Try killing 32 people on a campus within minutes with a car, baseball bat, pillow or a steak knife. Guns are much more dangerous "tools" and they are a weapon anytime they're used to threaten another human being or kill another living creature, not just human beings.

Guns are not nearly as dangerous as some diesel fuel and fertilizer.

Given a gun-free zone campus…a lecture hall with 300 students…a truck, some barrels, fuel, fertilizer...and a few other legal components (I refuse to mention here)…heck we can even throw in the baseball bat, steak knifes, and pillows…there are your 32 + people.

The point is…anything (not just guns) in the hands of someone intent on doing harm can be potentially deadly. So is the answer to band all these items? I think not.

Who's talking about banning anything? And how often does someone blow up a building in the US? The last incident I recall was the Oklahoma bombing in 1995. On the other hand major school and workplace shootings (especially of the suicide variety) occur several times a year in this country. It's much easier to just slip a gun or two in your pants than haul a bunch of barrels with fuel and fertilizer undetected.

A gun is a weapon whose purpose is to kill or wound. A gun has no benign function. Everything else you listed has a purpose other than killing or wounding.
It has nothing to do with cars, and can't be reasonably compared to a car in any fashion.

A gun has neither benign nor malignant function and it has no purpose. A gun cannot threaten and a gun cannot set a people free and a gun cannot enslave anybody. A gun could sit loaded and cocked and ready to fire for years and years and harm nobody. It could be pointed at a bathtub full of orphaned babies and it would be no threat to them whatsoever.

B

Depends on the size of the crowd, and the size and speed of the vehicle.


It's a useless argument.
Sissies are afraid of guns and the responsible people that use them, and responsible gun owners don't understand the sissies because the sissies make absolutely no sense.

Nuff said, case closed.

A gun absolutely has a purpose. Anything manufactured or produced by a human being has a purpose.

Wrong. The so-called "sissies" are afraid of guns in the hands of criminals and they have every right to feel that way, given our high crime rate.

They are already there. Nothing you say or do can stop that. Might as well defend yourself. That or wait for 911 which is pretty much there to fill up the paperwork so you can claim insurance.

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.

"This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards"


Beautiful.........got any more credible evidence of your position?

Now you're being willfully obstinate. By the definition of yours which I purposefully troubled myself to read ...

1. the reason for which something exists or is done, made, used, etc.
2. an intended or desired result; end; aim; goal.
3. determination; resoluteness.
4. the subject in hand; the point at issue.
5. practical result, effect, or advantage: to act to good purpose.
–verb (used with object)
6. to set as an aim, intention, or goal for oneself.
7. to intend; design.
8. to resolve (to do something): He purposed to change his way of life radically.
–verb (used without object)
9. to have a purpose.
—Idioms
10. on purpose, by design; intentionally: How could you do such a thing on purpose?
11. to the purpose, relevant; to the point: Her objections were not to the purpose.

You have misunderstood that which you believe supports your argument.

No go to the wiki page I provided and follow the discussion therein and note how it applies to your dictionary definitions.

B

The article refers to "purpose" in human life, theology, and popular culture. All are subset of the definition of "purpose" to which I already gave you.

None of the discussion in this article would be relevant to an object.

Must I copy & paste the discussion that led to that notice? Trouble yourself to read that which you reference. 2nd page.

Who's being willfully obstinate?

We report.........you decide.

Ok, I'm going to weigh in on this purposeful argument since its apparent absurdity has spawned a purpose of its own.

I'm with Brian. From his link - highlights in bold.

"1. the reason for which something exists or is done, made, used, etc."

A gun is made with the purpose of shooting a bullet, which is in turn intended to impart its considerable kinetic energy into the resistance it encounters along its trajectory - be it air, liquid or physical matter.

Ok, I'm tagging out of the ring...:D

The one you have invented. On purpose. An act which no inanimate object is capable of initiating.

that violates the notion of volition implicit in the word, "purpose". Read the wiki article.

Here's another dictionary.

purpose definition
pur·pose (pʉr′pəs)
transitive verb, intransitive verb -·posed, -·pos·ing
to intend, resolve, or plan
Etymology: ME purposen < OFr porposer, var. of proposer: see propose
noun
something one intends to get or do; intention; aim
resolution; determination
the object for which something exists or is done; end in view
Etymology: ME < OFr porpos
purpose idioms
of set purpose
with a specific end in view
not accidentally; by design
on purpose
by design; intentionally
to good purpose
with a good result or effect; advantageously
to little purpose
or to no purpose
with little (or no) result or effect; pointlessly
to the purpose
relevant; pertinent

:freak:

Tell you what.

The definition speaks for itself.

You can believe what you want.

I'm done.

Cleaning the bathroom would be more satisfying................

I started to but aborted after the heading "This article or section is in need of attention from an expert on the subject." :D ;)

I skimmed the article and it seems centered on the phylosophical approach to purpose, which while completely relevant and worthy of merit, does not address the imparting of the term upon inanimate (until fired) objects.

P.S. This is the best non-intended derailing of a thread I have witnessed in a long time. Or was that the purpose? :P

Would you agree that the terms, "usage" and "purpose" are different? Can you describe how do they differ?

What you both have done is confused the two words. I agree that a usage is as you both argue. But usage, no matter how common, does not make something accurate or correct.

