yesterday evening my wife and i were invited to friends house for new year's eve.
we met them when i was a christian and we have kept in touch.
they had a few other friends there as well, including the new church pastor and his wife.
psac: I can think of *a* answer, for instance that we are all living in the matrix or I am insane or stuff like that.
However i cannot think of a reasonabel answer that would satisfy me, just like i cannot think of a reasonable answer that would excuse the man with the child in the car. This does not mean such an answer does not exist, like there may be some answer as to why it appears the earth is round while it is really flat.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/26/us/arizona-girl-fatal-shooting-accident/index.html?hpt=hp_t2.
"a 9-year-old girl learning to fire a submachine gun accidentally killed her instructor at a shooting range when the weapon recoiled over her shoulder, according to arizona authorities.
another reason to go against those arguing that young children should be taught how to use guns.
TD: It does depend on what we mean by "inherently" right? In some sense of the words there is nothing more dangerous about a canister of polonium and a canister of water; if used wrongly they can both be deadly and if handled correctly they are both perfectly safe; i do not think that is how we would normally understand the word.
My understanding of "inherently" would to some extend mean: If used with roughly the same care by roughly the same sort of person they are roughly equally safe or dangerous.
In that case the uzi is inherently more dangerous than a weapon without enough recoil to be ripped out of ones hands.
yesterday evening my wife and i were invited to friends house for new year's eve.
we met them when i was a christian and we have kept in touch.
they had a few other friends there as well, including the new church pastor and his wife.
psac: I am not sure i understand the first question, but my answer to the other questions are yes assuming I understand them correctly and we use the same definitions for the terms. What is your answer to my question?
http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/26/us/arizona-girl-fatal-shooting-accident/index.html?hpt=hp_t2.
"a 9-year-old girl learning to fire a submachine gun accidentally killed her instructor at a shooting range when the weapon recoiled over her shoulder, according to arizona authorities.
another reason to go against those arguing that young children should be taught how to use guns.
TD: I think my point is this would not have happened if she had been given a slingshot, supersoaker or air-powered pellet gun to shoot.
I also think we can agree there is difference in the danger of various weapons, for instance a uzi is harder to fire safely for a very weak person than a small handgun.
yesterday evening my wife and i were invited to friends house for new year's eve.
we met them when i was a christian and we have kept in touch.
they had a few other friends there as well, including the new church pastor and his wife.
psac: Suppose a man walk across a parking lot on a very hot day. he hear cries from one of the cars and see a small child inside the car. he stand by and watch the child go red and then limb. then he goes to the supermarket. Later, in the news, he hear the woman owning the car had left the child in the car due to a small stroke and by the time the child was found it was dead from heat.
yes or no, did the man do anything wrong by being passive?
Would it be relevant to say: Well, no evil was involved since the sun or the womens stroke are not moral agents? can you even imagine the man raising the question of how we define evil as a defence for his inaction?
I simply fail to see how you address the issue in this thread.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/26/us/arizona-girl-fatal-shooting-accident/index.html?hpt=hp_t2.
"a 9-year-old girl learning to fire a submachine gun accidentally killed her instructor at a shooting range when the weapon recoiled over her shoulder, according to arizona authorities.
another reason to go against those arguing that young children should be taught how to use guns.
TD: What is the significance of blowback?
Well, assuming we had access to a good clarivoyant, I think we could ask the guy with the hole in the head about the significance of blowback...
http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/26/us/arizona-girl-fatal-shooting-accident/index.html?hpt=hp_t2.
"a 9-year-old girl learning to fire a submachine gun accidentally killed her instructor at a shooting range when the weapon recoiled over her shoulder, according to arizona authorities.
another reason to go against those arguing that young children should be taught how to use guns.
a loaded uzi and a pair of skis are approximately equally dangerous in the hands of a 9 year old. got it.
that make perfect sense. no motivated thinking at work there, just calm delibration of the facts...
I do wonder at what age it is inappropriate to arm a child with a loaded automatic weapon. five?
If the child does not have the finger strength to fire the weapon, should one try to fiddle with the firing mechanism?
i am currently an skeptic, but i have to admit that i can't assure that all the stuff of early christianity was false.. for instance, we know that the genuine letters of paul were written before the destruction of jerusalem.
so, paul affirmed that jesus resurrected, though he was not there when it supposedly happened.
but, if jesus did not resurrect, why didn't the jews expose this falsehood?.
bioflex: i am confused; you claimed before the important thing was the bible stated it was true and you (falsely) stated it was unique in this regard. now it appears you are moving the goalpost?
i am currently an skeptic, but i have to admit that i can't assure that all the stuff of early christianity was false.. for instance, we know that the genuine letters of paul were written before the destruction of jerusalem.
so, paul affirmed that jesus resurrected, though he was not there when it supposedly happened.
but, if jesus did not resurrect, why didn't the jews expose this falsehood?.
bioflex: Sorry gotta run
http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/26/us/arizona-girl-fatal-shooting-accident/index.html?hpt=hp_t2.
"a 9-year-old girl learning to fire a submachine gun accidentally killed her instructor at a shooting range when the weapon recoiled over her shoulder, according to arizona authorities.
another reason to go against those arguing that young children should be taught how to use guns.
I have recently been convinced that the high incidence of killings in america can only be solved arming citizens. Now I just wonder what sort of weapon this man should have been carrying?
Also I wonder if it is not more appropriate to give a todler a hand-grenade rather than an automatic weapon since (presumably) he will not be able to aim an automatic weapon and fire it.
