Originally Posted by WhiteWhale
Okay, I'm a big second amendment guy, but the dumbest argument ever used in favor of guns keeps being used here.
I'll say this once.
Automobiles were invented for the purpose of transporting people from one place to another.
Guns were invented for the explicit purpose of killing human beings. They weren't invented to hunt animals. They weren't invented for shooting pop cans and targets. They were invented for a very specific purpose... killing people in war.
While I support the 2nd amendment, I don't support stupidity like comparing Cars and guns. One is not like the other.
So here's one flaw with your argument, jet aircraft were invented by the Germans in WWII for the explicit purpose of establishing air superiority and taking out as many US bombers as possible. Almost all modern rocketry in the western world can trace it's origin directly to the V-2 rocket program established by Germany in WWII.
Should both jet aircraft and all modern space/satellite programs be 'tainted' as bad because their origins were as weapons of war? Why something was created should be irrelevant, how it is used should be how we judge it.
The problem is you missed the point of the original argument. The argument wasn't about cars or guns. It was about being unbiased and about uniform standards. We like to be discriminatory, it's a survival instinct and it's in the DNA of all life. What we have to actively work at doing is trying to be as unbaised as we can. Treating firearms more harshly than other objects that also have the potential to cause harm is discriminatory. If you want to restrict something fine, set a uniform unbiased standard to measure harm and then restrict EVERYTHING that meets that standard.
The reality is the vast majority of all firearms are used perfectly legally and without harm to their fellow human beings and yet many people want to prohibit them for everyone based upon the bad actions of a minority just because they personally do not like them.