Gun Control

"Responsible Legal Gun Owners" at work ...
3-Year-Old Fatally Shoots Himself With Uncle’s Gun In Florida

Quote :

A 3-year-old boy in Tampa, Florida fatally shot himself with his uncle's gun on Tuesday evening, the Tampa Bay Times reports. The boy found the 9mm gun in a backpack in the bedroom he shared with his 29-year-old uncle, Jeffrey D. Walker, and accidentally discharged it.

Walker was arrested Tuesday and charged with culpable negligence. He held a concealed weapons permit, authorities told the Tampa Bay Times.

The boy's parents, Jasmine Bell, 21, and Trentin Speights, 22, were in their bedroom at the time of the shooting.

This comes a day after a 13-year-old shot his 6-year-old sister, also in Florida.

Correction: The 6-year-old girl shot by her 13-year-old brother in Florida on Monday survived and is now "improving," per the Sun Sentinel. We regret the error.

Scorpion wrote:

I guess you still don't quite grasp what a straw man argument is...

I think he does. And at this point, 34 pages in and still no attempt address the statistics, studies, and science on gun violence, I can't help but believe it's a deliberate denialism tactic. We're not in crank territory, though the laughable "media conspiracy" came close, but we are well past the point of an honest discourse.

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Do you suggest that we eliminate all activities that involve risk?

I guess you still don't quite grasp what a straw man argument is...

Quote :

Straw Man argument

An argument similar to reductio ad absurdum often seen in polemical debate is the straw man logical fallacy. A straw man argument attempts to refute a given proposition by showing that a slightly different or inaccurate form of the proposition (the "straw man") is absurd or ridiculous, relying on the audience not to notice that the argument does not actually apply to the original proposition. For example:

Politician A: "We should not serve schoolchildren sugary desserts with lunch and further worsen the obesity epidemic by doing so."
Politician B: "What, do you want our children to starve?"

Hope this helps!

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

Oh,and what's even "better yet" is that instead of addressing the fact that no child can be 100% safe when guns are in close proximity,you chose to ignore it. :bball: Carry on,Jacko!

Name me an everyday situation in which any child is 100% safe.

[b]In making the argument that “no child can be 100% safe when guns are in close proximity”, the logical extension is that a child can be 100% safe when guns are not in close proximity.

Yeah,and like I said before...

Quote :

Fun fact about guns....people that don't keep them in their homes never end up shooting each other accidentally.

Likewise,5 yr olds that don't get taken to gun ranges to play with loaded guns don't end up getting shot...and guess what? It's a plan that's 100% effective!

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Do you suggest that we eliminate all activities that involve risk?

I guess you still don't quite grasp what a straw man argument is...

Quote :

Straw Man argument

An argument similar to reductio ad absurdum often seen in polemical debate is the straw man logical fallacy. A straw man argument attempts to refute a given proposition by showing that a slightly different or inaccurate form of the proposition (the "straw man") is absurd or ridiculous, relying on the audience not to notice that the argument does not actually apply to the original proposition. For example:

Politician A: "We should not serve schoolchildren sugary desserts with lunch and further worsen the obesity epidemic by doing so."
Politician B: "What, do you want our children to starve?"

Hope this helps!

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

Oh,and what's even "better yet" is that instead of addressing the fact that no child can be 100% safe when guns are in close proximity,you chose to ignore it. :bball: Carry on,Jacko!

Name me an everyday situation in which any child is 100% safe.

[b]In making the argument that “no child can be 100% safe when guns are in close proximity”, the logical extension is that a child can be 100% safe when guns are not in close proximity.

Yeah,and like I said before...

Quote :

Fun fact about guns....people that don't keep them in their homes never end up shooting each other accidentally.

Likewise,5 yr olds that don't get taken to gun ranges to play with loaded guns don't end up getting shot...and guess what? It's a plan that's 100% effective!

Since you wouldn't answer the first time, I'll ask once again:

Do you suggest that we eliminate all activities that involve risk?

happy jack wrote:

In making the argument that “no child can be 100% safe when guns are in close proximity”, the logical extension is that a child can be 100% safe when guns are not in close proximity.

Bullshit. That totally ignores the fact that the danger being talked about is the danger of being shot. You can't just pretend that's not what's being discussed.

Heretic wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

I guess you still don't quite grasp what a straw man argument is...

I think he does. And at this point, 34 pages in and still no attempt address the statistics, studies, and science on gun violence, I can't help but believe it's a deliberate denialism tactic. We're not in crank territory, though the laughable "media conspiracy" came close, but we are well past the point of an honest discourse.

Undoubtedly true. But IMHO, Jack is simply intellectually lazy.

happy jack wrote:

Those are all givens.
What is your point?

Apparently they're not givens. Less guns = less gun violence. Where the fuck have you been the last 30 pages? It's been the whole point of the entire thread.

happy jack wrote:

What is your point?

My point is simple. Let's review, shall we?

As I said... you are totally ignoring the fact that the danger being discussed is the danger of being shot. I also have pointed out the fact that "You can't just pretend that's not what's being discussed."

But apparently you have chosen to do exactly that. Again, you're engaging in a straw man argument, and frankly, it's more than a little bit old at this point.

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

What is your point?

My point is simple. Let's review, shall we?

As I said... you are totally ignoring the fact that the danger being discussed is the danger of being shot. I also have pointed out the fact that "You can't just pretend that's not what's being discussed."

But apparently you have chosen to do exactly that. Again, you're engaging in a straw man argument, and frankly, it's more than a little bit old at this point.

Once again, I'll ask the questions which have yet to be answered:


Do you suggest that we eliminate all activities that involve risk?

.... and ....

Can you tell me which law or laws, either currently on the books or yet to be written, would have prevented a mishap involving a child at a gun range?

As I pointed out, the reason that your "question" regarding "elimination of all activities involving risk" hasn't been answered is because the question is irrelevant to our discussion. But I'll answer it, if you like., even though the answer is fucking obvious.

No. There is almost nothing in life that is 100% risk free.

I also told you how I felt about young children using guns. What the hell makes you think that I would support young kids using guns at a gun range? I'd gladly support a law prohibiting it. I sure as hell don't think it's a Second Amendment issue, if that's what you're getting at.

I see no rational reason to allow it. You obviously do, even if it means that some young children will be killed as a result. I'm really glad that everything has turned out OK with your children. I'm certain that none of the gun owners who lost their children wanted it to happen.

IMHO, young children should be kept as far away from guns as possible.

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

I also told you how I felt about young children using guns. What the hell makes you think that I would support young kids using guns at a gun range? I'd gladly support a law prohibiting it. I sure as hell don't think it's a Second Amendment issue, if that's what you're getting at.

I see no rational reason to allow it. You obviously do, even if it means that some young children will be killed as a result. I'm really glad that everything has turned out OK with your children. I'm certain that none of the gun owners who lost their children wanted it to happen.

IMHO, young children should be kept as far away from guns as possible.

Parents have been teaching their children to shoot and hunt for centuries. Were there a law to prohibit it, how would it be written so as not to interfere with parental rights?

Yeah. Well there is a big difference between teaching children to help with the hunt during the "hunter-gatherer period" and squeezing off some shots with an Uzi for kicks.

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

As I pointed out, the reason that your "question" regarding "elimination of all activities involving risk" hasn't been answered is because the question is irrelevant to our discussion. But I'll answer it, if you like., even though the answer is fucking obvious.

No. There is almost nothing in life that is 100% risk free.

Why do you feel that it is within your job description to decide which risk-prone behavior should be regulated and which risk-prone behavior should be left up to the individual to decide if he or she should engage in it?

I don't. In fact. I truly believe that people should be able to engage in just about any risky behavior that they like, as long as it doesn't endanger the lives of others.

happy jack wrote:

Parents have been teaching their children to shoot and hunt for centuries. Were there a law to prohibit it, how would it be written so as not to interfere with parental rights?

Like Scorpion said, that kid sure as shit wasn't huntin' buffalo on the open prairie with a rifle or bow in order to feed his family through the winter. Honestly, the comparison is laughable.

I'd imagine we could word it similar to the law that says you can't treat your kid's cancer with prayer, gleefully trampling all over "parental rights" in order to save lives. "Parental rights" isn't a free license to anything you want anymore than "religious freedom" is.

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

I truly believe that people should be able to engage in just about any risky behavior that they like, as long as it doesn't endanger the lives of others.

Will these activities be next in your sights?

Yeah. Well I'd answer, but then that would just encourage you to continue to put up straw man arguments. The only reason that I addressed the subject at all was out of common courtesy, and to discourage you from going on and on asking the same lame question over and over again.

The activities that you cited have absolutely nothing to do with young children using guns, which is the subject being discussed. If you want to talk about little league baseball or youth football, then feel free to start another thread.

happy jack wrote:

Heretic wrote:

Like Scorpion said, that kid sure as shit wasn't huntin' buffalo on the open prairie with a rifle or bow in order to feed his family through the winter. Honestly, the comparison is laughable.

Honestly, the comparison is absolutely valid.
Hunting has been, and still is, a strong tradition passed down within families, and it always will be (unless, that is, people like you, Scorpion, and Artie have your way).

I have no problem with the tradition of hunting. We were talking about the wisdom of putting a gun in the hands of a 5 or 6 year old. IMHO, that's simply too young.

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

I truly believe that people should be able to engage in just about any risky behavior that they like, as long as it doesn't endanger the lives of others.

Will these activities be next in your sights?

Yeah. Well I'd answer, but then that would just encourage you to continue to put up straw man arguments. The only reason that I addressed the subject at all was out of common courtesy, and to discourage you from going on and on asking the same lame question over and over again.

The activities that you cited have absolutely nothing to do with young children using guns, which is the subject being discussed. If you want to talk about little league baseball or youth football, then feel free to start another thread.

You can’t continue to call every point I make a “straw man argument”. You introduced “risky behavior” – I merely addressed the topic you introduced. If you have some problem with me addressing something you yourself brought up, then you probably shouldn't have brought it up in the first place.
Doncha think?

No, I don't.

Because IIRC, I certainly did not "introduce risky behavior" into this discussion. Exactly where in this thread do you believe that happened?

happy jack wrote:

Hunting has been, and still is, a strong tradition passed down within families, and it always will be.

And if "hunting" had anything to do with that kid holding an uzi, your point would be relevant. But unfortunately, thinking children playing with an uzi is a bad idea does not make one anti-hunting. Again, the comparison is childish and laughable. Good try, though.

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

Because IIRC, I certainly did not "introduce risky behavior" into this discussion. Exactly where in this thread do you believe that happened?

Scorpion wrote:

I truly believe that people should be able to engage in just about any risky behavior that they like, as long as it doesn't endanger the lives of others.

Nice try,troll. Look up the definition of introduce , you idiot. Just another example of how he attempts to turn an honest discussion into another circle jerk and why I frequently have to apply the button.

happy jack wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

Because IIRC, I certainly did not "introduce risky behavior" into this discussion. Exactly where in this thread do you believe that happened?

You are correct - my apologies to Scorpion. He did, however, further the discussion of risky behavior ....

Scorpion wrote:

I truly believe that people should be able to engage in just about any risky behavior that they like, as long as it doesn't endanger the lives of others.

[b].... so I see no reason why the topic should be out of bounds.

Let this be a lesson as to why it's a good idea to just point out the troll's straw man arguments and then simply ignore him until he gets back on topic.