Person accidentally shoots himself with Uzi

[Kirby]

Originally posted by: edro
I think the kid was too young to be firing a fully automatic handheld weapon.

How many times have we seen videos of adults firing weapons, when the firearm flies out of their hands.

This has nothing to do with guns, and everything to do with the parents.

Exactly. I don't how the hell we go so off topic.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Atheus
Even if our gun crime here increased tenfold it would be NOWHERE NEAR your levels. Why do you think this is?

Different cultures.

There are no two cultures so similar as the Brits and the Americans - you essentially are us, and so are the Australians and the Canadians.

Yes, the system of nobility and class structure that is built into the American psyche is very similar to the British... Oh, wait, that's not right...

Yes, the UK and US culture are similar. However, there are significant differences that do not permit valid cross-cultural comparisons.

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
The Swiss have firearms everywhere, but significantly less firearm crime than the US.

All Swiss undergo military training which teaches discipline and gun safety.

That alone doesn't explain the difference in violent uses of firearms. If we were only talking about accidental deaths, then you might have a point, but in terms of illegal use of firearms the point isn't valid.

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
The US homicide crime rate excluding firearms is 3 times higher than Japan's overall homicide rate. Even if all firearm homicides in the US ended, we would still have 3x the homicide rate when compared to Japan.

Instead of what? 100x greater?

Irrelevant. It makes a nice red herring, but it has no logical affect on the argument that is being made; namely that it is largely cultural differences that create discrepancies among homicide rates.

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
It's not valid to compare raw rates between cultures. Besides, the overall violent crime rate (excluding homicide) is higher in the UK than it is in the US. You are more likely to be raped or mugged or burglarized in the UK than you are in the US. In fact, you are six times more likely to be mugged in London than in New York City. (Source: BBC)

True but irrelevant to the gun thing.

Not necessarily. Those crime rates that I cite have climbed only after the UK's handgun ban. The availability of handguns correlates strongly with a reduction in rapes, muggings, and burglaries.

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
However, the trends have been the same across cultures: Prevent responsible people from accessing firearms and overall firearms crime will climb.

Responsible people eh? So you advocate a gun licence test, perhaps including a psychological evaluation?

No. I do not advocate any form of mandatory psychological evaluation or licensing of firearm owners. It is only too easy to use a psychological evaluation as a backdoor to a ban on firearms, especially given the current trend towards overdiagnosis in which everyone seems to have some form of psychological irregularity. And the result of a mandatory license can be seen in the UK's current system.

I am in favor of the current laws that prohibit convicted felons as well as those who have been adjudicated mentally incompetent from having firearms. However, a person with no criminal history and no history of psychiatric problems (e.g. has never been adjudicated mentally incompetent) should not be required to pass any test before purchasing a firearm.

I am in favor of heavily prosecuting those who fail to report the theft of their firearms.

I am in favor of heavily prosecuting those whose carelessness allows children to access their firearms (e.g. if you leave a loaded firearm on the coffee table and a kid gets it, you're going to pay, but if you have taken reasonable precautions such as placing the firearm in a locked safe you will be fine).

ZV

 

[Tooncesthedrivingcat]

Originally posted by: meltdown75
I keep my swimming pool concealed on my person, in case I ever get in an argument and need to drown someone.

me too. Since I live in Baltimore it works extra well since blacks can't swim.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: hiromizu

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: mugs
Guns don't make people kill other people, they're just a tool that get the job done.

In many cases that's true - if you set out to kill someone you're gonna do it regardless of weapon, but what about this situation:

A young man, possibly not the bravest or smartest young man, is in a threatening situation. He is carrying a firearm. Someone comes over and insults him and tries to pick a fight. Does this man fight with his fists and possibly go home with a broken nose? Or does he fire that weapon out of fear?

Or does he drop the weapon out of fear into the hands of the aggressor and cause a massive shooting which could've been prevented if he didn't carry the gun in the first place?

