I'll bet the "black" one is biracial too. At least biracial. Maybe even tri- or quad-[racial]
The one thing for sure is that he seems to be a little light in the "soul" department.
Say! Maybe he is a defective replicant clone . . . a defective replicant clone that was "energized" by gansta rap . . . like the Manchurian Candidate.

I think by now, we're all a little multi-racial.

Thanks. "Multi-" is better. After quint- . . . sex-/hex- . . . sept- . . . oct- . . . non- and deci- I get confused.
On the other hand, since there are only three, maybe four, actual "races" . . .

I doubt there will be much of a change until some alien race lands and tells us to knock this crap off or we will be made into a parking lot for interstellar travelers, the Motel 6 of the Universe.


.oO(This is good. They do not yet realize. This is very, very good.)Oo.

This is offensive as hell.

1. TM "murder?" A jury said otherwise.

2. I just can't imagine your hatred of the white race would make you write something so absurd. And make no mistake, Willy, it's clear you hate white folks.

Uhh...I guess i could be the character from dave shapel show who was actually black, and blind, and was in the kkk. I guess I should let my wife, kids, parents, grandparents, great grandparents, great great grandparents, etc know the news that i hate all of them and the quaker and dutch ancestry!

Or you could stop making personal attacks.

... I might as well adjust my thinking to there's plenty of evil, thoughtless people out there who would sooner shoot you than look at you, so beware.

Do you need to walk around in fear every waking moment .. nah. But a reasonable awareness of one's surroundings and situation ain't a bad thing to have. I have one long time friend who strongly believes I could use a booster shot in this area. But what he considers a base level of awareness I consider hyper vigilant. There's probably a perfect midpoint neither he nor I will ever reach.

Uhh...I guess i could be the character from dave shapel show who was actually black, and blind, and was in the kkk.

I think the world needs a lot more Dave Chappell (and Chris Rock or Bernie Mac (clones)) and a lot less Titi Boi(s).

Then I apologize for being so terribly wrong in my viewpoint. I'm sorry. I might as well adjust my thinking to there's plenty of evil, thoughtless people out there who would sooner shoot you than look at you, so beware.

Not really sure where that's all coming from. I just think people are too quick to forget how truly evil some people are. Not that we should linger on that fact OR be hyper paranoid.

Bunty - I think this case is getting so much attention (not becauses its rare) because it was a good looking kid that was shot, he was exchange student, and people being hyper race sensitive after TM murder.

Plus like I've said 10 times now, Oklahomans don't want to hear about an ugly white Guy shooting.a baby, its mother, her other daughter, and her grandmother in their face. But some wanna be gangbangers shorting a good looking Aussie,who had a good looking.girlfriend...now that's news.

O and keeping rappers on a bus for.9 hours arresting all of them for broke. Taillight, thn releasing them less than.an hour later after no drugs were found...who cares ...you aren't welcome here...yeeeeeehaaaaaawwww

Okay, about the guy who killed four family members, Dude, it was a domestic case where a guy goes nuts. The Duncan case is not the same. Get it?

Edited to clarify, I was responding to WT's whining about a different case than the stroller murder. Sigh.

waste of time

William, this is embarrassing. Please stop for your own sake.

No one here is suggesting that this is worse because of the race of the criminals; no one is saying the attractiveness of the victim is a factor. Your problem is that this has become an international story and other crimes have not. Has it occurred to you that Trayvon Martin was an international story as well, with the races reversed. I personally find what happened to TM and to the Australian baseball player repulsive -- I could care less the color of the criminal (and George Zimmerman is a criminal, as there is no universe I live in where it's acceptable for me to follow someone's child around for any reason). This is headline news because three teenagers killed a likable foreign national for no reason other than boredom. Where else on Earth do children murder for sport with a firearm?

I've got plenty of friends in every corner of this planet, and so I've heard concern expressed about our gun culture for 2 decades now -- black rappers and white NRA members included. Trayvon Martin resonates globally and was a news story the world over, and so is this case.

-Your problem is that this has become an international story and other crimes have not. Has it occurred to you that Trayvon Martin was an international story as well, with the races reversed.

