Toddler Shoots and Kills Mother

[United Marxist Nations]

Here's a pretty good one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpSk0FUwR4s

You see how easily he disengages the safety (0:16), and then note that he says it would take aprx. 5lbs of pressure to pull the trigger. Of course, there are different models, with different variations, but on all the ones I own, there's a pin on or near the trigger guard. When the pin is on one side, the safety is on; to disengage the safety, you push the pin to the other side; in all, this takes very limited pressure.

[United Marxist Nations]

Even the ones that are blunted or would fall apart if you actually tried to use them that way? Or the ones with the little buttons on to prevent harm? The item itself isn't that important, is the point I'm trying to make (although, I got off topic); any item can easily be used for killing a man, it's the intent.

Allow me to repeat myself. Try actually reading this time.

Swords as a class were designed as weapons (i.e. an item intended to injure/kill).

Alright, I'll concede it. I misinterpreted; that was my bad (thought you were saying something you weren't).

[Collatia]

This is truly sad. The mother was irresponsible, true, but she did not deserve this. I feel deeply sad for the toddler. I only hope he won't remember this. I remember when I was a toddler (I am not sure how old, exactly), I caused my grandfather an injury, and I still feel guilt for that. I cannot imagine how the son's guilt will be.

Well that was the human side of the argument. Now, onto the soulless, political side. I understand the most of your thoughts are of something along this wise:

ARRRRRRRRRRGH!!! BAN TEH EVUL GUNZ!!!!

I personally am opposed to using a tragedy to further a political agendum.

Shall we ban automobiles while we're at it?

That is my opinion. Think of it what you will.

[Larrylykinsland]

Here's a pretty good one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpSk0FUwR4s

You see how easily he disengages the safety (0:16), and then note that he says it would take aprx. 5lbs of pressure to pull the trigger. Of course, there are different models, with different variations, but on all the ones I own, there's a pin on or near the trigger guard. When the pin is on one side, the safety is on; to disengage the safety, you push the pin to the other side; in all, this takes very limited pressure.

Alright so maybe it isn't difficult to do, but I still say she was Incompetent. She was not paying attention to the fact that there was a loaded gun in her purse.That or she somehow forgot it was in there.

[Twilight Imperium]

moved

[Occupied Deutschland]

A gun not designed for killing.

Finding examples of specific guns that are not designed to injure or kill is really the stupidest attempt at proving that guns in general were not designed to injure or kill that I can imagine. The intellectual dishonesty necessary to seriously present that as an actual argument is astounding.

...
>There exists an all x (firearms) are y (designed for killing) claim.
>Believes it to be intellectual dishonesty whence it is pointed out that not all x are y via an example that encompasses a category of firearm (x) which is distinct and separate from y (designed for killing).

There's some intellectual dishonesty going on here, but I'm thinking you might be attributing it incorrectly.

Finding examples of specific guns that are not designed to injure or kill is really the stupidest attempt at proving that guns in general were not designed to injure or kill that I can imagine. The intellectual dishonesty necessary to seriously present that as an actual argument is astounding.

I can buy candy cigarettes.

This is obvious proof that cigarettes were not designed to be smoked.

A rather poor attempt at equivalence. In fact, one could go so far as to point it out as being false.

One can buy cigars, chewing tobacco, snus, pipe tobacco, etc.
This is obvious proof that cigarettes are not the only type of tobacco available.

Spreading the fear mongering lie by the blanket statement that all guns are designed to kill is just as bad an example of intellectual dishonesty.

It's more an extension of the notion that all guns are designed to fire a projectile at high speeds towards a specific object, an action which generally results in injury and/or death when that object is a person.

Indeed.
But of course, that rests on the assumption that the object is commonly, or even rarely, a person.
In point of fact, people are quite low on the scale of things shot by bullets even in the gun-happy US.
They are beaten out, quite handily, by targets. And unless one wishes to make the juvenile claim that the increase in entropy and 'destruction' caused by shooting paper targets is somehow objectionable, one is left in a rather precarious logical position wherein one must somehow presuppose that firearms designed for shooting paper targets are actually being used as somehow 'designed for' when irresponsibly and illegally used in an uncommon manner they also overlap with due to a required design characteristic.

Which, to continue with an analogy being used throughout this little rant, is like logically believing that Space-X rockets are weapons that just happen to be being used responsibly at the moment.
Which is logically unsound, much as its firearm corollary is.

Spreading the fear mongering lie by the blanket statement that all guns are designed to kill is just as bad an example of intellectual dishonesty.