You know what is absolutely amazing? Despite concealed carry having been legal in WA for decades (since 1961), I have never, not once, seen or read any news story where a handgun is taken away from the victim and used by the aggressor. It simply does not happen in reality at any statistically-significant rate. This is a fantasy of the anti-gun groups that has no basis in reality. Besides, if it's so easy to take away handguns, then the victim could just grab it right back from the aggressor (you can see how this easily degenerates into absurdity).

And just for the record, 2/3 of all gun deaths are criminals being shot by other criminals. (Source: FBI Uniform Crime Statistics, 1994.) Take out the gang in-fighting and suddenly America's rate of gun violence drops dramatically.

ZV

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Atheus
Even if our gun crime here increased tenfold it would be NOWHERE NEAR your levels. Why do you think this is?

Different cultures.

There are no two cultures so similar as the Brits and the Americans - you essentially are us, and so are the Australians and the Canadians.

Yes, the system of nobility and class structure that is built into the American psyche is very similar to the British... Oh, wait, that's not right...

We don't live in some victorian romance novel you know. The old dukes and earls etc have no influence on anything.

Yes, the UK and US culture are similar. However, there are significant differences that do not permit valid cross-cultural comparisons.

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
The Swiss have firearms everywhere, but significantly less firearm crime than the US.

All Swiss undergo military training which teaches discipline and gun safety.

That alone doesn't explain the difference in violent uses of firearms. If we were only talking about accidental deaths, then you might have a point, but in terms of illegal use of firearms the point isn't valid.

I would contend the discipline and confidence given by millitary (or any martial) training makes it a lot less likely someone will fire in fear or hate or without thinking.

Also they would presumably be told as part of basic training - do not hand your weapon over to an untrained person, especially a child!

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
The US homicide crime rate excluding firearms is 3 times higher than Japan's overall homicide rate. Even if all firearm homicides in the US ended, we would still have 3x the homicide rate when compared to Japan.

Instead of what? 100x greater?

Irrelevant. It makes a nice red herring, but it has no logical affect on the argument that is being made; namely that it is largely cultural differences that create discrepancies among violent crime rates.

It's the cultural attitude toward guns that leads to there being so damn many of them, and then the two factors combined contribute to all the deaths.

I do not advocate any form of mandatory psychological evaluation or licensing of firearm owners.

Illogical. Why licence cars and not guns? And don't give me that constitutional crap.

I am in favor of heavily prosecuting those who fail to report the theft of their firearms.

Why? Why would anyone need to steal a firearm if they can just go get one from a store with no checks?

I am in favor of heavily prosecuting those whose carelessness allows children to access their firearms (e.g. if you leave a loaded firearm on the coffee table and a kid gets it, you're going to pay, but if you have taken reasonable precautions such as placing the firearm in a locked safe you will be fine).

Agreed.

 

[XxPrOdiGyxX]

My opinions have changed based on the arguments made in this thread. When I have a kid, I'm gonna make sure I buy a gun and let my kid play with it.

"What, son? You wanna go swim? F NO. Here...go play with this gun instead."

WTF is wrong with the government? We need POOL CONTROL!

 

[Howard]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: mugs
... but I don't think I've ever seen anyone that young firing an automatic weapon at the Knob Creek machine gun shoot in Kentucky.

so what makes you are an authority on it that can absolutely state there has never been one?

Alkemyst, there is something wrong with you. It's not normal to try to start arguments over insignificant little things.

He can tell when opinions are wrong and yours is wrong.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Atheus
We don't live in some victorian romance novel you know. The old dukes and earls etc have no influence on anything.

True, but there is still a far stronger class structure in the UK than there is in the US. It's not about actual political power or influence but rather about sociological conditioning. UK society is, on the whole, far more regimented than the US and will always be. The US was formed by people who were intentionally fleeing a heavily regimented society and this results in a large differentiation of culture right from the beginning.

Originally posted by: Atheus
I would contend the discipline and confidence given by millitary (or any martial) training makes it a lot less likely someone will fire in fear or hate or without thinking.

