9 year old accidently shoots her instructor with an Uzi!

[scherzkeks]

Prawnboy said:

The language used by these people says everything, 'bad guy' 'good-guy', 'outlaw' movie talk.
The biggest problem with the whole issue is the pro-gun crowd don't seem to want to give an inch & infact make gun tragedies an excuse to further the pro-gun agenda.


i fear many more generations will pass before anything changes.

To think something will change in a generation or two is overly optimistic at best. The language is indicative of the mental state, a generalized and vicious hatred/fear of other human beings, and a diminished to non-existent capacity for critical thinking (and this is on both sides of the issue; the problem is cultural). Try and discuss this issue (or any controversial issue) with an average American man-child, and give some push-back; observe then how long it takes until they simply begin insulting you.

[hairykrishna]

vescaegg said:

croyde said:

Most British people probably have no idea what a person with a firearms licence here in the UK can buy and own. It originally surprised me.

For example you can own this:

http://www.lannertactical.com/LANTAC-22LR-LA-R15-A...

for about £1500. Fires as quickly as you can keep pressing the trigger and you can have a 30 round magazine. Perfectly legal with a licence which, as long as you are not a crim or have mental problems to be yet discovered, is easy enough to get.

Yet, thankfully, we don't have cases of young men going into shopping centres or cinemas and shooting dead lots of people. Touch wood.

That is eye opening to me.

I thought basically the only thing we could ever get is a shotgun.

I understand .22's are quite weak however im guessing they could still kill pretty easily?

We have two levels of firearm licensing (ignoring special 'one off' exemptions). A shotgun certificate allows you to purchase and own as many shotguns as you like provided they have a capacity of 3 rounds or less. It's trivial to get - you just need to have a safe place to store them and not be a criminal or have serious mental health problems. It's structured so that the police have to have a good reason to refuse you one rather than you provide a reason to have one.

The other level is a firearms certificate. This has recorded which type of firearm(s) you're allowed to purchase along with how much of each type of ammunition you are allowed to hold. You need to be able to give a good reason for each type and justify the amount of ammunition you want. The only things which are banned outright are obviously big military stuff (like grenade launchers!), fully automatic weapons, semi auto rifles over .22 calibre and all pistols (actually any gun under 60cm). More or less everything else is justifiable for various competition shooting/hunting.

The .22 assault rifle lookalike is a prime example of something relatively innocuous looking scary, it's a .22 plinker/target rifle wrapped in a quasi military shell. It could obviously kill someone but there are all manner of weapons available on a FAC which would be much more deadly if not as obviously 'dangerous looking'.

I think our firarm laws are pretty good. They restrict illegal access to weapons and, crucially, ammunition pretty well while still allowing responsible people to use firearms for their hobby or work.

[anonymous-user]

hairykrishna said:

The other level is a firearms certificate. This has recorded which type of firearm(s) you're allowed to purchase along with how much of each type of ammunition you are allowed to hold. You need to be able to give a good reason for each type and justify the amount of ammunition you want. The only things which are banned outright are obviously big military stuff (like grenade launchers!), fully automatic weapons, semi auto rifles over .22 calibre and all pistols (actually any gun under 60cm). More or less everything else is justifiable for various competition shooting/hunting.

The .22 assault rifle lookalike is a prime example of something relatively innocuous looking scary, it's a .22 plinker/target rifle wrapped in a quasi military shell. It could obviously kill someone but there are all manner of weapons available on a FAC which would be much more deadly if not as obviously 'dangerous looking'.

I think our firarm laws are pretty good. They restrict illegal access to weapons and, crucially, ammunition pretty well while still allowing responsible people to use firearms for their hobby or work.

Out of interest what sort of examples are there for using a .22? Is it mainly target type stuff, pest control? I understand the shotgun licence but have never really got my head around the FAC. What sort of restrictions are there on the amount of ammunition, is it just a case of saying how much you need or is there a process of proving things?

[iphonedyou]

jdw100 said:

use verbal de-escalation techniques

Oh, I don't know. Saw two people crossing at a zebra crossing yesterday evening and, on almost being run over by a moped that didn't bother stopping, remonstrate verbally. The 'biker's' response?

'An wha?'
'An wha?'
'An wha?'
'An wha?'
'An wha?'

It got to the point where I genuinely wanted to explain to him just 'and what' had actually happened. But I couldn't put it more succinctly than the two gentlemen - 'you almost ran us over, why not stop?'

People are stupid.

[hairykrishna]

yonex said:

Out of interest what sort of examples are there for using a .22? Is it mainly target type stuff, pest control? I understand the shotgun licence but have never really got my head around the FAC. What sort of restrictions are there on the amount of ammunition, is it just a case of saying how much you need or is there a process of proving things?

Bit of both. Lots of short range target stuff - basically all the Olympic target disciplines are .22. They also tend to be the gamekeeper/farmer gun of choice for rabbits and foxes. There are quite a few situations where a small rifle, particularly a silenced one, is much more practical than a shotgun. It's also a very cheap caliber to shoot.

The amount of ammunition is just a 'reasonableness' thing with the issuing police force really, no formal proof. There are two figures the amount you're allowed to buy in one go and the total amount you can have in your possession. The possession limit is a bit higher than the purchase limit so you can buy more before you run out completely.

For .22 and other small rifle calibers it tends to be pretty high, of the order of a thousand rounds because that's a typical bulk discount amount and it's cheap ammo. It's also much less of a risk. Higher calibers and common pistol calibers tend to be much lower - a couple of hundred would be common. Basically enough that you could have a few days shooting without having to buy more ammunition but not enough for you to build up a big stockpile. If you wanted a lot more than this you'd need a really strong justification.

Edited by hairykrishna on Thursday 28th August 14:14

[jdw100]

iphonedyou said:

Oh, I don't know. Saw two people crossing at a zebra crossing yesterday evening and, on almost being run over by a moped that didn't bother stopping, remonstrate verbally. The 'biker's' response?

'An wha?'
'An wha?'
'An wha?'
'An wha?'
'An wha?'

It got to the point where I genuinely wanted to explain to him just 'and what' had actually happened. But I couldn't put it more succinctly than the two gentlemen - 'you almost ran us over, why not stop?'

People are stupid.

Funny, but not what I was talking about.

Unless he was doing it deliberately to disrupt their thought patterns - in which case; well done him....but somehow, from your description, I doubt it!

An wha'?

[jdw100]

hairykrishna said:

Bit of both. Lots of short range target stuff - basically all the Olympic target disciplines are .22. They also tend to be the gamekeeper/farmer gun of choice for rabbits and foxes. There are quite a few situations where a small rifle, particularly a silenced one, is much more practical than a shotgun. It's also a very cheap caliber to shoot.

The amount of ammunition is just a 'reasonableness' thing with the issuing police force really, no formal proof. There are two figures the amount you're allowed to buy in one go and the total amount you can have in your possession. The possession limit is a bit higher than the purchase limit so you can buy more before you run out completely.

For .22 and other small rifle calibers it tends to be pretty high, of the order of a thousand rounds because that's a typical bulk discount amount and it's cheap ammo. It's also much less of a risk. Higher calibers and common pistol calibers tend to be much lower - a couple of hundred would be common. Basically enough that you could have a few days shooting without having to buy more ammunition but not enough for you to build up a big stockpile. If you wanted a lot more than this you'd need a really strong justification.

Edited by hairykrishna on Thursday 28th August 14:14

That all sounds quite sensible.

[Jimbeaux]

pcvdriver said:

Jimbeaux said:

pcvdriver said:

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.

It is not an Uzi being discussed by those advocating gun control, it is all guns, to include those you mentioned.

So you'd agree that there is no rational need for public ownership of automatic assault weapons then?...although however, there is a credible need for certain types of firearms - to be used for farming and hunting purposes.

Actually, no, I see no need. TBH, I see no need for a Lambo, a 911, or a Stingray either, however I would still like to have one.

[Jimbeaux]

hairykrishna said:

pcvdriver said:

So you'd agree that there is no rational need for public ownership of automatic assault weapons then?...although however, there is a credible need for certain types of firearms - to be used for farming and hunting purposes.

You need to be a bit precise about these things.

The ownership of automatic weapons is miniscule in the US; you can't legally own a new one and old ones are prohibitively expensive. A outright ban would make bugger all impact on crime.

"Assault weapon" is poorly defined. The previous assault weapon ban effectively banned various weapons based on the cosmetics and was a bit daft. It generally tends to refer to military styled rifles which are functionally identical to various hunting weapons.

Most gun crime is committed with pistols. I think these would be the logical place to start if you wanted to make an impact.

