Shooting in playground packed with children.

[onehandle]

When authorities arrived they found a man suffering from one gunshot wound.

Witnesses say that the park was packed with children playing when the man was shot in the playground.

No children were hurt.

The victim was transported to Christiana Hospital in an unknown condition.

http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/crime&id=7369498

[Walk away]

1. Guns + Parks = keep children home. nt

[Ozymanithrax]

5. Yes, it is good to teach our chldren to live in abject fear n/t

[Walk away]

21. The irony of someone who needs to walk around with a deadly weapon...

posting about teaching children to live in fear would be funny, if it wasn't so sad.

My children don't live in fear. They don't need a gun to feel safe. They just need to stay away from people like you.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[paulsby]

50. ah, the NEED canard

pretty quickly

[pipoman]

55. The distinction is between

"feeling safe" and 'being safe'..do you really think the shooter here was in legal possession of a gun?

[SteveM]

67. You seem to live in fear...

Most every park in Austin, Texas (a rather liberal place in a sea of red), there is most likely at least one person with a concealed-carry permit; yet, folks are playing with their kids as in any other park.

What's the big deal? Are you that fearful?

I am curious. If folks in a park were carrying-concealed, how would you know which "people are like you" in order to avoid them? Do you ask everyone present to announced whether or not they are carrying a gun?

[SteveM]

68. You seem to live in fear...

Most every park in Austin, Texas (a rather liberal place in a sea of red), there is most likely at least one person with a concealed-carry permit; yet, folks are playing with their kids as in any other park.

What's the big deal? Are you that fearful?

I am curious. If folks in a park were carrying-concealed, how would you know which "people are like you" in order to avoid them? Do you ask everyone present to announced whether or not they are carrying a gun?

[texastoast]

58. Fear?

No, but serious respect for the scaredy cats who need a gun to feel safe.

[jeepnstein]

31. Depends on what's going on at the park.

I've been to some with my kids that are wonderful. And I've seen some that are best described as a battleground. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say the shooting probably was drug related. The news story in the original post is sketchy, at best.

Nice people shouldn't have their kids and neighborhoods held hostage by violence and gangs. Look at the root cause of most of the murders in this country and you'll start to see a pattern emerge. Problem is, the nice people are neither inclined nor allowed to take back control of their neighborhoods. They're too busy just trying to live a normal life.

[baldguy]

2. In situations like this,

Guns' Rights enthusiasts would have 20 idiots w/ guns shooting people instead of just one.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

3. dude

whatever :eyes:

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[baldguy]

28. Differences

All has to do with knowledge, training and - most of all - responsibility. Guns' Rights enthusiasts what none of that.

You can count the number of deaths from dog attacks each year on your fingers & toes. (As compared to the 30,000 or so from guns.) But actually training a dog to attack, or neglecting it enough to allow an attack to be possible is irresponsible - and obviously cruel to the dog. I've already stated several times that there are some people who shouldn't be allowed to have dogs, and those that do should be required to be trained & licensed.

By the same reasoning, a gun owner should be in control of his weapon at all times. And when its not being used, it should be secured so as to prevent others from using it. If they don't do this, and if someone is injured or killed, the gun owner is still responsible for it.

And - just as with dogs - there are some people who shouldn't be allowed to have guns, and those that do should be required to be trained & licensed.

I'll just assume you agree & leave it at that.

[pipoman]

29. I find it unbelievable

you don't see the irony of all of the arguments you profess on this issue yet hold these beliefs about pits. Surely you don't deny that when someone is looking to use a dog badly...either to fight other dogs or attack humans, many seek and buy pits? Yet you still don't believe they should be banned or heavily regulated?

[Callisto32]

30. Yup, that's why I train, research, and act responsibly.

It's because I want NONE of that..... I hope your other views about people aren't as bigoted and over-broad as this.

As for people needing to be trained and licensed to own dogs. What about horses? What about cattle? They are dangerous animals as well, do you want people to need to be trained and licensed for that too. In doing this, do you realize that the right to own animals is one of the most basic concepts in Anglo/American jurisprudence. The word chattel is derived from the word cattle.

