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

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Strange, Russia designed atomic bombs for the specific purpose of making caverns. I guess that means that, despite your ignorance, atomic bombs are used for things other than killing people.

N-Weapons used for industrial purposes in Soviet Union | Wise International

By the way, if guns are so good at killing people that they are better than anything else we could possible invent, how do you explain atomic bombs?

 

[gslack]

Guns designed to kill, or intimidate? What's the difference if the result of their use is the same? Seems you guys are upset that the trees are keeping you from seeing the forest...

Either way, no matter what the idea in their conception or "look", they are not killers on their own. People kill, people kill with guns, with knives, with bare hands, you name it people have killed or tried to that way. The one in the OP article was an accident. A really stupid and ignorant accident that never should have happened, especially with a trained deputy sheriff behind the stupidity...

Punishing the gun does two things. First it semi-exonerates the moron with the badge and gun who should have freaking known dam well and better, and takes full responsibility off of him and places most of it on the gun. Second it tells people like him, and people who support this "not my fault" mentality so prevalent today, that they can be as dumb as they want and it won't be their fault..

Nice... Where is this going to end? How many laws, how much legislation is it gonna take before no one is responsible for anything they do? What's next, we going to start basing court decisions on how we fell about it?

Banning guns won't cure that idiot..

 

[ABikerSailor]

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?

Because the people that they are issued to (and taught not to kill others) is basically a defense against those with the guns that want to kill others.

 

[beagle9]

Yay guns!!!!!!

Such is life in the world of accidents, where as when we were young many things happened also, but we were just lucky enough that we made it to adulthood without falling victim to some of the things we saw, experienced, created or did ourselves while growing up. If you think that this world can be perfect, and that you could control everything in order to make it so, then sadly you are as ignorant a person as can be, and I think everyone can see through all this non-sense that is espoused on here, especially in regards to peoples lives and their mishaps and downfalls they may have over the years or even within in an instant where their lives are changed forever. Yes some are tragic, but the main thing is, is that we must understand what happened in each situation, and then we must apply within our own lives the correct remedies to these things, and not have the government apply them for us. Why is it that people feel that the government is our only hope to survive as a civilized people in America anymore ?

We are not so dumb that we need the government tying our shoes for us, and that is a fact.

 

[zeke]

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.

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?

Hey windbag, I have read some really dumb things you have written, but really.

Take one of those weapons you think won't kill, load it, put it to your head, pull the trigger and see if it works or not. If we don't hear back, we will figure it did. Oh happy days.

 

[Esmeralda]

Has it crossed anyone's mind that the 4 year old is the scapegoat and the guy shot his own wife knowing it would be hard to get the whole story out of said 4 year old? Maybe the kid was in there, but he didn't pull the trigger. Perhaps we all need to know more about this before assuming the kid did it because if this guy is law enforcement and showing off his collection, why was it loaded??? Were there others in the room who saw the kid pick it up and then it went off and they SAW it themselves in the kids hands? Or is it just this guys story?

If he was showing his collection to someone, then there would be other people in the room.

 

[Esmeralda]

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

Did someone actually say that? (Oh, btw, that's a rhetorical question.)

 

[newpolitics]

Then it makes a pretty weak argument agianst guns.


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.

Strange, Russia designed atomic bombs for the specific purpose of making caverns. I guess that means that, despite your ignorance, atomic bombs are used for things other than killing people.

N-Weapons used for industrial purposes in Soviet Union | Wise International

By the way, if guns are so good at killing people that they are better than anything else we could possible invent, how do you explain atomic bombs?

Are you really this obstinate? Russia took an atomic, and put it in a cave. Whoa!!!!


How do you target and kill only one person with an atomic bomb? There's your answer... (You'd better hope he/she likes to hang out alone and in the desert)

Are you suggesting that cops carry around atomic bombs instead of guns?

 

[newpolitics]

Were guns not able to provide for a contingency where death is a probable outcome, they would likely not exist.

