Three Oklahoma Teens Allegedly Murder Baseball Player Out Of Boredom

[Jim Kyle]

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.

[Jim Kyle]

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?

[Zack232]

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.

[RadicalModerate]

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.

[Achilleslastand]

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}.

[kelroy55]

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.

[kelroy55]

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

You're a gonner if you are.

[td25er]

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.

[jerrywall]

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.

[jerrywall]

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.

[Teo9969]

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.

[Romulack]

Damn I hate stupid people.

[jerrywall]

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!

[Teo9969]

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...

[jerrywall]

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?

[Teo9969]

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

Exactly.

[Jim Kyle]

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.

[Zack232]

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.

[Zack232]

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.

[Zack232]

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.

[Jim Kyle]

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.

[Teo9969]

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.

[Zack232]

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.

[Zack232]

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.

[Teo9969]

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.