8-year-old's Uzi death at gun show

[Sombra Negra]

You got to stop feeding the trolls.

Either that or Ururu117 is a very stupid person.

Calling your opponent stupid without justification is the quickest way to lose an argument. Other than breaking the fuck down into a fucking torrent of pro-goddamn-fanity, but that hasn't happened quite yet.

 

[Woem]

Hahhaha, hilarious! Doubly hilarious with some of the commentary here!

Why not go to a gun show?
How is an art exhibit any more or less wrong for an 8 year old, considering guns kill far less children then the bus he had to take every day of his life?

This was a hilarious tragedy which is made even more hilarious because it will provoke people who don't think logically to say "well gosh, if only he hadn't been allowed near guns"!

Yes, guns are terrible instruments of life and death, but when we live in a world where the car is far more of a blood god than anything actually designed for destruction, the rules may just be a bit different from what your intuition tells you.

tl;dr: this wasn't sad or tragic at all.

So, you think the un-needed death of an eight year old isn't tragic, but hilarious?

No fucking wonder Jack Thompson wants to ban violent games, how much have people like you been de-sensitized to stuff like this? And before you start telling me about how cars are worse, they are, but what point is there behind allowing more people to die than necessary? Using guns as tools to defend yourself with is one thing, but letting children use them as little more than playthings is another entirely. It's just stupidly negligent.

How is it stupidly negligent when using guns at a young age leads to all sorts of benefits?
Sounds more like a preventive measure, like vaccines, at that point.

Yes, some get hurt by them, but the general populous benefits.

And I am not desensitized. Simply because I have a different opinion than you does not mean I am morally ambiguous or have any sort of abnormality. People have stratifications based on experience and such; this is not necessarily desensitization. For example, you could be ultrasensitized.

It's stupidly negligent because, evidently this kid wasn't schooled in gun safety. Parents should know about this, but why not ask the child itself if they know what they're doing? If they're old enough to handle a deadly weapon, they should be old enough to know how to use it. And, last I checked, shooting yourself in the head is Doing It Wrong. Also: your heart is made of cold, unfeeling steel, you lovely person. Not sarcasm.

Why thank you, it is nice to hear I am lovely sometimes.

It isn't negligent; feeling how a gun fires is the quickest and easiest way to get a child interested in guns, which is the easiest way to get them into gun safety, which is the easiest way to statistically lower their likelyhood of getting hurt from guns.

It is simple logic, and works identically to vaccines.

Perhaps a child should be thought gun safety before it is allowed to fire one. And I'm really not sure if it should be "interested" in them in such a fashion that it believes it has entertainment value or a coolness factor. I agree that guns are tools, but they are not toys. You wouldn't want your kid running around dual-wielding pointy sticks or scissors either.

 

[literallyanythingelse]

That simply conflicts with almost all of child psychology.
Basic "critical point" research has indicated that anywhere from 3 - 6 critical stages characterize developmental psychology. Egocentrism is Freudian and widely discounted in favor of actual empirical research, which conflicts wildly with Freuds three stage mind set.

And, again, as stated before, it ISN'T safer to restrict weapons in that manner.
It is FAR safer to allow guns in at an early stage (according to statistics) or to disallow them completely.

Any intermediate such as your suggestion causes a severe increase in incidents.

Oh for christ's sake, don't pull out "child psychology" as evidence. Nearly all psychological experiments have just as much evidence contradicting the conclusion as they do supporting them. Especially Freud's theories.

 

[Zenode]

Wait....i read this in the newspaper like 8 months ago

pretty messed up to say the least, damn hicks

 

[Maxman3002]

Actually, in the states I have gotten licenses in, they DO take teenage drivers into highly populated areas, both as part of the test if possible AND part of the training, if any exists.

However, while they are in the areas, you make sure the environments are controlled (usually by a passenger break). This is EXACTLY what was done at the gun show, meaning the situations are EXACTLY comparable, and your misinformed strawman becomes a direct analogy which provides evidence for my point.

Thank you for helping me!

Weve been discussing this through a couple of posts now and I may have lost your origional point by now but are you seriously suggesting that because 8 year olds are alowed to use a gun out hunting for reasons its totally acceptibly for one to go to a gun show and have a go on an UZI?

What possible use does and UZI have as a tool?

My arguments may be missinformed but I am using this as a learning experiance and am willing to see sides of your point of view and agree to some situation. On the other hand it seems you just use this as an opertunity to force through 1 singular blanket point of view that a gun is fine in any situation under any use

Guns are a tool. That tool feeds plenty of people (the Inuit for example), allows for stability OR unrest, and everything else. Power tools cause all kinds of accidents and tragedies, does that mean they have no use?