That's not borne out statistically however. In the US, on average, persons with concealed carry licenses are more law-abiding and less likely to assault another person than the rest of the population. This is true in all areas of the law, not just as it relates to firearms.

It is also worth noting that, statistically, firearm owners in general are happier, more forgiving, give more money to charity, and are more self-reliant than those who do not own firearms. (Source: Wall Street Journal, 19 April, 2008.)

Originally posted by: Atheus
It's the cultural attitude toward guns that leads to there being so damn many of them, and then the two factors combined contribute to all the deaths.

Then why does Japan's rate of overall death match the US rate if suicides are factored in? If Japan's culture is so wonderful and safe, why are its people intentionally killing themselves at a vastly greater rate? Again, there are major sociological differences. It is not the simple availability of firearms that determines the death rate.

Originally posted by: Atheus
Illogical. Why licence cars and not guns? And don't give me that constitutional crap.

You are not required to license a car. As long as you use it on private property (either your private property or on another person's private property with their permission), you are not required to have a driver's license, nor are you required to have license plates or insurance for the car. I support shall-issue concealed carry licenses (i.e. if the applicant meets the objective criteria, then the permit must be issued, no leeway for individual discretion by law enforcement) because that's using the firearm in public, but I do not support licensing firearms that are not used in public. Also note that I speak of licensing the individual to carry concealed, not of registering the firearm.

Originally posted by: Atheus
Why? Why would anyone need to steal a firearm if they can just go get one from a store with no checks?

I never said they should be allowed to buy handguns without a background check. I am very much in favor of the current background check system. However, this is not the same as a licensing or registration system in which all purchase records are kept in a governmental database.

ZV

 

[StinkyPinky]

Originally posted by: eleison
Freak accident... many more kids die because of multiple other things (pencils, knives, treadmill, bathtub, baseball, cheer leading etc.). However, when it involves a firearm, its always front page.. the media is so anti-firearms...

Um...because those things you mentioned have other uses? What use is a fricking fully automatic uzi to an 8 year old? They're not a toy, he shouldn't have been using it.

The father is an idiot. We don't need to ban uzis, we need to ban idiots.

 

[Triumph]

I laugh at the response of anyone who would cite this incident as a reason to ban or restrict weapons. Talk about the textbook definition of a kneejerk reaction. Accidents happen in ANY venue. More children die every year in swimming pools than by gun accidents. That's a fact, but no one is calling for the banning of personal swimming pools.

 

[oznerol]

I kept seeing this thread pop up and I wondered why - I figured it was people saying that it was a sad accident or giving condolences or something.

Turns out it devolved into a gun thread. Duh. Should have suspected that.

Anyway, Zenmervolt is awesome, Atheus is British, and pools are dangerous. That's about all I have deduced from this.

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
UK society is, on the whole, far more regimented than the US and will always be.

Always? That's exrememely pessimistic. Maybe we are a bit less socially mobile but not so much so that it creates a cultural rift as you suggest, and anyway, surely more social mobility should make for less crime? Why submit to a life of crime when you can chase the American dream?

As for the rest I'm gonna have to get back to you. ATOT is eating my evening.

 

[foghorn67]

Originally posted by: XxPrOdiGyxX
My opinions have changed based on the arguments made in this thread. When I have a kid, I'm gonna make sure I buy a gun and let my kid play with it.

"What, son? You wanna go swim? F NO. Here...go play with this gun instead."

WTF is wrong with the government? We need POOL CONTROL!

**WOOOSH**

 

[XxPrOdiGyxX]

Originally posted by: foghorn67

Originally posted by: XxPrOdiGyxX
My opinions have changed based on the arguments made in this thread. When I have a kid, I'm gonna make sure I buy a gun and let my kid play with it.

"What, son? You wanna go swim? F NO. Here...go play with this gun instead."

WTF is wrong with the government? We need POOL CONTROL!

**WOOOSH**

hmmm?

