coming to any harm as a result of not having a gun. In fact they are safer! People in developed countries outside of America are safer, did you know that? Well, since it's not due to completely doing away with firearms, the question is where is the safety coming from? Is it from sane gun laws and license requirements? That's fine, let's do that. It's not really evidence that completely outlawing guns makes people safer though, since most these countries you are talking about allow people to obtain a gun that want one and show responsibility. To be clear, my position is for sane gun licensing requirements and restricting certain classes of guns, while the only way I can see to interpret "the sole purpose of a gun is killing people" is for a position to completely ban all firearms (why would you allow them if they are only for killing). So what position are you actually trying to advocate? Most your evidence doesn't really support a complete ban on guns, but your wording implies that's what you're arguing. And if it's not what you're arguing, that was my whole point. Purposefully inflammatory language doesn't help people come to an understanding. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overview_of_gun_laws_by_nation#Comparison https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overview_of_gun_laws_by_nation...

webkike 8y ago

The reason that guns were created was to fire high powered projectiles into people. Cars weren't created to run people over.

drhodes 8y ago
I don't think your response demonstrates why the gun manufacturer is at fault. Does the same hold for steak knives? What about assault knives? All weapon makers share responsibility for the deaths involving the weapons they make if the makers claim the object was created to kill people. That's the argument, but I don't think it holds up to scrutiny.
- falcor84 8y ago
  > All weapon makers share responsibility for the deaths involving the weapons they make if the makers claim the object was created to kill people. I quite strongly agree with this statement. Indeed some inventors, like Alfred Nobel, have felt this way. Would you mind arguing why it doesn't hold up to scrutiny?
dleslie 8y ago
And yet Cars are very good tools for doing just that. Duct Tape wasn't created to be the handy man's secret weapon, and yet here we are.
naasking 8y ago
> The reason that guns were created was to fire high powered projectiles into people. Cars weren't created to run people over. Except why or how these items were designed or created is not really relevant is it? Knives, clubs/bats, bows and arrows were all designed and used for violent purposes, but we're not talking about banning knife juggling or baseball or archery as a sport. We don't blame the manufacturers when someone gets hurt by a bat, intentionally or otherwise. Plenty of people use guns for recreational purposes only, and that's legitimate enough of a purpose, so long as the manufacturers are specifically not pushing them as items to kill people you don't like.
- 8y ago

seunosewa 8y ago

I think the difference is that guns are designed to cause deaths. Cars are not designed to be in accidents.

TearsInTheRain 8y ago
Imho, I don't think that that matters. Guns have plenty of legitimate, beneficial, and legal uses. Sure it is easy to use them illegally, but similarly it is also easy to use a car illegally, so I think my analogy still stands.
- falcor84 8y ago
  The way I see it, the question is not whether the instrument in question has legitimate uses, but rather whether there are (reasonable) non-violent uses for which this is the best tool.
- seunosewa 8y ago
  Aren’t car manufacturers allowed to be sued if their cars cause deaths?
- baby 8y ago
  > Guns have plenty of legitimate, beneficial, and legal uses Completely outweighed by their prime use for killing.

InitialLastName 8y ago

Cars have a function to society other than killing things (and the threat thereof).