Person accidentally shoots himself with Uzi

[Chiropteran]

Originally posted by: mugs


Uh... if you think that throwing out deaths occurring in a pool used by multiple people will rectify any issues I had with that statistic, you didn't understand my objection to the statistic. If you have statistics on accidental deaths per man-hours of usage, that's a useful statistic. Accidental deaths per pool or per gun is a useless statistic.

I'm sorry but your argument is just BS.

The purpose of a pool is to be used, and as such it will be used, constantly.

For most people, the purpose of a gun is simply peace of mind, which they get simply by owning one, even if it's never used. A gun is providing it's "use' while being locked away. Trying to argue that those guns "don't count" because they aren't being used in gunfights on a daily basis is just a bad attempt at twisting the facts.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Chiropteran

Originally posted by: mugs


Uh... if you think that throwing out deaths occurring in a pool used by multiple people will rectify any issues I had with that statistic, you didn't understand my objection to the statistic. If you have statistics on accidental deaths per man-hours of usage, that's a useful statistic. Accidental deaths per pool or per gun is a useless statistic.

I'm sorry but your argument is just BS.

The purpose of a pool is to be used, and as such it will be used, constantly.

For most people, the purpose of a gun is simply peace of mind, which they get simply by owning one, even if it's never used. A gun is providing it's "use' while being locked away. Trying to argue that those guns "don't count" because they aren't being used in gunfights on a daily basis is just a bad attempt at twisting the facts.

Ugh... you don't get it. You can't directly compare statistics for something that gets used all the time to something that is rarely used and conclude that the former is more dangerous because more people die. It's not a valid comparison, because the reason more people die could be because the pools are used so much more. You can't compare the statistics directly. There is no argument here, you can't do it.

Here's some statistics for you - between 1900 and 2008, automobiles killed more people in the United States than nuclear weapons. Clearly automobiles are more dangerous than nuclear weapons.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: the unknown

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
...
Finally, a firearm, in and of itself, presents no danger to anyone. The danger only exists in how the firearm is used. Used irresponsibly (e.g. an Uzi in the hands of an 8 year old) they are dangerous. Used responsibly, they are not. Just like kitchen knives.
...
ZV

How is a gun not inherently more dangerous that a knife? A knife is a tool, used to eat. When you miss with a knife, you cut your finger, not seriously injure or kill yourself. With intent, a knife definitely takes more work and motivation than just pulling a trigger. It's also quite a bit harder to use against someone who's running, or even fighting back. Guns have only one purpose. In its recreational use, most of the thrill comes from that power to kill-- the destruction. Definitely enjoyable, but not dangerous? Don't kid yourself.

edit: And clearly, that power to kill should not be given to anyone that doesn't even have the mental capacity to make fully rational decisions. I'm fairly sure at 8 most of the moral and higher abstract thinking development is not completed. I think that's important to have before choosing for your kid to fire a gun. Let him go through that metal process so he can decide whether its cool and fun or not; instead of having the father choose for him.

the gun = knife people never respond when I ask them about the potential in collateral murders with drive-by knifing.

A gun != knife. If that's what you think is being said, then you're suffering under a woeful misunderstanding of the analogy.

Both are tools that are only dangerous if misused. The potential for collateral damage when misused is irrelevant. It's a red herring thrown out as a means to distract from the fact that, when used appropriately, a firearm poses zero threat.

A car has huge potential for collateral damage if used in a murder. That doesn't change the fact that this is an irrelevant point since murder is a misuse of a car.

ZV

 

[the unknown]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: the unknown

Originally posted by: nkgreen

Originally posted by: the unknown

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
...
Finally, a firearm, in and of itself, presents no danger to anyone. The danger only exists in how the firearm is used. Used irresponsibly (e.g. an Uzi in the hands of an 8 year old) they are dangerous. Used responsibly, they are not. Just like kitchen knives.
...
ZV

How is a gun not inherently more dangerous that a knife? A knife is a tool, used to eat. When you miss with a knife, you cut your finger, not seriously injure or kill yourself. With intent, a knife definitely takes more work and motivation than just pulling a trigger. It's also quite a bit harder to use against someone who's running, or even fighting back. Guns have only one purpose. In its recreational use, most of the thrill comes from that power to kill-- the destruction. Definitely enjoyable, but not dangerous? Don't kid yourself.

