8-year-old boy kills himself with AK-47

[ouryL]

8-year-old boy kills himself with AK-47.
Parent exclaims, "Who knew?" DELETE:mad:

From Reuter's
http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE49Q6BM20081027

Early picture of child (http://j.b5z.net/i/u/2081847/i/baby-gun_ezr.jpg)DELETE:mad::mad:

[silenus]

You realize that an AK-47 wasn't used here, right?

[catsix]

There are significant differences between Uzis and AK-47s, not the least of which being that the Uzi is a submachine gun (fires pistol ammunition) and the AK-47 is an automatic rifle that fires rifle ammunition.

That said, I can't think of many 8 year-olds (any?) who should be firing a fully automatic weapon, whether it is a submachine gun or assault rifle. The recoil makes them difficult to control even for adults, and most kids are not going to be aware of things like 1-second trigger pulls.

It is unfortunate that those who let this child use a firearm that was too powerful for him got the kid killed, and an investigation should be conducted to determine how exactly this tragedy happened and who the responsible parties are.

[Jack Batty]

I was just reading CNN, and just about to start a thread about this.

At first, just reading the headline, I was thinking what kind of asshole leaves an uzi somewhere that a child could get at it. Then I read the article.

Are you fucking kidding me? Adult supervision my puckered asshole. You don't give an 8 year old kid a fucking machine gun!

I'm just completely appalled by this. Seriously, how in the name of Richard J Gatling, could it be considered fun thing to do to put such a deadly, hard to control, weapon into the hands of an 8 year old child?

And it will all be sobbed about as a horrible accident. Bullshit. Whoever is in charge of the fun little look-how-big-my-cock-is gun fair should be thrown in fucking jail for this.

[catsix]

Jack Batty said:
You don't give an 8 year old kid a fucking machine gun!

Sorry to be a pedantic asshole, but there's a bigger difference between submachine gun and machine gun than 3 letters.

An Uzi is the latter.

[muldoonthief]

FWIW, here's some more informative articles (which quotes the police and the boy's father instead of Stop Handgun Violence) from the local press:

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/17808473/detail.html

http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2008/10/police_identify_6.html?p1=Well_MostPop_Emailed1

I'm still trying to figure out the mechanics of this - how can recoil flip a gun, even a short-barrel like an Uzi, far enough around to have it pointed at your head while you're still holding the trigger down? Especially with short 8-year old arms?

[Jack Batty]

Sorry to be a pedantic asshole, but there's a bigger difference between submachine gun and machine gun than 3 letters.

An Uzi is the latter.

I'm sure the hole in that kid's head gives a shit.

[Cluricaun]

I'm still trying to figure out the mechanics of this - how can recoil flip a gun, even a short-barrel like an Uzi, far enough around to have it pointed at your head while you're still holding the trigger down? Especially with short 8-year old arms?

Hold the gun at waist level when firing. When the gun rotates from recoil and goes vertical, it could be pointing at your head.

[catsix]

muldoonthief said:
I'm still trying to figure out the mechanics of this - how can recoil flip a gun, even a short-barrel like an Uzi, far enough around to have it pointed at your head while you're still holding the trigger down? Especially with short 8-year old arms?

Because automatic weapons like Uzis will all, due to their recoil, display the effects of muzzle climb. Technically, any time you shoot anything, part of the recoil involves the muzzle going up. There's a video on youtube of a girl firing a Desert Eagle where she fires one shot and the muzzle of the gun comes up and back and hits her in the nose.

Keeping in mind that the physics dictate muzzle climb will happen, as the muzzle comes up and back from each shot, with automatic fire you're not leveling and lowering your muzzle between rounds, it's going to be additive.

With a rifle, butt against your shoulder, you're not going to shoot yourself because your body will also be twisting, basically keeping the rifle perpendicular to your spine.

This was a child with an Uzi. The recoil will be more pronounced, the effect of muzzle climb more dramatic, and because he's holding it out in front of him with his arms, his wrists are going to turn up and elbows are going to bend.

Physically, that's how it happens.

Of course, this never should have happened because an adult should not have let an 8 year old fire an Uzi to begin with.

[Rysto]

Sorry to be a pedantic asshole, but there's a bigger difference between submachine gun and machine gun than 3 letters.

An Uzi is the latter.

Sorry to be a pedantic asshole, but I believe you meant "former".

[catsix]

Jack Batty said:
I'm sure the hole in that kid's head gives a shit.

Accuracy is especially important when we talk about firearms negligence because misinformation can only damage the cause of safe, sane, law abiding gun owners everywhere.

[catsix]

Rysto said:
?Sorry to be a pedantic asshole, but I believe you meant "former".

You are correct. I mistakenly said "latter".

An Uzi is a submachine gun. A machine gun is a much larger weapon, and not one that an 8 year-old could possibly be holding in his hands to fire.

[ShadowFacts]

I don't normally get into these threads, but wanted to post the following quote from one of the articles linked above:

In an advertisement for the event, the club said it would offer machine gun demonstrations and rentals and free handgun lessons.

It's all legal & fun -- No permits or licenses required!!!!" reads the ad, posted on the club's Web site.

"You will be accompanied to the firing line with a Certified Instructor to guide you. But You Are In Control -- "FULL AUTO ROCK & ROLL," the ad said.

Allow me to express a FULL AUTO FUCK YOU to the morons who allowed this to happen.

[NurseCarmen]

As a gun owner and a father of an 8 year old, I just got to say: What the Fuck?

[Hero From Sector 7G]

Accuracy is especially important when we talk about firearms negligence because misinformation can only damage the cause of safe, sane, law abiding gun owners everywhere.

Yes, misinformation damages the sane, law abiding people who treat guns responsibly. If only the sane people could gather together and host a fair in which they supervise the public handling a variety of weapons than perhaps some of the confusion will go away.

[Stealth Potato]

Another hearty "what the fuck" here. Thing is, even an AK-47 would be reasonably safe for a child to operate, provided that they are prepared mentally and physically and closely accompanied by an adult guardian. It's a full-sized rifle with a long barrel on it and lots of recoil-absorbing mass. As long as the kid held it into his shoulder he would be fine, and even firing from the hip the long barrel and consequent forward center of mass would prevent that kind of muzzle rotation from occurring. (Not that I would advise it even in that case -- a child that small should be shooting nothing more heavy duty than a small .22 rifle, and that still under close supervision, of course.)

But a fucking Uzi? Uzis are hard enough for regular shooters to fire accurately, given the short barrel, low mass, and a center of gravity much closer to the hand than most other fully automatic firearms. I own lots of guns and shoot them regularly, and even I wouldn't feel entirely comfortable shooting an Uzi full-auto! Supervision or no supervision, safety training or no safety training, putting a weapon like this in the hands of a small child was nothing but a tragedy waiting to happen. I cannot believe the level of fucked-uppedness that would allow anybody to think this was a good idea.

[Illuminatiprimus]

Yes it's a shame this 8 year old had to die, but it's part of the greater good. You see, Americans need guns to protect themselves against... um.... well, something. Oh, each other, yes, that's it. So it's worth it. Now let's all discuss why the fact that it was an Uzi that killed him and not an AK-47 changes everything.

[Jack Batty]

Yes, misinformation damages the sane, law abiding people who treat guns responsibly. If only the sane people could gather together and host a fair in which they supervise the public handling a variety of weapons than perhaps some of the confusion will go away.

Yeah, this one worked out like gangbusters, didn't it?

[silenus]

Bite me, primus.

The kid had no business firing that weapon, supervised or not.

[Illuminatiprimus]

Bite me, primus.

The kid had no business firing that weapon, supervised or not. Fine, I'll bite you. Fact is that countries that don't have widespread accessibility to guns, or a culture of worshipping them, also don't have stories about children killing themselves accidentally with them.

[Vinyl Turnip]

I don't normally get into these threads, but wanted to post the following quote from one of the articles linked above:

I was curious about this too:

Shooting targets for the event included vehicles, pumpkins, and "other fun stuff we can’t print here," according to the advertisement.

Hmmm. Mexicans?

[The Second Stone]

Of course, this never should have happened because an adult should not have let an 8 year old fire an Uzi to begin with.

Hey, the dult didn't just let him near the gun, it was a fuckin' loaded Uzi!! What the fuckin' hell? An 8 year old with a loaded submachine gun is like straffing an oil refinery: it's a fucking miracle that many people weren't killed. Morons! Idiots! Murderers!

[Spiny Norman]

The irresponsible and obviously completely incompetent people responsible for "supervising" this event killed him.

I hope the authorities come down on their gun club like a ton of lead. People who'd let an 8-year old handle loaded full-auto weapons demonstrably do not possess the judgment needed to be around loaded firearms.

[Tuckerfan]

Fine, I'll bite you. Fact is that countries that don't have widespread accessibility to guns, or a culture of worshipping them, also don't have stories about children killing themselves accidentally with them.

You do realize, don't you, that any parent dumb enough to allow their kid to handle a weapon clearly beyond a child's capabilities is dumb enough to allow their kid to all kinds of potentially fatal things, don't you? Shit like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZHPg3tTiFc If a kid dies like that, is it better than being killed by a firearm?

(And no, I don't own a gun, and have never fired anything more powerful than a BB gun.)

[Rapier42]

That was kind of my point. :rolleyes:

No, your point is that nobody should have been firing that weapon.

ETA - which you know, seeing as you edited your post.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

There will never be a point in time when we do not have idiot adults. To think otherwise is pure fantasy. So, Illuminatiprimus is correct. People like this 8 year old boy are the ones paying for our collective right to own, bear and full auto rock and roll with firearms. Just like the 9 year old boy who shot his twin brother with the household handgun last week in the township next to mine. They paid the bill for your right, so make it worthwhile, I suppose.

Crying out post hoc that these are simply accidents due to careless or stupid adults is ignoring the obvious fact that we can predict with absolute certainty that there will be careless and stupid adults tomorrow as well.

[Rapier42]

I don't know why I'm suprised at the anti-gun rage that comes out every a time we see a thread like this, but I am.

Seriously, the numbskulls that were using the weapon are the problem here, not the weapon.

[Terrifel]

You do realize, don't you, that any parent dumb enough to allow their kid to handle a weapon clearly beyond a child's capabilities is dumb enough to allow their kid to all kinds of potentially fatal things, don't you? Shit like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZHPg3tTiFc If a kid dies like that, is it better than being killed by a firearm?

(And no, I don't own a gun, and have never fired anything more powerful than a BB gun.)On the other hand, I suspect that no one at a bicycling club would have endorsed the idea of dragging an eight-year-old kid behind a van for an x-treme stunt video.

[Rapier42]

There will never be a point in time when we do not have idiot adults. To think otherwise is pure fantasy. So, Illuminatiprimus is correct. People like this 8 year old boy are the ones paying for our collective right to own, bear and full auto rock and roll with firearms. Just like the 9 year old boy who shot his twin brother with the household handgun last week in the township next to mine. They paid the bill for your right, so make it worthwhile, I suppose.

Crying out post hoc that these are simply accidents due to careless or stupid adults is ignoring the obvious fact that we can predict with absolute certainty that there will be careless and stupid adults tomorrow as well.

Of course there will be stupid and careless people. If we take your position to it's logical conclusion, we should all lock ourselves in padded rooms until we starve to death, because the human race clearly can't be trusted to breathe. :rolleyes:

[villa]

There will never be a point in time when we do not have idiot adults. To think otherwise is pure fantasy. So, Illuminatiprimus is correct. People like this 8 year old boy are the ones paying for our collective right to own, bear and full auto rock and roll with firearms. Just like the 9 year old boy who shot his twin brother with the household handgun last week in the township next to mine. They paid the bill for your right, so make it worthwhile, I suppose.

Crying out post hoc that these are simply accidents due to careless or stupid adults is ignoring the obvious fact that we can predict with absolute certainty that there will be careless and stupid adults tomorrow as well.

It's clearly true. Where there are firearms, there will be accidents, and children will die. Where there are any kind of dangerous tool, there will be preventable accidents, and children will die.

Saying that is kind of meaningless, though. What has meaning is whether the cost of allowing such tools to be available outweighs the benefits. The tragic death of an 8 year old is without doubt a cost. But it does not, on its own, make the case for gun control a slam dunk.

[Jack Batty]

Seriously, the numbskulls that were using the weapon are the problem here, not the weapon.

It's not that the gun shouldn't exist, it's that stupid fucking cock-flopping shoot-o-fests with fully automatic weapons who fucking anybody, including kids too young to know how to tie their fucking shoes yet, can pick up and fire at shit newspapers aren't allowed to mention shouldn't exist.

[Hero From Sector 7G]

Of course there will be stupid and careless people. If we take your position to it's logical conclusion, we should all lock ourselves in padded rooms until we starve to death, because the human race clearly can't be trusted to breathe. :rolleyes:

You didn't take shit to the logical conclusion. Hentor made a thoughtful post in a pit-thread, one asking gun owners to carefully consider their own personal right, and the benefit it brings them, compared to the cost it bears on others.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Of course there will be stupid and careless people. If we take your position to it's logical conclusion, we should all lock ourselves in padded rooms until we starve to death, because the human race clearly can't be trusted to breathe. :rolleyes:Nothing about that conclusion is logical. It is more of a hyperventilating emotional rant than a logical conclusion.

Saying that is kind of meaningless, though. What has meaning is whether the cost of allowing such tools to be available outweighs the benefits. The tragic death of an 8 year old is without doubt a cost. But it does not, on its own, make the case for gun control a slam dunk.First you say it is meaningless, but then you rightly get straight to the meaning. The question is very much does the cost outweigh the benefits. I don't think these anecdotes make the case a slam dunk. I think the evidence in the aggregate makes a reasoned argument.

[villa]

First you say it is meaningless, but then you rightly get straight to the meaning. The question is very much does the cost outweigh the benefits. I don't think these anecdotes make the case a slam dunk. I think the evidence in the aggregate makes a reasoned argument.

Just to make clear, it was me, not Rapier42 that made the comment you quoted second...

The reason I said it is meaningless (and that was probably the wrong word - incomplete would be better) is that listing only the costs doesn't allow a cost-benefit analysis. The costs can be very high, and a public policy still justifiable, if the benefits are higher (assuming CBA is the method appropriate for such a determination). Bad things happen with all dangerous tools. But the bad things, even in the aggregate, are not sufficent to determine if the costs outweigh the benefits.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Just to make clear, it was me, not Rapier42 that made the comment you quoted second...Yes - sorry, I forgot to go back and tuck your name in the quote tag.The reason I said it is meaningless (and that was probably the wrong word - incomplete would be better) is that listing only the costs doesn't allow a cost-benefit analysis. The costs can be very high, and a public policy still justifiable, if the benefits are higher (assuming CBA is the method appropriate for such a determination). Bad things happen with all dangerous tools. But the bad things, even in the aggregate, are not sufficent to determine if the costs outweigh the benefits.I agree. I have, however, seen studies that find the odds ratios of legitimate use versus familial deaths to not favor gun ownership, which accords with my anecdote-based biases.

