Toddler Shoots and Kills Mother

[Dyakovo]

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?

I don't. You were stupidly trying to prove that guns are not weapons (i.e. an item designed to injure/kill) by providing an example of a gun that was designed for target shooting (and trying initially to claim that guns aren't weapons).

[Big Jim P]

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?

I don't. You were stupidly trying to prove that guns are not weapons (i.e. an item designed to injure/kill) by providing an example of a gun that was designed for target shooting (and trying initially to claim that guns aren't weapons).

I was not claiming or trying to claim that guns are not weapons. I was pointing out that not ALL guns are designed to kill.

See, that is the thing about blanket statements: they are often wrong and usually easy to disprove.

[Fartsniffage]

I don't. You were stupidly trying to prove that guns are not weapons (i.e. an item designed to injure/kill) by providing an example of a gun that was designed for target shooting (and trying initially to claim that guns aren't weapons).

I was not claiming or trying to claim that guns are not weapons. I was pointing out that not ALL guns are designed to kill.

See, that is the thing about blanket statements: they are often wrong and usually easy to disprove.

Can you name one gun that you would be happy to stand in front of while it was being operated in the way it was designed to do?

[Dyakovo]

I don't. You were stupidly trying to prove that guns are not weapons (i.e. an item designed to injure/kill) by providing an example of a gun that was designed for target shooting (and trying initially to claim that guns aren't weapons).

I was not claiming or trying to claim that guns are not weapons. I was pointing out that not ALL guns are designed to kill.

See, that is the thing about blanket statements: they are often wrong and usually easy to disprove.

Whether you intended to or not, that is exactly what you were arguing.

guns were created to injure or kill.

No matter how many time you keep saying this it will not become magically true.

By claiming that "guns were created to injure or kill" is a false statement, you're arguing that guns are not weapons.

[Dyakovo]

I was not claiming or trying to claim that guns are not weapons. I was pointing out that not ALL guns are designed to kill.

See, that is the thing about blanket statements: they are often wrong and usually easy to disprove.

Can you name one gun that you would be happy to stand in front of while it was being operated in the way it was designed to do?

This one.

[Big Jim P]

I was not claiming or trying to claim that guns are not weapons. I was pointing out that not ALL guns are designed to kill.

See, that is the thing about blanket statements: they are often wrong and usually easy to disprove.

Whether you intended to or not, that is exactly what you were arguing.

No matter how many time you keep saying this it will not become magically true.

By claiming that "guns were created to injure or kill" is a false statement, you're arguing that guns are not weapons.

"Guns are designed to kill or injure " is a blanket statement. One that has been proven false, and will not become true through repetition. "Most guns are designed to kill or injure" would be an accurate statement.

[Big Jim P]

I was not claiming or trying to claim that guns are not weapons. I was pointing out that not ALL guns are designed to kill.

See, that is the thing about blanket statements: they are often wrong and usually easy to disprove.

Can you name one gun that you would be happy to stand in front of while it was being operated in the way it was designed to do?

Sure, just as soon as you can name a car that you would be happy to stand in front of while it was being operated as it was designed to do.

[Dyakovo]

Whether you intended to or not, that is exactly what you were arguing.

By claiming that "guns were created to injure or kill" is a false statement, you're arguing that guns are not weapons.

"Guns are designed to kill or injure " is a blanket statement. One that has been proven false.

No, it hasn't. Mostly because it isn't false. The fact that there are guns now that are designed for specialized purposes like target-shooting, does not change the fact that they were designed to injure/kill, in fact they were designed specifically to injure/kill people. Not to mention the detail that even the ones now that are designed for target-shooting/skeet-shooting/whatever are still capable of being lethal.

[Dyakovo]

Can you name one gun that you would be happy to stand in front of while it was being operated in the way it was designed to do?

Sure, just as soon as you can name a car that you would be happy to stand in front of while it was being operated as it was designed to do.

So, in other words, you can't do it.
Though, that is a amusing attempt at a deflection for you to use...

[Big Jim P]

"Guns are designed to kill or injure " is a blanket statement. One that has been proven false.

No, it hasn't.Mostly because it isn't false. The fact that there are guns now that are designed for specialized purposes like target-shooting, does not change the fact that they were designed to injure/kill, in fact they were designed specifically to injure/kill people. Not to mention the detail that even the ones now that are designed for target-shooting/skeet-shooting/whatever are still capable of being lethal.