Yeah, that went straight over your head.

Stop. Take a deep breath, and read what he wrote again.

Yes, a lot of what I said does agree with him. However, when reading it again, specifically the bolded points, I think my argument still stands.

Again, you miss the point entirely. A firearm, just sitting there, doing nothing, with no person manipulating it, poses zero danger to someone. A firearm operated by a responsible person poses no danger to someone. Again, just like a kitchen knife.

The only time a firearm is dangerous is when it is misused.

The only purpose of a knife is to cut. The power to rend flesh. The joy of using a good knife is in how easily is separates flesh from bone, the power to sever tendons and blood vessels... See how that line of reasoning gets ridiculous?

ZV

Don't just dismiss my view. Just because you disagree doesn't mean its not valid. I understand the point you're making entirely.

You say the potential for danger and destruction is zero if its just sitting there. Obviously, its not going to move the trigger itself. Mute point.
The only time a firearm is dangerous is when it is misused, just like a knife. I'm saying, the gun is inherently more dangerous when misused. Again, quite obvious, since a firearm has more power. But that doesn't mean its the same danger as a knife. When misused, a knife will only cut yourself. A kid playing around with a knife isn't going to kill himself. A kid playing around with a gun could. There's just a different level of potential danger in the two items. That's what I was saying. Sure, it all starts with misuse, and if that doesn't happen it doesn't matter. But misuse DOES happen, and a gun is simply more dangerous to misuse. Thus it is inherently more dangerous than a knife. The two aren't similar.

If we really want to blow this over the edge, we can move to the next tier of weapons. Let's take a bomb for example. A bomb can be very intricate, hard or impossible to disarm, move, or otherwise render useless. There's the skill you were talking about earlier-- the ability to out-think the person who may disarm it, build it properly, using great engineering and creativity. That doesn't take away from its ability to cause destruction more than a gun. It's just more dangerous. I'm sure its a great way to develop good engineer skills, just like motor skills. That doesn't mean its a safe way.

You could develop those accuracy skills in various other ways. Doing so with a gun is simply because of the thrill. Otherwise take up archery. I'm sure there are other reasons to use guns. Engineering, cleaning and taking care of it, the technology, ect. The only thing that separates it from archery is the power.

I'm not saying any law should be imposed on others to limit their ability to use a gun. Just trying to say that the argument that it's "no less dangerous than such and such" is a complete load.

 

[Chiropteran]

Originally posted by: mugs
Clearly automobiles are more dangerous than nuclear weapons.

I agree with that statement completely. I have NEVER worried about dying from a nuclear attack, because I know the odds of it happening are so close to zero that it might as well be an impossibility. Also, my personal capability to prevent a nuclear attack is pretty much zero, so worrying about it doesn't benefit me in any way.

On the other hand, I worry about car accidents all the time. They are relatively common, and I have more personal control when it comes to avoiding them so it pays of to think about the possibility and actively work to avoid potential accidents.



But really, what is the *point* of your type of statistics?

You are trying to say that the number of deaths due to firearms can't be compared to the relative number of firearms, because most of those firearms are unused. So going by your logic, it doesn't matter how many guns are on the street or available, because only the ones "used" count- and you seem to be so sure that the number of guns used is a tiny fraction of all guns available. It's basically a pointless argument, because if you are right it means that gun control is pointless because the number of guns available is irrelevent, and if you are wrong it means gun control is pointless because guns are less lethal than swimming pools.

It's not an argument that leads to any useful conclusions.

 

[grrl]

Originally posted by: finite automaton
I bet the wife is pissed.

Yeah, how does someone go home and explain this to their wife?

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Chiropteran

Originally posted by: mugs
Clearly automobiles are more dangerous than nuclear weapons.