-I personally find what happened to TM and to the Australian baseball player repulsive -- I could care less the color of the criminal (and George Zimmerman is a criminal, as there is no universe I live in where it's acceptable for me to follow someone's child around for any reason). This is headline news because three teenagers killed a likable foreign national for no reason other than boredom. Where else on Earth do children murder for sport with a firearm?

I've got plenty of friends in every corner of this planet, and so I've heard concern expressed about our gun culture for 2 decades now -- black rappers and white NRA members included. Trayvon Martin resonates globally and was a news story the world over, and so is this case.

-My problem has been, and will continue to be selective outrage - the same thing people were complaining about during GZ trail, why is this one important while chicago murder isnt.

-I agree. Things like this shouldnt be happening in a developed country. My problem is that when it does happen we splinter into fractions about what the color of the person was all the time and effort is wasted; when we should be asking why does everyone have all these weapons laying around and unsecured.


I've tried to figure that out myself. I just dont get where we all say, o race doesnt matter, it isnt about skin color. Then any time a tragedy happens focus turns to how dark a persons skin was and if they are a different religion than 'us'.

I've said it before - but when are morale and law abiding people going to start standing up for other morale and law abiding people. When you start splintering into fractions nothing gets accomplished and the entire conversation (just look at this thread) are wasted.


With that said this thread is pretty much dead, they have the suspects and confession so there really isnt much to talk about.

....With that said this thread is pretty much dead, they have the suspects and confession so there really isnt much to talk about.

Actually, IMO, your statement is a part of the problem. The discussion has to move beyond the the suspects and guilt - not stop with it.

well, then, in the interest of moving on ... boredom and low to no moral compass is a recipe for any number of bad outcomes. Here, a firearm was involved. Then again, so was an automobile.

Could have been a pipe, knife, bat or scissors with the tool racks using bikes, scooters, skateboards, classic air jordans or wally world sale sneakers.

a firearm is a tool. can it be misused? sure. so can a gallon of gas and a BIC, a bottle of drano, a bottle of ammonia and a can of clorox, a hammer, a shovel, a screwdriver, a nailgun, a sander, etc., etc.

At some point you simply have to decide to lay the responsibility of the walking talking tools, and not whatever inanimate tool that is misused.

-My problem has been, and will continue to be selective outrage - the same thing people were complaining about during GZ trail, why is this one important while chicago murder isnt.

-I agree. Things like this shouldnt be happening in a developed country. My problem is that when it does happen we splinter into fractions about what the color of the person was all the time and effort is wasted; when we should be asking why does everyone have all these weapons laying around and unsecured.



With that said this thread is pretty much dead, they have the suspects and confession so there really isnt much to talk about.

"Selective outrage" is normal, natural. People react in their own ways to everything. Nobody can select reactions for other people. Get over it.

well, then, in the interest of moving on ... boredom and low to no moral compass is a recipe for any number of bad outcomes. Here, a firearm was involved. Then again, so was an automobile.

Could have been a pipe, knife, bat or scissors with the tool racks using bikes, scooters, skateboards, classic air jordans or wally world sale sneakers.

a firearm is a tool. can it be misused? sure. so can a gallon of gas and a BIC, a bottle of drano, a bottle of ammonia and a can of clorox, a hammer, a shovel, a screwdriver, a nailgun, a sander, etc., etc.

At some point you simply have to decide to lay the responsibility of the walking talking tools, and not whatever inanimate tool that is misused.


If we were to follow that logic, why don't we legalize automatic firearms, bombs, grenades; because after all, it's not the tool, it's the person. So it doesn't matter that a gun is significantly more dangerous than a bat, the person was going to murder someone anyways. A firearm is not a tool comparable to a gallon of gas, a hammer, a screwdriver or shovel. You said that a firearm was a tool, and that it was misused. However, it wasn't misused. A firearm has only one purpose, and it is to kill. I think it accomplished the task.

After recent incidents here in Jacksonville I think we really need to start taking a hard look at people who are mentally ill and find something to do with them. Our most horrific crimes are be perpetrated by the mentally ill. The most recent mass shootings that has everyone wanting to ban guns were all committed by people who were known to be mentally ill. I'm sure drug use is also a common thread in most crimes.

... A firearm has only one purpose, and it is to kill. ...

