Uzi kidding

[BoSoxGal]

Terribly sad story - the girl is likely facing a lifetime of dealing with post-traumatic stress syndrome, and for what???

[oldr_n_wsr]

I like to think it would have.

[Gob]

The New Republic's Alec MacGillis has a simple observation. In today's US, it's illegal for 9-year-olds to play in a park by themselves, but it's perfectly permissible for them to fire Uzi machine guns.

He points to the recent tragic incident in Arizona in which a girl on a shooting range accidentally killed an instructor and contrasts it with the case a month earlier in which a mother was jailed for working at McDonald's while her daughter played in a nearby playground.

When historians of the future "try to capture the Zeitgeist of our age, they'll find some kind of larger truth in the conjunction of these two episodes," he writes.

The mom in the playground case, 46-year-old Debra Harrell, has undergone significant "societal scrutiny". Were her actions justified? What constitutes proper parental oversight? So far, MacGillis notes, the parents in the Arizona story have avoided such judgements.

After the shooting, he observes, the National Rifle Association even had the audacity to send out a bit of advice via Twitter: "Seven ways children can have fun at the shooting range". The promoted story offered advice such as using coloured, animal-shaped or exploding targets to keep the child's attention.

"Children have fun watching little chickens, rabbits or other shapes fall or spin," Mia Anstine writes. "It's also rewarding when they hear the 'tink' as they hit their metal targets."

"In all seriousness," McGillis asks, "if Harrell had dropped off [daughter] Regina at a shooting range instead of at the jungle gym, would she have been in the clear?

[oldr_n_wsr]

Apples and oranges.

[Sue U]

The bigger tragedy here is that America's lunatic gun culture makes this and 30 more gun homicides every day virtually inevitable.

This country's love of guns is completely fucked up. I will not pretend to be either shocked or sympathetic when some ammosexual is offed by his fetish.

[wesw]

sue, without the 2nd amendment, the rest of our rights are indefensible. there are monsters out there....
there always have been and always will be people who are hungry for power or who believe that they have all the answers and will, thru force, seek to control others or to destroy them.

some times these threats come from within sometimes from without.

unless you want people to be treated as farm animals by the violent and oppressive, utilized and slaughtered as they see fit, we must be able to stand and resist if it becomes necessary.

I am a strong believer in gun rights. you have read what I ve written here on this site, do I sound like a lunatic to you?

this is a dangerous world. would you have us be at the mercy of the ruthless?
if we were disarmed we may as well cut off our own heads and offer up our daughters to the monsters that lurk in waiting. they would come and they would conquer us.

not everyone is as nice as us.

are there gun nuts? yes of course, and that s another reason that the decent folk must be able to protect themselves

[Guinevere]

Funny thing, wes, I've spent the last 20+ years of my life defending our rights (as have several others who post here regularly, including Sue) and I've not yet had to resort to a gun to do so.

[wesw]

neither have I. which seems to prove my point.

[wesw]

you seem to forget that these rights had to be defended with guns from their inception.
I pray that they never will have to be again, but I ve read too much history to be so naïve as to think we will never be threatened with subjugation or oppression or even destruction

[Guinevere]

I forget nothing, wes, and I've read a lot of history.

Tell me, when, in your opinion, was the stability of the US last threatened by the "ruthless" and the "monsters" such that we needed guns to defend ourselves?

[wesw]

I m worried about the next time. do you even read the news?
I d say that time is now. heads are coming off. girls are being enslaved, even crucifixions.
from Honduras to mexico to Nigeria to sudan to Libya to Syria to Iraq to Tibet the beasts are running wild.

you seem to think we are immune

that s not even mentioning the common criminals that we face every day.

[Lord Jim]

I am a strong believer in gun rights. you have read what I ve written here on this site, do I sound like a lunatic to you?

I guess you didn't get the memo Wes...

Don't you know that there are only two sides to the gun debate? In one corner you have the noble, enlightened, civilized souls who support repealing the 2nd Amendment and eliminating all gun ownership rights, and in the other you have a bunch of wild eyed, mouth breathing, knuckle dragging gun nuts...

Apples and oranges.

Absolutely, it's a silly and facile non-comparison...

"In all seriousness," McGillis asks, "if Harrell had dropped off [daughter] Regina at a shooting range instead of at the jungle gym, would she have been in the clear?

I guess it will come as news to Mr. McGillis, but the issue regarding the playground isn't the dangerousness of jungle gyms, but the dangerousness of some of the characters that sometimes hang around them. (a sad fact of our times)

And also, you can't drop kids off at shooting ranges where they are then free to fire away to their heart's content...Parents are required to be present and to sign off on a minor's participation. (Which is a separate issue from whether or not nine year-olds should be allowed to fire fully automatic weapons even with parental consent, which I think I've made pretty clear I'm opposed to.)

But aside from those points it's a wonderful comparison...

[wesw]

mexico is a good example of what happens WITHOUT gun rights...

the monsters and bullies rule

[Guinevere]

I m worried about the next time. do you even read the news?
I d say that time is now. heads are coming off. girls are being enslaved, even crucifixions.
from Honduras to mexico to Nigeria to sudan to Libya to Syria to Iraq to Tibet the beasts are running wild.

you seem to think we are immune

that s not even mentioning the common criminals that we face every day.

For someone who claims to be "nice" you sound incredibly condescending.

[wesw]

I claim to try to be nice...

it s not always easy.

at least you ve learned how it feels, so perhaps you ll refrain from the lunatic cracks and judgementalism.

I notic that you switched from the message and went to attacking the messenger, so maybe I ve opened your eyes a bit.

and that would be nice...

[Guinevere]

Where exactly did I say anything about lunatics or use "judgmentalism''?

[Lord Jim]

Wes, one thing that's important to do around here is make clear who you're addressing with your posts and what you're responding to, (either using the quote feature or copying and pasting the comment you're responding to and then using the quote tab is very helpful in that regard)

Otherwise unintentional confusion and misunderstandings can arise...

Guin wasn't the one talking about "lunacy"...

[wesw]

I do apologize, I guess it was sue u that made that comment.
sorry.
but I don t think I was incredibly condescending, maybe just a bit.
the point is still valid about the state of the world and threats we face.

and I don t know how to do all that fancy stuff. I made a bad decision in the 80s to avoid computers and I stuck with it til last year

[Guinevere]

I m worried about the next time. do you even read the news?
I d say that time is now. heads are coming off. girls are being enslaved, even crucifixions.
from Honduras to mexico to Nigeria to sudan to Libya to Syria to Iraq to Tibet the beasts are running wild.

you seem to think we are immune

that s not even mentioning the common criminals that we face every day.

Not one of those "beasts" is a present threat to the continuity of the US as a nation, or our government. And since you really didn't answer my question about the last time we faced such a threat, I'll give you the answer --- it was the War of 1812. 200 years ago. Which proves the point that the 2nd Amendment is archaic and outdated.

And to be clear, I'm not suggesting that every gun in the country be confiscated, or that only the active military can have guns. But there is a significant difference between relying on armed forces and even a national guard (which is the closest modern analogy to a militia), and arming every man, woman and child in the country. Somewhere in the middle is a reasonable, rationale approach to gun control.

[Lord Jim]

I don t think I was incredibly condescending, maybe just a bit.

Well Wes, you may not have intended it that way, but if somebody said to me "do you even read the news?", I'd take that as more than a "bit" condescending...