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

[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.

By what demonstration am I wrong?

By the irrefutable fact that, rather than to kill, guns are designed to fire a projectile.

 

[newpolitics]

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

By what demonstration am I wrong?

By the irrefutable fact that, rather than to kill, guns are designed to fire a projectile.

Granted. The question is... To what end?

 

[M14 Shooter]

By what demonstration am I wrong?

By the irrefutable fact that, rather than to kill, guns are designed to fire a projectile.

Granted.

So...
You agree that guns -are- designed to fire a projectile.

The question is... To what end?

Firearms are inanimite objects, so the end is decided by the user, not the design.
As such, the question is irrelevant to the statement, which remains the irrefutable fact that soundly demonstrates your wrongness.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Rightists just don't get it

That freedom is just too important to let the people have it.

Yeah, we get it.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Granted. The question is... To what end?

To equalize.

To provide the smaller, weaker people the same ability to exert lethal force as the stronger and better trained.

Gun control seeks to make weaker people, especially women, victims who have no ability to defend themselves. Yes, the real goal is to get them to turn to government as their savior, but many will die and suffer rape once their ability to defend themselves is stripped.

Guns exist to offer every person a fighting chance to defend themselves.

Gun control exists to make women into victims.

That's the truth of the situation in a nutshell.

 

[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.

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.

That explains why no one is killing people in Chicago or Oakland...

 

[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?

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.

Strange, I don't recall saying they will not kill. Are you really so stupid you think that things cannot be used to kill unless they are actually designed for that purpose?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

They did not put it in a cave, they dug a hole and use a nuclear bomb with the specific intent of making a cave. That particular bomb, despite your attempt to deflect, was not designed to kill, it was specifically engineered to get a big hole in the ground that they could use for other things. In other words, not all nuclear weapons are designed to kill.

What I am suggesting, since I actually have to spell it out, is that you are a complete ignoramus on the entire subject of explosives and their purpose. Hell, you actually think guns are designed to kill, even though it is possible to use one as designed to save lives without killing anyone. Here is the best example known to modern man, aka hitting a bullet with a bullet.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Yes, cause no one under the age of 16 has ever accidentally killed someone by releasing the brake on a car.

Or, perhaps, you just have no real argument against guns and are forced to resort to an appeal to emotions in the hope of over riding everyone's ability to think.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

He shot a door, reloaded, went into the office, shot some people, reloaded, went into a classroom, shot the teacher and all the kids, reloading a couple of times, went into another classroom, shot another teacher and some more kids, again reloading a couple of times, and then shot himself. If he had been restricted to 10 round mazines there would have been exactly 0 fewer casualties.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

Why?

Why did Quantum Windbag not answer this post?

Because you are not 4 years old, and I am not your father. You asked me what if I thought it was a common sense regulation to require lights on an Indy car before you could drive it on the streets.

Like I said, common sense has nothing to do with it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

By what demonstration am I wrong?

By the irrefutable fact that, rather than to kill, guns are designed to fire a projectile.

Granted. The question is... To what end?

Most of the time, to hit a target.

Unless I am pulling the trigger, then they usually hit anything but the target.

 

[Synthaholic]

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.

He shot a door, reloaded, went into the office, shot some people, reloaded, went into a classroom, shot the teacher and all the kids, reloading a couple of times, went into another classroom, shot another teacher and some more kids, again reloading a couple of times, and then shot himself. If he had been restricted to 10 round mazines there would have been exactly 0 fewer casualties.

Thank you for the eyewitness account.

No wonder why you bail on threads.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

He shot a door, reloaded, went into the office, shot some people, reloaded, went into a classroom, shot the teacher and all the kids, reloading a couple of times, went into another classroom, shot another teacher and some more kids, again reloading a couple of times, and then shot himself. If he had been restricted to 10 round mazines there would have been exactly 0 fewer casualties.

Thank you for the eyewitness account.

No wonder why you bail on threads.

That is what must have happened given the number of rounds expended versus the number of magazines he used. If you want to prove me wrong it should be pretty easy, all you have to do is go through all the information and supply an alternate theory as to why he changed magazines so many times.

I will await your brilliant answer.

 

[Synthaholic]

Why?

Why did Quantum Windbag not answer this post?