[Rapier42]

It's not that the gun shouldn't exist, it's that stupid fucking cock-flopping shoot-o-fests with fully automatic weapons who fucking anybody, including kids too young to know how to tie their fucking shoes yet, can pick up and fire at shit newspapers aren't allowed to mention shouldn't exist.

Nod.

ETA - thats not snark, I agree 100%. How would you go about preventing said shoot-o-fest, without impinging on the rights of responsible weapon owners?

[Rapier42]

Nothing about that conclusion is logical. It is more of a hyperventilating emotional rant than a logical conclusion.

You're accusing me of a hyperventilating emotional rant?

Ok.

[Bobotheoptimist]

When will people learn that the M4 is perfectly suited to young children? Fools.


Yes, I'm serious.

[villa]

I agree. I have, however, seen studies that find the odds ratios of legitimate use versus familial deaths to not favor gun ownership, which accords with my anecdote-based biases.

The problem is, those studies, if I remember correct, count "legitimate use" as discharging a firearm in self defense against a criminal, but don't include many instances where a persons life/property/personal integrity may be saved without the gun being actually fired.

I'd probably be on board with a statement that the cost of accidents like this is sufficient that 8 year olds should not be firing fully automatic weapons at gun shows, supervised or not. I don't think there is a fundamental right at stake there, and I don't think the benefits of allowing such a thing are significantly high. But I also admit I don't fully know the costs involved - how many times this practice occurs, and how often it results in tragedy. My gut is though, that with benefits this low, there don't need to be many accidents before restriction would be justifiable.

[Bobotheoptimist]

When will people learn that the M4 is the proper firearm for young children? Fools. With the adjustable stock and the mild recoil, things like this are far less likely. What a shame.

[Merijeek]

Yes it's a shame this 8 year old had to die, but it's part of the greater good. You see, Americans need guns to protect themselves against... um.... well, something. Oh, each other, yes, that's it. So it's worth it. Now let's all discuss why the fact that it was an Uzi that killed him and not an AK-47 changes everything.

Funny, according to CNN "The boy was with a certified instructor". You'd think that would make everything safe, since one of the arguments we hear constantly is that firearms are safe if you know what you're doing.

-Joe

[muldoonthief]

Because automatic weapons like Uzis will all, due to their recoil, display the effects of muzzle climb. Technically, any time you shoot anything, part of the recoil involves the muzzle going up. There's a video on youtube of a girl firing a Desert Eagle where she fires one shot and the muzzle of the gun comes up and back and hits her in the nose.

Keeping in mind that the physics dictate muzzle climb will happen, as the muzzle comes up and back from each shot, with automatic fire you're not leveling and lowering your muzzle between rounds, it's going to be additive.

With a rifle, butt against your shoulder, you're not going to shoot yourself because your body will also be twisting, basically keeping the rifle perpendicular to your spine.

This was a child with an Uzi. The recoil will be more pronounced, the effect of muzzle climb more dramatic, and because he's holding it out in front of him with his arms, his wrists are going to turn up and elbows are going to bend.

Physically, that's how it happens.

Of course, this never should have happened because an adult should not have let an 8 year old fire an Uzi to begin with.

I've fired many types of firearms (but not an Uzi), so I'm familiar with muzzle climb. What I can't figure out is how he wound up with the muzzle pointed at his head and his hand still on the grip and holding the trigger. I'd think the gun is too long for that - I can see how the top of barrel could hit his head, but not actually have the muzzle pointing at his head. Obviously I'm wrong.


Shooting targets for the event included vehicles, pumpkins, and "other fun stuff we can’t print here," according to the advertisement.


This is Massachusetts. Shooting at a human shaped silhouette target is illegal. Shooting at a picture of Hitler or Osama bin Laden is illegal. To be specific, a club can get its range license pulled for allowing people to shoot anything that resembles a human. I'm guessing that's what the ad referred to.

[Cisco]

I don't know why I'm suprised at the anti-gun rage that comes out every a time we see a thread like this, but I am.

It's so cool and erudite and European -- all things that most members of this board wish they were, but aren't.

[Boyo Jim]

Wow, the father is an ER doctor AND an idiot. ..., but Bizilj said he doesn’t think the shooting guide was holding the weapon as his son pressed the trigger.

“This accident was truly a mystery to me,” he said. “This is a horrible event, a horrible travesty, and I really don’t know why it happened. I don’t think it’s relevant that he wasn’t holding the weapon.”

What a dumb fucking conclusion to come to. I f they instructor's hand was on the gun, it's very likely the recoil would have been better controlled.

I agree with Catsix that the only way this could have happened is if the kid opened fire from the hip. Maybe he also began leaning forword in an attempt to balance himself against the recoil. One would think that a decent instructor would have been much more careful with a small child -- even as far as putting the kid's arms in the proper position for shooting supported by the shoulder.

Don't Uzis have telescoping, or maybe folding, stocks? I wonder if it was in position? If there was no shoulder stock in position, it maybe that a waist level stance seemed to make more sense to the kid. God forbid that the instructoractually told him to do so.

[Boyo Jim]

double post

[Guinastasia]

Funny, according to CNN "The boy was with a certified instructor". You'd think that would make everything safe, since one of the arguments we hear constantly is that firearms are safe if you know what you're doing.

-Joe

I'm guessing said instructor isn't going to be "certified" (or licensed, or whatever) for much longer. I know jackshit about guns and/or gun laws. And before anyone says anything, I have NO problem with responsible gun owners-as long as you don't act like Homer Simpson did in that one episode where he got a gun, or, hey-like these dumbasses did.

[The Librarian]

Wow! Cool way to win an Darwin award. -> Hand your kid a loaded Uzi.

Any event where it is OK for an 8-year old to hold/fire weapons ... The mind boggels.

Go USA!

[Boyo Jim]

This is kind of reminiscent of that cop (or maybe ATF agent?) who managed to shoot himself in front a classroom full of little kids while demonstrating gun safety.

[TVeblen]

An 8 year old child has no business handling a gun. Period. Look, certainly. Possibly even touch, if the weapon is a. unloaded and b. held by a responsible adult. And by 'touch' I mean maybe one finger to the barrel, say.

I say this as someone who was taught to shoot as a teenager, by my father who was taught--as a teenager--by his father. I also say this as someone from a family of rife with gun enthusiasts who make catsix and UncleBeer seem mild on the subject. None of them hunt--not their thing at all--as they're mostly fascinated by the mechanics and engineering of the things. Family get-togethers were a blast, not the least because we'd usually end up in the fields by the bluffs, trying out their nifty new muzzle loaders or flint locks or obscure import with an unpronounceable name. (Hint: muzzle loaders 1. are complicated to arm and 2. can just about shatter your shoulder when fired. Soldiers of yore were tough SOBs.)

It's a lot of fun; all target shooting, and done purely for the sport of seeing if you can manage to hit the broad side of a barn with an unfamiliar gun. Or even a familiar one, if you're sufficiently out of practice.

But here's the thing: every single one of my gun-mad relatives are fanatics, outright assholes, about gun safety. Kids might yearn to get their mitts on a gun but it's a strictly enforced rite of passage thing. Even staring too long at the locked gun cabinet would rate a stern warning lecture along the lines of guns are not toys, you will not even touch one until I say so and if you try you will regret it so bitterly you won't want want to touch another until you're old and gray. And they meant, and enforced, every single word.

By mid-teen years, if a kid showed signs of sufficient maturity, an adult might teach the kid how to shoot. It was always an earned privilege. The process always started with basic gun safety, with the drills continued by rote until precautions became second nature. Any hot-dogging or carelessness brought lessons to a screeching halt and the ban reinforced, a scathing humiliation.

Any gun show that allows children to handle guns is grossly irresponsible. Any parent that allows it is grossly irresponsible. Of course children are fascinated by guns. They go BOOM and look wicked cool in TV and movies. So do explosions but ...well, some idiots hand their kids fireworks and matches too. If adults lack discipline and respect for destructive power how can kids possibly know better?

This is so wrong. That little boy died of adult negligence and stupidity.

[The Second Stone]

I don't know why I'm suprised at the anti-gun rage that comes out every a time we see a thread like this, but I am.

Seriously, the numbskulls that were using the weapon are the problem here, not the weapon.

It is just as abusive to let an 8 year old use a table saw. Happy? Of course not.

[The Second Stone]

An 8 year old child has no business handling a gun. Period. Look, certainly. Possibly even touch, if the weapon is a. unloaded and b. held by a responsible adult. And by 'touch' I mean maybe one finger to the barrel, say.

I say this as someone who was taught to shoot as a teenager, by my father who was taught--as a teenager--by his father. I also say this as someone from a family of rife with gun enthusiasts who make catsix and UncleBeer seem mild on the subject. None of them hunt--not their thing at all--as they're mostly fascinated by the mechanics and engineering of the things.

...

This is so wrong. That little boy died of adult negligence and stupidity.

I've got to disagree on the blanket statement, and I think there was criminal wrongdoing in this case. An 8 year old child with very close and careful and caring supervision could handle a firearm if it is the right child and the right parent. The parent needs to be responsible for decisions like that. In the several thousand years of human history, children have been required to hunt and fend for themselves in every year somewhere on the globe, and 100 years ago we here in this country would not have considered it all that unusual. And in some communities today children are taught to respect firearms from a very young age. Parents who do not teach this respect and subject their children to firearms ought to be prosecuted with more than a slap on the wrist "because they have suffered enough". It sets a really bad example to let the losers off easily and it dishonors the inability of most children to accept this responsibility. Children who are not ready should not be pushed and tempted.

That said, I cannot see how it is not an ultra dangerous activity to let a child handle a loaded submachine gun. Idiots.

[Bobotheoptimist]

An 8 year old child has no business handling a gun. Period. Look, certainly. Possibly even touch, if the weapon is a. unloaded and b. held by a responsible adult. And by 'touch' I mean maybe one finger to the barrel, say.

I say this as someone who was taught to shoot as a teenager, by my father who was taught--as a teenager--by his father. I also say this as someone from a family of rife with gun enthusiasts who make catsix and UncleBeer seem mild on the subject. None of them hunt--not their thing at all--as they're mostly fascinated by the mechanics and engineering of the things.
<snip>
By mid-teen years, if a kid showed signs of sufficient maturity, an adult might teach the kid how to shoot. It was always an earned privilege. The process always started with basic gun safety, with the drills continued by rote until precautions became second nature. Any hot-dogging or carelessness brought lessons to a screeching halt and the ban reinforced, a scathing humiliation.

Any gun show that allows children to handle guns is grossly irresponsible. Any parent that allows it is grossly irresponsible. Of course children are fascinated by guns. They go BOOM and look wicked cool in TV and movies. So do explosions but ...well, some idiots hand their kids fireworks and matches too. If adults lack discipline and respect for destructive power how can kids possibly know better?

This is so wrong. That little boy died of adult negligence and stupidity.
Well, I guess I'm grossly irresponsible. As was my father, his father, my mothers father, and so on. My kids have been shooting since they were 7, including AR15's. I've been shooting since I was 8, my parents and grandparents were probably younger than that.
I'm not even going to try to defend that choice since I believe you are so fantastically wrong that there's no point in discussing it.
Several government agencies disagree with your rant as well, but of course that doesn't matter when you're on a roll does it?

[Chief Pedant]

Clearly those involved were morons.

I don't quite understand how the death of this boy has anything to do with an argument for or against gun control or ownership, however. The two are unrelated. As a matter of fact, it's the rarity of the event that even made it newsworthy.

Morons kill themselves, their friends and their families via a variety of creative ways including electricity, bicycles and owning snakes. We don't use those incidents as an argument to ban the offending mechanism (well...maybe snakes). We just sort of accept that morons can make almost anything dangerous and they can make dangerous things lethal.

They were morons. Any further outrage is recreational and not relevant to gun ownership in general.

[Jesus Harold Christ]

You are correct. I mistakenly said "latter".

An Uzi is a submachine gun. A machine gun is a much larger weapon, and not one that an 8 year-old could possibly be holding in his hands to fire.

Somebody wasn't a member of the Lord's Resistance Army.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Morons kill themselves, their friends and their families via a variety of creative ways including electricity, bicycles and owning snakes. We don't use those incidents as an argument to ban the offending mechanism (well...maybe snakes). We just sort of accept that morons can make almost anything dangerous and they can make dangerous things lethal.

They were morons. Any further outrage is recreational and not relevant to gun ownership in general.This will represent my only other contribution to this thread. I've been waiting for some fuckwit to offer up this completely asinine and fuckwitted argument (although I commend him for the creativity of substituting snake ownership in place of buckets).

Figuring out the relative risk of guns versus bicycles or electricity (!) involves determining the number of times each is used with and without death occurring. The number of times bicycles and electricity are used without death occuring relative to when they are used is going to vastly outweigh the number of times firearms are used without death occuring.

This is like those retards who were making the argument that more deaths were occuring in California than in Iraq, so it was safer in Iraq!

Please make reasoned arguments without resorting to outright stupidity.

[TVeblen]

Well, I guess I'm grossly irresponsible. As was my father, his father, my mothers father, and so on. My kids have been shooting since they were 7, including AR15's. I've been shooting since I was 8, my parents and grandparents were probably younger than that.
I'm not even going to try to defend that choice since I believe you are so fantastically wrong that there's no point in discussing it.
Several government agencies disagree with your rant as well, but of course that doesn't matter when you're on a roll does it?
It's fine to disagree.

In my experience, pre-teen kids lack the maturity to handle firearms, even when they can handle them physically. I'm willing to grant my condemnation might be too broad. It goes right against the grain and all my experience but hey, I've been wrong before and will be again.

I guess younger children could possibly handle guns, under very close supervision.
Eight years old still seems to push the outside limits though. That's still a very young child. Maybe kids who regularly* watch adults use guns might absorb more lessons just by observation along the way. Small kids are just so limited about anticipating consequences...meh, I'm still wrestling with this.

With several excellent, thoughtful posters offering sound arguments contrary to my beliefs, guess I'll have to rethink this. It still feels wrong but gotta wrestle the brain along on this one. So okay. I'm...processing.

*Attendance at gun shows does NOT seem like adequate exposure to me.

[gonzomax]

We only have one 2nd amendment. We have lots of 8 year olds. It is no big thing. He could have been hit by a car . He could have died lots of ways. You can not blame guns. All 8 year olds have responsible and intelligent adult parents. He could have stabbed himself with a knife or a carrot.

[Sitnam]

Gun's don't kill 8 year old's, convicted felons who acquire guns illegally and use them irresponsibly kill 8 year olds...or something.

If I don't exercise my 2nd Amendment Right how can I protect my other son?

[Hentor the Barbarian]

We only have one 2nd amendment. We have lots of 8 year olds. It is no big thing. He could have been hit by a car . He could have died lots of ways. You can not blame guns. All 8 year olds have responsible and intelligent adult parents. He could have stabbed himself with a knife or a carrot.Or nuclear waste exposure. Yet far more American kids die each year from buckets than from exposure to nuclear waste. Therefore it makes more sense to regulate buckets than nuclear waste.

