"Idolatry is seeking security and meaning in someone or something other than God."

lankylefty said:

---

"Idolatry is seeking security and meaning in someone or something other than God."

---

You know almost without exception, the people who legally own insane numbers of guns like this do not commit violent crimes. But I would think it's a little insane, all the same.

lankylefty said:

---

"Idolatry is seeking security and meaning in someone or something other than God."

---

Also, leaving your guns out on your deck is just unforgivable.

Volunteer said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Should the maker of the van be held liable for the Wisconsin parade attack? That was intentional misuse of an inanimate object, too.

---

One of a Guns Primary purposes is to end Life, be it Human or animal, the same can not be said of Cars, im sure we've already had this discussion and the 2 comparisons are dumb

---

Yes, you made the dumb statement that it isn't the same while rambling about insurance and drunk driving laws, which in no way stops a murderer from using the van to murder, which means their previous efforts were inadequate and cost lives. You also chose to repeatedly ignore the FACT that guns are used defensively over 500,000 times a year, blowing your theory that "gUnS aRe oNlY mEaNt tO KILL" all to hell. So either inanimate objects being used in crimes and not as intended in no way implicate the manufacturer or automakers are liable for misuse of their inanimate objects, same as gun makers.

---

You have a fine way of latching on to your interpretation of something and never letting go, dont you?

A: I didnt say "Guns are only meant to kill", I said its one of their Primary Purposes, isnt that true? Also, if you fire a Gun in Self Defence, you are still, usually, aiming to kill someone with it, arent you?

B: As Ive said before, The Auto Industry has been forced to heavily invest in Safety Measures to make their products safer form victims of misuse, does that make them 100% safe? no, but they have at least made significant inroads into doing so, Gun Manufacturers have made no such attempt

Now you ramble on how the 2nd Amendment means that noone should have to invest anything in Gun Safety because its a Constitutional right or some baloney like that and we can meet again tomorrow

---

Curious as to what measures car makers have implemented to make their products safer for victims of misuse?

---

airbags

Sure, give up your guns.

The government will not protect you or even hold people accountable when they fail.

NEW: The Biden DOJ is standing by the Justice Department’s decision *not* to charge the FBI agents who botched the sexual abuse investigation into former USA Gymnastics team doctor Larry Nassar (a now-convicted sex predator) and who lied to DOJ’s watchdog.https://t.co/Jy2Xb6J2Gf

— Jerry Dunleavy (@JerryDunleavy) May 26, 2022

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Volunteer said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Should the maker of the van be held liable for the Wisconsin parade attack? That was intentional misuse of an inanimate object, too.

---

One of a Guns Primary purposes is to end Life, be it Human or animal, the same can not be said of Cars, im sure we've already had this discussion and the 2 comparisons are dumb

---

Yes, you made the dumb statement that it isn't the same while rambling about insurance and drunk driving laws, which in no way stops a murderer from using the van to murder, which means their previous efforts were inadequate and cost lives. You also chose to repeatedly ignore the FACT that guns are used defensively over 500,000 times a year, blowing your theory that "gUnS aRe oNlY mEaNt tO KILL" all to hell. So either inanimate objects being used in crimes and not as intended in no way implicate the manufacturer or automakers are liable for misuse of their inanimate objects, same as gun makers.

---

You have a fine way of latching on to your interpretation of something and never letting go, dont you?

A: I didnt say "Guns are only meant to kill", I said its one of their Primary Purposes, isnt that true? Also, if you fire a Gun in Self Defence, you are still, usually, aiming to kill someone with it, arent you?

B: As Ive said before, The Auto Industry has been forced to heavily invest in Safety Measures to make their products safer form victims of misuse, does that make them 100% safe? no, but they have at least made significant inroads into doing so, Gun Manufacturers have made no such attempt

Now you ramble on how the 2nd Amendment means that noone should have to invest anything in Gun Safety because its a Constitutional right or some baloney like that and we can meet again tomorrow

---

Curious as to what measures car makers have implemented to make their products safer for victims of misuse?

---

airbags

---

How did airbags help the victims of the parade attack?

A fifth-grade student in Florida who threatened a mass shooting in a text message was arrested on Saturday, the Lee County Sheriff's Office said.

The incident comes less than a week after a mass shooting at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, where 19 students and two teachers were gunned down Tuesday by 18-year-old Salvador Ramos.

The Florida student, 10, was charged with making written threats of a mass shooting, according to investigators.
"This student's behavior is sickening, especially after the recent tragedy in Uvalde, Texas," Lee County Sheriff

Carmine Marceno said in a news release. "Making sure our children are safe is paramount. We will have law and order in our schools. My team didn't hesitate one second to investigate this threat."

Wangchung said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Volunteer said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Should the maker of the van be held liable for the Wisconsin parade attack? That was intentional misuse of an inanimate object, too.

