8-year-old's Uzi death at gun show

[LCP]

Yet the Americans are still so firm about defending their right to bear arms, you never seem to hear about guns saving people just constant tragic accidents with them.

Really? That seems interesting. Confirmed cases of robberies being averted, all sorts of basic crime being deterred, etc etc, all of that doesn't "save people"? All of it is constant tragedy?

Guns are a tool. That tool feeds plenty of people (the Inuit for example), allows for stability OR unrest, and everything else. Power tools cause all kinds of accidents and tragedies, does that mean they have no use?

Don't mistake me for a gun nut either. Fuck if I care if people have guns or not, but this kind of argument is simply silly. Canada has more guns per person than America, yet significantly less crime. Obviously, the guns aren't going off by themselves, now are they?

Hmm well then maybe your right and its a problem with Americans culture and society, which does point to it being a good idea to place stricter gun laws to stop them all shooting each other until they can sort out there society.

screw tough gun control laws, shit happens. nobody is going around and shooting everybodywhere i like, i i damn well will buy one as soon as i can.

 

[paasi]

I?m from Massachusetts and love guns and remember when this happened. The kid couldn?t control the recoil and lost control of the gun, from stories at the time it sounded like it rocked back and shot him in the head. Nobody should have given this kid a gun if he couldn?t control it. In fact nobody should give an 8yr old anything that can go full auto. Jamming has nothing to do with him shooting himself?. jam = no boom

what a redneck approach. yeah. thats tragic. someone gave a 8 year old child a fully automatic weapon and left them to it.

there's the important bit: fully automatic.

smack your head into your desk repeatedly for being so fucking stupid.

A 8 YEAR OLD SHOULDN'T HAVE ANY TYPE OF WEAPON.

Why not?

I agree. I think the majority of us have learned from experience that no good can come from giving elementary school students firearms, so why not just do humanity a favor and let natural selection take it's course. After all, apparently it's just the mentally deficient 8 year old children who don't understand, and meticulously study firearms, their uses, and how they function.

I can understand your logic, and I have no intention of making an argument out of this, however, it is my strong belief that no child that age should be granted possession of such a powerful and deadly object. I feel that you are viewing this from too scientific a position, due to the fact that the important part of the situation is, as you previously stated, the variables.

The truth of the matter is that firearms were invented for the sole purpose of killing, regardless of what role they may play in more modern times. It is neither logical nor sane to assume that every 8 year old child will be capable of comprehending that the object he holds in his hand has the ability to end a person's life. A person who would give a child a grenade simply because he might have fun throwing it should be either be committed to a mental facility or incarcerated; the same is true for a man who would do so because another child, who was perhaps more mature, did not remove the pin, as this is reckless endangerment. This is because, though I do not doubt that there are 8 year olds out there capable of such comprehension, it is simply unfair and unreasonable to make the assumption that this child in particular understood the risks.

A large portion of your argument was based on information gathered from studies, however, we have to keep in mind that the variables present are not predictable, and that they are in no way absolute. Studies are not information or fact in it's raw form, but rather an interpretation of these things. Understanding this simple fact is our burden as consumers of information.

In addition this this, you referred to the incident in question as having occurred in a controlled environment, stating that a controlled environment is one where all relevant variables are monitored. But is public safety not relevant? And what of proper training and licensing for the officials present? Under absolutely no circumstances should a 15 year old be a) acting as an official when handling firearms if one is required to be 18 to have taken whatever courses/exams necessary, or b) handing ANY kind of firearm to a small child, especially considering the weapon had already jammed twice. If there is an issue with the weapon, do not use it. That is how people end up in morgues, something that, sadly, was not explained to the 8 year old who, coincidentally, ended up dying. Once the weapon had jammed the first time, the 15 year old should have removed it from the child's possession at once. Believe it or not, kids: proper handling of a potentially malfunctioning firearms is, in fact, a relevant variable.

Anyway, this turned into more of a rant/essay, so my apologies for that, as well as the amateur writing. Furthermore, I apologize if my views have offended anyone, however, they are just that: MY views, and to attempt to impress them upon others would be extremely arrogant. As a child no older than 15, my speech patterns and writing skill may not be as impressive as what you may be used to, however, I am proud to say that at least I know not to hand loaded and defective firearms to 8 year olds.

Then you are proud for your ignorance of basic fire arm procedure, of the ability of 8 year olds to comprehend what is called concrete representation which is identical in character to anything a 15 year old could comprehend, and the importance of statistical evaluation of relevant variables and procedures.

Ignorance is bliss, isn't it.

