Yeah, it's lame. I was 78. I can clearly see how previous generations (all of them, not just one or two) have been blind and irresponsible. On one level I can't blame them, because there was a time where all a person could ask for was peace and prosperity.
But we've had peace and prosperity for so long we've been living in excess at the expense of the rest of the world for decades.
We need to hold accountable the people who realized and took advantage of that, and instead of making stupid sarcastic videos like these, actually do something to fix it. Because we can.

From his facebook:

"This is news to some, but many of you may have heard about the incident today at Warped Tour London. I jumped off an extremely tall lighting tress during my last song, and was taken to the hospital for examination. I was released, and I'm fine, besides some nicks, bruises, and the shame of endangering the crowd. The fall broke a girl's arm and hurt another guy. My tour manager Nils and I stayed at the hospital for 6 hours til the visiting period ended, and all I know about the man's condition at this point is that he has no breaks and the injury seems to be muscular/ bruising. I'll be going back in the morning to try to apologize, but I wouldn't blame the guy if he spits in my face. The jump was not awesome, it was not badass, and it was not ballsy. It turned what should have been a great day for the people who got hurt into a nightmare. It was stupid and wildly irresponsible, plain and simple.

I have no excuse for my actions, and the only way I can explain my mindset is that it was a huge overreach in the heat of the moment. No, I was not drunk or on drugs. I used to be a kid who was afraid to do anything physically dangerous-- I was scared of the ball in little league, didn't want to jump into lakes and would never have had the nerve to crowdsurf. But in the last year of touring, I've done increasingly risky things, maybe pushing myself by some dumb sense I am conquering my early timidity. I pride myself on trying to put on a good show and always giving 100% energy, but jumping off some high shit doesn't make someone a good musician or performer. I feel fucking terrible. I made a boneheaded decision that got people hurt, and it's extremely lucky it wasn't worse. Putting your own body on the line is one thing, but putting other people in harm's way is inexcusable. Today I let down my supporters, I let down the Warped Tour and I let down my band and the people who work their asses off behind the scenes to make these shows happen. My #1 priority right now is to somehow make this right for the folks who were hurt.

I will not be canceling the remaining 6 tour dates. I will do the shows, as usual I will meet everyone afterwards, and I will NOT be jumping off anything. I am deeply sorry and I promise to learn from this mistake."

that was quite irresponsible of that bloke....

Funny, but It seems irresponsible to drive around with so much of your vision blocked.

might be inclined to agree.

a wee bit of age and experience has taught me that humanity thoroughly believes it is incredibly intelligent....
however, on the whole, humanity has demonstrated over and over again that it is fucking retarded and irresponsible in all things.

Having a bright idea is one thing, getting a bunch of talking monkeys to make it werk, is quite another.

This idea that we can merely steer our gluttonous use of the earth's resources towards a nuclear solution is troubling indeed.

I'm pretty confident both Russia and China do as well. In fact, I'm sure pretty much all major powers have road maps and war plans for war with virtually every possible combination of enemies. It would be irresponsible for the top Chinese, American or Russian strategic command to not have drawn up a dozen different plans for war here, there and everywhere and the expected outcomes, goals and costs.

I'll start by apologizing for the long reply...
I looked as closely as possible in HD fullscreen and on my computer the head never touched ground. More to the point, the child never reached for his head. Either way the point is moot, the mother never once even glances at the child to determine injury.
I did look closely, down to street view, at the whole park, and what I saw was it seems that in the non-skate areas there is a different texture to the ground (around the pool, playground area, etc.)
From my viewpoint (and I admit I could not read the park rules, I tried from every angle) the rest of the park is built specifically for skating, and has obstacles designed to skate on that have clear marks on them that that's what they are used for. The area you think is the only skate area has ramps in and out to skate on, so perhaps I'm wrong, but the implication of that design is you can skate everywhere. If I'm wrong in that guess, I'm wrong. There's no way to tell for certain from what I can see. That said, I draw the line at the areas designated for skating, and not in the areas designated for other things. As I've repeatedly stated, the skater bears some responsibility for not looking in a public place, but mom bears far more for allowing child to run free in a public skate park, especially when he was headed straight towards the street with no one watching until he screams.
I do admit from what I see this park is not well designed, as there is not a clear separation of the skate area and non-skate area, or a path from one non-skate area to another. If all the areas besides the small rail/bowl area are not for skating, they certainly should not have built it filled with skating obstacles and ramps, knowing that skaters will skate them.
I guess I misunderstood, yes, he was skating towards the picnic tables, but was no where near them at the end of his run, so who's to say he didn't plan on turning left into the rail area or stopping after the kick flip? The child was headed for the street, agreed?
Barrels out from behind an object is what children often do, and why they get hit, they don't know to look first.
Kid's mom is not seen until after the incident, then walking from the pavilion, she was not with or watching her child from every thing I see.
My reaction to blame the mom is because she was not watching her child and went off because that inattentiveness led to an accident, and she was the one responsible for her child's safety, no one else.

