9 year old accidently shoots her instructor with an Uzi!
Discussion
FredClogs said:
Dr Jekyll said:
FredClogs said:
I'm pretty sure that if people didn't have guns then people wouldn't get shot.
I think you can over complicate this argument.
Since guns can't be uninvented I don't see your point.I think you can over complicate this argument.
I think that is far more clarification than the point really warranted - I'm oot...
You might as well say there is no need to have locks on my house I just get everyone to agree not to burgle. Good luck with that.
JonRB said:
Since Newsthump is a satirical site, I wonder whether the fact that the picture they used is patently NOT an Uzi is deliberate (ie. part of the satire) or merely ignorant?
http://newsthump.com/2014/08/27/we-must-teach-uzi-...
(I think the pic is of a H&K MP5-K isn't it?)
It is biased ignorance. Similar to the reporter in Ferguson who photographed foam earplugs and claimed he had found rubber bullets used on the rioters. http://newsthump.com/2014/08/27/we-must-teach-uzi-...
(I think the pic is of a H&K MP5-K isn't it?)
Edited by Jimbeaux on Wednesday 27th August 18:50
Mr Gearchange said:
Dr Jekyll said:
Mr Gearchange said:
You strike me as a staunch defender of 2nd Ammendment rights. But if even you believe that America would be a better place without private citizens having guns - then why on earth isn't America doing something about it?
The answer can only be to get rid of guns wholesale.
Are you including crooks gangsters and drug dealers in your definition of 'private citizens'? If not, how is removing guns from law abiding people going to help? If you are including them, how on earth is the US govt supposed to disarm them?The answer can only be to get rid of guns wholesale.
You disarm them by making it illegal then enforcing the law.
It wouldn't be quick - it wouldn't be cheap - and it wouldn't be easy.
But it would help save up to 30,000 lives a year. Lets get that into some kind of context - gun deaths in America are the equivalent casualty rate of 10 9/11's a year. TEN. A YEAR.
Now lets look at the amount of effort, time, money and further lives America dedicated in response to 9/11.
The response to 9/11 and it's 3000 deaths cost America $6 TRILLION plus god knows how many more lives.
Even if you bought back all the weapons, paid off the industry and build hundreds of more prisons to house those who didn't comply with the new law it wouldn't get close of the cost of avenging 3000 deaths in the World Trade Centre attacks - and guns kill TEN TIMES as many people as 9/11 each year.
Its achieveable if America really wanted to do it. But they don't - it seems they would rather suffer the equivalent deaths of ten 9/11's each year so they can continue to play at being Cowboys - to the rest of the worlds utter incredulity.
JonRB said:
Mr Gearchange said:
America has achieved some truly astonishing things in it's short history - outlawing guns wouldn't be that difficult in the grand scheme of things - it just lacks the political will to do it.
It would be political suicide though. Much like it would be political suicide here to impose a flat rate of tax (or a vastly simplified taxation system) or to legalise drugs - both of which also make sense.Frankly I'm amazed that Obama was able to push through some semblance of a Welfare State.
Dr Jekyll said:
FredClogs said:
Dr Jekyll said:
FredClogs said:
I'm pretty sure that if people didn't have guns then people wouldn't get shot.
I think you can over complicate this argument.
Since guns can't be uninvented I don't see your point.I think you can over complicate this argument.
I think that is far more clarification than the point really warranted - I'm oot...
You might as well say there is no need to have locks on my house I just get everyone to agree not to burgle. Good luck with that.
Like I said you are over complicating this with imaginary scenarios - if you're happy to live in an imaginary world why not make it one where everyone has realised that if no one had guns no one would get shot?
yonex said:
I was in SC last week. Talking to a friend about guns he explained that there is still a shortage of some ammo, 'really', yes. It's something that is making me think twice about relocating there to be honest. The whole licencing law is a joke, apparently it is not that hard to bypass the 'cooling off period'. Just go to a gun fair I was told, I hope this was incorrect?
Oh and then the 'concealed carry' permit which is valid for 4 years at a time, 4 f
king years!? I don't know what it will take for the rednecks to stop the stockpile and find something more productive to do than run off rounds into targets and anything else. Pretty much the whole world looks at it and thinks it's a bit backward.
That tired old line 'how many more' to be used again, but in this instance what the parents were thinking is quite beyond me. The thought of my own kids handling an Uzi at this age leaves me cold. The instructor made a massive error in this instance not supporting the firearm. Perhaps he had become complacent himself? Anyway the point is a fully automatic Uzi was designed to kill, not shoot targets so it has no place in the range, let alone the street. As for everything else IMO anything auto/semi-auto should be restricted. Hand guns, should be restricted. Rifles etc should be yearly licensed.
