Toddler Dies After Mistaking Gun For Realistic Wii Controller

[luchog]

If, the banning of handguns in the UK saved just a single childs life then it was worth it. For the people who used to enjoy shooting it up at their local range - tough, go find another hobby. Go paintballing instead. There wasnt much resistance to the ban.

Emotionalist "think of the children" rhetoric is used when you don't have a valid reason to enforce such a law. How many childrens lives are saved by having a handgun (or shotgun, or whatever) in the hands of a responsible user? I can think of several just off the top of my head. Take away the guns, and these children would be just as dead as those who are accidentally shot.

I've also noticed, reading the various news sources, that violent crime is on the increase in Great Britain, particularly assaults on police officers; and police departments in many areas are increasing the number of armed-response officers, or requesting increases. There is a reason for this, the War on Drugs. Ramping up enforcement in the UK, under pressure from the US as well as internal prohibitionist groups, has also increased the amount of gang-related violence. Like the US, the majority of violent crime, especially violent crime involving firearms, is gang and drug related.

Interestingly, one of the biggest oppositions to re-arming police in the UK is the Libertarian Alliance; who apparently would rather see the police remain unarmed, and the public increasingly armed. I doubt that the latter would go over very well.

 

[luchog]

Sounds like the states with higher violent crime stats are trying to do something about it.

Yes. Many "shall issue" states have recently converted from "may issue" or "no issue". Those with firearm bans have had them for decades; in many cases prior to the early-1970s increase and early-1990s peak (directly related to increases in drug law enforcement). The trend is for reducing restrictions, not increasing them; and violent crime rates have been falling steadily since this trend started in the early 1990s.

This is merely a correlation, however, and does not prove that firearms have any effect, positive or negative, on violent crime rates. There are far too many variables to make a positive claim either way. The most likely cause appears to be a dramatic change in drug law enforcement, and crackdowns on gang activity.

 

[BadBoy]

Emotionalist "think of the children" rhetoric is used when you don't have a valid reason to enforce such a law. How many childrens lives are saved by having a handgun (or shotgun, or whatever) in the hands of a responsible user? I can think of several just off the top of my head. Take away the guns, and these children would be just as dead as those who are accidentally shot.

I've also noticed, reading the various news sources, that violent crime is on the increase in Great Britain, particularly assaults on police officers; and police departments in many areas are increasing the number of armed-response officers, or requesting increases. There is a reason for this, the War on Drugs. Ramping up enforcement in the UK, under pressure from the US as well as internal prohibitionist groups, has also increased the amount of gang-related violence. Like the US, the majority of violent crime, especially violent crime involving firearms, is gang and drug related.

Interestingly, one of the biggest oppositions to re-arming police in the UK is the Libertarian Alliance; who apparently would rather see the police remain unarmed, and the public increasingly armed. I doubt that the latter would go over very well.

"Emotionalist", what on earth does that mean!, of course its emotional, we are talking about children getting killed by guns. As I said, go get another hobbie that gives you a hard on. And of course there are many good reasons to enforce such a law. Kids getting killed is the most obvious one. I'd like to meet an American who can keep the emotion of 9/11 out of it. Infact Americans tend to go way over the top on the emotion level, just look at the recent debate over healthcare. I didnt see any reasoned debate in the media, just commies under the bed red neck jerking off.

I would imagine most people in the UK would prefere police not to be armed. That of course is my opinion. We have armed units that respond when required. A society without guns on both sides is a better one. The problem we have here now is knife crime. Id hate to think what our streets would become if guns became more widely available.

I find it odd and slightly ammusing how so many Americans I meet cannot understand a country with national health care and no guns.

As for UK crime stats. Very recently things have "probably" got a little worse because the the US led world recession. You of course are blasting out your hole by trying to "intimate" that UK violent crime is on the up. Heres some recent official stats:

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/soti.html

 

[BadBoy]

my comments in bold:

Badboy, most of the massacres in America happened in gun free zones.

please supply proof of this. Again, stats can be viewed in different ways. Perhaps the gun-free zones are gun free because they have had problems with guns in the past. Gun free zones dont mean there's no guns around. The gun-free zones maybe the more violent areas, hence the requirement for gun-free

And over here, we have a REALLY bad case of human rights gone nuts. If a burglar breaks into your house and injures himself, he CAN sue you. Fat lot of good the European court of Human Rights is.

I should imagine probably an urban myth, just like barbar black sheep. Anyway, it dont happen very often:
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=217602


As well as that, the Soviet Union by your logic was a nice place to be because guns were b&, and so were Maoist China, Pol Pot's Cambodia, Nazi Germany and Idi Amin's Uganda.