 

[DangerAardvark]

Originally posted by: eleison
Freak accident... many more kids die because of multiple other things (pencils, knives, treadmill, bathtub, baseball, cheer leading etc.). However, when it involves a firearm, its always front page.. the media is so anti-firearms...

Freak accident? An 8-yr old was allowed to handle an automatic weapon with insufficient experience or strength to control the recoil.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
UK society is, on the whole, far more regimented than the US and will always be.

Always? That's exrememely pessimistic. Maybe we are a bit less socially mobile but not so much so that it creates a cultural rift as you suggest, and anyway, surely more social mobility should make for less crime? Why submit to a life of crime when you can chase the American dream?

As for the rest I'm gonna have to get back to you. ATOT is eating my evening.

I didn't quite mean it that way. More along the lines of UK society being, on average, more risk-averse. I didn't intend it to be a comment on social mobility, rather, I meant it to be a comment on the divergent views on the scope of authority and risk reduction.

At its core, I firmly believe that the gun control debate comes down to a minor difference in worldviews. On the one side, there is the view that it is better to avoid encumbering those who are responsible than it is to restrict those who are irresponsible, and on the other side is the converse.

There are arguments in favor of either view and honorable men will differ, as we have.

Overall, this has been an excellent discussion, and I want to thank you for it. I have enjoyed the mental exercise immensely even if all we've accomplished is to nef it up a bit.

Cheers!

ZV

 

[edro]

Your all dum!

 

[Howard]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
UK society is, on the whole, far more regimented than the US and will always be.

Always? That's exrememely pessimistic. Maybe we are a bit less socially mobile but not so much so that it creates a cultural rift as you suggest, and anyway, surely more social mobility should make for less crime? Why submit to a life of crime when you can chase the American dream?

As for the rest I'm gonna have to get back to you. ATOT is eating my evening.

I didn't quite mean it that way. More along the lines of UK society being, on average, more risk-averse. I didn't intend it to be a comment on social mobility, rather, I meant it to be a comment on the divergent views on the scope of authority and risk reduction.

At its core, I firmly believe that the gun control debate comes down to a minor difference in worldviews. On the one side, there is the view that it is better to avoid encumbering those who are responsible than it is to restrict those who are irresponsible, and on the other side is the converse.

There are arguments in favor of either view and honorable men will differ, as we have.

Overall, this has been an excellent discussion, and I want to thank you for it. I have enjoyed the mental exercise immensely even if all we've accomplished is to nef it up a bit.

Cheers!

ZV

No concessions to the enemy!

 

[BudAshes]

Originally posted by: foghorn67

Originally posted by: BudAshes

Originally posted by: foghorn67

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: nkgreen

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: daniel1113
"An 8-year-old boy died after accidentally shooting himself in the head while firing an Uzi submachine gun under adult supervision at a gun fair."

"An 8-year-old boy died after accidentally swerving off the track while driving a go kart under adult supervision at a racing fair."

Yawn. Shit happens. This is no different than any other accident.

/edit: anti-American comments removed to avoid flame war

suffice to say you're a fool. clearly an uzi is orders of magniture more dangerous than a go-cart, and you have to draw a line somewhwhere - you'd let a kid fly a jet?

Is it more dangerous than a swimming pool?

Errr... of course... are you being sarcastic?

no. Look up the stats on kids drowning in swimming pools.

this the stupidest thing i have ever read on atot. You do realize there are 10's of millions of children that swim in pools while .000000001% of kids(rough estimate) fire uzi's.

This is my problem with guns, it seems the dumber you are the more guns you want. They should require an iq test before you can get anything more than a pistol/shotgun.

-Read ZV posts.
-Realize you made the dumbest ATOT post of all time.

re-read my post and realize I said uzis, not guns in general. Nice try at pwnage maybe next time, son.

 

[foghorn67]

Originally posted by: XxPrOdiGyxX

Originally posted by: foghorn67

Originally posted by: XxPrOdiGyxX
My opinions have changed based on the arguments made in this thread. When I have a kid, I'm gonna make sure I buy a gun and let my kid play with it.