I agree with that statement completely. I have NEVER worried about dying from a nuclear attack, because I know the odds of it happening are so close to zero that it might as well be an impossibility. Also, my personal capability to prevent a nuclear attack is pretty much zero, so worrying about it doesn't benefit me in any way.

On the other hand, I worry about car accidents all the time. They are relatively common, and I have more personal control when it comes to avoiding them so it pays of to think about the possibility and actively work to avoid potential accidents.



But really, what is the *point* of your type of statistics?

You are trying to say that the number of deaths due to firearms can't be compared to the relative number of firearms, because most of those firearms are unused. So going by your logic, it doesn't matter how many guns are on the street or available, because only the ones "used" count- and you seem to be so sure that the number of guns used is a tiny fraction of all guns available. It's basically a pointless argument, because if you are right it means that gun control is pointless because the number of guns available is irrelevent, and if you are wrong it means gun control is pointless because guns are less lethal than swimming pools.

It's not an argument that leads to any useful conclusions.

No, my point is that you can't compare statistics on gun deaths to statistics on swimming pool deaths without controlling for usage rates.

Like I said before - when you see accident rates for airplanes and cars compared, are they compared as absolute values? No. They're compared based on passenger miles.

I didn't say anything about gun control, and I didn't say that the number of guns used is a tiny fraction of total guns. I said millions of guns are never used, and that is true. I believe there are somewhere in the neighborhood of 100 million guns in this country, and in any given year it's pretty likely that millions of those guns don't see any use.

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: grrl

Originally posted by: finite automaton
I bet the wife is pissed.

Yeah, how does someone go home and explain this to their wife?

"Mistakes were made"

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: the unknown

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: the unknown

Originally posted by: nkgreen

Originally posted by: the unknown

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
...
Finally, a firearm, in and of itself, presents no danger to anyone. The danger only exists in how the firearm is used. Used irresponsibly (e.g. an Uzi in the hands of an 8 year old) they are dangerous. Used responsibly, they are not. Just like kitchen knives.
...
ZV

How is a gun not inherently more dangerous that a knife? A knife is a tool, used to eat. When you miss with a knife, you cut your finger, not seriously injure or kill yourself. With intent, a knife definitely takes more work and motivation than just pulling a trigger. It's also quite a bit harder to use against someone who's running, or even fighting back. Guns have only one purpose. In its recreational use, most of the thrill comes from that power to kill-- the destruction. Definitely enjoyable, but not dangerous? Don't kid yourself.

Yeah, that went straight over your head.

Stop. Take a deep breath, and read what he wrote again.

Yes, a lot of what I said does agree with him. However, when reading it again, specifically the bolded points, I think my argument still stands.

Again, you miss the point entirely. A firearm, just sitting there, doing nothing, with no person manipulating it, poses zero danger to someone. A firearm operated by a responsible person poses no danger to someone. Again, just like a kitchen knife.

The only time a firearm is dangerous is when it is misused.

The only purpose of a knife is to cut. The power to rend flesh. The joy of using a good knife is in how easily is separates flesh from bone, the power to sever tendons and blood vessels... See how that line of reasoning gets ridiculous?

ZV

Don't just dismiss my view. Just because you disagree doesn't mean its not valid. I understand the point you're making entirely.

You say the potential for danger and destruction is zero if its just sitting there. Obviously, its not going to move the trigger itself. Mute point.
The only time a firearm is dangerous is when it is misused, just like a knife. I'm saying, the gun is inherently more dangerous when misused. Again, quite obvious, since a firearm has more power. But that doesn't mean its the same danger as a knife. When misused, a knife will only cut yourself. A kid playing around with a knife isn't going to kill himself. A kid playing around with a gun could. There's just a different level of potential danger in the two items. That's what I was saying. Sure, it all starts with misuse, and if that doesn't happen it doesn't matter. But misuse DOES happen, and a gun is simply more dangerous to misuse. Thus it is inherently more dangerous than a knife. The two aren't similar.