You're entitled to your opinion, irrespective of how unsupportable and lacking in fact it appears to be.

All these "friends" showing up at his memorial is nice. I wish one of them had told him when and where is not good for a solo jog.

waste of time

Yep.

All these "friends" showing up at his memorial is nice. I wish one of them had told him when and where is not good for a solo jog.

The students in Ada were perhaps not familiar with Duncan. Doesn't matter when Evil steps in.

The students in Ada were perhaps not familiar with Duncan. Doesn't matter when Evil steps in.

True, being in groups help scare evil off though. I'm just Monday morning quarterbacking.

You're entitled to your opinion, irrespective of how unsupportable and lacking in fact it appears to be.



The premise of my argument was that a bat, a screw driver, and a gallon of gas are not created for the sole purpose of shooting a projectile at lethal speeds, because they're not weapons, and classifying them as "tools" alongside firearms is lazy and a misrepresentation of how drastically more dangerous a firearm is. If you believe that statement is "unsupportable" and "lacking in fact" I'm very curious of what you use firearms and gallons of gas for.

I use my gun to open my beer, door stop, paper weight, and fashion accessory.

Murrica.

I use my gun to open my beer, door stop, paper weight, and fashion accessory.

Murrica.

Does that have any meaning?

Post 137 and 142

Post 137 and 142

OK, I guess.

The premise of my argument was that a bat, a screw driver, and a gallon of gas are not created for the sole purpose of shooting a projectile at lethal speeds, because they're not weapons, and classifying them as "tools" alongside firearms is lazy and a misrepresentation of how drastically more dangerous a firearm is. If you believe that statement is "unsupportable" and "lacking in fact" I'm very curious of what you use firearms and gallons of gas for.

Your original premise was flawed, and your modified premise is as well. I"ll presume you recognize you did already change your premise.
You began with: A firearm has only one purpose, and that is to kill

You have now moved to a firearm being: created for the sole purpose of shooting a projectile at lethal speeds

This modified position, though still flawed, shows the ability to reevaluate. You may eventually reach reality:
A firearm is a tool. Like any tool, it has a variety of uses, proper and improper.
A firearm permits a user to send a projectile at the user's intended target.
The speed of the projectile varies depending on several factors.
The projectile is capable of causing a variety of consequences, varying from minor to lethal to extremely catastrophic.
The level of consequence is dependent upon the skill, knowledge and intent of the user.
The same tool that can put a tight grouping in a range target, demonstrating skill in use, can help put food on a table and scare off a predator. It can likewise disable a fleeing suspect or advancing attacker, or injure an innocent bystander, or end the life of a dangerous threat, or end the life an innocent person.
The same tool which permits a user to put on a marksmanship display can trigger an explosion if the user fires a projectile into certain substances.

As to your curiosity about a gallon of gas, while I do not misuse gasoline, some outside the norm uses, which occur too frequently, include burning of evidence and/or a body, living or deceased, in a stolen vehicle, rapid destruction of a structure, occupied or empty, suicide and torture. Folks who possess a working moral compass tend to only use it to power their vehicles or common tools like lawnmowers and trimmers. At times they get adventurous and burn out a stump or quick start a bonfire, but by and large they exercise care if how they use it.

It is not the tool that creates the danger.

Your original premise was flawed, and your modified premise is as well. I"ll presume you recognize you did already change your premise.
You began with: A firearm has only one purpose, and that is to kill

You have now moved to a firearm being: created for the sole purpose of shooting a projectile at lethal speeds

This modified position, though still flawed, shows the ability to reevaluate. You may eventually reach reality:
A firearm is a tool. Like any tool, it has a variety of uses, proper and improper.
A firearm permits a user to send a projectile at the user's intended target.
The speed of the projectile varies depending on several factors.
The projectile is capable of causing a variety of consequences, varying from minor to lethal to extremely catastrophic.
The level of consequence is dependent upon the skill, knowledge and intent of the user.
The same tool that can put a tight grouping in a range target, demonstrating skill in use, can help put food on a table and scare off a predator. It can likewise disable a fleeing suspect or advancing attacker, or injure an innocent bystander, or end the life of a dangerous threat, or end the life an innocent person.
The same tool which permits a user to put on a marksmanship display can trigger an explosion if the user fires a projectile into certain substances.

