Toddler Shoots and Kills Mother

[Divitaen]

It's worth pointing out there are tens of millions more firearms in the US than there are cars.

Yes, but cars are always being used. Many of these guns are actually locked up or not readily accessible, to be used for hunting or other recreation purposes. Whereas you got millions of cars actually driving around with the potential to hit people all the time. The only equivalent is if all the guns in the US had their safety on all the time, and people carried all their guns around the US pointing at each other.

[Esternial]

That would indeed be an argument, provided you ignore "primary function" in my post.

A knife actually is meant to kill animals and even humans...Knives evolved from swords...remember?

A knife you buy in the store in the kitchen section is primarily meant to cut vegetables, meat, potatoes, cardboard boxes, etc.

What they were used for in antiquity doesn't carry an ounce of weight in a discussion about their modern functions.

Though indeed, certain knives - the kind different from what you have next to your forks - are indeed primarily used to kill. So at most one could argue their primary function are mixed, which we certainly can't say for firearms. Each is pretty much a one-trick pony.

[Big Jim P]

It's worth pointing out there are tens of millions more firearms in the US than there are cars.

Yes, but cars are always being used. Many of these guns are actually locked up or not readily accessible, to be used for hunting or other recreation purposes. Whereas you got millions of cars actually driving around with the potential to hit people all the time. The only equivalent is if all the guns in the US had their safety on all the time, and people carried all their guns around the US pointing at each other.

A gun being carried for self defense (such as the one this woman was carrying) is a gun being used.

[Big Jim P]

A knife actually is meant to kill animals and even humans...Knives evolved from swords...remember?

A knife you buy in the store in the kitchen section is primarily meant to cut vegetables, meat, potatoes, cardboard boxes, etc.

What they were used for in antiquity doesn't carry an ounce of weight in a discussion about their modern functions.

Though indeed, certain knives - the kind different from what you have next to your forks - are indeed primarily used to kill. So at most one could argue their primary function are mixed, which we certainly can't say for firearms. Each is pretty much a one-trick pony.

As has been pointed out, guns have more than one function.

[Divitaen]

Um, I can think of three reasons actually:

1) Guns often have a rate of fire and range that other lethal items don't have. Compared to knives and cars, guns can do more damage. (And no, don't give me the stupid argument that more people die from cars than guns. Obviously it's not comparable since there are more cars in the US and more cars are on the road in public moving about that there are guns readily accessible.)

2) Guns often have a significantly higher lethality and mortality rate. For example, mortality rate for gunshot wounds to the heart is 84%. 30% for stab wounds to the heart.

3) Guns are there to kill or injure others. Cars are there to transport people. Knives are there for cooking and carving.

Also, I really get amused by the typical pro-gun slogan, "why pick on guns, other things kill people but no one wants to ban them". Ok, chew on this. If I told you that we should ban private citizens from owning nuclear missiles, tanks and explosives, would you honestly tell me, "why pick on explosives, other things kill people too"??

1 cars do more damage when they hit someone that a bullet does.
2 Given
3 Guns are designed for many other reasons as well.

And here we go again with the "nuke" argument.

1) Keyword is "when". Until then, guns have significant greater range than a car. Plus a bullet has greater speed than a typical car.
2) Ok, so you admit that
3) Recreation is not really as serious or essential as transporting people for the economy or culinary purposes

And instead of laughing at the nuke argument, give me a logical reason why your response is separate from that of nukes. I tell you we should get rid of guns from private ownership. You say, "why blame the guns, they alone can't kill anyone, other things kill people and they don't get banned". So why are nukes any different? Why blame the nukes? After all, nukes don't kill people, people kill people. And we don't ban cars, do we? And we don't ban knives, do we? So why blame the nukes???

[Divitaen]

Yes, but cars are always being used. Many of these guns are actually locked up or not readily accessible, to be used for hunting or other recreation purposes. Whereas you got millions of cars actually driving around with the potential to hit people all the time. The only equivalent is if all the guns in the US had their safety on all the time, and people carried all their guns around the US pointing at each other.

