Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[GavJ]

I am not expert on guns and I don't know exactly how strong the recoil from an Uzi is... but I am still baffled by the decision to hand one to a 9 year old who most likely is unable to handle it properly.

I personally would never give my own 9 year old an uzi for any reason other than imminent zombie defensive perimeter breaching, BUT I feel a need to play devil's advocate on this one.

Because this is essentially exactly the same logic as used by conservatives for safe sex. You're absolutely right that 9 year olds not handling uzis at all would be the safest route. In other words, gun abstinence. Just like sexual abstinence is, in fact, the safest birth control and STD protection method.

But just like sexual abstinence, the gray area is that you might not be able to rely on kids actually being abstinent while yo're not looking. Knowing something tangible and useful about sex and its risks allows the inevitably curious child or teenager, if or when they are tempted, to indulge intelligently and satisfy their curiosity more safely rather than blindly.

Couldn't the same apply to guns? In a nation where they are everywhere and encounters with guns are not all that unlikely, it is not necessarily illogical to consider innoculating your child against some of their dangers by exposing them to guns and teaching handling techniques and how they work and their consequences, and generally demystifying them, so that if or when they encounter guns elsewhere, they won't feel the need to explore, or if they do, they're less likely to blow their head off by dicking around cluelessly.

It's not necessarily a trivially obvious situation.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence

[Descan]

On the other hand... They're *9*.

13 or 14, maybe. But not 9.

[GavJ]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masked_man_fallacy
Oh hey look, I too can link to random fallacy wikipedia articles, without giving any argument or justification as to why they apply.

That's not discussion, it's just a snobbier way of writing "Ur wrong, lol"

[RedKing]

The fallacy is because sex isn't guns. There's no biological imperative leading kids to develop hormonal urges to use firearms (unless they've Republicans).

The argument "Look, kids are eventually going to have sex" has validity.
The argument "Look, kids are eventually going to shoot an Uzi" does not.


EDIT: Also, to take your analogy to its logical equivalent gets downright.....

"9-year girl accidentally impregnated by sex instructor in accident"

[lemon10]

Because the solution to not being able to control your dakka is MOAR DAKKA.

That's it. We've finally crossed over and become the nation of Da Orky Boyz.

I'm afraid I am going to have to sig this.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masked_man_fallacy
Oh hey look, I too can link to random fallacy wikipedia articles, without giving any argument or justification as to why they apply.

That's not discussion, it's just a snobbier way of writing "Ur wrong, lol"

No, you're just completely wrong and it's evidenced in the simple term 'false equivalence'

The fallacy is because sex isn't guns. There's no biological imperative leading kids to develop hormonal urges to use firearms (unless they've Republicans).

The argument "Look, kids are eventually going to have sex" has validity.
The argument "Look, kids are eventually going to shoot an Uzi" does not.


EDIT: Also, to take your analogy to its logical equivalent gets downright.....

"9-year girl accidentally impregnated by sex instructor in accident"

This is why you're wrong. I don't care to explain simple definitions to you like RK does.

[GavJ]

There's no biological imperative leading kids to develop hormonal urges to use firearms (unless they've Republicans).

The argument "Look, kids are eventually going to have sex" has validity.
The argument "Look, kids are eventually going to shoot an Uzi" does not.

Disagree. I think it's just as much inherently human to be curious and want to touch and figure out intricately designed tools as it is to have sex. Tool use and figuring out puzzles are right there at the core of the human condition, hand in hand with things like sex.

And then on TOP of that, add in another core human desire to imitate role models and play make believe, plus the ubiquity of guns used by heroes in half of our media and stories, and you have yet another deep urge to play with guns when encountered.

"9-year girl accidentally impregnated by sex instructor in accident"

Pretending that analogies are just trivially not a real thing, or useful, or that they have to be 100% PERFECTLY alignable (which would make it not an analogy anymore...) is a tedious and poor route of argumentation. The biology thing is reasonable, because it strikes at the core of the analogy along the dimension that is being compared and that matters (although I think it's wrong, as mentioned above). This is just grasping at straws, though.

