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

[Aerophyre]

Someone said guns arent toys, to this you are right. Cars arent toys either. Lots of people use cars to have fun though, both responsibly and irresponsibly. The same goes for guns: They arent toys but they can be fun. I dont see you freaking out over the deaths in any major motorsports event. 'How can anyone let their son drive a fast car!' You can argue that the situation isnt equal all you want but in the end they are mechanical devices with a propensity for death.

I basically agree with most of what you're saying, but I hate this argument. Cars are not DESIGNED to be lethal weapons, guns are. I would also be interested to see the stats of accidents and death if guns were in use the same amount of time by the same amount of people that cars are actively driving on our roads.

Your comparison to major sporting events might be valid if say, the deaths being talked about were those of professional sports shooters... but in this case it's more like putting an 8 year old behind the wheel of a F1 and letting him go nuts... I think that might make the papers pretty quick.

So yes, your post was quite well worded until that part which is just a stupid rationalisation when there are much more legitimate ones to be made. Another favorite is 'guns are just tools they aren't weapons' - again, stop being stupid. They are a weapon, they are designed as such and they are designed to kill. That doesn't make them inherently bad or mean they should be banned completely, but you seem a lot less idiotic if you call things what they are.

My personal problem with gun shows is this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-bloomberg/gun-show-undercover_b_312339.html - mentally ill? Criminal record? All good, buy a gun for cash, completely untraceable anywhere in the country! Anyone arguing this is a good thing is seriously mentally retarded. I'm all for people owning guns if they want but the ease in which people gain guns in parts of the US is insane.

I can tell you that I personally have purchased guns from a gun show and from personal experience this is not the norm. Considering this appears to be the same source that the original article came from it seems that this source has a hidden agenda with firearms. There may be some loopholes as there are in everything but the truth is guns shows are a neccesity as the current laws have made buying guns from conventional businesses prohibitively expensive.

And you are right: guns are designed to kill. I agree with and understand that and Im fairly sure that is where the majority of the controversy of guns comes from. That doesnt mean they don't have a place in modern society. I would also say (and this is going to shock many of you) If I had a magic button that would remove all the guns off the face of the earth permanently and irreversibly, I would do it, even at the cost of my own collection. Guns are dangerous and their cost in modern society often outweighs their benefits. There is no button and never will be one though. Nothing a human society can or will ever do will work perfectly, and banning guns will ensure that people who actively choose to live outside of the law and harrass decent beings for a living will face no serious threat from the law abiding population. Would banning guns stop SOME of the gun deaths? Absolutely! Is it worth doing it knowing that were giving every mugger, rapist, 2 bit horse thief and drug dealer a gold plated "Do whatever the flying fuck you want" card? Hell no!

 

[rcuhljr]

Those are weapons dude, created for the purpose of hunting (which involves attacking a prey).
Some tools like the flint where converted to weapons by simply adding a staff, but from that point it ceased to be a tool to become a weapon. There is a big difference.

Go to wikipedia, look up Tools. the first three examples are knives, bows, and spears.

 

[laikenf]

Those are weapons dude, created for the purpose of hunting (which involves attacking a prey).
Some tools like the flint where converted to weapons by simply adding a staff, but from that point it ceased to be a tool to become a weapon. There is a big difference.

Go to wikipedia, look up Tools. the first three examples are knives, bows, and spears.

I don't have to, a tool is a tool, a weapon is a weapon, as simple as that. Now if you want to argue for the sake of it I'll leave this discussion right here.

 

[Sovvolf]

.

I've been following this argument for about up to page 11 and I've noticed something, you seem to reply to everyone and even go out of your way to do so. This even goes for those who haven't messaged or quoted you so you obviously haven't missed any message. So why could you answer me that when a moderator asked you to source and show proof of one of your claims that you ignored him/her? This is done twice by the same mod too just to remind you perhaps. I don't care for the rest of your arguments I've already established that you?re a pretentious, arrogant, cold hearted ***** but I've got a good feeling that you care about my opinion of you as much as I care about your opinion of me. I would like this question answering though... I'm sure it's no difficulty as apparently you?re a scientist. Although despite my opinion of you I?ve got to admit that you bring up some good points using purely logic but sadly logic doesn?t always work? it?s like a theory, it looks good on paper and everything should be go right but when put into practice sadly this isn?t the case? as a scientist you should be able to understand the difference between practice and theory. I agree in theory giving a gun to a 8 year old or anyone of any age for that matter shouldn?t be a problem but sadly when put into practice that theory doesn?t quite work as maturity, strength, sight ect.. are all relative to the person.

