Inappropriately how? According to the manufacturers guide? See if you can answer this very simple question. If person A shoots person B with a handgun and person B is then harmed, did the handgun preform as the manufacturer intended it to?
Democrat Debate
- Thread starter Bann
- Start date
Inappropriately how? According to the manufacturers guide? See if you can answer this very simple question. If person A shoots person B with a handgun and person B is then harmed, did the handgun preform as the manufacturer intended it to?
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
I'm not sure you know the question - and that is, why do people think it should be done?
The answer to that is simple. Some people think guns are harmful.
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
And I think you're mincing words. The function of a product is the way it is primarily used. Cigarettes are smoked - that's their function. Guns sit idly or strapped to the belt or fired at a range and in the case it's needed, to defend yourself or to threaten someone with bodily harm. Why would I say that? Because out of more than 300 million guns and 365 days a year - that's how it is overwhelmingly used. I get that a bathtub is used to bathe, but if almost everyone in the world used them as planters, then I'm sorry, but they're planters.
So back to the argument as presented - there's no sensible reason imaginable to "hold gun manufacturers accountable" for deaths that come from people committing crimes with them - they are not intended to commit crimes.
I'm not mincing words. We agree on the premise that gun manufacturers should generally not be held liable for lawful actions with firearms. Your analogy of comparing a bathtub to a handgun is where we differ. The primary function of a bathtub is to hold water. The most common use is for a person to clean themselves.
Would you not agree that the primary function of a firearm is to do harm or destruction?
The primary function of a firearm is to expel a projectile, whether it is for harm, destruction or defense are all within the individual using the tool and their intended purpose.
Exactly. And some are specifically designed for advanced-level competition target shooting.
So you agree with the bathtub analogy.
Where did he say that? I missed it.
Did I say that or did I respond to one specific comment that you made? A clue will be in what I bolded.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Unless it's a Glock. Which have a mind of their own. In which case there really is no telling if the goal was to put a hole in the ceiling, the floor, a foot or just scare hell out of everyone.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Wouldn't be much good if they weren't. :shrug:
This_person
Well-Known Member
If the gun works per its specifications (regardless of the target), the gun did as the manufacturer intended. Now, if a bathtub holds water and a baby drowns in the water, did the bathtub do as the manufacturer intended it to?
That gets lost in the hysteria: a lot of people enjoy shooting for sport and have no intention of ever using their gun on a human or any other living creature.
I think all the hand wringing about guns is mindless nonsense and not based on any common sense or actual knowledge of what they're talking about.
Which falls exactly in line with my description of the purpose of a firearm. Thank you for your support.
NO! Thank you for supporting my argument.
The bathtub had nothing to do with the baby drowning. The bathtub's function was to hold water. Someone else put the baby there.
Wait for it....
The people who most complain about guns have no idea about guns. Clinton is from Chicago...one of the most gun restricted cities in America, yet so many in that city are affected by gun violence. It's silly. They don't understand the benefit of gun ownership.
No disagreement here. I own several guns.