No, saying that guns are designed to injure/kill is what is called being honest, because that is exactly what they were designed to do. The same thing is true of anything that was designed as a weapon.

Except it's not, because historical design is not a required precursor of current use or current design.
Hence why we now use and design rockets in an exploratory and transportation capacity as opposed to using them solely to get packages of explosives into enemy territory.
Welcome to the distinction zone. Where one can recognize that historical design of something and shared characteristics or even, and bear with me, shared fundamental properties, do not automatically make equivalencies.

Which is not necessarily meant to kill. It's just a projectile being propelled at high speed by an expansion of gasses. There are many things that generally result in injury or death when directed at a person.

And generally all of those things are heavily yet appropriately restricted in one way or another. However, I've just got to know why it's important to you for people to concede that not all guns are necessarily meant to kill other people. Seems a pretty superfluous point as all guns are weapons by inherent nature.

Ridiculous and illogical bullshit. Firearms are tools which have a predominant usage as weapons (primarily thanks to the skewed statistics their usage by armed forces present).
Of course, this does not mean that axes were weapons a millenium ago when they were also used as battlefield weaponry just because they were designed for such at the time in a broad degree of instances (or, and oh my gods will this apparently be difficult to understand, when perfectly serviceable axes used as tools to cut down trees could also overlap and serve as weapons). Nor does this suggest that rocks are weapons because they were used millenia ago as such when Grog beat Blarg over the head for warm-glowy-stick and slope-browed woo-man he wanted.
Nothing is a weapon by inherent nature. Its usage is the determinant of that nature. Rockets were designed and predominantly used to blow up Englishman by Narzis. They weren't, and never were, inherently weapons. They had a predominant usage as such because of the decisions made by people at the time. As time progressed, they developed into seperate usages and designs for such (much like firearms). ROckets continued to be designed and used in the 'blowing up other people and their shit' capacity while simultaneously being designed and used in the 'getting other people and their shit to space' capacity. The two categories are not either the inherent nature of rockets, especially as both shared considerable overlap. Both existed, at the same time as designed uses of the items. Sometimes in the same rocket.

The human element is the fucking cornerstone of this entire business. It creates the distinction between a tool and a weapon (R-7 as ICBM = weapon, R-7 as shooty-Sputnik-spaceways-for-Soviets = tool). Because otherwise, a rather wide swathe of tools can be easily applied the label of 'weapon' (Such as the R-7 even when being used to shooty-Sputnik-spaceways-for-Soviets, even though it demonstrably was not being used as a weapon such classification as you and Div are applying would label it one solely on the basis of its historical design (Either as rockets were long ago used in a weaponry capacity or because the R-7 itself was designed as a weapon, both fit the logic being applied)...Which is incorrect).
Such as, for example, butter knives. Such classification, however, is useful to nobody and fucking stupid as a classification.
There's enough fucking stupid classifications out there.

And the fucking gun is designed to fire the fucking bullet.

For all those stupidly attempting to argue that guns weren't designed to injure/kill, I suggest you read up a bit.

For all those stupidly attempting to argue that rockets weren't designed to injure/kill, I suggest you read up a bit.

Distinctions: n.noun

The act of distinguishing; differentiation.

IE: economists making an ongoing distinction between domestic and foreign markets.

I actually quite doubt that; I'd reckon a good half are display pieces, and the rest are likely blunted for competition. I've seen plenty of sabers as display pieces, but only one that has killed a man (and that was 150 years ago).

I don't. Swords as a class were designed as weapons (i.e. an item intended to injure/kill).

So were rockets.
This does not, contrary to your apparently (and very erroneously) held belief, make all rockets weapons, nor make them all carriers of injury and death.
In fact, such a characterization is monumentally incomplete and not a little bit ridiculous on its face.

[Twilight Imperium]

These ICBMs are historical artifacts for display purposes! How dare you insinuate we own weapons of mass destruction! Why, you may as well invade us for having airplanes, those can be used to cause explosions that kill a lot of people too!


christ

[-The Unified Earth Governments-]

Finding examples of specific guns that are not designed to injure or kill is really the stupidest attempt at proving that guns in general were not designed to injure or kill that I can imagine. The intellectual dishonesty necessary to seriously present that as an actual argument is astounding.

Spreading the fear mongering lie by the blanket statement that all guns are designed to kill is just as bad an example of intellectual dishonesty.

A majority of guns are indeed meant for killing.

A majority of firearms are built for the exploit purposes of containing a metal projectile, which when triggered, is pushed through the guns barrel at high speeds, towards a perceived enemy or threat.

Lets not be in denial here...

