by gego » Mon 09 Oct 2006, 00:33:01
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rogerhb', '
')
However, there is a moral obligation to know how to use both safely if (and only if) you intend to own and use them. The main difference between a car and a firearm is a gun's purpose is to kill.
That is a fairly narrow (bias) view of the "purpose" of using a gun and a car. The use of a gun does not always end in its being fired to kill any more than every road trip ends in a deliberate hit and run.
Many defensive situations involve only the presentation of the gun to terminate an offensive threat. So it is equally logical to view the purpose of using a gun as preventing killing.
I have guns for defensive purposes and would only use them to the extent needed for that defense. A loaded pistol sits on my desk at this moment. It is not killing anyone; were an intruder to enter my home I would pick up the pistol and point it in the direction of the intruder at the ready. If he turned an left the gun would not have been fired, and may have saved my life. If he proceeded in my direction clearly unarmed, I might fire a warning shot. If he continued I might fire a shot with the purpose of disabling and not killing. Only as a last resort would I fire two to the chest and one to the head.
So the my purpose in having a gun is to defend, not to kill, and the gun itself does not have a mind of its own, so it cannot have a purpose to kill. Your car, likewise does not have a mind of its own. It could be used as a deadly weapon also, but if your purpose is to drive to a store and not to deliberately run down someone, then your purpose is to use it for transportation.
I just don't see how you can attribute human characteristics like purpose to inanimate objects which can be used within their physical limitations to carry out the purpose of humans. Maybe if you substituted "intent" for the word "purpose" you would see the absurdidity of your thinking.