4-year-old grabs loaded gun at family BBQ and accidentally kills wife of Tenn. Deputy

[Quantum Windbag]

Cars aren't designed to kill. Slight difference to guns.

If guns are designed to kill they do a really bad job of it. I know people that have had guns for years, and those guns have failed kill anyone or anything during any of that time. In other words, they have failed utterly to do what they are designed to do. Can they get a refund, or are you just stupid?

So guns aren't designed to kill? Interesting. What else are they good for? Putting holes in defenseless paper targets?

I asked you to explain why, if guns are designed to kill, there are so many laying around that have not killed. There are police officers that carry a gun for decades and never kill anyone, despite the fact that the only reason guns exist is to kill.

You respond by using a straw man argument.

Interesting.

 

[Yurt]

Cars aren't designed to kill. Slight difference to guns.

so the deaths are different and not as important?

seriously?

Seriously? Did I say that?

do you know what a question mark is? kindly answer my question.

thank you.

 

[newpolitics]

If guns are designed to kill they do a really bad job of it. I know people that have had guns for years, and those guns have failed kill anyone or anything during any of that time. In other words, they have failed utterly to do what they are designed to do. Can they get a refund, or are you just stupid?

So guns aren't designed to kill? Interesting. What else are they good for? Putting holes in defenseless paper targets?

I asked you to explain why, if guns are designed to kill, there are so many laying around that have not killed. There are police officers that carry a gun for decades and never kill anyone, despite the fact that the only reason guns exist is to kill.

You respond by using a straw man argument.

Interesting.

That's because your argument is terrible and not worth responding to. Just because something is designed to do something, doesn't mean it ought to be used for that purpose, ever. Guns are designed to kill, yet that doesn't mean everyone who owns a gun ought to kill. This is what you are implying, and because you don't see this, you are actually making the argument that guns then arent designed to kill. This is just stupid. So I asked the question, "if guns are not designed to kill, what are they designed for?" Given that you could not respond, you concede that there is no other purpose. Guns are designed to kill, but because people generally don't have a need to kill people or a desire to they largely and thankfully remain unused. This doesn't mean they fail in their purpose, simply that their purpose is not often needed.

 

[newpolitics]

so the deaths are different and not as important?

seriously?

Seriously? Did I say that?

do you know what a question mark is? kindly answer my question.

thank you.

It was a rhetorical question, meaning it conveyed a point sufficient to deal with your question. The answer, in plain English , is no, but I'm now left wondering how you made the gigantic leap to the conclusion that it was my belief that any deaths is less important than another, simply by virtue of its cause? Care to explain?

 

[Yurt]

So guns aren't designed to kill? Interesting. What else are they good for? Putting holes in defenseless paper targets?

I asked you to explain why, if guns are designed to kill, there are so many laying around that have not killed. There are police officers that carry a gun for decades and never kill anyone, despite the fact that the only reason guns exist is to kill.

You respond by using a straw man argument.

Interesting.

That's because your argument is terrible and not worth responding to. Just because something is designed to do something, doesn't mean it ought to be used for that purpose, ever. Guns are designed to kill, yet that doesn't mean everyone who owns a gun ought to kill. This is what you are implying, and because you don't see this, you are actually making the argument that guns then arent designed to kill. This is just stupid. So I asked the question, "if guns are not designed to kill, what are they designed for?" Given that you could not respond, you concede that there is no other purpose. Guns are designed to kill, but because people generally don't have a need to kill people or a desire to they largely and thankfully remain unused. This doesn't mean they fail in their purpose, simply that their purpose is not often needed.

guns are designed to frighten people.

should we outlaw anything that frightens people?

NOTE: see the question mark this time

 

[Yurt]

Seriously? Did I say that?

do you know what a question mark is? kindly answer my question.

thank you.

It was a rhetorical question, meaning it conveyed a point sufficient to deal with your question. The answer, in plain English , is no, but I'm now left wondering how you made the gigantic leap to the conclusion that it was my belief that any deaths is less important than another, simply by virtue of its cause? Care to explain?

absolutely.

you contrast gun deaths to MVA deaths. when you make a contrast, that means you are making a difference in value. my question was not rhetorical, it was an honest question and i thank you for answering it.

can you explain why you contrast MVA deaths with gun related deaths?

