I always aim to. Notice how I made a joke, then responded to the points you brought up?Ururu117 said:
8-year-old's Uzi death at gun show
- Thread starter Woem
- Start date
All I got out of this article was that the family was too stupid to teach their kid proper gun safety. You can post gun accident articles till you're blue in the face, but it proves nothing.
"The Uzi submachine gun jammed twice before he lost control of the weapon and fired into his head."
Too me that just sounds daft, he either must of been looking down the barrel or holding the trigger down like Rambo...Or a combination of both.
Sorry for the loss, but I wouldn't let my kid fire an Uzi.
Too me that just sounds daft, he either must of been looking down the barrel or holding the trigger down like Rambo...Or a combination of both.
Sorry for the loss, but I wouldn't let my kid fire an Uzi.
That's what happens when you name your kid Bizilj.
People just love lawsuits. Fucking idiots. Yes their kid is dead and yes some of the blame can be put on the instructor, but equally as much blame can be put on the kid and the parents. I know that they'd like revenge on someone, but it was an accident and revenge is not needed. Asshole parents.
People just love lawsuits. Fucking idiots. Yes their kid is dead and yes some of the blame can be put on the instructor, but equally as much blame can be put on the kid and the parents. I know that they'd like revenge on someone, but it was an accident and revenge is not needed. Asshole parents.
I'm not against firearms. I've never seen much point in the private ownership of assault weapons and pistols but I'm a member of the NZ military, I hunt, I have my own firearms license and have been exposed to firearms from a fairly early age.
But there are some things I really don't understand. A fifteen year old is more than capable of successfully operating a firearm, even an Uzi. However this would idealy be under the supervision of someone who is experienced, certainly not on their own with anything bigger than a .22 and you would never think that a fifteen year old was qualified to act as an instructor. There's a lack of maturity and experience there that has, on many occasions, been a recipe for tragedy.
Now the eight year-old... I'm sorry but I can see no reason that an eight year-old should be given a sub machinegun. Ever. Even at a gun show. It's no different than giving an eight year-old the keys to a sports car and telling them to take it for a spin. Kids at that age hardly know what firearms are, certainly not enough to treat them with the care and respect that is required. KIds of that age will have an interest in guns - but that's what cap guns, water pistols and potato guns are for. You do not give an eight year-old a deadly assault weapon.
A few years ago I was test firing a pistol at a range. In a moment of idleness after firing I turned to talk to the instructor, pistol still in hand. It was empty but everyone knows you do not point a gun, whether unloaded or loaded, at anyone. It was a flash of not paying attention, and this is from someone who is fairly experienced. I was nineteen and even I fucked up. What the Hell are people thinking giving deadly weapons to young children who simply do not pay attention, who don't understand the gravity of the situation and can't comprehend to consequences of a posible accident.
I don't know who's to blame. The gun show itself for allowing a fifteen year-old to be an instructor, (not to mention allowing an eight year-old to take part,) the fifteen year-old instructor for not being as experienced as he no doubt believed himself to be or the kid's stupid parents who thought that it's a good idea to give the control of an Uzi to their eight year-old kid. Either way it suggests a group of people who do not understand firearms at all, a group of people who are content to use them as playthings while ignoring their primary purpose - to kill.
But there are some things I really don't understand. A fifteen year old is more than capable of successfully operating a firearm, even an Uzi. However this would idealy be under the supervision of someone who is experienced, certainly not on their own with anything bigger than a .22 and you would never think that a fifteen year old was qualified to act as an instructor. There's a lack of maturity and experience there that has, on many occasions, been a recipe for tragedy.
Now the eight year-old... I'm sorry but I can see no reason that an eight year-old should be given a sub machinegun. Ever. Even at a gun show. It's no different than giving an eight year-old the keys to a sports car and telling them to take it for a spin. Kids at that age hardly know what firearms are, certainly not enough to treat them with the care and respect that is required. KIds of that age will have an interest in guns - but that's what cap guns, water pistols and potato guns are for. You do not give an eight year-old a deadly assault weapon.
