Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Ahtman wrote:
Well this shouldn't rile up either side.

A 9-year-old girl vacationing with her family accidentally shot and killed an instructor at a shooting range, authorities said.

The shooting happened at 10 a.m. Monday at Arizona Last Stop, a tourist spot southeast of Las Vegas.

According to the Mohave County Sheriff’s Office, the instructor – identified as Charles Vacca, 39 – was standing next to the girl, teaching her how to use an automatic Uzi. The girl’s parents stood nearby, capturing video of the experience.

As the girl pulled the trigger, the recoil caused her to lose control of the gun, with Vacca accidentally shot in the head, the Mohave County Sheriff’s Office said. Vacca was flown to University Medical Center, where he was pronounced dead.

Sam Scarmardo, the gun range operator, was distraught about Vacca's death.

"It's like losing a brother," Scarmardo said. "These aren't employees or associates of ours, these are family. We're all family."

Many gun ranges allow children who are 8 years and older – with parental supervision – to shoot firearms, Scarmardo said.

"We instruct kids as young as 5 on .22 rifles, and they don't get to handle high firearms, but they're under the supervision of their parents and of our professional range masters," Scarmardo said.

This is the second incident I know of in the last few years involving an Uzi, an 8 year old was killed when the recoil caused the weapon to climb and flip back toward his face in 2011. Unfortunately this is a case of poor judgement leading to poor outcomes, despite what looks like a very attentive and detailed lesson and aid from the instructor.

You want to teach a 9 year old to shoot? There's these handy things call .22lr rifles. Submachine guns with little or no shoulder reinforcement are often difficult for adults to control, I have no idea what they were doing letting a 9 year old fire something like that, even if she did have prior firearms experience.

Just as you don't train someone to ride on two-wheels with a Kawasaki Ninja, you don't introduce a 9 year old girl to shooting with a machine pistol.

An irresponsible trainer created that situation and that girl has to live with the trauma the rest of her life.

 cincydooley wrote:
Morons. Whomever allowed the 8 year old to fire that is a Moron and shouldn't ever be allowed to work with firearms in the future.

I also think parents that leave guns around that their kids get Into should be charged as criminally negligent.

Since they are dead thats pretty much guaranteed.

yeah... thats just poor choices, Im sure you could find a story about a 9 year old killing people with a car too due to someones poor judgement.

FFS I know many large adults who cannot handle machine pistols

sarcasm mode on

But obviously one incident is causation, because, reasons.

Any evidence that guns are evil bad baby killers is 100% scientific, proven causation, and anything that shows ANY benifit to having them around is junk science and merley correlation.

end sarcasm mode.

 Vaktathi wrote:

You want to teach a 9 year old to shoot? There's these handy things call .22lr rifles. Submachine guns with little or no shoulder reinforcement are often difficult for adults to control, I have no idea what they were doing letting a 9 year old fire something like that, even if she did have prior firearms experience.

Took the words right out of my mouth.

I think you'll find that most responsible gun owners that are 2nd amendment advocates are also the quickest people to condemn irresponsible gun ownership.

I do not believe our rights should be infringed, but that doesn't mean I think we should be absolved of any accountibility when a gun owner is irresponsible with their firearm.

 Bromsy wrote:
Can we all just stop? Stop spitting nonsense like more guns = more gun violence despite proof to the contrary? And automatic weapons are the problem? And stop nonsense like America doesn't represent a unique and specifically challenging scenario violence wise?

We need to stop tapdancing around what the real issue is - and it is an issue fairly unique to America as far as I know. If we took everyone who self identifies as African American, and forcibly deported them, our gun violence levels would drop to within spitting distance of European standards, if I am reading my statistics right. The problem isn't conceal and carry. The problem isn't the number of guns available. The problem is a vast and complex one that has resulted from our unique history as a nation and has led to large communities of people who have been straight up hosed - given less chance for education, legal justice and influence, integration into society at large and a fair interpretation in media. It's a giant mess echoed down through generations. And there really is no fair way to solve it, which is the worst part. Maybe time will help?

In case this needs to be said - I don't advocate forcibly deporting African Americans. I am not saying things are anyone's fault. I am not judging anyone. Life is messy and complicated, there are no easy answers.

Sorry, this is bulgack. You may not advoacate such action, but the fact that you used such an inflammatory (and wrong) example speaks of a huge lack of judgement. I can't deny that crime rates are higher among african americans but your numbers fail to take into account the overall drop in population that would result from deporting such a huge percentage of America. Crime rates wouldn't drop as low as you say.