A gun being carried for self defense (such as the one this woman was carrying) is a gun being used.

My point is the numbers aren't comparable. Imperializt Russia was counting total number of guns in the US versus total number of cars. It's not a fair comparison, because the number of guns used (i.e. carried for self-defense) would be much less than the number of cars being used.

[Esternial]

A knife you buy in the store in the kitchen section is primarily meant to cut vegetables, meat, potatoes, cardboard boxes, etc.

What they were used for in antiquity doesn't carry an ounce of weight in a discussion about their modern functions.

Though indeed, certain knives - the kind different from what you have next to your forks - are indeed primarily used to kill. So at most one could argue their primary function are mixed, which we certainly can't say for firearms. Each is pretty much a one-trick pony.

As has been pointed out, guns have more than one function.

All of their primary functions are to eject bullets with enough kinetic force to pierce an object and inflict harm onto it, living or cardboard.

My point is simply that cars and guns can't and shouldn't be compared; comparing things always has the inherent risk of losing or ignoring important aspects, which I'd like to avoid in a debate such as this.

[Big Jim P]

1 cars do more damage when they hit someone that a bullet does.
2 Given
3 Guns are designed for many other reasons as well.

And here we go again with the "nuke" argument.

1) Keyword is "when". Until then, guns have significant greater range than a car. Plus a bullet has greater speed than a typical car.
2) Ok, so you admit that
3) Recreation is not really as serious or essential as transporting people for the economy or culinary purposes

And instead of laughing at the nuke argument, give me a logical reason why your response is separate from that of nukes. I tell you we should get rid of guns from private ownership. You say, "why blame the guns, they alone can't kill anyone, other things kill people and they don't get banned". So why are nukes any different? Why blame the nukes? After all, nukes don't kill people, people kill people. And we don't ban cars, do we? And we don't ban knives, do we? So why blame the nukes???

And cars have far greater mass, and the "nukes" argument is both a strawman and slippery slope argument at best.

[Big Jim P]

As has been pointed out, guns have more than one function.

All of their primary functions are to eject bullets with enough kinetic force to pierce an object and inflict harm onto it, living or cardboard.

And a knifes primary functions to pierce or cut, whether it be piercing or cutting a living object or non-living object.

[Divitaen]

1) Keyword is "when". Until then, guns have significant greater range than a car. Plus a bullet has greater speed than a typical car.
2) Ok, so you admit that
3) Recreation is not really as serious or essential as transporting people for the economy or culinary purposes

And instead of laughing at the nuke argument, give me a logical reason why your response is separate from that of nukes. I tell you we should get rid of guns from private ownership. You say, "why blame the guns, they alone can't kill anyone, other things kill people and they don't get banned". So why are nukes any different? Why blame the nukes? After all, nukes don't kill people, people kill people. And we don't ban cars, do we? And we don't ban knives, do we? So why blame the nukes???

And cars have far greater mass, and the "nukes" argument is both a strawman and slippery slope argument at best.

So what if cars have greater mass? Lethality is still less, plus range and speed is also less. Those things make a bigger impact on likelihood of killing you.

The nuke argument is a strawman? How? Please explain it to me, because as far as I can see, the typical pro-gun argument for why "it is unfair to blame guns" applies to explosives, tanks and nukes, so if you can draw me a moral or philosophical distinction, then I will drop the point.

[Imperializt Russia]

As has been pointed out, guns have more than one function.

All of their primary functions are to eject bullets with enough kinetic force to pierce an object and inflict harm onto it, living or cardboard.

My point is simply that cars and guns can't and shouldn't be compared; comparing things always has the inherent risk of losing or ignoring important aspects, which I'd like to avoid in a debate such as this.

The problem is that "use" of guns in this debate, and any gun debates really, is limited strictly to when a firearm is discharged to kill a person. Even woundings are usually ignored.

As Jim pointed out, this is not the only "time" firearms are "used". It is more than correct to suggest that a firearm is being "used" when carried for personal protection.