---

One of a Guns Primary purposes is to end Life, be it Human or animal, the same can not be said of Cars, im sure we've already had this discussion and the 2 comparisons are dumb

---

Yes, you made the dumb statement that it isn't the same while rambling about insurance and drunk driving laws, which in no way stops a murderer from using the van to murder, which means their previous efforts were inadequate and cost lives. You also chose to repeatedly ignore the FACT that guns are used defensively over 500,000 times a year, blowing your theory that "gUnS aRe oNlY mEaNt tO KILL" all to hell. So either inanimate objects being used in crimes and not as intended in no way implicate the manufacturer or automakers are liable for misuse of their inanimate objects, same as gun makers.

---

You have a fine way of latching on to your interpretation of something and never letting go, dont you?

A: I didnt say "Guns are only meant to kill", I said its one of their Primary Purposes, isnt that true? Also, if you fire a Gun in Self Defence, you are still, usually, aiming to kill someone with it, arent you?

B: As Ive said before, The Auto Industry has been forced to heavily invest in Safety Measures to make their products safer form victims of misuse, does that make them 100% safe? no, but they have at least made significant inroads into doing so, Gun Manufacturers have made no such attempt

Now you ramble on how the 2nd Amendment means that noone should have to invest anything in Gun Safety because its a Constitutional right or some baloney like that and we can meet again tomorrow

---

Curious as to what measures car makers have implemented to make their products safer for victims of misuse?

---

airbags

---

How did airbags help the victims of the parade attack?

---

I answered "victims of misuse" . Airbags provide protection to drunk drivers.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Volunteer said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Should the maker of the van be held liable for the Wisconsin parade attack? That was intentional misuse of an inanimate object, too.

---

One of a Guns Primary purposes is to end Life, be it Human or animal, the same can not be said of Cars, im sure we've already had this discussion and the 2 comparisons are dumb

---

Yes, you made the dumb statement that it isn't the same while rambling about insurance and drunk driving laws, which in no way stops a murderer from using the van to murder, which means their previous efforts were inadequate and cost lives. You also chose to repeatedly ignore the FACT that guns are used defensively over 500,000 times a year, blowing your theory that "gUnS aRe oNlY mEaNt tO KILL" all to hell. So either inanimate objects being used in crimes and not as intended in no way implicate the manufacturer or automakers are liable for misuse of their inanimate objects, same as gun makers.

---

You have a fine way of latching on to your interpretation of something and never letting go, dont you?

A: I didnt say "Guns are only meant to kill", I said its one of their Primary Purposes, isnt that true? Also, if you fire a Gun in Self Defence, you are still, usually, aiming to kill someone with it, arent you?

B: As Ive said before, The Auto Industry has been forced to heavily invest in Safety Measures to make their products safer form victims of misuse, does that make them 100% safe? no, but they have at least made significant inroads into doing so, Gun Manufacturers have made no such attempt

Now you ramble on how the 2nd Amendment means that noone should have to invest anything in Gun Safety because its a Constitutional right or some baloney like that and we can meet again tomorrow

---

Curious as to what measures car makers have implemented to make their products safer for victims of misuse?

---

airbags

---

How did airbags help the victims of the parade attack?

---

I answered "victims of misuse" . Airbags provide protection to drunk drivers.

---

Right. And the question was about their victims, not the drunk drivers who are the perpetrators.

Wangchung said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Volunteer said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Should the maker of the van be held liable for the Wisconsin parade attack? That was intentional misuse of an inanimate object, too.

---

One of a Guns Primary purposes is to end Life, be it Human or animal, the same can not be said of Cars, im sure we've already had this discussion and the 2 comparisons are dumb

---

Yes, you made the dumb statement that it isn't the same while rambling about insurance and drunk driving laws, which in no way stops a murderer from using the van to murder, which means their previous efforts were inadequate and cost lives. You also chose to repeatedly ignore the FACT that guns are used defensively over 500,000 times a year, blowing your theory that "gUnS aRe oNlY mEaNt tO KILL" all to hell. So either inanimate objects being used in crimes and not as intended in no way implicate the manufacturer or automakers are liable for misuse of their inanimate objects, same as gun makers.

---

You have a fine way of latching on to your interpretation of something and never letting go, dont you?

A: I didnt say "Guns are only meant to kill", I said its one of their Primary Purposes, isnt that true? Also, if you fire a Gun in Self Defence, you are still, usually, aiming to kill someone with it, arent you?

B: As Ive said before, The Auto Industry has been forced to heavily invest in Safety Measures to make their products safer form victims of misuse, does that make them 100% safe? no, but they have at least made significant inroads into doing so, Gun Manufacturers have made no such attempt

Now you ramble on how the 2nd Amendment means that noone should have to invest anything in Gun Safety because its a Constitutional right or some baloney like that and we can meet again tomorrow

---

Curious as to what measures car makers have implemented to make their products safer for victims of misuse?