A few years ago I was test firing a pistol at a range. In a moment of idleness after firing I turned to talk to the instructor, pistol still in hand. It was empty but everyone knows you do not point a gun, whether unloaded or loaded, at anyone. It was a flash of not paying attention, and this is from someone who is fairly experienced. I was nineteen and even I fucked up. What the Hell are people thinking giving deadly weapons to young children who simply do not pay attention, who don't understand the gravity of the situation and can't comprehend to consequences of a posible accident.
I don't know who's to blame. The gun show itself for allowing a fifteen year-old to be an instructor, (not to mention allowing an eight year-old to take part,) the fifteen year-old instructor for not being as experienced as he no doubt believed himself to be or the kid's stupid parents who thought that it's a good idea to give the control of an Uzi to their eight year-old kid. Either way it suggests a group of people who do not understand firearms at all, a group of people who are content to use them as playthings while ignoring their primary purpose - to kill.
I have to say, this thread is very interesting. This is an arguement that has gone from liveing rooms to the Senate. But to clear the air on some things here.
-The 15 year old would have received a course on the safty, function, and operating procedures of the weapon system. At the same time, it was reported the weapon jammed twice. It should have been cleared and an armorer come over to inspect and check the weapon. This isn't a law, it's just good practice.
-It is unclear the particular weapon system nomenclatured "Uzi" was of the full-automatic varient. However, it does seem that on the day of the event several automatic weapons were present and were fired.
-For this child to have fired the weapon. Since he was under 18, should have been under supervision of an instructor and an occupying parent.
-This was a fully legal event with all the required safty precautions (Hence, the EMT's on site) where you CAN bring you're children too. There are games, show cases, vehical shows and demonstrations. And an oppurtunity to join one of the five branches of the military (COAST GUARD COUNTS!)
---- THE EVENT OF THE CHILD SHOOTING HIMSELF WAS COMPLETLY PREVENTABLE. There is a leson here. One that doesn't involve labeling all weapons as safe and unreasonably dangerouse. And I shall go on to that.
-The parent or the instructor haveing realized the weapon was out of control should have attempted to keep the barrel pointed downrange and called "NO CONTROL!"
-An armorer should have been called after the SECOND jam and the weapon placd down in a control and cleared manner.
-The 15 year old would have received a course on the safty, function, and operating procedures of the weapon system. At the same time, it was reported the weapon jammed twice. It should have been cleared and an armorer come over to inspect and check the weapon. This isn't a law, it's just good practice.
-It is unclear the particular weapon system nomenclatured "Uzi" was of the full-automatic varient. However, it does seem that on the day of the event several automatic weapons were present and were fired.
-For this child to have fired the weapon. Since he was under 18, should have been under supervision of an instructor and an occupying parent.
-This was a fully legal event with all the required safty precautions (Hence, the EMT's on site) where you CAN bring you're children too. There are games, show cases, vehical shows and demonstrations. And an oppurtunity to join one of the five branches of the military (COAST GUARD COUNTS!)
---- THE EVENT OF THE CHILD SHOOTING HIMSELF WAS COMPLETLY PREVENTABLE. There is a leson here. One that doesn't involve labeling all weapons as safe and unreasonably dangerouse. And I shall go on to that.
-The parent or the instructor haveing realized the weapon was out of control should have attempted to keep the barrel pointed downrange and called "NO CONTROL!"
-An armorer should have been called after the SECOND jam and the weapon placd down in a control and cleared manner.
Yes, because all the guns you just listed will instantly kill people.Ururu117 said:
Although you would think that a little common-sense from the parents side could prevent usage of dangerous objects. Then again, as many people say, common-sense is very uncommon.
Oh no! The rednecks are spreading! RUN! They have the brains of a zombie but are equipped with guns!Ururu117 said: