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

[Logic 0]

Good old natural selection,I say we don't try to stop it we encourage deaths by stupidity it will take some time but if we do it right our idioit problem will go away.

 

[Tears of Blood]

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.

No. A lot of us, especially Democrats, want gun control and fewer guns.

But, sadly, the more gun control an area has, the higher it's homicide rates are. I didn't mistype that. I'm serious.

True, if guns didn't exist, there'd be less gun death. However, since they do, we need to allow people to be dangerous, to protect themselves, to not remain vulnerable to prevent such violence.

On topic: Well, it is a shame that that happened. It's a shame that those parents allowed their 8-year old child to fire a gun. It's a shame that a 15-year old was allowed to participate in a gun show. Bringing the child to a gun show, that's not a problem, in my eyes. But allowing him to participate? No, that's completely retarded.

Furthermore, if a gun jams, it doesn't go crazy and start shooting it's wielder in the head. I have a hard time beliving that the gun "malfunctioned" or something of that nature. What truly happened, I don't know, but I will tell you that that child should've never had a gun in his hand.

 

[Blair Bennett]

Agreed, if we redefine "Somewhat" to mean "took a corner at fifth and bananas"

What's wrong with bananas?

Seriously though, back onto the topic at hand, let me ask you this;

Would you not feel devastated if one of your own children were to shoot themselves in the head with a gun that they shouldn't have been allowed to handle in the first place?

Of course not. If they got their hands on it, they should have been allowed to handle it, because they should have been adequately prepared.

If they were not adequately prepared, then why were they capable of handling it?

This is basic "key-lock" model security; you are allowed to access anything you can, but you need some particular "token" that proves you are able, such as a key.

If they violated this security principle, it would be who ever allowed them to violate its fault.
If they were given access, but not adequately prepared, whoever gave them access is at fault.

Which means the blame would fall squarely onto myself almost invariably.
I wouldn't be devastated, more so than frustrated by the unoptimal allocation of resources.

I hardly think that inadvertently shooting oneself in the head can be considered handling a firearm properly...but I guess that's just my inferior logic.

 

[Pink dragon]

Americans....What do you expect ?

 

[mechanixis]

I'll give you my address if this is indeed true, so that you can send me my congratulatory Uzi's, which I will indeed teach my children and spouse how to fire.

This isn't sarcasm either. I'll be PM'ing you my address shortly.

It's not sarcasm, just an incredibly silly statement.

When your spouse or child dies from an accident in the learning process, if you shed a single tear for the loss of an individual with such a deep and distinct connection to you - one you know will never be able to be truly replaced - my vindictive laughter will be long and hard.

Everyone can, and will, be replaced.

And I have no tear ducts.

You aren't above being human, and the longer you hold on to this hubris that emotion is irrelevant the harder the fall will be. Before you die, you will feel sadness and regret that no amount of logic and reasoning can halt. That, I'm afraid, is what the human condition really is, in all cultures and points in history. The thresholds may be different, but the underlying system remains.

I wish it were different too, but I have the sense to wait for transhumanism to make things official.

No, I mean, I'm serious.
I have no tear ducts.

But, lets move away from my rather strange deformity, and move on to your statements.
I'm pretty sure if I die from a bus hitting me today, I won't feel sadness nor regret that no amount of logic nor reasoning could halt.

More than that, feelings themselves are neural networks, and therefore simply logical entities themselves, and since feelings are transient, and the networks themselves alterable both through experience and electricity, it seems SOME amount of logic and reason CAN change them sufficiently to eliminate those sadness and regret.

So, on all counts, it looks like you either don't know neurology, or don't understand I could die in about five seconds from, say, an electrical shock, and avoid all that messy sadness.

(Yes, yes, have your fun with semantics, you know what I meant. Metaphorical tears, and an implication of an average length of life.)

Neural networks are logical entities outside your control. You can know how something works and be powerless to manipulate it. The ability of logic and reason to influence emotion is finite, and it is therefore a statistical matter of time until you find yourself in a situation in which your own emotional threshold is breached.

Neural networks are outside of my control? Interesting! I guess all those books on metacognition and such are all flawed, and I should throw them out, and stop doing clinical trials on them!

Oh, and all of those nav meshes and learning algorithms that use neural nets, all of them invalid! I'll go back to support vector machines, and K-nearest neighbor, and fuck if my bots will be able to walk on N-dimensional planes, all because you said I can't control neural networks.

This, of course, is all poppy cock. The neural network that is your brain is turing complete; it can calculate anything possible, and with the right inputs, you get the right outputs. Just because you argue from ignorance doesn't mean it isn't very possible to modify mood, emotion, and everything else. Deep brain electrostimulation is an effective antidepressant for this very reason.