[Cat Fight]

We only have one 2nd amendment. We have lots of 8 year olds. It is no big thing. He could have been hit by a car .

Hey, why not let 8 year olds drive cars? With supervision, of course.

[villa]

We only have one 2nd amendment. We have lots of 8 year olds. It is no big thing. He could have been hit by a car . He could have died lots of ways. You can not blame guns. All 8 year olds have responsible and intelligent adult parents. He could have stabbed himself with a knife or a carrot.

We only have one 4th amendment too. I'm not willing to sacrifice the protections it gives me because a child killer is released to kill again as a result of an illegal search.

[Chief Pedant]

This will represent my only other contribution to this thread. I've been waiting for some fuckwit to offer up this completely asinine and fuckwitted argument (although I commend him for the creativity of substituting snake ownership in place of buckets).

Figuring out the relative risk of guns versus bicycles or electricity (!) involves determining the number of times each is used with and without death occurring. The number of times bicycles and electricity are used without death occuring relative to when they are used is going to vastly outweigh the number of times firearms are used without death occuring.

This is like those retards who were making the argument that more deaths were occuring in California than in Iraq, so it was safer in Iraq!

Please make reasoned arguments without resorting to outright stupidity.

What statistics involving the number of children accidentally killed/number of guns owned(bullets fired?) versus, say number of children injured or killed/number of bicycles (riding events) would you like to cite?

You may be so personally frightened by guns that you think they should all be locked up and taken away or something, but you are still missing the point: it wasn't the gun here--it was the morons. At issue is not whether guns are dangerous--they are--but whether gun "accidents" (particularly by morons) are a reason for gun control. There may be arguments for gun control, but this child's death is not one of them. It's so grossly inappropriate to have an 8 year-old shooting an automatic weapon that it has no bearing on gun control in general. Like arguing you should control the use of bicycles because some baby was put on one and pushed down the driveway into the path of a truck.

And what, exactly, do you gain by insulting me simply because this is the Pit? Idiot. Barbaric, even.

By way of comparison: 5 million households have swimming pools; 500 children/year drown in residential drownings. 40 million households have guns; 250 children (of morons with guns, and often drunk and stupid morons with guns, and often drunk and stupid morons with unregistered guns) die each year in gun accidents. Have ya had a chance to vent your rage against THE POOL?


Try and get both neurons working before you post again.

[RickJay]

Sorry to be a pedantic asshole, but there's a bigger difference between submachine gun and machine gun than 3 letters.

An Uzi is the latter.
If you want to get pedantic and go by the definition of "machine gun" as it is understood in the English language and cited in every decent dictionary, an Uzi is in fact a machine gun. It's also a submachine gun. A submachine gun is a category of machine gun. It is a subset, not a completely separate set, just as one's dog might be a schnauzer, but it's still also a dog. Literally, any weapon that can continuously fire rounds is a machine gun.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

What statistics involving the number of children accidentally killed/number of guns owned(bullets fired?) versus, say number of children injured or killed/number of bicycles (riding events) would you like to cite?Whatever you've got (but you'll have to do better than your moronic effort below.You may be so personally frightened by guns that you think they should all be locked up and taken away or something, but you are still missing the point: it wasn't the gun here--it was the morons. At issue is not whether guns are dangerous--they are--but whether gun "accidents" (particularly by morons) are a reason for gun control. There may be arguments for gun control, but this child's death is not one of them. It's so grossly inappropriate to have an 8 year-old shooting an automatic weapon that it has no bearing on gun control in general. Like arguing you should control the use of bicycles because some baby was put on one and pushed down the driveway into the path of a truck.I think I said exactly that in my first post, fuckwit.And what, exactly, do you gain by insulting me simply because this is the Pit? Idiot. Barbaric, even.I get the pleasure of taking advantage of the opportunity to call you a fuckwit. I think every post I've seen of yours has been fuckwitted, but often they are fuckwitted posts about global warming or Al Gore in GD. It was a nice chance to cover all of those posts by calling you for what you are.By way of comparison: 5 million households have swimming pools; 500 children/year drown in residential drownings. 40 million households have guns; 250 children (of morons with guns, and often drunk and stupid morons with guns, and often drunk and stupid morons with unregistered guns) die each year in gun accidents. Have ya had a chance to vent your rage against THE POOL?How many times do people use a pool each year? How many times do people use a gun each year? Man you are Captain I-Don't-Get-It.Try and get both neurons working before you post again.That's just fucking lame.

[devilsknew]

It is important to note that the weapon that killed this boy was not an Uzi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Uzi_1.jpg), but a Mini-Uzi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Uzi_2.jpg). The mini-uzi is a much smaller version of the fairly standard sized Uzi SMG. And which, for all practical purposes, is a Machine Pistol. I think the chances of this particular mishap would have been much reduced and less likely had the boy been firing an actual Uzi. This accident was due to the subcompact nature and physics of the mini-uzi.

[devilsknew]

It's a horrible tragedy and I am not going to drag my politics into this but would instead like to point out the fact that the gun expert adults and supervisors here might have been under a false physical impression that the small size of this gun was the "perfect" size for a youngster. I think it was bad reckoning of mass, physics, and not taking into account that though it is a smaller gun it still packs the same load in velocity of its well engineered and balanced progenitor... not to lessen the entire lack of judgement in allowing an 8 year old to fire it in the firstplace.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

By the way, just to clear up one point. Despite Chief Douchebag's lame stab, I am not afraid of guns. As I've said before, I think they are very cool.

I'm very afraid of idiots. I know very well that there are a lot of fuckwits out there (many of whom don't understand statistics in the slightest). My biggest fear is that my kids will be off playing at some other kids' house, and that kid will have found and brought out a family gun.

I don't live in such fear of people in general enough such that I feel a need to play the odds game and arm myself against them.

[Bobotheoptimist]

It's fine to disagree.

In my experience, pre-teen kids lack the maturity to handle firearms, even when they can handle them physically. I'm willing to grant my condemnation might be too broad. It goes right against the grain and all my experience but hey, I've been wrong before and will be again.
Well ok then. That's reasonable and I sure can't argue with your experience. I don't know the kids you know, you don't know the kids I know.

And I agree that walking through a gun show isn't experience. Drumming in the safety rules from the time the child is old enough to make a pretend gun out of a banana is a start, as is sending the kid to his room for pointing a toy gun at his brother. Spending hours together at the range or in the forest watching how he handles it when he thinks no one is looking is a pretty good indicator. But an 8 year old that's never even held one probably isn't ready for an Uzi.

[devilsknew]

Well ok then. That's reasonable and I sure can't argue with your experience. I don't know the kids you know, you don't know the kids I know.

And I agree that walking through a gun show isn't experience. Drumming in the safety rules from the time the child is old enough to make a pretend gun out of a banana is a start, as is sending the kid to his room for pointing a toy gun at his brother. Spending hours together at the range or in the forest watching how he handles it when he thinks no one is looking is a pretty good indicator. But an 8 year old that's never even held one probably isn't ready for an Uzi.

8 year olds should be shooting a Daisy BB Air Rifle... not a mini-uzi, full auto.

[BoBettie]

8 year olds should be shooting a Daisy BB Air Rifle... not a mini-uzi, full auto.

You'll shoot your eye out, kid!!

[Ghanima]

So this is kind of the gun equivalent of handing the keys to a sports car with a V-12 engine to an eight year old and saying, "Here kid, you drive?"

[CutterJohn]

Twas a tragedy. The parent was an idiot for letting the kid fire a weapon that he is obviously not strong enough to handle, being only 8. 8 is when you shoot a semi auto .22LR like a ruger 10/22(Coincidentally, the age I got my ruger 10/22. :D ).

So you have an idiot parent and a tragic death. This happens a lot, and is far more common with other things than guns. The fact that it was a gun just adds the extra level of hysteria.

[devilsknew]

I think that is a bad analogy. For the parent, I think it's more like when a parent sends their kid off to war. Naieve, patriotic, blind fanatiscm... ain't my kid GREAT!!! Then the great tragedy.

That kid was more like a tiny tim, Industrial Revolution, Child Laborer that got shredded in the Gin or loom. Trust and no-choice.

[devilsknew]

That kid was more like a tiny tim, Industrial Revolution, Child Laborer that got shredded in the Gin or loom. Trust and no-choice.

Our Industry now is making weapons and soldiers. Our export is war... that is why our economy fails.

[Muffin]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081028/ap_on_re_us/boy_shoots_himself
"This accident was truly a mystery to me," said Bizilj, director of emergency medicine at Johnson Memorial Hospital in Stafford, Conn. "This is a horrible event, a horrible travesty, and I really don't know why it happened."". . . truly a mystery . . . ."
". . . don't know why it happened."
Into denial much? It happened because you, yes you Bizilj, took your eight year old son to go play with an Uzi. Shit for brains. You child did not deserve you.

[E-Sabbath]

So this is kind of the gun equivalent of handing the keys to a sports car with a V-12 engine to an eight year old and saying, "Here kid, you drive?"
Well, more putting him in the driver's seat with the engine running.
It's _possible_ for a five or eight year old to drive a car. You hear funny news stories about it all the time.

But if you put him behind the wheel of a Lambo, it's... not going to be pretty any way you look at it.

This isn't a gun rights issue. This is a _moron_ issue.

[Kalhoun]

I was just reading CNN, and just about to start a thread about this.

At first, just reading the headline, I was thinking what kind of asshole leaves an uzi somewhere that a child could get at it. Then I read the article.

Are you fucking kidding me? Adult supervision my puckered asshole. You don't give an 8 year old kid a fucking machine gun!

I'm just completely appalled by this. Seriously, how in the name of Richard J Gatling, could it be considered fun thing to do to put such a deadly, hard to control, weapon into the hands of an 8 year old child?

And it will all be sobbed about as a horrible accident. Bullshit. Whoever is in charge of the fun little look-how-big-my-cock-is gun fair should be thrown in fucking jail for this. According to the law, do they distinguish between machine guns and other firearms? The article seemed to say that IF permission and supervision are in place, this child handling this particular weapon was within the law.

[Mellivora capensis]

Whenever I teach a first-timer how to fire a semi-auto, I always put one round only in the magazine. Rinse, lather, repeat. Until they get the hang of the kick, that's all they get - one in the mag. You're just looking for shit by loading a full clip, adult or no adult.

An 8 year old with a fully loaded Uzi? I wouldn't dream of it.

[bump]

8 year olds should be shooting a Daisy BB Air Rifle... not a mini-uzi, full auto.

Amen. I was shooting bb guns at 8, but was in no way ready for anything like a 22 until I was about 10 or 11.

I've fired several fully-auto 9mm submachine guns, and none of them are anywhere near appropriate for a small child- they're just too heavy for them to hold steady, and when you factor in the recoil, almost certainly too much for them to handle.

[Terrifel]

"Yeah, I'm teachin' my boy about guns and how they protect the family from--" *POWPOWPOW*

[sinical brit]

Oh goody - a gun thread !

Problem with guns is that 95% * of people who have them, think they are qualified and responsible enough to have them.

Stories like this only go to show that 95% ** of them are of average intelgence and only manage to avoid killing people - whether by accident or on purpose, by sheer luck.

Im sure if you do a poll to NRA members and ask if they think thier guns are safe in thier hands, 100% would respond with a 'fuk yeh'.

The question for gun advocates is how low should the actual figure be before the costs DONT outweigh the benefits ?



* - i made that up...
** - and that.

[buttonjockey308]

This is negligence, pure and simple, for which the parents ought to be forced to answer.

The folks holding the 'gun fair' should, no matter what the law says, NOT permit children to tinker with fucking automatic weapons. I've been a proponent of guns my entire life. I know how to use them, how to be safe with them and am comfortable with the fact they are tools for a job, nothing more, nothing less. When I was 8, the most I was able to touch in the way of firearms was not my Dad's .308 or M1, no no, I had a lever action bb gun that I could only shoot whenever I was with my dad, never alone. When I was 10 I shot my first actual gun. A bolt action .22 at Scout camp. To put an uzi in my hands at that age would have meant death for someone.

Morons.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

Because automatic weapons like Uzis will all, due to their recoil, display the effects of muzzle climb. Technically, any time you shoot anything, part of the recoil involves the muzzle going up. There's a video on youtube of a girl firing a Desert Eagle where she fires one shot and the muzzle of the gun comes up and back and hits her in the nose.

Keeping in mind that the physics dictate muzzle climb will happen, as the muzzle comes up and back from each shot, with automatic fire you're not leveling and lowering your muzzle between rounds, it's going to be additive.

With a rifle, butt against your shoulder, you're not going to shoot yourself because your body will also be twisting, basically keeping the rifle perpendicular to your spine.

This was a child with an Uzi. The recoil will be more pronounced, the effect of muzzle climb more dramatic, and because he's holding it out in front of him with his arms, his wrists are going to turn up and elbows are going to bend.

Physically, that's how it happens.

Of course, this never should have happened because an adult should not have let an 8 year old fire an Uzi to begin with.


Yep. How sad. If you're going to educate children on gun safety by showing them how to use and respect firearms, you have to start with pellet guns and .22's. Absolutely no reason exists that I can think of where an 8 year old should be even touching a weapon like an Uzi. No reason at all. And now the kid is dead.

[sinical brit]

I know how to use them, how to be safe with them ....

So buttonjockey knows how to use them safely.

Had we asked the gun club owners, the organisers of the show and the parents 10 mins before this kid was handed a mini uzi, they also would have said they know how to use them safely. And their statement would have been as valid and important as yours buttonjockey.

Question: As a potential visitor to your country, how can i tell who is telling the truth ?

[muldoonthief]

According to the law, do they distinguish between machine guns and other firearms? The article seemed to say that IF permission and supervision are in place, this child handling this particular weapon was within the law.

I read through the MA laws on all types of firearms again last night. Owning/possessing a fully automatic weapon (i.e. that fires bullets continuously until the trigger is released) takes a class 3 FFL as well as the permission of the Chief of Police in your town. However, there are no restrictions on having another person use a firearm that you own in your presence and under your direct control. So you can legally take a child, or a convicted felon, or someone who has been hospitalized for mental care (all of which would bar one from owning a gun) to a range and let them fire to their hearts' content, legally.

ETA: I'm betting that the above paragraph will change after the next legislative session. No doubt some lower age limits will be imposed for shooting, even under the supervision & instruction of a certified firearms instructor.

[muldoonthief]

So buttonjockey knows how to use them safely.

Had we asked the gun club owners, the organisers of the show and the parents 10 mins before this kid was handed a mini uzi, they also would have said they know how to use them safely. And their statement would have been as valid and important as yours buttonjockey.

Question: As a potential visitor to your country, how can i tell who is telling the truth ?

You can't. So please stay home.

[buttonjockey308]

Fine, I'll bite you. Fact is that countries that don't have widespread accessibility to guns, or a culture of worshipping them, also don't have stories about children killing themselves accidentally with them.


