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

[atomicmrpelly]

Guns are bad. They should be ilegal:

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
--Thomas Jefferson

I think this is the key problem with the 2nd amendment: It assumes that any criminal with a gun is trying to kill his victim. When, in fact, many are simply trying to steal something and have the gun as insurance. And if the victim didn't have a gun and didn't try to defend themselves then they wouldn't get shot. Yes they'd get robbed but I'd rather be poor than dead!

It also overlooks the fact that legalising guns makes them much easier to get hold of, so every Joe Burglar can have one with no problem. Yes guns being ilegal won't deter those who already plan to commit a crime, but it will mean that there aren't any gun shops around, so Joe Burglar is going to have to look a lot harder to find a gun.

And on top of this! Knowing that guns are ilegal, Joe Burglar can be fairly confident that his victims won't be armed and, therefore, won't bother going through all the hassle of obtaining a firearm ilegally.

QED

 

[oppp7]

If he had been older, he could have gotten a Darwin Award...
The family and 15 year old may have gotten an honorable mention but I think they're disqualified for hurting a kid.

 

[paasi]

Rather old story, that was a year ago right? Besides you know how some Americans are about guns. I mean, theres pro-gun and then theres gun obsessed. The death of the 8 year old was a tragedy, but it was completely the parents fault.

Yesh. I mean, what harm can a gun do to a man without a man wielding it? All guns should be banned? Nah, that's stupid. No use blaming tools for what the users do so we'll ban the people using guns. That's sensible. (^_^)_b

Considering the tools still have a valid use, it is far more sensible.

Only tools that have a valid use are shovels used for entombing the casualties.

 

[Spaceman_Spiff]

My symmpathies go his family.

EDIT: Off Topic: Sweet 666 posts.

 

[malestrithe]

I love the gun control debate in America. It is the only time when the political sides use the arguments of the other side without derisive looks and comments. The liberals argue for an originalist position, where they claim the founding fathers did not intend for us to have fully automatic weapons. The conservatives use a "living document" argument, where they claim the founders could not forsee everything. In other words, gun control is the only time when a liberal wants conservative control of guns and conservatives want liberal gun laws.

As for the case, I blame the parents for letting their kids dick around with a gun. Still If everything is equal, I would sooner trust a 8 year old who grew up around guns than an adult who never held one in his or her life.

 

[Woem]

Early adaptation of guns leads to significantly lower late stage accidents.
This is an identifiable statistic; those who are around guns tend to be at less risk from them.

On the other hand, carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed. [sup]source [http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed.html][/sup]

Only in urban situations; the risk is reversed in rural situations.

Well a gun show is hardly a rural environment and you wouldn't use an Uzi to shoot a deer, right? No matter how much power tools, pointy sticks or quantum randomness you throw at it.

 

[Blair Bennett]

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?

I agree. I think the majority of us have learned from experience that no good can come from giving elementary school students firearms, so why not just do humanity a favor and let natural selection take it's course. After all, apparently it's just the mentally deficient 8 year old children who don't understand, and meticulously study firearms, their uses, and how they function.

I can understand your logic, and I have no intention of making an argument out of this, however, it is my strong belief that no child that age should be granted possession of such a powerful and deadly object. I feel that you are viewing this from too scientific a position, due to the fact that the important part of the situation is, as you previously stated, the variables.

The truth of the matter is that firearms were invented for the sole purpose of killing, regardless of what role they may play in more modern times. It is neither logical nor sane to assume that every 8 year old child will be capable of comprehending that the object he holds in his hand has the ability to end a person's life. A person who would give a child a grenade simply because he might have fun throwing it should be either be committed to a mental facility or incarcerated; the same is true for a man who would do so because another child, who was perhaps more mature, did not remove the pin, as this is reckless endangerment. This is because, though I do not doubt that there are 8 year olds out there capable of such comprehension, it is simply unfair and unreasonable to make the assumption that this child in particular understood the risks.