Having lived and worked out there in some big hunting areas I know it will never happen in the short term. Too many people clinging to the divine right to bear arms. Its nonsensical, but it's there. Until a few more generations come through it wont end, the NRA are too obliging and have too many fingers in too many areas to be ousted. Hopefully the mugs in congress will come to their senses, but then you'd think by 2013 people wouldn't be getting their kicks from guns?
America. It's basically a bit fked up.
I believe if we take broad honest looks at the U.K., and most any country to be fair, we could argue they are all "a bit fOh and then the 'concealed carry' permit which is valid for 4 years at a time, 4 f
king years!? I don't know what it will take for the rednecks to stop the stockpile and find something more productive to do than run off rounds into targets and anything else. Pretty much the whole world looks at it and thinks it's a bit backward.That tired old line 'how many more' to be used again, but in this instance what the parents were thinking is quite beyond me. The thought of my own kids handling an Uzi at this age leaves me cold. The instructor made a massive error in this instance not supporting the firearm. Perhaps he had become complacent himself? Anyway the point is a fully automatic Uzi was designed to kill, not shoot targets so it has no place in the range, let alone the street. As for everything else IMO anything auto/semi-auto should be restricted. Hand guns, should be restricted. Rifles etc should be yearly licensed.
Having lived and worked out there in some big hunting areas I know it will never happen in the short term. Too many people clinging to the divine right to bear arms. Its nonsensical, but it's there. Until a few more generations come through it wont end, the NRA are too obliging and have too many fingers in too many areas to be ousted. Hopefully the mugs in congress will come to their senses, but then you'd think by 2013 people wouldn't be getting their kicks from guns?
America. It's basically a bit f
ked up.ked up" in one way or another. 
yonex said:
Mr Gearchange said:
America has achieved some truly astonishing things in it's short history - outlawing guns wouldn't be that difficult in the grand scheme of things - it just lacks the political will to do it.
I think you grossly underestimate the amount of grief that would cause. It will be a massive issue, but agreed 'something' needs to be done. When there was talk of a new law gun stores sold out of ammunition and weapons flew off the shelves. You are not dealing with a sane bunch of people. There is still a shortage of .22, it is difficult to believe but it's true.FredClogs said:
Dr Jekyll said:
FredClogs said:
I'm pretty sure that if people didn't have guns then people wouldn't get shot.
I think you can over complicate this argument.
Since guns can't be uninvented I don't see your point.I think you can over complicate this argument.
I think that is far more clarification than the point really warranted - I'm oot...
In a perfect world what you say is very true, but in a world where everyone has a gun, and you then make all the 'good' law abiding people hand theirs in, who's left with the guns? The non-law abiding baddies.
America has allowed far too many guns to circulate out of control for your simplistic approach to ever be acceptable to the 'good' population who would feel incredibly vulnerable without their own guns, even if the perception of their safety is a false one.
FredClogs said:
I'm pretty sure that if people didn't have guns then people wouldn't get shot.
I think you can over complicate this argument.
Sure he is; when disarming a bomb, always cut the red wire, always. No need to complicate things. I think you can over complicate this argument.
Edited by Jimbeaux on Wednesday 27th August 18:58
JonRB said:
Mr Gearchange said:
I've spent a lot of time working in the US over the years and have met a lot of American's - have some American family and a lot of American freinds. None of them would be against a ban on private citizens owning hand or assualt weapons.
I guess that's due to me being on one coast or another. I guess there are a lot of people in the middle who differ wildly from the people I know
Well, that's the thing though isn't it? America is several orders of magnitude bigger than the UK and look how resistant *we* are to change. Look at how much of a hoo-hah there was over something as innocuous as letting a couple marry regardless of their gender. To me, and to most of the people I know, it was a no-brainer. Yet to many of our countrymen you'd think it was the end of the world as we know it. I guess that's due to me being on one coast or another. I guess there are a lot of people in the middle who differ wildly from the people I know
America is, as you point out, several order of magnitude larger than the UK. Its also a deeply Christian culture and in large parts deeply conservative.
America has Gay Marriage - and you can believe the resistance to it was a hell of a lot more than it was here...
Mr Gearchange said:
Dr Jekyll said:
Mr Gearchange said:
You strike me as a staunch defender of 2nd Ammendment rights. But if even you believe that America would be a better place without private citizens having guns - then why on earth isn't America doing something about it?
The answer can only be to get rid of guns wholesale.
Are you including crooks gangsters and drug dealers in your definition of 'private citizens'? If not, how is removing guns from law abiding people going to help? If you are including them, how on earth is the US govt supposed to disarm them?The answer can only be to get rid of guns wholesale.
You disarm them by making it illegal then enforcing the law.
It wouldn't be quick - it wouldn't be cheap - and it wouldn't be easy.
But it would help save up to 30,000 lives a year. Lets get that into some kind of context - gun deaths in America are the equivalent casualty rate of 10 9/11's a year. TEN. A YEAR.