If we really want to blow this over the edge, we can move to the next tier of weapons. Let's take a bomb for example. A bomb can be very intricate, hard or impossible to disarm, move, or otherwise render useless. There's the skill you were talking about earlier-- the ability to out-think the person who may disarm it, build it properly, using great engineering and creativity. That doesn't take away from its ability to cause destruction more than a gun. It's just more dangerous. I'm sure its a great way to develop good engineer skills, just like motor skills. That doesn't mean its a safe way.

You could develop those accuracy skills in various other ways. Doing so with a gun is simply because of the thrill. Otherwise take up archery. I'm sure there are other reasons to use guns. Engineering, cleaning and taking care of it, the technology, ect. The only thing that separates it from archery is the power.

I'm not saying any law should be imposed on others to limit their ability to use a gun. Just trying to say that the argument that it's "no less dangerous than such and such" is a complete load.

I didn't "just dismiss your view". I gave rational reasons against it to explain why I disagree. Disagreement is not dismissal, whether you're capable of understanding that or not.

A kid playing around with a knife absolutely can kill himself. Catch his wrist, fall on it, decide to play swordfight with another kid, etc. A knife is absolutely a lethal weapon.

Many things we deal with every day are more dangerous when misused than firearms. Any of hundreds of chemicals. Anyone can buy bleach and ammonia anywhere and in whatever quantities they want. The amount of collateral damage that could be caused by chlorine gas is huge, but no-one is talking about licensing those chemicals.

In any case, the degree of danger from misuse is utterly irrelevant because there are legitimate defensive uses for firearms. The potential for legitimate use always trumps the potential for misuse.

ZV

 

[Red Squirrel]

I would not allow an 8 year old to handle a gun let alone an automatic one...

One thing I've noticed with lot of people, just based on stuff like this, or videos I've seen, is they underestimate the kickback of guns. I've never shot a gun before myself so I don't really know much what it's like, but I would for sure be prepared for it before trying, and get myself educated on what to expect and not just go blatantly fire it for giggles. It's not a toy.

 

[the unknown]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

I didn't "just dismiss your view". I gave rational reasons against it to explain why I disagree. Disagreement is not dismissal, whether you're capable of understanding that or not.

A kid playing around with a knife absolutely can kill himself. Catch his wrist, fall on it, decide to play swordfight with another kid, etc. A knife is absolutely a lethal weapon.

Many things we deal with every day are more dangerous when misused than firearms. Any of hundreds of chemicals. Anyone can buy bleach and ammonia anywhere and in whatever quantities they want. The amount of collateral damage that could be caused by chlorine gas is huge, but no-one is talking about licensing those chemicals.

In any case, the degree of danger from misuse is utterly irrelevant because there are legitimate defensive uses for firearms. The potential for legitimate use always trumps the potential for misuse.

ZV

Saying "Again, you missed the point entirely" isn't dismissive at all? :roll:
But thanks for replying with "whether you're capable of understanding that or not." That solidifies than you're being completely condescending and dismissive.

Regardless of your lack of tact, your argument just doesn't hold with me. All your examples of a kid killing himself with a knife are extremely weak and unlikely. I'm sure a large part of it is the media, but I have never heard of a kid killing himself with a knife. It's too difficult. It's less dangerous. I've heard countless times, however, of kids dying to guns, intentionally or not. It's a lot easier to pull a trigger and seriously injure or kill yourself then "accidentally" stick yourself with a knife and seriously injure yourself or kill yourself. It takes more force, more effort. It's more dangerous. I don't see why this isn't painfully obvious.

 

[grrl]

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: grrl

Originally posted by: finite automaton
I bet the wife is pissed.

Yeah, how does someone go home and explain this to their wife?

"Mistakes were made"

LOL. That would be a good way to ease into it.