second post reply starts here:
OK, that's clearer that you don't excuse her actions. I accept and agree with that.
Expect the parent to be upset, absolutely. Expect them to be aggressive, not really but many people go that way. Expect them to be violent to address their own parental failings, not at all. Expect them to understand they (not the skater) is 70%+ at fault for not supervising a toddler? Never, parents rarely accept their failings and almost always deflect responsibility.
I feel you miss-state the situation. I say he should have hit her to stop her advance, not if she stopped, at the end of the video, she's still attacking. That's self defense, and using the skateboard in that capacity seems fine to me. We may disagree, people are different.
I think you hit the nail on the head in your last paragraph...we just don't see it the same way. I feel like many parents have a natural defense mechanism of responsibility deflection, and I don't accept any responsibility for other's children, and would never expect them to take it for mine. I understand the mindset of parents that believe we all have a responsibility to take care of their children, I just disagree with it.
I also disagree that age is an excuse, if the child is too young to watch out for itself, it's 100% the parent's responsibility in my eyes, not mine.

And then there's the new idea that this discussion is all about a faked video. If true, the parent is still irresponsible for letting their child be run into on concrete where he may well have broken his skull, but maybe not completely out of control crazy violent.
Again, apologies for the long post.

I can't see what you claim at all...in most 'skate parks' you are allowed to skate anywhere in the park...and it certainly looks to me like they have the entire area set up for skating. He was NOT headed towards picnic tables, those are blocks set up for skating. He is running AWAY from the table area straight towards the street (on the map/link eric3579 found, thank you). You can see the tables clearly, they have benches attached. From the pavilion Mom comes from (and we all assume the child too), the child is over 1/2 way to the street, where he may have ended up if the skater didn't stop him. That skater just saved that kids life, and got sucker punched for it!! ;-}
I also completely disagree that under all circumstances it's the older person's responsibility to avoid the free running toddler bolting out from behind an object directly into your path. I don't understand why you give the toddler a free pass just because he's young...that's why he needed supervision. That's why I say it was nearly entirely the MOTHER'S fault, for not watching her child in a dangerous area, then blaming others when something expected happens.
When you say things like 'her reaction was pretty normal' it implies clearly that it's acceptable. It was not acceptable in any way.
edit: A better way to say it might be 'her reaction was unacceptable, but understandable from someone with no self control'.
After the first punch/shove, he should have raised the board as a shield, then swung it like a club when she kept coming. There's no excuse for her behavior.
I am often surprised at the lack of self control many have, and the excuses others want to make for their inexcusable behavior.
If you're the type of irresponsible parent that lets their child run free unattended and unwatched in dangerous public areas where others are doing dangerous things in a manner and place prescribed by law and you get violently angry at others when the predictable happens, I think you're an idiot and should have your child taken from you. That's a typical problem with most parents, reason and responsibility goes out the window when it comes to their child.

Please expound on which assumptions.
I saw plenty of context with which to call out the out of control "mother" for being out of control and irresponsible.

Responsibility is a good teacher, but only when it's enforced. Rules and laws are responsibilities, you still have the ability to make your own decisions as to whether to be responsible. Society has the responsibility to punish you for being irresponsible. That simple.
You have the "freedom" to break any law/rule you want, you'll only "learn" it's wrong to do so if you have to be responsible for your actions. Removing responsibility removes incentive for learning.
The solutions people have come up with to solve the ever changing issues that arise from "freedom" are called "laws"...and you want to remove them? Um....
The original point here was that removing the gun show loophole does not remove freedom or add rules, except the freedom to escape responsibility for improperly using a gun thanks to it not being registered to you.
edit: or the freedom to easily possess an unregistered firearm when you are legally prohibited from owning any firearm.
I don't see an issue with asking citizens to demonstrate in some way their level of responsibility when operating any dangerous item (at least items that can be dangerous to others when operated improperly). We do it for cars, we do it for knifes (if you intend to use it on a person, you must be a DR.), we do it for planes and boats. Sadly just getting a person to admit they purchased a firearm and proving they aren't legally insane is too much responsibility for some. You have said that somehow that instills responsibility with out ever explaining why or how.
I didn't think I was rude in the least, I explained humorously that you completely missed the point and asked you to try again. When you did, you agreed with me, mostly.

