Actually, the vast majority of the "intended uses" of guns is to punch holes in paper and tin cans. For most people, killing someone with a gun is a distant and to-be-avoided-whenever-possible tertiary function.Pappa wrote:The law relating to intentionally killing a person with a gun or car is the same anyway... murder/homicide. Same goes for intentional killing with a frozen banana.
Guns and cars have very different intended functions. The intended use of a car is to transport people from A to B. The intended use of a gun is to kill other humans (barring hunting rifles etc.).
But so what? If the "intended use" is lawful, what's the problem?
Nope. Cars are not dangerous, people driving cars improperly are dangerous.Cars are dangerous, stupidly so. They are metal boxes that we hurtle down roads alongside other metal boxes, controlled by agents that are prone to making mistakes. But everywhere in the world we've decided the benefits outweigh the risks.
Nope. Guns are not dangerous, people misusing or mishandling guns are dangerous.Guns are dangerous too,
Both cars and guns are inanimate lumps of metal and have no inherent danger in them. They are not bottles of nitroglycerin that might spontaneously explode.
Quite right. The problem is that those who have decided the risks of an armed citizenry outweigh the benefits are irrational, paranoid idiots who aren't qualified to make a valid risk/benefit analysis, so their opinions should be disregarded in favor of reason, logic, evidence and rational analysis.but in some parts of the world people have decided the benefit (mostly self-protection) outweigh the risks, in others they've decided the risks outweigh the benefits. That's all the argument boils down to, a risk/benefit value judgement.