And bladed weapons were originally designed to make hunting and killing animals easier, therefore (by your logic) all knives are designed to kill. Not to mention that a great many things are capable of being lethal regardless of their designed purpose.

[Big Jim P]

Sure, just as soon as you can name a car that you would be happy to stand in front of while it was being operated as it was designed to do.

So, in other words, you can't do it.
Though, that is a amusing attempt at a deflection for you to use...

Well, you did beat me to that one with your post.

[Dyakovo]

No, it hasn't.Mostly because it isn't false. The fact that there are guns now that are designed for specialized purposes like target-shooting, does not change the fact that they were designed to injure/kill, in fact they were designed specifically to injure/kill people. Not to mention the detail that even the ones now that are designed for target-shooting/skeet-shooting/whatever are still capable of being lethal.

And bladed weapons were originally designed to make hunting and killing animals easier, therefore (by your logic) all knives are designed to kill. Not to mention that a great many things are capable of being lethal regardless of their designed purpose.

No, according to my logic (which I've explained multiple times now, so I'm unsure why you're having such a hard time with it), knives (as a class) are designed to injure/kill.

[Purpelia]

No, it hasn't.Mostly because it isn't false. The fact that there are guns now that are designed for specialized purposes like target-shooting, does not change the fact that they were designed to injure/kill, in fact they were designed specifically to injure/kill people. Not to mention the detail that even the ones now that are designed for target-shooting/skeet-shooting/whatever are still capable of being lethal.

And bladed weapons were originally designed to make hunting and killing animals easier, therefore (by your logic) all knives are designed to kill. Not to mention that a great many things are capable of being lethal regardless of their designed purpose.

Not quite. Knifes are designed as utility tools. Other bladed weapons, most notably spears were designed to hunt. And swords are basically an enlarged knife designed to kill. You can note the evolution of blade shape and size and how it is optimized to improve killing power.

[Fartsniffage]

Can you name one gun that you would be happy to stand in front of while it was being operated in the way it was designed to do?

Sure, just as soon as you can name a car that you would be happy to stand in front of while it was being operated as it was designed to do.

Sure, a current year model Volvo V40. Your turn.

[Purpelia]

Can you name one gun that you would be happy to stand in front of while it was being operated in the way it was designed to do?

Sure, just as soon as you can name a car that you would be happy to stand in front of while it was being operated as it was designed to do.

A motor vehicle is designed with the functionality required to ensure you can prevent damage to people or property by coming to a stop before impact. I believe that thus doing so is a feature of their intended method of operation.

[Arcanda]

I do not agree that some guns are only designed to injure.The primary goal of a gun is to kill, and so far I have yet to see someone who defended himself effectively by injuring his/her agressor.

[Big Jim P]

I do not agree that some guns are only designed to injure.The primary goal of a gun is to kill, and so far I have yet to see someone who defended himself effectively by injuring his/her agressor.

Pick one.

You will find some injuries, some cases of deterrence, and some deaths.

[Arcanda]

I do not agree that some guns are only designed to injure.The primary goal of a gun is to kill, and so far I have yet to see someone who defended himself effectively by injuring his/her agressor.

Pick one.

You will find some injuries, some cases of deterrence, and some deaths.

Yes, that is true.But how many times do guns also kill innocent people or provoke unecessary deaths?

How do you think events like this toddler shooting his mom could be prevented in the future ?

[Big Jim P]

Pick one.

You will find some injuries, some cases of deterrence, and some deaths.

Yes, that is true.But how many times do guns also kill innocent people or provoke unecessary deaths?

How do you think events like this toddler shooting his mom could be prevented in the future ?

@ 30000 a year and the incident could have been prevented had the mom not violated no less than 2 basic safety rules.

Of course, guns are also a defense against some 55,000-2.5 million crimes a year (depending on whose estimates you believe).

Edit, and even discounting their defensive uses, 30,000 out 300 million guns and 100 million owners makes the 30,000 insignificant.

[Divitaen]

Yes, that is true.But how many times do guns also kill innocent people or provoke unecessary deaths?

How do you think events like this toddler shooting his mom could be prevented in the future ?

@ 30000 a year and the incident could have been prevented had the mom not violated no less than 2 basic safety rules.

Of course, guns are also a defense against some 55,000-2.5 million crimes a year (depending on whose estimates you believe).

Edit, and even discounting their defensive uses, 30,000 out 300 million guns and 100 million owners makes the 30,000 insignificant.