The real issue however is that race-as-causality breaks down when you sort violent crime by poverty rather than race. Poverty is a much bigger indicator of violence across racial catagories.

I agree with you that systemic injustice and the inequity it produces is a huge driver of crime, but "time' isn't going to solve it. There will be no solution until the country stops being ok with a large percentage of it's population being corralled into underserved communities, with poor education, limited access to services and a criminal justice system that is tilted against them.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
No. You came into this thread signalling your hostility to people owning guns and trotting out the oldest gun control tropes in the book. Don't be surprised if people whose rights you want to strip away don't welcome you with open arms.

Having a different point of view does not make me 'hostile', I don't expect you to agree, but I do expect you to be polite and not make a discussion about society and government personal. I do not have anything personal against individuals who own guns or their character. If I lived in a dangerous part of the world then I might own a gun too. it is not a problem with individuals, it is a problem with society working as a whole.

And sorry but arguments being 'old' does not refute them, if they are so tired-out then it should be easy for you. America does have the most guns per head in the world, this is is an undisputed fact. You also have an anomalous about of violent crime and firearm related deaths, this too is a fact. Criminals having easy access to firearms in the US (relatively), also a fact. The mentally ill have easy access to firearms in the US (compared to most countries, everyone does) fact. You have a proportionally higher number of spree killings than countries such as the UK, fact.

This is not me being hostile or advocating disarmament. I'm just saying things which are demonstrably true.

And your arguments are just as old and worn out. Saying it's your 'right' regardless of the consequences for society. Refusing to acknowledge there is any connection between gun saturation and violence. Refusing to acknowledge the situation could be improved. Trying to constantly draw false parallels with things like cars and alcohol (as if vehicle related deaths aren't something we should also want to reduce).

Believing that a disarmed population is a safer population, is a perfectly sound position. That is how most of the developed world already lives.

 Smacks wrote:
So I've been trying to listen and be more open minded, and less confrontational, in the hope that we could have a civil conversation. It's more difficult than it sounds.

Except you haven't been, and you're still advocating for a disarmed population, which simply is not going to happen.

That was my original position. I have said that I would 100% support gun rights if guns were only ever used for self defense. We talked about securing guns, people said they don't use the trigger locks, that they aren't good. I acknowledged that they might also get in the way in an emergency. I remain unconvinced that hand guns can be made secure enough to ensure they aren't going to be frequently stolen and misused.

Whether disarmament will happen is beside the point. My interest is in whether it should, not whether it could. Saying it won't is also rather shortsighted, the world could change beyond all recognition over the next 50 years. Just because you can't see past the end of your nose, does not mean there's nothing coming.

What the happy hell does "made secure enough" even mean? Is my bolted down safe not enough?

Also, in the US it shouldn't and it won't.

Giving a full auto gun to a grown man that what doesn't fething know what he's doing, let alone a fething 9 year old, is fething idiotic.

Smacks, I have to ask: have you actually ever fired a gun before? Just curious.

 cincydooley wrote:
What the happy hell does "made secure enough" even mean? Is my bolted down safe not enough?

Also, in the US it shouldn't and it won't.

I read about your safe on amazon. Someone was able to open it just by dragging it along the floor (there was a video). Didn't look very secure actually. But not everyone is as conscientious as you.

EDIT: linky

 Smacks wrote:
Having a different point of view does not make me 'hostile',

Advocating for disarmament makes you hostile to the entire concept of bearing arms. It is impossible to seriously content otherwise

 Smacks wrote:
I don't expect you to agree, but I do expect you to be polite and not make a discussion about society and government personal. I do not have anything personal against individuals who own guns or their character. If I lived in a dangerous part of the world then I might own a gun too. it is not a problem with individuals, it is a problem with society working as a whole.

I've been polite. And in return you've lied and misrepresented your position, Who has been impolite in light of those actions?

 Smacks wrote:
And sorry but arguments being 'old' does not refute them, if they are so tired-out then it should be easy for you. America does have the most guns per head in the world, this is is an undisputed fact. You also have an anomalous about of violent crime and firearm related deaths, this too is a fact. Criminals having easy access to firearms in the US (relatively), also a fact. The mentally ill have easy access to firearms in the US (compared to most countries, everyone does) fact. You have a proportionally higher number of spree killings than countries such as the UK, fact.

There's that misrepresentation again, I said your arguments were old and rebutted.

