No it isn't.
No. The absence of other factors means that the "dangerous" applies to the "gun".
But not from the object itself, be it gun or road.
No. The gun is potentially dangerous *IF* it used incorrectly. The statement, "the gun is dangerous" is absolute.
Yes it could. If I took an unpeeled banana and shoved it down your throat you would likely choke to rest on it. The banana is potentially dangerous if used incorrectly.
The correct way to deal with an buttailant armed with a banana is to shoot the buttailant with the gun and then eat the banana, thus disarming him. :-)
No. The statement, "the gun *IS* dangerous" is clear in that it means actual and immediate danger. Same thing for roads.
No. It is the presence of inappropriate action that may make it dangerous, not the absence of appropriate action. In the absence of action the gun is still the gun and the road is still the road.
For the most part it is. The number of vehicle miles travelled each day versus the number of accidents is testimony to that.
No. If that were the case the KSI figures would be phenomenal and nobody would venture out of the house. The fact that the figures are so low proves that the roads are NOT dangerous.
Wrong. They usually DO, that's why people don't USUALLY crash.
There is no such thing as a dangerous road.
NIP arrived. 983OK, getting off the subject of misuse of language and back to the point. I actually disagree with your standpoint. I agree instead with that espoused...
-- Mark Foster, Brighton, Suslove, UK PGP Fingerprint: 3342 C02C 7BE8 3FE4 AAC5 8BB2 03B7 9263 DDF2 04C1 -------------------------------------------------- "There are no such useless words as, 'I didn't have a chance.'" Driving, HMSO