 

[newpolitics]

I asked you to explain why, if guns are designed to kill, there are so many laying around that have not killed. There are police officers that carry a gun for decades and never kill anyone, despite the fact that the only reason guns exist is to kill.

You respond by using a straw man argument.

Interesting.

That's because your argument is terrible and not worth responding to. Just because something is designed to do something, doesn't mean it ought to be used for that purpose, ever. Guns are designed to kill, yet that doesn't mean everyone who owns a gun ought to kill. This is what you are implying, and because you don't see this, you are actually making the argument that guns then arent designed to kill. This is just stupid. So I asked the question, "if guns are not designed to kill, what are they designed for?" Given that you could not respond, you concede that there is no other purpose. Guns are designed to kill, but because people generally don't have a need to kill people or a desire to they largely and thankfully remain unused. This doesn't mean they fail in their purpose, simply that their purpose is not often needed.

guns are designed to frighten people.

should we outlaw anything that frightens people?

NOTE: see the question mark this time

Haunted houses are designed to frighten. Guns... To kill, but are USED to frighten by virtue of their capacity allowed by their design, to kill. I'm not sure why you are in such denial of this simple fact. I'm am not going to move forward and answer your question until you change your faulty premise. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a gun designer who said that his design was based purely around generating fear.

 

[Yurt]

That's because your argument is terrible and not worth responding to. Just because something is designed to do something, doesn't mean it ought to be used for that purpose, ever. Guns are designed to kill, yet that doesn't mean everyone who owns a gun ought to kill. This is what you are implying, and because you don't see this, you are actually making the argument that guns then arent designed to kill. This is just stupid. So I asked the question, "if guns are not designed to kill, what are they designed for?" Given that you could not respond, you concede that there is no other purpose. Guns are designed to kill, but because people generally don't have a need to kill people or a desire to they largely and thankfully remain unused. This doesn't mean they fail in their purpose, simply that their purpose is not often needed.

guns are designed to frighten people.

should we outlaw anything that frightens people?

NOTE: see the question mark this time

Haunted houses are designed to frighten. Guns... To kill, but are USED to frighten by virtue of their capacity allowed by their design, to kill. I'm not sure why you are in such denial of this simple fact. I'm am not going to move forward and answer your question until you change your faulty premise. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a gun designer who said that his design was based purely around generating fear.

does every gun shot kill the target?

simple yes or no will suffice.

 

[M14 Shooter]

because something is designed to do something, doesn't mean it ought to be used for that purpose, ever.

So... what's the big deal about guns being designed to kill?

So I asked the question, "if guns are not designed to kill, what are they designed for?"

To send a projectile at a target.

 

[Zona]

WTF is a 4 year old doing in a place where they have such easy access to LOADED WEAPONS?

Only in Merica.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So guns aren't designed to kill? Interesting. What else are they good for? Putting holes in defenseless paper targets?

I asked you to explain why, if guns are designed to kill, there are so many laying around that have not killed. There are police officers that carry a gun for decades and never kill anyone, despite the fact that the only reason guns exist is to kill.

You respond by using a straw man argument.

Interesting.

That's because your argument is terrible and not worth responding to. Just because something is designed to do something, doesn't mean it ought to be used for that purpose, ever. Guns are designed to kill, yet that doesn't mean everyone who owns a gun ought to kill. This is what you are implying, and because you don't see this, you are actually making the argument that guns then arent designed to kill. This is just stupid. So I asked the question, "if guns are not designed to kill, what are they designed for?" Given that you could not respond, you concede that there is no other purpose. Guns are designed to kill, but because people generally don't have a need to kill people or a desire to they largely and thankfully remain unused. This doesn't mean they fail in their purpose, simply that their purpose is not often needed.

If you would like me to treat you like a person that is serious, you must first understand that a conversation is a give and take. I asked you a question, you have refused to answer it, and then you accuse me of being unable to answer your diversionary attack.

I actually hope you prefer to be mocked, it is a lot more fun.

If guns are designed to kill why are they routinely issued to cops, security guards, and various other people who are trained not to kill people?

