Rolling Stone Article - I guess according to them all guns are dangerous...

[Firefighterchen]

No, but it makes me wonder... why in the world would cops shot a kid with a gun shaped toy, but not shoot that same child carrying a beach ball? Can you think of any reason? Once again, they are both toys.

No they aren't. A kid squirting another kid with a squirt gun is not dangerous in the slightest. My kids can squirt each other with squirt guns all day long and be just fine. That play is no more dangerous than them knocking the beach ball back and forth.

Which is it? Playing squirt guns with a cop or playing squirt guns with a another kid?

Let me try to dumb this down for you...

Objects are not dangerous. Beach ball, not dangerous. Squirt guns, not dangerous. Firearms, not dangerous.

Inappropriate actions are.

Knocking (action) a beach ball back and forth, not dangerous.

Deflating the beach and using it to suffocate someone (action), is dangerous.

Kids pointing squirt guns at targets (action), not dangerous.

Letting your kids point gun like toys at each other (action, dangerous.

Kids pointing squirt guns (action) at cops, dangerous.

Actions are dangerous. (Squirt) Guns don't point themselves.

Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app

 

[slamhouse]

You must live in a very scary world to only see the extremes a situation can be taken to. My son could stab someone with his pencil, but instead he uses it to study with. And let me correct you that firearms ARE dangerous, and need to be respected accordingly. Just as a chainsaw or machete or power tool. The key is to know the difference between something capable of.grave bodily harm and a toy.

 

[HoJo]

This is like watching tennis.

 

[aacx22]

Which is it? Playing squirt guns with a cop or playing squirt guns with a another kid?

Funny you should ask that since you were the one that wanted to bring cops into this in the first place. I was simply talking about a leaving a kid alone with a gun. You want to keep saying that only actions are dangerous, but that's ******** because the exact same action with a different object produces a different result. The objects matter too.

Let me try to dumb this down for you...

Man, you have been playing dumb since your first post. I understand exactly what you are saying and what you are dancing furiously around. You can not escape the fact that guns have special rules compared to other objects because of their capabilities. Just as other tools do that mishandling can cause serious injury.

Objects are not dangerous. Beach ball, not dangerous. Squirt guns, not dangerous. Firearms, not dangerous.

Right. And no one is talking about objects that are locked away in a box and never interacted with by humans.

Inappropriate actions are.

Knocking (action) a beach ball back and forth, not dangerous.

Deflating the beach and using it to suffocate someone (action), is dangerous.

It's a pretty big stretch here. Yeah, sure but deflating it and using it to suffocate someone is not what it was designed for. Guns are designed to shoot projectiles to harm or kill things. Target practice is not what they were originally designed for. Neither was sports, unless I suppose you consider hunting a sport... but still the purpose is to kill an animal. When some 5yo finds a gun and blows his head off with it, the gun is working as intended. Dangerous tools like that need to be properly respected and kept safe.

Kids pointing squirt guns at targets (action), not dangerous.

Letting your kids point gun like toys at each other (action, dangerous.

Kids pointing squirt guns (action) at cops, dangerous.

Until you bring the cops into it, they are working as intended and perfectly fine.

Actions are dangerous. (Squirt) Guns don't point themselves.

Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app

Pointing is an action. A boy pointing a finger at his sister in a conversation uses this action and is not dangerous. That same boy pointing a gun at his sister is dangerous. The action becomes dangerous because of the object that has changed. You can't absolve the object here, it's as important as the action.

 

[Bikenut]

An example....

A fully loaded gun sitting in the middle of the kitchen table can be left there with no one touching it for 100 years and no one will be shot.

A fully loaded squirt gun sitting in the middle of the kitchen table can be left there with no one touching it for 100 years and no one will get wet.

A beach ball sitting in the middle of the kitchen table can be left there with no one touching it for 100 years and no one will get a neck injury or bloody nose from the ball bouncing off their head.

But there becomes the potential for someone to get shot, get wet, or get a neck injury or a bloody nose the instant a human being picks up the gun, or the squirt gun, or the beach ball.

