Girl Dies After Shooting Over Video Game Controller[W169]

[vegas giants]

Do you want kids to be safer? The program was designed for that, and I don't think it was run on a for-profit basis at all.

We'd be safer in general with such programs in elementary school, and if we had a "safe gunhandling 101" class for all HS seniors.

But some people don't really care about safety... they just hate guns, gun owners and the NRA more than they care about safety.

There is no way the NRA could teach every school in America the Eddie Eagle program for free. And millions of homes have no guns so why should they? The onus should be on gun owners to PROVE they have educated everyone in the house on gun safety and have adequate storage. But SOME PEOPLE don't care about safety

 

[Goshin]

Oh eff off. We might have disagreed but at least you were carrying yourself with a level of dignity up until that last sentence.

Now now, here I was just bragging on you in the Tavern for disagreeing agreeably. Also that was in response to Vegas Giants, not to you.

Perhaps I put that a bit bluntly, but sometimes it seems that way. The NRA actually does a lot of good work in providing training to the public, and has made attempts to broaden gun-safety training to the public and children, but seems to run into opposition based on people just hating the NRA and not wanting them around, regardless of the good they're trying to do.

 

[Nilly]

Now now, here I was just bragging on you in the Tavern for disagreeing agreeably.

Perhaps I put that a bit bluntly, but sometimes it seems that way. The NRA actually does a lot of good work in providing training to the public, and has made attempts to broaden gun-safety training to the public and children, but seems to run into opposition based on people just hating the NRA and not wanting them around, regardless of the good they're trying to do.

I understand that I disagree strongly with a lot of people on this topic, but I hate, repeat, hate it when people try to paint the motivations of pro gun control people (you'll note that I've not even suggested any form of gun control in this thread) as simply being a hatred of the NRA or some petty attempt to inconvenience gun owners. People are passionate about gun control because they truly believe that they put American lives in harms way, and because they care about preventing such harm. Yes, not every argument for gun control might be perfectly effective, particularly in the US compared to other countries, but people persist on the topic not because they want to make your life harder, but because they want to positively impact peoples lives. If you're going to attack gun control proponents, attack their methods, not their motivations.

 

[Goshin]

I understand that I disagree strongly with a lot of people on this topic, but I hate, repeat, hate it when people try to paint the motivations of pro gun control people (you'll note that I've not even suggested any form of gun control in this thread) as simply being a hatred of the NRA or some petty attempt to inconvenience gun owners. People are passionate about gun control because they truly believe that they put American lives in harms way, and because they care about preventing such harm. Yes, not every argument for gun control might be perfectly effective, particularly in the US compared to other countries, but people persist on the topic not because they want to make your life harder, but because they want to positively impact peoples lives. If you're going to attack gun control proponents, attack their methods, not their motivations.

Let me reiterate, I was talking to Vegas Giants, who isn't exactly known for the courteous exchange of ideas, and spoke out of annoyance.

And as I already admitted, perhaps I should not have put it that way.

But I will maintain, that for some reason there are sufficient numbers of people who opposed a child-gun-safety program that showed solid evidence of being effective, that I have to wonder if it was mainly because it was NRA-sponsored, at least to some degree. Considering the sheer unreasonable hatred I've seen spewed at that organization I don't think this is too crazy of an assumption.


But again, that wasn't directed at you.

 

[vegas giants]

Let me reiterate, I was talking to Vegas Giants, who isn't exactly known for the courteous exchange of ideas, and spoke out of annoyance.

And as I already admitted, perhaps I should not have put it that way.

But I will maintain, that for some reason there are sufficient numbers of people who opposed a child-gun-safety program that showed solid evidence of being effective, that I have to wonder if it was mainly because it was NRA-sponsored, at least to some degree. Considering the sheer unreasonable hatred I've seen spewed at that organization I don't think this is too crazy of an assumption.


But again, that wasn't directed at you.

I see. Suggesting someone does not love their children as much as they hate the NRA is OK as long as you do it to the RIGHT people.

Boy its hard to understand some of the rules around here

 

[Goshin]

I see. Suggesting someone does not love their children as much as they hate the NRA is OK as long as you do it to the RIGHT people.

Boy its hard to understand some of the rules around here

Well it is very simple... I figured you out some time ago, and sometimes I am disinclined to waste courtesy where it isn't appreciated.