 

[zerocool84]

wow this thread went out of control

 

[the unknown]

Yeah ATOT is grand isn't it

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: the unknown

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: the unknown

Originally posted by: nkgreen

Originally posted by: the unknown

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
...
Finally, a firearm, in and of itself, presents no danger to anyone. The danger only exists in how the firearm is used. Used irresponsibly (e.g. an Uzi in the hands of an 8 year old) they are dangerous. Used responsibly, they are not. Just like kitchen knives.
...
ZV

How is a gun not inherently more dangerous that a knife? A knife is a tool, used to eat. When you miss with a knife, you cut your finger, not seriously injure or kill yourself. With intent, a knife definitely takes more work and motivation than just pulling a trigger. It's also quite a bit harder to use against someone who's running, or even fighting back. Guns have only one purpose. In its recreational use, most of the thrill comes from that power to kill-- the destruction. Definitely enjoyable, but not dangerous? Don't kid yourself.

Yeah, that went straight over your head.

Stop. Take a deep breath, and read what he wrote again.

Yes, a lot of what I said does agree with him. However, when reading it again, specifically the bolded points, I think my argument still stands.

Again, you miss the point entirely. A firearm, just sitting there, doing nothing, with no person manipulating it, poses zero danger to someone. A firearm operated by a responsible person poses no danger to someone. Again, just like a kitchen knife.

The only time a firearm is dangerous is when it is misused.

The only purpose of a knife is to cut. The power to rend flesh. The joy of using a good knife is in how easily is separates flesh from bone, the power to sever tendons and blood vessels... See how that line of reasoning gets ridiculous?

ZV

Don't just dismiss my view. Just because you disagree doesn't mean its not valid. I understand the point you're making entirely.

You say the potential for danger and destruction is zero if its just sitting there. Obviously, its not going to move the trigger itself. Mute point.
The only time a firearm is dangerous is when it is misused, just like a knife. I'm saying, the gun is inherently more dangerous when misused. Again, quite obvious, since a firearm has more power. But that doesn't mean its the same danger as a knife. When misused, a knife will only cut yourself. A kid playing around with a knife isn't going to kill himself. A kid playing around with a gun could. There's just a different level of potential danger in the two items. That's what I was saying. Sure, it all starts with misuse, and if that doesn't happen it doesn't matter. But misuse DOES happen, and a gun is simply more dangerous to misuse. Thus it is inherently more dangerous than a knife. The two aren't similar.

If we really want to blow this over the edge, we can move to the next tier of weapons. Let's take a bomb for example. A bomb can be very intricate, hard or impossible to disarm, move, or otherwise render useless. There's the skill you were talking about earlier-- the ability to out-think the person who may disarm it, build it properly, using great engineering and creativity. That doesn't take away from its ability to cause destruction more than a gun. It's just more dangerous. I'm sure its a great way to develop good engineer skills, just like motor skills. That doesn't mean its a safe way.

You could develop those accuracy skills in various other ways. Doing so with a gun is simply because of the thrill. Otherwise take up archery. I'm sure there are other reasons to use guns. Engineering, cleaning and taking care of it, the technology, ect. The only thing that separates it from archery is the power.

I'm not saying any law should be imposed on others to limit their ability to use a gun. Just trying to say that the argument that it's "no less dangerous than such and such" is a complete load.

You are making what sounds like an obvious argument, but in point of fact it is incorrect.

Danger is not inherent within an object, because danger is describing potential. There is no potential in an inanimate object except what exists as a result of natural chemical and physical reactions. Thus you can claim that leaving ammonia and chlorine in degradable containers in the same area is dangerous because natural events are going to lead to a reaction which realizes the potential for danger. Neither a gun, nor a knife, is inherently dangerous without external force.

A person is inherently dangerous because a person not only has potential, but the ability to transform that potential into actual harm. What you are TRYING to claim is that a person with a gun is more dangerous than a person with a knife, but this is ultimately untrue.

A gun is only useful at a certain range and to the extent of ammunition that it holds. After that it becomes an ineffective bludgeoning device. I would rather have a knife than a gun if my opponent is going to be within 7' of me, because unless we're beginning the encounter with the gun already leveled at me I will probably win. After one has expended their ammunition again it would be better to have the knife than the gun.

In other words, the person with the gun is more dangerous at times, and the person with the knife is more dangerous at times. However this ignores the basic fact that it is the person who is dangerous, and not the weapon itself.