Ut oh, There are so many contradictions in your post. It honestly looks like you're starting to become unhinged. See this is why I quote your posts. I want you to be able to see what you say...makes it easier to spot those contradictions and makes it more certain that I am responding accurately.

It is strange though. It does appear that none of your arguments in your most recent post have anything to do with my recent response. You're making new arguments again without settling our original ones. I can only assume that means you're conceding my points.

You've asked me to prove your emotional manipulation due to your usage of "freedom" and "coercion" Oh...I'm sorry Ren, but you have missed it, but I already responded to that. Here, let me quote it for you:

"Coercion??!! Again, you're using this loaded language to emotionally manipulate us. I think George Carlin called it "Spooky Language!" Which laws are coercion and which ones aren't? How can you tell? When I obey traffic laws, am I being coerced? When I decide to not kill someone with a gun because the law says it's bad, is that coercion too??? Your two examples you give are really bad. There is no difference between the two except for loaded language. One example has positive language, the other one negative. If only there was some objective measure other than your truthiness."

There, I hope that clears things up amigo.

Ut oh, again, you referred to your original question. But Ren...I've responded to this numerous times? Did you forget? Here, let me quote those too:

"This is not exactly unprecedented to require certain things before a specific freedom is granted. Are people less responsible because of these restrictions? I think not, so how come guns are special?"

and..

"You're making a claim that people will be less responsible. *you* need to prove that. I don't need to disprove it, however I have given plenty examples of how existing requirements on existing freedoms don't seem to lead to increased irresponsibility. Burden is on you."

and...

"To your last point, but I already answered this in my previous post, by that logic, we shouldn't have ANY laws and thus we would become SUPER-Responsible!! It's a nice theory and all, but the reality is that life would degenerate into mob rule. How many other people have to pay for your "mistakes" before you learn your lesson? How much suffering and anguish does it take to "learn your lesson?" Sorry. I think you're not a student of history otherwise you'd know that this has already been tried in the past...the distant past. It doesn't work...that's why we have laws in the first place. The jury is in on this one. People generally like it that we have laws and an enforcement arm that attempts to stop the infringement of peoples' rights *before* it happens so that people don't have to "learn their lesson" at the expense of someone else's suffering. ""

and finally...

"I answered your question yet you continue to pretend otherwise. I showed you numerous examples of requirements before freedoms and rights are granted and no one is claiming they are less free because of them. You make the claim that people are less free because of gun control but you REPEATEDLY fail to demonstrate how other than to suggest we should be an anarchy. Who cares how many people suffer, they'll learn their lesson eventually right?? right?? Sorry, we tried anarchy, didn't work..we moved on. Just because you wrapped your claim in the form of a question doesn't mean shit other than you're really to play Jeopardy with Alex Trebek. You're still making a claim that people will be less responsible with less freedom. Its your claim, you need to prove it. I've said this before and you still haven't done it."

There. I'm really sorry, I thought you read all that already. That should clear it up. I'm sorry you thought I was avoiding it.

Unfortunately, you've contradicted yourself my friend. Earlier in your post, you admit there are no rules for us talking, but at the end of your post you put forth a rule for me...a dare..if you will. I don't think it's very fair that you don't have any rules, but I have to be...coerced into following your rules, do you?

If you do honestly think I'm a troll, I apologize, that certainly wasn't my intent, but you know, there is one rule that is known for dealing with trolls. Oh crap, my bad. You don't like rules, you think they take away your freedom, my bad.

I certainly hope that clears everything up buddy. Hopefully this does conclude our discussion. But then again, I thought we were done some time ago, but you kept bringing up different arguments and other distractions so I was compelled to correct your errors. HTH

PS. It is rather contradictory to accuse me of being juvenile, but you end your post with a dare. Oops! That must be so embarrassing for you!

"but won't people be less inclined to be responsible if they have less freedom?"

You're making a claim that people will be less responsible. *you* need to prove that. I don't need to disprove it, however I have given plenty examples of how existing requirements on existing freedoms don't seem to lead to increased irresponsibility. Burden is on you.

"With gun control, you want to take people's freedom away to stop them from screwing up in the first place."

Again, I asked how people are less free by requiring something prior to exercising that freedom. You failed to answer that.

"How is making it harder to acquire or own a gun going to make people more responsible using them? That's all I was asking."

