9 year old accidently shoots her instructor with an Uzi!
Discussion
Just saw it on the news... what a compete waste of a life. I'm no gun expert, though I have had a go with a Beretta 9mm and an M16 Assault rifle in Vegas but giving a fully auto uzi to a 9 yr old is beyond stupidity. along the lines of ketting her get into a Ferrari with a fully auto box and then wondering how she managed to crash at the first 100 yards after she floored it.
Sadly she'll have to live with this for the rest of her life.
Some sobering numbers put me off moveing there back in the late 90's. The gun crime rate is so high that for example a country with a population 5x the population has 18x the murders, 85% of which are with hand guns, a few extra as shot guns, and a couple of others. not much stabbing.
The reality is in a typical day 30 people are murdered, 50 kill themselves and 45 are shot or accidentally killed.
With odds like that the americans should surely realised that owning a gun doesnt protect you at all, it means you are more likely to be shot by yourself or someone you know using your gun. The 30 killed are usually not random murders, but gangs and feuds. So unless you have a habit of selling crack cocaine, or cystal meth and dont have a running boundary dispute with a cranky neighbour you probably dont need a gun for protection.
Still... if I lived there I'd have a rack full in a locked safe.
Sadly she'll have to live with this for the rest of her life.
Some sobering numbers put me off moveing there back in the late 90's. The gun crime rate is so high that for example a country with a population 5x the population has 18x the murders, 85% of which are with hand guns, a few extra as shot guns, and a couple of others. not much stabbing.
The reality is in a typical day 30 people are murdered, 50 kill themselves and 45 are shot or accidentally killed.
With odds like that the americans should surely realised that owning a gun doesnt protect you at all, it means you are more likely to be shot by yourself or someone you know using your gun. The 30 killed are usually not random murders, but gangs and feuds. So unless you have a habit of selling crack cocaine, or cystal meth and dont have a running boundary dispute with a cranky neighbour you probably dont need a gun for protection.
Still... if I lived there I'd have a rack full in a locked safe.
TransverseTight said:
Just saw it on the news... what a compete waste of a life. I'm no gun expert, though I have had a go with a Beretta 9mm and an M16 Assault rifle in Vegas but giving a fully auto uzi to a 9 yr old is beyond stupidity. along the lines of ketting her get into a Ferrari with a fully auto box and then wondering how she managed to crash at the first 100 yards after she floored it.
Sadly she'll have to live with this for the rest of her life.
Some sobering numbers put me off moveing there back in the late 90's. The gun crime rate is so high that for example a country with a population 5x the population has 18x the murders, 85% of which are with hand guns, a few extra as shot guns, and a couple of others. not much stabbing.
The reality is in a typical day 30 people are murdered, 50 kill themselves and 45 are shot or accidentally killed.
With odds like that the americans should surely realised that owning a gun doesnt protect you at all, it means you are more likely to be shot by yourself or someone you know using your gun. The 30 killed are usually not random murders, but gangs and feuds. So unless you have a habit of selling crack cocaine, or cystal meth and dont have a running boundary dispute with a cranky neighbour you probably dont need a gun for protection.
Still... if I lived there I'd have a rack full in a locked safe.
Those murders take place in particular areas you would not be living in anyway. So, following the accurate example you just laid out, why would be so scared to move there?Sadly she'll have to live with this for the rest of her life.
Some sobering numbers put me off moveing there back in the late 90's. The gun crime rate is so high that for example a country with a population 5x the population has 18x the murders, 85% of which are with hand guns, a few extra as shot guns, and a couple of others. not much stabbing.
The reality is in a typical day 30 people are murdered, 50 kill themselves and 45 are shot or accidentally killed.
With odds like that the americans should surely realised that owning a gun doesnt protect you at all, it means you are more likely to be shot by yourself or someone you know using your gun. The 30 killed are usually not random murders, but gangs and feuds. So unless you have a habit of selling crack cocaine, or cystal meth and dont have a running boundary dispute with a cranky neighbour you probably dont need a gun for protection.
Still... if I lived there I'd have a rack full in a locked safe.
Jimbeaux 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...
What a terrible accident.
I can clearly remember 3 occasions, on the [MOD] range where insecure gun handling could have caused a similar tragedy.
That the instructors demise could be portrayed so blatantly on such as the BBC, for their own twisted aims, shows just how low they can stoop. {cue EricMc to their defense}
I can clearly remember 3 occasions, on the [MOD] range where insecure gun handling could have caused a similar tragedy.
That the instructors demise could be portrayed so blatantly on such as the BBC, for their own twisted aims, shows just how low they can stoop. {cue EricMc to their defense}
Piersman2 said:
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.
Even as a pacifist - and I mean that - I agree with this. I don't think the clock can be turned back. 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:
Maybe just explain as simply as I did above, I'm sure they'll listen to reason, you won't need to remove them, they'll hand them in once they realise that not opening a gun will effectively reduce their chances of being shot to zero.
Reasonable people will listen to reason.I don't know any violent gang members that could be considered reasonable.
FredClogs said:
Jimbeaux 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 see, that you make that suggestion with a straight face shows me that you are not in touch. The law abiding citizens(some) will turn them in; however, the thugs will not, especially seeing as how their ability to impose their will without recourse will be increased 10 fold. Knowing that, many good people will keep theirs as well. I will assume, just in case, that that suggestion was a joke and you are about to offer something realistic.
into country!Piersman2 said:
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.
