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

[Woem]

It seems a bit silly to designate one particular tool as having no ability to entertain because its function is to cause death.

No, it doesn't. But this quote in itself sums up what happened in the article. Like I said: if the kid wouldn't have shot himself then it would have been a perfect family trip. That in itself seems weird to me. But I can live with cultural differences. I am shocked by this story, and you are not. But you live by the same cultural values as the boy's family (when it comes to guns) so I'll just have to leave it at that.

Just to twist other people's minds further: who would have gotten the blame if the kid would have shot another kid with the loaded Uzi?

 

[T5seconds]

Well hey... At least he went out like a badass...

Shooting himself in the head...

Damn...

 

[Chrissyluky]

i dont think the child should have even gone to that gun show without taking a gun safety course. and you never put an automatic in anyones hands when they arent strong enough to keep it steady if it hadnt jammed i dont think there would have been much to stop him from losing control of the gun. i think the parents are as much to blame as the gun instructor was both were VERY stupid and both assisted in killing this little boy.

 

[Kellerb]

Which is more defective: The Uzi or the kid's family?

case in point. its agun show, not a frigging playground.

 

[Woem]

Maybe if more 'defective' guns could find their way into circulation, the problem of bad parenting of this magnitude will solve itself before it becomes a problem.

"I'm not saying there should be a capital punishment for stupidity, but why don't we just take the safety labels off of everything and let the problem solve itself?"

http://www.bash.org/?4753

 

[Nunny]

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.

We dont allow kids to drive cars and most sane parents dont let them near power tools either. Its not the gun show thats the problem, its the fact that a 8 year old was given a loaded UZI by a 15 year old.

 

[Mopbucket]

The article doesn't really spell it out. Did he shoot himself because he's a stupid kid, or did the jam cause some kind of backfire?

I don't know much about guns, but apparently this happened to the soldiers' rifles in Vietnam. They didn't have proper cleaning kits because the manufacturers claimed they were self cleaning, so they would jam. If you tried to continue firing, the gun would basically explode and send shrapnel out in every direction.

Maybe it is the manufacturer's fault. I mean, if this can happen to experienced riflemen, then it makes no difference that it is a kid. Well, it makes it a lot more hilarious.

 

[Flishiz]

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

 

[Woem]

i dont think the child should have even gone to that gun show without taking a gun safety course. and you never put an automatic in anyones hands when they arent strong enough to keep it steady if it hadnt jammed i dont think there would have been much to stop him from losing control of the gun. i think the parents are as much to blame as the gun instructor was both were VERY stupid and both assisted in killing this little boy.

The gun was in single shot mode, and the cause of death was officially from the gun exploding.

The gun didn't explode. The family themselves say that he shot himself in the head:

The family of an 8-year-old boy who fatally shot himself at a gun show in western Massachusetts say the Uzi submachine gun jammed twice before he lost control of the weapon and fired into his head.

 

[Woem]

The article doesn't really spell it out. Did he shoot himself because he's a stupid kid, or did the jam cause some kind of backfire?

I don't know much about guns, but apparently this happened to the soldiers' rifles in Vietnam. They didn't have proper cleaning kits because the manufacturers claimed they were self cleaning, so they would jam. If you tried to continue firing, the gun would basically explode and send shrapnel out in every direction.

Maybe it is the manufacturer's fault. I mean, if this can happen to experienced riflemen, then it makes no difference that it is a kid. Well, it makes it a lot more hilarious.

"Properly cleaned guns don't kill people. Uproperly cleaned guns do".

 

[Brett Alex]

Exactly. You have it perfectly right in your first paragraph. Enough said.

I can only assume your second and third paragraphs are satire.

The appropriateness with which you conduct your rebuttal really reflects well on the point you are trying to convey.

 

[Nunny]

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.

We dont allow kids to drive cars and most sane parents dont let them near power tools either. Its not the gun show thats the problem, its the fact that a 8 year old was given a loaded UZI by a 15 year old.

Tell that to shop classes across America, which start as early as 5th grade. Are you saying a 10 year old is completely and utterly capable of using power tools, but an 8 year old isn't?

2 years can have a fairly big difference in Maturity and body strength.

 

[IckleMissMayhem]

You have to be 21 to even take the NGB course to qualify as an instructor in the UK. I would guess it'll be the event organisers/stall owners who'll take the blame, not the 15 year old.

Anyhow, most accidents to do with handling weapons are down to sheer stupidity. This one included. Proves the point for mandatory intelligence/common sense testing before people are allowed to procreate, as far as I'm concerned.

The gun clearly wasnt that defective if he managed to shoot himself in the head. On top of that, in which possible scenario could the instructor be held responsible when an 8 year old decides to look into the barrel of a gun to see why its not firing?

As a properly qualified instructor, yes you could be. Since you're responsible for the weapon. If you gave an adult a weapon, and they shot someone on purpose with it, it would still be your responsibility, as you supplied them with the weapon. (Again, that's UK law)

We dont allow kids to drive cars and most sane parents dont let them near power tools either. Its not the gun show thats the problem, its the fact that a 8 year old was given a loaded UZI by a 15 year old.

No, the problem isn't the fact that the child was allowed to fire the weapon, it's the fact that the appropriate safety measures weren't in place to protect said child. Even something a simple as an adequate demonstration of how to fire the weapon along with some general safety rules would have been enough to prevent this incident.