No, you're changing your argument. But I'll go ahead and pretend that you weren't attempting to dodge and answer it anyway. There is never any guarantee that anyone will be magically safer by taking a magic class or spending time with an instructor. It's a strawman argument to say that it would. There has never been any guarantee that any law will make anyone safer. We do it anyway because the public demands it. Will of the people and all that. Over 50 percent of the nation were in favor of SOME form of increased gun control post-sandy hook.

You're right, not all of those things I mentioned are necessarily rights, or at the very least, could be argued. But I also noticed you conveniently ignored the part about voting...which is a right. And even if an ID is never required to vote. You still have to register in order to vote.

There is no guarantee that requiring a test makes someone a safer driver. There is no guarantee that I'm going to survive the day if I get out of bed.
We don't legalize murder because some people ignore laws. We make it illegal anyway and incarcerate/execute those that break those laws and hope it provides an example of why not to do it. It's kind of what civilization is based on. If you've got a better answer, then you should publish some papers and get recognized as someone who revolutionizes sociology and criminal justice.

I'm going to play the odds and guess that you won't though.

http://lyricstranslate.com/en/papaoutai-papaoutai.html

Papa, where are you?

Tell me where he came from
Then I'll know where to go
Mama always says when we look really hard
We'll find what we've lost

She says he is never very far away
He often heads off to work
Mama says working is much
Better than being in bad company
Not true?

Where is your Papa?
Tell me, where is your Papa?
Without you having to tell him,
He knows what's hurting you.
Hey damn Papa,
Tell me where you're hiding!
I must have counted at least
A thousand times, to ten
Hé!

(alluding to hide-and-seek game)

Where are you? Papa, where are you?
Where are you? Papa, where are you?
Where are you? Papa, where are you?
Where are you, where are you, Papa, where are you?

Where are you? Papa, where are you?
Where are you? Papa, where are you?
Where are you? Papa, where are you?
Where are you, where are you, Papa, where are you?

Even, whether we believe it or not
There'll be a day we'll believe it no more
One day or another, we'll all be the Papa
And from one day to another, we'll also have vanished.

Will we be hated?
Will we be loved?
Forefathers or geniuses
Tell us...who gives birth
To irresponsible men?!

Come on, tell us who does?
Everyone knows
How babies are made
But no one knows
How fathers are made
Mister Know-it-All,
It's in our blood, that's it.

Should I suck this out of my thumb or what?
Tell me where I can find the answer.
It must be at least a thousand times that
I've sucked my fingers dry.
Hey!

Where are you? Papa, where are you?
Where are you? Papa, where are you?
Where are you? Papa, where are you?
Where are you, where are you, Papa, where are you?

Where are you? Papa, where are you?
Where are you? Papa, where are you?
Where are you? Papa, where are you?
Where are you, where are you, Papa, where are you?

Where is your Papa?
Tell me, where is your Papa?
Without you having to tell him,
He knows what's hurting you.
Hey damn Papa,
Tell me where you're hiding!
I must have counted at least
A thousand times, to ten
Hé!

Where is your Papa?
Tell me, where is your Papa?
Without you having to tell him,
He knows what's hurting you.
Hey damn Papa,
Tell me where you're hiding!
I must have counted at least
A thousand times, to ten
Hé!

Where are you? Papa, where are you?
Where are you? Papa, where are you?
Where are you? Papa, where are you?
Where are you, where are you, Papa, where are you?

Where are you? Papa, where are you?
Where are you? Papa, where are you?
Where are you? Papa, where are you?
Where are you, where are you, Papa, where are you?

and this is why there is a need for gun control. not for the responsible owners, but for the irresponsible.

I've got no problem with gun ownership, just prove me to me you're not going to be an idiot like this guy. Rights and responsibilities go hand in hand.

periodic re-testing for competency and safety. If it's ok that we do this for cars, it should be certainly ok to do this for firearms.

So much no, this was irresponsible pet owner who was very close to a police raid (as is obviously evident by the number of cars and the assault weapon that is clearly visible around 3:00). The police are detaining him likely until they can ensure that he is not attempting to cause problems. Notice how the guys across the street from the guy being detained were fine continuing to record, were allowed to take the video away (despite showing a cop shooting a dog).

The dog did not deserve to be placed in a situation. But with your argument, if I saw a friend getting arrested I am entitled to charge cops and not get tazed or shot? To hell with that. But you know, its cool to blame cops whenever people do something dumb, illegal, or dangerous. Its cool to give them a hard time when they are trying to do their job and you know, protect someone.