Woman Accidentally Shot Dead by Two-Year-Old Boy in Wal-Mart

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: DrJunk

Have you ever seen someone 'hold responsible' a kitchen knife manufacturer when a person stabs another to death with one?

We're actually on the same side of this debate, it would seem. It is silly to hold someone responsible for using a knife not designed, engineered, and expressly marketed to consumers with the intended purpose of lethal incapacitation.

When I said misuse, I put the quotations around it for a reason, and that reason is the poster seems to be under the impression that killing people is injury that comes from misusing a gun. I don't share that opinion, and like you, I think it would be silly for holding manufacturers responsible for creating an object not designed to kill responsible for that use.

Injury from misusing a gun is when you get shotgun shoulder, or gouge your hand because an aftermarket clip doesn't fit as snugly as it could.

These people that use weapons to kill aren't using the weapons in a manner that is at odds with it's design. They are using them in a manner that is consistent with their intended purpose.

To project a missile with lethal force.

Show me another instance where a consumer products intended use causes the death of humans. We need look no further than tobacco. Tobacco was held accountable, why not gun makers?

a reply to: DrJunk

Seeing as murder is illegal (and everyone but the terminally idiotic know this), it's pretty clear that civilians murdering each other with guns is a misuse of the item that the individual has to take personal responsibility for.

Suggesting otherwise is just plain daft.

originally posted by: DrJunk

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: DrJunk

Have you ever seen someone 'hold responsible' a kitchen knife manufacturer when a person stabs another to death with one?

We're actually on the same side of this debate, it would seem. It is silly to hold someone responsible for using a knife not designed, engineered, and expressly marketed to consumers with the intended purpose of lethal incapacitation.

When I said misuse, I put the quotations around it for a reason, and that reason is the poster seems to be under the impression that killing people is injury that comes from misusing a gun. I don't share that opinion, and like you, I think it would be silly for holding manufacturers responsible for creating an object not designed to kill responsible for that use.

Injury from misusing a gun is when you get shotgun shoulder, or gouge your hand because an aftermarket clip doesn't fit as snugly as it could.

These people that use weapons to kill aren't using the weapons in a manner that is at odds with it's design. They are using them in a manner that is consistent with their intended purpose.

To project a missile with lethal force.

Show me another instance where a consumer products intended use causes the death of humans. We need look no further than tobacco. Tobacco was held accountable, why not gun makers?

Tobacco was held accountable because they lied about their product's safety for decades, asserting it doesn't cause any health issues.

No gun manufacturer has ever said guns are safe.

originally posted by: DrJunk

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: DrJunk

Have you ever seen someone 'hold responsible' a kitchen knife manufacturer when a person stabs another to death with one?

....
Show me another instance where a consumer products intended use causes the death of humans. We need look no further than tobacco. Tobacco was held accountable, why not gun makers?

OK,rat poison. It has the intended purpose to kill. If a human uses it to kill a rat, that is its intended usage. However, if a human uses it to kill another human, that is NOT its intended usage, correct? Even though the item was manufactured and sold with the express purpose to kill, it was never intended to kill a human.

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: DrJunk

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: DrJunk

Have you ever seen someone 'hold responsible' a kitchen knife manufacturer when a person stabs another to death with one?

....
Show me another instance where a consumer products intended use causes the death of humans. We need look no further than tobacco. Tobacco was held accountable, why not gun makers?

OK,rat poison. It has the intended purpose to kill. If a human uses it to kill a rat, that is its intended usage. However, if a human uses it to kill another human, that is NOT its intended usage, correct? Even though the item was manufactured and sold with the express purpose to kill, it was never intended to kill a human.

Please reread my premise. Rat Poison's intended use does not cause the death of humans. Your argument is moot.

originally posted by: DrJunk

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: DrJunk

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: DrJunk

Have you ever seen someone 'hold responsible' a kitchen knife manufacturer when a person stabs another to death with one?

....
Show me another instance where a consumer products intended use causes the death of humans. We need look no further than tobacco. Tobacco was held accountable, why not gun makers?

OK,rat poison. It has the intended purpose to kill. If a human uses it to kill a rat, that is its intended usage. However, if a human uses it to kill another human, that is NOT its intended usage, correct? Even though the item was manufactured and sold with the express purpose to kill, it was never intended to kill a human.

Please reread my premise. Rat Poison's intended use does not cause the death of humans. Your argument is moot.

Then please refute my argument.

originally posted by: skalla
a reply to: DrJunk

Seeing as murder is illegal (and everyone but the terminally idiotic know this), it's pretty clear that civilians murdering each other with guns is a misuse of the item that the individual has to take personal responsibility for.