---

airbags

---

How did airbags help the victims of the parade attack?

---

I answered "victims of misuse" . Airbags provide protection to drunk drivers.

---

Right. And the question was about their victims, not the drunk drivers who are the perpetrators.

---

regarding airbags in particular, drunk drivers crash into other cars as well as Motorcyclists/Pedestrians, as well as their often being passengers in the Drunk Drivers Car

cms186 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Volunteer said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Should the maker of the van be held liable for the Wisconsin parade attack? That was intentional misuse of an inanimate object, too.

---

One of a Guns Primary purposes is to end Life, be it Human or animal, the same can not be said of Cars, im sure we've already had this discussion and the 2 comparisons are dumb

---

Yes, you made the dumb statement that it isn't the same while rambling about insurance and drunk driving laws, which in no way stops a murderer from using the van to murder, which means their previous efforts were inadequate and cost lives. You also chose to repeatedly ignore the FACT that guns are used defensively over 500,000 times a year, blowing your theory that "gUnS aRe oNlY mEaNt tO KILL" all to hell. So either inanimate objects being used in crimes and not as intended in no way implicate the manufacturer or automakers are liable for misuse of their inanimate objects, same as gun makers.

---

You have a fine way of latching on to your interpretation of something and never letting go, dont you?

A: I didnt say "Guns are only meant to kill", I said its one of their Primary Purposes, isnt that true? Also, if you fire a Gun in Self Defence, you are still, usually, aiming to kill someone with it, arent you?

B: As Ive said before, The Auto Industry has been forced to heavily invest in Safety Measures to make their products safer form victims of misuse, does that make them 100% safe? no, but they have at least made significant inroads into doing so, Gun Manufacturers have made no such attempt

Now you ramble on how the 2nd Amendment means that noone should have to invest anything in Gun Safety because its a Constitutional right or some baloney like that and we can meet again tomorrow

---

Curious as to what measures car makers have implemented to make their products safer for victims of misuse?

---

airbags

---

How did airbags help the victims of the parade attack?

---

I answered "victims of misuse" . Airbags provide protection to drunk drivers.

---

Right. And the question was about their victims, not the drunk drivers who are the perpetrators.

---

regarding airbags in particular, drunk drivers crash into other cars as well as Motorcyclists/Pedestrians, as well as their often being passengers in the Drunk Drivers Car

---

How do airbags help the motorcycle riders who are victims of the drunk driver in the vehicle with airbags? How about parade attack victims?

Wangchung said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Volunteer said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Should the maker of the van be held liable for the Wisconsin parade attack? That was intentional misuse of an inanimate object, too.

---

One of a Guns Primary purposes is to end Life, be it Human or animal, the same can not be said of Cars, im sure we've already had this discussion and the 2 comparisons are dumb

---

Yes, you made the dumb statement that it isn't the same while rambling about insurance and drunk driving laws, which in no way stops a murderer from using the van to murder, which means their previous efforts were inadequate and cost lives. You also chose to repeatedly ignore the FACT that guns are used defensively over 500,000 times a year, blowing your theory that "gUnS aRe oNlY mEaNt tO KILL" all to hell. So either inanimate objects being used in crimes and not as intended in no way implicate the manufacturer or automakers are liable for misuse of their inanimate objects, same as gun makers.

---

You have a fine way of latching on to your interpretation of something and never letting go, dont you?

A: I didnt say "Guns are only meant to kill", I said its one of their Primary Purposes, isnt that true? Also, if you fire a Gun in Self Defence, you are still, usually, aiming to kill someone with it, arent you?

B: As Ive said before, The Auto Industry has been forced to heavily invest in Safety Measures to make their products safer form victims of misuse, does that make them 100% safe? no, but they have at least made significant inroads into doing so, Gun Manufacturers have made no such attempt

Now you ramble on how the 2nd Amendment means that noone should have to invest anything in Gun Safety because its a Constitutional right or some baloney like that and we can meet again tomorrow

---

Curious as to what measures car makers have implemented to make their products safer for victims of misuse?

---

airbags

---

How did airbags help the victims of the parade attack?

---

I answered "victims of misuse" . Airbags provide protection to drunk drivers.

---

Right. And the question was about their victims, not the drunk drivers who are the perpetrators.

---

here is the post I was responding to.

" Curious as to what measures car makers have implemented to make their products safer for victims of misuse?"

People can be victims to their own stupidity and ignorance. Also, victims are not always outside the vehicle; like when my BIL was driving drunk with his kids in the car.

But, yes. I get the point you are trying to make.

Democrats want to outlaw body armor. That's like wanting to outlaw airbags because drunk drivers might live to drive drunk again.

Utility versus risk is the difference between guns and other consumer products. The utility of guns is their lethality-killing animals, war opponents, home invaders and criminals of other types. When the utility is the same thing that makes the product a risk, there is not much you can do without destroying its utility. If you make guns non-lethal, they are no longer guns.

