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?

I agree and my point was if it wasn't for the access to a gun there's a decent chance thise tragedy may not have happened. It goes far beyond the weapon and that's what we need to look at.

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

You're a gonner if you are.

Rednecks like their guns. They like to shoot defenseless animals from afar. No sense in arguing with them about it.....because they'll shoot you.

Rednecks like their guns. They like to shoot defenseless animals from afar. No sense in arguing with them about it.....because they'll shoot you.

Thanks for your quality contribution.

Ah, the singular use defense...

Ok. Forks are intended only for eating. Hence forks make people fat.

Pencils are intended only for writing. Hence forks cause spelling mistakes and bad handwriting.

Ah, the singular use defense...

Ok. Forks are intended only for eating. Hence forks make people fat.

Pencils are intended only for writing. Hence forks cause spelling mistakes and bad handwriting.

These are not equitable comparisons.

Damn I hate stupid people.

These are not equitable comparisons.

Obesity deaths in America top 300k a year. Obesity is caused primarily by overeating. People eat with forks. Forks are only used for eating. Hence forks kill people, not obesity! Ban forks!

Obesity deaths in America top 300k a year. Obesity is caused primarily by overeating. People eat with forks. Forks are only used for eating. Hence forks kill people, not obesity! Ban forks!

If you want to be more analogous, you would use food instead of forks.

That being said...no, it doesn't function nearly the same.

If indeed guns are produced with the singular purpose to kill, then your forks analogy simply doesn't hold water.

Instead of using a poor analogy in a sarcastic tone to mock the legitimate argument of another poster, why not actually address their argument. I'd recommend debating the merits of the opposition's assumption that guns are created to kill...

If you want to be more analogous, you would use food instead of forks.

That being said...no, it doesn't function nearly the same.

If indeed guns are produced with the singular purpose to kill, then your forks analogy simply doesn't hold water.

Instead of using a poor analogy in a sarcastic tone to mock the legitimate argument of another poster, why not actually address their argument. I'd recommend debating the merits of the opposition's assumption that guns are created to kill...

I can argue that as well. But folks who argue the other side won't budge from that absolute, so why bother?

I can argue that as well. But folks who argue the other side won't budge from that absolute, so why bother?

Exactly.

I can argue that as well. But folks who argue the other side won't budge from that absolute, so why bother?They're not arguing, simply asserting. Just as the stereotypical U.S. tourist in other lands is said to believe that if they just speak slowly enough, and more importantly loudly enough, the natives will undestand them...

Ignorance can be cured by teaching, if the subject is willing to learn. Stupidity and fanaticism cannot.

Instead of using a poor analogy in a sarcastic tone to mock the legitimate argument of another poster, why not actually address their argument. I'd recommend debating the merits of the opposition's assumption that guns are created to kill...


I can argue that as well. But folks who argue the other side won't budge from that absolute, so why bother?


They're not arguing, simply asserting. Just as the stereotypical U.S. tourist in other lands is said to believe that if they just speak slowly enough, and more importantly loudly enough, the natives will undestand them...

Ignorance can be cured by teaching, if the subject is willing to learn. Stupidity and fanaticism cannot.


You all might find it interesting that I said the following in post #168


I also agree that perhaps firearms have evolved and are not necessarily created anymore for the sole purpose of killing.

Ignorance can be cured by teaching, if the subject is willing to learn. Stupidity and fanaticism cannot.

Also, stupidity and fanaticism are a result of ignorance. I'm not quite sure what you meant by this statement but it's based on nothing.

Ah, the singular use defense...

Ok. Forks are intended only for eating. Hence forks make people fat.

Pencils are intended only for writing. Hence forks cause spelling mistakes and bad handwriting.

1) Your analogies aren't accurate comparisons
2) I'm arguing that guns are more deadly than other "tools," because a firearm is a weapon. Yes, you can use a pencil as a weapon, but it is not as dangerous as a gun, and a pencil serves a primary purpose that does not involve being a weapon.
3) Please someone actually argue against my points and not resort to pointless fallacy.