That logic suggest that this situation probably shouldnt have come into occurance due to your quote before. There was no use as a tool in this situation, hence no use

 

[Korey Von Doom]

I just love how people say to get rid of the guns, then we will have less crime.....no, you think criminals get there guns legally right now?

 

[Icerain]

Uruhu, please stop using the Piagetian theories of development so much, they've been largely discredited for a good while now.

Guns cannot be compared to other tools for a simple reason; their purpose is to kill. If I give a child a power tool in a controlled environment (admittedly still not a good idea) it is because I want them to learn how to use it; for example, I would give them a saw so that they can learn to cut wood.
So if you look upon guns purely as tools, then the only reason to give a child one is to teach them to kill. And I for one am certainly not comfortable with that.

 

[Woem]

Early adaptation of guns leads to significantly lower late stage accidents.
This is an identifiable statistic; those who are around guns tend to be at less risk from them.

On the other hand, carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed. [sup]source [http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed.html][/sup]

Only if you are doing it wrong. If you have the proper training and mindset, a gun will be very useful to you.

They don't have to do anything, they just have to carry one. Please read the article:

Overall, Branas's study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher.

So it's not a matter of doing something wrong or knowing how to handle a gun.

 

[THAC0]

Kids will find ways to kill themselves with anything.

Some things are more effective than others though. I regularly hear of cases in the States where a kid finds a gun and manages to hurt/kill someone with it.

I've yet to hear of a kid killing someone with a collinder.

Americans do seem to have this bug up their arse that guns are a good thing for civilians to have, and make them safer. This is of course, the same fucked up logic that applies to smokers. I smoke to get the nicotine high, which is of course, bullshit. It appeases the nicotine craving, that's it. And that parallel exists in America with guns. They have guns to feel safe, because other people have guns.

Lets not forget, your 3 times more likely to get murdered in America than you are in the UK.

this 1000 times.

yeah, the logic that the gun nuts use is really really off. Its like they say that you should make sure everyone has AIDs so that they can't catch AIDs from someone else, and never acknowledge that the AIDs they got in the first place kills them.

Yeah, i just compared guns to AIDs.

 

[Woem]

Hahhaha, hilarious! Doubly hilarious with some of the commentary here!

Why not go to a gun show?
How is an art exhibit any more or less wrong for an 8 year old, considering guns kill far less children then the bus he had to take every day of his life?

This was a hilarious tragedy which is made even more hilarious because it will provoke people who don't think logically to say "well gosh, if only he hadn't been allowed near guns"!

Yes, guns are terrible instruments of life and death, but when we live in a world where the car is far more of a blood god than anything actually designed for destruction, the rules may just be a bit different from what your intuition tells you.

tl;dr: this wasn't sad or tragic at all.

So, you think the un-needed death of an eight year old isn't tragic, but hilarious?

No fucking wonder Jack Thompson wants to ban violent games, how much have people like you been de-sensitized to stuff like this? And before you start telling me about how cars are worse, they are, but what point is there behind allowing more people to die than necessary? Using guns as tools to defend yourself with is one thing, but letting children use them as little more than playthings is another entirely. It's just stupidly negligent.

How is it stupidly negligent when using guns at a young age leads to all sorts of benefits?
Sounds more like a preventive measure, like vaccines, at that point.

Yes, some get hurt by them, but the general populous benefits.

And I am not desensitized. Simply because I have a different opinion than you does not mean I am morally ambiguous or have any sort of abnormality. People have stratifications based on experience and such; this is not necessarily desensitization. For example, you could be ultrasensitized.

It's stupidly negligent because, evidently this kid wasn't schooled in gun safety. Parents should know about this, but why not ask the child itself if they know what they're doing? If they're old enough to handle a deadly weapon, they should be old enough to know how to use it. And, last I checked, shooting yourself in the head is Doing It Wrong. Also: your heart is made of cold, unfeeling steel, you lovely person. Not sarcasm.

Why thank you, it is nice to hear I am lovely sometimes.

It isn't negligent; feeling how a gun fires is the quickest and easiest way to get a child interested in guns, which is the easiest way to get them into gun safety, which is the easiest way to statistically lower their likelyhood of getting hurt from guns.

It is simple logic, and works identically to vaccines.

Perhaps a child should be thought gun safety before it is allowed to fire one. And I'm really not sure if it should be "interested" in them in such a fashion that it believes it has entertainment value or a coolness factor. I agree that guns are tools, but they are not toys. You wouldn't want your kid running around dual-wielding pointy sticks or scissors either.

And you also don't want kids running around with scissors at all.
Which is why you teach them how to use them.

How do you get them to care?
By getting them interested.

This is how lives are saved.

In this case, obviously, a life was lost.