Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Starboard Tack

(11,181 posts)
97. Gotta love the way you keep redifining to suit your argument.
Fri Jun 28, 2013, 12:09 PM
Jun 2013

I'll stick by my 99% (the 99.9% was yours) are designed and manufactured for the purpose of killing.
You can try whittling away at that all day long, but it won't change the facts.
I'm not arguing for Bambi and I have no issue with hunting for food, but the guns used are still designed to kill. The OP is about taxing gun makers. It's not my OP, but I can see some merit there. I would probably only tax the manufacturers of semi-automatics, which are designed and marketed as the best killing "tools".

How a gun is used, be it for target practice, competition shooting or to hammer in a nail, has nothing to do with it's design and it's function, as intended by the manufacturer.

Self-defense is about staying alive, you are right. Using a gun for self-defense is about being prepared to kill in order to stay alive. I'm not condemning that, but let's be honest about it. If I use a gun, as it was designed and intended to be used, in self defense, I am probably going to kill someone or something.
You can't exclude handguns from the equation, just because they are euphemistically described as PSDs or SD tools. They are the predominant weapon used in homicides and suicides in the US.

The manufactured purpose of a PFD is to save life. It accomplishes that by floating on water.
The manufactured purpose of a handgun is to kill efficiently. That is accomplished by aiming and squeezing the trigger.
If you show, brandish, wave or point your gun at someone, you have taken the first step toward killing them. If you are not committed at that point, then you will probably lose, especially if your opponent calls your bluff. I'm sure you are aware of this, so let's not bullshit ourselves into thinking a gun on our person is just about SD. It's about being prepared to kill and if you leave home wearing a gun and you're not in that frame of mind, then you're living very dangerously.