[Twilight Imperium]

-snip-

That is a lot of words to say "sometimes things that are dangerous are tools". Besides target shooting and their use as weapons, what are guns used for, please?

[United Marxist Nations]

Spreading the fear mongering lie by the blanket statement that all guns are designed to kill is just as bad an example of intellectual dishonesty.

A majority of guns are indeed meant for killing.

A majority of firearms are built for the exploit purposes of containing a metal projectile, which when triggered, is pushed through the guns barrel at high speeds, towards a perceived enemy or threat.

Lets not be in denial here...

Not civilian firearms, most of those are intended for target shooting.

[Dyakovo]

A majority of guns are indeed meant for killing.

A majority of firearms are built for the exploit purposes of containing a metal projectile, which when triggered, is pushed through the guns barrel at high speeds, towards a perceived enemy or threat.

Lets not be in denial here...

Not civilian firearms, most of those are intended for target shooting.

[citation needed]

[United Marxist Nations]

Not civilian firearms, most of those are intended for target shooting.

[citation needed]

The estimated total number of guns (both licit and illicit) held by civilians in the United States is 270,000,0001 to 310,000,0002


In the United States, annual deaths resulting from firearms total

2011: 32,16318
2010: 31,67219
2009: 31,347
2008: 31,593
2007: 31,224
2006: 30,896
2005: 30,694
2004: 29,569
2003: 30,136
2002: 30,242
2001: 29,573
2000: 28,663
1999: 28,874
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states

So, clearly they aren't being used or intended for killing people.

[-The Unified Earth Governments-]

A majority of guns are indeed meant for killing.

A majority of firearms are built for the exploit purposes of containing a metal projectile, which when triggered, is pushed through the guns barrel at high speeds, towards a perceived enemy or threat.

Lets not be in denial here...

Not civilian firearms, most of those are intended for target shooting.

You can still kill with a civilian firearm...

Look, there is no issue at just saying it, Guns can kill.

If someone says thats why they should be banned, then they're wrong.

Tools can be misused, a fist can kill someone, the argument that just because something is lethal it should be banned is outright silly, unless in extreme circumstances (WMD's for example...)

And just because idiots hurt themselves, or people make mistakes that kill themselves, isn't an excuse either.

So lets just own up to it, most guns are inherently lethal, and are a class of weaponry, but they don't need to be used as weapons.

You bring up a very good example, they can be used In a multitude of sport.

Hell even if the action the gun is being used for is killing it still isn't necessarily bad, (Imo) if someone is using a gun to hunt for food or profit do others can buy it and eat, I'm fine with that, because we are predators, and while we don't need to, it would be a good idea that we do our part to regulate the environment and kill deer or something and eat it.

(Note I'm against poaching and all that, I have an extreme idea of what should happen to poachers, at the very most for those who hunt endangered animals or over hunt)

Look, this gun issue imo is just an emotional one that people invest themselves in.

Some people want guns up the ass (Not literally) but don't think about the consequences.

Some people want to ban all guns....but don't think about the consequences.

IMO, can we all just calm ourselves down.

I think guns are badass myself, I'm adamantly pro second amendment, I am for the right of people to have access to weaponry, because I believe that responsible people should have that right.

But I think we should also make sure people are responsible, and at the very most train them on how to be safe with their gun.

Civilians always owned weapons, many old civilizations have done so, imo its an honest to goodness decent tradition I can support.

Up until the Nukomatic 9000, but 'll be dead by then.

[Sebastianbourg]

2011: 32,16318
2010: 31,67219

Typo, right?

[Dyakovo]

Finding examples of specific guns that are not designed to injure or kill is really the stupidest attempt at proving that guns in general were not designed to injure or kill that I can imagine. The intellectual dishonesty necessary to seriously present that as an actual argument is astounding.

...
>There exists an all x (firearms) are y (designed for killing) claim.¹
>Believes it to be intellectual dishonesty whence it is pointed out that not all x are y via an example that encompasses a category of firearm (x) which is distinct and separate from y (designed for killing).²

There's some intellectual dishonesty going on here, but I'm thinking you might be attributing it incorrectly.³

1: No there doesn't. There exists a "guns, as a class, are weapons i.e. designed to kill/injure" claim.
2: No, I believe (correctly) that it is either intellectual dishonesty or monumental stupidity/ignorance to claim that guns were not designed as weapons.
3: Maybe if you could figure out what people were actually saying (reading posts helps with that) you wouldn't come to such erroneous conclusions.

