• 5 Year Old Boy Kills 2 Year Old Sister With Gift
    161 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Zeke129;40506776]Cigarettes and booze are legal but you aren't allowed to market them to children, firearms manufacturers shouldn't be allowed to market to children either.[/QUOTE] [t]http://filesmelt.com/dl/525131_390865674333561_951491555_n.jpg[/t] Advertisement for children of all ages.
[QUOTE=viper shtf;40505506]Actually I didn't know she (he?) Is in the UK. Aren't the Brits banned from defending themselves though?[/QUOTE] Yes if attacked we're required by law to stand there and take it.
[QUOTE=Last or First;40506928]...Did you just say that [I]microwave ovens[/I] are designed to [I]kill[/I]? Rat poison and mouse traps are designed to kill. They're designed to kill rats. The harm from a mousetrap isn't on the level to permanently damage someone, although it's still a bad idea to keep them around small children nonetheless. A hunting rifle is designed to kill animals. A gun you have for defense defends you by harming people. They shouldn't be given to children. And guns are regulated anyway, because again, they are designed to harm or kill and are [I]weapons[/I]. Cars are regulated for safety too, but to put a car on the same level as a gun is stupid, because cars aren't designed to run into people or things, they're designed to move. There are many deaths from cars, but cars are a basic part of life and the vast majority of these deaths are accidents. Guns, on the other hand, are weapons. They are not a necessary part of life. They are useful for defense, yes, but there's also pepper spray, tasers, etc. There's nothing wrong with having a gun for defense, but 1. having a gun is nowhere near as necessary for daily life as cars are, and 2. guns are regulated and not meant to be given to children. You should be careful with any guns you own to keep them out of reach of children, and you definitely shouldn't be giving them directly to children. Cars are kinda [I]naturally[/I] out of reach for kids, however, as they can't exactly reach the pedals. Most people keep their car keys out of reach of small kids anyway, and the vast vast majority don't give them to them to keep, as they [I]kinda[/I] need the keys to get to places. I'm not even sure where I'm going with this anymore, to be honest. But on the other hand, I'm not even sure what the point is of saying "ooh, well cars kill people too!" in a thread about giving a gun to a child, other than being deliberately dense and having a gun fetish. Rat poison shouldn't be given to children. [SUB]Did you [I]seriously[/I] say that microwaves are designed to kill? [I]Seriously?[/I][/SUB][/QUOTE] Yeah I don't know what the fuck he's on about, it's back to the same gun debate shit when this is about dumbass parents who give a 5 year old a gun and leave it around the house loaded.
[QUOTE=Van-man;40506978][t]http://filesmelt.com/dl/525131_390865674333561_951491555_n.jpg[/t] Advertisement for children of all ages.[/QUOTE] That's not marketing to children, that's marketing to people with microscopic penises [editline]2nd May 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=viper shtf;40505506]Actually I didn't know she (he?) Is in the UK. Aren't the Brits banned from defending themselves though?[/QUOTE] Yes, even here in Canada we have to submit a letter to Her Majesty the Queen before we are permitted to defend ourselves. She usually responds in six to eight weeks. (This doesn't apply to knights, of course)
[QUOTE=Knoxed;40487749]welp its america after all. can't live a life without a rifle in your closet.[/QUOTE] No, most people don't have a gun, it doesn't exactly distribute that way. You know better than to misrepresent the numbers like that.
[QUOTE=Last or First;40506928]...Did you just say that [I]microwave ovens[/I] are designed to [I]kill[/I]?[/QUOTE] Are you aware that food sterilization was one of the first applications of microwave technology? Think of all those bacteria that even your home microwave oven is [I]designed to kill[/I]! Okay, yes, I'm being deliberately obtuse and facetious here, but the point is that being concerned with whether a device is 'designed to kill' is silly, because we use technologies explicitly designed to kill every day. Whether it's getting rid of bacteria, mice, unwanted pests, killing other things is not a reason to treat a technology as special, even if they have the potential to harm humans as well- such as with rat poison. The concern should be how much harm they present to a human. I think a chainsaw is much more dangerous and deserving of regulation than a mousetrap, even though the mousetrap is designed to kill and the chainsaw isn't. [QUOTE=Last or First;40506928]Rat poison and mouse traps are designed to kill. They're designed to kill rats. The harm from a mousetrap isn't on the level to permanently damage someone, although it's still a bad idea to keep them around small children nonetheless. A hunting rifle is designed to kill animals. A gun you have for defense defends you by harming people. They shouldn't be given to children.[/QUOTE] I agree, don't get me wrong, that giving a child a gun is a fundamentally poor idea. I'm only arguing against the idea that being 'designed to kill' means a device is not a tool or intrinsically deserves more regulation. [QUOTE=Last or First;40506928]And guns are regulated anyway, because again, they are designed to harm or kill and are [I]weapons[/I].[/QUOTE] Okay, so does the definition of being a weapon matter to its regulation? You can freely own plenty of items that could be considered weapons depending on how strict your definition is. If it means items designed to kill humans, then a .22 plinker like in this article wouldn't count. If the scope is broadened to items designed to kill, but not necessarily humans, then the rat poison falls within this category. If you just mean something intended to harm people, then pepper spray and tasers would be considered weapons. All of these could be technically [I]correct[/I], but none of them are [I]useful[/I]. Something like a .22CB rifle isn't designed or intended to kill humans any more than a pellet rifle is. The heavier restriction on the .22 isn't because it has a different design or different purpose, but purely because it's more dangerous and could potentially be used to inflict more harm. Saying it's a weapon or designed to kill are very charged statements that ultimately have no bearing on regulation. If an object is dangerous, if it could cause harm to innocent people if misused, it ought to be regulated. Cars are dangerous, so let's make sure people can handle them responsibly before letting them drive. Guns are dangerous, so let's make sure people who can be trusted to own them and use them responsibly can do so. If a reckless driver loses control and kills five people, I don't think it's any better than if a crazed gunman goes and shoots five people. Whether it's an accident or not, they're just as dead. A kid shouldn't be given a car, gun, or bottle of rat poison, but I think all for the same reason. They could use it legitimately and safely, but there's the potential for significant harm that shouldn't be entrusted to a child.
[QUOTE=endorphinsam;40487121]are you serioussssssssssssssss? WHY WOULD YOU EVER IN THE RIGHT STATE OF MIND GIVE YOUR CHILD A GUN! When he's five! A LOADED ONE! Without supervision and training![/QUOTE]
Grand Theft Auto was a shitty game anyways. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Why reply" - daijitsu))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=JgcxCub;40487141]Why the [i]fuck[/i] would you give a 5 year old an actual rifle[/QUOTE] [img]http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/37143011.jpg[/img] [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Image macro" - Orkel))[/highlight]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.