Toddler Shoots and Kills Mother

[Gauthier]

Correlation =/= Causation

So guns don't cause death? Again, what else are they designed for?

Opening beer cans and changing channels obviously.

[Glamour]

Whether you shoot it at a person or are kind enough to only shoot animals or targets, it's still a weapon. And only a weapon.

If you're using the dictionary definition of "weapon", sure, because "weapon" is an impossibly broad term that has to cover everything from the icepick to the atom bomb.

Which makes it impossible to use for meaningful debate.

But the icepick also has a functional use other than killing people. The atomic bomb doesn't, but just like guns, they are revolting.

[Nirvash Type TheEND]

Correlation =/= Causation

So guns don't cause death? Again, what else are they designed for?

To propel a piece of lead from point A to point B. I have already plainly stated this.

[Nirvash Type TheEND]

So guns don't cause death? Again, what else are they designed for?

Opening beer cans obviously.

You know, you say that in irony but...

[Glamour]

So guns don't cause death? Again, what else are they designed for?

To propel a piece of lead from point A to point B. I have already plainly stated this.

Point B being anything the shooter wants it to be, including a skull. The negatives far outweigh the positives, whatever they are. It seems you don't even know.

[Nirvash Type TheEND]

To propel a piece of lead from point A to point B. I have already plainly stated this.

Point B being anything the shooter wants it to be, including a skull.

Ergo, it's not the gun's fault.

I think we're done here.

[Glamour]

Point B being anything the shooter wants it to be, including a skull.

Ergo, it's not the gun's fault.

I think we're done here.

OK. So in this case the shooter, ie the toddler, is at fault, to use your own word.

Yes, we are done.

[Kovarus]

Just ran into the "Gunman kills three" issue and went with door 1: restrict firearms to law enforcement and the military. I'm not doubting an average person's ability to use a gun properly and use it as people want it to be used, but guns only have one purpose: to kill. And in a world where firearns are more accessible and effective then what the second amendment thought was considered a "firearm", you can't help but get a little worried.

I don't know, my parents own guns, and they don't intend to use them to kill. In fact, they never carry them. They use them at the range, for target shooting. It's called fun.

Hmmm.... yeah, no. I'm sure guns weren't invented for sport back in the renaissance, they were invented to kill a person easier than having to be face to face with them and impale them with a longsword. You cannot argue that. Guns are made to kill and that's the only point of them existing. When you say that they have another use, for instance sport, then yeah ,great, but that's not what they were MADE FOR. It's not a hard thing to even get, just know history.

[Imperializt Russia]

If you're using the dictionary definition of "weapon", sure, because "weapon" is an impossibly broad term that has to cover everything from the icepick to the atom bomb.

Which makes it impossible to use for meaningful debate.

But the icepick also has a functional use other than killing people. The atomic bomb doesn't, but just like guns, they are revolting.

How ignorant.

The nuclear device has dozens of potential peaceful uses. As does the firearm.

[Gauthier]

But the icepick also has a functional use other than killing people. The atomic bomb doesn't, but just like guns, they are revolting.

How ignorant.

The nuclear device has dozens of potential peaceful uses. As does the firearm.

When was the last time a hydrogen bomb used to supply neighborhood power?

[Nirvash Type TheEND]

Ergo, it's not the gun's fault.

I think we're done here.

OK. So in this case the shooter, ie the toddler, is at fault, to use your own word.

Yes, we are done.

I'll say it slowly since you appear to have trouble with me writing like I'm talking to an adult.

There.
Is.
No.
Fault.
To.
Be.
Had.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Point B being anything the shooter wants it to be, including a skull.

Ergo, it's not the gun's fault.

I think we're done here.

That's truly special reasoning.

No, it's not the gun's fault. It's the fault of the person who was able to gain access to a gun. Take away the access, and that person doesn't have as effective a means to kill, though he or she can obviously find less-effective means in his or her environment.

[Glamour]

But the icepick also has a functional use other than killing people. The atomic bomb doesn't, but just like guns, they are revolting.

How ignorant.

The nuclear device has dozens of potential peaceful uses. As does the firearm.

I'm talking specifically, as you were, about the atom BOMB.

Firearms are not peaceful items. Please.

[Imperializt Russia]

How ignorant.

The nuclear device has dozens of potential peaceful uses. As does the firearm.

When was the last time a hydrogen bomb used to supply neighborhood power?

Ongoing programme since 1987.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/nucle ... lear-fuel/

[Glamour]

OK. So in this case the shooter, ie the toddler, is at fault, to use your own word.

Yes, we are done.

I'll say it slowly since you appear to have trouble with me writing like I'm talking to an adult.

There.
Is.
No.
Fault.
To.
Be.
Had.

