First, you're responding to an argument that merits no response, because it substitutes wordplay for cost-benefit analysis. The right question isn't "where does the blame lie?"; the right question, in each case, is "do the benefits of allowing this activity outweigh the costs?".
That said, your response seems to me to be as weak as the (hopelessly weak) argument you're responding to. (I hope it goes without saying that I say this does not diminish my considerable admiration for your writing and your arguments in general). What defines the "primary use" of an object? If I buy a car for the specific purpose of plowing it into a crowd of people, does that become its primary use?
Perhaps you mean to define "primary" to mean "most common". But then you're just playing with words when you say that the primary use of a gun is to "project force at a distance", so that a gun used in a mass shooting is being employed in its primary use. You could equally well say that the primary use of a gun is "to project force at a distance for the purpose of doing something good", in which case that same gun is being used in a way that runs counter to its primary purpose.
Most guns are purchased with the goal of using them to project force at a distance. Most guns are purchased with the goal of using them to project force at a distance in order to accomplish a worthy end. Which of those is the "primary" use? From what you've written, it seems like the only way to answer that question is to ask Matt. But an argument that relies on an arbitrary distinction revealed by an oracle is not an argument.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2018-11-19 05:01 pm (UTC)That said, your response seems to me to be as weak as the (hopelessly weak) argument you're responding to. (I hope it goes without saying that I say this does not diminish my considerable admiration for your writing and your arguments in general). What defines the "primary use" of an object? If I buy a car for the specific purpose of plowing it into a crowd of people, does that become its primary use?
Perhaps you mean to define "primary" to mean "most common". But then you're just playing with words when you say that the primary use of a gun is to "project force at a distance", so that a gun used in a mass shooting is being employed in its primary use. You could equally well say that the primary use of a gun is "to project force at a distance for the purpose of doing something good", in which case that same gun is being used in a way that runs counter to its primary purpose.
Most guns are purchased with the goal of using them to project force at a distance. Most guns are purchased with the goal of using them to project force at a distance in order to accomplish a worthy end. Which of those is the "primary" use? From what you've written, it seems like the only way to answer that question is to ask Matt. But an argument that relies on an arbitrary distinction revealed by an oracle is not an argument.