A tool has a use. A person has a purpose. A person can use a tool for a purpose.

That is the verb purpose. Where is the noun purpose?

A gun has a purpose. It does not have purpose.

In its most general sense is not "actual definition". I will agree that the wiki article is talking about the verb. But that doesn't make thr noun nonexistent.

I'm joking around Bot. I see your point and I understand the argument, it's an interesting one. I've done some more research and it seems the terms have become somewhat bastardized.

In summary, I would agree with you Bot that in the purest of terms, usage should be applied to an object "a shovel is used to dig holes, a gun is used to shoot bullets" and purpose should be relegated to human philosophy.

However, it would also seem that this argument is somewhat of an Oxford comma. The usage of the term purpose has apparently been extended and is incorporated into the English language as a noun synonymous with usage. As per definition 2 below (Webster):

Noun
1. An anticipated outcome that is intended or that guides your planned actions; "his intent was to provide a new translation"; "good intentions are not enough"; "it was created with the conscious aim of answering immediate needs"; "he made no secret of his designs".

2. What something is used for; "the function of an auger is to bore holes"; "ballet is beautiful but what use is it?".

3. The quality of being determined to do or achieve something; "his determination showed in his every movement"; "he is a man of purpose".

This title given as a reference : "The 2000 Import and Export Market for Special Purpose Motor Lorries and Vans in Asia "

So, it's not black and white it seems. Perhaps it is yet another noun that is falling prey to the vulgarity of e-volutionary etymological vandalism. :D

I think this thread has lost its purpose. :D

Do you notice that #1 in your list refers not to an inanimate object but to a person?

As clearly as I noticed that #2 refers to an object.

Hey, I all but agree with you. It's not black and white though. IMHO. ;)

Can we build the border fence north of Los Angeles? This is just freaking sick. :mad:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080228/ap_on_re_us/street_shootings

Just FYI. I have never read any thing regarding an “Accidental Discharge” or a firearm “malfunctioning.” Most anything that seems to be classified as an “Accidental Discharge” is really in fact a “negligent” discharge. Through proper maintenance and following the 4 rules of safe gun handling there can never be an “Accidental” discharge. Any negligent discharges can be traced back to poor maintenance or violating one or more of the 4 rules of safe firearm handling.

The closest thing to an accidental discharge that I have ever read happed as follows (but as you will see the gun did not malfunction).

An off duty LEO (law enforcement officer), was at the hospital to undergo some tests. He ignored signs about metal objects and walked into the MRI room with a loaded 1911 style .45. The firearm was carried in a “Locked and Cocked” condition (as recommended when carrying the pistol for self-defense purposes). Upon entering the room, the firearm was immediately sucked into the MRI machine and hit the wall, at which point the firearm discharged the round in the chamber. No one was injured and there was only slight damage to the MRI machine. When the firearm was retrieved from the MRI, the investigators noted that the safety was in fact still engaged. It was ultimately determined that when the firearm was sucked against the wall of the MRI, that the suction was great enough to pull the firing pin block out of the safe position allowing the firearm to discharge.

Had the LEO not ignored signs none of this would have happened. As for the discharge its self, the safety worked as intended and was manipulated by the magnet in the MRI machine.

Back to the original topic, does anyone know if these kind of shootings are occuring more often these days than say 20-40 years ago? I wonder if it has to do with today's culture of medicating everything where anyone mentioning depression or anxiety to a doctor is immediately prescribed drugs to combat these "illnesses". I think that's just stupid. I was depressed as a teenager too, but I got through it like most people and never took any drugs.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/02/25/antidepressants.violence/index.html?iref=newssearch

I think they are. I think a perusal of national police records or FBI records or such will probably show that to be the case. As to what's causing it. I don't think increased medication per se is the problem. I think societal degeneration is the most likely overall cause. Back in the 20's and 30's in the school district where I work kids would even bring guns to school to go hunting with afterwards and such. No-body thought anything of it. My girlfriend who grew up in Boulder Colorado of all places took hunter education classes in school - though she's not a hunter. Did it simply for fun and for firearms training. Now if you even pretend to have a weapon of any kind on you in school everybody flips out. Society itself has changed fundamentally I think. And not always for the better.

- Peter.

It might be societal degeneration. As I stated some time ago kids these days seem to have less discipline and are more spoiled. I just hope the religious nuts won't use this as an excuse to re-introduce and enforce school prayer. Religion is not the answer to violence, discipline and respect for others are.

But how will you discipline without consequences? You can't punish your kids because the mindfawks have told you that it is bad for them, self esteem, etc, etc.

It's near impossible these days. Teachers are afraid of parents suing them and parents are afraid of going to jail and CPS taking their kids away. I'm against child abuse too, but it has gone too far and even minor spanking these days could be considered child abuse. Better not do it in public.

It is called discipline. People should learn from a very young age that there are consequences for their actions. Paddling a child's backside as punishment for doing something they were told not to do is quite appropriate. There are winners and losers in life. Not everyone gets a trophy, somebody comes in last. Not everything we want should be purchased today. Its okay to wait until you have saved the money. Not everything should be instant gratification.

That is what I feel is the problem. People expect more and bigger things out of their lives and don't really work all that hard towards their goals. They feel that its unfair that they don't have, X, Y and Z, even though they haven't worked for it and don't have the talent or skills.

Discipline is what is needed.

RT