That's not quite true. While the working of the brain is getting similiar it still is at a significantly lower level and surrounded by egocentrism. The similiarities are vague.

Guns are unreasonably dangerous "tools" to be around anyone really.
In my opinion guns ought to be very restricted in manner such as:
- Owning a gun forbidden and permit unattainable for anyone under 18
- Permit for small calibre handguns and shotguns attainable only through a course on weapon handling and an examination performed by the police
- Permit for larger calibre handguns and rifles attainable only after a perole duration (2 years or so) after attaining small arms permit
- Membership to a Gun Association or military service record

If these were applied it'd be so much safer.

 

[THAC0]

this has to be in america.

if the maker of the thread why do most of you hate americans is watching. here's another reason.

I agree, you can't bring up the fact that guns do in fact kill people around American's without listening to about two dozen rants about how Thomas Jefferson wanted us to have tanks.

 

[LCP]

All i see in this thread is american-hating morons posting around.
i love this country as much as i love the one i originated from.

 

[KiKiweaky]

Blame the weapon for being 'unreasonably dangerous' O.O thats what it does, thats all it does!!!!! Handing an automatic weapon to a child is erm well... beyond stupid. I dont have a problem with guns, go to a range myself. But having a kid monitoring a child with an automatic weapon is asking for trouble.

 

[LCP]

Yet the Americans are still so firm about defending their right to bear arms, you never seem to hear about guns saving people just constant tragic accidents with them.

Really? That seems interesting. Confirmed cases of robberies being averted, all sorts of basic crime being deterred, etc etc, all of that doesn't "save people"? All of it is constant tragedy?

Guns are a tool. That tool feeds plenty of people (the Inuit for example), allows for stability OR unrest, and everything else. Power tools cause all kinds of accidents and tragedies, does that mean they have no use?

Don't mistake me for a gun nut either. Fuck if I care if people have guns or not, but this kind of argument is simply silly. Canada has more guns per person than America, yet significantly less crime. Obviously, the guns aren't going off by themselves, now are they?

Hmm well then maybe your right and its a problem with Americans culture and society, which does point to it being a good idea to place stricter gun laws to stop them all shooting each other until they can sort out there society.

screw tough gun control laws, shit happens. nobody is going around and shooting everybodywhere i like, i i damn well will buy one as soon as i can.

Welcome to Japan, a place with no gun control, and extraordinarily low violent crime rates. It appears "shit happens" doesn't work very effectively.

how many people live in Japan? and U.S? how big is U.S? Im pretty sure there are other reasons why....

 

[paasi]

Rather old story, that was a year ago right? Besides you know how some Americans are about guns. I mean, theres pro-gun and then theres gun obsessed. The death of the 8 year old was a tragedy, but it was completely the parents fault.

Yesh. I mean, what harm can a gun do to a man without a man wielding it? All guns should be banned? Nah, that's stupid. No use blaming tools for what the users do so we'll ban the people using guns. That's sensible. (^_^)_b

Considering the tools still have a valid use, it is far more sensible.

Only tools that have a valid use are shovels used for entombing the casualties.

The hammer has no valid use?
The flame thrower?
TNT?

You'll have to excuse the example, not lower yourself to nitpicking, and realize it was not meant to be an extensive, all-ancompassing answer but an antagonizing spike.

It isn't nit picking. If I wanted to nit pick, I'd talk about how your sentence is unparsable and ambiguous, contains several errors both in logic and in sheer word usage.

"only tools that have a valid use"
"are"
"shovels used for entombing the casualties"

All three of these fragments make sense, but they in no way go together.

Did you mean "The only tools that have a valid use are the shovels used for entombing the casualties"?

Welcome to nit picking 101.
Would you like to see how deep the rabbit hole goes?

You really are intent on lowering your value as an intelligent human, aren't you? Show me an undeniable fact why firearms should not be restricted in a very strict fashion? Crime prevention? It only encourages people into firearm related crimes. Self-defence? Turns into murder.
Crap! now I'm late.

 

[konkwastaken]

Australian law doesn't cover a class of home made guns, which are nevertheless not known as "firearms".

I made a spud gun out of PVC at home and thats classed as a firearm acording to the police, as is my friends home made BB gun.

by the way, sorry if i interpreted your post entirely wrong.

 

[Booze Zombie]

Uh... that's fuckin' weird.

 

[LCP]

Yet the Americans are still so firm about defending their right to bear arms, you never seem to hear about guns saving people just constant tragic accidents with them.