Its not just a matter of banning guns, but removing them aswell. Im talking about the UK anyway, hardly a similar situation. Look at my original comments and you will notice I admitted the US was perhaps different. Are you trying to suggest if German Jews were Armed the Nazies would have left them alone??!!

Here's a scenario. A man has broken into your home and you suspect he is going for your family. What would YOU rather have? A Shotgun, or a police phone?

Heres a scenario, a man breaks into my home because he wants to get the gun he knows I have "locked up" there. I disturb him, he shoots me with my own Gun. There are stats on this too - farms getting broken into by criminals for their shotgun .

I live in a safe place. Im going to find stats on house breakins with Violence in the UK and I bet its real low. Id feel less safe with a gun in the house. Even if I could own one legally, and I decided to keep one Id keep it locked up safely - not a lot of good if I need one quickly. What?, you want to keep one loaded under your pillow incase you get attacked in the middle of the night?.

Loosen up, thats no way to live. Scared ******** every time you go to bed. When I lived in Canada, we left the door unlocked.


Over how many killed by yobs with knives or dangerous dogs? Would Gary Newlove still be alive if he were armed?

ok, lets get them all tooled up with guns. Should help keep the violence under control (rolls eyes)

The bold looks like im shouting. Im not.

 

[BadBoy]

er, btw, I woudlnt want people to think Im anti American or anything of the sort. I love the country and Americans I have met meet the range of different types of people I have met from all over the place. I dont see them as better or worse then any other population. They are where they are from the history of their country. I cant see gun ownership changing in the US anytime soon, and Im not sure it would work if they were banned because of the availability of guns after decades of ownership. I think If I lived in certain parts of the states I probably would feel safer carrying. Its just a shame things have gotten that far in the first place.

 

[Belz...]

This story is sad on just so many levels. It made me furious. Pardon me while I rant.

First off, why would someone let their three-year-old play violent Wii games? With realistic controllers? While he has the same automatic gun and keeps it loaded in the house? Why the hell does someone make that controller in the first place? And where does someone come off leaving a loaded gun sitting on a table and going off to sleep while his toddler roams?

The problem is not the controler of the violent games, but the presence of the real weapon within the kid's reach.

 

[BadBoy]

The problem is not the controler of the violent games, but the presence of the real weapon within the kid's reach.

I wonder if we will ever evolve to the point where our natural tribal/hunting instincts have dissapeared. I wonder if cooporation will win out as the key evolutionary influence. Perhaps It may only happen if we can find solutions to population levels, energy and poverty.

Then violent games will disapear together with the guns.

 

[Drudgewire]

er, btw, I woudlnt want people to think Im anti American or anything of the sort. I love the country and Americans I have met meet the range of different types of people I have met from all over the place.

We all tend to use hyperbole in gun threads. S'all good.

I cant see gun ownership changing in the US anytime soon, and Im not sure it would work if they were banned because of the availability of guns after decades of ownership. I think If I lived in certain parts of the states I probably would feel safer carrying. Its just a shame things have gotten that far in the first place.

As one of the self-professed gun lovers on this board, I often say if we could create a machine that would eliminate every gun from the planet I'd happily push the button. You hit the nail on the head with the fact we've been a gun culture ever since our inception, which would make a simple ban on them a burden on those of us who actually care about the following the law while being a big positive for those who don't and now know they have a significant advantage over their potential victims.

It's one of those things there's no easy answer to, but is a topic everyone gets passionate enough about to make arguing about it on the internet a lot of fun.

 

[BadBoy]

We all tend to use hyperbole in gun threads. S'all good.





As one of the self-professed gun lovers on this board, I often say if we could create a machine that would eliminate every gun from the planet I'd happily push the button. You hit the nail on the head with the fact we've been a gun culture ever since our inception, which would make a simple ban on them a burden on those of us who actually care about the following the law while being a big positive for those who don't and now know they have a significant advantage over their potential victims.

It's one of those things there's no easy answer to, but is a topic everyone gets passionate enough about to make arguing about it on the internet a lot of fun.

ya, I guess. I do think that if you have a place like the UK where we are constantly trying to keep guns off the streets, generally thats a good thing.

So, anyone who disagrees with me gets popped...

 

[Drudgewire]

So, anyone who disagrees with me gets popped...

With a champagne cork maybe, or have you guys banned those there too?

 

[grunion]

With a champagne cork maybe, or have you guys banned those there too?

....or is "popped" British slang for something quite a bit more pleasant? (If so, I understand that's been banned there as well).

 

[BadBoy]

....or is "popped" British slang for something quite a bit more pleasant? (If so, I understand that's been banned there as well).