Who would do this training and licensure? The state? So we can have another bloated, overblown bureaucracy that is so caught up in its own self-preservation and budget-preservation that the "bureau of dogs and cattle" would end up costing thousands per animal? No thanks.

How about people are punished for the harm they actually cause, rather than for some theoretical harm that may happen down the road because you (whom you apparently believe to be qualified as the final arbiter of what people should be allowed to own) have some idea about something being dangerous in the abstract?

[baldguy]

32. Interesting that you reply in support of a post which was clearly in violation of DU rules.

Or will you contradict yourself & say you not believe that people should be allowed to harbor dangerous animals?

[Callisto32]

63. What?

You aren't following the conversation.

I responded to your assertion that gun rights enthusiasts don't want training, knowledge, or responsibility.

I then responded to your idea that people need to be regulated when owning everything YOU think ought to be regulated.

The deleted post, that you say I was supporting, had nothing to do with it. It was either already gone when I posted this, or I didn't give it much credit because I have no idea what it is/was.

Where did I say people should be allowed to harbor dangerous criminals?

You didn't respond to my question about livestock.

[gorfle]

45. Really?

All has to do with knowledge, training and - most of all - responsibility. Guns' Rights enthusiasts what none of that.

Really? I'm a gun rights enthusiast, and I'm all for knowledge, training, and responsibility. So long as you also preserve anonymity.

You can count the number of deaths from dog attacks each year on your fingers & toes. (As compared to the 30,000 or so from guns.) But actually training a dog to attack, or neglecting it enough to allow an attack to be possible is irresponsible - and obviously cruel to the dog. I've already stated several times that there are some people who shouldn't be allowed to have dogs, and those that do should be required to be trained & licensed.

I don't see how you can compare dogs, which act on their own volition, to firearms, which are inanimate objects.

By the same reasoning, a gun owner should be in control of his weapon at all times. And when its not being used, it should be secured so as to prevent others from using it. If they don't do this, and if someone is injured or killed, the gun owner is still responsible for it.

I agree with you. The question becomes, what constitutes "secure"? If it's locked in my home, is that secure? If it's locked in my $150 gun safe, that is California Department of Justice approved, but is little more than a lockable filing cabinet, is that secure? If it's locked in my $1000 gun safe that can be opened in 15 minutes with a pry-bar, is that secure? If it has a gun lock that can be drilled out in five minutes, is that secure?

What constitutes secure? Personally, I don't think blaming a firearm owner when someone breaks into their home and steals is just - it is blaming the victim. I would no more hold the firearm owner responsible than I would a car owner if someone stole their car and then committed a crime with it. Maybe if the car was unlocked and the keys left in it, but otherwise, no.

And - just as with dogs - there are some people who shouldn't be allowed to have guns, and those that do should be required to be trained & licensed.

I have no problem with this so long as it preserves anonymous firearm ownership.

[jazzhound]

23. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

The number of states that allow for concealed carry keeps rising because of all the problems associated with it.

Try reasoning. Just once. It'll start feeling nice after a while!

[cowman]

33. Uhhhh no

Those of us with CHL's are a lot more trained and rational than that, which apparently you aren't. Why do you always assume that gun owners are just waiting to shoot or kill someone? Is it your hatred of guns and gun owners.

Dude, get over it

[slackmaster]

36. Straw Man

Speaking only for myself, I'd keep the person who did the shooting in jail. He (it's very likely a male) probably already has a criminal record.

[paulsby]

51. and yet, with MILLIONS of CCW's

these incidents are oh so UNcommon.

but the falsities from the anti's continue apace

[Ozymanithrax]

4. Each of the children in that park should have had a gun for self defense...

How dare their parents deny children the right of self defense. That way, when some idiot walks into a park and attempts an act of violence, these children will defend themselves and blow that asshole away. It is the right of evey preschooler in America to go fully armed with concealed weapons. Not only would it solve the problem of violence in parks, it would solve the problem of priests molesting children.