A large portion of your argument was based on information gathered from studies, however, we have to keep in mind that the variables present are not predictable, and that they are in no way absolute. Studies are not information or fact in it's raw form, but rather an interpretation of these things. Understanding this simple fact is our burden as consumers of information.

In addition this this, you referred to the incident in question as having occurred in a controlled environment, stating that a controlled environment is one where all relevant variables are monitored. But is public safety not relevant? And what of proper training and licensing for the officials present? Under absolutely no circumstances should a 15 year old be a) acting as an official when handling firearms if one is required to be 18 to have taken whatever courses/exams necessary, or b) handing ANY kind of firearm to a small child, especially considering the weapon had already jammed twice. If there is an issue with the weapon, do not use it. That is how people end up in morgues, something that, sadly, was not explained to the 8 year old who, coincidentally, ended up dying. Once the weapon had jammed the first time, the 15 year old should have removed it from the child's possession at once. Believe it or not, kids: proper handling of a potentially malfunctioning firearms is, in fact, a relevant variable.

Anyway, this turned into more of a rant/essay, so my apologies for that, as well as the amateur writing. Furthermore, I apologize if my views have offended anyone, however, they are just that: MY views, and to attempt to impress them upon others would be extremely arrogant. As a child no older than 15, my speech patterns and writing skill may not be as impressive as what you may be used to, however, I am proud to say that at least I know not to hand loaded and defective firearms to 8 year olds.

 

[Maxman3002]

You are so wrong it is hilarious.

Gun laws in America are based not only on state, but county.

You can get a gun at a very young age, as early AS 8, in many states.
This is because many states still rely on or have relied on hunting or have large militias which advocate guns at a young age (because it does lead to reduced hunting casualties).

Indeed, you can get a permit for a car in most states at 15, but you can get a permit for a truck as early as 12 under what is called a "farm" licenses.

Considering the 8 year old could have OWNED a gun in Montana, it isn't insane at all.

So in certain states of america you can take dangerous tools like cars and guns and use them for a practical use at a very young age. That sound reasonable at a stretch

But then you take those practical tools and the age limits applied and say that those same people should be alowd to use them in a show enviroment (more people, higher risks or accidents happening)

In England you cant drink untill your 18, but your aloud a drink at a meal with a consenting adult at the age of 14 up. Doesnt mean they can go to a house party

There is a difference between a single practical use and a party/show enviroment

 

[bigolbear]

ahhhh and they say natural selection is dead.

 

[paasi]

Rather old story, that was a year ago right? Besides you know how some Americans are about guns. I mean, theres pro-gun and then theres gun obsessed. The death of the 8 year old was a tragedy, but it was completely the parents fault.

Yesh. I mean, what harm can a gun do to a man without a man wielding it? All guns should be banned? Nah, that's stupid. No use blaming tools for what the users do so we'll ban the people using guns. That's sensible. (^_^)_b

Considering the tools still have a valid use, it is far more sensible.

Only tools that have a valid use are shovels used for entombing the casualties.

The hammer has no valid use?
The flame thrower?
TNT?

You'll have to excuse the example, not lower yourself to nitpicking, and realize it was not meant to be an extensive, all-ancompassing answer but an antagonizing spike.

 

[Liverandbacon]

I think this is the key problem with the 2nd amendment: It assumes that any criminal with a gun is trying to kill his victim. When, in fact, many are simply trying to steal something and have the gun as insurance. And if the victim didn't have a gun and didn't try to defend themselves then they wouldn't get shot. Yes they'd get robbed but I'd rather be poor than dead!

While your post does have some good points, I'm a bit confused here. You seem to be saying that only people who defend themselves against armed robbery with guns get shot. How come I hear about unarmed people getting shot in armed robberies then?

 

[rokkolpo]

this has to be in america.

if the maker of the thread why do most of you hate americans is watching. here's another reason.