Objects are not dangerous... human beings who use objects have the potential to use those objects in a dangerous manner.
It isn't the object that is dangerous all by itself because all by itself it will not do a damn thing. The human who uses the object has the potential to use those things in a dangerous way.

Objects aren't dangerous.... human beings are.

 

[BC1]

Oh, come on.

You never ran around in your parents yard as a kid squirting your friends with squirt guns?

Absolutely. But in 1965 little kids weren't carrying real guns like today. Toy guns and squirt guns looked very real 50 years ago. Kids aiming BB guns, airsoft, paintball guns at people? No way. I wouldn't aim that particular toy at someone. A super soaker is fine because it doesn't look like a weapon unless one is Buck Rogers. My nephews cap me all the time with them.
.
The reason instructors teach safe direction is THERE IS NEVER A TIME WHEN IT'S OK TO BEND THE RULE. NRA rule #1: Always keep the gun pointed in a safe direction. This is about habits. Don't get in the habit of picking and choosing when it's OK to aim at someone.

 

[aacx22]

Absolutely. But in 1965 little kids weren't carrying real guns like today. Toy guns and squirt guns looked very real 50 years ago. Kids aiming BB guns, airsoft, paintball guns at people? No way. I wouldn't aim that particular toy at someone. A super soaker is fine because it doesn't look like a weapon unless one is Buck Rogers. My nephews cap me all the time with them.
.
The reason instructors teach safe direction is THERE IS NEVER A TIME WHEN IT'S OK TO BEND THE RULE. NRA rule #1: Always keep the gun pointed in a safe direction. This is about habits. Don't get in the habit of picking and choosing when it's OK to aim at someone.

Agree with all this. I had the same experience in the 70s. Of course, these rules are absolute. The gun is always loaded. Never point the gun at anything you are not willing to destroy. Be sure of your target and what's behind your target. Guns have rules like this because of what they do. Other tools similarly have rules to keep people safe from mishap. I'm not trying to come off as antigun, I just think it's irresponsible to not give guns the respect they are due, because of their potential for injury or death.

 

[longslide10]

Ya think RSM is taking money from Bloomburglar?

 

[aacx22]

An example....

A fully loaded gun sitting in the middle of the kitchen table can be left there with no one touching it for 100 years and no one will be shot.

A fully loaded squirt gun sitting in the middle of the kitchen table can be left there with no one touching it for 100 years and no one will get wet.

A beach ball sitting in the middle of the kitchen table can be left there with no one touching it for 100 years and no one will get a neck injury or bloody nose from the ball bouncing off their head.

But there becomes the potential for someone to get shot, get wet, or get a neck injury or a bloody nose the instant a human being picks up the gun, or the squirt gun, or the beach ball.

Objects are not dangerous... human beings who use objects have the potential to use those objects in a dangerous manner.
It isn't the object that is dangerous all by itself because all by itself it will not do a damn thing. The human who uses the object has the potential to use those things in a dangerous way.

Objects aren't dangerous.... human beings are.

Not sure if this is for me, but I have clearly stated two or three times, that I am not talking about a object sitting by itself untouched until eternity, and as far as I know... no one ever has been. This is a common strawman argument. Human interaction should always be presumed. No one cares that the energy released by the Sun is more powerful than all the nukes in the world because none of us are ever going for a stroll on it's surface. The gun and the squirtgun on the table have different potentials for misuse. A child that finds the gun and fires it may kill himself. A child that finds the squirtgun and shoots it may get a little wet. These two objects when misused preduce entirely different results with the same action. The object matters too.

 

[Firefighterchen]

I find it interesting...those that think firearms are dangerous themselves ...are also the ones that seem to leave the firearms alone with children (why else use that argument) or on the passenger seat of a car while driving...

When the action of doing either of those things is what's actually dangerous.

Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app

 

[Bikenut]

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
An example....

A fully loaded gun sitting in the middle of the kitchen table can be left there with no one touching it for 100 years and no one will be shot.

A fully loaded squirt gun sitting in the middle of the kitchen table can be left there with no one touching it for 100 years and no one will get wet.