 Smacks wrote:
This is not me being hostile or advocating disarmament. I'm just saying things which are demonstrably true.

You've advocated for disarmament in this thread as pointed out above. That is true.

 Smacks wrote:
And your arguments are just as old and worn out. Saying it's your 'right' regardless of the consequences for society. Refusing to acknowledge there is any connection between gun saturation and violence. Refusing to acknowledge the situation could be improved. Trying to constantly draw false parallels between with things like cars and alcohol (as if vehicle related deaths isn't something we should also want to reduce).

Believing that a disarmed population is a safer population, is a perfectly sound position. That is how most of the developed world already lives.

You mean consequences like being being able to defend themselves against aggressors? What a terrible consequence for society
There you go again, claiming that the situation could be improved but never offering your opinion as to how it could be done. The same as your opinion on the Second Amendment, you claim it needs amended but can't justify it.

But of you want to talk about impact on society please explain how removing rights is beneficial. To put it simply;
Don't like alcohol? Don't drink
Don't like tattoos? Don't get one
Don't like drugs? Don't use them
Don't like abortions? Don't get one
Don't like guns? Don't use them
Because you do not like my right to do something does not mean you get to remove that right.

 Smacks wrote:
That was my original position. I have said that I would 100% support gun rights if guns were only ever used for self defense. We talked about securing guns, people said they don't use the trigger locks, that they aren't good. I acknowledged that they might also get in the way in an emergency. I remain unconvinced that hand guns can be made secure enough to ensure they aren't going to be frequently stolen and misused.

Firearms are used on a daily basis for self defense in this country from criminals with weapons.
You remain unconvinced that firearms are not secured based on what evidence, other than your own opinion of a topic you evidently know little about?

 Smacks wrote:
Whether disarmament will happen is beside the point. My interest is in whether it should, not whether it could. Saying it won't is also rather shortsighted, the world could change beyond all recognition over the next 50 years. Just because you can't see past the end of your nose, does not mean there's nothing coming.

The only person who can't see past the end of his own nose is you. You have an opinion, as ill informed as it is and nothing more. You have done nothing to substantiate your opinions on guns and gun owners. You are advocating for people to be stripped of their rights with no basis. You have been hostile to the notion of gun ownership since the start of this thread, then pretended to be impartial. You claimed that you want to address poverty and crime, yet completely ignored the fact that removing private ownership of guns does almost nothing for this. You continue to lump law abiding gun owners in with criminals to try and make your point. Your every argument is made on the basis of conjecture and your own opinion. Now you're back to where you started in that something undetermined may happen at some point in the future as a way of stripping people of their rights. Your posts have come almost full circle no matter how much you pretend otherwise. It was good talking to you. But I hope not to repeat the experience anytime soon.

 Ahtman wrote:
Well this shouldn't rile up either side.

A 9-year-old girl vacationing with her family accidentally shot and killed an instructor at a shooting range, authorities said.

The shooting happened at 10 a.m. Monday at Arizona Last Stop, a tourist spot southeast of Las Vegas.

According to the Mohave County Sheriff’s Office, the instructor – identified as Charles Vacca, 39 – was standing next to the girl, teaching her how to use an automatic Uzi. The girl’s parents stood nearby, capturing video of the experience.

As the girl pulled the trigger, the recoil caused her to lose control of the gun, with Vacca accidentally shot in the head, the Mohave County Sheriff’s Office said. Vacca was flown to University Medical Center, where he was pronounced dead.

Sam Scarmardo, the gun range operator, was distraught about Vacca's death.

"It's like losing a brother," Scarmardo said. "These aren't employees or associates of ours, these are family. We're all family."

Many gun ranges allow children who are 8 years and older – with parental supervision – to shoot firearms, Scarmardo said.

"We instruct kids as young as 5 on .22 rifles, and they don't get to handle high firearms, but they're under the supervision of their parents and of our professional range masters," Scarmardo said.

That is ridiculously bad judgement on the part of every adult involved. Automatic weapons are awesome and everyone should fire one at some point, but maybe wait til you are an adult. Or get something with a bipod.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
You remain unconvinced that firearms are not secured based on what evidence?

Based on I asked you about it, and you didn't present any.

You have done nothing to substantiate your opinions on guns and gun owners.

I just laid out my opinion on gun owners pretty clearly. I don't see why I need to 'substantiate' having nothing personal against them. And I just presented a whole bunch of facts, and labled each a 'fact' for you (which you conveniently ignored). These aren't my opinions.