Oh, and by the way, a point is moot if it doesn't matter, not mute. Mute means silent and the point itself can never be mute, though the person who thinks it might be.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Originally posted by: the unknown

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

I didn't "just dismiss your view". I gave rational reasons against it to explain why I disagree. Disagreement is not dismissal, whether you're capable of understanding that or not.

A kid playing around with a knife absolutely can kill himself. Catch his wrist, fall on it, decide to play swordfight with another kid, etc. A knife is absolutely a lethal weapon.

Many things we deal with every day are more dangerous when misused than firearms. Any of hundreds of chemicals. Anyone can buy bleach and ammonia anywhere and in whatever quantities they want. The amount of collateral damage that could be caused by chlorine gas is huge, but no-one is talking about licensing those chemicals.

In any case, the degree of danger from misuse is utterly irrelevant because there are legitimate defensive uses for firearms. The potential for legitimate use always trumps the potential for misuse.

ZV

Saying "Again, you missed the point entirely" isn't dismissive at all? :roll:
But thanks for replying with "whether you're capable of understanding that or not." That solidifies than you're being completely condescending and dismissive.

Regardless of your lack of tact, your argument just doesn't hold with me. All your examples of a kid killing himself with a knife are extremely weak and unlikely. I'm sure a large part of it is the media, but I have never heard of a kid killing himself with a knife. It's too difficult. It's less dangerous. I've heard countless times, however, of kids dying to guns, intentionally or not. It's a lot easier to pull a trigger and seriously injure or kill yourself then "accidentally" stick yourself with a knife and seriously injure yourself or kill yourself. It takes more force, more effort. It's more dangerous. I don't see why this isn't painfully obvious.

clearly you've missed all the reports of kids acting out superheroes or mortal kombat and hurting or killing each other....

 

[BudAshes]

Originally posted by: pontifex

Originally posted by: BudAshes

Originally posted by: foghorn67

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: nkgreen

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: daniel1113
"An 8-year-old boy died after accidentally shooting himself in the head while firing an Uzi submachine gun under adult supervision at a gun fair."

"An 8-year-old boy died after accidentally swerving off the track while driving a go kart under adult supervision at a racing fair."

Yawn. Shit happens. This is no different than any other accident.

/edit: anti-American comments removed to avoid flame war

suffice to say you're a fool. clearly an uzi is orders of magniture more dangerous than a go-cart, and you have to draw a line somewhwhere - you'd let a kid fly a jet?

Is it more dangerous than a swimming pool?

Errr... of course... are you being sarcastic?

no. Look up the stats on kids drowning in swimming pools.

this the stupidest thing i have ever read on atot. You do realize there are 10's of millions of children that swim in pools while .000000001% of kids(rough estimate) fire uzi's.

This is my problem with guns, it seems the dumber you are the more guns you want. They should require an iq test before you can get anything more than a pistol/shotgun.

wow...right over your head, eh?

What the bullets from my neighbors uzi?

 

[sdifox]

Originally posted by: pontifex

Originally posted by: sdifox

Originally posted by: mooseracing

Originally posted by: sdifox

Originally posted by: SphinxnihpS
A boy dies and the anti-gun idiots are out in full force. Sick.

Err, I am against irrisponsible people having guns. The Uzi owner was definitely irrisponsible. Or do you think he was in the right?

So I suppose you are for everyone haveing to wait the x amount of days with the possibillity to be denined to buy a pistol as well? Even though by your right as an American citizen you are allowed to own one. And it's not like if the person is denined they can't get a gun.


If you want to talk irresponsible look at how many irresponsible parents there are yet they still have their kids in their possesion, they are still allowed to reproduce and they are still alive. Or auto drivers?

What are you talking about? I am talking about the gun owner being irresponsible handing a uzi to an 8 year old. Stop projecting your own prejudice.

The only regulation I would stipulate in light of this is "Do not hand a weapon to someone not licensed for that class of weapon."

