Toddler Shoots and Kills Mother

[Seraven]

"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.

Actually hand cannons were used more as shock weapons and less as weapons to injure or kill.

[-The Unified Earth Governments-]

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.

It also depends on a numerous amounts of things that you must consider.

Is a butter knife made to kill?

You might be able to with it, but its designed not to, this is primarily because of how blades work.

A sword even if made today is deadly.

Bladed weapons inherently are older and more varied, carrying different rules for how they are structured.

A gun is a tool that is shooting a projectile at high speeds, just because some are primarily used for sport doesn't change that fact, they're still mostly weapons and they are still largely lethal regardless....

[-The Unified Earth Governments-]

Were, past tense.

Hand cannons, Arquebus, and Muskets.

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

All tools of war.

Actually hand cannons were used more as shock weapons and less as weapons to injure or kill.

Really?

Must brush up on them still.

[-The Unified Earth Governments-]

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.

Wow, usually I'm the one not to bullshit around, bravo :3

[Seraven]

Actually hand cannons were used more as shock weapons and less as weapons to injure or kill.

Really?

Must brush up on them still.

To horses. To make them panic, and make the riders fall.

It's not really effective at that time. Once turned into arquebus, however, that was when it became effective.

[-The Unified Earth Governments-]

Really?

Must brush up on them still.

To horses. To make them panic, and make the riders fall.

It's not really effective at that time. Once turned into arquebus, however, that was when it became effective.

I'm sure I read it was used elsewhere as well...

...

Am I the only one that things that Jim got wrecked on the last page?

[Seraven]

To horses. To make them panic, and make the riders fall.

It's not really effective at that time. Once turned into arquebus, however, that was when it became effective.

I'm sure I read it was used elsewhere as well...

...

Am I the only one that things that Jim got wrecked on the last page?

Jim?

[-The Unified Earth Governments-]

I'm sure I read it was used elsewhere as well...

...

Am I the only one that things that Jim got wrecked on the last page?

Jim?

....

Big Jim P....

[Divitaen]

To horses. To make them panic, and make the riders fall.

It's not really effective at that time. Once turned into arquebus, however, that was when it became effective.

I'm sure I read it was used elsewhere as well...

...

Am I the only one that things that Jim got wrecked on the last page?

If you're gonna make the point that examples of some gun models and some recreational activities mean that guns aren't meant to kill, then you should expect it. It's very design and technology is aimed at that very purpose.

[-The Unified Earth Governments-]

I'm sure I read it was used elsewhere as well...

...

Am I the only one that things that Jim got wrecked on the last page?

If you're gonna make the point that examples of some gun models and some recreational activities mean that guns aren't meant to kill, then you should expect it. It's very design and technology is aimed at that very purpose.

I respect him, but that car retort was very, very stupid.

[Kouralia]

Basically... Keep your weapons not made ready at all times unless you're about to use it.

"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.

How does 'guns are designed to effect the destruction of that which they are pointed at' work for you?

[Big Jim P]

Basically... Keep your weapons not made ready at all times unless you're about to use it.

"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.

How does 'guns are designed to effect the destruction of that which they are pointed at' work for you?

That works.

[Divitaen]

If you're gonna make the point that examples of some gun models and some recreational activities mean that guns aren't meant to kill, then you should expect it. It's very design and technology is aimed at that very purpose.

I respect him, but that car retort was very, very stupid.

It's the standard tripe I hear at every gun-related thread. Swimming pools. Knives. Cars. Come up with something new please.

[-The Unified Earth Governments-]

I respect him, but that car retort was very, very stupid.

It's the standard tripe I hear at every gun-related thread. Swimming pools. Knives. Cars. Come up with something new please.

The knives part is actually a very reasonable argument against banning guns though.

After all you can't ban something just because a few idiots hurt themselves or bad people use them for a bad thing.

[Big Jim P]

If you're gonna make the point that examples of some gun models and some recreational activities mean that guns aren't meant to kill, then you should expect it. It's very design and technology is aimed at that very purpose.

I respect him, but that car retort was very, very stupid.

which one? The one where I asked if someone was willing to stand in from of one being operated? If so, then it is no less stupid than the post I was replying to.

[Divitaen]

It's the standard tripe I hear at every gun-related thread. Swimming pools. Knives. Cars. Come up with something new please.

The knives part is actually a very reasonable argument against banning guns though.

After all you can't ban something just because a few idiots hurt themselves or bad people use them for a bad thing.

That is true, but the distinction is the effect. Banning all knives would destroy the cooking, wood-making and medical industries. And besides, as I cited in two articles in the page immediately before this, gun prevalence correlates with homicide, assault and robbery rates.

[Big Jim P]

@ 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.

Seeing as gun ownership and purchases are at an all-time high, and crime is not going up (in fact it is decreasing), forgive me for disbelieving this study.

And yes, I was referring to other crimes. So were the DGU estimates.

[-The Unified Earth Governments-]

The knives part is actually a very reasonable argument against banning guns though.

After all you can't ban something just because a few idiots hurt themselves or bad people use them for a bad thing.

That is true, but the distinction is the effect. Banning all knives would destroy the cooking, wood-making and medical industries. And besides, as I cited in two articles in the page immediately before this, gun prevalence correlates with homicide, assault and robbery rates.

Sure, but it wouldn't be right to take guns away anyways, that will create a black market and would be hard to enforce.

And it would just shit all over the prison system more, just look at drugs and the black market around those.

I think some smart guns would be a good thing too, but nope, NRA had to be fucking retarded over that idea.

[WestRedMaple]

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?

I can think of many things I wouldn't want to stand in front of while they are being operated in the way designed: trains, piledrivers, propellers, tunnel boring machines, etc

Obviously being bad to stand in front of does not equal weapon designed to kill you.

Not all firearms are designed for the purpose of killing something, that much is not honestly deniable. Many of the definitely ARE designed for killing. They certainly wouldn't be very popular for hunting otherwise.

For defense, it is their great stopping power which makes them valuable. Maybe the attacker lives, maybe they die, but the relevant part in defending oneself is that the attack ends

[Cyrisnia]

That is true, but the distinction is the effect. Banning all knives would destroy the cooking, wood-making and medical industries. And besides, as I cited in two articles in the page immediately before this, gun prevalence correlates with homicide, assault and robbery rates.

Sure, but it wouldn't be right to take guns away anyways, that will create a black market and would be hard to enforce.

And it would just shit all over the prison system more, just look at drugs and the black market around those.

I think some smart guns would be a good thing too, but nope, NRA had to be fucking retarded over that idea.

I honestly have no idea why they got so worked up over it.

[WestRedMaple]

"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.

That is blatantly false. You are under the confused notion that Thing A being designed for one purpose magically makes Thing B be designed for the same purpose.

[Big Jim P]

I respect him, but that car retort was very, very stupid.

It's the standard tripe I hear at every gun-related thread. Swimming pools. Knives. Cars. Come up with something new please.

Pot, meet kettle:

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"??

[-The Unified Earth Governments-]

I respect him, but that car retort was very, very stupid.

which one? The one where I asked if someone was willing to stand in from of one being operated? If so, then it is no less stupid than the post I was replying to.

Its stupid because a car is far easier to be perceived, to close and it will have a lesser chance to hurt you.

Far enough and you can potentially get out of the way.

Farther than that, and the person can use their brakes.

A guns bullets are smaller, hard to track, too close and you are injured or killed, farther away, still the case, farther yet still, again still the case.

This is all basic though, there are things to take into consideration, such as the cars acceleration and intent, the specific firearm.

But I mean, on a basic level, I think most people would feel more safe with a car driving up to them, or feel more like they can make it, than if it was a gun.

Most of it is most likely physiological as well, I'll admit that.

[Big Jim P]

The knives part is actually a very reasonable argument against banning guns though.

After all you can't ban something just because a few idiots hurt themselves or bad people use them for a bad thing.

That is true, but the distinction is the effect. Banning all knives would destroy the cooking, wood-making and medical industries. And besides, as I cited in two articles in the page immediately before this, gun prevalence correlates with homicide, assault and robbery rates.

Then why aren't these crimes going up? Gun ownership and purchases (as I have pointed out), are at an all-time high.

[WestRedMaple]

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 ?

I'd suggest not giving toddlers access to loaded firearms