Because you are not 4 years old, and I am not your father. You asked me what if I thought it was a common sense regulation to require lights on an Indy car before you could drive it on the streets.

Like I said, common sense has nothing to do with it.

No I didn't.

I asked if it was common sense to regulate Indy/NASCAR cars in regard to driving them on streets.

I never mentioned lights. That's your concoction.

And this was just an example, and you still can't bring yourself to be reasonable about it.

I could have used small private planes. They are regulated as to flying in populated areas.

Good idea? I think so.
Common sense regulation? America says yes by an overwhelming majority.

See, America wants to know that that private pilot isn't going to crash into that daycare their son goes to. So America says "fuck your Utopian dreams of no laws and regulations, my kid's safety comes first".

Those are the Americans who make America great. The ones who do the right thing.

 

[Synthaholic]

He shot a door, reloaded, went into the office, shot some people, reloaded, went into a classroom, shot the teacher and all the kids, reloading a couple of times, went into another classroom, shot another teacher and some more kids, again reloading a couple of times, and then shot himself. If he had been restricted to 10 round mazines there would have been exactly 0 fewer casualties.

Thank you for the eyewitness account.

No wonder why you bail on threads.

That is what must have happened given the number of rounds expended versus the number of magazines he used. If you want to prove me wrong it should be pretty easy, all you have to do is go through all the information and supply an alternate theory as to why he changed magazines so many times.

I will await your brilliant answer.

You already had it but apparently didn't read it.

I said what if he was trying to shoot a teacher and he was out of bullets. Could that teacher have done anything while he was attempting to reload? Could she have fought him? Could she have delayed him enough for other children to escape?

 

[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.

Yes, cause no one under the age of 16 has ever accidentally killed someone by releasing the brake on a car.

Or, perhaps, you just have no real argument against guns and are forced to resort to an appeal to emotions in the hope of over riding everyone's ability to think.

I'm not trying to make an argument against guns. Just establish a fact about them. You are taking it as some kind of offense, when it is not meant to be.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Why did Quantum Windbag not answer this post?

Because you are not 4 years old, and I am not your father. You asked me what if I thought it was a common sense regulation to require lights on an Indy car before you could drive it on the streets.

Like I said, common sense has nothing to do with it.

No I didn't.

I asked if it was common sense to regulate Indy/NASCAR cars in regard to driving them on streets.

I never mentioned lights. That's your concoction.

And this was just an example, and you still can't bring yourself to be reasonable about it.

I could have used small private planes. They are regulated as to flying in populated areas.

Good idea? I think so.
Common sense regulation? America says yes by an overwhelming majority.

See, America wants to know that that private pilot isn't going to crash into that daycare their son goes to. So America says "fuck your Utopian dreams of no laws and regulations, my kid's safety comes first".

Those are the Americans who make America great. The ones who do the right thing.

You started this by arguing that it was illegal to drive them on the streets because they do not have lights. My guess is you foolishly thought there was a max HP or speed that cars cannot exceed. I finally managed to prove to your deficient brain how wrong you are, now you want to change the subject and pretend that common sense is the driving force of government. The driving force of government is power, not common sense.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Thank you for the eyewitness account.

No wonder why you bail on threads.

That is what must have happened given the number of rounds expended versus the number of magazines he used. If you want to prove me wrong it should be pretty easy, all you have to do is go through all the information and supply an alternate theory as to why he changed magazines so many times.

I will await your brilliant answer.

You already had it but apparently didn't read it.

I said what if he was trying to shoot a teacher and he was out of bullets. Could that teacher have done anything while he was attempting to reload? Could she have fought him? Could she have delayed him enough for other children to escape?

What if the school had a moat and a drawbridge?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Yes, cause no one under the age of 16 has ever accidentally killed someone by releasing the brake on a car.

Or, perhaps, you just have no real argument against guns and are forced to resort to an appeal to emotions in the hope of over riding everyone's ability to think.

I'm not trying to make an argument against guns. Just establish a fact about them. You are taking it as some kind of offense, when it is not meant to be.

If you want to actually establish a fact you should be able to find actual evidence, other than you repeatedly saying it, that guns are actually designed to kill. Feel free to provide such evidence, or you can admit you are talking out of your ass.