Also, stupidity and fanaticism are a result of ignorance. I'm not quite sure what you meant by this statement but it's based on nothing.The key portion of that paragraph is "if the subject is willing to learn." If one is unwilling, nobody (aside from the implacable and uncaring universe itself) can force the learning. I suspect we, again, have a problem of semantics; by "stupidity" I meant those unfortunates who actually lack the capacity for learning at all -- and they do exist, although I'm sure nobody taking part in this discussion falls into that category since we've all learned how to use computers. I'm not so sure, though, about the kids (and adults) who commit such senseless crimes.

1) Your analogies aren't accurate comparisons
2) I'm arguing that guns are more deadly than other "tools," because a firearm is a weapon. Yes, you can use a pencil as a weapon, but it is not as dangerous as a gun, and a pencil serves a primary purpose that does not involve being a weapon.
3) Please someone actually argue against my points and not resort to pointless fallacy.

If your point is that a firearm is more dangerous than a pencil, I don't think you're going to find anybody here disagreeing with you.

If your point is that a firearm has one singular purpose to kill (people), then you are simply wrong.

If your point is that firearms should be regulated/banned, then you need to clarify your reasons for this and provide some ideas for solutions so that a debate/discussion could be had.

If your point is that a firearm is more dangerous than a pencil, I don't think you're going to find anybody here disagreeing with you.

I initially joined this thread because Kevin Pate made the following statement


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.

I believe it's not fair to equate a gun to "any other tool" when the tools he listed are not nearly as dangerous.


If your point is that a firearm has one singular purpose to kill (people), then you are simply wrong.

I never once stated a firearm has a singular purpose of killing people. Guns were invented to be weapons, and sure, you don't have to use your gun as a weapon, but I think we can all agree a firearm has a primary purpose, and it is to kill. Just like any other weapon. (Whether that's hunting animals, or equipping soldiers, or used in self defense, etc)


If your point is that firearms should be regulated/banned, then you need to clarify your reasons for this and provide some ideas for solutions so that a debate/discussion could be had.

I never wanted to argue for or against gun control, as I personally cannot advocate either side of the argument currently.

The key portion of that paragraph is "if the subject is willing to learn." If one is unwilling, nobody (aside from the implacable and uncaring universe itself) can force the learning. I suspect we, again, have a problem of semantics; by "stupidity" I meant those unfortunates who actually lack the capacity for learning at all -- and they do exist, although I'm sure nobody taking part in this discussion falls into that category since we've all learned how to use computers. I'm not so sure, though, about the kids (and adults) who commit such senseless crimes.

Oh. I apologize. I didn't realize you referring to something so vague. Your proceeding statement was referring to people arguing from "the other side," so I assumed you were still in that line of thought, not a hypothetical human who lacks any ability to learn. And sorry if I seem harsh; ad hominem has always been a pet peeve of my mine. If we all just argued each other's statements instead of pointless arrogant banter we might actually reach common ground.

I initially joined this thread because Kevin Pate made the following statement

I believe it's not fair to equate a gun to "any other tool" when the tools he listed are not nearly as dangerous.



Are you arguing just to argue?

Give some thought to what KP said, and instead of getting hung up on the fact that he *is* putting a gun in the same category as x, y, and z, parse *why* he is putting gun in the same category as xyz...because that's his actual point.

Your follow up to KP's original post went something like "Well why don't we legalize grenades and atomic bombs" which means you missed the point of KP's original post.

Are you arguing just to argue?

Give some thought to what KP said, and instead of getting hung up on the fact that he *is* putting a gun in the same category as x, y, and z, parse *why* he is putting gun in the same category as xyz...because that's his actual point.

Your follow up to KP's original post went something like "Well why don't we legalize grenades and atomic bombs" which means you missed the point of KP's original post.

First off, thank you for actually discussing this with me. I believe that I didn't misinterpret his initial point, which can be summarized by


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 follow up statement, about legalizing more dangerous weapons, was to show that yes, while a person is to blame, the tool isn't irrelevant like he implied. So no, I'm not arguing just to argue, I'm stating that just because humans are the users of "tools" or "weapons," does not make the tool or weapon irrelevant.