Very true. TBH, pistols could go.

[Jimbeaux]

FredClogs said:

Dr Jekyll said:

Colonial said:

Huge success overall. Yes. Come criminals still have guns. But they also still drive unregistered. And import drugs. They are criminals.

Well that's all right then. At least decent law abiding people are unarmed.

If it was illegal to own a gun and you owned one you wouldn't be law abiding, I'm not saying in that case you'd deserve to be sort but you couldn't say you weren't warned.

I'd still like to know what predicates all this fear that makes Americans feel they need to own so many guns, they don't have a monopoly on crime but seems they just can't stop shooting each other

A reduction in gun deaths would follow a reduction in gun ownership, seems Americans just like being shot :-/

Again, it is a very small demographic that accounts for the vast majority of shootings. The numbers can be misleading when used to make a snapshot of the whole country.

[Jimbeaux]

Taff107 said:

I have to say, hearing of this incident, I'm totally indifferent. As long as people in the US continue with this immature and pathetic obsession with firearms then these sort of things will continue.

Thank you Guv'nor!

[Jimbeaux]

scherzkeks said:

Jimbeaux said:

You must be a poster child for "wealth redistribution" and government subsidy.

I'd love to compare my financial situation with yours, but I'm not in the mood for hustler-speak today. Same time tomorrow?

Did you raelly just say that on a public forum populated mostly bu adults? What an immature twit. I was beginning to think you weren't really so bad, but you cleared that right up

[Jimbeaux]

Jasandjules said:

I've had guns in the house since I was a small child. I've been shooting them since I was six. I have no fear of them.

BUT I would never give an Uzi to a nine year old.

Absolutely not.

[croyde]

So it's happened before! except that time the 8 year old firing the gun was killed in front of his family

http://abcnews.go.com/US/jurors-uzi-trial-brace-gr...

Surely the instructor in this latest tragedy would have known about this previous event.

Dumb! dumb! dumb! So stupid.

[Jimbeaux]

DoubleSix said:

redtwin said:

That is good advice, however I imagine it would be very hard to follow if the thing an intruder wants to take is your daughter's virginity.

Despite my anti-gun position on all this some of the posts from this side of the argument are a little simplistic (naïve?) in their view.

Bad people to do bad things.

I'm thinking of a case near me some years ago now where a petrol station was robbed and customers were instructed to get on the floor face down. Having gotten their gains the robbers walked out but casually put a bullet in the head of a young lad who was lying down as he'd been told to.

Not saying that us having arms in this country would have changed anything but I'm just pointing out the crims tend to be pretty fked up and can't be relied on to be rational.

Edited by DoubleSix on Thursday 28th August 10:00

Some honest balance there; thanks.

[Mr Gearchange]

I do so enjoy it when Jim awakes and has to play catch up on the various threads that seek to diminish his country and the lunatics therein.

You should stay up past the UK's bedtime and get in some pre-emptive strikes Jim - would save you a bunch of time in the morning

[Jimbeaux]

Gandahar said:

redtwin said:

That is good advice, however I imagine it would be very hard to follow if the thing an intruder wants to take is your daughter's virginity.

How often does that happen compared to daughters shooting fathers, relations shooting relations, neighbours shooting neighbours, accidental deaths and suicides by firearms ?

But you are prepared to put up with that just in case a stranger comes into your house to rape or murder you or your family.

It's an emotional argument not a statistical one. You are probably more likely to be shot dead by accident by the US police.

That is an irresponsibly inaccurate statement; but ho hum.

[Jimbeaux]

scorp said:

Dr Jekyll said:

So by the same argument nobody should have self defence training in case they use the option to defend themselves.

Not really the same argument, there is a limit to how much damage your fists and legs can cause.

Unless it's CHuck Norris, but I digress.

[Jimbeaux]

Mr Gearchange said:

The premise of having a gun to defend yourself against someone else with a gun is ridiculous as other people have pointed out.

There are various instances when this is not accurate.

[Jimbeaux]

croyde said:

Isn't there stats that show countries with similar gun ownership numbers as the States that don't have dizzying amounts of gunshot deaths. Are not Canada and Switzerland two of these countries?

Let's be non-PC and get down to facts. Those places do not have some of the inner city concentration of thugs, gangbangers, wannabe rapper-gangsta's that we have. If you take a way that small concentration, our numbers of deaths by shooting would be a comparable percentage.