 

[Aerophyre]

I don't have to, a tool is a tool, a weapon is a weapon, as simple as that. Now if you want to argue for the sake of it I'll leave this discussion right here.

Okay then... The sky is green. I don't have to justify anything I say with evidence, if its not obvious to you then I win. Hey, I LIKE this game! Can I be a politician now?

 

[rcuhljr]

Those are weapons dude, created for the purpose of hunting (which involves attacking a prey).
Some tools like the flint where converted to weapons by simply adding a staff, but from that point it ceased to be a tool to become a weapon. There is a big difference.

Go to wikipedia, look up Tools. the first three examples are knives, bows, and spears.

I don't have to, a tool is a tool, a weapon is a weapon, as simple as that. Now if you want to argue for the sake of it I'll leave this discussion right here.

Ok then hurry up and leave. A weapon is a subset of a tool, just like a square is a subset of a rectangle, I'm not the one running around going "Squares aren't rectangles!" It's like your being purposefully obtuse and insisting on redefining accepted terminology as if it suddenly makes you have a valid point.

 

[laikenf]

I don't have to, a tool is a tool, a weapon is a weapon, as simple as that. Now if you want to argue for the sake of it I'll leave this discussion right here.

Okay then... The sky is green. I don't have to justify anything I say with evidence, if its not obvious to you then I win. Hey, I LIKE this game! Can I be a politician now?

The point I'm trying to make is that when you create a device you create it for a purpose. As I said earlier, humans have the ability to use any tool as a weapon and vice-versa, but the design of such devices revolves around it's main function, not what it could be. A hammer could be used for a lot of things, but you can obviously tell it was designed to hammer nails on a flat surface. What is the purpose of a spear or a bow and arrow in the stone age? Of course it was for hunting, don't you see that even today there are hunting tools and hunting weapons, both different categories for different purposes?

I didn't want to be rude to rcuhljr, but it seems to me that in the heat of the argument it's quite easy to loose perspective because we all want to be right, but to me these are very basic concepts that everyone is familiar with.

 

[rcuhljr]

Actually I have no idea what point you are trying to get across. When you use a gun to hunt, you are using it as a tool. When you use a gun to kill in war, you are using it as a tool. I think you are failing to grasp the definition of a tool. And do you really think bows and spears in the stone age were only used for hunting and not for combat? A gun today is a hunting tool, a knife is a hunting tool. These are basic concepts, except one of us is trying to make up new concepts that are contrary to common knowledge. For the love of god open up wikipedia and read.

 

[Mcface]

Trust me, it's much better to get gets involved with guns at a young age, so they grow up respecting, and knowing how to properly use, or handle a weapon.
The fact a 15 year old kid was doing the instructing however, is bat-shit-fucking insane.

Well this little learning excursion did not go that well, wouldn't you say? i have to ask if you honestly think that a gun show is the best way for rudimentary weapon skills to be "passed" on?
and while i can understand what you mean, but by your logic toddlers should be instructed to operate motorized vehicles. i hope this does not seem offensive or sarcastic, i am just asking honestly.

Okay. A lot more teenagers die in car accidents than shootings, should we ban vehicles too?
My point was, if a kid knows what a gun is, and isn't afraid of them, he's not going to pick one up and blow his own brains out. This happened because they let an experienced, or under experienced kid be an instructor.

It would be the equivalent of someone who just passed their drivers test, teaching someone else how to drive.

 

[laikenf]

Actually I have no idea what point you are trying to get across. When you use a gun to hunt, you are using it as a tool. When you use a gun to kill in war, you are using it as a tool. I think you are failing to grasp the definition of a tool. And do you really think bows and spears in the stone age were only used for hunting and not for combat? A gun today is a hunting tool, a knife is a hunting tool. These are basic concepts, except one of us is trying to make up new concepts that are contrary to common knowledge. For the love of god open up wikipedia and read.