In turn you are in fact the one who doesn't substantiate anything you say. All you have don't is call me, hostile, false, know nothing, and say things like "it's my right" and make up silly strawmen. but you never present anything either other than your own conjecture and opinion. You're just as full of it as anyone else.

 Smacks wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
but you have to actually know something about the subject. The majority of foreign posters here (not all), have very limited actual knowledge on the subject of guns and gun laws in the US, and tend to make some rather large assumptions. A lot of anti-gun Americans suffer from this same problem.

I don't think that's valid. I didn't live in 1830s America either, but I can still have an opinion on slavery I hope? I don't think it's really relevant that I'm not intimately familiar with the politics of the time. Slavery is barbaric and wrong. Of course many people back then would have disagreed (probably for quite selfish reasons), I'm sure loads of people were shouting about their god given 'right' to own slaves, etc...

By the same measure, it doesn't take a genius to grasp that if there were no guns then no one would get shot. As someone who lives in a country where few people have access to guns, I can attest that shootings are indeed incredibly rare. Sebster has made an excellent case repeatedly regarding high gun saturation. We might be foreign, but we also have societies, criminals, and firearm laws. To treat us like we are naive and ignorant is probably self deception as much as anything.

I'm not saying you have to be an expert to have an opinion. I'm not even saying you have to be an expert for your opinion to be valuable. But for your opinion to be valuable, you need to have a basic level of knowledge that doesn't lead to conclusions based on incorrect facts, and a lot of non-Americans, and for that matter even a lot of anti-gun Americans seem to lack that when it comes to knowledge of firearms and firearm laws. I'm not saying if you had expert level knowledge that your opinion would change either, but it's difficult to have a meaningful discussion about firearms laws with someone who, for example (and these examples aren't directed at anyone specifically), doesn't know the difference between a semi-automatic and automatic weapon, or believes that fully automatic machine guns are readily available to the average American, or believes that America is some sort of wild west where everybody and their brother carries a concealed weapon on them at all times.

 Hordini wrote:
for example (and these examples aren't directed at anyone specifically), doesn't know the difference between a semi-automatic and automatic weapon, or believes that fully automatic machine guns are readily available to the average American, or believes that America is some sort of wild west where everybody and their brother carries a concealed weapon on them at all times.

I understand how that could be annoying. Though honestly I haven't really seen much of that here. I know you weren't saying me, but for what it's worth: I do know the difference between automatic and semi-automatic, shotguns, revolvers etc... And I'm familiar with a lot of the mechanisms such as gas-reloading, rifling, caliber, muzzle velocity etc.. etc... Like many boys I spent most of my youth reading about military stuff (my father and my mother's father were both in the air force), which might explain the interest in war gaming. My father was also keen on hunting and fishing and owned shotguns (mainly for game birds like pheasants and also ducks).

The law in the US is obviously quite convoluted, with the state versus federal laws, I won't pretend to be familiar with every law in every state (or even close). I doubt many American's are either. But I know that fully automatic weapons aren't 'generally' permitted (for lack of a better word), and that most of the weapons for home defense are hand guns with various mag limitations. The "Wild west" thing is subjective (maybe even hyperbole). Compared to the UK there are obviously way more people walking around with guns. I don't know how it actually compares to the real Wild west, I'm sure the vast majority of people didn't walk around with guns there either. I do however find the idea of needing a gun to defend yourself slightly barbaric, which is another angle on the wild west thing that might not be obvious to Americans (culturally).

I do however find the idea of needing a gun to defend yourself slightly barbaric, which is another angle on the wild west thing that might not be obvious to Americans (culturally).

Live next to an open border with criminal cartels waging a full on war against their government, and then come talk to me.

 Frazzled wrote:

I do however find the idea of needing a gun to defend yourself slightly barbaric, which is another angle on the wild west thing that might not be obvious to Americans (culturally).

Live next to an open border with criminal cartels waging a full on war against their government, and then come talk to me.

Does living next a paramilitary group bent on attacking and killing British citizens and otherwise causing havoc count? You know the IRA.

A Yankee should not be talking.

 Frazzled wrote:
Live next to an open border with criminal cartels waging a full on war against their government, and then come talk to me.

Okay deal!

Smacks adventure in Texas - Part 1
Smacks: Hey honnie, I'm just going to pop round to Frazzled's house to talk to him... And maybe play warhammer and shoot some beer cans.
Smacks: I'll be back in about three days.

