Bio not provided
@frog in a pot @MarkCoppock Ad hominem. Of course.
6 months ago on Conversation @ http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119255/girl-kills-az-shooting-range-instructor-parenting-america
Everything is caught on tape today; the existence of a video says nothing about how common such accidents are, but rather how ubiquitous smartphones are. This was a tragic accident, not unlike any other tragic accident. The fact that an Uzi was involved doesn't alter the essential nature of it.
6 months ago on Conversation @ http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119257/charles-vacca-killed-girl-uzi-release-full-video-shooting
@frog in a pot @MarkCoppock There's nothing inherently wrong with allowing a child to fire any kind of weapon, just like there's nothing inherently wrong with allowing a child to play in a park by herself. Yes, "false dichotomy" might have been a poor choice of words; I rushed. However, my point is: these two can't be contrasted like this. It's entirely possibly that a mother leaving a child in a park alone--say, in a known dangerous area, or at night, or whatever--could be a negligent act. It's also entirely possible that allowing a child to fire an automatic weapon in a well-supervised gun range could be entirely appropriate. The devil is in the details.
The fact remains that _all_ gun use by children is being questioned because of one tragic accident, when in fact the number of children killed in gun _accidents_ is actually very low. It therefore seems very much like a red herring, and an ugly one--again, using a tragic accident to further a political position.
And, while I recognized that extra special care should be utilized when _anyone_ fires an Uzi, answer this question: how many children have been killed firing Uzis? And does this particular accident--let's say it was caused by horrible negligence, and not just a freak accident--have anything to do with gun use by children in general? Does it indict a parent teaching a child how to use a hunting rifle? I'll bet that the "national discussions" will be around banning the use of _any_ firearm by _any_ child in _any_ circumstances.
Incidentally, in support of my point, you say, "But you think a small child should be shooting dangerous weapons for fun." What an incredibly loaded statement. First, how can you characterize this as "for fun"? Perhaps it was a session intended to demonstrate to the child the seriousness of such weapons. And second, _all_ firearms are "dangerous weapons." Either you don't think a rifle is dangerous, or you are indeed glomming onto the Uzi as an excuse to attack all firearm use.
Incidentally, I own no guns to "cling to" (nice Obamaism there, by the way;I could say more but I'll refrain). However, I respect the rights of those who own guns to do so.
This sets up a false dichotomy. There's nothing wrong with either scenario, depending on the specifics (which of course won't be discussed in any rational fashion). Incidentally, more kids die in swimming pools than from just about any other accidental cause--should parents be put in jail for allowing their kids to go swimming? Of course, swimming has no stigma attached, and it's less likely for a tragic swimming accident to be used for political gain.
Also, Flash is no longer officially supported on Android as of Ice Cream Sandwich.
2 years, 5 months ago on The iPhone 5 Launches Today, How Does It Stack Up?
Oak Park, CA
Google Nexus products and accessories
2 years, 5 months ago on Microsoft Windows Phone x Freshness – Back-In-School Giveaway