[Lordieth]

It's tragic, but I'm not sure what more else there is to say about it. This is a natural consequence of laws that are unlikely not going to change. It was an accident. Preventable perhaps by a mother not allowing her concealed weapon to be as accessible, or, as a woman carrying a firearm, be more vigilant of anyone reaching for it, considering she has a deadly weapon on her person.

[Imperializt Russia]

And cars have far greater mass, and the "nukes" argument is both a strawman and slippery slope argument at best.

So what if cars have greater mass? Lethality is still less, plus range and speed is also less. Those things make a bigger impact on likelihood of killing you.

The nuke argument is a strawman? How? Please explain it to me, because as far as I can see, the typical pro-gun argument for why "it is unfair to blame guns" applies to explosives, tanks and nukes, so if you can draw me a moral or philosophical distinction, then I will drop the point.

The nuclear device is wholly incomparable. This is why it's fallacious.
Why not legislate for T-Rex guard dogs while we're at it?

[Esternial]

All of their primary functions are to eject bullets with enough kinetic force to pierce an object and inflict harm onto it, living or cardboard.

My point is simply that cars and guns can't and shouldn't be compared; comparing things always has the inherent risk of losing or ignoring important aspects, which I'd like to avoid in a debate such as this.

The problem is that "use" of guns in this debate, and any gun debates really, is limited strictly to when a firearm is discharged to kill a person. Even woundings are usually ignored.

As Jim pointed out, this is not the only "time" firearms are "used". It is more than correct to suggest that a firearm is being "used" when carried for personal protection.

Well, indeed they do act as a deterrent, if that's what you're referring to.

As long as nobody starts comparing guns and cars again I'm good, really. It's a stupid and old argument that should have been put aside a long time ago in favor of more in-depth discussion.

[Big Jim P]

And cars have far greater mass, and the "nukes" argument is both a strawman and slippery slope argument at best.

So what if cars have greater mass? Lethality is still less, plus range and speed is also less. Those things make a bigger impact on likelihood of killing you.

The nuke argument is a strawman? How? Please explain it to me, because as far as I can see, the typical pro-gun argument for why "it is unfair to blame guns" applies to explosives, tanks and nukes, so if you can draw me a moral or philosophical distinction, then I will drop the point.

Nukes and tanks are offensive weapons, explosives are already heavily regulated, and the whole argument always pops up in gun control debates. Mainly because, the gun-control proponents have nor real, legitimate or reasonable argument.

[Master Shake]

The nuke argument is a strawman? How? Please explain it to me, because as far as I can see, the typical pro-gun argument for why "it is unfair to blame guns" applies to explosives, tanks and nukes, so if you can draw me a moral or philosophical distinction, then I will drop the point.

You can't defend your house with a nuke. You'd blow up your house so what is the point using it to defend yourself?

Also guns didn't produce the MAD theory...

We didn't start making nukes because the Russians had more guns then us...

[Big Jim P]

The problem is that "use" of guns in this debate, and any gun debates really, is limited strictly to when a firearm is discharged to kill a person. Even woundings are usually ignored.

As Jim pointed out, this is not the only "time" firearms are "used". It is more than correct to suggest that a firearm is being "used" when carried for personal protection.

Well, indeed they do act as a deterrent, if that's what you're referring to.

As long as nobody starts comparing guns and cars again I'm good, really. It's a stupid and old argument that should have been put aside a long time ago in favor of more in-depth discussion.

Same with the "if guns then why not nukes" argument.

[Imperializt Russia]

The nuke argument is a strawman? How? Please explain it to me, because as far as I can see, the typical pro-gun argument for why "it is unfair to blame guns" applies to explosives, tanks and nukes, so if you can draw me a moral or philosophical distinction, then I will drop the point.

You can't defend your house with a nuke. You'd blow up your house so what is the point using it to defend yourself?

Also guns didn't produce the MAD theory...

We didn't start making nukes because the Russians had more guns then us...

Actually, you did...

[Esternial]

So what if cars have greater mass? Lethality is still less, plus range and speed is also less. Those things make a bigger impact on likelihood of killing you.

The nuke argument is a strawman? How? Please explain it to me, because as far as I can see, the typical pro-gun argument for why "it is unfair to blame guns" applies to explosives, tanks and nukes, so if you can draw me a moral or philosophical distinction, then I will drop the point.

Nukes and tanks are offensive weapons, explosives are already heavily regulated, and the whole argument always pops up in gun control debates. Mainly because, the gun-control proponents have nor real, legitimate or reasonable argument.

I'm sure they do, Jim. Both sides do - and both side resort to crappy arguments at certain points in the debate.

You should acknowledge that, beyond all the gun-control rambling, there is still a core of truth. Just as there is a core of truth behind the pro-gun rambling.

Because, let's be honest, not all your arguments are stellar material either.

Well, indeed they do act as a deterrent, if that's what you're referring to.

As long as nobody starts comparing guns and cars again I'm good, really. It's a stupid and old argument that should have been put aside a long time ago in favor of more in-depth discussion.

Same with the "if guns then why not nukes" argument.

I agree with that.

[Big Jim P]

You can't defend your house with a nuke. You'd blow up your house so what is the point using it to defend yourself?

Also guns didn't produce the MAD theory...

We didn't start making nukes because the Russians had more guns then us...

Actually, you did...

No, we started making them to end the war with Japan, while Russia was still an ally.

[Imperializt Russia]

Actually, you did...

No, we started making them to end the war with Japan, while Russia was still an ally.

It's an enormous simplification, but broadly correct. It's why nuclear arms were rapidly proliferated after the war ended.
Technically speaking, the bombs were meant for the Nazis but were not ready in time.

[Big Jim P]

Nukes and tanks are offensive weapons, explosives are already heavily regulated, and the whole argument always pops up in gun control debates. Mainly because, the gun-control proponents have nor real, legitimate or reasonable argument.

I'm sure they do, Jim. Both sides do - and both side resort to crappy arguments at certain points in the debate.

You should acknowledge that, beyond all the gun-control rambling, there is still a core of truth. Just as there is a core of truth behind the pro-gun rambling.

Because, let's be honest, not all your arguments are stellar material either.

Same with the "if guns then why not nukes" argument.

I agree with that.

I tend to save my best arguments for those who bring theirs.

[Big Jim P]

No, we started making them to end the war with Japan, while Russia was still an ally.

It's an enormous simplification, but broadly correct. It's why nuclear arms were rapidly proliferated after the war ended.
Technically speaking, the bombs were meant for the Nazis but were not ready in time.

True.

[Divitaen]

The nuke argument is a strawman? How? Please explain it to me, because as far as I can see, the typical pro-gun argument for why "it is unfair to blame guns" applies to explosives, tanks and nukes, so if you can draw me a moral or philosophical distinction, then I will drop the point.

You can't defend your house with a nuke. You'd blow up your house so what is the point using it to defend yourself?

Also guns didn't produce the MAD theory...

We didn't start making nukes because the Russians had more guns then us...

That's a point from self-defense. My exact question was about the specific pro-gun argument that it is unfair to ban guns because blaming guns makes no sense. Pro-gun people always argue that guns are merely the tool used to kill, and the human has to pull the trigger, so blaming guns is hypocritical since we don't ban cars or knives.

So you made an argument that guns were better at self-defense than nukes, but from a philosophical perspective a contradiction still exists, in that a pro-gun activist somehow believes that it is "unfair" to ban guns but still "fair" to ban explosives or nukes. And you can defend yourself with a tank, so.

[Esternial]

I'm sure they do, Jim. Both sides do - and both side resort to crappy arguments at certain points in the debate.

You should acknowledge that, beyond all the gun-control rambling, there is still a core of truth. Just as there is a core of truth behind the pro-gun rambling.

Because, let's be honest, not all your arguments are stellar material either.


I agree with that.

I tend to save my best arguments for those who bring theirs.

I'd actually like to hear them.