As to your curiosity about a gallon of gas, while I do not misuse gasoline, some outside the norm uses, which occur too frequently, include burning of evidence and/or a body, living or deceased, in a stolen vehicle, rapid destruction of a structure, occupied or empty, suicide and torture. Folks who possess a working moral compass tend to only use it to power their vehicles or common tools like lawnmowers and trimmers. At times they get adventurous and burn out a stump or quick start a bonfire, but by and large they exercise care if how they use it.

It is not the tool that creates the danger.

You are correct that the tool (in this case a gun) does not create the danger. However, it does enhance the environment and potent of danger.

It is not the tool that creates the danger.

If the tool was created for the purpose of killing people, I'd say a gun would be much more effective than a bat, a gallon of gasoline or a screwdriver. Quite a bit more effort is required for those to kill a person. I can't, offhand, think of a single instance of a drive by baseball-batting or drive by screwdriver shanking. A gun is different. It's literally point and shoot.

The inherent danger insofar as its capacity to end life is more vastly greater than any of those things. This increases the lethality of that tool when it inevitably falls into the wrong hands.

If the tool was created for the purpose of killing people, I'd say a gun would be much more effective than a bat, a gallon of gasoline or a screwdriver. Quite a bit more effort is required for those to kill a person. I can't, offhand, think of a single instance of a drive by baseball-batting or drive by screwdriver shanking. A gun is different. It's literally point and shoot.

The inherent danger insofar as its capacity to end life is more vastly greater than any of those things. This increases the lethality of that tool when it inevitably falls into the wrong hands.

But, IMO, makes the tool no more responsible for the end result. I blame index fingers!

But, IMO, makes the tool no more responsible for the end result. I blame index fingers!

Then don't blame the atomic bomb for ending WW2? Blame the bombardier?

Then don't blame the atomic bomb for ending WW2? Blame the bombardier?

That's not the same argument.

However, I wouldn't blame the bomb for the multitude of deaths. I would say we are the responsible party.

Bombs, like guns, are tools of death - however, they are both paperweights until a person uses them - making the person the one to blame, not the inanimate object.

And an atomic bomb is not a better tool for achieving a multitude of deaths than a screwdriver?

I would propose that we couldn't have ended WW2 with screwdrivers.

And an atomic bomb is not a better tool for achieving a multitude of deaths than a screwdriver?

I would propose that we couldn't have ended WW2 with screwdrivers.

You're arguing with the wrong person. I never said one tool was or wasn't better for killing.

Matters not to me which one is more efficient at the act of killing, none are lethal without a person choosing to use them for the purpose of killing.

Before we had bullets and bombs human would kill others by simply surrounding their fortress and starve them out.

Ah, so you think these kids were equipped to surround someone's house and starve them out?

It may appear I'm just being flippant, but your premise, guns don't kill people, people kill people, is fundamentally flawed and I'm jerking you around to illustrate my point. When presented with a more convenient tool, people can and will kill a lot more people. This inevitably leads to more dead people. Thus, guns kill people, atomic bombs kill lots of people. Baseball bats, gasoline and screwdrivers can kill people, but nearly so effectively and finally, a-bombs being sold at Walgreen's would quickly result in the apocalypse.

I can't, offhand, think of a single instance of a drive by baseball-batting or drive by screwdriver shanking.

It happens all the time (unless you are fixating the 'drive-by' portion). A WWII vet was just beaten to death with flashlights.

Police: Arrest Made In Beating Death Of 88-Year-Old WWII Vet « CBS Seattle (http://seattle.cbslocal.com/2013/08/23/daughter-in-law-world-war-ii-vet-beaten-to-death-with-big-heavy-flashlights/)


Authorities say the two young African American men, between 16 and 19 years old, approached Delbert Belton in his car at random Wednesday night outside an Eagles Lodge as he was waiting for a friend.

Belton was found by police with serious head injuries and died in the hospital Thursday.

Belton’s daughter-in-law tells KREM-TV that the suspects beat him with flashlights.

“They used those great big heavy flashlights,” Bobbie Belton said. “The doctors said he was bleeding from all parts of his face.”