[Euromutt]

6. Change the fucking record already

That particular straw man is so worn out that most of the straw has slipped out through the seams.

[Ozymanithrax]

10. I am rubbing my fingers together to emulate the smallest record player in the world...

[X_Digger]

12. Yes, but is it made of straw? And is it playing this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsnZxfkkoKQ

[Ozymanithrax]

13. Clearly, you are someone who doesn't recognize hyperbole...

Look up the definiton.

Hyperbole is entirely different from a strawman argument.

[X_Digger]

15. Ahh yes, it's _hyperbole_ when you get nicked..

.. tarring someone in a way that you find funny. Gotcha.

[Ozymanithrax]

18. Hyperbole is a legitimate tool in rhetoric, as is satire. Clearly, they need a hyperbole smilie...

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:


Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.

I never "ignored your actual postions" as I was not addressing your postion. You actually chose to address my statement by calling it a straw man arugment, which by the way is a stawman argument.

[X_Digger]

14. duplicate n/t

[Ozymanithrax]

17. Hyperbole is a legitimate tool in rhetoric, as is satire. Clearly, they need a hyperbole smilie...

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:


Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.

I never "ignored your actual postions" as I was not addressing your postion. You actually chose to address my statement by calling it a straw man arugment, which by the way is a stawman argument.

[X_Digger]

19. "substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.."

aka, Arm kids, eh?

[Ozymanithrax]

20. arming pre-schooles was hyperbole which is exageration...n/t

[Euromutt]

48. I don't particularly care what you want to call it

But that particular iteration of whatever you want to call the device has been used so very many times that it has long since lost any humorous or thought-provoking effect, and is now merely irritating. So maybe we can just take the "if only the toddler had been armed" stuff as read, since it doesn't actually contribute anything of value to the discussion.

[jazzhound]

27. Perfectly appropriate that a grade-school retort like yours

is associated with a story involving children in a playground!

[Tuesday Afternoon]

8. for an incrementalist...

you sure did take a giant leap ....................... :eyes:

[Ozymanithrax]

11. Actually, I used hyperbole...and never leaped.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

16. is not hyperbole actually the taking of a giant verbal leap

in order to make a point...?


what exactly is your point? Besides your head, I mean.

[SteveM]

69. Hysterical gun-prohibitionist response, there...

There are but 2 ways for the gun-prohibitionist attacks those who support 2A:

(1) Character smear
(2) Self-concocted arguments.

Which do you prefer?

[Euromutt]

9. Where have I read something like this before?

Ah, yes; right here: http://www.nrc.nl/international/Features/article2367291.ece/Another_fatal_shooting_shocks_Amsterdams_Bijlmer_neighbourhood

The 19-year-old Ishmael Gumbs was shot dead around 7 p.m. on Monday evening in Amsterdam Southeast, commonly referred to as the Bijlmer, in front of his young girlfriend. Their new-born baby lay in the pram. Gumbs got into an argument with the shooter, who ran off after firing and jumped into an illegal taxi. He is still on the run. The place where the incident took place, between the tennis courts and the playground, was full of people at the time. "A lot of children saw it happen and saw him lying dead on the grass," said Wiebers.

My home country of the Netherlands, folks; tightest gun laws in mainland Europe. Problem is, some people won't obey those laws. So then what do you do?

[provis99]

22. well I had no idea Netherlands had such high gun violence!

Oh, wait, it doesn't. Nice try at a straw man argument.

[Euromutt]

25. How is it a straw man?

A straw man is mischaracterizing an opponent's argument, and then refuting the mischaracterization instead of the actual argument. I can hardly mischaracterize onehandle's argument, because he didn't bother stating one (as per).

But if anyone wants to argue that this sort of thing--one guy shooting another near a playground full of kids--could be prevented by tighter gun laws, then my example serves to illustrate that it would not.

[tburnsten]

26. I thought it was nice of Euromutt to give us some context

To something that was otherwise just a claim of a person shot on a playground full of kids.

