No, people (may) have purpose, an inanimate object cannot. In order to have purpose, one must have volition.

Correct, unless the inanimate object malfunctions while perched loaded at the tub full of school children which is highly unlikely, but possible.

So the inanimate object has validity as a threat in this sense, but it is also highly unlikely for someone to test this scenario.

Sorry, no offense, just throwing more semantics into the mix.

purpose: 1. the reason for which something exists.

Semantics are good, these are the rules by which we communicate.

B

Yes. And whose purpose is served?

OT again........I simply proved to you that a gun can have a "purpose".......even though it doesn't have volition.

Wrong as usual.

You demonstrated that they are brought into existence for a purpose. You did not demonstrate that they are purposeful.

Or are you arguing that they have reason which brought them into existence? Give them a Turing Test, I demand it!

You claimed that an inanimate object cannot have a purpose. I proved that you are incorrect. A gun can have a purpose. Every object will have a purpose.

Google is your buddy.

Purpose in its most general sense is the anticipated aim which guides action.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purpose

BTDT. The definition that I offered to you above was #1.........there really is no argument.........you're incorrect on this one.

Inanimate objects cannot have purpose. They have a use or function.

Go read the Wiki entry, it goes into excruciating detail. None of it's discussion follows your (mis-)usage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purpose

Read it and weep.

An inanimate object can (and usually does) have a reason for which it exists.

Therefore, it has a purpose.

Bother yourself to read the wiki entry. I implore you!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purpose

Read the #1 definition:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/purpose

It's you that's off the mark, yet again.