Only if those that *don't* cause death or injury get a tax rebate. friendly_iconoclast Jun 2013 #1
When will you start taxing Ford, Honda, Toyota, etc. for car crashes? friendly_iconoclast Jun 2013 #2
When Ford experiences a sales surge after every crash. Robb Jun 2013 #23
can't lay that on the manufacturers gejohnston Jun 2013 #24
And this has what to do with Jpak's thread? nt. premium Jun 2013 #25
Blood money. It's not complicated. Robb Jun 2013 #27
And once again, premium Jun 2013 #28
The proposed tax is the regulation. Robb Jun 2013 #29
Ok, premium Jun 2013 #30
Looks like he went back to the group that always agrees with him! CokeMachine Jun 2013 #31
Because they profit most when it's used illegally. Robb Jun 2013 #36
the drug trade. gejohnston Jun 2013 #37
And just how is that their fault? premium Jun 2013 #38
You think manufacturers can do nothing? Robb Jun 2013 #39
Once again, why is the manufacturer responsible for the unsafe premium Jun 2013 #40
Because the unsafe, illegal use of their legal product generates their best sales. Robb Jun 2013 #41
Their business model has come to depend upon that unsafe, illegal use of their legal product. premium Jun 2013 #42
Bullcrap? You've noted yourself the reactionary nature of gun buyers and gun buying. Robb Jun 2013 #44
Yeah, and? premium Jun 2013 #48
Well, yeah. The manufacturers do their best to fan those flames. Robb Jun 2013 #49
They do huh. premium Jun 2013 #51
You want to tax Congress? Robb Jun 2013 #52
I'm saying that as a tongue in cheek comment. premium Jun 2013 #53
Instead of trying to control unsafe and illegal use, you want to 'punish the sinners'... friendly_iconoclast Jun 2013 #45
You are skipping right over the critical question of responsibility: in every petronius Jun 2013 #54
Because they do everything to make sure criminals retain access to guns BainsBane Jun 2013 #90
Don't you get tired of being wrong 99% of the time about firearms? nt. premium Jun 2013 #91
Easy. Cars are designed and marketed as a mode of transportation. Starboard Tack Jun 2013 #55
Many guns are designed Jenoch Jun 2013 #56
Possibly. Starboard Tack Jun 2013 #58
I know it was hard for you to Jenoch Jun 2013 #64
Wasn't hard at all. Starboard Tack Jun 2013 #66
You said guns are designed to kill. Jenoch Jun 2013 #69
OK, but let's be honest about this. Starboard Tack Jun 2013 #70
I think that's exactly backward, and here's why: petronius Jun 2013 #71
I don't know how you see it backwards. Starboard Tack Jun 2013 #72
AR-15s and the like are not hunting rifles gejohnston Jun 2013 #75
It's about the killing (or harming) of humans because that's the context petronius Jun 2013 #78
Gotta love the way you keep redifining to suit your argument. Starboard Tack Jun 2013 #97
I will boil it down: 99% (sorry) of firearms are not manufactured with petronius Jun 2013 #107
There you go again, redefining. Starboard Tack Jun 2013 #108
"Manufacturers don't determine the intent of the end user." Yep, that's pretty much petronius Jun 2013 #109
I'm not dragging hunting in at all. It is irrelevant to the discussion. Starboard Tack Jun 2013 #111
while most are not some are built specifically for hunting gejohnston Jun 2013 #112
Very true. Starboard Tack Jun 2013 #115
Tobacco causes its harm when used for its proper, legal, and pretty-much the only petronius Jun 2013 #113
"self-defense (which is not actually about killing at all)" rdharma Jun 2013 #76
so you are saying gejohnston Jun 2013 #77
Is pepper spray a firearm? rdharma Jun 2013 #79
of course not gejohnston Jun 2013 #81
You tell us. You seem to be in the know. CokeMachine Jun 2013 #82
No however it is restricted in some states. oneshooter Jun 2013 #110
Some people find shedevil69taz Jun 2013 #104
How often have Jenoch Jun 2013 #73
Errr merrr gerrd! rdharma Jun 2013 #80
Is that a typical Jenoch Jun 2013 #84
Maybe you should travel more Starboard Tack Jun 2013 #99
I'd like to travel more. Jenoch Jun 2013 #100
I'd like to go back to Vietnam premium Jun 2013 #101
I asked my cousin Jenoch Jun 2013 #102
I can sympathize with him. premium Jun 2013 #103
That's very good. I hope you learned something. Starboard Tack Jun 2013 #105
I'm not one of the typical Americans Jenoch Jun 2013 #106
Post removed Post removed Jun 2013 #85
But yet, premium Jun 2013 #57
No, it's about when used as intended. Starboard Tack Jun 2013 #59
So you think that firearms manufacturers should premium Jun 2013 #60
Yes, of course. Starboard Tack Jun 2013 #61
Well, we're going to have to disagree on this. nt. premium Jun 2013 #62
No shit. LOL Starboard Tack Jun 2013 #63
Too damn hot today, premium Jun 2013 #65
Yet automobiles manage to kill/injure a large percent of the population oneshooter Jun 2013 #67
Let's do the numbers Starboard Tack Jun 2013 #68
My point is that autos, oneshooter Jun 2013 #92
Now that's really convoluted. Starboard Tack Jun 2013 #93
Isn't that the same argument that jpak is making? oneshooter Jun 2013 #98
I think a better analogy is Diageo, Beam, Pernod Ricard, etc sir pball Jul 2013 #119
Ummm, the firearms manufacturers aren't causing the harm. premium Jun 2013 #3
ummm....their products are designed and manufactured to kill jpak Jun 2013 #9
No, their product is designed to propel an object out of a barrel, premium Jun 2013 #10
Air Soft guns do the same thing - but they are not designed to kill, unlike extender devices. jpak Jun 2013 #11
So if your idea is so good, premium Jun 2013 #12
It took decades to make gay marriage the law of the land jpak Jun 2013 #14
God, Gays and Guns don't go around here no more... premium Jun 2013 #15
Hah! You'll never hear mention of *that*! friendly_iconoclast Jun 2013 #46
What are "extender devices"? Straw Man Jun 2013 #114
A significant difference between guns and other items treated this way, such as petronius Jun 2013 #4
^^ This ^^ nt CokeMachine Jun 2013 #5
What does "parabellum" mean? jpak Jun 2013 #13
It's not a question of euphemisms, nor does it matter what market a specific petronius Jun 2013 #19
Gun nutz claim all rifles are "assault rifles" because they were derived from military arms jpak Jul 2013 #116
Substantiate, please. Straw Man Jul 2013 #117
Your post is what we call "The Gungeon Dodge" jpak Jul 2013 #120
Seems to me that you are the one that made the claim. oneshooter Jul 2013 #121
I beg your pardon? Straw Man Jul 2013 #122
Cognitive Dissonance Reigns SUPREME in the Gungeon jpak Jul 2013 #123
Do you have a point? Straw Man Jul 2013 #125
I've never seen that claim before reading your post. Lizzie Poppet Jul 2013 #124
WTF does "extender devices" mean? rl6214 Jun 2013 #21
Oh, I think we all know what that means, premium Jun 2013 #22
Maybe he is insecure with his ........ nt CokeMachine Jun 2013 #32
Gun control advocacy is the last refuge of Freudian theory. friendly_iconoclast Jun 2013 #47
That's all they have. CokeMachine Jun 2013 #50
"Ah, you just want to harden your salami" -- French Connection. Eleanors38 Jun 2013 #26
You get right on that - it's good to have a hobby DonP Jun 2013 #6
Or SYG. nt. premium Jun 2013 #7
people misuse firearms...the product isn't defective. ileus Jun 2013 #8
stop using euphemisms about guns jimmy the one Jun 2013 #16
I can only speak for my firearms. ileus Jun 2013 #18
what about hard alcohol producers? bossy22 Jun 2013 #17
OK -- Coors and hard alcohol? CokeMachine Jun 2013 #33
Rocky Mountain piss water. gejohnston Jun 2013 #35
I drink for quantity not quality!! CokeMachine Jun 2013 #43
Sure you do! That's why you've got what you've got! nt rdharma Jun 2013 #83
Oh it's you again -- the master baiter. CokeMachine Jun 2013 #86
Doesn't take much to set you off, does it? BainsBane Jun 2013 #88
Only after you make car companies start paying as well. rl6214 Jun 2013 #20
Give him a break -- It's JPAK after all!! CokeMachine Jun 2013 #34
Where have you been for the past 100 years? BainsBane Jun 2013 #89
True, but that was for defective autos premium Jun 2013 #94
I remember when they tried to sue gunmakers in the nineties. dookers Jun 2013 #74
They are now exempt from lawsuit BainsBane Jun 2013 #87
Can't you get anything right? premium Jun 2013 #95
Ummmm, no it didn't premium Jun 2013 #96
The authors of the Op-Ed should have called for what they really want, to ban all guns. SoutherDem Jul 2013 #118
We should thank these companies for providing affordable life saving devices. ileus Jul 2013 #126
I agree gopiscrap Aug 2013 #127
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»Make Gun Companies Pay Bl...»Reply #97