 

[Zona]

Condolences to the widow, & to the family of the child.

Could we take a moment to see this poor woman buried before we return to the usual brickbats?

Condolences to the widow, & to the family of the child.

Could we take a moment to see this poor woman buried before we return to the usual brickbats?

Shit.................even before the bodies of the kids killed in Sandy Hook were cold, there was a whole bunch of right wing moonbats talking about how it was actually a hoax, because grieving parents couldn't look like that on television.

Matter of fact, one of those threads is here on USMB..............."Sandy Hook a hoax?"

Hoosier is a newb.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That's because your argument is terrible and not worth responding to. Just because something is designed to do something, doesn't mean it ought to be used for that purpose, ever. Guns are designed to kill, yet that doesn't mean everyone who owns a gun ought to kill. This is what you are implying, and because you don't see this, you are actually making the argument that guns then arent designed to kill. This is just stupid. So I asked the question, "if guns are not designed to kill, what are they designed for?" Given that you could not respond, you concede that there is no other purpose. Guns are designed to kill, but because people generally don't have a need to kill people or a desire to they largely and thankfully remain unused. This doesn't mean they fail in their purpose, simply that their purpose is not often needed.

guns are designed to frighten people.

should we outlaw anything that frightens people?

NOTE: see the question mark this time

Haunted houses are designed to frighten. Guns... To kill, but are USED to frighten by virtue of their capacity allowed by their design, to kill. I'm not sure why you are in such denial of this simple fact. I'm am not going to move forward and answer your question until you change your faulty premise. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a gun designer who said that his design was based purely around generating fear.

I might be wrong, but I am pretty sure haunted houses are designed to be fun.

 

[Zona]

Accidents happen ALL the time. How many killed in car accidents a year again? By drowning? Or falling? Less then 1000 a year are killed by accidental gun discharges. Usually much less.

If you are appalled by less then a 1000 killed you must be furious with cars they kill around 40000 a year.

Drowning mortality in the United States, ... [J Community Health. 2011] - PubMed - NCBI

Drowning is the 5th leading cause of accidental deaths in the Country. I don't see any threads on here demanding pools be shut down or lakes blocked off.

FASTSTATS - Accidents or Unintentional Injuries

26000 falling deaths a year.

33000 accidental poisonings.

I guess we need more laws on how where and who can have poisonous chemicals?

Less than a 1000 due to accidental firearms discharges.

Interesting analogy. But here is the thing, cars and swimming pools are not designed to kill. Guns are.

(And I am a gun owner, but a responsible one.) If I had children in my home, I would not have a gun. I am serious here.

 

[gslack]

4-year-old grabs loaded gun at family BBQ and accidentally kills wife of Tennessee sheriff’s deputy



NASHVILLE — Authorities say a 4-year-old boy grabbed a loaded gun at a family cookout and accidentally shot and killed the wife of a Tennessee sheriff’s deputy.


Investigators say Wilson County Deputy Daniel Fanning on Saturday was showing his weapons to a relative in a bedroom of his Lebanon home when the toddler came in and picked up a gun off the bed. Sheriff Robert Bryan says the weapon discharged, hitting 48-year-old Josephine Fanning.


She was pronounced dead at the scene. The child is not related to her or her husband.


Bryan says the shooting was a terrible accident and that within seconds of Fanning placing the gun on the bed, the toddler picked it up.


The gun was not Fanning’s service weapon and the sheriff says the deputy’s weapons are normally stored in a safe.

What moron left a loaded gun within reach of a 4 year old at a barbecue? What moron left a loaded gun laying around period? What moron left a gun loaded while having a barbecue?

Notice the key word in all that? MORON... The guns was a tool not a killer. The moron was the killer. Why not ban all morons like that? Oh yeah, forgot.. That would ruin the liberal left's voter base...

 

[newpolitics]

because something is designed to do something, doesn't mean it ought to be used for that purpose, ever.

So... what's the big deal about guns being designed to kill?

So I asked the question, "if guns are not designed to kill, what are they designed for?"

To send a projectile at a target.

It's not a big deal. It's a simple fact, but obviously one others aren't able to acknowledge, which I find completely absurd.

...