Netherlands have much stronger gun control than the U.S., and yet, their particular approach to dealing with violent crime seems to have no impact on criminals' ability to commit murder.

WHat a shock.

[paulsby]

52. and switzerland has low gun violence

and it has guns aplenty. and israel too. ( i am not referring to external terrorist acts, but even they rarely use gunz)

[proteus_lives]

24. Ban playgrounds.

[east texas lib]

54. Ban kids.

[tburnsten]

56. No way babies rock

[east texas lib]

73. Fear not, T, I wasn't serious.

:D

[cowman]

34. Meanwhile back

on the ranch where Molly was at it again with Danny

[GreenStormCloud]

35. Probably gang/drugs related. Criminals doing criminal stuff. N/T

[cabluedem]

38. you mean gun owners do criminal things don't you?

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cowman]

42. Wow that hurt

Boo hoo.
No its because you cant seem to have a civil debate without insults.

[ManiacJoe]

43. Some gun owners do.

Thankfully it is a very small percentage.

Some criminals are even gun owners.

[GreenStormCloud]

44. Illegal ones do. The law-abiding ones are very safe to be around. N/T

[oneshooter]

49. SOME do. But at a far lower rate than non CHL holders. n/t

[cabluedem]

59. do you have any proof? no I didn't think so, beyond the fabrications your ilk claim as "proof".

[X_Digger]

64. TX DPS site

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/convrates.htm

Is that "fabricated" too? *snort*

btw.. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x303945

still waiting for your input

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Travis Coates]

53. All Elephants are grey

But not all grey things are elephants.

[Mother Smuckers]

37. Also on the very page in your link:

http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/crime&id=7370674

[Katya Mullethov]

46. You ring my bell

Deja vu all over again

My goodness are those ....houses .

[tburnsten]

47. But what if he snaps with rage!!!

What if he drops a loaded cartridge while loading and it goes KABOOM! and maims every one of those poor children!

What if his rifle suddenly defies physics and sends a round at an extreme angle out of the muzzle and into one of the houses!!!

Everyone inside could be killed!!!

















































Just kidding. Looks like a great time, I'll bet that was the best part of those kids week.

[tburnsten]

57. "shooting in a playground full of children"

The title of this thread almost looked like a question about how to safely or legally shoot in a playground full of children, or a how-to of the same.


What can I say, I've got an active imagination that comes up with silly scenarios like that from time to time.

Any new information on what happened yet, or is it still basically a mystery?

[cabluedem]

60. shootings in playgrounds and schoolyards is why assault weapons are banned in CA.

[cowman]

61. Where in the OP

does it say that an "assault rifle" was used? And so called assault weapons are not banned in CA, They just have to have certain features modified to make them legal. And why here in NV, where we have unfettered access to ownership of so called assault rifles, have we had no, zero, nada, none, mass schoolyard or park shootings?

[jazzhound]

62. Actually, no.

"Assault weapons" were banned as a "feel good" measure in California based on cosmetic features (rather than functional features) and resulted in *at minimum* a three-fold increase of these rifles in the state as they flooded in between the time the law was passed and when it took effect. Oooooooops!!

How many times are you going to keep repeating these tired lies? Do you think you're fooling anyone? Does it occur to you how childish you appear to people reading these threads who are on the fence w/regard to the issue of gun control, and that you are helping to make our case for us?

All I can say is............THANK YOU!!! :-)

To any and all lurkers -- to underline the disregard cabluedem has for the truth, here are some photos that he/she has seen and chooses to dismiss:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x303945

[X_Digger]

65. Here's what the 88 CA "ban" did to sales..

[Merchant Marine]

72. Learn your own damn laws

All legal. Cite the sections of the California Penal Code banning these weapons if you care to engage in honest debate.

[one-eyed fat man]

66. What is your point?

All your link says is some guy was shot. Is it your contention that someone with a concealed weapons permit did it? There is nothing in the story to say who shot him or why, or even if he somehow managed to shoot himself.

Please let us know what conclusion you have jumped to so we may form a cogent response.