Listen. I know you're from merry old England where the skies are perpetually sunny and chimney sweeps and houskeepers whistle a happy tune while dancing down cobblestone streets accompanied by all manner of happy-faced woodland creatures, but let's not pretend. People are violent against people and accidents happen. Guns are a tool, no more no less. Saying Americans 'worship' guns is high-handed rhetoric at best and at worst an outright lie. Saying some Americans are obsessed with the gun would be more accurate, and not as, you know, alarmist. Bad things happen to children that shouldn't all the time. In fact, in 2003 America, kids between 5 and 14 years of age died from motor vehicle accidents, drownings, suffocations, fires and ATV/bicycle accidents by far ahead of homicide by firearm and further still away from suicide/unintentional by firearm. These articles lead because children bleed and the gun is a fit demon for such scary stories, the facts are more children die in cars and pools than at the end of gun.

We have found that having widespread accessibility to firearms leads, in total, to a safer populace, free from tyranny, free from invasion and free, as history has taught, from those who wish to do us harm both as a person and as a country. The firearm allows us to do these things as the hammer allows us to hang pictures or the flashlight allows us to see in the dark.

The parents are the people responsible for this. It would be no different if the child were operating a chainsaw at a hardware convention and lopped off his arm. Would you hold the chainsaw responsible or the parent?

[Terrifel]

We have found that having widespread accessibility to firearms leads, in total, to a safer populace, free from tyranny, free from invasion and free, as history has taught, from those who wish to do us harm both as a person and as a country. No, we haven't.

[buttonjockey308]

So buttonjockey knows how to use them safely.

Had we asked the gun club owners, the organisers of the show and the parents 10 mins before this kid was handed a mini uzi, they also would have said they know how to use them safely. And their statement would have been as valid and important as yours buttonjockey.

Question: As a potential visitor to your country, how can i tell who is telling the truth ?

Sinical, like many stupid things people do, this was done in a moment that did not, obviously, give thought to safety. People, as I've seen in my nearly 18 years on the streets picking up after them, do things without thinking of the consequence. I think if you had asked a show organizer if he or she thought it wise to hand an Uzi to an 8 year old, the answer would be no. I think if the parent saw fit to hand his child an uzi that the parent should answer for the consequence. I think you should trust what people say only as far as your experiences with them allow. I invite you to our shores and to enjoy our many wonders both natural and man-made, with the knowledge that no matter where you go in the world, you are only as safe as your observations.

There are plenty of good, decent, honest and indeed safe people here, despite the fact that many of us have guns. In fact, you may be safer because we do.

[buttonjockey308]

No, we haven't.


No. YOU haven't.

The truth of history escapes you.

[Terrifel]

No. YOU haven't.

The truth of history escapes you.Sure, and America is God's favorite country.

[Revenant Threshold]

I've a question.

What are we talking about in terms of legal punishment, here? Manslaughter is? Negligent Homicide? And directed at who?

I too am not ecstatic about an 8 year old handling an mini-Uzi. Politics aside, I think probably the best way of trying to clamp down on this kind of thing might be beefing up the deterrent, for all involved, as a means that most people on either side of the gun fence would agree with.

[ivan astikov]

No. YOU haven't.

The truth of history escapes you.

What history? My granny had a chair older than your country!

[Czarcasm]

You can't. So please stay home.Same question, and I am home. Do you have a serious answer to this very serious question? It is possible to examine the backround and training of those involved in this tragic incident(not "accident"), and yet you would have us believe that we should trust your judgement over theirs.
Why?

[sinical brit]

Thank you for your calm and considered response buttonjockey308 . I hope to come to the US one day.

[ivan astikov]

I'd like to blame it all on Thomas Knapp, if I could only find the rancour. Here is a man who almost every male from 6 to 60+ would like to be able to emulate, making a lethal weapon look like a cool toy. As much as I admire the effort and dedication that has gone into honing these skills, I feel it is still sending out a mixed message. Although not where Benelli shotguns are concerned. I'm also jealous as hell of the old dude!

[villa]

So buttonjockey knows how to use them safely.

Had we asked the gun club owners, the organisers of the show and the parents 10 mins before this kid was handed a mini uzi, they also would have said they know how to use them safely. And their statement would have been as valid and important as yours buttonjockey.

Question: As a potential visitor to your country, how can i tell who is telling the truth ?

As a Brit living in the US, having lived in some areas with very high gun ownership...

The overwhelming majority of gun owners I have come across are incredibly responsible. It is incredibly rare to come across a gun, outside of the hands of law enforcement, unless you want to see it. I have, in 13 years, been made uncomfortable in any way by a gun twice. The first time was in a bar, where the person absolutely should not have been carrying it - even if he had a permit, which I highly doubt, he was on licensed premises, and was drunk. He had it tucked into the back of his jeans, and it was showing when he leant forward. I simply told the bartender, who was a friend of mine, and she asked him (because she knew him) to take it out to his car or leave. He did.

The other time was much less simple. Outside my apartment a person got into an altercation with a couple of other youths, pulled a handgun,a nd shot one of them in the thigh. The gun was a .22, and did not do huge damage to him. It was not a pleasant thing, obviously. However, it was the kind of situation that in the UK would probably have resulted in a knifing.

Both times, to be honest, I was in areas a tourist would have been very unlikely to be. I sincerely doubt if you visit you will see any real evidence of gun ownership. I don't know where in the UK you are, but as a rule, the US is significantly safer in most areas than the UK. There are areas of the US that are MUCH less safe, but you won't be in them. DC, for example, always gets cited as a city with a major violence problem, and it is, but visitors stay in the NW of the city as a rule, and I have never felt at risk in any way there. Certainly there seems to be far less evidence of low level violence in the US, not least because there isn't the problem that existed when I was in the UK of pubs all kicking out at the same time, and streams of drunk yobs who slammed as many pints as possible in a short time spilling out into the street, brawling over places in kebab queues and taxi ranks.

[Cheesesteak]

The parents are the people responsible for this. It would be no different if the child were operating a chainsaw at a hardware convention and lopped off his arm. Would you hold the chainsaw responsible or the parent?This isn't just about someone using a tool and getting hurt. It's about gun culture. What prompted this man to allow his son to shoot a Micro Uzi? Most likely the fact that shooting a fully automatic weapon is fun and cool, and he'd get to brag to his buddies when he got home.

Guns are tools. That's great, maybe more people would buy into that idea when we stop treating them like toys.

[Kalhoun]

Sinical, like many stupid things people do, this was done in a moment that did not, obviously, give thought to safety. People, as I've seen in my nearly 18 years on the streets picking up after them, do things without thinking of the consequence. I think if you had asked a show organizer if he or she thought it wise to hand an Uzi to an 8 year old, the answer would be no. I think if the parent saw fit to hand his child an uzi that the parent should answer for the consequence. I think you should trust what people say only as far as your experiences with them allow. I invite you to our shores and to enjoy our many wonders both natural and man-made, with the knowledge that no matter where you go in the world, you are only as safe as your observations.

There are plenty of good, decent, honest and indeed safe people here, despite the fact that many of us have guns. In fact, you may be safer because we do.
But as this example shows us, people with lousy judgement also have guns and those errors in judgement (and there are many) sometimes end badly. I'll bet you a fortune that this kid's dad wishes he'd never seen a gun.

[Petrobey Mavromihalis]

Guns are tools. That's great, maybe more people would buy into that idea when we stop treating them like toys.This is it.

We don't have hammer conventions, at least not as entertainment. We don't have hammer clubs or hammer message boards. We don't display them on walls and show them off to friends. Hammers are not fetishised.*

There is something wrong with a culture that this to guns, and you can't use the "just a tool" excuse.


*I'm fully aware that there are probably examples of all the above out there. But they would certainly be regarded as abnormal.

[beowulff]

This whole event is sad and surprising. I've fired a full-auto Uzi carbine, and it had negligible recoil and muzzle climb. (it fires 9mm handgun ammo). Of course, I wasn't 8 years old when I did it. However, there are several different types of "Uzis" - I wonder if this was a machine pistol, which would have been much harder to control.

I think this was an avoidable accident, but it was an accident nonetheless, not some sort of negligent homicide.

[Mosier]

I don't know why I'm suprised at the anti-gun rage that comes out every a time we see a thread like this, but I am.

Seriously, the numbskulls that were using the weapon are the problem here, not the weapon.

I think the weapon helped.

[Really Not All That Bright]

We have found that having widespread accessibility to firearms leads, in total, to a safer populace, free from tyranny, free from invasion and free, as history has taught, from those who wish to do us harm both as a person and as a country. The firearm allows us to do these things as the hammer allows us to hang pictures or the flashlight allows us to see in the dark.
Is anyone else picturing a band of retarded kids playing The Star Spangled Banner in the background while reading this?

[CrazyCatLady]

I think the point that every gun owner thinks he's safe and responsible is a good one. Shit, every one of the assholes you see out on the road doing something stupid and dangerous thinks they're a good driver, and something like 80% of people think they're of average or higher intelligence.

People are, to put it bluntly, frequently delusional about their capabilities. That's what leads to shit like this sorry situation. Everybody involved thought they were much safer and more responsible than they actually were.

So those of you posting about how safe and responsible you are with your guns will have to forgive the rest of us if we take your posts with a shaker or so of salt. Not knowing you irl and seeing how you handle your guns, we have no way to know if you're part of the population who really is safe and responsible, or the population who overestimates yourselves.

[muldoonthief]

Same question, and I am home. Do you have a serious answer to this very serious question? It is possible to examine the backround and training of those involved in this tragic incident(not "accident"), and yet you would have us believe that we should trust your judgement over theirs.
Why?

Serious answer - there's no way to know which gun owners follow every safety rule, every time, which ones follow them most of the time, but cut corners on occasion, and which ones are complete morons. Just like there's no way to know that information about the drivers you're sharing the road with every day. For guns, if you're uncomfortable not having this information, I'd suggest staying away from places where guns are regularly used, such as shooting ranges and woods & forests where hunting occurs. My snark was directed against sinical brit, who apparently will be basing his decision on whether or not to visit our country on how to distinguish responsible & safe gun owners from the irresponsible ones. The odds of that mattering to him, unless he chooses to visit a shooting range or hunting area, are vanishingly low.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

Is anyone else picturing a band of retarded kids playing The Star Spangled Banner in the background while reading this?

No, I was more picturing the death rictus on Charlton Heston's face creaking into a twisted grin.

[Scumpup]

I think the point that every gun owner thinks he's safe and responsible is a good one. Shit, every one of the assholes you see out on the road doing something stupid and dangerous thinks they're a good driver, and something like 80% of people think they're of average or higher intelligence.

People are, to put it bluntly, frequently delusional about their capabilities. That's what leads to shit like this sorry situation. Everybody involved thought they were much safer and more responsible than they actually were.

So those of you posting about how safe and responsible you are with your guns will have to forgive the rest of us if we take your posts with a shaker or so of salt. Not knowing you irl and seeing how you handle your guns, we have no way to know if you're part of the population who really is safe and responsible, or the population who overestimates yourselves.

Based on your own statements above, you'll also forgive us for doubting the correctness of your assumption that you are intelligent enough to judge whether we are overestimating our safety practices.

[Petrobey Mavromihalis]

Based on your own statements above, you'll also forgive us for doubting the correctness of your assumption that you are intelligent enough to judge whether we are overestimating our safety practices.Her last sentence, just above what you wrote, explicitly says that she cannot judge that.

[ShibbOleth]

Nod.

ETA - thats not snark, I agree 100%. How would you go about preventing said shoot-o-fest, without impinging on the rights of responsible weapon owners?
That would be their right, and I quote here, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Unless we expect children to be part of a well regulated Militia, how about we keep them out of gun shows, just like we keep them from watching movies that show breasts? That would be a small step in the right direction.

[ShibbOleth]

I think the weapon helped.

Uzis don't kill people. Eight year old children, their dumbass parents and incompetent gun show organizers do.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Uzis don't kill people. Eight year old children, their dumbass parents and incompetent gun show organizers do.
The gun lobby may have some of this blood on its hands, though. Under Massachusetts law, apparently everything that happened was totally legal and above board. If there's no legislation prohibiting 8-year-olds from handling loaded automatic weapons, I highly doubt it's because nobody proposed it.

More likely, it's because the knee-jerk response of the NRA and associates is to treat any sort of gun regulation as an infringement of the Second Amendment.

[sinical brit]

Just like there's no way to know that information about the drivers you're sharing the road with every day.

Au Contraire muldoonthief.

If a driver gets drunk drives a car and is caught, he is banned. If he is caught speeding he gets points on his licence. More than 12 points and its bantime. We and more importantly the police can see how competant a driver is by his record. If his record is bad, its sensible to restrict his access to the tool in question.

Villas story about the guy showing in the bar is interesting. Being drunk in a bar with a gun sticking out of your jeans is surely as least as bad as speeding. Why did :

a. no-one else notice,
b. the barmaid not ring the police when she found out he had a gun and was pished in a bar ?

If he and all the others who are not responsible enough to have a gun, were arrested or cautioned everytime they fucked up, then the message might get through.

[muldoonthief]

The gun lobby may have some of this blood on its hands, though. Under Massachusetts law, apparently everything that happened was totally legal and above board. If there's no legislation prohibiting 8-year-olds from handling loaded automatic weapons, I highly doubt it's because nobody proposed it.

More likely, it's because the knee-jerk response of the NRA and associates is to treat any sort of gun regulation as an infringement of the Second Amendment.

The gun lobby is pretty powerless here in Massachusetts. The NRA has completely written us off as a lost cause. The only gun laws that don't get passed are usually the ones that would entail confiscation of guns. I think it's far more likely that no one ever thought that the people who go through the time and effort and money to own a full auto weapon (they're NOT cheap), would be foolish enough to let an 8 year old fire one.

Au Contraire muldoonthief.

If a driver gets drunk drives a car and is caught, he is banned. If he is caught speeding he gets points on his licence. More than 12 points and its bantime. We and more importantly the police can see how competant a driver is by his record. If his record is bad, its sensible to restrict his access to the tool in question.


Ok, but until he's caught driving drunk, or gets those 12 points, he's still on the road with you. And if he's just the type who tends to change lanes without looking, or tailgates, or spends a lot of time on his phone instead of paying attention to the road, he'll more than likely never lose his license - he'll just plow into you at 70 mph on the day that his luck and yours is bad.

[buttonjockey308]

Sure, and America is God's favorite country.

If you say so, skippy. :rolleyes:

Guns bad. Got it. When come back, bring cogent arguement.

[buttonjockey308]

What history? My granny had a chair older than your country!

How is that chair germaine to the conversation?

[buttonjockey308]

This isn't just about someone using a tool and getting hurt. It's about gun culture. What prompted this man to allow his son to shoot a Micro Uzi? Most likely the fact that shooting a fully automatic weapon is fun and cool, and he'd get to brag to his buddies when he got home.

Guns are tools. That's great, maybe more people would buy into that idea when we stop treating them like toys.

I both agree and disagree with this. At the root of this is the undeniable fact that guns are tools. They are neither good nor evil. That said, would this man have allowed his son to fire this weapon if there weren't so many movies, video games, stories, TV shows, media in general involving or discussing firearms?

Who knows? You don't know what motivated this man, nor do I, you are likely correct, but the end result is that his child is dead and he is responsible. This fact unhinges everything 'fun and cool' about shooting an automatic.