The fact you haven't gained control over your neural network does not mean it is impossible.

Congratulations, the placebo effect is doing some wonders for your emotional threshold.

Will your fingernails to stop growing. Don't tell me 'it can be done in theory' or 'someone else has done it'. If metacognition can do that, then we'll talk. My point is, your body does things you can't exert control over, and an awful lot of them occur in the brain.

Of course, I will concede to you if you have installed a permanent deep brain electrostimulation device in your skull. If you make use of legitimate transhuman means to enable your logical nature, then you have every reason to be confident in your mental abilities.

 

[TheMatt]

Massachusetts is a bad state? Isn't it the home of your 2 best schools? MIT and Harvard? Shit man, if this is a "good" red state, I am afeared of the bad ones. Wait a second, I was already scared shitless of them so I suppose this only compounds the issue.

Massachusetts is a blue state, dummy. You should try to learn a little more about the country you make fun of, lest your words betray your ignorance.

Wow, you're not very bright are you, dumbass? You said it only takes place in red states. THIS FUCKING STORY HAPPENED IN Massachusetts! Which is a blue state? I thought it only took place in red states? Who's the fucking dumbass, dumbass?

You should try to learn a little more about the country you make fun of, lest your words betray your ignorance.

 

[cobra_ky]

Well now that that's out of the way, can the rest of us all agree that children under a certain age should not be allowed access to certain dangerous objects, such as a sub-machine gun?

 

[stabnex]

I won't let this become a "gunz urr bad! banum!" post. I cherish my right to murder invading soldiers in cold blood.

Personally I do blame the owners of the gun for not properly maintaining and previously clearing the chamber of any errant ammunition prior to the show which is likely their policy anyway.

 

[cobra_ky]

Thank God I do not live in the states and their crazy "guns are fun for everyone attitude."

That's only in the worst parts of the red-states. In Pennsylvania, we're much more sensible about stuff like that.

Massachusetts is a bad state? Isn't it the home of your 2 best schools? MIT and Harvard? Shit man, if this is a "good" red state, I am afeared of the bad ones. Wait a second, I was already scared shitless of them so I suppose this only compounds the issue.

This is just another example of classic (yes, I said classic) American culture. Guns are great and safe! Eight year old dies.

As per your media you have the BEST healthcare anywhere in the world. According to actual statistics you guys are like 36th or something. Right behind Paraguay, yet your media keeps talking about how awesome it is. It is insane.

Actually Massachusetts is a remarkably blue state, but no state is politically homogenous.

 

[batuea]

The title in itself contains a couple of words that shouldn't be used near eachother. The story behind it is even worse. Read it for yourself: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/10/christopher-biziljs-famil_n_351732.html

My European brain has issues understanding this. So first of all we have a family that thinks it's a good to take an 8 year old kid to a gun show. Then we have 15 year old instructor who is demonstrating an Uzi. This teen clears the Uzi and gives it to the 8 year old to try it out. Apparently up until this part there is no problem at all. I do see a problem with a teen being a gun instructor, or a kid going to a gun show, or a teen giving a gun to a kid to try it out. But again, that must be my European close-mindedness.

Now here is the real issue: the gun jams, and the kid shoots himself in the head. Quote from the article:

The boy's family claims the gun was defective and unreasonably dangerous, and they blame the failure to properly service it.

So the big issue in this whole story is that the gun jammed and as a result of that, the kid shot himself. It's no problem that the kid is at a gun show in the first place, or that a teen is handing out guns to kids, or that the kid is trying out guns. That's all just fine. But because it wasn't cleared properly the Uzi was deemed unreasonably dangerous. So when an Uzi is cleared properly it is reasonably dangerous for a kid to try out? If the kid hadn't shot himself it would have been a successful family trip. This really blows my mind. No pun intended.

I got to say I LOVE guns and support them and the culture 100% but this is fucking ridiculous I agree with you, and a 15 year old demonstrater just WT THE FUCK F. Now BRINGING a kid to a gun show is not all that bad, but letting that kid hold a IMI UZI is another point. I would really like to smack the fucking parents, hard, with a baseball bat *metal so I get the lovely "DING" with each hit*. Also having your kid at a gun show is good for getting the kid to see that gun are not super duper cool and get them thinking "I should go get daddy's gun and show it to my friends so we can be cool like the people on TV" but you treat them like your at a antique China shop *you know plates and bowls and stuff* they should stand back from things at about 6 feet and NOT TOUCH A SINGLE FUCKING THING WITH THEIR HANDS IN THEIR FUCKING POCKETS.

PS: I am really pissed off as this is unforgivable on the 15 year old guardians and the 8 year old parents. This is the sort of rare thing that gives gun its horrible stigma, I have liked guns since I was about 10, not because they go POW but just how all those moving parts have to work together in a micro second to perform the same function over and over.

 

[nagato]

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.

But what if they walked to the art show and drove to the gun show. Really, the only way your logic applies to this situation is if they let the 8-year-old drive the car.

 

[WildManBill]

Hello!?? It's an UZI! What do you think it's going to do?? Actually, who is the dumb fuck who gave an 8 year old an uzi and told a teeager to "supervise"? I have been shooting all kinds of weapons for as long as I can remember, but every time, there was someone who actually knew what they were doing, there to help me if needed.

 

[anthony87]

Well now that that's out of the way, can the rest of us all agree that children under a certain age should not be allowed access to certain dangerous objects, such as a sub-machine gun?

I can't help but feel like I should insert some pointless, over complicated scientific jargon to both appease my ego and derail the point of this thread....

Screw it I'll just agree with you.

 

[chronobreak]

Gun shows are for lunatics anyways. No offence, but a public display of weapons specifically designed to rip the life out of people? Srsly?

Seriously. Did you also know that some people collect guns and never fire them? Did you also know they sell guns that don't even work at gun shows? Have you ever been to an antique show? Your assumption that everyone who goes to a gun show is a lunatic is preposterous. I've been to a couple in NH here in the states, and I've seen nothing but courteous consumers and people willing to help with any questions you may have.

 

[McNinja]

What FXING gun show allows live FXING ammunition in their show weapons? are they retarded? They were asking for something to happen. The only people who should be sued are the kid who cleared it, and the gun show for allowing live ammo in their show guns. I mean damn really? I guess if there was a separate firing range nearby where people could just go shoot gun like next door, but geez.

There's a gun show that comes by my area every couple months, and if you're caught with live ammo in a firearm in the show you get security and the police all over you.

And what the dickens was the 15 year old thinking when he handed the submachinegun to the 8 year old? What the hell would make him think that an 8 year old could handle the recoil? And after the damn thing jammed twice... after twice in a row the gun is obviously not working properly and needs to be inspected by someone who isn't 15 and an idiot.

It's completely normal for kids to go to gun shows, and to even hold a few of the smaller guns. But live ammunition in their showfloor firearms is possibly the stupidest thing I have ever heard. I hope the parents win, and I hope the kid gets punched in the face for being so stupid.

I've grown up knowing how to handle guns properly (since I was about 9 or 10) and hearing stuff like this just blows my mind.

 

[garfoldsomeoneelse]

As a gun nut, I have to say, if a weapon jams twice, it is poorly maintained. However, they didn't name the circumstances that caused the kid to point the gun towards his head. Either he looked down the barrel to see why it wasn't firing, or he held down the trigger for too long and the weapon recoiled all the way back towards his face. The former is far, far, far more likely.

Gun shows are not amusement parks. If your child is not properly trained in firearm safety beforehand, they shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a weapon. I blame this entirely on the parents, who likely claimed that their son knew how to handle a firearm in order to convince the weapon's owner to allow him to use it.

Anybody with a hint of safety training, or even just pure goddamn intuition, knows how to clear a jam... to say nothing of what it would take to not look down the barrel and pull the fucking trigger. Way to go, mom and dad, for not even giving your son the bare minimum of a safety rundown before allowing your son to handle a fucking sub-machine gun.

I guess this is the next step in natural selection: take away our natural predators, and we have to start offing ourselves.

 

[Dudemeister]

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"!

What the hell are you talking about?
Why would that be an illogical thought?
If he hadn't been near guns, he would still be alive, that is logical thinking.

 

[Bigeyez]

Well now that that's out of the way, can the rest of us all agree that children under a certain age should not be allowed access to certain dangerous objects, such as a sub-machine gun?

I can't help but feel like I should insert some pointless, over complicated scientific jargon to both appease my ego and derail the point of this thread....

Screw it I'll just agree with you.

I will counter both of you by mentioning a statistic without any sources to back myself up, and then completely ignore those who link actual sources proving my statistics wrong.

 

[mechanixis]

Got what he deserved.

User was suspended for this post.(30 days)

Got what she deserved.

AM I RIGHT

Man I am all worked up now. Talking to people who resolutely fail to grasp their own limitations is invigorating. And this one could use sciencey sounding words!