The utility of cars is as a mode of transportation, not lethality. So you can make them less lethal without destroying their utility.

Franko said:

---

Utility versus risk is the difference between guns and other consumer products. The utility of guns is their lethality-killing animals, war opponents, home invaders and criminals of other types. When the utility is the same thing that makes the product a risk, there is not much you can do without destroying its utility. If you make guns non-lethal, they are no longer guns.

The utility of cars is as a mode of transportation, not lethality. So you can make them less lethal without destroying their utility.

---

But when all those efforts fail and mass casualties occur, such as the parade attack, why aren't they still liable? They obviously did nothing to prevent intentional use of their product for illegal means, as it's claimed gun manufacturers do not. So why isn't Ford liable for the parade attack?

Wangchung said:

---

Franko said:

---

Utility versus risk is the difference between guns and other consumer products. The utility of guns is their lethality-killing animals, war opponents, home invaders and criminals of other types. When the utility is the same thing that makes the product a risk, there is not much you can do without destroying its utility. If you make guns non-lethal, they are no longer guns.

The utility of cars is as a mode of transportation, not lethality. So you can make them less lethal without destroying their utility.

---

But when all those efforts fail and mass casualties occur, such as the parade attack, why aren't they still liable? They obviously did nothing to prevent intentional use of their product for illegal means, as it's claimed gun manufacturers do not. So why isn't Ford liable for the parade attack?

---

Point me to a rational argument that gun manufacturers can/should make their product in such a way that prevents a reasonably foreseeable misuse.

quash said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Franko said:

---

Utility versus risk is the difference between guns and other consumer products. The utility of guns is their lethality-killing animals, war opponents, home invaders and criminals of other types. When the utility is the same thing that makes the product a risk, there is not much you can do without destroying its utility. If you make guns non-lethal, they are no longer guns.

The utility of cars is as a mode of transportation, not lethality. So you can make them less lethal without destroying their utility.

---

But when all those efforts fail and mass casualties occur, such as the parade attack, why aren't they still liable? They obviously did nothing to prevent intentional use of their product for illegal means, as it's claimed gun manufacturers do not. So why isn't Ford liable for the parade attack?

---

Point me to a rational argument that gun manufacturers can/should make their product in such a way that prevents a reasonably foreseeable misuse.

---

Yep. Same question for automakers concerning stopping a parade attack.

Wangchung said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Volunteer said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Should the maker of the van be held liable for the Wisconsin parade attack? That was intentional misuse of an inanimate object, too.

---

One of a Guns Primary purposes is to end Life, be it Human or animal, the same can not be said of Cars, im sure we've already had this discussion and the 2 comparisons are dumb

---

Yes, you made the dumb statement that it isn't the same while rambling about insurance and drunk driving laws, which in no way stops a murderer from using the van to murder, which means their previous efforts were inadequate and cost lives. You also chose to repeatedly ignore the FACT that guns are used defensively over 500,000 times a year, blowing your theory that "gUnS aRe oNlY mEaNt tO KILL" all to hell. So either inanimate objects being used in crimes and not as intended in no way implicate the manufacturer or automakers are liable for misuse of their inanimate objects, same as gun makers.

---

You have a fine way of latching on to your interpretation of something and never letting go, dont you?

A: I didnt say "Guns are only meant to kill", I said its one of their Primary Purposes, isnt that true? Also, if you fire a Gun in Self Defence, you are still, usually, aiming to kill someone with it, arent you?

B: As Ive said before, The Auto Industry has been forced to heavily invest in Safety Measures to make their products safer form victims of misuse, does that make them 100% safe? no, but they have at least made significant inroads into doing so, Gun Manufacturers have made no such attempt

Now you ramble on how the 2nd Amendment means that noone should have to invest anything in Gun Safety because its a Constitutional right or some baloney like that and we can meet again tomorrow

---

Curious as to what measures car makers have implemented to make their products safer for victims of misuse?

---

airbags

---

How did airbags help the victims of the parade attack?

---

I answered "victims of misuse" . Airbags provide protection to drunk drivers.

---

Right. And the question was about their victims, not the drunk drivers who are the perpetrators.

---

regarding airbags in particular, drunk drivers crash into other cars as well as Motorcyclists/Pedestrians, as well as their often being passengers in the Drunk Drivers Car

---

How do airbags help the motorcycle riders who are victims of the drunk driver in the vehicle with airbags? How about parade attack victims?

---

They dont, i didnt say they did, some of the things i posted in my answer on the previous page do though

Wangchung said:

---

quash said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Franko said:

---

Utility versus risk is the difference between guns and other consumer products. The utility of guns is their lethality-killing animals, war opponents, home invaders and criminals of other types. When the utility is the same thing that makes the product a risk, there is not much you can do without destroying its utility. If you make guns non-lethal, they are no longer guns.