Now lets look at the amount of effort, time, money and further lives America dedicated in response to 9/11.
The response to 9/11 and it's 3000 deaths cost America $6 TRILLION plus god knows how many more lives.
Even if you bought back all the weapons, paid off the industry and build hundreds of more prisons to house those who didn't comply with the new law it wouldn't get close of the cost of avenging 3000 deaths in the World Trade Centre attacks - and guns kill TEN TIMES as many people as 9/11 each year.
Its achieveable if America really wanted to do it. But they don't - it seems they would rather suffer the equivalent deaths of ten 9/11's each year so they can continue to play at being Cowboys - to the rest of the worlds utter incredulity.
FredClogs said:
Dr Jekyll said:
FredClogs said:
I'm pretty sure that if people didn't have guns then people wouldn't get shot.
I think you can over complicate this argument.
Since guns can't be uninvented I don't see your point.I think you can over complicate this argument.
I think that is far more clarification than the point really warranted - I'm oot...
FredClogs said:
Dr Jekyll said:
FredClogs said:
Dr Jekyll said:
FredClogs said:
I'm pretty sure that if people didn't have guns then people wouldn't get shot.
I think you can over complicate this argument.
Since guns can't be uninvented I don't see your point.I think you can over complicate this argument.
I think that is far more clarification than the point really warranted - I'm oot...
You might as well say there is no need to have locks on my house I just get everyone to agree not to burgle. Good luck with that.
Like I said you are over complicating this with imaginary scenarios - if you're happy to live in an imaginary world why not make it one where everyone has realised that if no one had guns no one would get shot?
Jimbeaux said:
Mr Gearchange said:
Dr Jekyll said:
Mr Gearchange said:
You strike me as a staunch defender of 2nd Ammendment rights. But if even you believe that America would be a better place without private citizens having guns - then why on earth isn't America doing something about it?
The answer can only be to get rid of guns wholesale.
Are you including crooks gangsters and drug dealers in your definition of 'private citizens'? If not, how is removing guns from law abiding people going to help? If you are including them, how on earth is the US govt supposed to disarm them?The answer can only be to get rid of guns wholesale.
You disarm them by making it illegal then enforcing the law.
It wouldn't be quick - it wouldn't be cheap - and it wouldn't be easy.
But it would help save up to 30,000 lives a year. Lets get that into some kind of context - gun deaths in America are the equivalent casualty rate of 10 9/11's a year. TEN. A YEAR.
Now lets look at the amount of effort, time, money and further lives America dedicated in response to 9/11.
The response to 9/11 and it's 3000 deaths cost America $6 TRILLION plus god knows how many more lives.
Even if you bought back all the weapons, paid off the industry and build hundreds of more prisons to house those who didn't comply with the new law it wouldn't get close of the cost of avenging 3000 deaths in the World Trade Centre attacks - and guns kill TEN TIMES as many people as 9/11 each year.
Its achieveable if America really wanted to do it. But they don't - it seems they would rather suffer the equivalent deaths of ten 9/11's each year so they can continue to play at being Cowboys - to the rest of the worlds utter incredulity.
Are there more horrible, nasty assholes in the US than anywhere else? No.
Is it far far easier for these assholes to get hold of guns in the US than anywhere else? Yes.
Every society will have it's crooks and criminals - its just in the US they all have guns.
JonRB said:
Jimbeaux said:
It is biased ignorance. Similar to the reporter in Ferguson who photographed foam earplugs and claimed he had found rubber bullets used on the riotors.
Just to re-state what I said when I posted it; that is a SATIRICAL website. Mr Gearchange said:
Jimbeaux said:
Mr Gearchange said:
Dr Jekyll said:
Mr Gearchange said:
You strike me as a staunch defender of 2nd Ammendment rights. But if even you believe that America would be a better place without private citizens having guns - then why on earth isn't America doing something about it?
The answer can only be to get rid of guns wholesale.
Are you including crooks gangsters and drug dealers in your definition of 'private citizens'? If not, how is removing guns from law abiding people going to help? If you are including them, how on earth is the US govt supposed to disarm them?The answer can only be to get rid of guns wholesale.
You disarm them by making it illegal then enforcing the law.
It wouldn't be quick - it wouldn't be cheap - and it wouldn't be easy.
But it would help save up to 30,000 lives a year. Lets get that into some kind of context - gun deaths in America are the equivalent casualty rate of 10 9/11's a year. TEN. A YEAR.
Now lets look at the amount of effort, time, money and further lives America dedicated in response to 9/11.
The response to 9/11 and it's 3000 deaths cost America $6 TRILLION plus god knows how many more lives.