ITs British slang for Guffing-Off (farting) if thats what you mean, though thats not very pleasent and unfortunately for my wife its not banned either.

 

[Drudgewire]

ITs british slang for guffing off (farting) if thats what you mean, though thats not very pleasent and unfortunately for my wife its not banned either.

Although in a confined space after eating certain foods it is potentially lethal.

 

[grunion]

You hit the nail on the head with the fact we've been a gun culture ever since our inception, which would make a simple ban on them a burden on those of us who actually care about the following the law while being a big positive for those who don't and now know they have a significant advantage over their potential victims.

Interesting. I never thought of my America as a "gun culture" but I can certainly see your point. Arming the people was a political statement from the beginning, and it's the second damn amendment - before due process, self-incrimination, cruel & unusual punishment, ending slavery, or even voting rights.

Not to derail the thread to a political discussion, and I don't know the specific stats on this, but I wonder why the social revolutions that came to power in the past 50 years with the slogan that the People Must Be Armed ("El Pueblo armada jamas sera aplastada!")- specifically Nicaragua, Cuba, Vietnam - where weapons were widely disbursed during the rise to power - have so much lower rate of personal gun violence that the US does? The point I'm getting at is, I think the "consumption culture," where personal property has to be defended with the threat of death, is as much to blame (or cheer, for those of you so inclined) for the gun culture in this country as the "right to bear arms" guarantee. The argument goes something like: the 10% of Americans that agree with the NRA argue that they are passionate about Liberty but really most of them just want their gun either to enjoy shooting animals on the weekends or to shoot the criminal that might break into their home one day.

 

[ServiceSoon]

There's that political 3rd rail thing and then there is level of priority.

I am most decidedly not pro-gun.
But guns in general are way down on my list. The war on terror and the way it's being waged concerns me a lot more. Poverty and healthcare concerns me a lot more. The war on drugs concerns me a lot more.

I wouldn't mind seeing us follow in the footsteps of other countries that have banned handguns, but I will never contribute to an anti-handgun lobbyist group. Any money I'm able to contribute will go to issues more important to me. I will never make gun control one of the top 5 or even 10 reasons I vote for a political candidate.

But what concerns me is th large amount of political influence and money directed by the pro-gun lobby. A lot of power has been harnessed by the right by telling people the candidate on the left wanted to take away their guns.

The gun lobby's unholy alliance with the american political right is similar to the monopoly the right claims on religion. It lures people into voting against their interests in some areas that are much more important and pressing.

To me, this kind of stuff is scary. I don't think gun-rights either way should be a major political shaper. For that reason, I think the NRA and the gun lobby are more dangerous than guns themselves. But promoting anti-gun lobbying groups and making anti-gun views a priority in my voting would be playing right into the division they're trying to paint.

This is kind of ironic if you think about it. The anti-gun organization want to ban firearms to save lives. I'm skeptical (based on a few reports from the government, my personal research & listening to both of the heavy hitters in the pro and anti-gun arenas. I was actually an email recipient of the Brady Campaign for over 1 year) that banning firearms would do such a thing, so I donate to firearm right groups. If I didn't support such groups I could donate to other organizations that would have greater success at saving lives. Do you think gunnies like to send money to Wayne LaPierre? Most definitely not. Gunnies are compassionate, caring people too. Foremostly they want to protect something that is sacred and important to them.

It's just recently that Democrats are starting to pickup on this pro-gun alliance, and for the most part they are benefiting from it. I actually voted for a local Democrat. I liked what he had to say about our problems, and most importantly to me he promised not to support more restrictions on firearms.

Fear has been used to communicate many political viewpoints. It's isn't specific to the firearm rights movement.

As one of the self-professed gun lovers on this board, I often say if we could create a machine that would eliminate every gun from the planet I'd happily push the button. You hit the nail on the head with the fact we've been a gun culture ever since our inception, which would make a simple ban on them a burden on those of us who actually care about the following the law while being a big positive for those who don't and now know they have a significant advantage over their potential victims.

It's one of those things there's no easy answer to, but is a topic everyone gets passionate enough about to make arguing about it on the internet a lot of fun.

I wouldn't! Using that same reasoning we should strive to eliminate the human brain. It has caused the greatest amount of pain and suffering in the world. It has also allowed for great progress and liberation. Haven't we evolved enough to understand the importance of root cause analysis? The US has some of it's highest and most stable homicide rates (9 per 100,000) from the 60's until it started to lower in the 2000's (5 per 100,000). Firearm rights has increased slightly during that time period.

A World without guns.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

Badboy, a rebuttal.

First off, most of the massacres happened in generlly gun free zones such as schools.