But as this example shows us, people with lousy judgement also have guns and those errors in judgement (and there are many) sometimes end badly. I'll bet you a fortune that this kid's dad wishes he'd never seen a gun.

People with lousy judgement also have kids and cars and licenses to drive them which according to the CDC kills more kids by a damn site than guns do, still, I'd bet the same thing.

[jsgoddess]

We have found that having widespread accessibility to firearms leads, in total, to a safer populace, free from tyranny, free from invasion and free, as history has taught, from those who wish to do us harm both as a person and as a country.

No, we haven't "found" that. We have the 2nd amendment, which means that people believed it would be so at one point. However, their opinion is still opinion.

So, if you want to rephrase to "We believe that having..." I'd have little quarrel, even less if you said, "Many of us believe that having..."

[Jack Batty]

People with lousy judgement also have kids and cars and licenses to drive them which according to the CDC kills more kids by a damn site than guns do, still, I'd bet the same thing.

I hate this fucking argument.

When someone dies because of a car it is an accident. That is, that car did something it is not designed to do. Cars are not designed to kill. Guns are.

Accidental shooting or no, when someone dies as a result of a gun, that gun has fulfilled its purpose. That's why guns should be regulated far more than cars.

I'm constantly baffled that cars need to be registered and car drivers need to be licensed and of a certain age and able to pass a test and retested periodically and if they fuck up they aren't allowed near cars ... but when the same criteria butts up against guns, we get all the little-dick ammo-freaks screaming about impinging rights.

It's bullshit.

[Guinastasia]

I don't know why I'm suprised at the anti-gun rage that comes out every a time we see a thread like this, but I am.

Seriously, the numbskulls that were using the weapon are the problem here, not the weapon.

Um, no, it was the weapon-or rather, or rather, the TYPE of weapon, in this case. No eight-year-old should be allowed to handle an Uzi.

[Chief Pedant]

Whatever you've got (but you'll have to do better than your moronic effort below.I think I said exactly that in my first post, fuckwit.I get the pleasure of taking advantage of the opportunity to call you a fuckwit. I think every post I've seen of yours has been fuckwitted, but often they are fuckwitted posts about global warming or Al Gore in GD. It was a nice chance to cover all of those posts by calling you for what you are.How many times do people use a pool each year? How many times do people use a gun each year? Man you are Captain I-Don't-Get-It.That's just fucking lame.

Goodness gracious, Barbie!

Having consumed the data stored on your first neuron (the word "fuckwit") and recruited the entire dataset on your other neuron (the term "fucking lame"), you've exhausted your entire mental capacity and turned to getting excited about previous and completely unrelated topics. Reminds me of a little doggie who knows he's upset about something, but in his inability to generate a coherent response just starts peeing over everything in sight, including himself, while he's yapping as ferociously as he can.

Don't worry; it's OK for you to pleasure yourself here in the Pit calling people naughty words. I realize it may be your sole source of pleasure with your only partner. Part of the reason for the Pit is, of course, to let the mentally underserved use Big People names instead of saying anything cogent when they dribble here.

Have a friend read my original posts to you about the topic at hand so that they can help you understand the point being made.

Some "Barbarian"...

What are you really--some kinda scrawny pinhead loser living in front a computer screen hoping the world infers a significance for you based on the drivel you post here? I am embarrassed for barbarians everywhere.

How about asking the mods for a new tag?

Barbie the Puppy Dribbler, maybe?

[buttonjockey308]

No, we haven't "found" that. We have the 2nd amendment, which means that people believed it would be so at one point. However, their opinion is still opinion.

So, if you want to rephrase to "We believe that having..." I'd have little quarrel, even less if you said, "Many of us believe that having..."

The 'opinion' of the framers of the constitution has stood the test of time. In part, because of Amendment number 2, we remain free of the type of tyranny that our ancestors fled their homelands to avoid. We remain uninvaded by a foreign enemy (notice I didn't not say we were free from attack), and those who wish to defend their homes are free to do so. 232 years of experience is more than enough to state that the right to bear arms has been found to do all the things I mentioned and more. I will grant you that the law of unintended consequences has reared its ugly head, but these aren't simple opinions, these are facts, even if you choose not to believe them, they are no less true.

[Really Not All That Bright]

The 'opinion' of the framers of the constitution has stood the test of time. In part, because of Amendment number 2, we remain free of the type of tyranny that our ancestors fled their homelands to avoid. We remain uninvaded by a foreign enemy (notice I didn't not say we were free from attack), and those who wish to defend their homes are free to do so. 232 years of experience is more than enough to state that the right to bear arms has been found to do all the things I mentioned and more. I will grant you that the law of unintended consequences has reared its ugly head, but these aren't simple opinions, these are facts, even if you choose not to believe them, they are no less true.
What are you smoking?

We're free of foreign invasion because 26% of the adult population are gun owners? I can just imagine the heated debate in the Politburo over that:

"Yevgeny, what is the current state of readiness of our tank divisions?"
"They are at full readiness, Defense Minister"
"Then I want you to prepare a plan for an invasion of the United States."
"But.... but... Defense Minister... they have guns! We cannot hope to defeat such an adversary, with their rifles in every Wal-Mart!"

[jsgoddess]

The 'opinion' of the framers of the constitution has stood the test of time. In part, because of Amendment number 2, we remain free of the type of tyranny that our ancestors fled their homelands to avoid. We remain uninvaded by a foreign enemy (notice I didn't not say we were free from attack), and those who wish to defend their homes are free to do so. 232 years of experience is more than enough to state that the right to bear arms has been found to do all the things I mentioned and more. I will grant you that the law of unintended consequences has reared its ugly head, but these aren't simple opinions, these are facts, even if you choose not to believe them, they are no less true.

Saying it over and over still doesn't make it a fact and correlation does not equal causation. The framers had an opinion. You share that opinion. Even if everyone were to share the opinion, it would still be an opinion.

The lack of invasion probably has a lot more to do with geography than guns. Note: This is also an opinion.

[gonzomax]

I do not get it. A kid kills himself using a weapon he obviously could not handle. Then gun lovers want to argue whether it was a real machine gun or not. He is real dead. Technically it wasn't a machine gun. So technically he is not dead. Stop that crap. He should not have been allowed to handle the weapon. It was wrong.

[Maeglin]

No. YOU haven't.

The truth of history escapes you.


But you understand it? How do you know you understand the truth of history?

[Guinastasia]

The 'opinion' of the framers of the constitution has stood the test of time. In part, because of Amendment number 2, we remain free of the type of tyranny that our ancestors fled their homelands to avoid. We remain uninvaded by a foreign enemy (notice I didn't not say we were free from attack), and those who wish to defend their homes are free to do so. 232 years of experience is more than enough to state that the right to bear arms has been found to do all the things I mentioned and more. I will grant you that the law of unintended consequences has reared its ugly head, but these aren't simple opinions, these are facts, even if you choose not to believe them, they are no less true.


Um...well, you know, I'm holding in my hand a pen. Said pen keeps the bears away. How do I know? Well, there aren't any bears in my house! See!

:rolleyes:

Look, I have no problem with responsible gun ownership. I do have a problem with gun stupidity. I also see that your argument is insanely cracked.

[Jack Batty]

What are you smoking?

We're free of foreign invasion because 26% of the adult population are gun owners? I can just imagine the heated debate in the Politburo over that:

"Yevgeny, what is the current state of readiness of our tank divisions?"
"They are at full readiness, Defense Minister"
"Then I want you to prepare a plan for an invasion of the United States."
"But.... but... Defense Minister... they have guns! We cannot hope to defeat such an adversary, with their rifles in every Wal-Mart!"

Obviously you've never seen Red Dawn. Them Rooskies don't stand a chance.

[Maeglin]

The 'opinion' of the framers of the constitution has stood the test of time. In part, because of Amendment number 2, we remain free of the type of tyranny that our ancestors fled their homelands to avoid. We remain uninvaded by a foreign enemy (notice I didn't not say we were free from attack), and those who wish to defend their homes are free to do so. 232 years of experience is more than enough to state that the right to bear arms has been found to do all the things I mentioned and more. I will grant you that the law of unintended consequences has reared its ugly head, but these aren't simple opinions, these are facts, even if you choose not to believe them, they are no less true.

You could have saved a few bytes by just saying "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy. Fallacy is kind of the opposite of truth.

[Petrobey Mavromihalis]

we remain free of the type of tyranny that our ancestors fled their homelands to avoid.Is this really what it's all about?

Because that's a daft argument. People don't fall under a tyranny because they lack the means to fight back. People fall under tyranny either because they want to, or beacuse they are not paying attention. That is a lesson from history.

[buttonjockey308]

I hate this fucking argument.

When someone dies because of a car it is an accident. That is, that car did something it is not designed to do. Cars are not designed to kill. Guns are.

Accidental shooting or no, when someone dies as a result of a gun, that gun has fulfilled its purpose. That's why guns should be regulated far more than cars.

I'm constantly baffled that cars need to be registered and car drivers need to be licensed and of a certain age and able to pass a test and retested periodically and if they fuck up they aren't allowed near cars ... but when the same criteria butts up against guns, we get all the little-dick ammo-freaks screaming about impinging rights.

It's bullshit.

Jack. I understand your argument and to a degree, you're right. Still, if a person is found unfit to drive they are not unable to purchase or own a vehicle, just unable to drive it. Unable as in prevented by law, not physically. On the other hand, if you are a felon or adjudged deliquent or insane, you cannot legally be sold a gun (state by state variations apply. Those who choose to own guns must, in most states register themselves as owning a firearm, if they carry, they must register the gun and be certified in it's use, and carry only that particular gun. You as a driver don't buy a jeep, get tested on a jeep and then sell it to buy a toyota and have to retest your drivers license, do you?

Further, the right to bear arms is one guaranteed by the Constitution whereas the "right" to drive is issued, very much like gun permits/registrations on a state by state basis and not guaranteed except where mentioned in the Declaration of Independence where driving can be construed as part of " life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

Finally, the reason I drew the line between guns and cars is because cars, pools, pillows, sheet plastic and lighters are all more statistically dangerous to children when used in a manner their manufacturers did not intend. Smith and Wesson does not create their products with the intent of blowing holes in children. No matter how those on the anti-gun bandwagon want this to be so. These are products being used in stupid ways by stupid people with horrible results.

[Kalhoun]

I both agree and disagree with this. At the root of this is the undeniable fact that guns are tools. They are neither good nor evil. That said, would this man have allowed his son to fire this weapon if there weren't so many movies, video games, stories, TV shows, media in general involving or discussing firearms?

Who knows? You don't know what motivated this man, nor do I, you are likely correct, but the end result is that his child is dead and he is responsible. This fact unhinges everything 'fun and cool' about shooting an automatic.



People with lousy judgement also have kids and cars and licenses to drive them which according to the CDC kills more kids by a damn site than guns do, still, I'd bet the same thing.
Usually the kids are more than a couple years past toilet training age and they receive training prior to driving their deadly weapon.

Or on second thought, you're right. Let's give all the second and third graders automatic weapons. It's not anyone's fault. These things just happen.

[Terrifel]

If you say so, skippy. :rolleyes:

Guns bad. Got it. When come back, bring cogent arguement.I doubt any argument would affect the belief that history proves America is God's favorite country.

How would you change such a person's mind? Citing figures? Bible study? What sort of evidence will demonstrate conclusively that God doesn't favor America over all other nations?

[buttonjockey308]

Um...well, you know, I'm holding in my hand a pen. Said pen keeps the bears away. How do I know? Well, there aren't any bears in my house! See!

:rolleyes:

Look, I have no problem with responsible gun ownership. I do have a problem with gun stupidity. I also see that your argument is insanely cracked.

What then, do you suggest be done?

I hold this man, the father of this child, responsible for the death of his son. I do not hold the gun, the people who make the gun or the people who held the show responsible.

As far as my argument, believe it cracked if you wish, but do you deny the role of the gun in American history? Can you envision an America in it's current state without the role that the firearm played?

[Really Not All That Bright]

Finally, the reason I drew the line between guns and cars is because cars, pools, pillows, sheet plastic and lighters are all more statistically dangerous to children when used in a manner their manufacturers did not intend. Smith and Wesson does not create their products with the intent of blowing holes in children. No matter how those on the anti-gun bandwagon want this to be so. These are products being used in stupid ways by stupid people with horrible results.
Smith and Wesson creates their products with the intent to blow holes in things. One of those things is people. I don't believe that makes them criminally or civilly liable for creating those products, but I do believe it negates any argument about the gun being "just a tool".

Guns are by far the most effective readily available killing tools. There's a good reason why people don't go on killing sprees armed with cars, pools, pillows, sheet plastic or lighters.

[buttonjockey308]

Usually the kids are more than a couple years past toilet training age and they receive training prior to driving their deadly weapon.

Or on second thought, you're right. Let's give all the second and third graders automatic weapons. It's not anyone's fault. These things just happen.

When did I say that Kalhoun? When exactly?

This child is dead. His father is responsible. How do I in my supposedly cracked argument promote handing out automatic weapons to third graders?

[buttonjockey308]

Guns are by far the most effective readily available killing tools. There's a good reason why people don't go on killing sprees armed with cars, pools, pillows, sheet plastic or lighters.

Never the less, when it comes to children, all of those things are more dangerous than the gun.

That data shifts quickly once the ages go up, but speaking only of children between 5 and 15, this is statistical fact.

[buttonjockey308]

Is this really what it's all about?

Because that's a daft argument. People don't fall under a tyranny because they lack the means to fight back. People fall under tyranny either because they want to, or beacuse they are not paying attention. That is a lesson from history.

So people WANT to be under a tyrannical regime? Hm. I suppose that's possible, though I'm not one of those people, and as far as paying attention, well, that's money in the bank right there, and another lesson from history.

[buttonjockey308]

I doubt any argument would affect the belief that history proves America is God's favorite country.

How would you change such a person's mind? Citing figures? Bible study? What sort of evidence will demonstrate conclusively that God doesn't favor America over all other nations?

Frankly, I don't know and may I never have to find out.

In case you missed it, I don't buy in to that, or God, at least as these nutwads understand God.

[Maeglin]

Never the less, when it comes to children, all of those things are more dangerous than the gun.

That data shifts quickly once the ages go up, but speaking only of children between 5 and 15, this is statistical fact.

I am actually not sure that this is true. If you are simply looking at the probability of death from various objects, it will be very misleading. The statistic to consider is the probability of death conditional on handling various objects.

[Guinastasia]

What then, do you suggest be done?

I hold this man, the father of this child, responsible for the death of his son. I do not hold the gun, the people who make the gun or the people who held the show responsible.

As far as my argument, believe it cracked if you wish, but do you deny the role of the gun in American history? Can you envision an America in it's current state without the role that the firearm played?


I didn't say it was the gun's fault. I was taking issue with your argument that the US still exists and has never been invaded because of the 2nd Amendment. There's a HELL of a lot more to it than that.


Oh, and I do INDEED hold the people who held the show responsible. Did you READ the advertisement for the event? It's linked on the first page of the thread-"other fun stuff we're not allowed to mention?") Obviously, they knew damned well things weren't on the up and up and didn't seem to give a shit.

[buttonjockey308]

See for yourself. Here's the 2003 data from the CDC I mentioned.

First is overall: (http://ftp://ftp.cdc.gov/pub/ncipc/10LC-2003/PDF/10lc-2003.pdf)

The second breaks out the unintentional. (ftp://ftp.cdc.gov/pub/ncipc/10LC-2003/PDF/10lc-unintentional.pdf)

The third highlights only violence (http://ftp://ftp.cdc.gov/pub/ncipc/10LC-2003/PDF/10lc-violence.pdf)

Kids are more at risk in common every day situations according to this data than they are because of guns. This data and my own experience responding to emergencies for the last 18 years is enough to convince me.

That said, do I think we need to fix the problem of gun violence for those other age groups? Hell yes. I think there's far too much in the general media that glorifies the gun as everything from problem solver to income enhancer, but the question is, do we limit the first amendment to address the societal problems we're having with the second?

[Terrifel]

Frankly, I don't know and may I never have to find out.

In case you missed it, I don't buy in to that, or God, at least as these nutwads understand God.You do, though. The only difference is that your god can be reloaded.

"As far as my argument, believe it cracked if you wish, but do you deny the role of [the Lord] in American history? Can you envision an America in it's current state without the role that [Christian worship] played?

Nobody's invading Canada. Nobody's invading the UK. Guns don't keep invaders away anymore, and have not since the days of cowboys vs. Indians. Your gun has no magic power to prevent tyranny.

[Kalhoun]

When did I say that Kalhoun? When exactly?

This child is dead. His father is responsible. How do I in my supposedly cracked argument promote handing out automatic weapons to third graders?

I'm just annoyed when people bring up the ol' "but cars kill people too" argument. It's not the same thing. It's not even in the same ballpark. It's not a valid comparison for the stupidity that was exhibited when these adults handed a little kid a loaded automatic weapon that is designed solely to kill people. I can tell you that if my child died in a car accident, I would feel grief, but not GUILT for teaching him how to drive. The guilt these people feel will be deserved. They're not equipped with the judgement necessary to operate firearms.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Goodness gracious, Barbie!

Having consumed the data stored on your first neuron (the word "fuckwit") and recruited the entire dataset on your other neuron (the term "fucking lame"), you've exhausted your entire mental capacity and turned to getting excited about previous and completely unrelated topics. Reminds me of a little doggie who knows he's upset about something, but in his inability to generate a coherent response just starts peeing over everything in sight, including himself, while he's yapping as ferociously as he can.

Don't worry; it's OK for you to pleasure yourself here in the Pit calling people naughty words. I realize it may be your sole source of pleasure with your only partner. Part of the reason for the Pit is, of course, to let the mentally underserved use Big People names instead of saying anything cogent when they dribble here.

Have a friend read my original posts to you about the topic at hand so that they can help you understand the point being made.

Some "Barbarian"...

What are you really--some kinda scrawny pinhead loser living in front a computer screen hoping the world infers a significance for you based on the drivel you post here? I am embarrassed for barbarians everywhere.

How about asking the mods for a new tag?

Barbie the Puppy Dribbler, maybe?Since you offer no defense for your feeble grasp of statistics and ezposure to risk, I'll just observe that you must be one of those people who hear that "75% of accidents happen within five miles of home" and think "Wow, I live in a dangerous neighborhood."

[buttonjockey308]

I didn't say it was the gun's fault. I was taking issue with your argument that the US still exists and has never been invaded because of the 2nd Amendment. There's a HELL of a lot more to it than that.


Oh, and I do INDEED hold the people who held the show responsible. Did you READ the advertisement for the event? It's linked on the first page of the thread-"other fun stuff we're not allowed to mention?") Obviously, they knew damned well things weren't on the up and up and didn't seem to give a shit.

First, that's why I said "In Part" due to the 2nd amendment and was stating it as germaine to the conversation. I KNOW there is more to it than that, believe me, but we're not talking about anything else right now.

I didn't read that until you pointed it out. My guess when they're saying "other fun stuff we're not allowed to mention" is that they have the obligatory Saddam or Osama targets to shoot at, but can't mention those for fear of some backlash.

The only person responsible for the child is his father. If the father were walking past a strip joint and decided to go inside, that isn't the fault (at least not legally) of the strip joint. Do they have a moral obligation to boot the kid and his father? Youbetcha.

[Bootis]

Any word on if the rest of shooting party was canceled after the kid was shot? If I had to guess, I'd say there was 20 minutes or so of tears or head shaking by the crowd, then back to shooting.

[Really Not All That Bright]

The only person responsible for the child is his father. If the father were walking past a strip joint and decided to go inside, that isn't the fault (at least not legally) of the strip joint. Do they have a moral obligation to boot the kid and his father? Youbetcha.
More importantly, apparently, they have a legal obligation to boot the kid and his father. The gun show did not, which appears to be a failure on the part of Massachusetts lawmakers.

[villa]

Nobody's invading Canada. Nobody's invading the UK. Guns don't keep invaders away anymore, and have not since the days of cowboys vs. Indians. Your gun has no magic power to prevent tyranny.

Tyranny isn't a matter solely of invasion or a dictatorial government. An armed population is less likely to be subjected to police techniques that violate basic rights.

Yes if a government these days wants to totally disregards the fundamental rights of its populace, that populace being armed probably won't stop them, though it wouldn't hurt, certainly. But I would argue that an armed population makes it harder to kick down doors willy-nilly.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Tyranny isn't a matter solely of invasion or a dictatorial government. An armed population is less likely to be subjected to police techniques that violate basic rights.
Bollocks. I don't own a gun. Do you honestly thing that makes it more likely that the police will kick down my door without a warrant?

[buttonjockey308]

I'm just annoyed when people bring up the ol' "but cars kill people too" argument. It's not the same thing. It's not even in the same ballpark. It's not a valid comparison for the stupidity that was exhibited when these adults handed a little kid a loaded automatic weapon that is designed solely to kill people. I can tell you that if my child died in a car accident, I would feel grief, but not GUILT for teaching him how to drive. The guilt these people feel will be deserved. They're not equipped with the judgement necessary to operate firearms.

I can understand that.

[Terrifel]

Tyranny isn't a matter solely of invasion or a dictatorial government. An armed population is less likely to be subjected to police techniques that violate basic rights. --such as those basic rights violations common in Canada and the UK? Give me an idea of the sort of police abuses I'm safer from here in the US.

[buttonjockey308]

More importantly, apparently, they have a legal obligation to boot the kid and his father. The gun show did not, which appears to be a failure on the part of Massachusetts lawmakers.

What? If there's not a law that requires them to do it, because the law was not yet made, they don't in fact have a legal obligation. I understand what you're driving at, but what?

[buttonjockey308]

Bollocks. I don't own a gun. Do you honestly thing that makes it more likely that the police will kick down my door without a warrant?

Use China as an example. What if the Chinese citizenry were armed? I think China would be a different place today.

[villa]

Bollocks. I don't own a gun. Do you honestly thing that makes it more likely that the police will kick down my door without a warrant?

Notice I never said that an individual was less likely to have their door kicked down. I talked about an armed populace as opposed to an unarmed populace.

[villa]

--such as those basic rights violations common in Canada and the UK? Give me an idea of the sort of police abuses I'm safer from here in the US.

This is ridiculous. It is just another variant of the argument that Country X has guns, Country Y doesn't, therefore if Country X's crime rate is higher, it must be because of guns.

All I said is that a police force is less likely to be kicking down doors willy-nilly if they think there is a significant chance they will be greeted by a person defending his property, than if they know that is not a possibility.

And, while I have never lived in Canada, I believe the protections for individuals from police abuses are higher in the US than the UK. I've also found the police here to be generally politer and more respectful to the population, having been a lucky recipient of the Met's friendliness on more than one occasion. I'll admit other people in the US have different experiences, but that is my personal experience.

[jsgoddess]

Tyranny isn't a matter solely of invasion or a dictatorial government. An armed population is less likely to be subjected to police techniques that violate basic rights.

Yes if a government these days wants to totally disregards the fundamental rights of its populace, that populace being armed probably won't stop them, though it wouldn't hurt, certainly. But I would argue that an armed population makes it harder to kick down doors willy-nilly.

I'd say an armed population just makes it more likely that if the door is kicked down, the armed civilian gets blamed for it.

[jsgoddess]

All I said is that a police force is less likely to be kicking down doors willy-nilly if they think there is a significant chance they will be greeted by a person defending his property, than if they know that is not a possibility.

This argument makes no sense to me.

Guns are legal in the US for most people. Defending your property from the police with a gun isn't legal. If the police burst into your house and you shoot at them, you're most likely dead instead of jailed. Even if you manage to kill all of the police intruders, you are seriously up shit creek. The gun helps not at all in that circumstance. Saying, "But they were infringing on my rights!" isn't going to make you not-dead.

I don't know why people can't grasp this. If the law as an entity turns against you, guns will not help. Guns can only help when the law is on your side.

[villa]

I don't agree, jsgoddess. Even if part of your premise is right, you are ignoring the effect on the police themselves. They don't want to be shot. It isn't a pleasant experience. The removal of the sole monopoly over force from the government creates government agents who are more likely to be polite.

[Terrifel]

This is ridiculous. It is just another variant of the argument that Country X has guns, Country Y doesn't, therefore if Country X's crime rate is higher, it must be because of guns.What do you mean it's ridiculous?! That's exactly the argument you were using! Country X has guns, Country Y doesn't, therefore Country X's police abuses will be lower because of guns. I just asked you to specify which abuses are more common!

You claim that police are less likely to be kicking down doors willy-nilly in the US. But I'm pretty sure that doors get kicked down by police quite a lot in the US anyway, so it seems like kind of a marginal benefit for civil rights if it even exists in the first place-- which I tend to doubt, as Canadians are not streaming across the border to escape their nation's Gestapo-like police tactics.

Although the RCMP do boast that they "always get their man," so maybe they are unreasonably cocky in that respect. I guess if I were a Canadian who really wanted to live in a country where shooting the police is more tolerated culturally, I'd think about relocating to the US.

[Cat Fight]

All I said is that a police force is less likely to be kicking down doors willy-nilly if they think there is a significant chance they will be greeted by a person defending his property, than if they know that is not a possibility.

Would love to see a cite on this. AFAIK, they're just more likely to do it wearing protective gear. I also can't quite get behind the idea that they're more 'polite' to people (gang members? drug dealers?) who are more likely to be armed.

But what a glorious line of reasoning in this last page. Kind of reminds me of some Canadian stand-up I saw who said something like: 'Americans think Canadians are so polite. We're not. But you're armed, and we're not stupid.'

[villa]

Are you are deliberately not understanding, Terrifel or I am explaining very badly. I'll go with the latter.

You seem to be saying that my argument that an armed populace reduces the likelihood of police abuses of rights is false, because those abuses don't happen in Canada and the UK. I'm saying that is a fallacious line of argument on your part. I am saying that ceteris paribus an armed populace is a deterrent against police abuse of rights.

That is why I used the crime rates example. I hear often that Italy, for example, has a lower crime rate than the US, and that the US has a higher gun ownership rate, therefore the guns must be the cause of the higher crime rate. It's a specious argument because you aren't comparing equals. It's just as specious as the argument claiming the death penalty isn't a deterrent (which I don't believe it is) because Texas has a higher murder rate than Rhode Island.

The number of doors that gets kicked down in any one country is not relevant. All I am arguing is that fewer doors get kicked down in country X with gun ownership by private citizens than would be the case in country X without gun ownership by private citizens.

Now, of course, this works within limits. If the police are part of a regime set on genocide of a particular group, for example, I don't think being armed will help that group much any more (though I doubt it would hurt them). And as I said, I haven't lived in Canada. But I did find the police significantly less respectful of rights in the UK than in the US. I've still got a scar to prove it (to myself obviously, not claiming my personal experiences form some sort of proof in other terms).

[Really Not All That Bright]

What? If there's not a law that requires them to do it, because the law was not yet made, they don't in fact have a legal obligation. I understand what you're driving at, but what?
That the kid gets kicked out of the strip club because the law says he has to be 18, and that there's apparently no similar law for gun shows, which is silly.
I don't agree, jsgoddess. Even if part of your premise is right, you are ignoring the effect on the police themselves. They don't want to be shot. It isn't a pleasant experience. The removal of the sole monopoly over force from the government creates government agents who are more likely to be polite.
You think American cops are more polite than English ones? You're nuts. Or the cops in your area are totally not representative. I've dealt with police officers in six states and only one of them wasn't a dick- and he was my roommate.

[villa]

Would love to see a cite on this. AFAIK, they're just more likely to do it wearing protective gear. I also can't quite get behind the idea that they're more 'polite' to people (gang members? drug dealers?) who are more likely to be armed.

But what a glorious line of reasoning in this last page. Kind of reminds me of some Canadian stand-up I saw who said something like: 'Americans think Canadians are so polite. We're not. But you're armed, and we're not stupid.'

There isn't a cite. There simply can't be for what I am saying, because I can't think of an experiment you could perform to demonstrate it - it's purely talking in the abstract. And your point as to drug dealers etc is well taken. I'm assuming that those groups would be expected to be armed regardless of the legality of private weapons ownership.

My sole argument here is that private gun ownership gives the authorities a reason to be wary of private individuals. And that wariness leads, on the part of the agents of said authorities, to a lesser willingness to violate the rights of those individuals. I don't see it as that outlandish an argument.

And I'm not American either, just a very polite Brit... :p

[jsgoddess]

I don't agree, jsgoddess. Even if part of your premise is right, you are ignoring the effect on the police themselves. They don't want to be shot. It isn't a pleasant experience. The removal of the sole monopoly over force from the government creates government agents who are more likely to be polite.

It isn't "politeness" that keeps the police from kicking in your door. The police don't say, "Well, I'd sure as hell kick in that guy's door, but I'll be polite about it and knock instead." I'm sorry, but that's not sound reasoning.

They kick in doors, generally, because taking people by surprise means those same people have less time to get a gun or other weapon or to escape, etc. It has nothing to do with how polite the police are; it has to do with what the police see as the risks of the encounter.

And if the homeowner starts brandishing a weapon, I guarantee you that the risks of that encounter just went through the fucking ROOF. It's also been demonstrated quite a few times that the police are a bit trigger happy, and for good reason, just knowing that a lot of people are armed. Amadou Diallo is an excellent example.

So, no. I reject the idea that having a gun in any way protects me from the police. I don't have the right to shoot the police or brandish my weapon at the police even if I have the right to have the gun.

[jsgoddess]

My sole argument here is that private gun ownership gives the authorities a reason to be wary of private individuals.

Yes, but that wariness is more likely to escalate the situation rather than calm it down.

[villa]

You think American cops are more polite than English ones? You're nuts. Or the cops in your area are totally not representative. I've dealt with police officers in six states and only one of them wasn't a dick- and he was my roommate.

I've dealt with police in five states, and not had any major problems. I have had major problems with British cops. I also much prefer the legal protections I receive under US law to those available under British law. Not that I am saying the UK is a police state, of course - far from it.

[Tuckerfan]

Use China as an example. What if the Chinese citizenry were armed? I think China would be a different place today.

FWIW, I took Chinese history in college, my preofessor had spent 5+ years working in China for the State Department, he had plenty of photos of your average Chinese redneck riding around on a motorcycle with a rifle strapped to his back. So, apparently, guns aren't completely restricted in China, and they've got an authoritarian government.

[Terrifel]

Are you are deliberately not understanding, Terrifel or I am explaining very badly. I'll go with the latter.Well, I promise that I am not deliberately misunderstanding you. Though I do confess to posting under the influence of multiple migraine medications, which does nothing to ameliorate my natural stupidity (stare at the computer screen for minutes at at a time! That should help!) And I appreciate the attempt at explanation.

Your initial remark, that an armed population means less likelihood of police abuse, did not seem like an inarguably unambiguous relationship to me (though I can buy into it a lot more easily than the notion that guns are still protecting us from incursions by the Spanish Empire). Of course if you've been the victim of police abuse in the UK and not in the US, I can understand why you might see it that way.

A question, related to your mention of permanent scarring at police hands: do you reckon that your particular experience with UK police would have gone better if they thought you were armed? Or if the same events had played out with US police instead?

I guess that's two questions.

[Spiny Norman]

I don't agree, jsgoddess. Even if part of your premise is right, you are ignoring the effect on the police themselves. They don't want to be shot. It isn't a pleasant experience. The removal of the sole monopoly over force from the government creates government agents who are more likely to be polite.

That looks fine in theory. In practice, however, the high incidence of armed citizens has escalated the police tactics, to make sure the officers stay on top of the situation. The pseudo-military entry methods used in no-knock warrants (which aren't anything resembling polite) are a direct consequence of the high number of firearms in circulation and the subsequent high risk of encountering armed people. More, not fewer doors are kicked in.

Even a simple traffic stop is now has elements of a high-tension stand-off because the officer is forced to think in terms of sudden use of firearms. In Denmark, if I'm pulled over, I can safely reach for my wallet or get out of my car. Same in Germany. Not so in the US. I'd better stay in my car with my hands on the wheel.

"An armed society is a polite society" is simply not true.

[villa]

A question, related to your mention of permanent scarring at police hands: do you reckon that your particular experience with UK police would have gone better if they thought you were armed? Or if the same events had played out with US police instead?

I guess that's two questions.

The scarring isn't 100% at police hands. It was the result of climbing over a falling spiked fence so as to protect Mr Brain from an introduction to Mr Riot Baton.

In that situation, being armed would have not been a benefit. My experience of police in the US in crowd control situations has been significantly better than that in the US. But in the interest of full disclosure, my behavior in the US has been generally rather different to that in the UK. Not that I was a criminal there by any means. But I did attend a lot of demonstrations, and many a Saturday I would come in contact with large numbers of police (and if you ask most football fans in the UK, they tended at that time not to be over enamored with policing methods)

I'm knocking on 40 now. My formative years were spent with the politicization of the UK police forces under the witch Thatcher. I just have never got that impression from US police.

This whole huge tangent comes from a simple point I was trying to make - it isn't sufficient to say that guns don't protect against tyranny because individuals can't fight back against a full scale, military backed, facist takeover. That would be tyranny for sure, but tyranny is a sliding scale. I recognize there are counter arguments to what I am saying, but I think the argument that guns protect against against police/government infringements of civil liberties is a hell of a lot stronger than the argument that private ownership of guns is the sole bulwark against Bush cancelling the election and rolling the tanks down Main Street.

Sorry about the migraine. Think, if you had a .45, you could permanently prevent them! (Side effects may include bleeding and death)

[Terrifel]

Sorry about the migraine. Think, if you had a .45, you could permanently prevent them! (Side effects may include bleeding and death)Ugh, don't tempt me. Why is there never a children's Uzi demonstration around when you really need one?

[jsgoddess]

That looks fine in theory. In practice, however, the high incidence of armed citizens has escalated the police tactics, to make sure the officers stay on top of the situation. The pseudo-military entry methods used in no-knock warrants (which aren't anything resembling polite) are a direct consequence of the high number of firearms in circulation and the subsequent high risk of encountering armed people. More, not fewer doors are kicked in.

Even a simple traffic stop is now has elements of a high-tension stand-off because the officer is forced to think in terms of sudden use of firearms. In Denmark, if I'm pulled over, I can safely reach for my wallet or get out of my car. Same in Germany. Not so in the US. I'd better stay in my car with my hands on the wheel.

"An armed society is a polite society" is simply not true.

This is my perception as well.

As individuals, we can choose our interactions a lot more than the police can. If I see someone with a gun, I can avoid that person, or I can be more polite if I think the person might shoot me, or I can avoid breaking into his house if I think he might shoot me. All of these might be ways in which guns make an individual safer or happier.

But the individual cop doesn't have the same set of choices. We don't want the individual making the decision just to avoid people with guns, for example. Instead, the police has to confront a certain number of people who may or may not be armed, and they have to try to make those confrontations as safe as possible for themselves.

Both groups, then, can try to maximize their safety, but one group is still compelled to deal with the armed citizen.

Generally speaking, I'd guess that even in citizen-to-citizen contact the presence of guns would tend to escalate violence rather than dampen it, but that's just a guess based on the dickishness and idiocy of people in general.

[buttonjockey308]

FWIW, I took Chinese history in college, my preofessor had spent 5+ years working in China for the State Department, he had plenty of photos of your average Chinese redneck riding around on a motorcycle with a rifle strapped to his back. So, apparently, guns aren't completely restricted in China, and they've got an authoritarian government.

Consider my ignorance fought about guns in China. The idea of a Chinese Redneck amuses me to no end.

[buttonjockey308]

That the kid gets kicked out of the strip club because the law says he has to be 18, and that there's apparently no similar law for gun shows, which is silly.


Ah. Well, I suppose that would be jurisdictional, but I've seen kids in bars way more often than I'm comfortable with, so maybe the law isn't so strict in that regard. I agree generally with the 18 at a gun show idea though.

[Bobotheoptimist]

Maybe we're reading Heinlein's quote wrong. Everyone I know that legally carries a gun on a regular basis is unfailingly polite in person (I admit to being a dick online, but it's rare that I'm impolite face-to-face). No one wants to shoot anyone, no one wants to be responsible for escalating a simple incident, no one starts blasting away at someone that cut them off in traffic. In my experience, that is.

Maybe there are a few people out there that really think carrying (legally) makes them tough and they go around looking for trouble, but most of us don't. Police ramp up their tactics to deal with lawbreakers. Without a magic wand to make all guns go away all at once all around the world, lawbreakers will have guns. Passing laws to ban things that aren't used by criminals isn't going to help, contrary to popular belief.

[Really Not All That Bright]

:DIn that situation, being armed would have not been a benefit. My experience of police in the US in crowd control situations has been significantly better than that in the US. But in the interest of full disclosure, my behavior in the US has been generally rather different to that in the UK. Not that I was a criminal there by any means. But I did attend a lot of demonstrations, and many a Saturday I would come in contact with large numbers of police (and if you ask most football fans in the UK, they tended at that time not to be over enamored with policing methods)

I'm knocking on 40 now. My formative years were spent with the politicization of the UK police forces under the witch Thatcher. I just have never got that impression from US police.
I would have thought that being at demonstrations might color your impression of British police just a tad. I, on the other hand, have never dealt with the police over anything more tense than a traffic stop, but I'm scared of American cops in a way that I simply don't have to worry about with British ones.
Ah. Well, I suppose that would be jurisdictional, but I've seen kids in bars way more often than I'm comfortable with, so maybe the law isn't so strict in that regard. I agree generally with the 18 at a gun show idea though.
You've seen kids in titty bars? Were they happy?

[Baker]

Here in Topeka we just had a three year old kid die of a gunshot wound, under circumstances that aren’t entirely clear. Whatever was really going on a toddler is dead.

http://www.cjonline.com/stories/102808/loc_349084026.shtml

[Hentor the Barbarian]

villa, if the armed populace is intended to be an impediment to the expansion of the police state, I'd say it has been shown to have failed miserably over the past 8 years.

We've had a dramatic expasion of the invasive powers of the government that the armed populace has not done a thing to stop. In fact, I'd venture to say that the more armed portion of the populace has in fact tended to support it. Certainly the NRA has supported those politicians most responsible for it.

The expanding police state will not involve kicking down your door until it is much, much too late to stop it. Does the armed populace only care about abusive governmental powers when it involves physical harm to front doors?

[T_SQUARE]

Could there be some kind of design flaw in Uzis? (Regular, Mini, or Micro) I've shot a full auto full size Uzi before, and I thought you had to keep the back of the grip depressed to fire the thing. If the gun rotated upwards to the point of being aimed at your head, I would think the pressure on the safety switch would stop the fire. I recall a case a couple of years back where a gun store employee was killed putting a full auto Uzi in a safe, which would be pretty hard to do with the extra grip safety, unless it was a suicide sanitized out of respect for the guy's family.

Are the full-auto Uzi's in the US original Israeli Military Industry equipment, or are the home builds? Might there be something in the design that causes the extra safety to fail, and the gun fire until it's dry?

Of course, I’m not saying that children should have machineguns only if they are of good design and build, just pondering the circumstances.

[Malacandra]

I'm knocking on 40 now. My formative years were spent with the politicization of the UK police forces under the witch Thatcher.

Knocking on 40 now? Then you were not long into your twenties when Thatcher ceased to be PM (1991). Pardon me if I don't weight your maturity or judgment then too highly.

[Petrobey Mavromihalis]

So people WANT to be under a tyrannical regime? Hm. I suppose that's possible, though I'm not one of those peopleIt's not only possible, it's the most likely way for it to happen. Most dictators (I presume you mean tyranny in its modern sense) come to power either through popular acclaim or by fully democratic means (Hitler, Mussolini, Mugabe etc etc). When power is seized it is often with the people's consent or approval (Amin's coup was greeted by cheering crowds in Kampala). And even at the height of their oppressive regimes they can remain popular (Mugabe is still revered by a good third of the population).

To get back to the point; do you really think the US has escaped dictatorship due to an armed citizenry? That's bizarre.



Then you were not long into your twenties when Thatcher ceased to be PM (1991). Pardon me if I don't weight your maturity or judgment then too highly.And I was only a young whipper-snapper when Pericles began using the cult of personality to sway the demos. Doesn't mean I can't make a judgement call about it.

[villa]

Knocking on 40 now? Then you were not long into your twenties when Thatcher ceased to be PM (1991). Pardon me if I don't weight your maturity or judgment then too highly.

Consider yourself pardoned. Consider this a hearty go fuck yourself as well.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

I'll open my question up to a broader audience, if villa isn't around to answer: Where were these heavily armed patriots when we needed to fight against the expansion of intrusive governmental powers over the past 8 years? Did you oppose FISA? Why didn't the NRA exert its influence to stop the Bush adminstration from increasing the power of the police state?

Isn't preventing the police from tapping your phones as cool as having a big, guns blazin', full auto rock and roll shootout with them when they knock your door in?

[villa]

villa, if the armed populace is intended to be an impediment to the expansion of the police state, I'd say it has been shown to have failed miserably over the past 8 years.

We've had a dramatic expasion of the invasive powers of the government that the armed populace has not done a thing to stop. In fact, I'd venture to say that the more armed portion of the populace has in fact tended to support it. Certainly the NRA has supported those politicians most responsible for it.

The expanding police state will not involve kicking down your door until it is much, much too late to stop it. Does the armed populace only care about abusive governmental powers when it involves physical harm to front doors?

Unfortunately, there's much truth to this. I wish it weren't so, but it is. The very nature of the dynamic I'm talking about is going to mean it is really only going to have effect when it comes to more direct infringement of rights.

Gun ownership isn't the be all and end all of protection of rights. It's not an excuse to ignore other necessary steps. Unfortunately too many people think it is, and way too many people think the government restricting the rights of others is not important so long as they aren't personally impacted.

[buttonjockey308]

You've seen kids in titty bars? Were they happy?

Yes and no. I wasn't happy or comfortable either. Not about that though.

[Jack Batty]

I've been a kid in a titty bar.

And I never got my head blown off once ... well, not literally.

[buttonjockey308]

It's not only possible, it's the most likely way for it to happen. Most dictators (I presume you mean tyranny in its modern sense) come to power either through popular acclaim or by fully democratic means (Hitler, Mussolini, Mugabe etc etc). When power is seized it is often with the people's consent or approval (Amin's coup was greeted by cheering crowds in Kampala). And even at the height of their oppressive regimes they can remain popular (Mugabe is still revered by a good third of the population).

To get back to the point; do you really think the US has escaped dictatorship due to an armed citizenry? That's bizarre.



Well, I think that people want something to be true so badly that they believe leaders without question until it's too late. The facts are that in Pre-Nazi Germany guns were severely restricted by the government, so much so that Clayton Cramer (http://http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1791/did-hitler-ban-gun-ownership) as quoted by the SD said in part that:
(though)gun control laws helped the Nazis suppress political dissidents and round up German Jews for extermination, "they weren't the major part of the process." Later, when they invaded Eastern Europe, Cramer says the Nazis did indeed benefit from the inability of their victims to fight back

It is this history that we must use and learn from and never allow to repeat. I am not advocating everyone be given full auto assault rifles, nor am I advocating gun ownership for everyone because as we see from this incident it's not something everyone should be into. Still, even if, as Cramer points out, the gun laws were not a major part of the process, I would rather have the option to go down with the ability to fight as opposed to simply rolling over because I cannot.

I think the US has escaped dictatorship not only because of an armed citizenry, but I think that it is one factor in many that has prevented the kind of things that Germany, Italy and Africa have experienced.

[Revenant Threshold]

I would say one of the bigger problems of the "gun ownership for dictatorial defense" is that potential for following a dictator, though. Just as an armed populace could rise up against a tyrannical regime they don't want, it could just as easily be on the side of it, providing a helpful ready militia at the worst point or simply armed people on side at the best.

As pointed out earlier, guns themselves are neutral. Come the revolution, there's no guarantee that they'll be pointed at the bad guys.

[buttonjockey308]

I would say one of the bigger problems of the "gun ownership for dictatorial defense" is that potential for following a dictator, though. Just as an armed populace could rise up against a tyrannical regime they don't want, it could just as easily be on the side of it, providing a helpful ready militia at the worst point or simply armed people on side at the best.

As pointed out earlier, guns themselves are neutral. Come the revolution, there's no guarantee that they'll be pointed at the bad guys.

Truth. However the playing field has a closer chance of being even if there is armed opposition to the uprising.

I wonder how far afield from the OP this thread is going to get?

[villa]

I'll open my question up to a broader audience, if villa isn't around to answer: Where were these heavily armed patriots when we needed to fight against the expansion of intrusive governmental powers over the past 8 years? Did you oppose FISA? Why didn't the NRA exert its influence to stop the Bush adminstration from increasing the power of the police state?

