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

[Vault boy Eddie]

Goddamn VIDEOGAMES STRIKE AGAIN!!!

Videogames and Gansta Rap. Won't someone please think of the children?

I bet he saw that in MW1 and tought it would be cool, at least that's what the media will say.

I gotta solution, why don't they just ban the games, or better yet, put a fucking age rating on them!

You are angering the almighty money god!!! Repent you heathen!!!

 

[Superlordbasil]

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?

There is a difference between adults using firearms to protect themselves or to avert crime, and seeing guns as having a high entertainment value. If you're taking a family trip to a gun show, then you're blurring that very important line. Guns are not toys.

Again, the ever important example of art comes to mind.
The risk going to an art exhibit by car is greater than the risk of going to a gun show by walking, yet one would intuitively suggest that the art is inherently less risky.

Your logic seems to be very common sense but not very reasonable, with this simple example in mind.

Not to mention, who says guns can't be tools AND have entertainment value? Power tools have entertainment value, and so do many other tools, such as cars, boats, and soldering irons to name a few. It seems a bit silly to designate one particular tool as having no ability to entertain because its function is to cause death.

Having been to a gun show numerous times, and being suitably entertained, I would think this would be proof enough to the contrary.

The kid was 8 years old....He SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN HOLDING A GUN, PERIOD. Would you let your 8 year old operate a car? Would you let your 8 year old operate power tools? Would you let your 8 year old operate a boat?

For one second stop trying to be a snarky ass and actually THINK about what your saying. It really doesn't matter what statistics you can pull out of your rear to try and show how guns are safe. IT'S STILL AN 8 YEAR OLD KID HOLDING A GUN. It's incredibly stupid on both the family and organizers to let an 8 year old child pick up something they can potentially kill themselves with, be it a gun, power tool, sword, whatever. The real tragedy here is that the parents will probably win the suit against the 15 year old (and whoever was in charge of him) and win oodles of money, when in reality they are just as responsible over their sons death.

In america, you can get what is known as a farmers license for vehicles. This allows you to use vehicles, such as cars and trucks and tractors, on or near a farm. In many midwestern states, this license can be accessed as young as 10-12.

Boat licenses can be aquired even earlier.

A helicopter license has no age requirement.

Power tools can be bought from any hardware store at any age in almost every state in the union.

I am thinking. I am using LOGIC not INTUITION. If you'd stop and think for a moment, objectively think, you'd realize that your arguments are all ageist and have no actual weight besides "feeling".

By your argument of only logic we should really never of invented guns or ever thought of them since the wish to kill each other is a emotional feeling that leads to creation of weapons not a logical one after all logically no one should want to die. People are driven by their emotions not logic there is no escaping that.

 

[Tonimata]

Aaaaah, Humanity continues to give me evidence of why I should press the apocalypse unleashing button.

 

[cobra_ky]

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?

There is a difference between adults using firearms to protect themselves or to avert crime, and seeing guns as having a high entertainment value. If you're taking a family trip to a gun show, then you're blurring that very important line. Guns are not toys.

Again, the ever important example of art comes to mind.
The risk going to an art exhibit by car is greater than the risk of going to a gun show by walking, yet one would intuitively suggest that the art is inherently less risky.

Your logic seems to be very common sense but not very reasonable, with this simple example in mind.

Not to mention, who says guns can't be tools AND have entertainment value? Power tools have entertainment value, and so do many other tools, such as cars, boats, and soldering irons to name a few. It seems a bit silly to designate one particular tool as having no ability to entertain because its function is to cause death.

Having been to a gun show numerous times, and being suitably entertained, I would think this would be proof enough to the contrary.

The kid was 8 years old....He SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN HOLDING A GUN, PERIOD. Would you let your 8 year old operate a car? Would you let your 8 year old operate power tools? Would you let your 8 year old operate a boat?

For one second stop trying to be a snarky ass and actually THINK about what your saying. It really doesn't matter what statistics you can pull out of your rear to try and show how guns are safe. IT'S STILL AN 8 YEAR OLD KID HOLDING A GUN. It's incredibly stupid on both the family and organizers to let an 8 year old child pick up something they can potentially kill themselves with, be it a gun, power tool, sword, whatever. The real tragedy here is that the parents will probably win the suit against the 15 year old (and whoever was in charge of him) and win oodles of money, when in reality they are just as responsible over their sons death.

In america, you can get what is known as a farmers license for vehicles. This allows you to use vehicles, such as cars and trucks and tractors, on or near a farm. In many midwestern states, this license can be accessed as young as 10-12.

Boat licenses can be aquired even earlier.

A helicopter license has no age requirement.

Power tools can be bought from any hardware store at any age in almost every state in the union.

I am thinking. I am using LOGIC not INTUITION. If you'd stop and think for a moment, objectively think, you'd realize that your arguments are all ageist and have no actual weight besides "feeling".

you must be 17 years of age to obtain a helicopter license. You must be 16 before you can fly a helicopter alone. Also, what's the logic behind using existing age limits to argue against them?

Sources:
http://www.northernhelicopters.com/faq.php#25
http://www.start-flying.com/new%20site/heli_FAQs.htm#Are_there_minimum_or_maximum_age
http://www.ehow.com/facts_5218008_helicopter-pilot-license-requirements.html

 

[johnzaku]

I'm an american, and I still think this is bullshit. I am really getting sick of parents letting their kids use weapons designed with the specific purpose of not only killing people, but doing it quickly and efficiently.

There have been so many reports similar to this, and in nearly every instance, it is never the parent's fault, not the kid's fault, or the gun's fault, and it in NO way relates to lack of gun controls or proper training. It's video games or rap music or something to save the blame from simple irresponsibility.

I understand the want and need to bear arms, if anything I support it, but it is SO easy to get a gun over here, it's sickening.

 

[Bigeyez]

You realize there HAVE been VERY YOUNG people who have gotten helicopter licenses.
Like, far younger than you or I.

WOW...good God. I realize I'm argueing with a wall, so I'm just going to go ahead and cut out of this conversation and not waste my time any further.

Just remember, when you have kids make sure to give them loaded firearms to play with! It's totally safe! In fact go ahead and buy them acetylene torches for their 2nd birthday! They'll have a blast, and remember more people die from lighting strikes then acetylene torches, so they're perfectly safe for a 2 year old to use!

 

[Blair Bennett]

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.

As a 15 year old with no dominant need to kill something: granted. True, I have little to no prior knowledge as to the mechanics of firearms. This would be the reason I did not include information on the inner workings and mechanics of said object. At no point in time did I claim to possess this knowledge, so I'm sort of at a loss as to why that particular part of your argument holds stock.

In addition to this, I did not claim to have knowledge of proper procedure when handling firearms, only common sense. If you have an extremely dangerous item which also happens to be defective, you do not continue to use it if you have an understanding of that thing. To reference a point made earlier, soldiers in WWI were having issues with their rifles jamming, and as a direct result of this, they were injured. Regardless of whether or not 8 year old children and 15 year old children have the same concrete representation, if you have no understanding of why something isn't working, age is irrelevant. The child could have been a middle aged man, but if he had no prior comprehension of why the weapon was defective or what the consequences could be, this would have made no difference. That is, unless you are attempting to debate the fact that firearms are dangerous.

If you hand ANYONE a firearm who does not have an understanding of how they work, or what could go wrong, then you are putting yourself, the person holding the firearm, and everyone in the general vicinity at risk. This is not something where statistic evaluation is required. I'm not debating the relevance and importance of statistics, simply stating that they are not the only factor. However, anyone who requires a study to tell them that guns in the hands of people who don't know how to use them is dangerous should not be making arguments.

And as far as your last comment, let's try to keep outright insults to a minimum for the sake of maturity: it reflects badly on everyone.

 

[SilentHunter7]

You see, this is why we can't have nice things.

I agree that the 2nd Amendment guarantees our right to arm ourselves (Hell, I like to take my Dad's Colt Python out to the range every now and again), but for god's sake, Eight?! We have to be 16 to drive, 18 to smoke, and 21 to drink, but we can go to gun shows at age 15, and sell Uzis?! That's grossly irresponsible. I'm of the opinion that you shouldn't be allowed to handle a loaded firearm until at least age 16, because at least then most people are mature enough to understand gun-safety, and that you don't point the barrel at anything you don't want to kill, even if the chamber's empty, and the safety's on. Also, at 16, you'd probably have the upper-body strength to keep an Uzi from recoiling to the point you shoot yourself in the head.

The parents should get nothing because they were just as negligent as the gun owner, if not more-so.

 

[Daveman]

Would you let your 8 year old operate a boat?

well you've got to be pretty retarded to crash a boat if you're on the open sea so you can usually stop anything before it happens if you're watching. but I suppose it depends what kind of boat it is...
but you've got the right sentiment.

 

[Superlordbasil]

Ururu117, please stop applying your simple 'logic' to a situation where it doesn't fit. It is far more complex than you make it out to be. It may seem infallible to the nearest braindead but as soon as you look a little deeper than the surface you'll see that you make no sense what so ever.

Everything you have equated guns to has another more practical use other than killing people, were as guns do not. I agree with you that it was human stupidity, but thats it, humans are stupid. If there is a way to fail with something, someone will do it, no matter how far fetched. So why give them more ways than necessary to kill themselves or others? Especially as guns are so efficient at it.

According to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate the only country that has higher firearm homicide rate is ironically my own, but considering it was essentially a warzone up until very recently isn't exactly something to feel happy about. Sure if you make weapons illegal the criminals will still find ways of getting them, but you can be damn sure it will be harder than breaking in to someones house when they aren't in.

Guns have practical use other than killing people.
I can think of many things guns can kill besides people.

like hunting animals? Highly impractical thing to do in my opinion we have put so much effort into making all these domesticated animals to eat and we still need to go and shoot some random wild ones?

 

[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?!?)

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

And none of those are daft by any real logic.

They were made for combat use. I'm not denying that they are useful for that. They have no sensible civilian use.

 

[Velocirapture07]

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?

There is a difference between adults using firearms to protect themselves or to avert crime, and seeing guns as having a high entertainment value. If you're taking a family trip to a gun show, then you're blurring that very important line. Guns are not toys.

I would tend to agree with you man, but I must say this is pretty tragic and awful. However, this is obviously only in the news because of the circumstances (involved a gun) and because the Huffington Post is the biggest liberal bullshit news source ever created. I'm not saying the story isn't true, just watch where you get all your info.

 

[clericwithnolife31]

thank the gods Jack Thompson is in hiding somewhere. this has "Video games are killing our children" written all over it...... *sigh* back to my bomb shelter

 

[Spaceman_Spiff]

You realize there HAVE been VERY YOUNG people who have gotten helicopter licenses.
Like, far younger than you or I.

WOW...good God. I realize I'm argueing with a wall, so I'm just going to go ahead and cut out of this conversation and not waste my time any further.

Just remember, when you have kids make sure to give them loaded firearms to play with! It's totally safe! In fact go ahead and buy them acetylene torches for their 2nd birthday! They'll have a blast, and remember more people die from lighting strikes then acetylene torches, so they're perfectly safe for a 2 year old to use!

I'm pretty sure Ururu117 isn't human. He is one of those supercomputers designed to debate no matter the argument.