> How are weapon manufacturers not responsible for the deaths caused by their toys?
Guns are not toys. They are potentially lethal devices that should be used responsibly. So are many other things, like cars. We don't ban everyone from using cars because some people can't use them responsibly. Nor do we blame the car manufacturer every time someone has an accident. (If the accident turns out to be due to a defect in the vehicle, then yes, we blame the manufacturer. But most accidents do not fall into that category.)
> What baffles me is how intelligent people want to live in a society where everybody carries weapons.
Straw man. In a society where guns are legal and regulated, not everybody will carry them. But responsible people will be able to exercise responsible judgment about whether their personal circumstances merit them having a gun.
What baffles me is how intelligent people want to live in a society where the only people who have a choice about having a gun are lawbreakers and law enforcement, thereby putting themselves at the mercy of criminals and the response time of the police.
> What baffles me is how intelligent people want to live in a society where the only people who have a choice about having a gun are lawbreakers and law enforcement, thereby putting themselves at the mercy of criminals and the response time of the police.
Maybe it's a cultural thing, but it seems to me that more guns simply mean more opportunities for shooting people. Let's go to the other extreme, and have everyone carry a concealed weapon so they can defend themselves. (Let's exclude former criminals, and whoever didn't pass the psych evaluation).
The only outcome I can see is a ten-fold increase in shootings. If someone snaps for some reason, and they have a gun, they can do quite a bit of damage. I can see them killing a couple people before their surroundings react and shoot them back.
Now it's a whole spectrum, and a "no gun ever" may have some downsides too. Still, I like to live in a place where guns are not easy to come by.
> What baffles me is how intelligent people want to live in a society where the only people who have a choice about having a gun are lawbreakers and law enforcement, thereby putting themselves at the mercy of criminals and the response time of the police.
It's called the European Union. And we have not been overrun by lawbreakers.
> 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.
> Except why or how these items were designed or created is not really relevant is it?
Oh no it totally is. A gun is for killing, if you sell that to people you can expect them to use it to kill. A car is for transportation, you need a car to go to work in a lot of places or to move around.
That's the difference between a weapon and a necessity. Why do you need the weapon?
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.
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.
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.
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".
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!
> 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.
I'm from the UK, and citizens can only own shotguns or sporting rifles, and the checks and character references are very strict. Pretty much no one owns a gun other than farmers. Read this to see how strict the checks and rules are:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_policy_in_the_Unite...
The police even have to get involved. More to the point, no one in UK wants to own a gun. They feel safe without them. America's obsession with guns and the delusion of thinking they are safer because of them, is insane.
> I'm from the UK, and citizens can only own shotguns or sporting rifles, and the checks and character references are very strict.
So? If the only purpose of a gun is to kill people, why are you okay with any guns at all? Would you be okay with private citizens having access to small amounts of sarin gas? That is something which serves only the purpose of killing people, and it's rightly regulated away from private citizens completely.
> The police even have to get involved. More to the point, no one in UK wants to own a gun. They feel safe without them. America's obsession with guns and the delusion of thinking they are safer because of them, is insane.
That's entirely irrelevant to the discussion. You either believe the sole purpose of a gun is to kill someone, as your earlier statements implied, or you don't.
If you do believe that, why are you using your own government's stance where items whose only purpose is to kill someone are allowed in the possession of private citizens, even after stringent checks?
If you don't believe that, why make the statement at all? My whole point is that it's inflammatory and easily disproved, so if you don't believe it you are either being disingenuous or so loose with your assertions as to be actively disruptive to any greater discussion.
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..
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.
