Three Oklahoma Teens Allegedly Murder Baseball Player Out Of Boredom

[Midtowner]

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?

[BBatesokc]

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.

[Midtowner]

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.

[BBatesokc]

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.

[Midtowner]

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

[Midtowner]

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.

[Just the facts]

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

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.

[Midtowner]

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.

[Zack232]

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.

[kevinpate]

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.

[Zack232]

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.

[kelroy55]

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.

[BBatesokc]

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

Such bizarre grasps at straws.

[Zack232]

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.

[Teo9969]

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.

[kevinpate]

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.

[Zack232]

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?

[Zack232]

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.

[Jim Kyle]

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...

[Teo9969]

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.

[Teo9969]

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.

[Zack232]

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?

[Zack232]

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.

[kelroy55]

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?

[Mel]

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.