If what you are saying is true, in that guns play an important defensive role against violent crime that outweighs the lives taken by guns, then this shouldn't be true:

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/

Gun prevalence shouldn't correlate with homicide rates. If your theory is accurate, it should be the other way round. Gun prevalence should decrease homicide rates because apparently they defend against potential murderers, but clearly it doesn't. It enables potential murderers and causes the overall death rate to increase.

[-The Unified Earth Governments-]

I was not claiming or trying to claim that guns are not weapons. I was pointing out that not ALL guns are designed to kill.

See, that is the thing about blanket statements: they are often wrong and usually easy to disprove.

Can you name one gun that you would be happy to stand in front of while it was being operated in the way it was designed to do?

Water guns!

[Divitaen]

Yes, that is true.But how many times do guns also kill innocent people or provoke unecessary deaths?

How do you think events like this toddler shooting his mom could be prevented in the future ?

@ 30000 a year and the incident could have been prevented had the mom not violated no less than 2 basic safety rules.

Of course, guns are also a defense against some 55,000-2.5 million crimes a year (depending on whose estimates you believe).

Edit, and even discounting their defensive uses, 30,000 out 300 million guns and 100 million owners makes the 30,000 insignificant.

Oh, and I just realised that you may have been referring to crimes other than murder or homicide, so:

http://swacj.org/swjcj/archives/6.3/4%20-%20Guns%20and%20Violent%20Crime.pdf

Comprehensive meta-analysis of a variety of cities across America, Europe and Asia, finding that in cities, gun prevalence correlated with assault and burglary rates. Turns out the availability of guns emboldens criminals to commit crimes they wouldn't otherwise have been willing to commit.

[Seraven]

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/12/30/toddler-shoots-womanwithherowngun.html

A Walmart store in northern Idaho was the scene of the latest tragedy in a spate of accidental killings on Tuesday, when a toddler shot and killed his mother with the gun she was carrying in her purse, authorities said.

Kootenai County Sheriff’s Office spokesman Stu Miller said that the woman, whose identity was not released, was shopping at a Walmart in a suburb of Coeur d’Alene with four children in tow. Authorities confirmed that the 2-year-old boy was the woman's son, but it was not clear how she was related to the other children.

"One of the children, a boy about 2 years old, reached into the woman’s purse at about 11:15 a.m., and the weapon accidentally discharged," Miller told reporters.

The woman had a concealed weapons permit, and Miller noted on Twitter that a preliminary investigation “shows shooting was accidental. 1 female victim, late 20s, is deceased."

The fatal shooting is only the latest in a succession of accidental killings this year. Last month a 3-year-old boy reportedly shot and killed his mother while she changed his sister’s diaper. A 12-year-old boy accidentally shot his 9-year-old sister in Newark, New Jersey with what was reportedly a stolen handgun.

In April a 3-year-old girl shot and killed her 2-year-old brother with a .22 caliber rifle in Utah. That same month a 2-year-old boy shot and killed his 11-year-old sister with a handgun he apparently believed was a toy.

The accidental shooting death of a gun instructor in August by a 9-year-old girl during a demonstration of a submachine gun reignited debate about gun safety and whether children should be allowed anywhere near them.

The action group Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America have long called for a “national discussion about children and guns” and stated after the August incident that they were urging the members and the public to find new ways to act against gun violence in the coming year.

Firstly my thoughts and condolences go out to this woman's family and friends. It seems like accidental gun deaths are in the news a lot lately. What's the answer to these killings? Up to 100 children die each year in the US from accidental shootings, and thats still not counting adults. So how do we combat this? Regular gun control? Or specific laws targeting guns in households with children? I'd prefer to see restrictions on firearms in houses with children, but we've also got to educate people about the dangers of these weapons. This woman clearly wasn't carrying the gun in a safe spot. Can we make sure that people know how to properly and safely carry and store firearms?

I guess turn USA into a nation that banning the permits and use of guns to the civilians and restrict it only to military and police is out of question?

[Cyrisnia]

Can you name one gun that you would be happy to stand in front of while it was being operated in the way it was designed to do?

Water guns!

This is why optimism is better, people.

[-The Unified Earth Governments-]

Whether you intended to or not, that is exactly what you were arguing.

By claiming that "guns were created to injure or kill" is a false statement, you're arguing that guns are not weapons.

"Guns are designed to kill or injure " is a blanket statement. One that has been proven false, and will not become true through repetition. "Most guns are designed to kill or injure" would be an accurate statement.

Were, past tense.

Hand cannons, Arquebus, and Muskets.

Three gun powder weapons, the later two definitely being guns.

All tools of war.