And I think it's balls 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.
(well no I don't, it's an argument worthy of respect. But I'm going to argue)
All machines break eventually, and what are guns but machines? Especially cheap machines owned by people with little funds and probably poor impulse control. Sometimes machines get given away or recycled, sometimes by relatives smart enough to realised the owner can't be trusted with them (coincidentally if the owner is doing time, it's both easier to conclude that and easier to remove it from their possession).
We've never put someone in prison for owning a car running on leaded petrol, AFAIK. How many do you see? Not that I'm saying this would be politically possible, but a ban on manufacture of handguns specifically and 30 years or so (yes, a few presidential terms - one of the reasons it wouldn't be) could achieve a lot.
redtwin said:
FredClogs said:
Maybe just explain as simply as I did above, I'm sure they'll listen to reason, you won't need to remove them, they'll hand them in once they realise that not opening a gun will effectively reduce their chances of being shot to zero.
Reasonable people will listen to reason.I don't know any violent gang members that could be considered reasonable.
Oh yes, it's gun ownership. Isn't it true you're far more likely to be shot by your own gun than that of another?
Seems to me America I'd addicted to violence.
skyrover said:
It's not a bad idea to teach children to handle weapons safely such as a shotgun, rifle or even pocket knife... the risk is very very low and instils respect and discipline from an early age.
That said... some things are purely from a practical perspective completely inappropriate such as an erratic, hand held automatic weapon.
I don't think I'd be too keen on my nine year old daughter handling a shotgun at that age either, an air pistol, or rifle maybe - but FFS, a shotgun or an Uzi - no effing way....That said... some things are purely from a practical perspective completely inappropriate such as an erratic, hand held automatic weapon.
Gang members don't arm themselves because they are afraid of law abiding gun owners. Disarming legitimate private citizens will be of no consequence to the criminal element.
I have never been in danger of being shot by one of my own guns. I did get a nasty pinch on my finger when the slide closed on a semi-auto handgun while I was cleaning it though.
I have never been in danger of being shot by one of my own guns. I did get a nasty pinch on my finger when the slide closed on a semi-auto handgun while I was cleaning it though.
FredClogs said:
redtwin said:
FredClogs said:
Maybe just explain as simply as I did above, I'm sure they'll listen to reason, you won't need to remove them, they'll hand them in once they realise that not opening a gun will effectively reduce their chances of being shot to zero.
Reasonable people will listen to reason.I don't know any violent gang members that could be considered reasonable.
paranoid airbag said:
Piersman2 said:
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.
And I think it's balls 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.
(well no I don't, it's an argument worthy of respect. But I'm going to argue)
All machines break eventually, and what are guns but machines? Especially cheap machines owned by people with little funds and probably poor impulse control. Sometimes machines get given away or recycled, sometimes by relatives smart enough to realised the owner can't be trusted with them (coincidentally if the owner is doing time, it's both easier to conclude that and easier to remove it from their possession).
We've never put someone in prison for owning a car running on leaded petrol, AFAIK. How many do you see? Not that I'm saying this would be politically possible, but a ban on manufacture of handguns specifically and 30 years or so (yes, a few presidential terms - one of the reasons it wouldn't be) could achieve a lot.
But combine this with a buy back amnesty - and the figures to show it was making an impact (too many American's believe more guns make things safer) then you would start to make headway.
Then a second wave of buy back amnesties for the people who weren't convinced the first time around.
Then a final amnesty.
After which you make possession of ANY gun without a permit a federal offence and you start locking people up for it. You wouldn't stop the hardened criminals but it would make it a hell of a lot harder for them to get guns.
It would take 15-30 years but it could be done. It just needs the political will of successive Administrations and the data to show that it was making an impact into the 30K gun related deaths a year
TheRealFingers99 said:
Jimbeaux said:
It is a good idea IMO to teach a child to handle and respect weapons at about 12 and up. A rifle or target pistol will suffice. A kid handling an Uzi.....somebody was truly stupid.
Perhaps the quality of the teaching alone is responsible for the friendly fire incidents? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xB7iz1HTh9U
Jimbeaux said:
FredClogs said:
Jimbeaux 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 see, that you make that suggestion with a straight face shows me that you are not in touch. The law abiding citizens(some) will turn them in; however, the thugs will not, especially seeing as how their ability to impose their will without recourse will be increased 10 fold. Knowing that, many good people will keep theirs as well. I will assume, just in case, that that suggestion was a joke and you are about to offer something realistic.I hope it is a joke.
Terrible accident, i hope the wee girl is given help to get through what will be a horrible time for her and everyone involved.
FredClogs said:
Maybe just explain as simply as I did above, I'm sure they'll listen to reason, you won't need to remove them, they'll hand them in once they realise that not opening a gun will effectively reduce their chances of being shot to zero.
Jesus christ, your actually being serious aren't you?Agrispeed said:
The argument given also ignored the fact that some people need guns; such as farmers... I would hate to try and control rabbits or deer without a gun...
I hope it is a joke.
That'll be the first time I've heard of a farmer needing an Uzi, or similar for vermin control. I believe they tend to go for bolt action rifles and/or shotguns.I hope it is a joke.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff