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

[Swaki]

i thought you had to be 18 to own or work whit weapons, but i wonder how many money the family will sue them for.

poor kid, he may be a gun nut* but having a family convince him he has the blood of a child on his hand when hes still a child himself.

*if your in a age of 15 already know enough about guns to land a job as salesman/demonstrator/instructor your a gun nut.

 

[DanielPowell33]

This may just be because I'm from Texas, and have attended gun shows for as long as i can remember, but I don't see a problem w/ a 8yr. old at a gun show, nor a 15yr. old instructor(as long as he knows what he doing), but I do have a problem w/ him handing the 8yr. old the gun.

The 8yr. old obviously didn't know how to safely handle a gun, sense he pointed it at his head. His father should of been there to stop him or not even let him hold the Uzi.

 

[Nazulu]

There are just too many stupid people with problems these days, guns should not be allowed anywhere! Of course people find ways to kill themselves with many other things but guns are basically weapons, it's what they were made to do.

 

[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

*sigh*. Simple point. Just because Japan has less people doesn't mean their lower amount of crime is insignificant, because it is a percentage, not an absolute number.

For example, America has x people and y crime. Japan has a people and b crime.

Now, if I said "B < X, therefore japan has less crime and guns are bad", you'd be absolutely right.

But that isn't what I am saying. I am saying "a/b < x/y, so japan has less crime and guns are bad", or more easily, japan has less crime PER PERSON than America, which means their system works significantly better than ours.

This is called a percentage, or a rate, and it allows us to compare Japan and America despite their population difference.

no not this, i mean your original statement, you said they had no gun control laws.

 

[annoyinglizardvoice]

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 and attacks with them.

You do know my country's obsession with guns is a result of a supreme court bastardization of a constitutional right for MILITIAS to bear arms. Damn Republican judges had to change it to the individual's stupid, stupid right

sorry, that sounded a bit condescending. Anyway, what I'm trying to say is that our modern interpretation of the second amendment wasn't at all what the founding fathers had in mind

It's nice to know that there are Americans out there who are aware of this.

Giving an 8-year-old a gun = daft
Letting a 15-year-old suppervise them = daft
Civies with uzis = daft (handguns for self-defence and rifles for hunting I can undertand, but Uzis?!?)

 

[Woem]

The article isn't telling the full story: "...say the Uzi submachine gun jammed twice before he lost control of the weapon and fired into his head."

Oh, okay. So it jammed, then it re-jammed, then he lost control of it and shot himself in the head with a doubly-jammed gun. Nevermind the fact that you aren't supposed to fire guns at gun shows. The only way to tell if a gun is jammed is to fire it, so the gun must have been fired three times, with the third time killing the kid. After the first time, or second time, someone would have said "hey, someone's firing a gun in a crowded room, maybe we should take it away from him."

The article is wrong somehow. For instance, maybe he wasn't even at a gunshow, or maybe the gun behjaved diffferently than the article says.

No the article really is correct. Here is more information [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.154930?page=4#3766994].

 

[Sombra Negra]

Hahhaha, hilarious! Doubly hilarious with some of the commentary here!

Why not go to a gun show?
How is an art exhibit any more or less wrong for an 8 year old, considering guns kill far less children then the bus he had to take every day of his life?

This was a hilarious tragedy which is made even more hilarious because it will provoke people who don't think logically to say "well gosh, if only he hadn't been allowed near guns"!

Yes, guns are terrible instruments of life and death, but when we live in a world where the car is far more of a blood god than anything actually designed for destruction, the rules may just be a bit different from what your intuition tells you.

tl;dr: this wasn't sad or tragic at all.

So, you think the un-needed death of an eight year old isn't tragic, but hilarious?

No fucking wonder Jack Thompson wants to ban violent games, how much have people like you been de-sensitized to stuff like this? And before you start telling me about how cars are worse, they are, but what point is there behind allowing more people to die than necessary? Using guns as tools to defend yourself with is one thing, but letting children use them as little more than playthings is another entirely. It's just stupidly negligent.

How is it stupidly negligent when using guns at a young age leads to all sorts of benefits?
Sounds more like a preventive measure, like vaccines, at that point.

Yes, some get hurt by them, but the general populous benefits.

And I am not desensitized. Simply because I have a different opinion than you does not mean I am morally ambiguous or have any sort of abnormality. People have stratifications based on experience and such; this is not necessarily desensitization. For example, you could be ultrasensitized.

It's stupidly negligent because, evidently this kid wasn't schooled in gun safety. Parents should know about this, but why not ask the child itself if they know what they're doing? If they're old enough to handle a deadly weapon, they should be old enough to know how to use it. And, last I checked, shooting yourself in the head is Doing It Wrong. Also: your heart is made of cold, unfeeling steel, you lovely person. Not sarcasm.

 

[Master_Corruptor]

wha...eh..I men... gha...eeee...

WHAT THE F#!"%&

why was a 15 year old left in charge of a gun ?
What where the parents doing.. shopping for bazookas and landmines ?

Someone once said ''The eart is a beautiful place, and worth fighting for.''
I agree on the first thing -_-

and we call ourselves for civilized and a advanced species...

 

[Woem]

Hahhaha, hilarious! Doubly hilarious with some of the commentary here!

Why not go to a gun show?
How is an art exhibit any more or less wrong for an 8 year old, considering guns kill far less children then the bus he had to take every day of his life?

This was a hilarious tragedy which is made even more hilarious because it will provoke people who don't think logically to say "well gosh, if only he hadn't been allowed near guns"!

Yes, guns are terrible instruments of life and death, but when we live in a world where the car is far more of a blood god than anything actually designed for destruction, the rules may just be a bit different from what your intuition tells you.

tl;dr: this wasn't sad or tragic at all.

So, you think the un-needed death of an eight year old isn't tragic, but hilarious?

No fucking wonder Jack Thompson wants to ban violent games, how much have people like you been de-sensitized to stuff like this? And before you start telling me about how cars are worse, they are, but what point is there behind allowing more people to die than necessary? Using guns as tools to defend yourself with is one thing, but letting children use them as little more than playthings is another entirely. It's just stupidly negligent.

How is it stupidly negligent when using guns at a young age leads to all sorts of benefits?
Sounds more like a preventive measure, like vaccines, at that point.

Yes, some get hurt by them, but the general populous benefits.

And I am not desensitized. Simply because I have a different opinion than you does not mean I am morally ambiguous or have any sort of abnormality. People have stratifications based on experience and such; this is not necessarily desensitization. For example, you could be ultrasensitized.

It's stupidly negligent because, evidently this kid wasn't schooled in gun safety. Parents should know about this, but why not ask the child itself if they know what they're doing? If they're old enough to handle a deadly weapon, they should be old enough to know how to use it. And, last I checked, shooting yourself in the head is Doing It Wrong. Also: your heart is made of cold, unfeeling steel, you lovely person. Not sarcasm.

Gun safety wasn't so much the issue. After the Uzi jammed twice the instructor "fixed" the gun. The kid then shoulder-mounted the Uzi again but it slipped. He tried grabbing it while it felt, and the rest is history... I'm not sure if it was because he didn't know how to hold it properly or because it was too have or too big...

 

[Sombra Negra]

Why thank you, it is nice to hear I am lovely sometimes.

It isn't negligent; feeling how a gun fires is the quickest and easiest way to get a child interested in guns, which is the easiest way to get them into gun safety, which is the easiest way to statistically lower their likelyhood of getting hurt from guns.

It is simple logic, and works identically to vaccines.

Wait, so letting children fire guns without learning how to operate them safely beforehand is a good idea? Even if they aren't interested, it's worth saying that you don't point it towards yourself ever, and making sure they understand it.

 

[Daveman]

Hahhaha, hilarious! Doubly hilarious with some of the commentary here!

Why not go to a gun show?
How is an art exhibit any more or less wrong for an 8 year old, considering guns kill far less children then the bus he had to take every day of his life?

This was a hilarious tragedy which is made even more hilarious because it will provoke people who don't think logically to say "well gosh, if only he hadn't been allowed near guns"!

Yes, guns are terrible instruments of life and death, but when we live in a world where the car is far more of a blood god than anything actually designed for destruction, the rules may just be a bit different from what your intuition tells you.

tl;dr: this wasn't sad or tragic at all.

ok steady on now, you're gonna get yourself reported like fuck if you say the death of an 8 year old isn't tragic. "hilarious" is overstepping massively.

wow, guns kill less kids than buses? maybe it's because kids use the bus all the fucking time whereas they tend not to use guns at all. I wonder why that is? maybe because it's a retarded idea to give kids guns!

did you know that if you are given a choice between giving somebody a peanut or ecstasy you should give them the ecstasy because the likelihood of them getting a severe nut allergy is higher than them suffering ill effects from the ecstasy. why don't we ban nuts eh? your argument is worthless.

also, well gosh, if only he hadn't been allowed near guns AT LEAST HE'D STILL BE ALIVE. (just to be clear... that is TOTALLY logical)

I personally think everyone is at fault here, the parents, the 15 year old demonstrator, the people who run the gun show and of course those silly manufacturers who had no idea that their gun would be given to a child (that last bit was sarcastic in case it didn't come across).

Uzi's have several very relevant uses.
This is, after all, why they were made.

name one that doesn't involve drive-bys