[cgregor]

Originally Posted by arctichomesteader

It sure will be interesting to see how it unfolds. I don't think the legislature will succeed in blocking them. Whether or not their plans succeed will be in their hands. I don't think that's the best area for land to meet their needs but they see something in it.

This will be a closely-watched contest between the concepts of "a fool and his money are soon parted," the civic spirit underlying Twain's "The Man Who Corrupted Hadleyburg," and the claim that plutocracy usually gets what it wants.

[arctichomesteader]

Originally Posted by cgregor

I will happily bear lifelong responsibility for my car when it has been built with the specific intent to kill.

Another car attack on a crowd in Germany: https://www.standard.co.uk/news/worl...-a3808266.html

Designed to kill or not they're deadly weapons when used as such.

[Biker53]

Originally Posted by arctichomesteader

Another car attack on a crowd in Germany: https://www.standard.co.uk/news/worl...-a3808266.html

Designed to kill or not they're deadly weapons when used as such.

Yes, dead is dead whether the tool was designed for that purpose or not.

[cgregor]

But guns are purposely designed to kill, and owners should be aware of the danger inherent in letting go of them in any way whatsoever.

When you sell your car, you don't have to think about whether when it is used it will fail to kill someone or something. If you sell a gun that fails in its purpose, the buyer will come back to you because it did not cause a death.

They don't complain about that if you sell them a defective car.

[arctichomesteader]

Originally Posted by cgregor

But guns are purposely designed to kill, and owners should be aware of the danger inherent in letting go of them in any way whatsoever.

When you sell your car, you don't have to think about whether when it is used it will fail to kill someone or something. If you sell a gun that fails in its purpose, the buyer will come back to you because it did not cause a death.

They don't complain about that if you sell them a defective car.

If you are honestly concerned about preventing deaths why does what something is designed for even enter into the analysis when automobiles take more lives each year than firearms and are a tool used by terrorists for that purpose?

[cgregor]

Because almost all people who buy a gun intend if necessary to kill someone or something. Not so with cars. The terrorist threat thing is quite oversold in comparison to all the damage guns do in America both unintentionally and intentionally. We don't have 4-year-olds killing a pedestrian while driving, but we do have them killing somebody by firing a gun. And the average bullet wound costs $538,000 to treat. I have no idea how much it costs to treat the average accident victim.

[vter]

Guys....this has been veering off topic to a more general gun control discussion. Keep it related to the Vermont legislation or you can go debate general gun issues elsewhere on the CityData forums.
Thanks.

[doc1]

Originally Posted by cgregor

I'm proposing that people think seriously about firearms. How much do they really want them to protect themselves against tyrannical government, against non-whites, against lesbians, against people who say, "Happy Holidays," against liberals?........

First you bring up King Arthur.

Now your arguments have gotten beyond bizarre.

Quit while you're behind already.

[Pilot1]

Originally Posted by cgregor

I will happily bear lifelong responsibility for my car when it has been built with the specific intent to kill.

Inanimate object neither have INTENT, nor WILL. It is the person that wields the object that has these. You are in fantasy land again. I guess because Disney animals speak, so do the real ones in the woods, huh?

Vermont USE to be a state that respected Constitutional law. This legislation shows the influence of the urbanites in New England that have moved there, and brought their ridiculous, anti American ideals. Can higher, violent crime be far behind?

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by Pilot1

Inanimate object neither have INTENT, nor WILL. It is the person that wields the object that has these. You are in fantasy land again. I guess because Disney animals speak, so do the real ones in the woods, huh?

The purpose of a firearm is to kill. That is indeed its intended purpose. When used correctly, that is what it does. Not so with a car, etc.