A beach ball sitting in the middle of the kitchen table can be left there with no one touching it for 100 years and no one will get a neck injury or bloody nose from the ball bouncing off their head.

But there becomes the potential for someone to get shot, get wet, or get a neck injury or a bloody nose the instant a human being picks up the gun, or the squirt gun, or the beach ball.

Objects are not dangerous... human beings who use objects have the potential to use those objects in a dangerous manner.
It isn't the object that is dangerous all by itself because all by itself it will not do a damn thing. The human who uses the object has the potential to use those things in a dangerous way.

Objects aren't dangerous.... human beings are.

Not sure if this is for me, but I have clearly stated two or three times, that I am not talking about a object sitting by itself untouched until eternity, and as far as I know... no one ever has been. This is a common strawman argument. Human interaction should always be presumed. No one cares that the energy released by the Sun is more powerful than all the nukes in the world because none of us are ever going for a stroll on it's surface. The gun and the squirtgun on the table have different potentials for misuse. A child that finds the gun and fires it may kill himself. A child that finds the squirtgun and shoots it may get a little wet. These two objects when misused preduce entirely different results with the same action. The object matters too.

Actually my comments were not directed at any one individual. I find it interesting that you would consider them directed at you...

Concerning the part of your post I put in bold....

The real strawman argument is that guns are dangerous because of what people can do with them. Again.. if it wasn't for the person nothing would ever happen. And that holds true for guns, squirt guns, beach balls, knives, cars, baseball bats, tire irons, rocks, and even fists and feet. By the way... a squirt gun can be filled with things other than water but does that make the squirt gun dangerous or does it make the person who filled it dangerous.... or is that squirt gun that was filled with something other than water still not dangerous until the person uses it to do harm? That really isn't a trick question.

An inanimate thing all by itself, regardless of what the thing is, is not dangerous nor does it have the potential to be dangerous... but the human being who uses that object has the potential to use that thing in a dangerous way.

Projecting the fear of being harmed onto the object instead of the person, the human being, the bad guy, who is actually causing the harm while using an object is how we got gun control. Folks think controlling the gun will control the bad guy .... and we all know how well that is working.

 

[Quiet Observer]

"Rolling Stone Article - I guess according to them all guns are dangerous..."

Hopefully everyone realizes that all firearms are dangerous. That is why responsible gun owners have followed basic safety rules when handling a gun. We also follow basic safety rules when handling knives in the kitchen, use power tools, or drive. All this items can cause harm if used improperly, i,e. they are dangerous. Another article here concerns an experienced gun owner who forgot to verify his gun was not loaded before cleaning it, and lost a leg from a gunshot wound. Many of us carry or have a loaded firearm in the home, because they are dangerous. If necessary we will use them to inflict serious harm on anyone threatening us or our loved ones.

Other than the opening sentence of the Rolling Stone article, I see nothing to criticize. "Contrary to what those who defend the right to own high-powered assault rifles believe, not all guns are created equal". Now I would disagree with their editorial policy, if that calls for more repressive anti-gun and anti-gunner owner laws.

 

[Firefighterchen]

"Rolling Stone Article - I guess according to them all guns are dangerous..."

Hopefully everyone realizes that all firearms are dangerous. That is why responsible gun owners have followed basic safety rules when handling a gun. We also follow basic safety rules when handling knives in the kitchen, use power tools, or drive. All this items can cause harm if used improperly, i,e. they are dangerous. Another article here concerns an experienced gun owner who forgot to verify his gun was not loaded before cleaning it, and lost a leg from a gunshot wound. Many of us carry or have a loaded firearm in the home, because they are dangerous. If necessary we will use them to inflict serious harm on anyone threatening us or our loved ones.

Other than the opening sentence of the Rolling Stone article, I see nothing to criticize. "Contrary to what those who defend the right to own high-powered assault rifles believe, not all guns are created equal". Now I would disagree with their editorial policy, if that calls for more repressive anti-gun and anti-gunner owner laws.