Again, more shit happens when guns are involved. In this situation, no gun, no accident. And the same goes for many other situations. It's very simple.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

When was the last time a hydrogen bomb used to supply neighborhood power?

Ongoing programme since 1987.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/nucle ... lear-fuel/

Neat.

Can we convert handguns into something equally as useful?

[Gauthier]

When was the last time a hydrogen bomb used to supply neighborhood power?

Ongoing programme since 1987.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/nucle ... lear-fuel/

Weapons-grade uranium made available for commercial use in USA and Russia.

That there is an award winner, folks.

[Imperializt Russia]

How ignorant.

The nuclear device has dozens of potential peaceful uses. As does the firearm.

I'm talking specifically, as you were, about the atom BOMB.

Firearms are not peaceful items. Please.

All a nuclear weapon is, is a nuclear device deployed against a specific target for the purpose of damaging or destroying it.

The nuclear device at the heart of this system has peaceful uses, which the Americans and Soviets spent much of the Cold War researching. Amongst their uses, the extinguishing of massive underground gas well fires, oil fracking, excavation, transuranic element production, canal, harbour and mountainside pit excavation, space propulsion were all explored. The last one was, of course, paper exercise only due to the various test ban treaties.

[Galloism]

How ignorant.

The nuclear device has dozens of potential peaceful uses. As does the firearm.

When was the last time a hydrogen bomb used to supply neighborhood power?

Russians have used them at least five times to seal gas well fires.

[Glamour]

I'm talking specifically, as you were, about the atom BOMB.

Firearms are not peaceful items. Please.

All a nuclear weapon is, is a nuclear device deployed against a specific target for the purpose of damaging or destroying it.

The nuclear device at the heart of this system has peaceful uses, which the Americans and Soviets spent much of the Cold War researching. Amongst their uses, the extinguishing of massive underground gas well fires, oil fracking, excavation, transuranic element production, canal, harbour and mountainside pit excavation, space propulsion were all explored. The last one was, of course, paper exercise only due to the various test ban treaties.

Still, the phrase nuclear bomb entails the destructive use.

[Kovarus]

Ergo, it's not the gun's fault.

I think we're done here.

OK. So in this case the shooter, ie the toddler, is at fault, to use your own word.

Yes, we are done.

Not quite. Normally, this would be murder in the 2nd degree or voluntary manslaughter. Now, since this was only a toddler and not an adult it is the fault of whoever is taking care of the child. Since the child is the mother's, it is the mother's fault that she was killed. This was a direct result of disregard for safety and a lack thereof.

Please, this straw man argument you have just conceded to is not working.

[Galloism]

I'll say it slowly since you appear to have trouble with me writing like I'm talking to an adult.

There.
Is.
No.
Fault.
To.
Be.
Had.

Again, more shit happens when guns are involved. In this situation, no gun, no accident. And the same goes for many other situations. It's very simple.

Anytime a person comments on a large debatable sociopolitical issue and says "it's that simple", one should be immensely skeptical.

[Nirvash Type TheEND]

Ergo, it's not the gun's fault.

I think we're done here.

That's truly special reasoning.

No, it's not the gun's fault. It's the fault of the person who was able to gain access to a gun. Take away the access, and that person doesn't have as effective a means to kill, though he or she can obviously find less-effective means in his or her environment.

Yeah welp you've shown in several other threads that you believe people should just submit to victimization instead of carrying a weapon so~

[Imperializt Russia]

All a nuclear weapon is, is a nuclear device deployed against a specific target for the purpose of damaging or destroying it.

The nuclear device at the heart of this system has peaceful uses, which the Americans and Soviets spent much of the Cold War researching. Amongst their uses, the extinguishing of massive underground gas well fires, oil fracking, excavation, transuranic element production, canal, harbour and mountainside pit excavation, space propulsion were all explored. The last one was, of course, paper exercise only due to the various test ban treaties.

Still, the phrase nuclear bomb entails the destructive use.

I chose the language entirely to drive that point down.

It's a device. Devices can be used destructively and offensively, or constructively and peacefully.
Have you never heard of the phrase "to beat your sword into a ploughshare"?

Isiah 2:4, one of the few interesting passages of the bible.

[Glamour]

Again, more shit happens when guns are involved. In this situation, no gun, no accident. And the same goes for many other situations. It's very simple.

Anytime a person comments on a large debatable sociopolitical issue and says "it's that simple", one should be immensely skeptical.

This part of the conversation was particularly about the design of guns as deadly weapons with no other real function. When they are shot at inanimate objects you could argue they're not deadly. But neither are they when someone with bad aim misses a person they're shooting at. Their design is not altered by where one chooses to aim them.