And with that, g'nite.

 

[Nilly]

Let me reiterate, I was talking to Vegas Giants, who isn't exactly known for the courteous exchange of ideas, and spoke out of annoyance.

And as I already admitted, perhaps I should not have put it that way.

But I will maintain, that for some reason there are sufficient numbers of people who opposed a child-gun-safety program that showed solid evidence of being effective, that I have to wonder if it was mainly because it was NRA-sponsored, at least to some degree. Considering the sheer unreasonable hatred I've seen spewed at that organization I don't think this is too crazy of an assumption.

But again, that wasn't directed at you.

Fair play, sorry for lashing out on my part too, I hope my reasoning goes at least some way towards explaining why I posted what I did.

As for the child gun safety classes topic, I think their apprehension arises not due to a hatred of the NRA, but because they think (like me) that an environment with guns is less safe than an environment without one. Humans are fallible, accidents happen, and they don't want their children placed in an environment where such an accident could prove fatal.

A thread I posted just last week detailed an accidental discharge by a reserve police office in a school during a (you guessed it) gun safety course, which led to the injury of multiple students.

https://www.debatepolitics.com/brea...entally-fires-gun-class-students-injured.html

 

[vegas giants]

Well it is very simple... I figured you out some time ago, and sometimes I am disinclined to waste courtesy where it isn't appreciated.

And with that, g'nite.

Just trying to figure out the rules. But of course if I suggested you love the NRA more than you love children I would be immediately infracted. So clearly I am not doing that.

 

[Goshin]

Fair play, sorry for lashing out on my part too, I hope my reasoning goes at least some way towards explaining why I posted what I did.

As for the child gun safety classes topic, I think their apprehension arises not due to a hatred of the NRA, but because they think (like me) that an environment with guns is less safe than an environment without one. Humans are fallible, accidents happen, and they don't want their children placed in an environment where such an accident could prove fatal.

A thread I posted just last week detailed an accidental discharge by a reserve police office in a school during a (you guessed it) gun safety course, which led to the injury of multiple students.

https://www.debatepolitics.com/brea...entally-fires-gun-class-students-injured.html

It's been a while but IIRC the Eddie Eagle program did not include any actual guns. Since it was aimed at elementary school children it wasn't a safe-gunhandling class, just a class about the dangers of messing with guns unless under the supervision of a responsible adult.

I never got to see the program performed but I've read that it was good and showed signs of being effective... it just never caught on nationwide like they'd hoped it would.

 

[Lursa]

I've heard that, not sure how it would shake out. I expect the wording of the bill would be important.

But no, I would not support anything that strict either. In fact I have no intentions of supporting UBC at all, unless it is offered as part of a compromise where we get something in return, like national reciprocity (long overdue!).

That is what WA St has now. It's not called that but you cannot even loan a gun to a non-family member while shooting (Sporting practices excluded). We had museums returning loaned guns.

 

[calamity]

Well it is very simple... I figured you out some time ago, and sometimes I am disinclined to waste courtesy where it isn't appreciated.

And with that, g'nite.

This place will do that. We tend to dismiss those we expect to disagree with.

I bet you and I agree on more than we disagree. But, our disagreements overshadow all the light available for compromise.

It's maybe something worth exploring.

 

[vegas giants]

This place will do that. We tend to dismiss those we expect to disagree with.

I bet you and I agree on more than we disagree. But, our disagreements overshadow all the light available for compromise.

Very true statement

 

[calamity]

Just trying to figure out the rules. But of course if I suggested you love the NRA more than you love children I would be immediately infracted. So clearly I am not doing that.

Let me play devil's advocate. A gun in the hands of an abused waoman is a good thing when her abuser is charging. Correct?

Now...do I want the abuser to also be armed? Hell no!!

 

[Goshin]

This place will do that. We tend to dismiss those we expect to disagree with.

I bet you and I agree on more than we disagree. But, our disagreements overshadow all the light available for compromise.

It's maybe something worth exploring.

Simple disagreement isn't the issue. There are many people I disagree with on something, who are civil and sincere and tend to get courtesy and respect in return.

Some people aren't here for honest debate; those people, I rarely bother to respond to.