Someone who thinks guns, even when used properly, are dangerous, sure wouldn't have any issues with this article. Neither do the anti gunners. I wonder if they are different people...

Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app

 

[aacx22]

Actually my comments were not directed at any one individual. I find it interesting that you would consider them directed at you...

I wasn't sure. They clearly could have been. That's why I asked.

Concerning the part of your post I put in bold....

The real strawman argument is that guns are dangerous because of what people can do with them. Again.. if it wasn't for the person nothing would ever happen. And that holds true for guns, squirt guns, beach balls, knives, cars, baseball bats, tire irons, rocks, and even fists and feet. By the way... a squirt gun can be filled with things other than water but does that make the squirt gun dangerous or does it make the person who filled it dangerous.... or is that squirt gun that was filled with something other than water still not dangerous until the person uses it to do harm? That really isn't a trick question.

Of course the person needs to take some sort of action... for like at least the fourth time. I have never, not once, ever claimed otherwise. Sheesh. I have said over and over that it's not one or the other... it's both, and what you are saying here comes to that same conclusion.

An inanimate thing all by itself, regardless of what the thing is, is not dangerous nor does it have the potential to be dangerous... but the human being who uses that object has the potential to use that thing in a dangerous way.

I disagree with bolded. A human's interaction with an object does not always produce the same result when the object changes. A human pulling the trigger of a gun produces a different result than a human pulling the trigger of a squirt gun. The action remains the same, but the result changes because the object changed. The action + the object both matter. A gun will never be dangerous if it is never touched. But a misused gun can be. That exact same misuse of a squirt gun will not be dangerous until someone here gets ridiculous and talks about it being loaded with acid or something.

Projecting the fear of being harmed onto the object instead of the person, the human being, the bad guy, who is actually causing the harm while using an object is how we got gun control. Folks think controlling the gun will control the bad guy .... and we all know how well that is working.

How about projecting some respect onto a tool that's original design and purpose is specifically to kill things?

 

[aacx22]

I find it interesting...those that think firearms are dangerous themselves ...are also the ones that seem to leave the firearms alone with children (why else use that argument) or on the passenger seat of a car while driving...

When the action of doing either of those things is what's actually dangerous.

Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app

Have any proof of your ridiculous claim here?

 

[Bikenut]

-snip-


Of course the person needs to take some sort of action... for like at least the fourth time. I have never, not once, ever claimed otherwise. Sheesh. I have said over and over that it's not one or the other... it's both, and what you are saying here comes to that same conclusion.

It is not both since without human interaction nothing at all would happen. And you even acknowledged that fact. Yet you are saying that because a human uses something for a dangerous purpose then the object used is inherently dangerous.

originally posted by Bikenut
An inanimate thing all by itself, regardless of what the thing is, is not dangerous nor does it have the potential to be dangerous... but the human being who uses that object has the potential to use that thing in a dangerous way.

I disagree with bolded. A human's interaction with an object does not always produce the same result when the object changes. A human pulling the trigger of a gun produces a different result than a human pulling the trigger of a squirt gun. The action remains the same, but the result changes because the object changed. The action + the object both matter. A gun will never be dangerous if it is never touched. But a misused gun can be. That exact same misuse of a squirt gun will not be dangerous until someone here gets ridiculous and talks about it being loaded with acid or something.

What is the common denominator in all the examples put forth by anyone and everyone in this discussion so far? Human interaction with an inanimate object. Without human interaction the object is inert and doesn't do anything. Even with the example of filling a squirt gun with something other than water it would be a HUMAN who took the dangerous action of misusing the squirt gun. Would it not?

How about projecting some respect onto a tool that's original design and purpose is specifically to kill things?

Some of my response is within your post in blue...

I'm not trying to pick a fight with you. I'm trying to make the point that without the human being in the equation absolutely nothing happens whether the result is being shot by a gun or getting wet from a squirt gun. The unassailable fact is that without the human being using the gun/squirt gun nothing happens.