The utility of cars is as a mode of transportation, not lethality. So you can make them less lethal without destroying their utility.

---

But when all those efforts fail and mass casualties occur, such as the parade attack, why aren't they still liable? They obviously did nothing to prevent intentional use of their product for illegal means, as it's claimed gun manufacturers do not. So why isn't Ford liable for the parade attack?

---

Point me to a rational argument that gun manufacturers can/should make their product in such a way that prevents a reasonably foreseeable misuse.

---

Yep. Same question for automakers concerning stopping a parade attack.

---

The cars = guns argument is a loser. See Franko's post above

Osodecentx said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

quash said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Franko said:

---

Utility versus risk is the difference between guns and other consumer products. The utility of guns is their lethality-killing animals, war opponents, home invaders and criminals of other types. When the utility is the same thing that makes the product a risk, there is not much you can do without destroying its utility. If you make guns non-lethal, they are no longer guns.

The utility of cars is as a mode of transportation, not lethality. So you can make them less lethal without destroying their utility.

---

But when all those efforts fail and mass casualties occur, such as the parade attack, why aren't they still liable? They obviously did nothing to prevent intentional use of their product for illegal means, as it's claimed gun manufacturers do not. So why isn't Ford liable for the parade attack?

---

Point me to a rational argument that gun manufacturers can/should make their product in such a way that prevents a reasonably foreseeable misuse.

---

Yep. Same question for automakers concerning stopping a parade attack.

---

The cars = guns argument is a loser. See Franko's post above

---

I get that is your opinion but please support it with a reason why gun makers, who cannot do anything to prevent the illegal use of their products that kill, should be liable when guns are used in an illegal way, while automakers, who cannot do anything to prevent the illegal use of their products that also kill, should NOT be liable when their products are used in an illegal way.

Wangchung said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

quash said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Franko said:

---

Utility versus risk is the difference between guns and other consumer products. The utility of guns is their lethality-killing animals, war opponents, home invaders and criminals of other types. When the utility is the same thing that makes the product a risk, there is not much you can do without destroying its utility. If you make guns non-lethal, they are no longer guns.

The utility of cars is as a mode of transportation, not lethality. So you can make them less lethal without destroying their utility.

---

But when all those efforts fail and mass casualties occur, such as the parade attack, why aren't they still liable? They obviously did nothing to prevent intentional use of their product for illegal means, as it's claimed gun manufacturers do not. So why isn't Ford liable for the parade attack?

---

Point me to a rational argument that gun manufacturers can/should make their product in such a way that prevents a reasonably foreseeable misuse.

---

Yep. Same question for automakers concerning stopping a parade attack.

---

The cars = guns argument is a loser. See Franko's post above

---

I get that is your opinion but please support it with a reason why gun makers, who cannot do anything to prevent the illegal use of their products that kill, should be liable when guns are used in an illegal way, while automakers, who cannot do anything to prevent the illegal use of their products that also kill, should NOT be liable when their products are used in an illegal way.

---

I'm not for confiscating guns or prohibiting their purchase. It's my opinion that your cars = guns argument is a loser.
I'm convinced by Franko's logic

Osodecentx said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

quash said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Franko said:

---

Utility versus risk is the difference between guns and other consumer products. The utility of guns is their lethality-killing animals, war opponents, home invaders and criminals of other types. When the utility is the same thing that makes the product a risk, there is not much you can do without destroying its utility. If you make guns non-lethal, they are no longer guns.

The utility of cars is as a mode of transportation, not lethality. So you can make them less lethal without destroying their utility.

---

But when all those efforts fail and mass casualties occur, such as the parade attack, why aren't they still liable? They obviously did nothing to prevent intentional use of their product for illegal means, as it's claimed gun manufacturers do not. So why isn't Ford liable for the parade attack?

---

Point me to a rational argument that gun manufacturers can/should make their product in such a way that prevents a reasonably foreseeable misuse.

---

Yep. Same question for automakers concerning stopping a parade attack.

---

The cars = guns argument is a loser. See Franko's post above

---

I get that is your opinion but please support it with a reason why gun makers, who cannot do anything to prevent the illegal use of their products that kill, should be liable when guns are used in an illegal way, while automakers, who cannot do anything to prevent the illegal use of their products that also kill, should NOT be liable when their products are used in an illegal way.

---

I'm not for confiscating guns or prohibiting their purchase. It's my opinion that your cars = guns argument is a loser.

---

I get that's your opinion but can you support it beyond "nuh uh"? This conversation is about the legal liability of gun/automakers when their products aren't used as intended but to kill innocent civilians. The utilities of each product are irrelevant as long as they are legal.

Wangchung said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

quash said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Franko said:

---

Utility versus risk is the difference between guns and other consumer products. The utility of guns is their lethality-killing animals, war opponents, home invaders and criminals of other types. When the utility is the same thing that makes the product a risk, there is not much you can do without destroying its utility. If you make guns non-lethal, they are no longer guns.

