by EndofMysteries 137 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
bohm: Yes, it appears I may be confusing you with ADCMS from page 2 whom my comment was directed to.
How does my simply giving a synopsis of the facts of the incident get translated into the idea I agree with what was done?
Maybe spend more time reading my posts and less time reading into them.
ADCMS: I am not sure which ADCMS i am talking to right now. What is for instance a controlled setting for a 9 year old to shoot an uzi? a setting in which the instructor ensures the uzi is properly loaded? a building with a roof over? A setting in which it is extremely dangerous and stupid for a 9 year old to shoot an uzi like you now believe? I am confused.
Suppose someone let their 6 year old son drive the car and the car crashed. What if i said: Yes, but sometimes accident just happend despite all the precautions people take. One should also keep in mind bicycling is dangerous too.
Would that indicate i agreed or disagreed with the parents actions in your mind?
accident: an unfortunate event resulting especially from carelessness or ignorance or fearful redneck obsession with 2nd amendment rights
I think 'accident' is a poor word that's often misused. Similar to automobile accident which frequently involves someone not paying attention or chosing to do something stupid and risky.
Really, can no one forsee any danger with giving a young child a loaded Uzi machine gun? No? Nothing bad could potentially happen? What are the benefits that make the risk acceptable?
Would we suggest a child walk round the edge of a tall building for the 'thrill and experience' of it? Wouldn't it make us a neglectful and utterly stupid parent to do so, even if there was an instructor to suggest that they don't jump, tie their laces first or whatever?
Why do things change simply because bullets are added?
A Reader Just Bought This 9mm Uzi....
--Sigh...
I don't even know where to start. How do you explain cam bearing sequence to someone who apparently can't change a flat tire?
-----------
Point of article.
The ease with which an UZI can be purchased - by - anyone.
sw
How does my simply giving a synopsis of the facts of the incident get translated into the idea I agree with what was done?
Maybe spend more time reading my posts and less time reading into them.
ADCMS
You should go back and read your own posts on this thread. You'll see why you're getting negative responses here even though you're trying to walk back your remarks.
While I often agree with your general observations, your position on guns is always pro, no matter the circumstances.
Point of article.
The ease with which an UZI can be purchased - by - anyone.
I understand, sw, but failing to differentiate between real military weapons and their cosmetically similar civilian variants is a very old and very tired canard in these discussions. If the child had been firing the civilian variant, this tragedy would not have occured and this thread would not exist.
Converting to the military version is not as simple as authors like this would have you believe; it is not just the bolt that gets replaced and even the easiest, most straight-forward conversion still requires some machining and fitting. The link (Now down) was not to the correct part set for the Micro Uzi in the author's pictures, which further shows that he doesn't really know what he's talking about.
He does mention that the part sets are Class III regulated items, but it might also have been good to mention just how hard our government comes down on people and groups (Like the Branch Davidians) who obtain them illegally.
BB: While I often agree with your general observations, your position on guns is always pro, no matter the circumstances.
Maybe you should re-read my posts. This discussion in not about being pro-gun or not; it's about whether it was appropriate for a 9 year-old to be allowed to handle a fully automatic weapon.
As Simon and others said at the outset, they wouldn't really have a problem if this girl was being allowed to shoot a hunting rifle, a .22 or a shotgun. The issue from the start has revolved around the Uzi. As I have said numerous times, and which you and others turn a deaf ear to, is some serious errors in judgment were made in this case. I watched the video. Obviously she was not qualified to shoot this gun and the parents and instructor should have seen that and opted out of the exercise. What part of this do you not understand? Show me one place in this thread where I've said I think children should operate full auto firearms and these parents and the instructor made a wise decision.
Read my posts instead of reading into them.
---
to bohm: I've already answered you. You've chosen to ignore my answers completely and you're repeating a mantra over a dead issue. Dead becuse it never existed in the first place except in your imagination. Move on.
So the next time we hear a story about a 9 year-old who gets into the driver's seat of the family car and accidentally kills her dad by running him over in the driveway, I expect to hear a lot of JWN posters call for the banning of automobiles. The only way to make cars safe is to make sure no one has one.
This was your first post on this thread and your second and third posts, etc., are in the same vein.
Your argument is that any criticism of the judgement of the adults involved is hindsight. I call BS.
Actually no one has called for the banning of guns here, but have questioned the wisdom of allowing children to use automatic weapons. You give yourself away with your knee-jerk pre-emptive defense of unrestricted gun access - no matter the weapon, no matter the user.
It's not as if the parents just handed their 9 year-old an Uzi and told her to go out and play.
She was receiving instruction by a professional in a controlled setting.
Sometimes accidents just happen regardless of all the safety precautions taken.
Skateboards, archery, motorcycles, monkey bars, bikes, downhill skiing and gymnastics are also dangerous kid activities that carry varying degrees of risk (sometimes a high degree/potentially lethal).
Try as you might to make everything risk-free, it just isn't realistic. It's always easy to dissect, criticize and condemn in hindsight.
ADCMS, Your post certainly shows you didn't think there was a problem with a nine year old using an automatic weapon, you said "sometime accidents just happen", you compared it to other sport as if giving Uzi to a nine year old was the same as skateboarding.
Now you are trying to pretend you were against it all along.
Right.
ADCMS: I've already answered you. You've chosen to ignore my answers completely and you're repeating a mantra over a dead issue. Dead becuse it never existed in the first place except in your imagination. Move on.
We have always been at war with Oceania...
I don't think I can convince you that you changed your tune 180* from page 2 to 6. But you can't convince me (or the many other people who are pointing this out as well) that you didn't because it's right there in writing. I think we should leave it at that.
She should never have fired the gun, it was stupid and outrageous -- but she did so in a controlled setting and one should keep in mind gymnastics too carries risks. It was irresponsible of the instructur, but he was a professional. 9 year olds should not be allowed to fire Uzis, however what's next, proposing to ban automobiles?
This might seem perfectly consistent to you. So be it, I can't change your mind on that point. To me, it seem quite obvious you are under the effect of motivated reasoning and your thoughts now do not reflect your first posts despite your insitance to the contrary.