I'll admit, a gun make a good way to kill a person, but it also makes a good way to scare a person. For the coming currency collapse I bought a shotgun. My neighbor said I couldn't shot everyone. I told him I didn't have to shot anyone. I just had to encourage the mob to go to his house first.

So you're making the case that an isolated incident negates all of the cumulative data out there?

And then something about a gun and the coming race war or whatever?

Thanks for your contribution.:pat_head:

Your original premise was flawed, and your modified premise is as well. I"ll presume you recognize you did already change your premise.
You began with: A firearm has only one purpose, and that is to kill

You have now moved to a firearm being: created for the sole purpose of shooting a projectile at lethal speeds

When I stated "lethal speeds" I assumed you would understand I was still referring to using a gun as a weapon. Yes, there are things that can shoot projectiles at lethal speeds that are not weapons, however I'm obviously not talking about those, and my premise remains the same. That a gun has only one purpose, and that is to kill, by shooting things at lethal speeds.


The same tool that can put a tight grouping in a range target, demonstrating skill in use, can help put food on a table and scare off a predator. It can likewise disable a fleeing suspect or advancing attacker, or injure an innocent bystander, or end the life of a dangerous threat, or end the life an innocent person.

So you are suggesting that a firearm does not have only one use, and that its many uses include: practicing to kill something, killing animals for food in 2013, scaring someone off your property at the threat of killing in self defense, and shooting someone to hopefully inflict a non-lethal wound? There's just one problem that you can't get around. Those all involve killing things. If you were to ask someone to list the practical uses of a firearm, and then practical uses of gasoline, or a baseball bat, they would all be significantly different. Because I can't power my car with a rifle.


The level of consequence is dependent upon the skill, knowledge and intent of the user.

Following this logic let's create a few hypothetical scenarios.

1. I have a gun and no knowledge of weapons but I'm angry and want to kill things.
2. I have a screw driver and I'm angry and want to kill things.

One is severely more dangerous, because firearms barely require any knowledge or skill to use. It's just point and shoot. Because they were INVENTED for the purpose of killing. I agree with you, that if a lunatic wants to kill people, he's going to use whatever tool available to accomplish his task. However, why are we allowing a firearm to be in the discussion at all? Gas powers my car; if someone wants to use that to murder people he can, but at least the gasoline serves a viable purpose. A hammer helps us build structures and objects, and if someone wants to use it to murder someone, unfortunately they can, but at least the hammer serves a viable purpose in society other than killing. A gun is easy to use, significantly more dangerous, and does not serve a practical use outside of killing, self defense (through threat of killing), and going to competitions (to practice your ability use this weapon.)


It is not the tool that creates the danger.

Alright, so a "tool" is only as dangerous as the human's intent in using it, and all "tools" are equally dangerous. I'm going to go warn the government that after all these years they've been worrying about nuclear holocaust, but in every American's shed there is a screw driver, and a select few of them may have the same motives as someone with a suitcase nuke. Dear God help us.

Zack, not not all the examples involve killing something. That's your perspective, and as I noted, it's a flawed premise. But hey, you're entitled to your opinion. Just don't expect others to transform the opinion into facts.

A lot of people put a lot of time and effort into firearms and have never so much as taken down a bird with a pellet gun in their entire lives. Myself, my last hunting trip was in my teens. Notwithstanding, my skills are better today than back in my hunting days. Choosing not to hunt is well, a choice. Doesn't ahve thing one to do with firearm appreciation or skill acquisition.

Hate firearms if you must. I shall not be joining your particular parade.

Zack, not not all the examples involve killing something. That's your perspective, and as I noted, it's a flawed premise. But hey, you're entitled to your opinion. Just don't expect others to transform the opinion into facts.

A lot of people put a lot of time and effort into firearms and have never so much as taken down a bird with a pellet gun in their entire lives. Myself, my last hunting trip was in my teens. Notwithstanding, my skills are better today than back in my hunting days. Choosing not to hunt is well, a choice. Doesn't ahve thing one to do with firearm appreciation or skill acquisition.

Hate firearms if you must. I shall not be joining your particular parade.


Don't assume I hate firearms. That's irrelevant to my argument, and my argument isn't opinion based, it is fact based. Firearms are weapons, and they are inherently more dangerous than most non-weapons. "Firearm appreciation or skill acquisition" doesn't negate the fact that they are still weapons. Someone could collect nuclear bombs, and never intend to use them for the reason they were created, but that doesn't negate the fact they were created to kill.