The outcome of using something can be harmful or hilarious but the fact remains... without the human using it nothing happens. Imagine a hammer... when used to drive nails it is a good thing but when used to smash someone's skull it is a bad thing... yet the hammer never changed... only the use the human put it to changed. And to think that something is dangerous because the outcome is different is projecting the human characteristic of the capacity for being dangerous onto an inanimate and inert object.

Would I prefer to get wet rather than be shot? Of course. But in either case I would not blame the firearm/squirt gun but the blame would be on the human who used it.

Guns, in and of themselves, are not dangerous .... humans who misuse them are.

By the way... I personally have the opinion (my opinion/perspective that folks can disagree with but I'll not get into an argument about) that guns were never designed to kill but were designed to defend. It is unfortunate that someone dies during personal self defense or during national defense or if an animal dies to defend from starvation but the fact that someone/something died doesn't mean the gun was intended to kill but was designed to prevent a life, or a way of life, from dying.

 

[aacx22]

Some of my response is within your post in blue...

I'm not trying to pick a fight with you.

No worries. If I didn't want conversation, I'd be knitting or something.

I'm trying to make the point that without the human being in the equation absolutely nothing happens whether the result is being shot by a gun or getting wet from a squirt gun. The unassailable fact is that without the human being using the gun/squirt gun nothing happens.

I agree and never disputed this.

The outcome of using something can be harmful or hilarious but the fact remains... without the human using it nothing happens. Imagine a hammer... when used to drive nails it is a good thing but when used to smash someone's skull it is a bad thing... yet the hammer never changed... only the use the human put it to changed.

This is true. This is why you have to be careful with your kids around tools. My 3yo son has already gouged my freshly painted front door with a metal model airplane. He has seen me working on the house and loves tools. We bought him a plastic set, but he was not fooled... he wants the good stuff and I can only imagine what he would do with them... but aside from that, he could really get hurt. It certainly goes both ways. Whether its malice or negligence, the resulting misuse of something can result in a wide range of issues from annoyance to death. The misuse of a gun has greater potential for harm than most other things. While the misuse is certainly dangerous, the potential for harm changes with the object misused. This is what some here are trying to tap-dance around, but it's a part of the equation here. Going back to the squirtgun... if you leave that loaded on your table and your kid points it in his mouth and fires it, he's probably going to survive.

And to think that something is dangerous because the outcome is different is projecting the human characteristic of the capacity for being dangerous onto an inanimate and inert object.

Would I prefer to get wet rather than be shot? Of course. But in either case I would not blame the firearm/squirt gun but the blame would be on the human who used it.

Guns, in and of themselves, are not dangerous .... humans who misuse them are.

If guns are not dangerous, then why do they have special rules? No one ever told me, for example, that the squirt gun is always loaded, or to never point it at something I was unwilling to destroy it, or to be sure of my target and what's behind my target, etc...

By the way... I personally have the opinion (my opinion/perspective that folks can disagree with but I'll not get into an argument about) that guns were never designed to kill but were designed to defend. It is unfortunate that someone dies during personal self defense or during national defense or if an animal dies to defend from starvation but the fact that someone/something died doesn't mean the gun was intended to kill but was designed to prevent a life, or a way of life, from dying.

I did a Wikipedia search on origin of guns for the heck of it:

History of the firearm - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Firearms in China[edit]

The direct ancestor of the firearm is the fire lance, a black-powder–filled tube attached to the end of a spear and used as a flamethrower (not to be confused with the Byzantine flamethrower); shrapnel was sometimes placed in the barrel so that it would fly out together with the flames.[4][5] The earliest depiction of a gunpowder weapon is the illustration of a fire-lance on a mid-12th century silk banner from Dunhuang.[6] The De'an Shoucheng Lu, an account of the siege of De'an in 1132, records that Song forces used fire-lances against the Jurchens.[7]

In due course, the proportion of saltpeter in the propellant was increased to maximise its explosive power.[5] To better withstand that explosive power, the paper and bamboo of which fire-lance barrels were originally made came to be replaced by metal.[4] And to take full advantage of that power, the shrapnel came to be replaced by projectiles whose size and shape filled the barrel more closely.[5] With this, the three basic features of the gun emerged: a barrel made of metal, high-nitrate gunpowder, and a projectile which totally occludes the muzzle so that the powder charge exerts its full potential in propellant effect.[8]