Suggesting otherwise is just plain daft.

Homicide is not illegal until you put intention behind it, intention which generally needs to be mettled out in a court of law. So, are you telling me, that a gun is a Schrodinger's Cat every time it is used to kill someone until it is arbitrated as to whether it was used as intended?

Seems like a lot of extra rules for guns, why not make these extra rules easier...

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
Tobacco was held accountable because they lied about their product's safety for decades, asserting it doesn't cause any health issues.

No gun manufacturer has ever said guns are safe.

I would argue that guns sold with safeties qualifies as a gun manufacturers attempt to create a safe gun.

originally posted by: DrJunk
I would argue that guns sold with safeties qualifies as a gun manufacturers attempt to create a safe gun.

See this is the problem. You are arguing(futilely I might add) and not listening to logic.

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: DrJunk
I would argue that guns sold with safeties qualifies as a gun manufacturers attempt to create a safe gun.

See this is the problem. You are arguing(futilely I might add) and not listening to logic.

Way to make me the target instead of the merit of my post.

Nice example.

originally posted by: DrJunk

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
Tobacco was held accountable because they lied about their product's safety for decades, asserting it doesn't cause any health issues.

No gun manufacturer has ever said guns are safe.

I would argue that guns sold with safeties qualifies as a gun manufacturers attempt to create a safe gun.

But, to be clear, no gun manufacturer ever has made claims that their weapons are safe. They've never implied it, they've never outright said it. Now, if there were suddenly a surge of accidental gun-deaths because firearms were discharging even WITH the safety on, you might have a case here, but that's not what you're arguing.

originally posted by: DrJunk

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: DrJunk

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: DrJunk

Have you ever seen someone 'hold responsible' a kitchen knife manufacturer when a person stabs another to death with one?

....
Show me another instance where a consumer products intended use causes the death of humans. We need look no further than tobacco. Tobacco was held accountable, why not gun makers?

OK,rat poison. It has the intended purpose to kill. If a human uses it to kill a rat, that is its intended usage. However, if a human uses it to kill another human, that is NOT its intended usage, correct? Even though the item was manufactured and sold with the express purpose to kill, it was never intended to kill a human.

Please reread my premise. Rat Poison's intended use does not cause the death of humans. Your argument is moot.

Very well. So, by your logic, if the manufacturer places a warning on the packaging or in the instructions that use of the product is for target, hunting, or lawful self-defense purposes only, then they are indemnified against responsibility. Am I correct?

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
But, to be clear, no gun manufacturer ever has made claims that their weapons are safe. They've never implied it, they've never outright said it. Now, if there were suddenly a surge of accidental gun-deaths because firearms were discharging even WITH the safety on, you might have a case here, but that's not what you're arguing.

The first site I went to was Remington's site.

Hunting and target shooting are among the safest of all sports.

www.remington.com...

This is certainly an implication, if not an outright claim of the safety of their products. I don't really care to dig deeper on this. It's either there or it isn't. One implication disproves your claim.

originally posted by: DrJunk

originally posted by: skalla
a reply to: DrJunk

Seeing as murder is illegal (and everyone but the terminally idiotic know this), it's pretty clear that civilians murdering each other with guns is a misuse of the item that the individual has to take personal responsibility for.

Suggesting otherwise is just plain daft.

Homicide is not illegal until you put intention behind it, intention which generally needs to be mettled out in a court of law. So, are you telling me, that a gun is a Schrodinger's Cat every time it is used to kill someone until it is arbitrated as to whether it was used as intended?

Seems like a lot of extra rules for guns, why not make these extra rules easier...

Interesting take on my point, especially as i was talking about murder which you clearly quoted, and not homicide which you then instead decided to talk about.

originally posted by: DrJunk

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
But, to be clear, no gun manufacturer ever has made claims that their weapons are safe. They've never implied it, they've never outright said it. Now, if there were suddenly a surge of accidental gun-deaths because firearms were discharging even WITH the safety on, you might have a case here, but that's not what you're arguing.

The first site I went to was Remington's site.

Hunting and target shooting are among the safest of all sports.

www.remington.com...

This is certainly an implication, if not an outright claim of the safety of their products. I don't really care to dig deeper on this. It's either there or it isn't. One implication disproves your claim.

Fair point, but they're saying specifically that hunting and target shooting is safe, not the product itself. And they are correct, actually. Very few people die while hunting or target shooting. The same can't be said for racecar driving, or skydiving, or stunt-plane racing. So statistically, it is a very safe sport.