 

[Goshin]

That is what WA St has now. It's not called that but you cannot even loan a gun to a non-family member while shooting (Sporting practices excluded). We had museums returning loaned guns.

Yeah I heard about that... crazy damn mess.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

It's kind of like nuclear disarmament between countries, it only works if both sides decide to disarm, not just one. But we are safer in situations where deadly weapons are not part of the equation.

And you are even safer where "frivolous" resort to violence is NOT a part of the equation (even if "deadly weapons" are widespread).

 

[calamity]

Simple disagreement isn't the issue. There are many people I disagree with on something, who are civil and sincere and tend to get courtesy and respect in return.

Some people aren't here for honest debate; those people, I rarely bother to respond to.

I can usually find some common ground with most people here, when I look for it. But, wanting to look at a poster who almost always grates as something besides a metaphoric cartoon character takes a little effort.

What I find interesting is how it only takes a one or two posts from someone to swing my attitude toward them in a positive direction. Little things, like finding out that they lived somewhere near where I grew up or share a hobby, will often sway me the most. Of course, I will still disagree with almost everything they say, but in a different way. :shrug:

 

[Kreton]

Link is behind a paywall, so maybe this question I'm about to ask was answered in it.

Where the **** were their parents? And why the **** did a 13 year old have access to a gun?

Because so many people are so defensive about guns that they believe that even keeping the guns out of the hands of children is going to lead to gun bans. So many people believe that as long as they teach their children how to use guns then their child is mature and responsible enough to handle guns. Tens of thousands of parents leave guns in places where kids can reach them and most of them will refuse to understand what is wrong with that.

 

[TurtleDude]

https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2018/03/18/us/ap-us-sibling-shooting-video-game.html



Jesus, what an absolutely tragic story. Yet more evidence to suggest that, actually, your family is less safe with firearms in the house than without. A reminder that guns, (unlike swimming pools), have the potential to escalate situations in a deadly manner.

I wouldn't wish this on any parent (or child) in the world - but I sincerely hope that the parents are taking full responsibility for their negligence in leaving an unsecured firearm in their home.

edit: Link appears to be behind a paywall for some so found a couple others:

Sheriff: Girl shot by boy dies

Girl Shot In The Head By Her Brother During Argument Over Video Game Controller

I deny the less safe bit or trying to use the idiocy of one family as a model for all gun owners

https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhs...iolence-should-include-how-guns-save-lives/3/

 

[Goshin]

I can usually find some common ground with most people here, when I look for it. But, wanting to look at a poster who almost always grates as something besides a metaphoric cartoon character takes a little effort.

What I find interesting is how it only takes a one or two posts from someone to swing my attitude toward them in a positive direction. Little things, like finding out that they lived somewhere near where I grew up or share a hobby, will often sway me the most. Of course, I will still disagree with almost everything they say, but in a different way. :shrug:

Not really the venue for this discussion; we've strayed from the topic.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Because so many people are so defensive about guns that they believe that even keeping the guns out of the hands of children is going to lead to gun bans.

That much is obvious from their posts. I won't say that the attitude is "irrational", merely that it appears to be based on false postulates and, as an old friend of mine once remarked:

"False Postulates + Impeccable Logic = Really Impressive Sounding Crap"​

So many people believe that as long as they teach their children how to use guns then their child is mature and responsible enough to handle guns.

I believe that that is what is known as a "False Dichotomy".

Tens of thousands of parents leave guns in places where kids can reach them and most of them will refuse to understand what is wrong with that.

"Refuse" is not, I think, the correct word. They have simply drawn false conclusions.

1. I have received proper training in firearms safety.;
   
2. I just know that I will never do anything unsafe with firearms;
   
   THEREFORE
   
3. Everyone who has received proper training in firearms safety will never do anything unsafe with firearms.

Point 3. MIGHT be correct, but the data pool from which it is drawn is too small to ensure validity.

A more correct "logical train" is (numbers given for illustrative purposes only - actual numbers will vary [so please don't nit-pick]):

1. 99.999% of all people who have received proper training in firearms safety will never do anything unsafe with firearms;
   
2. I have received proper training in firearms safety;
   
   THEREFORE
   
3. There is a 99.999% chance that I will never do anything unsafe with firearms.
   
   HOWEVER
   
4. There still remains at least a 0.001% chance that any given person who has firearms (including me) will do something unsafe with firearms.