The earliest depiction of a gun is a sculpture from a cave in Sichuan dating to the 12th century of a figure carrying a vase-shaped bombard with flames and a cannonball coming out of it.[1][9] The oldest surviving gun, made of bronze, has been dated to 1288 because it was discovered at a site in modern-day Acheng District where the Yuan Shi records that battles were fought at that time; Li Ting, a military commander of Jurchen descent, led foot-soldiers armed with guns—including a Korean brigade—in battle to suppress the rebellion of the Christian Mongol prince Nayan.[10]

According to this, guns were invented for war. Anyways, its 6 of one or half a dozen of the other... Guns defend by killing the attacker. Guns feed people by killing animals.

 

[Bikenut]

-snip-
If guns are not dangerous, then why do they have special rules? No one ever told me, for example, that the squirt gun is always loaded, or to never point it at something I was unwilling to destroy it, or to be sure of my target and what's behind my target, etc...
-snip-

According to this, guns were invented for war. Anyways, its 6 of one or half a dozen of the other... Guns defend by killing the attacker. Guns feed people by killing animals.

Everything that can be used to cause harm (please note the "can be used to cause harm" part since those things don't jump up and cause harm all by themselves) has special rules. Knives do, ball bats do, tire irons do, hand and power tools do, and it doesn't matter if someone told us those special rules those things will tell us all by themselves by cutting us or bonking us and harming us in some way so we learn not to.... misuse those things because they will hurt us.

I personally become annoyed with the example of "what if a kid picks up a loaded gun?" as an argument the gun is dangerous. Not so... the parent who left an unattended loaded gun where an untrained child could find it engaged in the dangerous acts of not training his child and/or leaving a gun unattended.

It always comes down to a human being doing an dangerous act of some sort that involves an object that cannot and will not do anything dangerous all by itself.

Can a human using some objects cause more harm than other objects? Yes, of course. A firearm will cause more damage than a squirt gun. Regardless... neither the firearm nor the squirt gun all by itself is dangerous because it will not do anything at all ... until a human makes it do it. It isn't the firearm or the squirt gun that is dangerous... it is the human who is using it that has the potential to use those things in a dangerous manner. After all... neither the firearm and the squirt gun has to be fired since both can be used as a bludgeon to cause harm. And in the case of a firearm and a squirt gun used as a bludgeon does that mean the firearm is "dangerous" because it's a gun that can be used to kill people but the squirt gun still isn't "dangerous" because the perception is that squirt guns are toys that get people wet?

Guns, cars, ball bats, tire irons, hammers, and a host of other things.. including squirt guns... are tools human beings invented to be used for specific purposes. While most of those things were invented for the specific purpose of either building things or to have fun with and the gun was invented for the specific purpose of defending life or a way of life with the unfortunate result of taking life in the process they all share the common characteristic of being harmless and inert, incapable of doing anything on their own, until a human being uses.. or misuses... them in some way.

Tools are not dangerous... only people who misuse tools are dangerous.

 

[aacx22]

Everything that can be used to cause harm (please note the "can be used to cause harm" part since those things don't jump up and cause harm all by themselves) has special rules. Knives do, ball bats do, tire irons do, hand and power tools do, and it doesn't matter if someone told us those special rules those things will tell us all by themselves by cutting us or bonking us and harming us in some way so we learn not to.... misuse those things because they will hurt us.

I personally become annoyed with the example of "what if a kid picks up a loaded gun?" as an argument the gun is dangerous. Not so... the parent who left an unattended loaded gun where an untrained child could find it engaged in the dangerous acts of not training his child and/or leaving a gun unattended.

It always comes down to a human being doing an dangerous act of some sort that involves an object that cannot and will not do anything dangerous all by itself.

It doesn't 'all' come down to that. Agreed with most of this, though. Human interaction is one ingredient of this, but you can't ignore the other.