There are obvious casualties to sex ed all the time. Namely, if you give a person incorrect information, and then they go use it while having sex with somebody and get a disease, then they can die or be made sterile or all sorts of things as a result. Just like gun training can have casualties. Requiring that it be literally the instructor involved to be valid is just trying to obnoxiously derail and distract, and you know it.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

And then on TOP of that, add in another core human desire to imitate role models and play make believe, plus the ubiquity of guns used by heroes in half of our media and stories, and you have yet another deep urge to play with guns when encountered.

Yeah, that's why you shouldn't make guns fun playtime. You figured out the issue.

[andrea]

Actually, I was arguing about recoil and the child's strength.

From my limited knowledge, don't you need a certain degree of strength to hold a gun straight while burst firing? 9 year old kids aren't quite strong, usually. Wouldn't a smaller, non automatic gun be better suited to train until they are more physically developed? ( Once again, I don't know much about guns, so please correct me)

I am all for proper training ( in fact I would argue that having well trained gun owners is more important to reducing accidents than having less gun ownership), but proper training comes with proper tools.

[GavJ]

And then on TOP of that, add in another core human desire to imitate role models and play make believe, plus the ubiquity of guns used by heroes in half of our media and stories, and you have yet another deep urge to play with guns when encountered.

Yeah, that's why you shouldn't make guns fun playtime. You figured out the issue.

...wat?

I think you're misunderstanding. I'm not talking about setting up gun playdates with your 9 year olds and leaving the room. JUST LIKE you wouldn't set up sex dates between 9 year olds and leave the room.

But on their own, they are still liable to try out experimenting with sex now and then, or in the next few years, whether you like it or not. And they may also encounter guns, whether you like it or not.


Edit:

Actually, I was arguing about recoil and the child's strength.

From my limited knowledge, don't you need a certain degree of strength to hold a gun straight while burst firing? 9 year old kids aren't quite strong, usually. Wouldn't a smaller, non automatic gun be better suited to train until they are more physically developed? ( Once again, I don't know much about guns, so please correct me)

Yes, okay this is reasonable, even in devil's advocate land. But you might still want to give a child a one time experience of the huge recoil of a more powerful gun, so that they know what the difference is and won't assume that all guns are the flimsy things they use most of the time. Although of course you would do that WHILE HOLDING the gun as an adult too and making damn sure they don't break their shoulder or go firing all over the range.  A bolt action rifle or something might be more appropriate to avoid follow up stray shots, for instance.

[Frumple]

And then on TOP of that, add in another core human desire to imitate role models and play make believe, plus the ubiquity of guns used by heroes in half of our media and stories, and you have yet another deep urge to play with guns when encountered.

Yeah, that's why you shouldn't make guns fun playtime. You figured out the issue.

Also safeties and, y'know, unloading the gorram gun. Curiosity and idle hands isn't going to pick 2-3 different locks and figure out how to load a smg. The one that should be actively under lock and key unless being used. Probably well out of the reach of anyone as young as the kid in question.

And yeah, just from the strict simple safety angle, as per andrea's line of thinking, what happened here was incredibly fucking stupid. You don't put a semi-auto or auto in the hands of someone you aren't incredibly damned sure can handle the recoil. Hint: That means no pre-teens, gorram period. If the instructor wasn't dead, they would be in a position were they should be losing their goddamn job. Certainly if the laws were even remotely sane the business this happened under the preview of would be shut down for a while, pending investigation, further training for the owners and instructors, and general review.

[RedKing]

There's no biological imperative leading kids to develop hormonal urges to use firearms (unless they've Republicans).

The argument "Look, kids are eventually going to have sex" has validity.
The argument "Look, kids are eventually going to shoot an Uzi" does not.

Disagree. I think it's just as much inherently human to be curious and want to touch and figure out intricately designed tools as it is to have sex. Tool use and figuring out puzzles are right there at the core of the human condition, hand in hand with things like sex.

And then on TOP of that, add in another core human desire to imitate role models and play make believe, plus the ubiquity of guns used by heroes in half of our media and stories, and you have yet another deep urge to play with guns when encountered.

Disagree. Tools, maybe -- and I think there's plenty of room to argue even that.
Firearms, no. Especially for girls. (Not being sexist, I'm saying that societal gender roles don't encourage -- and in many ways, actively discourage -- a fascination with firearms.)*

The number of people who were never interested in sex is far lower than the number of people who were never interested in firearms, even in a country like ours where firearms are nearly ubiquitous as genitalia.











*And now Janet's going to come in here and shoot me as the counter-example.

[Lord Shonus]

I am not expert on guns and I don't know exactly how strong the recoil from an Uzi is... but I am still baffled by the decision to hand one to a 9 year old who most likely is unable to handle it properly.

I personally would never give my own 9 year old an uzi for any reason other than imminent zombie defensive perimeter breaching, BUT I feel a need to play devil's advocate on this one.

Because this is essentially exactly the same logic as used by conservatives for safe sex. You're absolutely right that 9 year olds not handling uzis at all would be the safest route. In other words, gun abstinence. Just like sexual abstinence is, in fact, the safest birth control and STD protection method.

But just like sexual abstinence, the gray area is that you might not be able to rely on kids actually being abstinent while yo're not looking. Knowing something tangible and useful about sex and its risks allows the inevitably curious child or teenager, if or when they are tempted, to indulge intelligently and satisfy their curiosity more safely rather than blindly.

Couldn't the same apply to guns? In a nation where they are everywhere and encounters with guns are not all that unlikely, it is not necessarily illogical to consider innoculating your child against some of their dangers by exposing them to guns and teaching handling techniques and how they work and their consequences, and generally demystifying them, so that if or when they encounter guns elsewhere, they won't feel the need to explore, or if they do, they're less likely to blow their head off by dicking around cluelessly.

It's not necessarily a trivially obvious situation.

Teaching kids to shoot safely is an extremely good idea. That's why companies make and sell youth model guns in .22LR and .410 shotgun chamberings, which are low-recoil rounds (which, combined with a properly sized shoulder weapon, means that even a small child isn't going to swing wildly off target, greatly reducing the risk of accident) that inflict relatively little damage (meaning that any accident that does happen is vastly less likely to prove crippling or fatal). In this case, a fairly small girl was given a weapon that most adults have difficulty handling (something of an assumption there, as there are stocked variants of the Uzi that are decently controllable, but they're not as iconic or popular), firing a full-powered pistol round. That's considerably more dangerous, and the range should have had procedures in place to prevent it, such as age-restricting larger-caliber weapons or prohibiting individuals under a certain size (body mass is one of the more important factors in controlling a weapon, as the considerable energy from recoil needs somewhere to go) from firing. It's no different in principle from "you must be this tall to ride" signs at amusement parks.

I'm inclined to be more favorably inclined toward the parents in this case (based on the information available), because the skewed image of firearms in media (most guns on film and in games have no real recoil, with the Uzi in particular often being depicted in controlled automatic fire from one hand) could easily convince the layman that the child could handle it. It was the responsibility of the experts on hand to convey any potential problems to them. You won't find anyone one this forum (or probably elsewhere, I don't support the NRA because they're too soft) less rabidly pro-gun than I am, but this is a clear case of serious negligence.

[GavJ]

The number of people who were never interested in sex is far lower than the number of people who were never interested in firearms, even in a country like ours where firearms are nearly ubiquitous as genitalia.

This doesn't necessarily matter, even if correct. Lower risk =/= zero risk.
"Oh it's not quite as risky as sex, so we should just completely ignore it or any way to mitigate it" ? No, all it would mean is that the cost benefit analysis shifts a little.

So perhaps, for instance, you might want to take into account your daughter's personality more before deciding whether to provide exposure to gun safety training, versus by comparison mandatory sex ed training. And for all you know, that DID happen here. Maybe this particular girl was constantly playing make believe games using broomsticks as pretend machine guns or something, and her parents were worried that even though maybe a lot of the population doesn't have a strong urge to play with guns, that SHE MIGHT.