Well I see, so when does a tool become a weapon, or when does a weapon become a tool? These are two different definitions we are talking about. There is no need for wikipedia, think tool, what is the first thing that crosses your mind? Think weapon. That's what I mean about basic concept. We can try to prove each other wrong all night, but then why do we even bother to use the word weapon if every item man uses can so easily be classified as a tool?

 

[Treblaine]

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.

All firearms are dangerous, from a fully automatic uzi to your grandpa's shotgun.

If they malfunction and are not used with care by adults then tragic accidents like this will happen again.

Also what's this "my European mind" acting so naive about guns. Have you any idea the extent of Gun ownership in places like Finland and Switzerland? Not just of revolvers put fully automatic submachine guns and .50 calibre sniper rifles.

Why does everyone act like America is the only country with extensive civilian gun ownership?

About the Europe thing: I also noticed the abundance of "silly America" threads and this one is by no means intended as such. I live in Belgium and I was referring to Central Europe where there are no such laws. And still, people don't carry guns and our street aren't run by gangsters or by the maffia. I think that people fear guns more than that they see a means to protect themselves, and definitely not as something with a high entertainment value. And this is all of course my own opinion.

Switzerland is pretty central.

I think the phrase you are looking for is "My north-western European brain" and I think you should open up to the idea that almost absolute gun-prohibition is not necessarily the universal norm.

And if guns are not for protection nor personal enjoyment (entertainment)... then what ARE they for in places like Switzerland and Finland? All signs point to them being for both.

It's also illogical to "fear guns" which are just inanimate objects. That's like having a phobia of cars or motorcycles because of all the automotive accidents and deaths each year.

 

[Woem]

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.

All firearms are dangerous, from a fully automatic uzi to your grandpa's shotgun.

If they malfunction and are not used with care by adults then tragic accidents like this will happen again.

Also what's this "my European mind" acting so naive about guns. Have you any idea the extent of Gun ownership in places like Finland and Switzerland? Not just of revolvers put fully automatic submachine guns and .50 calibre sniper rifles.

Why does everyone act like America is the only country with extensive civilian gun ownership?

About the Europe thing: I also noticed the abundance of "silly America" threads and this one is by no means intended as such. I live in Belgium and I was referring to Central Europe where there are no such laws. And still, people don't carry guns and our street aren't run by gangsters or by the maffia. I think that people fear guns more than that they see a means to protect themselves, and definitely not as something with a high entertainment value. And this is all of course my own opinion.

Switzerland is pretty central.

I think the phrase you are looking for is "My north-western European brain" and I think you should open up to the idea that almost absolute gun-prohibition is not necessarily the universal norm.

And if guns are not for protection nor personal enjoyment (entertainment)... then what ARE they for in places like Switzerland and Finland? All signs point to them being for both.

It's also illogical to "fear guns" which are just inanimate objects. That's like having a phobia of cars or motorcycles because of all the automotive accidents and deaths each year.

Switzerland is not part of the European Union (ref. [http://www.stopthenorthamericanunion.com/TwoPeasImages/EuropeanUnionMap.jpg]) but indeed Finland is. A bomb is also an inanimate object but I'd rather not have it near me so that's really not a good point.

But I see your point of view and I respect it. But as another person pointed out: this is more a cultural difference than anything else. And what happened to the boy is still an accident, more than a rule.

 

[paasi]

Not really. Check his posts. With a bit of education you'll find that he dodges the real issues and plays on some obscure possibilities and illogical arguments.... much like evolutionists. I hate that bunch.

I wasn't talking about his posts, I was worried about the evolution comment.
Evolution is the opposite of illogical and supported by myths and half truths.
And why do you HATE evolutionists?

Gah! Damn these brainfarts. I meant creationists. This is what happens when you post half-asleep. It is them I can't stand. Bunch of pure bred imbeciles.

 

[joystickjunki3]

I feel absolutely horrible for that 15 year old. I mean, yeah, it's tragic that the boy died and the parents lost their son, but can you imagine how the 15yo has got to feel about this.

I hope that he doesn't turn into some crazy antigun person just because he fucked up, though.

 

[Doctor_Insano]

again, i am glad that i am not the only person that believes that an 8 year old should not be given an automatic weapon to play with, a rifle is slightly less dangerous because it's too long for a child to shoot itself with. Recoil in an automatic weapon forces the barrel upwards, i doubt the end result would have been any better if it hadn't misfired or jammed. In the end it is not up to others to teach children: it is the parents responsability. It is tragic, but ultimately a tragedy that could have been avoided.

 

[Woem]

I feel absolutely horrible for that 15 year old. I mean, yeah, it's tragic that the boy died and the parents lost their son, but can you imagine how the 15yo has got to feel about this.

I hope that he doesn't turn into some crazy antigun person just because he fucked up, though.

Well a kid shot himself in the head with the gun that he gave him, and while standing a couple of feet away from him. I think he'll grow up with more serious issues than becoming an anti-gun person. Those things tend to put en emotional strain on people.

 

[HotFezz8]

I?m from Massachusetts and love guns and remember when this happened. The kid couldn?t control the recoil and lost control of the gun, from stories at the time it sounded like it rocked back and shot him in the head. Nobody should have given this kid a gun if he couldn?t control it. In fact nobody should give an 8yr old anything that can go full auto. Jamming has nothing to do with him shooting himself?. jam = no boom

what a redneck approach. yeah. thats tragic. someone gave a 8 year old child a fully automatic weapon and left them to it.

there's the important bit: fully automatic.

smack your head into your desk repeatedly for being so fucking stupid.

A 8 YEAR OLD SHOULDN'T HAVE ANY TYPE OF WEAPON.

Why not?

Children in that age category are egocentric and cannot fully comprehend that creatures other than themselves are capable of feeling pain or similiar feelings, they also are in an emotionally developing stage and are susceptible to fits of rage.
Point is that they are in a developing stage at which they cannot completely understand the meaning of death, pain or other concepts associated with guns

Guns are unreasonably dangerous "tools" to be around anyone really.
In my opinion guns ought to be very restricted in manner such as:
- Owning a gun forbidden and permit unattainable for anyone under 18
- Permit for small calibre handguns and shotguns attainable only through a course on weapon handling and an examination performed by the police
- Permit for larger calibre handguns and rifles attainable only after a perole duration (2 years or so) after attaining small arms permit
- Membership to a Gun Association or military service record

If these were applied it'd be so much safer.

yeah i agree with this sentiment.

although i would phrase it differently.

i wouldn't give a 8 year old a gun for the same reason i wouldn't give someone with a brain disorder a weapon. they aren't yet old enough to fully think through their actions and understand the ramifications.

although i probably need to make clear my viewpoint on guns in general, and that is: no one needs them. what possible use can you have for guns that outweighs the results of one poor choice or half a second of carelessness?

guns are not playthings to be handed out to children. they aslo shouldn't be toys to adults. buy a xbox and play games, join the army, their is no reason you could have to justify to me keeping assault rifles, shotguns or pistols in your house.

the same justification you would use to defend automatic weapons (in fact any type of gun powder weapons) would equally cover the possession of C4, grenades, rocket launchers, mustard gas, hell anything.

i could keep going; criminal use of weapons, easy murder, etc etc. but there's no need. other than "because i want to" there is no valid argument for the possession of firearms (except the army).

 

[atomicmrpelly]

The point of this debate is that guns are legal in America...

Correct, so explain why if other countries making guns illegal didn't stop gun crime, it would if we did it in America. When talking about America it is allowed to discuss and support parallels with other countries.

Maybe not, but they have less gun crime than America. And very rarely does a young child get hold of a gun and blow his brains out. Or his classmates' brains out for that matter.

And no of course I don't have citations, I didn't realise I was writing a dissertation I thought it was just a pointless post on an internet forum. If you want to provide us all with your citations we'd be happy to laugh at you.

So you have no support for your argument you just like to pretend your right because it feels good? Ok won't waste any more time on you.[/quote]

Oh ok so you're a smug twat, fine I won't waste any more time on you either...

 

[atomicmrpelly]

90% in this thread are fucking idots.