And in response to this:


Zack, not not all the examples involve killing something. That's your perspective, and as I noted, it's a flawed premise.

Just because you don't understand the premise doesn't mean it's flawed. Of course you can give examples of how you could use a gun in a non-weapon scenario. You could say "I only use my gun as a paper weight." Or, "I like to collect rifles and just look at them." But those don't negate the fact that THEY ARE STILL WEAPONS. Following your thought process, EVERYTHING WOULD BE LEGAL. Because someone who has a bag of crystal meth doesn't have to use it. They could just appreciate drugs and keep it on their mantle. Or someone who has nuclear bomb might just appreciate WW2 history, so it should be legal for everyone, since after all, they don't have to detonate it.

Since you keep referring to my premise as opinion based, let me outline it more clearly for you.

1. Firearms are intended to be weapons, and hopefully you understand why "I would only use mine to support the missing leg on my table" is flawed.
2. Screw Drivers, Hammers, Baseball bats CAN BE USED as weapons, however at a less effective rate than items created for the sole purpose of being a weapon.
3. Therefore, firearms are inherently more dangerous than most other non weapons, simply because their PRIMARY purpose is to kill. So stating that all tools are equally dangerous, and the only variance in danger is a product of the intent of the human, is a flawed argument.

As some have said a gun is a weapon and was made for that purpose. However any number of things can also be a weapon when a person chooses to use it that way. BBates was right and we need to look beyond the crime it's self and start looking at the reasons. Was a case of three kids with no morals being drawn together or is it something else. Would it have made a difference if they used baseball bats rather than a gun or did the gun make it easier, and less messy, for them to take a life.

What has changed in society that makes kids do the crimes they do? When I was that age and I was bored I found something a lot less destructive to do and never thought of shooting somebody that jogged by. Are these three kids all sociopaths? The crime is horrific but unfortunate it's not an isolated case. Not sure what we (society) can do but just being horrified when it happens isn't doing anything about it. Did these kids finish school, were there rec areas where they could have gone and not been so bored, did they have jobs? Lots of questions, few answers. Instead of sniping at each we should be looking at how to prevent things like this. Of course all this is JMHO.

A friend of mine once said when somebody told him guns don't kill people is then why do they give soldiers guns? I'm a gun owner and have hunted since I was 10 with my father but haven't lately. I tend to like fishing more, the fish have a fighting chance.

Ah, so you think these kids were equipped to surround someone's house and starve them out?

Such bizarre grasps at straws.

As some have said a gun is a weapon and was made for that purpose. However any number of things can also be a weapon when a person chooses to use it that way. BBates was right and we need to look beyond the crime it's self and start looking at the reasons. Was a case of three kids with no morals being drawn together or is it something else. Would it have made a difference if they used baseball bats rather than a gun or did the gun make it easier, and less messy, for them to take a life.

I completely agree that the weapon isn't to blame, it's the person. However, that doesn't negate how lethal a weapon is. A gun is far more lethal than a baseball bat, or any other make shift weapon. The psychology of senseless violence is very important, but so is understanding that having dangerous weapons that are easy to obtain and even easier to use has a cost.


Such bizarre grasps at straws.

Did his point just go over your head? It was actually quite clever.

To be sure, guns in the historical sense are made to kill. I'm not sure on the history of the canon vis-a-vis guns, but I'm pretty sure the canon came first, so it is easy to assume the gun was initially created as an extension of the canon, and probably understood to be good for both hunting and military effort, both of which are essentially killing activities.

In the modern sense, I'm not so sure all guns are created equal and the idea that all guns are created specifically for the purpose of killing anything, especially humans, is assumptive.

The capacity for a firearm to kill any living thing on the other end of the bullet is undeniable. And in as much as the reduction of the argument that something is created for self-defense boils down to the ability to have the final advantage (death) over a predator, the assumption above is probably warranted...

Now that being said, I maintain both parts to my earlier comment: "the tool (in this case a gun) does not create the danger. However, it does enhance the environment and potent of danger."

---------------------------------------

What does not seem to get discussed very often is the environment. The assumption seems to be that if you legislate gun-control then problems will be rectified. The problem is that not only does this assumption fly directly in the face of the real environment present in the US, but it also ignores other contributing factors to the environment in which the danger is present.

1. Mental health needs to be addressed in this country and not just for firearms issues. Gun-control will not change the fact that people are mentally ill. Will it lessen the impact of the mentally ill on other people, probably...how much? I don't think that is knowable, and I don't necessarily think it would be as large as some believe.

2. WE HAVE A HUGE EFFING PROBLEM WITH GANGS. I'd love to know what the percentage is of firearm homicides that are related to gang activity. I imagine the percentage is extremely high. I don't think many of the United States' peer countries have quite the quantity nor quality of gang problems the US has.

3. This country is massive. MASSIVE. This ties into the discussions we have over suburbia/urbanity etc, but there is a huge problem in this country with understanding the resources necessary to enforce legislation over a 3.1M square mile area that is almost entirely inhabitable. Moving illegal products throughout all of the Americas including the United States is pretty dang easy. Gun control for Germany is not comparable to gun control in the US.

4. This country is a massive producer of firearms. It's a big industry, and that enhances the difficulty of gun-control…Not just the economic side either. The actual product side means there are tons of weapons in the states, and they won't all just disappear with gun-control. The logic that if only the bad guys have guns, that's not a good thing, is probably at least partly tenable.

5. There is an undercurrent of both class and race issues that fuel the general drive to make stupid decisions regarding life with other people. As a country, we have and continue to do horribly with addressing these issues. This is definitely another thread of discussion, but it's pertinent as a footnote.

At some point you may realize every example you have given is dependent on how a tool is used. Perhaps not.
Either way, enjoy the day.

At some point you may realize every example you have given is dependent on how a tool is used. Perhaps not.
Either way, enjoy the day.

Clearly you aren't capable of evaluating anything I said. Of course I realize my examples are dependent on how a tool is used. That is irrelevant. That is what I am trying to convey to you. What is relevant is what they are capable of doing. A firearm is more capable of murder than a screw driver. Do you agree with this statement?

In the modern sense, I'm not so sure all guns are created equal and the idea that all guns are created specifically for the purpose of killing anything, especially humans, is assumptive.

I actually agree with the majority of your post. And I also agree that perhaps firearms have evolved and are not necessarily created anymore for the sole purpose of killing. However, guns have not yet reached a point of obsoletion. Collecting ancient weapons today is legal, because they have lost their potency as a weapon. Guns are not at that point yet, and are still very dangerous. It may be premature to enter a phase of "collecting guns as a harmless activity," as guns are still in no sense of the word, harmless.

What is relevant is what they are capable of doing. A firearm is more capable of murder than a screw driver. Do you agree with this statement?No, I do not. Granted that a firearm makes it easier, but that's not a measure of capability -- capability means simply the ability to do something, and that means the firearm is no more capable of killing than the human hand or any other tool.

During my service in the Korean police action I fired quite a few rounds, and even directed the fire of huge Navy cannon from offshore. I'm reasonable sure, though not absolutely certain, that out of all those incidents I killed probably five Chinese soldiers, and none of those were with my personal firearm. I never fired it at another person in all that time. While it certainly had the capability of killing someone, it never did so on its own.

Teo's points above are much more pertinent to this case than are the arguments that gun control might have prevented the crime. It certainly didn't deter the two young punks in Washington state who beat an old man to death with flashlights -- which obviously are as capable of murder as is any firearm...

Clearly you aren't capable of evaluating anything I said. Of course I realize my examples are dependent on how a tool is used. That is irrelevant. That is what I am trying to convey to you. What is relevant is what they are capable of doing. A firearm is more capable of murder than a screw driver. Do you agree with this statement?

You need to choose a word different than capable, because there's no degree of capability when death is the measurement. It either can or can't, and a screw driver can.

I actually agree with the majority of your post. And I also agree that perhaps firearms have evolved and are not necessarily created anymore for the sole purpose of killing. However, guns have not yet reached a point of obsoletion. Collecting ancient weapons today is legal, because they have lost their potency as a weapon. Guns are not at that point yet, and are still very dangerous. It may be premature to enter a phase of "collecting guns as a harmless activity," as guns are still in no sense of the word, harmless.