Second, Burglars CAN sue homeowners.

third, you seem to think that banning guns and getting them out of circulation can be done easily. you remind me of people who say banning abortion and getting abortionists out of circulation can be done easily.

You seem to be from somewhere rural, because Central London is goin to the dogs with gun crime and knife crime on the constant rise.

So basically, by your logic, i shouldnt fear hackers, trojans etc and have no need for antivirus software or firewalls so in effect i can just leave my computer unlocked?

Why the hell would a burglar try to rob a man who might be packing heat. You seem to think that the police can actually do something. All they EVER do is just hand out asbos and let yobs off with practically a slap on the wrist. I would feel safer with a gun under my bed or somewhere locked with a code than just a phone for the police who might not even come.

You must have been living somewhere rural in Canada because Montreal etc have bad cases of crime. You seem to get your facts off Michael Moore

About the Nazi Comparison Well, yeah because the SA and other Nazi thugs were largely unarmed. If Jews were armed, they would not dare approach.

 

[luchog]

"Emotionalist", what on earth does that mean!, of course its emotional, we are talking about children getting killed by guns. As I said, go get another hobbie that gives you a hard on. And of course there are many good reasons to enforce such a law. Kids getting killed is the most obvious one. I'd like to meet an American who can keep the emotion of 9/11 out of it. Infact Americans tend to go way over the top on the emotion level, just look at the recent debate over healthcare. I didnt see any reasoned debate in the media, just commies under the bed red neck jerking off.

Yup, it's clearly about saving children's lives; and not about knee-jerk US-bashing at all.

So, since you've "got such a hard on" about "saving children", when are you going to push for a ban on automobiles, since they're the leading cause of death for children under 14? I mean, you're all about protecting the children, right? Do you agree that this menace needs to be stopped? If not, then you're just a brainless hoplophobe who doesn't care about children at all.

Oh, and more child deaths are caused by swimming pools than by firearms. So I'll expect to see you getting those banned as soon as you're done with the car thing.

Personally, I'd much rather live in a society where laws are made purely on the basis of rational review of evidence; without any emotionalism involved at all. The US is far from perfect in that regard; but that's why we have our checks and balances systems in place; to minimize that sort of emotionalism. But I'm sure you'll refuse to believe that as well, since it would get in the way of a perfectly good stereotype.

er, btw, I woudlnt want people to think Im anti American or anything of the sort. I love the country and Americans I have met meet the range of different types of people I have met from all over the place.

Of course not. In fact, I'm sure that some of your best friends are American....

 

[fullflavormenthol]

What lame parents, they should have given you your own guns at the age of 2 clearly.

Can I ask you for advice on the use of straw in sculpture? You seem really good with it, and if you don't mind can I submit your post to the Journal of Missing the Point?

 

[luchog]

The point I'm getting at is, I think the "consumption culture," where personal property has to be defended with the threat of death, is as much to blame (or cheer, for those of you so inclined) for the gun culture in this country as the "right to bear arms" guarantee. The argument goes something like: the 10% of Americans that agree with the NRA argue that they are passionate about Liberty but really most of them just want their gun either to enjoy shooting animals on the weekends or to shoot the criminal that might break into their home one day.

America doesn't have a "gun culture", any more than it has a "car culture" or "fast food culture". All of these things are prevalent; but they hardly define who we are as a nation. Hell, we're hardly a cohesive nation, and have at least as many different cultures as Western Europe. Trying to say that any one factor defines the nation is either intellectually lazy or disingenuous.

What far too many people on the anti-gun side, especially the non-Americans, either fail to realize, or ignore outright, is that America is no more violent than any of the nations whose people we absorbed. The overwhelming majority of violence in this country is gang-related, per the FBI and DOJ statistics; and fueled by drug prohibition. It's not about poverty, race, or any of the other bugaboos harped on by the far left. It's inner-city gangs and organized crime syndicates killing each other over drug sources and distribution turf. Exactly like the similar rise in violent crime during alcohol prohibition in the '20s, which dropped precipitously when alcohol was legalized; except that this time, our government seems incapable of learning the lessons we learned last time.

Remove the gang warfare, and the US's violent crime rate is on a par with any other western industrial nation.

 

[luchog]

You seem to be from somewhere rural, because Central London is goin to the dogs with gun crime and knife crime on the constant rise.

And for the same reason it is so high in the US -- Drug Prohibition. Gangs make ludicrious amounts of money off the drug trade, it's a multi-billion-dollar a year industry; and whenever that kind of money is involved, individual human life becomes a whole lot less valueable. But the UK for some reason either refuses to learn from our mistakes, or allows itself to be far too easily bullied by us into pushing a program that benefits no one except the government and the drug cartels.