Isn't preventing the police from tapping your phones as cool as having a big, guns blazin', full auto rock and roll shootout with them when they knock your door in?

As a more direct answer, I am not heavily-armed (though I am heavy & I have arms), but I did oppose FISA. AS for the NRA - well, I'm not their biggest fan, nor am I a member. I would imagine the views of the membership were split pretty much like the rest of the country as to the rectitude of FISA, with maybe a slight tilt towards support for Bush, though I would guess less than people might think because of the general mistrust for government action that is prevalaent among a certain portion of the NRA membership.

Private gun ownership can't prevent phone tapping - well not directly. If it has any impact, it is to the extent of shifting the view held by government of the population as being a passive group that can be railroaded generally. That said, I think that effect is negligible in the present environment.

[Revenant Threshold]

Truth. However the playing field has a closer chance of being even if there is armed opposition to the uprising. Not really, because those gun owners on the side of the tyranny themselves make up numbers for them. If half of the gun owners in the country take up arms in an uprising against it, it's just as likely that the other half will take up arms for it, cancelling each other out as far as the playing field goes. I wonder how far afield from the OP this thread is going to get? What with all this talk of fields, I think it's time we addressed farming concerns. The issues facing the average American farmer today.... ;)

[ExTank]

villa, if the armed populace is intended to be an impediment to the expansion of the police state, I'd say it has been shown to have failed miserably over the past 8 years.

We've had a dramatic expasion of the invasive powers of the government that the armed populace has not done a thing to stop. In fact, I'd venture to say that the more armed portion of the populace has in fact tended to support it. Certainly the NRA has supported those politicians most responsible for it.

The expanding police state will not involve kicking down your door until it is much, much too late to stop it. Does the armed populace only care about abusive governmental powers when it involves physical harm to front doors?

Because the "system" ain't broke yet; breaking out the guns and killing politicians, while somewhat attractive on a purely visceral level, is a solution that will create many more problems than it solves.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Because the "system" ain't broke yet; breaking out the guns and killing politicians, while somewhat attractive on a purely visceral level, is a solution that will create many more problems than it solves.Good point - you may want to full auto rock and roll on some politician you disagree with, but you probably shouldn't. Not the least reason being Revenant Threshhold's cogent observation that the ones with the guns may also be the ones lining others up against the wall when the revolution comes. And really, when one loves ones tools, one really looks forward to using them, no?

However, the real point of my question was more about why it was that, if the armed portion of the populace was so armed because they are in part a defense against the police state, why haves they been so strongly aligned with those making us into more of a police state? This question is independent of whether or why they may not yet have started killing politicians they disagree with.

[devilsknew]

I'm still trying to figure out the mechanics of this - how can recoil flip a gun, even a short-barrel like an Uzi, far enough around to have it pointed at your head while you're still holding the trigger down? Especially with short 8-year old arms?

Ok, I've seen reports of an UZI, Mini-UZI, and Micro-UZI being the weapon in question here. After seeing some more recent and reliable local reports I believe the weapon was in fact a Micro-UZI. Which is an important distinction. This is the smallest of the UZI line and is very much a Machine Pistol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_pistol). It has a very short barrel length and compact frame in similar dimension to a handgun, and it is exactly this reason, combined with their extremely high rate of fire, that makes them prone to muzzle rise and eminently uncontrollable in the wrong hands.

Here is a Micro-UZI in action (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zM21B3LFDFI) along with specs in trained hands. (It's a Japanese video and has a very strange ennui, with the classical music and the paced narrative. Very Typically Japanese :dubious:)

Here is another video of the micro-uzi that displays the muzzle rise (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0k6y8VOjOhc&feature=related)a little bit better.

I can only imagine that the barrel rose up and flipped back at a negative angle breaking 90 degrees and in line with the kids crown or forehead.

[devilsknew]

Addendum:

Like I said earlier, the father and other gun experts might have been under a false impression that the small size of this gun was the perfect size for a small child, when in fact the opposite would probably be true. If it had been a larger framed SMG like the full size UZI crbine this tragedy probably wouldn't have happened. I even saw where the boy's father said they passed over "larger" guns with more recoil for this smaller "recoiless" gun, which was exactly the wrong instinct. It does have recoil and an extremely high rate of fire wich translates into flip back.

[devilsknew]

Short barrel, recoil, and high rate of fire = more muzzle rise and decompensation. Short barrel=short arc to upright and beyond 90 degrees, combined with the physiology of a small boy.

"...To the back and to the left. Back and to the left. "

[Jack Batty]

Some shit is shaking loose over this. (http://www.thebostonchannel.com/cnn-news/17830100/detail.html)

[ExTank]

I'd hardly describe it as "shit shaking loose." When indictments start coming in, maybe; then again, there's an old saw about indictments and ham sandwiches, too.

But the cops have to be seen to be "doing something" to protect all the sweet innocent children from being mowed down by the evil guns.

Can't speak for Mass., but I don't think any Federal laws were violated here; technically, he wasn't given the firearm to possess (as in, "Here, kid, take this home and hold it for me until I pick it up on Tuesday;" or, "Would you mind putting it in the trunk of your car for the drive home?").

And there's no federal law wrt to full auto firearms that would prohibit even a convicted felon from handling/firing an UZI legally owned by another party on a supervised range, as in the situation like this gun club open house.

State and local may be another can of beans entirely.

[muldoonthief]

Some shit is shaking loose over this. (http://www.thebostonchannel.com/cnn-news/17830100/detail.html)

There's a frightening quote from the DA in that article:

"At this point, I have found no lawful authority which allows an 8-year-old to possess or fire a machine gun," Bennett (the DA) said in a statement.

Last I checked, the USA was still a country where that which is not expressly illegal is permitted, not where that which is not expressly legal is forbidden.

[catsix]

muldoonthief said:
There's a frightening quote from the DA in that article:


You're right. That kind of ignorance on the part of a District Attorney is sickening.

Someone should send Bennett back to school to learn that in the USA we do not operate on an 'everything is forbidden unless expressly permitted' basis.

There is no lawful authority that says I may wash my clothes, either.

Perhaps someone should ask Bennett where in the manual the directions to the mess hall appear.

[Muffin]

I don't think any Federal laws were violated here; technically, he wasn't given the firearm to possess (as in, "Here, kid, take this home and hold it for me until I pick it up on Tuesday;" or, "Would you mind putting it in the trunk of your car for the drive home?").

Perhaps an American lawyer could explain what constitutes “possession” with respect to Chapter 44 of the US Code (that’s the Chapter that prohibits possession of a firearm by a juvenile except under certain conditions – such for target shooting with written consent from a parent).

If “possession” is as simple as having knowledge and having control, then yes, the kid had possession. If possession is something more than having knowledge and control for a brief period of time while under close supervision by the owner, then the kid did not have possession.

If the child did have possession, was there written consent (one assumes that there would at least have been some sort of waiver signed, but then again, one assumes that no one in their right mind would let an eight year old fire an automatic weapon), and even if there was not written consent, would the law be flexible enough to take into consideration that there obviously was consent by the father by virtue of his actions.

There's a frightening quote from the DA in that article:

"At this point, I have found no lawful authority which allows an 8-year-old to possess or fire a machine gun," Bennett (the DA) said in a statement.

Last I checked, the USA was still a country where that which is not expressly illegal is permitted, not where that which is not expressly legal is forbidden.True, but there is a law that expressly forbids juveniles from possessing firearms. What needs to be determined is whether or not an exception to the prohibition was properly met.

You're right. That kind of ignorance on the part of a District Attorney is sickening.

Someone should send Bennett back to school to learn that in the USA we do not operate on an 'everything is forbidden unless expressly permitted' basis.
Except that US Code Chapter 44 prohibits kids from possessing firearms, unless certain conditions are met.

I think that both you and the DA have jumped to conclusions. I don't think the DA clearly set out what the law says, nor do I think that you have clearly set out what the law says, for while in general one is free to do something unless there is a specific prohibition, there is a specific prohibition when it comes to kids and guns. What neither the DA nor you have addressed is whether or not the brief use of the gun while under supervision constituted possession, and whether strongly implied consent could stand in lieu of written consent (and for all we know, written consent may have been given, and if so, then the exception to the juvenile possession prohibition would have been satisfied).

[Malacandra]

Consider yourself pardoned. Consider this a hearty go fuck yourself as well.

I bow before the awesome rhetorical skills of the Master of Quick Wit & Repartee.

[Muffin]

In any event, chasing about on issues of possession and consent seems to me to be way off target, when really the question should be one of negligence. Was the father, the gun owner, or the gun show criminally negligent in letting an eight year old fire an automatic weapon?

[Really Not All That Bright]

In any event, chasing about on issues of possession and consent seems to me to be way off target, when really the question should be one of negligence. Was the father, the gun owner, or the gun show criminally negligent in letting an eight year old fire an automatic weapon?
Apparently not. So far, it appears that everything that happened was legal according to Mass law.

[Muffin]

That's the thing about negligence -- you can do something perfectly legal in a hugely negligent manner, and thereby get nailed for criminal negligence. If letting an eight year old fire an automatic weapon is on its face criminally negligent, then the father may be in trouble. If letting an eight year old fire an automatic weapon is on its face not criminally negligent, then the father may not be in trouble (although the mother might shoot him).

[Cheesesteak]

Here's an example from NYS defining criminally negligent homicide Under our law, a person is guilty of Criminally Negligent
Homicide when, with criminal negligence, that person causes the
death of another person. A person acts with CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE with respect to
a death when

that person engages in conduct which creates or contributes
to a substantial and unjustifiable risk that another person's
death will occur,

and when he or she fails to perceive that risk,

and when that risk is of such nature and degree that failure
to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard
of care that a reasonable person would observe in the
situation.

Linky Poo (warning, PDF) (http://www.nycourts.gov/cji/2-PenalLaw/125/125-10.pdf)

[Isamu]

There will never be a point in time when we do not have idiot adults. To think otherwise is pure fantasy. So, Illuminatiprimus is correct. People like this 8 year old boy are the ones paying for our collective right to own, bear and full auto rock and roll with firearms. Just like the 9 year old boy who shot his twin brother with the household handgun last week in the township next to mine. They paid the bill for your right, so make it worthwhile, I suppose.

Crying out post hoc that these are simply accidents due to careless or stupid adults is ignoring the obvious fact that we can predict with absolute certainty that there will be careless and stupid adults tomorrow as well.

I agree, it's the price you have to pay if you want to have relatively lax firearm ownership laws.

You have to be willing to accept that kids will find a way to get at them, use them poorly, be poorly supervised, and that crazy adults will also be able to use them. It's the tradeoff.

Spoken by someone who enjoys shooting and used to have a license but let it lapse after he left Australia.

[Kevbo]

...What I can't figure out is how he wound up with the muzzle pointed at his head and his hand still on the grip and holding the trigger....

When the thing you are hanging onto is trying to rip itself from your grasp, there is a strong tendancy to hold on tighter, which keeps you pulling the trigger. People get hurt with 1/2" drill motors all the time due to this. If he completely lost his grip, then the gun could rock back over his thumb with his finger caught in the trigger guard.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

ExTank, I just noticed that you called me out in a separate GD thread for spewing spittle in your face in this pit thread. Seems to me I've been fairly calm, whereas you've suggested taking pleasure in killing politicians. I don't see that you've been able to answer as to how it is that gun owners have been vigilant defenders against the expanding police state. Nor have you offered any sort of contrary position to my arguments regarding risk exposure.

But since you want spittle, I think that to run from responding in this thread to call me out in a GD thread is something only a little cunt would do.

[ExTank]

ExTank, I just noticed that you called me out in a separate GD thread for spewing spittle in your face in this pit thread.

My apologies. I confused you w/ Jack Batty. :confused: How the hell I did that is stupefying.

Seems to me I've been fairly calm, whereas you've suggested taking pleasure in killing politicians.

Yes, you have, and unlike every single other member of the SDMB, I've been known to engage in hyperbole now and again. Shoot me.

I don't see that you've been able to answer as to how it is that gun owners have been vigilant defenders against the expanding police state. Nor have you offered any sort of contrary position to my arguments regarding risk exposure.

Step into GD, and let the games commence.

But since you want spittle, I think that to run from responding in this thread to call me out in a GD thread is something only a little cunt would do.

See above.

True story:

Two bulls, a young bull and an old bull, are standing on a little hill overlooking a herd of cows.

The young bull, all excited, turns to the old bull, and says, "Let's go down there and fuck us a cow!"

The old bull looks up from the grass he was calmly grazing on, and says ,"No."

He says, "Let's walk down there, and fuck 'em all."

I don't have to run from anyone here at the SDMB over this issue; least of all you.

I wanted a debate, not to be ranted at, whether by you, or anyone.

See ya in GD.

[catsix]

Muffin said:
I don't think the DA clearly set out what the law says, nor do I think that you have clearly set out what the law says, for while in general one is free to do something unless there is a specific prohibition, there is a specific prohibition when it comes to kids and guns.

My disgust at the DA's statement does not have to do with kids and guns, merely with the DA's seeming belief that one must point to a law which permits one to do something or that DA will assume that the "something" is illegal.

The DA is wrong, and frighteningly so, if he thinks that the basis of law in this country is that an act is illegal unless specifically permitted.

[ouryL]

Weeeeeeeeeeeeelllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll

The facts as finally out.

Gun club, police chief indicted in boy's Uzi death (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hl-VtQImXVuBfNXTpNMvOgFOxj2wD94S4EKO0)

[E-Sabbath]

And that's a damn fine outcome of a horribly negligent tragedy.
I didn't know giving a minor an automatic weapon was a crime, but I fully support that.
Lying about a certified instructor in a case of life or death?

... once again, disarm the damn cops, they're more dangerous than the crooks are.

[Eats_Crayons]

Dear, Og! The 8-year-old was "supervised" by an uncertified 15-year-old boy?

And the police chief is the one who said it was perfectly legal for children to use an Uzi?

There's too much wrong with that situation. I think my head may explode.

[GawnFishin']

I especially liked this part of the story...

He said neither the club nor any member gave the Uzi to Christopher or any children, and weren't in the immediate area when the accident happened.

But it was their fair and they were supposed to be running the whole show weren't they? So who was responsible for the weapons? Anyone? Or was it setup in such a way that anyone who wanted to "FULL AUTO ROCK & ROLL," could just walk up and grab a gun and start firing?

[Bryan Ekers]

True story:Two bulls, a young bull and an old bull, are standing on a little hill overlooking a herd of cows.

The young bull, all excited, turns to the old bull, and says, "Let's go down there and fuck us a cow!"

The old bull looks up from the grass he was calmly grazing on, and says ,"No."

He says, "Let's walk down there, and fuck 'em all."

I dunno about true, but it's a better story if the young bull says "Let's run down there and fuck us a cow!"



...'cause, y'know, it's a parable about patience...

[Muffin]

Bryan, Bryan, Brayn, ya knows we loves ya . . .

[gonzomax]

When I was that age I got a BB gun. Kids have a lot more fun nowadays.