Can you honestly project a day when guns will reach this point of obsoleteness?

I know you haven't really made this a dialogue about what you would do to address gun-conrol, but there is a constitutional issue at play that starts to be an issue in what you're talking about in this post.

No, I do not. Granted that a firearm makes it easier, but that's not a measure of capability -- capability means simply the ability to do something, and that means the firearm is no more capable of killing than the human hand or any other tool.


You need to choose a word different than capable, because there's no degree of capability when death is the measurement. It either can or can't, and a screw driver can.

Even if death is the measurement there is no reason to limit the capability or potency of something. "Capability," in the context I'm using it, isn't asking if an object can be used for murder. I'm asking how effective the item is for murder. Which I still think is adequately synonymous with the word "capable." To reinforce my point, if you believe that flashlights are just as capable as any firearm for murder, Jim Kyle, would you have felt comfortable going to war, with your unit only possessing flash lights?

Can you honestly project a day when guns will reach this point of obsoleteness?

I know you haven't really made this a dialogue about what you would do to address gun-conrol, but there is a constitutional issue at play that starts to be an issue in what you're talking about in this post.

No, I cannot project a day when guns would reach that point. However that is only more reason to look into gun control talks more seriously. I haven't reached a firm position on either side of the debate, so I cannot personally advocate gun control, or the 2nd amendment. However, what I can advocate, is a serious study of the damage that the legality of these weapons create, and if stricter laws would reduce crime or create defenseless victims. Honestly I do not know the answer at this point.

I completely agree that the weapon isn't to blame, it's the person. However, that doesn't negate how lethal a weapon is. A gun is far more lethal than a baseball bat, or any other make shift weapon. The psychology of senseless violence is very important, but so is understanding that having dangerous weapons that are easy to obtain and even easier to use has a cost.



I don't believe I said the weapon wasn't to blame. Would these three have killed that young man if they didn't have a gun?

Can you honestly project a day when guns will reach this point of obsoleteness?

I know you haven't really made this a dialogue about what you would do to address gun-conrol, but there is a constitutional issue at play that starts to be an issue in what you're talking about in this post.

When we can all get phasers. Set for stun.

To reinforce my point, if you believe that flashlights are just as capable as any firearm for murder, Jim Kyle, would you have felt comfortable going to war, with your unit only possessing flash lights?Matter of fact, I didn't feel comfortable going to war even though I knew my nation had atomic bombs.

However you're reminding me of Lewis Carroll's Humpty Dumpty: "When I use a word, it means exactly what I want it to mean, no more and no less." This makes serious discussion impossible, as Alice discovered.

Would these three have killed that young man if they didn't have a gun?You might as well ask if they would have killed him had they not had an automobile, making it easy to follow him. "What if" scenarios are useless when dealing with actual happenings.

This whole debate about the gun is beginning to overshadow the actual tragedy, which is that a minimum of four lives have been ruined and an unknown number more have been seriously damaged. If we're to learn anything at all after paying such a huge butcher's bill, it ought to be something that will help us prevent a repetition in the future -- and there's no single simple solution, as events on the west coast show. There are several properties in common between these crimes: young folk, boredom, and opportunity for a thrill.

Perhaps Mark Twain's recipe for raising a young man -- involving a barrel, a bunghole, and closing it up at age 18 -- could be a solution. Anyone have a better one?

However you're reminding me of Lewis Carroll's Humpty Dumpty: "When I use a word, it means exactly what I want it to mean, no more and no less." This makes serious discussion impossible, as Alice discovered.

I gave you my reasoning behind the word and why I used it correctly. "I'm right because I say I'm right." Doesn't win arguments. Unfortunately, I have learned it is impossible to have a rational discussion with irrational people, so I'm going to refrain from responding further.

A firearm is more capable of murder than a screw driver. Do you agree with this statement?

Actually, in reality, no firearm (nor screwdriver) has ever committed a murder, nor is capable of doing so.
Therefore, I must disagree with that statement as their capabilities of committing murder are equal.
That is, zero.

When we can all get phasers. Set for stun.

And make sure your not wearing a red shirt{little inside joke for all the trekkies}.