I don't think any of us has claimed that the tool involved was totally irrevelant. What we have been saying is that the tool itself was not necessarily the only tool these bored young men could have used to relieve their boredom.

As for the sole purpose of a gun being killing, I strongly disagree. Its purpose is to propel a projectile toward a target. If the chosen target happens to be animate, the intent can be any of three results: intimidation (by a near miss), wounding, or killing. The choice of target, and the intended result, are completely the responsibility of the tool's operator.

That said, I can easily support "sensible" regulation of firearms and their use. Obviously they should not be given to toddlers as toys (although I had no objection to my sons' use of cap pistols in their younger days). Neither should they be fired wantonly (for example, the two LEOs who shot at a snake in a birdhouse, and killed a young boy who was fishing with a relative). I could even support requiring holders of carry permits to be at least 25 years of age, since there's pretty strong evidence that the decision-making capabilities of humans doesn't reach maturity until at least that age. And carrying without said permit should have stiff penalties -- and be impartially enforced.

Most who have commented about this case, in the media, seem to have totally overlooked the fact that the gun used was probably stolen, in a burglary in another town not very close to Duncan. Thus it was contraband, by several measures, and no additional laws would have prevented it winding up in the hands of an irresponsible juvenile. How it did so is something that will, hopefully, be investigated and eventually reported in much more detail.

I don't think any of us has claimed that the tool involved was totally irrevelant. What we have been saying is that the tool itself was not necessarily the only tool these bored young men could have used to relieve their boredom.

If Kevin was solely asserting that firearms were not the only tool that they could have used to relieve their boredom, I would have refrained from responding, as that is a blatantly obvious statement. However, it was fairly clear he believes tools are irrelevant, and that humans are the only factor in variance of danger.


It is not the tool that creates the danger. (post #147) I understand that he was stating that a human has to use the tool before a dangerous situation is created, but by equating the gun to other tools he was negating the drastic difference in a firearm and any other house hold item. Kevin, if I misinterpreted your intentions, I apologize.

Now, in response to your statement:


As for the sole purpose of a gun being killing, I strongly disagree.

I have changed my stance on this. I originally stated that the sole purpose of a gun was to kill, however I should have said the primary purpose is to kill. My reasoning behind saying the sole purpose of the gun is to kill was based on how it was invented, as a weapon. I am willing to concede that while not everyone will use a firearm as a weapon, I still believe that killing and defense are the only viable purposes of a gun when discussing their place in society. I don't think using guns in competitions or as a collecting item negates the fact they are still dangerous weapons. Now obviously there are some variances in terms of how powerful the firearm is, or what types of bullets are used, but I'm not addressing any of those circumstances. My argument is that guns are inherently more dangerous than most other tools, because they are created to be efficient weapons, and the argument "guns don't kill people, people kill people" is viable in a literal sense, but is a gross misrepresentation of the truth: the fact the three boys had a firearm instead of a "screw driver, a baseball bat, or a pair of wally world sneakers" made them significantly more dangerous.

How does this factor into gun regulation? I'm not sure. As I have said, I'm neutral as of now. I'd need to research more before I could advocate any position regarding the politics of firearms.

Rednecks like their guns. They like to shoot defenseless animals from afar. No sense in arguing with them about it.....because they'll shoot you.

Apparently so do "bored" small-town, diversely skin-toned, teenaged, gansta-wannabe miscreants.
So, instead of "rednecks" would it be fair to refer to these bottom-feeding sociopaths as "mulattoneck (wannabees)?
Or simply as punk-ass, pencil-necked pinheads?

Oh. And please be advised that it is unlikely that a redneck would shoot a defenseless animal from "afar" on account o' the danged ol' flames interfere with aimin' the rifle.

Update: First-degree murder charges dropped against Duncan teen | KFOR.com (http://kfor.com/2014/06/17/hearing-for-teen-accused-in-boredom-murder-of-australian-athlete-scheduled-for-today/)