Three Oklahoma Teens Allegedly Murder Baseball Player Out Of Boredom

[Zack232]

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.

[Jim Kyle]

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.

[Zack232]

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.

[RadicalModerate]

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.

[GoOKC1991]

Update: First-degree murder charges dropped against Duncan teen | KFOR.com