Really? That seems interesting. Confirmed cases of robberies being averted, all sorts of basic crime being deterred, etc etc, all of that doesn't "save people"? All of it is constant tragedy?

Guns are a tool. That tool feeds plenty of people (the Inuit for example), allows for stability OR unrest, and everything else. Power tools cause all kinds of accidents and tragedies, does that mean they have no use?

Don't mistake me for a gun nut either. Fuck if I care if people have guns or not, but this kind of argument is simply silly. Canada has more guns per person than America, yet significantly less crime. Obviously, the guns aren't going off by themselves, now are they?

Hmm well then maybe your right and its a problem with Americans culture and society, which does point to it being a good idea to place stricter gun laws to stop them all shooting each other until they can sort out there society.

screw tough gun control laws, shit happens. nobody is going around and shooting everybodywhere i like, i i damn well will buy one as soon as i can.

Welcome to Japan, a place with no gun control, and extraordinarily low violent crime rates. It appears "shit happens" doesn't work very effectively.

how many people live in Japan? and U.S? how big is U.S? Im pretty sure there are other reasons why....

The statistics are not based on absolute numbers, but percentages.
Thus the use of the term "rates".

And the numbers are significantly staggering even in terms of absolutes as to turn heads.

i still don't get what point you are trying to put across

 

[Maxman3002]

Your analogy is a strawman.

Alcohol exhibits negative externalities; the more people, the more the risk.
Firearms exhibit positive externalities; the more people, the less the risk.

This is, of course, assuming people are non-violent. If the opposite is true, both of those predictably flip.

People are far more likely to get injured in a single practical use environment using guns than at a show. The reason is simple; shows have a far higher budget for aid and a far larger burden of trust from the government. This causes higher investment and higher safety standards and higher confirmation, and therefore, much lower risk.

This all makes sence. But my issue is that the use of a gun under the supervision of a single adult in an open and empty enviroment is a lot safer than in an enviroment with a larger number of people. It doesnt matter how many people you have supervising that person, 10 people are not 10x more effective than 1 person.

You said yourself about cars being a lot more dangerous than guns and this is true. Thats why you dont take young drivers to heavily populated areas and alow them to go for a drive. Why do you not see is as a problem to let a underage child use a gun under the same circumstances?

I am completley happy to agree with you that guns have a use, that under certain circumstances a child as young as 8 could have the use off one, that cars pose more of a threat to the populace than a gun and that a child as young as 12 could use one under the right circumstances. But you cant then apply that logic to suggest that what works under certain circumstances then means that its a good idea to take away the practical uses and take the child to a situation where its shown for entertainment value. At the very least it removes the message that 'this is a practical tool, that you use only when you need to' and brings in the message of 'look at all the fun things this tool can come as and be used for'

There is no hunting circumstance when an 8 year old would have needed to use that UZI so why hold it? Thats definatly not hunting.

This applies to any age restricted activity, they are age restricted because they pose a threat either to the person or the people around them. If the age restriction is lowered for certain situations shouldnt then ignore the origional restrictions. They were made for a reason

 

[ccdistancerunner]

3 dumb things were done here.
1. 8 year old holding a gun and even being in a position that it could jam.
2. Giving a loaded weapon to an 8 year old, then not making sure it was pointed at the floor, as anyone who's been properly trained knows is best when handling a loaded gun.
3. 15 year old should have zero business distributing any weaponry to anyone, let alone a loaded gun.

 

[r0qu3]

dude whats with all the guns and gunshows?


How about developing a proper DICK? Maybe some balls too...

 

[IAmWright777]

Yet the Americans are still so firm about defending their right to bear arms, you never seem to hear about guns saving people just constant tragic accidents with them.

Really? That seems interesting. Confirmed cases of robberies being averted, all sorts of basic crime being deterred, etc etc, all of that doesn't "save people"? All of it is constant tragedy?

Guns are a tool. That tool feeds plenty of people (the Inuit for example), allows for stability OR unrest, and everything else. Power tools cause all kinds of accidents and tragedies, does that mean they have no use?

Don't mistake me for a gun nut either. Fuck if I care if people have guns or not, but this kind of argument is simply silly. Canada has more guns per person than America, yet significantly less crime. Obviously, the guns aren't going off by themselves, now are they?

Guns are not toys.

I will support you there. I went to gun shows when I was young, but I was instructed to never touch anything (only look). Still, the parents and the 15 year old (who shouldn't be in charge of any loaded weapon, and deserves that even less since he gave an Uzi to such a young kid) are to blame. I am a person that owns guns, but this actually disturbs me because these parents and that 15 year old showed a total lack of common sense.