What I fail to see here is the gun manufacturer saying their PRODUCT is safe.

originally posted by: DrJunk

originally posted by: skalla
a reply to: DrJunk

Seeing as murder is illegal (and everyone but the terminally idiotic know this), it's pretty clear that civilians murdering each other with guns is a misuse of the item that the individual has to take personal responsibility for.

Suggesting otherwise is just plain daft.

Homicide is not illegal until you put intention behind it, intention which generally needs to be mettled out in a court of law. So, are you telling me, that a gun is a Schrodinger's Cat every time it is used to kill someone until it is arbitrated as to whether it was used as intended?

Seems like a lot of extra rules for guns, why not make these extra rules easier...

Really, homicide is NOT illegal? Intention has nothing to do with homicide. Homicide is the killing of another human. As for intent, that is where the degree of homicide and/or escalation to the level of murder comes into play. But, regardless of the intent, homicide is still illegal. And, killing someone in self-defense (if proven in a court of law or by judge) is not considered homicide in the eyes of the law.

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: DrJunk

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: DrJunk

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: DrJunk

Have you ever seen someone 'hold responsible' a kitchen knife manufacturer when a person stabs another to death with one?

....
Show me another instance where a consumer products intended use causes the death of humans. We need look no further than tobacco. Tobacco was held accountable, why not gun makers?

OK,rat poison. It has the intended purpose to kill. If a human uses it to kill a rat, that is its intended usage. However, if a human uses it to kill another human, that is NOT its intended usage, correct? Even though the item was manufactured and sold with the express purpose to kill, it was never intended to kill a human.

Please reread my premise. Rat Poison's intended use does not cause the death of humans. Your argument is moot.

Very well. So, by your logic, if the manufacturer places a warning on the packaging or in the instructions that use of the product is for target, hunting, or lawful self-defense purposes only, then they are indemnified against responsibility. Am I correct?

I would argue that the warning on that packaging is void because of 2nd Amendment protections, no infringement of rights can be granted to a corporation by the government. Example: If you owe the Bank money, they can't arrest you and hold you until you pay.

I think we would be seeing lawsuits against gun manufacturers all the time if it were easier (or legal) to sue them.

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: DrJunk

originally posted by: skalla
a reply to: DrJunk

Seeing as murder is illegal (and everyone but the terminally idiotic know this), it's pretty clear that civilians murdering each other with guns is a misuse of the item that the individual has to take personal responsibility for.

Suggesting otherwise is just plain daft.

Homicide is not illegal until you put intention behind it, intention which generally needs to be mettled out in a court of law. So, are you telling me, that a gun is a Schrodinger's Cat every time it is used to kill someone until it is arbitrated as to whether it was used as intended?

Seems like a lot of extra rules for guns, why not make these extra rules easier...

Really, homicide is NOT illegal? Intention has nothing to do with homicide. Homicide is the killing of another human. As for intent, that is where the degree of homicide and/or escalation to the level of murder comes into play. But, regardless of the intent, homicide is still illegal. And, killing someone in self-defense (if proven in a court of law or by judge) is not considered homicide in the eyes of the law.

Please reread the legal definition of homicide, because you are in error.

a reply to: DrJunk

Then please refer to murder, as that is what i referred to. Nice deflection though

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: DrJunk

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
But, to be clear, no gun manufacturer ever has made claims that their weapons are safe. They've never implied it, they've never outright said it. Now, if there were suddenly a surge of accidental gun-deaths because firearms were discharging even WITH the safety on, you might have a case here, but that's not what you're arguing.

The first site I went to was Remington's site.

Hunting and target shooting are among the safest of all sports.

www.remington.com...

This is certainly an implication, if not an outright claim of the safety of their products. I don't really care to dig deeper on this. It's either there or it isn't. One implication disproves your claim.

Fair point, but they're saying specifically that hunting and target shooting is safe, not the product itself. And they are correct, actually. Very few people die while hunting or target shooting. The same can't be said for racecar driving, or skydiving, or stunt-plane racing. So statistically, it is a very safe sport.

What I fail to see here is the gun manufacturer saying their PRODUCT is safe.

The implication wasn't that is was safer than the most dangerous sports, it said it was amongst the safest of all sports. The implication is that walking in the woods at twilight with a loaded Remington is as safe as running across a soccer pitch or playing volleyball, or basketball. Maybe that is a factually accurate claim, but... I don't think so... and I'm willing to concede the argument.