Even if you bought back all the weapons, paid off the industry and build hundreds of more prisons to house those who didn't comply with the new law it wouldn't get close of the cost of avenging 3000 deaths in the World Trade Centre attacks - and guns kill TEN TIMES as many people as 9/11 each year.
Its achieveable if America really wanted to do it. But they don't - it seems they would rather suffer the equivalent deaths of ten 9/11's each year so they can continue to play at being Cowboys - to the rest of the worlds utter incredulity.
Are there more horrible, nasty assholes in the US than anywhere else? No.
Is it far far easier for these assholes to get hold of guns in the US than anywhere else? Yes.
Every society will have it's crooks and criminals - its just in the US they all have guns.
Mr Gearchange said:
Are that many American's so desprate to possess the hardware to kill a man that outlawing them would be political suicide?
I've spent a lot of time working in the US over the years and have met a lot of American's - have some American family and a lot of American freinds. None of them would be against a ban on private citizens owning hand or assualt weapons.
I guess that's due to me being on one coast or another. I guess there are a lot of people in the middle who differ wildly from the people I know
Polls suggest that it's about 50/50 on public support for stricter gun laws. I suspect the amount that would support a total ban would be much, much smaller.I've spent a lot of time working in the US over the years and have met a lot of American's - have some American family and a lot of American freinds. None of them would be against a ban on private citizens owning hand or assualt weapons.
I guess that's due to me being on one coast or another. I guess there are a lot of people in the middle who differ wildly from the people I know
I think that the difficulties in enforcing such a ban, even if the government wanted to, would be enormous. On the economic side it's a ~30 billion dollar industry with all of the jobs etc that entails. There are numerous practical issues. As far as I'm aware there are no comprehensive records of who owns what for a start.
Of course it's possible but it would require strong political will imposed for a long time. It would be many, many years before illegal weapons and ammunition would not be plentiful and easily available. Maintaining a ban in the face of lots of law abiding citizens still getting shot and the media clamoring about how the government has removed the peoples right to defend themselves is not going to be popular.
jdw100 said:
Soov535 said:
And one you'll never hear from the lefty media.
Yeah, bloody lefty BBC, they tried to cover up this story by publishing it on their globally viewed news website. The commies!http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/olympics/18911651
As for the Guardian - how dare they try to conceal this news by writing this congratulatory article:
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2012/aug/02/peter...
Lefty media conspiracy b
ds!!Edited by jdw100 on Wednesday 27th August 12:51
But then, since shooting and likewise sports are generally not an urban activity which is what the BBC et al are based then it is hardly surprising, in fact, the most rural show the BBC presents, countryfile is probably the source of most sunday night rants from people who live in the countryside.
Back on topic as said, Guns are not always bad, but they are inherently unsafe, just as a knife or suchlike (although possibly to a greater degree) and therefore should be used appropriately, for example in the UK; hunting and target shooting. However, the situation is somewhat different in many areas of the US where it is actually nessary to carry a weapon, not because others are but because it is actually still a very wild country in places and a farmer could actually have to protect himself from wildlife. Strangely the true size and wilderness of parts of America are not shown, instead the urban sprawl is the popular view.
But then again, I doubt anyone who respects guns - and the word respect does sound a bit dodgy - would suggest that it is in anyway sensible for a child to be allowed to fire such a gun, a .22 perhaps, but certainly not something an adult stuggles with - It's akin to handing a child keys to a super-bike, because they can ride a pushbike.
But then Gun culture has never appealed to me, in particular the whole 'women with guns are sexy' one, somewhat bizarre IMHO.
hairykrishna said:
Mr Gearchange said:
Are that many American's so desprate to possess the hardware to kill a man that outlawing them would be political suicide?
I've spent a lot of time working in the US over the years and have met a lot of American's - have some American family and a lot of American freinds. None of them would be against a ban on private citizens owning hand or assualt weapons.
I guess that's due to me being on one coast or another. I guess there are a lot of people in the middle who differ wildly from the people I know
Polls suggest that it's about 50/50 on public support for stricter gun laws. I suspect the amount that would support a total ban would be much, much smaller.I've spent a lot of time working in the US over the years and have met a lot of American's - have some American family and a lot of American freinds. None of them would be against a ban on private citizens owning hand or assualt weapons.
I guess that's due to me being on one coast or another. I guess there are a lot of people in the middle who differ wildly from the people I know
I think that the difficulties in enforcing such a ban, even if the government wanted to, would be enormous. On the economic side it's a ~30 billion dollar industry with all of the jobs etc that entails. There are numerous practical issues. As far as I'm aware there are no comprehensive records of who owns what for a start.
Of course it's possible but it would require strong political will imposed for a long time. It would be many, many years before illegal weapons and ammunition would not be plentiful and easily available. Maintaining a ban in the face of lots of law abiding citizens still getting shot and the media clamoring about how the government has removed the peoples right to defend themselves is not going to be popular.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff