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

[Cherry Cola]

I'm on the fence about gun control, but this is ridiculous. No child so young should be permitted to handle a firearm, especially not one as dangerous as an Uzi.

So a bb-gun or an air rifle or a pellet gun or a paintball gun is any better?
None of those are "firearms".

Kids will find ways to kill themselves with anything.

Yes, because all the guns you just listed will instantly kill people.

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.

ALL of them have the potential to kill with a single shot.
No weapon kills instantly.

I think the potential for each weapon is a bit different.

You can kill a man with both a spoon and a baseball bat, but it's harder to beat him to death with the spoon.

You might now ask yourself "But why a spoon? Why not an axe or a knife?"

To that I answer: "Because it's dull you idiot, it'll hurt more!"

I believe you mean "ease" not "potential".
You need only destroy a portion of the brain to cause death.
This is notoriously potential, given the number of identifiable holes to jam something into in the human skull.

However, in real world combat, the spoon would require far more effort.

For anything which shoots projectiles, all it takes is a bit of skill and luck to hit the eye hard enough. This happens all the time in paintball and airsoft fights, which is why goggles are all but mandated.

I have a feeling that if I don't give up soon this debate will kill me. I hate losing but I've come to live with it. I bow down before you as you have defeated me.

Also, you did not get the reference I made ;____; Or maybe you did but didn't say it

 

[Skeleon]

It was a controlled experience.
The two are not comparable.

A controlled experience would have been to give the little kid a gun that wasn't loaded.

 

[Nihilism_Is_Bliss]

how very typically american; guns, killing, and suing people for/blaming accidents on others.

 

[Woem]

It was a controlled experience.
The two are not comparable.

A controlled experience would have been to give the kid gun that wasn't loaded.

Exactly. Or not to have the kid be there in the first place. Or to have an adult supervise the teen instructor. Or to have the instructor (or supervisor, or parents) intervene when noticing the gun jamming. That all wasn't very controlled.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Again, according to child psychology, an eight year old can fully understand the consequences to potentially the same degree as the 15 year old (many 15 year olds are still in the concrete stage). Which sort of undermines your argument.

Not to mention, it was a controlled environment. You could have had a 2 year old shoot it with the same amount of risk as an 80 year old.

Potentially understand? Is that good enough for you to give an Uzi to a small child? Having the potential to understand doesn't mean that one can understand and given that something going wrong can, and in this case has resulted in someone's death I would strongly suggest that the meer potential to understand is not even close to being good enough.

And this was not a controlled environment. A fifteen year old who clearly did not have the experience was acting as an instructor to an eight year-old in the use of, not an airgun or a humble .22 that most people start on, but an Uzi. The kid managed to shoot himself in the head, that kind of thing does not happen in a controlled environment.

I was thinking the same thing about the "controlled environment" thing. Now there's something I'm wondering. I don't know a thing about guns but the article states the gun jammed twice before eventually going off. Are those two jams not enough for the teen instructor to intervene?

Yes, two jams should be enough. However, the teen was a fucking idiot. You can't really rely on people to have a common-sense these days

 

[Kasterborus]

Oh...hey look, America...I think that was all I needed to read...

-Kaster

 

[Nunny]

It was a controlled experience.
The two are not comparable.

A controlled experience would have been to give the kid gun that wasn't loaded.

Exactly. Or not to have the kid be there in the first place. Or to have an adult supervise the teen instructor. Or to have the instructor (or supervisor, or parents) intervene when noticing the gun jamming. That all wasn't very controlled.

Maby even going as far as locking the gun into a stationary position, were it was incapable of firing anywere but fowards at whatever the hell it was they were firing at.

 

[Cherry Cola]

I'm on the fence about gun control, but this is ridiculous. No child so young should be permitted to handle a firearm, especially not one as dangerous as an Uzi.

So a bb-gun or an air rifle or a pellet gun or a paintball gun is any better?
None of those are "firearms".

Kids will find ways to kill themselves with anything.

Yes, because all the guns you just listed will instantly kill people.

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.

ALL of them have the potential to kill with a single shot.
No weapon kills instantly.

I think the potential for each weapon is a bit different.

You can kill a man with both a spoon and a baseball bat, but it's harder to beat him to death with the spoon.

You might now ask yourself "But why a spoon? Why not an axe or a knife?"

To that I answer: "Because it's dull you idiot, it'll hurt more!"

I believe you mean "ease" not "potential".
You need only destroy a portion of the brain to cause death.
This is notoriously potential, given the number of identifiable holes to jam something into in the human skull.

However, in real world combat, the spoon would require far more effort.

For anything which shoots projectiles, all it takes is a bit of skill and luck to hit the eye hard enough. This happens all the time in paintball and airsoft fights, which is why goggles are all but mandated.

I have a feeling that if I don't give up soon this debate will kill me. I hate losing but I've come to live with it. I bow down before you as you have defeated me.

Also, you did not get the reference I made ;____; Or maybe you did but didn't say it

Robin Hood: Prince of Theives.
I laughed, but didn't think it relevant to point it out.

At least you got it, so I'm glad my reference wasn't misused.

 

[Skeleon]

Remember, controlled does not imply that all free variables have been accounted for (indeed, this is impossible due to quantum randomness), merely that all relevant are accounted for.

Don't come back with "quantum randomness", this is about common sense.
Just because other things can go wrong is no reason to place our kids in unnecessary risks.

 

[Skeleon]

The risk wasn't unnecessary by any measure.
The risk of driving in a car to GET to the gun show was FAR higher than this situation, due to the ABUNDANCE of free variables in the uncontrolled car environment (along with its inherent risks) compared to the controlled environments very restricted free variable set.

Yes.
But they added ADDITIONAL RISK by giving a young kid a gun.

This is not about what is the WORSE risk statistically.
This is about risks we can avoid by using common sense.

Overall, less people die from taking drugs than car accidents (because the absolute number of drug abusers is lower than that of people who drive cars). Guess I'll better get started.

 

[HotFezz8]

i have a couple of questions:

1) why the fuck was a 15 year old handling a Uzi submachine gun?! i was given to understanding the Uzi sub machine gun fired 9mm bullets in a fully automantic mode and was a FUCKING SUB MACHINE GUN.

2) why the fuck was a 8 year old handling a Uzi submachine gun?! i was given to understanding the Uzi sub machine gun fired 9mm bullets in a fully automantic mode and was a FUCKING SUB MACHINE GUN.

3) where the fuck where the FUCKING PARENTS?!

this is tragic, but at the moment all i can feel is anger towards the parents.

 

[Woem]

The risk wasn't unnecessary by any measure.
The risk of driving in a car to GET to the gun show was FAR higher than this situation, due to the ABUNDANCE of free variables in the uncontrolled car environment (along with its inherent risks) compared to the controlled environments very restricted free variable set.

Yes.
But they added ADDITIONAL RISK by giving a young kid a gun.

This is not about what is the WORSE risk statistically.
This is about risks we can avoid by using common sense.

Overall, less people die from taking drugs than car accidents (because the absolute number of drug abusers is lower than that of people who drive cars). Guess I'll better get started.

Don't forget to start smoking too. You have to die from something, right?

 

[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.