Later in the desert
Smacks: Damn this place it too hot, who would be crazy enough to live here? Oh no! who are those guys?

Later at Frazzled's
-- Enter Smacks all bruised, dusty and bleeding.
Frazzled: Hey Smacks, what the hell happened to you?
Smacks: I got into a shoot out in the desert with a Mexican drug cartel.
Smacks: Then I was attacked on the porch by a wiener dog.
Smacks: ...
Smacks: This place is barbaric!

Coming soon - part 2: Fraz and Smacks lose their eyesight drinking moonshine.

I had relatives that ran moonshine. You're in luck!

Texas is a different animal. We need shotguns in case the jackalopes attack.

I do however find the idea of needing a gun to defend yourself slightly barbaric, which is another angle on the wild west thing that might not be obvious to Americans (culturally).

this make shock and suprise you, but calling something barbaric, is indeed breaking forum rules #1.

its not polite, its a direct insult.


would you contend that the idea of being gay or trans is "barbaric"?

no?

then dont contend the idea of needing a gun is the same, that you cant see its insulting should (but probably wont) open your eyes to how prejudiced you are in this regard.

 easysauce wrote:

I do however find the idea of needing a gun to defend yourself slightly barbaric, which is another angle on the wild west thing that might not be obvious to Americans (culturally).

this make shock and suprise you, but calling something barbaric, is indeed breaking forum rules #1.

its not polite, its a direct insult.


would you contend that the idea of being gay or trans is "barbaric"?

no?

then dont contend the idea of needing a gun is the same, that you cant see its insulting should (but probably wont) open your eyes to how prejudiced you are in this regard.

I believe you may be overreacting, though. Rule #1 should be respected, but comparing one's gender identity to one's wish to carry a gun is... not entirely equivalent.

You could easily have it as a rather valid point that guns are too barbaric. If a state had been entirely stable, guns would be unnecessary. The US is not entirely stable, in fact, I'd argue no nation is, which is why these threads even are debates at all. So it is valid to argue guns are necessary for the individual's safety. But it's just as valid to argue that guns would not need to be so available if they had not been so widespread to begin with. There's thoughts in play from the other side of the fence too here.

 easysauce wrote:

I do however find the idea of needing a gun to defend yourself slightly barbaric, which is another angle on the wild west thing that might not be obvious to Americans (culturally).

this make shock and suprise you, but calling something barbaric, is indeed breaking forum rules #1.

its not polite, its a direct insult.


would you contend that the idea of being gay or trans is "barbaric"?

no?

then dont contend the idea of needing a gun is the same, that you cant see its insulting should (but probably wont) open your eyes to how prejudiced you are in this regard.

I thought you were fiercely anti-gun under almost any circumstance.

I don't disagree with you, but there's an objectivity there I gotta give you props for.

 easysauce wrote:
this make shock and suprise you, but calling something barbaric, is indeed breaking forum rules #1.

its not polite, its a direct insult.

No it isn't. I did not directly call a person barbaric nor did I directly call Americans barbaric. I said that "I feel" that needing in a gun (in any place) to defend yourself sounds 'slightly' barbaric. Which it does because it implies that a place in dangerous and lawless and you might need to kill someone.

would you contend that the idea of being gay or trans is "barbaric"?

No because that is not what barbaric means. I would certainly contend that shooting gays and transsexuals was barbaric.

that you cant see its insulting should (but probably wont) open your eyes to how prejudiced you are in this regard.

Sorry but I disagree, it is one thing to insult people, but no one is beyond criticism. Criticism and insults are not the same thing, though they might be equally painful to hear.

 Smacks wrote:

No because that is not what barbaric means. I would certainly contend that shooting gays and transsexuals was barbaric.

I think there was at least been one civilization in well recorded history that would argue that gays are barbaric.

So you didn't call him or me barbaric, just slightly barbaric. Thats like me not saying you're a dill weed just slighlty dill weed.

I'm not calling you a dill weed FYI.

 Frazzled wrote:
So you didn't call him or me barbaric, just slightly barbaric. Thats like me not saying you're a dill weed just slighlty dill weed.

I'm not calling you a dill weed FYI.

It depends. Is easysauce the need to carry a gun (in any place)?

I'm comfortable with some European calling us "slightly barbaric". Can't say it bothers me at all.

There are plenty of reasons I choose not to live in Europe. The nose in the air towards Americans attitude is one of them. Oh yeah, and I enjoy my rights.