The utility of cars is as a mode of transportation, not lethality. So you can make them less lethal without destroying their utility.

---

But when all those efforts fail and mass casualties occur, such as the parade attack, why aren't they still liable? They obviously did nothing to prevent intentional use of their product for illegal means, as it's claimed gun manufacturers do not. So why isn't Ford liable for the parade attack?

---

Point me to a rational argument that gun manufacturers can/should make their product in such a way that prevents a reasonably foreseeable misuse.

---

Yep. Same question for automakers concerning stopping a parade attack.

---

The cars = guns argument is a loser. See Franko's post above

---

I get that is your opinion but please support it with a reason why gun makers, who cannot do anything to prevent the illegal use of their products that kill, should be liable when guns are used in an illegal way, while automakers, who cannot do anything to prevent the illegal use of their products that also kill, should NOT be liable when their products are used in an illegal way.

---

I'm not for confiscating guns or prohibiting their purchase. It's my opinion that your cars = guns argument is a loser.

---

I get that's your opinion but can you support it beyond "nuh uh"?

---

Your refusal to accept Franko's logic doesn't negate it. Your insistence on equating cars with guns is unconvincing. If you take that to the public you'll lose
To quote Franko:

Utility versus risk is the difference between guns and other consumer products. The utility of guns is their lethality-killing animals, war opponents, home invaders and criminals of other types. When the utility is the same thing that makes the product a risk, there is not much you can do without destroying its utility. If you make guns non-lethal, they are no longer guns.

The utility of cars is as a mode of transportation, not lethality. So you can make them less lethal without destroying their utility.

Wangchung said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

quash said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Franko said:

---

Utility versus risk is the difference between guns and other consumer products. The utility of guns is their lethality-killing animals, war opponents, home invaders and criminals of other types. When the utility is the same thing that makes the product a risk, there is not much you can do without destroying its utility. If you make guns non-lethal, they are no longer guns.

The utility of cars is as a mode of transportation, not lethality. So you can make them less lethal without destroying their utility.

---

But when all those efforts fail and mass casualties occur, such as the parade attack, why aren't they still liable? They obviously did nothing to prevent intentional use of their product for illegal means, as it's claimed gun manufacturers do not. So why isn't Ford liable for the parade attack?

---

Point me to a rational argument that gun manufacturers can/should make their product in such a way that prevents a reasonably foreseeable misuse.

---

Yep. Same question for automakers concerning stopping a parade attack.

---

The cars = guns argument is a loser. See Franko's post above

---

I get that is your opinion but please support it with a reason why gun makers, who cannot do anything to prevent the illegal use of their products that kill, should be liable when guns are used in an illegal way, while automakers, who cannot do anything to prevent the illegal use of their products that also kill, should NOT be liable when their products are used in an illegal way.

---

I'm not for confiscating guns or prohibiting their purchase. It's my opinion that your cars = guns argument is a loser.

---

I get that's your opinion but can you support it beyond "nuh uh"? This conversation is about the legal liability of gun/automakers when their products aren't used as intended but to kill innocent civilians. The utilities of each product are irrelevant as long as they are legal.

---

I edited to address the utility issue so I am reposting here. My bad for late editing.

"The utility of cars is as a mode of transportation, not lethality. So you can make them less lethal without destroying their utility."
How have they been made safer for parade attack victims?

Wangchung said:

---

"The utility of cars is as a mode of transportation, not lethality. So you can make them less lethal without destroying their utility."
How have they been made safer for parade attack victims?

---

Safety Glass to help avoid injuries from flying glass

Bumpers, Hoods and other Body Panels made from more energy Absorbing material to reduce severity of injuries

The way Cars bodywork is designed are changed to allow for greater cushioning of potential Pedestrian injuries.

cms186 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

"The utility of cars is as a mode of transportation, not lethality. So you can make them less lethal without destroying their utility."
How have they been made safer for parade attack victims?

---

Safety Glass to help avoid injuries from flying glass

Bumpers, Hoods and other Body Panels made from more energy Absorbing material to reduce severity of injuries

The way Cars bodywork is designed are changed to allow for greater cushioning of potential Pedestrian injuries.

---

What difference did that make to the dead victims? Those changes implemented by the auto industry failed to save anyone at the parade attack. I'll go one further and mention crash avoidance systems, but the fact they aren't mandatory in every vehicle means those measures aren't seen as necessary to the product and at high enough speed would be as useless in preventing death of the ones being run over as a crumple zones and airbags. The fact is the utilities of both objects, gun and vehicle, are intended to be used for legal purposes. Neither gun makers nor automakers should be liable when the products they sell are used outside of those legal utilities.

Wangchung said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

"The utility of cars is as a mode of transportation, not lethality. So you can make them less lethal without destroying their utility."
How have they been made safer for parade attack victims?

---

Safety Glass to help avoid injuries from flying glass

Bumpers, Hoods and other Body Panels made from more energy Absorbing material to reduce severity of injuries

The way Cars bodywork is designed are changed to allow for greater cushioning of potential Pedestrian injuries.

---

What difference did that make to the dead victims? Those changes implemented by the auto industry failed to save anyone at the parade attack. I'll go one further and mention crash avoidance systems, but the fact they aren't mandatory in every vehicle means those measures aren't seen as necessary to the product and at high enough speed would be as useless in preventing death of the ones being run over as a crumple zones and airbags. The fact is the utilities of both objects, gun and vehicle, are intended to be used for legal purposes. Neither gun makers nor automakers should be liable when the products they sell are used outside of those legal utilities.

---

If you are the one protecting my 2nd Amendment rights, I'm screwed. However, plaintiff lawyers will love you

Osodecentx said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

"The utility of cars is as a mode of transportation, not lethality. So you can make them less lethal without destroying their utility."
How have they been made safer for parade attack victims?

---

Safety Glass to help avoid injuries from flying glass

Bumpers, Hoods and other Body Panels made from more energy Absorbing material to reduce severity of injuries

The way Cars bodywork is designed are changed to allow for greater cushioning of potential Pedestrian injuries.

---

What difference did that make to the dead victims? Those changes implemented by the auto industry failed to save anyone at the parade attack. I'll go one further and mention crash avoidance systems, but the fact they aren't mandatory in every vehicle means those measures aren't seen as necessary to the product and at high enough speed would be as useless in preventing death of the ones being run over as a crumple zones and airbags. The fact is the utilities of both objects, gun and vehicle, are intended to be used for legal purposes. Neither gun makers nor automakers should be liable when the products they sell are used outside of those legal utilities.

---

If you are the one protecting my 2nd Amendment rights, I'm screwed. However, plaintiff lawyers will love you

---

Il be sure to hire you next time I want the totality of my argument to be "nuh uh", counselor.

Wangchung said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

"The utility of cars is as a mode of transportation, not lethality. So you can make them less lethal without destroying their utility."
How have they been made safer for parade attack victims?

---

Safety Glass to help avoid injuries from flying glass

Bumpers, Hoods and other Body Panels made from more energy Absorbing material to reduce severity of injuries

The way Cars bodywork is designed are changed to allow for greater cushioning of potential Pedestrian injuries.

---

What difference did that make to the dead victims? Those changes implemented by the auto industry failed to save anyone at the parade attack. I'll go one further and mention crash avoidance systems, but the fact they aren't mandatory in every vehicle means those measures aren't seen as necessary to the product and at high enough speed would be as useless in preventing death of the ones being run over as a crumple zones and airbags. The fact is the utilities of both objects, gun and vehicle, are intended to be used for legal purposes. Neither gun makers nor automakers should be liable when the products they sell are used outside of those legal utilities.

---

If you are the one protecting my 2nd Amendment rights, I'm screwed. However, plaintiff lawyers will love you

---

Il be sure to hire you next time I want the totality of my argument to be "nuh uh", counselor.

---

You can't afford me, but if I need a silly argument, I'll call you

Osodecentx said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

"The utility of cars is as a mode of transportation, not lethality. So you can make them less lethal without destroying their utility."
How have they been made safer for parade attack victims?

---

Safety Glass to help avoid injuries from flying glass

Bumpers, Hoods and other Body Panels made from more energy Absorbing material to reduce severity of injuries

The way Cars bodywork is designed are changed to allow for greater cushioning of potential Pedestrian injuries.

---

What difference did that make to the dead victims? Those changes implemented by the auto industry failed to save anyone at the parade attack. I'll go one further and mention crash avoidance systems, but the fact they aren't mandatory in every vehicle means those measures aren't seen as necessary to the product and at high enough speed would be as useless in preventing death of the ones being run over as a crumple zones and airbags. The fact is the utilities of both objects, gun and vehicle, are intended to be used for legal purposes. Neither gun makers nor automakers should be liable when the products they sell are used outside of those legal utilities.

---

If you are the one protecting my 2nd Amendment rights, I'm screwed. However, plaintiff lawyers will love you

---

Il be sure to hire you next time I want the totality of my argument to be "nuh uh", counselor.

---

You can't afford me, but if I need a silly argument, I'll call you

---

Nuh uh!

Osodecentx said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

"The utility of cars is as a mode of transportation, not lethality. So you can make them less lethal without destroying their utility."
How have they been made safer for parade attack victims?

---

Safety Glass to help avoid injuries from flying glass

Bumpers, Hoods and other Body Panels made from more energy Absorbing material to reduce severity of injuries

The way Cars bodywork is designed are changed to allow for greater cushioning of potential Pedestrian injuries.

---

What difference did that make to the dead victims? Those changes implemented by the auto industry failed to save anyone at the parade attack. I'll go one further and mention crash avoidance systems, but the fact they aren't mandatory in every vehicle means those measures aren't seen as necessary to the product and at high enough speed would be as useless in preventing death of the ones being run over as a crumple zones and airbags. The fact is the utilities of both objects, gun and vehicle, are intended to be used for legal purposes. Neither gun makers nor automakers should be liable when the products they sell are used outside of those legal utilities.

---

If you are the one protecting my 2nd Amendment rights, I'm screwed. However, plaintiff lawyers will love you

---

Il be sure to hire you next time I want the totality of my argument to be "nuh uh", counselor.

---

You can't afford me, but if I need a silly argument, I'll call you

---

I'm obviously having fun here, like you, so don't take it personally. Just smirk and respond in kind and have fun.

I honestly would like to know why the legality of the official stated intended use of either object doesn't come into play at all. From anyone.

Wangchung said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

"The utility of cars is as a mode of transportation, not lethality. So you can make them less lethal without destroying their utility."
How have they been made safer for parade attack victims?

---

Safety Glass to help avoid injuries from flying glass

Bumpers, Hoods and other Body Panels made from more energy Absorbing material to reduce severity of injuries

The way Cars bodywork is designed are changed to allow for greater cushioning of potential Pedestrian injuries.

---

What difference did that make to the dead victims? Those changes implemented by the auto industry failed to save anyone at the parade attack. I'll go one further and mention crash avoidance systems, but the fact they aren't mandatory in every vehicle means those measures aren't seen as necessary to the product and at high enough speed would be as useless in preventing death of the ones being run over as a crumple zones and airbags. The fact is the utilities of both objects, gun and vehicle, are intended to be used for legal purposes. Neither gun makers nor automakers should be liable when the products they sell are used outside of those legal utilities.

---

They didnt save the ones that died, no, but how do you know that it didnt prevent some of people who were merely injured from dying? who some who were mildly injured from not being injured worse? you dont.

Cars are a mode of transportation that are very rarely used as a tool for killing someone, or more commonly used in an un safe manner. When they are used in an unsafe manner, the owner is usually punished.

One of Guns Main purposes is to end Lives, Manufacturers often brag about how effective their Guns are at doing so, sure, Manufacturers would probably prefer it if their Guns weren't used in School Shootings and the like, but at the end of the day, it makes no difference to them, so why should they care? Gun sales probably increase after School Shootings given how theres always this NRA/GOP Rhetoric about how the evil Libs are going to take away your Guns.

Is it illegal to be Drunk/High and operating/Carrying a Gun? (Genuine question, i dont know the answer) if not, shouldnt it be, given your own analogy?

cms186 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

"The utility of cars is as a mode of transportation, not lethality. So you can make them less lethal without destroying their utility."
How have they been made safer for parade attack victims?

---

Safety Glass to help avoid injuries from flying glass

Bumpers, Hoods and other Body Panels made from more energy Absorbing material to reduce severity of injuries

The way Cars bodywork is designed are changed to allow for greater cushioning of potential Pedestrian injuries.

---

What difference did that make to the dead victims? Those changes implemented by the auto industry failed to save anyone at the parade attack. I'll go one further and mention crash avoidance systems, but the fact they aren't mandatory in every vehicle means those measures aren't seen as necessary to the product and at high enough speed would be as useless in preventing death of the ones being run over as a crumple zones and airbags. The fact is the utilities of both objects, gun and vehicle, are intended to be used for legal purposes. Neither gun makers nor automakers should be liable when the products they sell are used outside of those legal utilities.

---

They didnt save the ones that died, no, but how do you know that it didnt prevent some of people who were merely injured from dying? who some who were mildly injured from not being injured worse? you dont.


(So the ones not killed, just maimed, can be left out of the lawsuit. Only the ones killed can sue the automaker)

Cars are a mode of transportation that are very rarely used as a tool for killing someone, or more commonly used in an un safe manner. When they are used in an unsafe manner, the owner is usually punished.


(Guns are commonly used in a safe manner and even actively save lives over 500,000 times a year, so the idea they are JUST for murder isn't accurate)


One of Guns Main purposes is to end Lives, Manufacturers often brag about how effective their Guns are at doing so, sure, Manufacturers would probably prefer it if their Guns weren't used in School Shootings and the like, but at the end of the day, it makes no difference to them, so why should they care? Gun sales probably increase after School Shootings given how theres always this NRA/GOP Rhetoric about how the evil Libs are going to take away your Guns.

(Conjecture that ignores the previously mentioned 500,000 defensive uses that occur every year.)

Is it illegal to be Drunk/High and operating/Carrying a Gun? (Genuine question, i dont know the answer) if not, shouldnt it be, given your own analogy?

---

Is it possible to use a gun to end a life legally? Yes, it is illegal to use a gun while intoxicated. Laws vary state to state.