It is only because guns are designed to kill, that a four year old was so easily able to pick one and actually kill someone, quickly, and completely by accident, without any knowledge of how to work a gun, other than having used toys or seen them used on TV. A four year old could do not the same with anything that wasn't designed to kill. A car, for instance. He wouldn't be able to reach the pedals. In the case of a pool, there is splashing, screaming, and death is not instantaneous if a child was to wander near one unsupervised, increasing the likelihood that someone may hear the splashing and come help and possibly save the child's life. More importantly, in the case of a pool drowning, it is always an a accidental suicide. In the case of accidental gunfire, this is not at all true, as evidenced by the OP.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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

That's the only thing any of my guns have ever done. And they are good at it!

 

[M14 Shooter]

Were guns not able to provide for a contingency where death is a probable outcome, they would likely not exist.
It is only because guns are designed to kill

It doesnt matter how many times you say this - you are still demonstrably wrong.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Remember Tennessee is part of Jesusland, not known for their high IQ's

Ooh look, another mindless bigot.

And arguing to revoke civil rights no less.

Knock me over with a feather....

 

[Uncensored2008]

What moron left a loaded gun within reach of a 4 year old at a barbecue?

A cop.

You know, the ones that the anti-liberty left claims should be the ONLY people allowed with guns.....

What moron left a loaded gun laying around period? What moron left a gun loaded while having a barbecue?

A cop.

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...

And did I mention that the moron was a cop?

 

[Synthaholic]

I would say that common sense has nothing to do with it.

Why?

because it makes no sense

What makes no sense, dope?

I bet you don't even know what we are talking about.

 

[Synthaholic]

Lanza actually reloaded a lot more than he had to.

He shot 152 bullets.

But thanks for completely missing the point.

So then, since it is obvious that none of the regulations being discussed would have prevented this accident, lets look at Lanz. Sure, he shot allot of bullets, but considering it took the cops 5 minutes to get there, how would any aspects of the bans and background check stopped Lanza from killing those kids ?

Again: Loughner was only stopped in Arizona when he had to reload. Someone grabbed the magazine.

Lanza shot 152 bullets in 5 minutes, and killed himself when the police arrived. If he had to reload 14 times, a) someone may have been able to intervene (what if he tried to shoot a teacher, but was out of bullets and had to reload), and b) the additional time could have made him kill himself when the police arrived after only killing 15 children instead of 20.

 

[Synthaholic]

A common sense regulation, wouldn't you agree?

I would say that common sense has nothing to do with it.

Why?

Why did Quantum Windbag not answer this post?

 

[Dot Com]

Rightists just don't get it

 

[Dot Com]

I would say that common sense has nothing to do with it.

Why?

Why did Quantum Windbag not answer this post?

because he's Quantum Windbag

 

[M14 Shooter]

He shot 152 bullets.

But thanks for completely missing the point.

So then, since it is obvious that none of the regulations being discussed would have prevented this accident, lets look at Lanz. Sure, he shot allot of bullets, but considering it took the cops 5 minutes to get there, how would any aspects of the bans and background check stopped Lanza from killing those kids ?

Again: Loughner was only stopped in Arizona when he had to reload. Someone grabbed the magazine.

Lanza shot 152 bullets in 5 minutes, and killed himself when the police arrived. If he had to reload 14 times, a) someone may have been able to intervene (what if he tried to shoot a teacher, but was out of bullets and had to reload), and b) the additional time could have made him kill himself when the police arrived after only killing 15 children instead of 20.

Tell me...

Are -you- going to rush the crazy with the assault weapon in the 2 seconds it takes him to reload?
Are -you- going to make sure that you are in the position necessary to do so?
Nope - as with most people, you're goig to cower in the corner hoping that he doesn't see you.

Your "could have done x" argument is unsound.

 

[newpolitics]

Were guns not able to provide for a contingency where death is a probable outcome, they would likely not exist.
It is only because guns are designed to kill

It doesnt matter how many times you say this - you are still demonstrably wrong.

By what demonstration am I wrong? Guns are designed for contingencies where death is likely. How are you going to refute this?