Unfortunately, since that is what is known as "nuanced" it doesn't enter into the "debate" between the "PRO-Gun Nuts" and the "ANTI-Gun Nuts".

 

[Kreton]

That much is obvious from their posts. I won't say that the attitude is "irrational", merely that it appears to be based on false postulates and, as an old friend of mine once remarked:

"False Postulates + Impeccable Logic = Really Impressive Sounding Crap"​

I believe that that is what is known as a "False Dichotomy".



"Refuse" is not, I think, the correct word. They have simply drawn false conclusions.

1. I have received proper training in firearms safety.;
   
2. I just know that I will never do anything unsafe with firearms;
   
   THEREFORE
   
3. Everyone who has received proper training in firearms safety will never do anything unsafe with firearms.

Point 3. MIGHT be correct, but the data pool from which it is drawn is too small to ensure validity.

A more correct "logical train" is (numbers given for illustrative purposes only - actual numbers will vary [so please don't nit-pick]):

1. 99.999% of all people who have received proper training in firearms safety will never do anything unsafe with firearms;
   
2. I have received proper training in firearms safety;
   
   THEREFORE
   
3. There is a 99.999% chance that I will never do anything unsafe with firearms.
   
   HOWEVER
   
4. There still remains at least a 0.001% chance that any given person who has firearms (including me) will do something unsafe with firearms.

Unfortunately, since that is what is known as "nuanced" it doesn't enter into the "debate" between the "PRO-Gun Nuts" and the "ANTI-Gun Nuts".

The Pro and Anti gun nuts are just that NUTS. They seem to believe that everyone should be constantly armed, or no should be armed.

Your statement of "There is a 99.999% chance that I will never do anything unsafe with firearms." I disagree completely. I don't know the number but I am absolutely certain that more than .001% of gun owners use guns in some way that is unsafe. Things like leaving it unsecured in their home, firing it for fun in an unsecure area, leaving the safety off, ect. There are millions of responsible gun owners, but there are a lot of irresponsible ones as well. The idea that people on both sides have that either all guns and gun owners are perfectly fine and safe or none are is why we as a country will spend more time arguing than discussing anything that will lead to actual desirable results.

 

[Nilly]

I deny the less safe bit or trying to use the idiocy of one family as a model for all gun owners

https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhs...iolence-should-include-how-guns-save-lives/3/

Re: your article. No, it does not belong in scientific study. Why? Because it's impossible to quantify 'potential bad things prevented'. Thus it's not scientific nor rigorous. We can include it in discussion, but actual research is plenty justified in leaving it out.

If you want it included, then the burden is on you to come up with a reliable quantitative approach to measuring 'potential bad things prevented' beyond anecdotal articles.

 

[Southern Dad]

The boy involved is 9-years-old. He fatally shot his 14-year-old sister in the back of the head with a .25 caliber pistol that belonged to the mother's boyfriend. After an argument over the Xbox controller he went to the mother's bedroom, retrieved the pistol from a nightstand, returned to the family room where he fatally shot his sister. The mother was in the kitchen making lunch for her other two children and an adult friend.

Want to know the worst part of it? The boy cannot be charged with anything. He cannot be charged as an adult in Mississippi until age 13. He cannot be adjudicated delinquent in juvenile court until the age of 10. Literally nothing can be done to this boy in the criminal system. The 14-year-old sister is still dead.

 

[Nilly]

The boy involved is 9-years-old. He fatally shot his 14-year-old sister in the back of the head with a .25 caliber pistol that belonged to the mother's boyfriend. After an argument over the Xbox controller he went to the mother's bedroom, retrieved the pistol from a nightstand, returned to the family room where he fatally shot his sister. The mother was in the kitchen making lunch for her other two children and an adult friend.

Want to know the worst part of it? The boy cannot be charged with anything. He cannot be charged as an adult in Mississippi until age 13. He cannot be adjudicated delinquent in juvenile court until the age of 10. Literally nothing can be done to this boy in the criminal system. The 14-year-old sister is still dead.

I guess the 18 year old parkland students are too young and dumb to have opinions on guns but 9 year old kids are old enough to be held responsible for the consequences they lead to.