"What, son? You wanna go swim? F NO. Here...go play with this gun instead."

WTF is wrong with the government? We need POOL CONTROL!

**WOOOSH**

hmmm?

You tragically missed the point.

 

[Kirby]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: nkgreen

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: nkgreen

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: nkgreen

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: mugs
Guns don't make people kill other people, they're just a tool that get the job done.

In many cases that's true - if you set out to kill someone you're gonna do it regardless of weapon, but what about this situation:

A young man, possibly not the bravest or smartest young man, is in a threatening situation. He is carrying a firearm. Someone comes over and insults him and tries to pick a fight. Does this man fight with his fists and possibly go home with a broken nose? Or does he fire that weapon out of fear?

If he has reason to believe that his life is in danger, he has every right to shoot him.

The guy has raised his fists. You would you shoot him?

There is such a thing as a fair fist fight. Or at least there used to be.

Also, who's going to try to pick a fist fight with someone who has a gun?

I assume the gun is concealed for the sake of arguement. Personally if I see a gun at a party I just leave.

I wouldn't get in a fight over some tool insulting me to begin with. But if he resorted to violence I would draw. If he wished to escalate the situation I'd go from there.

You are a coward.

and if he's stupid enough to try to fight an armed man, he'd be a dead man. Or at least cripple.

you're missing the point. your gun is concealed. he raises his fist on a SEEMINGLY unarmed man: you. you decide to draw a gun because you're a coward.

get it?

But at least after he beats the shit out of you and/or pulls a knife, rapes and kills your family, you can take comfort knowing that you're not a coward.

Get it?

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
UK society is, on the whole, far more regimented than the US and will always be.

Always? That's exrememely pessimistic. Maybe we are a bit less socially mobile but not so much so that it creates a cultural rift as you suggest, and anyway, surely more social mobility should make for less crime? Why submit to a life of crime when you can chase the American dream?

As for the rest I'm gonna have to get back to you. ATOT is eating my evening.

Black people, who account for a disproportionate amount of gun homicides in the US, are the least socially mobile racial group in the US. And there you have a chicken or the egg problem - are they less socially mobile because of their chosen lifestyle, or do they choose their lifestyle because they've resigned themselves to their place in the world? Probably a little from column A and a little from column B. As I'm sure you've noticed from threads here, there is still a lot of animosity between blacks and whites in this country, and white people have most of the power (even if we're about to let a black guy be our president).

 

[pontifex]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: SphinxnihpS
A boy dies and the anti-gun idiots are out in full force. Sick.

You don't think there is an arguement for gun control here? You think the boy (8 years old) should have been allowed to fire the weapon?

that has nothing to do with gun control, at least not in your context.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Odd case of suicidal 8-year old, i'd say.

 

[pontifex]

Originally posted by: sdifox

Originally posted by: mooseracing

Originally posted by: sdifox

Originally posted by: SphinxnihpS
A boy dies and the anti-gun idiots are out in full force. Sick.

Err, I am against irrisponsible people having guns. The Uzi owner was definitely irrisponsible. Or do you think he was in the right?

So I suppose you are for everyone haveing to wait the x amount of days with the possibillity to be denined to buy a pistol as well? Even though by your right as an American citizen you are allowed to own one. And it's not like if the person is denined they can't get a gun.


If you want to talk irresponsible look at how many irresponsible parents there are yet they still have their kids in their possesion, they are still allowed to reproduce and they are still alive. Or auto drivers?

What are you talking about? I am talking about the gun owner being irresponsible handing a uzi to an 8 year old. Stop projecting your own prejudice.

The only regulation I would stipulate in light of this is "Do not hand a weapon to someone not licensed for that class of weapon."

I am against all irrisponsible behaviours, we just happen to be talking about gun death.

so now we have to get licensed to be able to shoot different types of guns???? dumb idea.