It boils down to intent.......are envelopes made for the purpose of killing ?? Of course not, they are made to enclose(envelop if you will), items to be shipped or mailed. When used for their intended purpose, they are harmless.
Are guns made for the purpose of killing ?? Of course they are, when used for the purpose they were designed for, they kill, it's what they do......whether it's people or animals. That is undeniable. Your analogy falls apart under the slightest scrutiny. It's a silly argument.

Intent? Sure, the intent of the shooter. I think the intent of the manufacturer is pretty clear, to make a few bucks.

A homicide is not always murder. A homicide can be the lesser evil as in the case of the Orlando nightclub shooter. SWAT officers shot the killer after he killed dozens of people by shooting over a hundred.

The shooter carried a Glock. Glock handguns are frequently police issued service weapons.

I think your opinion is a bit naive, a little simplistic or perhaps a bit of both.

Sorry you don't like the analogy but your opinion that guns are made for killing seems to be aimed at moving guilt and responsibility from the Orlando shooter to Sig Sauer and Glock. How can you possibly suggest that the crazed loon who did that should be somehow less to blame?

If guns aren't made for killing, what are they made for ?? I own guns, I don't use them as paper weights. I used the .308 a week ago to kill a deer, that's precisely why I bought it......I don't know who you think you're bullshitting, guns are made to kill, and they are becoming more efficient at that purpose all the time. Why do members of the armed forces carry guns, why do members of law enforcement carry them.
In the case of the Orlando shooter, it wouldn't have been necessary for the police to shoot him had he not been armed himself. Perhaps the man who killed 58 people in Vegas only intended to kill 58, the other 500 who were injured were intentionally spared.....but, we both know that's not the case, the man fired over 1000 rounds from the window of his room on the 32nd floor into the crowd of 22,000 with the intent of killing as many as possible. That is inarguable.....the irony is, the Mandalay Bay Hotel and MGM Resorts were successfully sued by the victims families for $735 million. So, the people who rented the room to the man are more responsible for his killing 58 people than the company that manufactured the firearm, or the people that sold it to him. I get that the person who pulled the trigger is ultimately responsible for his actions, but pretending a gun is made for anything besides what it is made for is just silly.

Not all homicides are murders. Of the various possible use cases for a gun, that selection is made by one who holds it. Law enforcement officers are armed for many reasons primarily due to criminals becoming combative to the point of personal danger to the officers. Cops use their weapons, both lethal and non-lethal, generally for personal defense. Is there some reason that private citizens should be denied the opportunity to defend themselves which the police have?

You seem to think that manufacturers can be responsible (or not) for the use of their products based on your narrow opinion of the design capabilities and purposes. Many recreational shooters such as yourself buy guns without any intention to use them for neither crime nor self-defense. What result are you seeking in allowing manufacturers to be sued for crimes which no one can foresee? What plan do you have or what laws would prevent events such as Orlando and Las Vegas?

Are you aware that the Las Vegas shooter had 9 rifles in .308? One of them was a bolt action, the others were AR-10 type. Should the company that made your rifle be partly responsible? At what point should responsibility end?

The suit was filed and never adjudicated.
I infer that that the defendant organizations determined that revenue lost during extended trials and media coverage would be a greater loss than the out of court settlement reached. I think the actual settlement amount was about $800 million.

Do I think the MGM Resorts is more responsible than the gun makers? No, I think the settlement was a wise business decision based on financial and public relations considerations.

Regarding the Orlando club shooting, police in numerous jurisdictions have amply demonstrated (often justifiably so) that bringing a bladed weapon to a gunfight does not preclude you from getting shot. The perp armed himself, killed people and presented a continued danger. IMO it was a justified use of force.

Your apparent shortsighted opinion that the only non-hunting civilian use for a gun is murder is wrong. Your apparent implication that all non-police homicides using a gun are evil is wrong.

Last edited Wed Dec 9, 2020, 12:27 AM - Edit history (2)

It is not the intent of the gun makers that their products be used to commit murder. The threat of deadly force inherent in possession of a firearm can serve the purpose of self-defense even if no shot is fired. And if a shot is fired in legitimate self-defense, the death of an assailant may well save the life of a victim. Then there's hunting: Would you seek to abolish that as well?

Your formulation, were it followed to its logical conclusion, would bankrupt the entire firearms industry, which, I suspect, it the whole purpose: to accomplish in the civil courts that which the anti-gun movement has been unable to accomplish in the legislative arena.

Obviously, any gun can do any gun-related activity, but there is optimization for specific purposes. I could defend myself with a sporting shotgun and I could hunt birds with a tactical shotgun, but they're optimized for different purposes.

The issue that seems to be driving the issue is that "tactical" features are for the most part also useful features to have for "sporting" guns. Matte-black finishes instead of shinier blueing, because glare sucks regardless of ultimate purpose. But now, they're associated with tactical & military guns.

Pistol-grip stocks are often more comfortable and ergonomic than more traditional straight stocks. The traditional straight stock was a function of the ability to carve a single piece of wood into a gunstock. A hundred years ago, we began shifting away from that. Not so much bolt-action and lever-action guns, but semiautomatics. Nowadays, we have bolt-action and pump-action guns with pistol grips as well. But... these are "assault weapon" features on semiautomatic rifles. And a gun having TWO pistol grips? Fetch me my fainting couch!

Quick-adjustable buttstocks are just common sense. Being able to adjust the length of pull and the comb height for different people, different clothing levels, and different shooting positions is wonderful. But... these are "assault weapon" features on semiautomatic rifles.

Attaching flashlights and lasers to guns. Again, a reasonably obvious idea that modern technology has made compact, light, durable, and cheap. And for some types of hunting and sport shooting it's a perfectly acceptable feature to have. But now, they're associated with tactical & military guns.

Improving the ergonomics to reduce recoil and muzzle climb? That's really really useful for tactical purposes because it enables faster shooting times, but it's also a good idea in general. Many sporting-optimized guns include muzzle brakes simply because... guess what? Nobody likes having their shoulders punished unnecessarily.

Reducing muzzle flash? Also useful for tactical purposes because it doesn't blind the shooter... but it's also useful for sporting guns because.... it doesn't blind the shooter! But... these are "assault weapon" features on semiautomatic rifles.

And so on...

I own several handguns guns that are optimized for "tactical use". In my case, as a regular person, that means being used to confront people in self-defense. They are "house" handguns (full-size guns with laser/flashlight combos mounted on them) and concealed-carry guns, smaller, slimmer, and lighter. I bought them specifically with the intention of using them to kill humans, and they are optimized for that purpose, including premium hollowpoint ammunition.

That doesn't mean that if I decided to go shoot up a McDonald's because the lizard people told me to do that through the Bill Gates microchip implanted in my arm with the covid vaccine, that Springfield Armory or Mossberg should be able to be sued.

Now, obviously, the only reason I would even point any of those guns at a human, much less squeeze the trigger, would be in some sort of confrontation with a high potential for violence. But the decision to shoot will be mine, not the gun's.

Guns are tools. Period, full stop. People that make tools should not be held liable for their deliberate misuse.

Bad design? Yes. Bad manufacturing? Yes. Being promoted for use it's not suited for? Yes.

Deliberate misuse? No.

If a poorly-designed or poorly-made gun malfunctioned during normal use and injured or killed somebody, then yes, sue them for injuries or deaths. Recall the guns for repairs, replacement, or refund at the manufacturer's expense. And this actually happens on a regular basis. Not that common, but it happens.

But a psychotic idiot committing crimes? No. Obviously, you can only use a tool for killing WHEN killing is legal, and pretty much universally the only time a regular civilian can legally kill somebody is "imminent and inescapable threat of severe bodily harm or death". Definitions vary by state, and by specific situation (castle doctrine, stand-your-ground, etc.) but that's the general gist of it.

Military-styled firearms cater to a whole different mindset than traditional guns, and not for the better. But you know that, don't you? You've seen the most recent coverage of the well-armed racist trump goons in D.C., just as the rest of us have. Nice job on the extended "variety of purposes" paper, however. How about an update of that old reliable pro-gun argument: The Second Amendment is NOT about deer hunting, it's about allowing the civilian populace to be armed and protected against the actions a dangerously authoritarian government. You folks used to trot that one out regularly---before trump became the most dangerously authoritarian president this country has ever endured. Have a nice day.

They've simply varied based upon the available technology.

In regards to handguns, whatever sort were available to the military have always been popular with civilians. Shotguns? The same. As far as rifles are concerned, this was also the case until selective fire weapons began to be issued, at which point for the first time in US history the armed forces had rifles capable of firing more rapidly than those (commonly) available to civilians.

...the innovation of the lever action in the last third of the 19th century?

I think plenty of true blue-gun buying Democrats have acknowledged trump as a reason for their purchases.

Which firearms would those be? Every style of guns, from 15th C. ones like these...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arquebus

...onward has been used by militaries.

Did you think that we wouldn't notice that what "you folks" propose to ban would include all guns?



I have. I've also noticed that the Band of Assholes you mention have been quite punctilious about *not* carrying
firearms. Racist, violent, and stabby, yes; carrying firearms, no.

They're vile, not stupid. You have denounced something that did not happen.



What leads you to believe "us folks", as you put it, were wrong? Or that we ever stopped?

A small reminder from 5 years ago:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1172161797#post13



The Taliban is still there- it's the US military that's leaving
The disinterested reader will note the date:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100214638983