I am against all irrisponsible behaviours, we just happen to be talking about gun death.

so now we have to get licensed to be able to shoot different types of guns???? dumb idea.

not type, class. So if you are cleared for class 3, you can play with 1, 2, and 3. That kid should never have been allowed to shoot an UZI.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: the unknown

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

I didn't "just dismiss your view". I gave rational reasons against it to explain why I disagree. Disagreement is not dismissal, whether you're capable of understanding that or not.

A kid playing around with a knife absolutely can kill himself. Catch his wrist, fall on it, decide to play swordfight with another kid, etc. A knife is absolutely a lethal weapon.

Many things we deal with every day are more dangerous when misused than firearms. Any of hundreds of chemicals. Anyone can buy bleach and ammonia anywhere and in whatever quantities they want. The amount of collateral damage that could be caused by chlorine gas is huge, but no-one is talking about licensing those chemicals.

In any case, the degree of danger from misuse is utterly irrelevant because there are legitimate defensive uses for firearms. The potential for legitimate use always trumps the potential for misuse.

ZV

Saying "Again, you missed the point entirely" isn't dismissive at all? :roll:
But thanks for replying with "whether you're capable of understanding that or not." That solidifies than you're being completely condescending and dismissive.

Regardless of your lack of tact, your argument just doesn't hold with me. All your examples of a kid killing himself with a knife are extremely weak and unlikely. I'm sure a large part of it is the media, but I have never heard of a kid killing himself with a knife. It's too difficult. It's less dangerous. I've heard countless times, however, of kids dying to guns, intentionally or not. It's a lot easier to pull a trigger and seriously injure or kill yourself then "accidentally" stick yourself with a knife and seriously injure yourself or kill yourself. It takes more force, more effort. It's more dangerous. I don't see why this isn't painfully obvious.

Well, this makes the third time you've missed the point. The only two options are that you are either being intentionally obtuse, or you legitimately cannot understand the point.

Regarding my lack of tact, well, it's not my job to coddle you. Facts are facts and if they offend, that's your difficulty and not mine.

I don't know what sort of cheap and dull knives you have at your house, but the kitchen knives I have will literally drop right through food with no pressure just by drawing the blade across the portion. It would take more pressure to pull the trigger on any of my guns than it would to fatally slit one's wrist with my kitchen knives.

I will repeat myself for the third and last time: The degree of danger from misuse is utterly irrelevant because there are legitimate defensive uses for firearms. The potential for legitimate use always trumps the potential for misuse.

You can drag out the red herring of potential consequences of misuse all you like, but the simple fact is that it has no logical bearing in the discussion.

ZV

 

[XxPrOdiGyxX]

Originally posted by: foghorn67

Originally posted by: XxPrOdiGyxX

Originally posted by: foghorn67

Originally posted by: XxPrOdiGyxX
My opinions have changed based on the arguments made in this thread. When I have a kid, I'm gonna make sure I buy a gun and let my kid play with it.

"What, son? You wanna go swim? F NO. Here...go play with this gun instead."

WTF is wrong with the government? We need POOL CONTROL!

**WOOOSH**

hmmm?

You tragically missed the point.

No, I really didn't. Anyone that would use statistics regarding drownings in pools to compare the relative dangers of a firearm and pool is the one that tragically misses the point.

It's like saying that food is more, inherently, dangerous than lightening because more people die from choking on food than being struck by lightening.

I honestly don't care about having gun control or having less of it. Either solution will lead to some kind of side effect and will continue an endless cycle of arguments from people who want guns to be banned and those who don't. It should be the responsibility of the parent or gun owner to prevent tragic things like this from happening to kids. But to compare two totally unrelated things like a swimming pool and a gun is retarded. Compare something more alike, even if it's a gun vs. a tank.

 

[OUCaptain]

Originally posted by: eleison
Freak accident... many more kids die because of multiple other things (pencils, knives, treadmill, bathtub, baseball, cheer leading etc.). However, when it involves a firearm, its always front page.. the media is so anti-firearms...

Ding ding ding. We have a winner of the logic prize. I don't see anyone running out to get automobiles outlawed, and yet look at how many deaths they cause. People like focusing on the one death in a blue moon and forget about the other billion times similar events happened without incident. This is especially true in regards to drugs, alcohol, and firearms. The world is going on just as it has for thousands of years. The only difference is now we are cursed with getting to hear about it from every corner of the world instantly.

edit: BTW, I agree it was irresponsible but it was still just a freak accident during a common occurrence. Anyone who thinks kids don't shoot weapons just as dangerous every day without incident needs to take a trip to the country. Just let it serve as a reminder to be as careful as possible with young or inexperienced kids. I doubt anyone from the gun show will be forgetting it anytime soon.

 

[sdifox]

Originally posted by: OUCaptain

Originally posted by: eleison
Freak accident... many more kids die because of multiple other things (pencils, knives, treadmill, bathtub, baseball, cheer leading etc.). However, when it involves a firearm, its always front page.. the media is so anti-firearms...

Ding ding ding. We have a winner of the logic prize. I don't see anyone running out to get automobiles outlawed, and yet look at how many deaths they cause. People like focusing on the one death in a blue moon and forget about the other billion times similar events happened without incident. This is especially true in regards to drugs, alcohol, and firearms. The world is going on just as it has for thousands of years. The only difference is now we are cursed with getting to hear about it from every corner of the world instantly.

edit: BTW, I agree it was irresponsible but it was still just a freak accident during a common occurrence. Anyone who thinks kids don't shoot weapons just as dangerous every day without incident needs to take a trip to the country. Just let it serve as a reminder to be as careful as possible with young or inexperienced kids. I doubt anyone from the gun show will be forgetting it anytime soon.

8 year olds are banned from driving or being in a pool without adult in proximity but it's ok for the kid to fire a UZI? I am talking about responsible ownership.

 

[Capt Caveman]

A couple of new news items:

Uzi recoils, questions echo Boy's death spurs hard look at laws for guns, children

Interactive Graphic: Muzzle climb effect on a Mini Uzi

 

[pontifex]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: pontifex
guns aren't just about killing. thats the thing that you anti-gun nuts don't get. shooting guns at targets is a very fun hobby.

I agree with this, but I hope you don't ignore the primary reason guns exist.

You can use them to shoot at targets. Guns are about killing. What's the point of shooting at a target if not to increase the effectiveness of using the gun, i.e., killing?

to have fun? as a compeition? i don't hunt. i don't kill people. i shoot guns. uh oh...know what? is your brain going to explode because you can't handle those 3 sentences together? according to you, my situation can't exist.

 

[pontifex]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: pontifex

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: pontifex

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: pontifex
true, a child should never need to fire a gun, but we don't live in fairyland, now do we?

What?

besides, guns aren't just about killing. thats the thing that you anti-gun nuts don't get. shooting guns at targets is a very fun hobby.

I've shot plenty. Yea it's fun. So that means kids should fire uzis does it?

wow...you talk about people taking your comments out of context and what not, but yet you post this???

I responded on the same level as your own post - you made a fatuous comment about 'fairlyand' and claimed I was an 'anti-gun nut' whos never fired a shot in his life, which I am not.

My point is that nothing you've said in any way justifies the weapon being given to the child. I bet you wouldn't give an uzi to an eight year old yourself right? You're just giving stock responses to a steriotype you wrongly believe I embody.

i would say stop posting before you make yourself look like a dumbass, but it's way too late for that.

i never claimed any of those things. i never once said an 8 year old should be handed an uzi, nor do i think it was right either. you should take a look at what you post before you accuse other people of doing the same thing.

That's what this thread is about... if you're not talking about that, what are you talking about here?

true, a child should never need to fire a gun, but we don't live in fairyland, now do we?

as if you have a good reason why kids should be using weapons...

Did I misunderstand that?

no idea wtf you are talking about in your 1st statement.

there's nothing wrong with kids using weapons, as long as they are trained to use them, understand gun safety, as long as it's a gun they can handle, like a bb gun or .22, and as long as they are supervised by an adult who understands gun safety and is trained to use guns.

as to the part you quoted, you wouldn't want your child to be able to defend him/herself? it would be nice if kids didn't have to worry about being attacked in an way, but bad things do happen.