Can a human using some objects cause more harm than other objects? Yes, of course. A firearm will cause more damage than a squirt gun. Regardless... neither the firearm nor the squirt gun all by itself is dangerous because it will not do anything at all ... until a human makes it do it. It isn't the firearm or the squirt gun that is dangerous... it is the human who is using it that has the potential to use those things in a dangerous manner. After all... neither the firearm and the squirt gun has to be fired since both can be used as a bludgeon to cause harm. And in the case of a firearm and a squirt gun used as a bludgeon does that mean the firearm is "dangerous" because it's a gun that can be used to kill people but the squirt gun still isn't "dangerous" because the perception is that squirt guns are toys that get people wet?

I really can't understand why I have to keep saying this. No one has ever claimed that an inanimate object is dangerous without any human interaction. It has never happened. Over and over people here are fighting against an argument that no one is making.

Guns, cars, ball bats, tire irons, hammers, and a host of other things.. including squirt guns... are tools human beings invented to be used for specific purposes. While most of those things were invented for the specific purpose of either building things or to have fun with and the gun was invented for the specific purpose of defending life or a way of life with the unfortunate result of taking life in the process they all share the common characteristic of being harmless and inert, incapable of doing anything on their own, until a human being uses.. or misuses... them in some way.

Tools are not dangerous... only people who misuse tools are dangerous.

Still, you are ignoring that both parts matter. It's really not a big deal if a person misuses a squirtgun and has to change his shirt before Church or something. It changes everything if what was misused was something more dangerous, such as a hammer, such as a bottle of chlorine, such as a gun. The misuse of things like these has a higher potential for harm or destruction. If you were to compare your toys that had a relatively low potential for harm or destruction against tools, such as the gun with a higher potential for destruction... there ought to be a way to characterize that potential when misused. How would you do that?

 

[Bikenut]

-snip-
I really can't understand why I have to keep saying this. No one has ever claimed that an inanimate object is dangerous without any human interaction. It has never happened. Over and over people here are fighting against an argument that no one is making.

Isn't the subject of the OP....

The 5 Most Dangerous Guns in America Pictures - Pistols | Rolling Stone

The 5 Most Dangerous Guns in America
These are the firearms causing the most harm
-snip-

Still, you are ignoring that both parts matter. It's really not a big deal if a person misuses a squirtgun and has to change his shirt before Church or something. It changes everything if what was misused was something more dangerous, such as a hammer, such as a bottle of chlorine, such as a gun. The misuse of things like these has a higher potential for harm or destruction. If you were to compare your toys that had a relatively low potential for harm or destruction against tools, such as the gun with a higher potential for destruction... there ought to be a way to characterize that potential when misused. How would you do that?

Please note the part of your post I put in bold .... did you just say that a squirt gun is less dangerous than a hammer, a bottle of chlorine, or a gun but still saying that the squirt gun, the hammer, the bottle of chlorine, and the gun... are dangerous?

Yeah... I know I might be quibbling about the use of words but it is the use of words and how those words can be spun to demonize inanimate objects that the anti gunners use as their primary weapon against the right to bear arms. Once we buy into the idea that guns are "dangerous" then we must also buy into the idea that in order to protect people from those dangerous guns we need "reasonable", "appropriate", and "acceptable", restrictions placed upon those guns. And that line of reasoning(?) is how we ended up with the fuster cluck of gun control we have now. Sadly we have many gun owners who buy right into that never realizing that no matter what laws are passed hoping to control those "dangerous" guns none of those laws control the dangerous human beings who misuse those inert, inanimate, incapable of independent action, and therefor not dangerous unless a human touches them... guns.

Bottom line... no matter what wording is used guns are not dangerous in and of themselves. There has never been a gun that walked into a store and shot someone all by itself. There ALWAYS has to be a human being somewhere in the equation whether that be an irresponsible parent so a child has access, someone who drank too much, a fool, or a bad guy, who's use of the gun caused harm.

Will the result of being shot by a squirt gun hurt less than being shot by a firearm? Well hell yes! But without the human pulling the trigger the firearm is no more "dangerous" than the squirt gun.