That's like saying atomic bombs are simply designed to go boom, with no intentionality beyond that. We all know they were designed to kill. Same with guns.

 

[newpolitics]

guns are designed to frighten people.

should we outlaw anything that frightens people?

NOTE: see the question mark this time

Haunted houses are designed to frighten. Guns... To kill, but are USED to frighten by virtue of their capacity allowed by their design, to kill. I'm not sure why you are in such denial of this simple fact. I'm am not going to move forward and answer your question until you change your faulty premise. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a gun designer who said that his design was based purely around generating fear.

I might be wrong, but I am pretty sure haunted houses are designed to be fun.

This is devolving into philosophical obscurity rather quickly over the most inane points imaginable. Again, ill ask a similar question to get this over with, and then I think I'm done I you can't answer honestly, because you seem unable or unwilling to have the simplest discussion: are you saying haunted houses aren't designed explicitly to produce a fear reaction? If they are not, then I suppose it is merely luck that every time someone goes in one they get scared. I also suppose that scary movies aren't designed to scare either?

 

[M14 Shooter]

because something is designed to do something, doesn't mean it ought to be used for that purpose, ever.

So... what's the big deal about guns being designed to kill?

So I asked the question, "if guns are not designed to kill, what are they designed for?"

To send a projectile at a target.

It's not a big deal.

Then it makes a pretty weak argument agianst guns.

That's like saying atomic bombs are simply designed to go boom with no intentionality beyond that.

Except that it isn't. There are a gazillion ways to use a gun in its intended purpose that doesn't involve killing. Not so much with nuclear weapons.
Fact is that guns are designed to fire a bullet, and you cannot soundly argue otherwise.

 

[newpolitics]

So... what's the big deal about guns being designed to kill?

To send a projectile at a target.

It's not a big deal.

Then it makes a pretty weak argument agianst guns.

That's like saying atomic bombs are simply designed to go boom with no intentionality beyond that.

Except that it isn't. There are a gazillion ways to use a gun in its intended purpose that doesn't involve killing. Not so much with nuclear weapons.
Fact is that guns are designed to fire a bullet, and you cannot soundly argue otherwise.

My argument from analogy using the atomic bomb is a sound argument. The salient point being, in response to your point, that the immediate design of a bomb is to go off, as is a gun to shoot a projectile. But what a bomb is designed go to off for, is to kill people, just as a gun is designed to shoot a projectile accurately to hit a target, presumably a Human one. Put another way, were humans not the intended targets, guns would be obsolete, and a better method of killing would have been found. Other applications may have been found for guns, but there really aren't many. Can you name me one that doesn't involve killing? Shooting soda cans on a lazy afternoon? Self-defense? Even in self-defense, the aim is to immobilize your target, again, presumably by death, as shooting not to kill is too risky, unless you are an expert shot, and are a real humanist.

What I am arguing for, is the practical application of a weapon. Philosophically, you could argue that a gun lends itself as a great paint brush, able to achieve textures and patterns not capable by orthodox methods, but this is ignoring the elephant in the room. We all know why guns were first invented- to be a better method of killing than was previously available, and although relying on this simple fact would be committing the genetic fallacy, I don't think anything has changed. Hardly any broader application exists. Could you tell me one that justifies the existence of an entire industry? If you try and say "to shoot cans," them I am going to argue that his doesn't justify an entire industry of production.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Haunted houses are designed to frighten. Guns... To kill, but are USED to frighten by virtue of their capacity allowed by their design, to kill. I'm not sure why you are in such denial of this simple fact. I'm am not going to move forward and answer your question until you change your faulty premise. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a gun designer who said that his design was based purely around generating fear.

I might be wrong, but I am pretty sure haunted houses are designed to be fun.

This is devolving into philosophical obscurity rather quickly over the most inane points imaginable. Again, ill ask a similar question to get this over with, and then I think I'm done I you can't answer honestly, because you seem unable or unwilling to have the simplest discussion: are you saying haunted houses aren't designed explicitly to produce a fear reaction? If they are not, then I suppose it is merely luck that every time someone goes in one they get scared. I also suppose that scary movies aren't designed to scare either?

If they are, they have failed miserably, almost as bad as those guns you think were designed to kill.