That's a total non sequitur. Unlike guns, cars have other uses besides killing people. Actually, the purpose of a car is NOT to kill people, again; unlike a gun. So your example is actually completely absurd, although being a gun nut apologist as you seem to be, absurdities are required and expected in order to defend your chosen postion.
Cars have a primary purpose: transporting from one location to another. Yet cars are often used negligently with a result not intended: death. Guns in the hands of private citizens have a primary purpose: self defense. Yet guns are often used negligently with a result not intended: accidental discharge death. Both are tools, inanimate objects, which only operate given the input of the users. Guns don't choose to kill certain people, just as cars don't.
Additionally, if you took the time to research my post history, you'd see that I'm not a "gun nut apologist". I doubt if I've ever posted in a gun thread in AT on either side of the topic. The only reason I chose to do so this time was not to advance a pro-gun agenda (truthfully, I'm very mildly anti-gun) but to point the spotlight of responsibility on to the negligent parent.
You are very obviously anti-gun, to the point where it clouds your judgment. You cannot see that someone who does not share your zealotry is anything other than "the enemy". ATP&N posters like this are quick to blame the gun and forgive the operator, and that's just wrong.
Of course negligence was a factor. An event often, maybe even usually, have many contributing factors and not just one, sole cause. However, the gun was absolutely the main contributor by far in this particular tragedy. There's no arguing around that fact.
No, the main contributing factor was the operator's negligence.
Way to overgeneralize. You don't know anything about this guy (besides that he slipped up handling his gun - perhaps this one time in his life), and you've already decided he was predestined to off, or at least maim his kid in some other way had this not happened. That's just deplorable, by any standard.
Eh, I chose my words poorly. Instead of saying "That negligent parent likely would have otherwise harmed the kid in some other fashion" I should have said "That negligent parent was more likely to otherwise harm the kid in some other fashion". The first connotes predestiny and the second connotes increased probability.
Clearly you've made a totally rational argument, taking into account all relevant factors. Because we all know that the practical benefits of carrying a gun every day are are least as great as the practical benefits of driving a car.
Why, just make a list of the daily, practical benefits of each and it's totally clear the comparing the death rates of the two is a really good reasoning.
You missed the entire point: those clamoring for gun restrictions do so because it's "the gun's fault" and absolve the negligent owner and fail to make parallel claims against motor vehicles, instead choosing to absolve the vehicle and blame the operator. Motor vehicles are no less deadly than guns, yet they get a pass.
Humm 3x more in cars, yet there are what 500x more cars on the roads than gun owners? Seem's like you proved the exact opposite point of the one you were trying.
Reading fail. 3x more deaths in one year than guns in 11 years. But again, the magnitude is irrelevant, what is relevant is the hypocrisy.
