So the fact that accidents are also rare proves nothing, unless you can furnish some statistics on the relative rareness of the two.
I have no idea what percent of children who use an uzi (under expert supervision) are involved in accidents. It doesn’t sound like you do either.
Assuming the percentage is low just because you’ve never heard of such an accident before ignores the fact that the low total number of kids using an uzi may explain why you’ve never heard of such an accident, no matter how “plugged in” to the gun community you may be.
No, I assume the percentage is nonexistant because every time some poor kid dies from gunshot, I have it shoved in my face 24/7 via the news and know-nothing busybodies here on SDMB.
Let the poor kid die from a gunshot from something exotic (like, say, and UZI?) and it’s mania media headline fodder. It’s kind of pointless to keep statistics for something that happens so seldom (juvenile deaths from fully automatic firearms), it can be counted with just enough fingers to dig one, repeat one, crusty nose nugget out of your nostril.
Unless the kid’s black, of course. Then it’s just another dead minority, and barely a blip on the 6:00 local news.
Or, you could try googling “firearm deaths full-auto firearms” while you’re looking for where you left your head. You might just learn something.
Thanks you, I’ll trust my info sources (internet, google-fu, Bureau of Crime Statistics, C.D.C. - N.I.H.S., 36 years of being in the gun community, etc.,) over your hyperbole.
Oh, and congratulations. You almost had me thinking about maybe trying to go out and attempt to prove a negative.
ExTank, if you think that I’m arguing that there is a high number of accidental deaths from full-auto firearms, you’re wrong. I haven’t said that at all, nor do I believe it.
I’m arguing that the odds of a child using a full-auto firearm (even under supervision) being killed by said firearm may well be unacceptably high. I don’t know for sure that those odds are high, but nothing you’ve said demonstrates that those odds are low. Everything you said in the last post seems to be arguing that the total number of deaths from full-auto firearms is low, which is a separate question altogether.
I’m not asking you to “prove a negative”, I’m disputing your contention that the low total number of deaths from full-auto firearms is evidence that full-auto firearms are safe for kids to use (if properly supervised). It’s not evidence of that at all, since total deaths of children using full-auto firearms will obviously be low if the total number of children using full-auto firearms is low.
I am saying “The fact that the total number of accidents involving full-auto firearms is low is not evidence that the use of full-auto firearms by children poses a low risk of accident.”
Regardless of the actual level of risk involved in having elementary-aged kids shooting full-auto firearms, the number of accidents will inevitably be very low because the number of kids shooting full-auto firearms is low. You yourself said that ownership of full-auto firearms is rare, and I imagine most of those gun owners aren’t letting eight-year-olds shoot their full-auto weapons.
Nah, I don’t think so. Despite this tragic incident, it’s probably an anomaly. Besides, what harm could come to an eight year old child who is allowed to use a machine gun, a weapon designed to kill as many people as possible in the shortest time possible? How does teaching our children how to kill and maim do anything but make them better all around human beings??? :rolleyes:
I’d agree with you with one caveat: I have seen (can’t find cite) proposals that any private citizen who wants to own a gun would have to put up bond against wrongful death liability beforehand. So you could own a gun, but only if you can either (1). Put up a million-dollar bond yourself, or (2). Pay an insurance company God knows how much in monthly premiums to have liability insurance. I have no doubt that if further cases before the SC uphold the legal right to own firearms, there will be weaselly attempts to tax/price gun ownership out of existence.
On the assumption that “Alive” is better than “Dead:” When the End comes, they will be able to crush their enemies, trample their broken bodies, and hear the lamentation of their women.
And that was about as serious an answer as you deserved.
I can say it’s safe, under certain circumstances, without resorting to statistics, studies, bureaus, agencys, departments, etc., based on a reasonable extrapolation that:
Children using full-auto firearms for recreation, under adult supervision, happens (and has happened) some non-zero number of occurances per year for several decades.
Children dying due to gunshot wounds inflicted from mishandling full-auto firearms at a recreational shoot has happened, to the best of my knowledge and ability to research, exactly once in several decades.
I can feel confident that these conclusions broadly represent reality because internet searches yield no contrary information.
I am not attempting to scientifically quantify for statistical analysis an event with a known occurance of 1.
Of course. Should government intervene to try to prevent every unusual death that befalls someone?
Why aren’t you out there campaigning to establish the Federal Bureau Of Preventing Kids from Falling Off Mechanical Horses Near a Pool then Drowning?
If you want to hold someone responsible for the negligence, that’s fine. But government preventative action in response to what’s a one off fluke event?
I certainly don’t want to price gun ownership out of existence. I want to price dangerous gun ownership out of existence.
I get better insurance on my car because I’ve never had an accident, and I keep it in a garage, so there’s less risk that it’ll be stolen. Same here–insurance companies will probably give a discount for gun safe/trigger lock use, for having taken an approved course in gun safety, that kind of thing. If you do accidentally shoot someone, you’ll probably be unable to get this kind of insurance-which is a good thing.
Another way would be to make it a (relatively) minor crime, maybe topping out at negligent manslaughter, when the gun you own/are using (details to be worked out) hurts someone else-we’d presume the person behind the trigger/the instructor/the owner was negligent unless they could prove otherwise. So it wouldn’t be automatic that a gun accident would mean someone is in court, but it would be pretty probable-and again, in my opinion, there are (almost) no gun accidents that aren’t in some way the result of user error. (and, generally, are the result of a failure to follow the four basic rules of safe shooting)
I think the problem isn’t gun ownership. I think the problem is the large number of people who do own guns who, IMHO, don’t know how to do so safely, and who aren’t now paying for the increased risk they cause.
We can’t get the government to prevent every unlikely death. But we can make the instructor who let the eight-year-old ask if he really wants to do this, given the risk, or if he wants to take more precautions. And that is as it should be.
And furthermore (missed the edit window with this)-look at your car insurance. You’ve probably got a relatively high level of coverage–I think my liability insurance limit is 50-100k (the state requires some big sum). That’s not all that expensive–and I can’t imagine gun insurance will be more expensive than auto insurance. (or if it is, that suggests shooting is a lot more dangerous than driving, and it ought to be more expensive)
Well, sure. But there are plenty of people who I wouldn’t be anywhere near while they’re shooting. Car insurance analogy is apt-there are no dangerous cars, just dangerous drivers-but we still have no problem getting drivers to take out insurance, and figuring out who is more at risk of an accident and hence who should pay more for coverage.
Your analogy holds true for firearms carried/used publicly, as in open carry police/security types, and concealed carry police/security/private citizens.
There are other people at the range I go to. It’s my understanding that, on occasion, people hunt in the same woods. I bet that you even live near some other people, and so if you’re shooting in self-defense (whether at a burglar or at a weird noise at the window or at a trick-or-treater), the bullets don’t stop at your property line.
Further, you do realize that if you only use your car on private property, that just means you don’t need to have insurance-it doesn’t mean you don’t have to pay if you hit someone, and it’s your fault. Similarly, if you never use your gun in public, you won’t have any worry about not insuring (or can get really cheap insurance).