[Dyakovo]

[citation needed]

The estimated total number of guns (both licit and illicit) held by civilians in the United States is 270,000,0001 to 310,000,0002


In the United States, annual deaths resulting from firearms total

2011: 32,163
2010: 31,672
2009: 31,347
2008: 31,593
2007: 31,224
2006: 30,896
2005: 30,694
2004: 29,569
2003: 30,136
2002: 30,242
2001: 29,573
2000: 28,663
1999: 28,874
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states

So, clearly they aren't being used or intended for killing people.

You don't know that. If someone owns a gun (or guns) for the purpose of self-defense, those weapons are intended to be used to kill (or injure) people.

[Divitaen]

The estimated total number of guns (both licit and illicit) held by civilians in the United States is 270,000,0001 to 310,000,0002


In the United States, annual deaths resulting from firearms total

2011: 32,163
2010: 31,672
2009: 31,347
2008: 31,593
2007: 31,224
2006: 30,896
2005: 30,694
2004: 29,569
2003: 30,136
2002: 30,242
2001: 29,573
2000: 28,663
1999: 28,874
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states

So, clearly they aren't being used or intended for killing people.

You don't know that. If someone owns a gun (or guns) for the purpose of self-defense, those weapons are intended to be used to kill (or injure) people.

Just because not all guns are being fired and killing people does not change the fact that that is still its intended purpose.

[Big Jim P]

Spreading the fear mongering lie by the blanket statement that all guns are designed to kill is just as bad an example of intellectual dishonesty.

A majority of guns are indeed meant for killing.

A majority of firearms are built for the exploit purposes of containing a metal projectile, which when triggered, is pushed through the guns barrel at high speeds, towards a perceived enemy or threat.

Lets not be in denial here...

A majority are not all. I am not the one that made the erroneous blanket statement.

[Big Jim P]

The estimated total number of guns (both licit and illicit) held by civilians in the United States is 270,000,0001 to 310,000,0002


In the United States, annual deaths resulting from firearms total

2011: 32,163
2010: 31,672
2009: 31,347
2008: 31,593
2007: 31,224
2006: 30,896
2005: 30,694
2004: 29,569
2003: 30,136
2002: 30,242
2001: 29,573
2000: 28,663
1999: 28,874
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states

So, clearly they aren't being used or intended for killing people.

You don't know that. If someone owns a gun (or guns) for the purpose of self-defense, those weapons are intended to be used to kill (or injure) people.

Yes, but not all killing are wrong, and not all incidents of self defense result in a death.

[Dyakovo]

A majority of guns are indeed meant for killing.

A majority of firearms are built for the exploit purposes of containing a metal projectile, which when triggered, is pushed through the guns barrel at high speeds, towards a perceived enemy or threat.

Lets not be in denial here...

A majority are not all. I am not the one that made the erroneous blanket statement.

More intellectual dishonesty...
When someone says "guns are designed to kill/injure" they are talking about guns as a class, not saying that every single gun ever designed was designed with the express purpose of killing/injuring.

[Dyakovo]

You don't know that. If someone owns a gun (or guns) for the purpose of self-defense, those weapons are intended to be used to kill (or injure) people.

Yes, but not all killing are wrong¹, and not all incidents of self defense result in a death².

1: Okay. I don't see what that has to do with what I said...
2: I'll point you to the bit I just highlighted in red, then point you back to #1.

[Arcanda]

Guns must come with a more complicated system of arming.
You know, that thing you must push before the weapon can *actually* shoot someone.If it's so simple that a toddler can do it...It should be revised.

[Jamjai]

Guns must come with a more complicated system of arming.
You know, that thing you must push before the weapon can *actually* shoot someone.If it's so simple that a toddler can do it...It should be revised.

like a safe lock
it locks the gun and can't be fired until the lock is turned on

[Arcanda]

Guns must come with a more complicated system of arming.
You know, that thing you must push before the weapon can *actually* shoot someone.If it's so simple that a toddler can do it...It should be revised.

like a safe lock
it locks the gun and can't be fired until the lock is turned on

That's the word.
Well they should not make it harder because old people use guns too, just more complicated.That way the toddler struggles a little before finding it and it gives time to the mom to react...

[Big Jim P]

Yes, but not all killing are wrong¹, and not all incidents of self defense result in a death².

1: Okay. I don't see what that has to do with what I said...
2: I'll point you to the bit I just highlighted in red, then point you back to #1.

Not all result in injuries.

Oh, and saying guns (as a class) are designed to kill is exactly like saying that knives (as a class) are designed to kill Earlier, you argued about swords (a form of knife) are designed to kill. True. So we know you can make the distinction between knives that are designed to kill/injure, and those that are not. Why do you stick at making the same distinction with guns?