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.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081204/ap_on_re_us/boy_shoots_himself

yes, that boy should have had more control on that gun!

Wow. I think it is proof that people are dumb, not necessarily that greater gun control is necessary. The end result was caused by a chain of stupidity- it seems like the government letting someone own a machine gun isnt what decided this poor boy's fate. Although it says something about the intelligence of people who run gun clubs.

If it hadn't been available, it wouldn't have happened. Simple, straightforward cause and effect.

well, I wouldn't go as far as calling the management stupid, but it was the parents' fault. Come on, who gives a 9 year old a gun, let alone an Uzi?!

lord_sutekh wrote:If it hadn't been available, it wouldn't have happened. Simple, straightforward cause and effect.

like If cars weren't available he couldn't have been killed by one the next day, or poisons, or water, or GRAVITY, or an infinite list of things that are deadly...

How about: If his parents weren't completely slowed, he wouldn't have been allowed to shoot himself

Laws are no replacement for common sence.

Cars serve a purpose in common socety that makes their use A) regulated, B) accepted, and C) neccessary. FULLY AUTOMATIC SUBMACHINEGUNS do none of the above. What part of "designed and intended for Israeli Special Forces" says that it is an item that should be in a civilian's hands, no matter the age?

lord_sutekh wrote:If it hadn't been available, it wouldn't have happened. Simple, straightforward cause and effect.

If the boy had been trained in the proper use of firearms, it wouldn't have happened. Therefore, we should have mandatory training in how to properly use firearms.

This is fun.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

The gun was not the issue.
The people who handed to AN EIGHT YEAR OLD are.
WTF!
I know suburban 'gang-banger' with more gun safety sense.
You wouldn't put a kid that is shorter than "this-high-to-ride" on a roller-coaster
WHY would you hand-off a FA weapon to a person that would have problems carrying a 30 lb. bag of rice?
R-TARCULOUS!

you know, I'm actually dissapointed, I thought that Dakka was the last place I'd have to deal with vicious Anti-Rights posts.

Now, this Uzi was ONE out of over two hundred million firearms owned by law abiding American citicens. millions of americans go about there buisiness armed daily, but some tear jerk, one-in-a-billion-odds thing happens and nutjobs start whining that the Bill of Rights must be gutted "for the children"

Come on, it's obvious from reading the story what happened. The fifteen-year-old who was "supervising" snuck the weapon out under his shirt and was letting other kids who also had no business or permission shooting any sort of firearm take a turn with it. That's the sort of thing that kids try all the time, and it is the responsibility of everyone at the gun show to make sure it dosen't happen.

Point to where fully-automatic weapons are in the Bill of Rights, Illeix, and I'll concede the point. Since you won't be able to, you can restate your post.

Wtf? Because it doesn't state specifically what type of "arms" are covered, automatic weapons don't count?

By that rational, since the Bill of Rights mentions "Religion" and not "Christianity", Christianity is free to be established as a state religion. Also, since it mentions "the press" and not, "Internet News Sites" we can censor cnn.com.

You are a gold mine of illogic today.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

The second amendment was drafted in mind of citizens using weapons in common defence, and in order to truly be a "well regulated milita" they would need access to the modern weapons of the time, ergo, full auto.

also, "well regulated" does not mean limiting or requiring licences and such, that would be "Infringements"

tell me where the BoR limits what weapons one may keep, and I'll edit my post.

”Second Amendment“ wrote:A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

1. 9 year olds make terrible militiamen, dead ones doubly so.

2. Do you really believe that owning a Shotgun or an Uzi will stop the federal government if it decides to come after you?

3. I am a liar and a Communist.

I'm actually for some gun regulation. But the OP saying that this incident, while tragic, somehow means that greater gun control is necessary is just silly.

His 'logic' makes this thread hilarious.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

I agree, they need to be regulated a tad, because they are dangerous (thats actualy why they are usefull)

but silly licensing or outright banning is outrageous!

Ozymandias wrote:I'm actually for some gun regulation. But the OP saying that this incident, while tragic, somehow means that greater gun control is necessary is just silly.

His 'logic' makes this thread hilarious.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

every statement he has posted has made this thread golden. according to the OP we shouldnt have guns but if we do then i guess it has to be a muzzle loader or musket since automatic weapons are not mentioned in the second amendment and black powder was what was being used at the time.

lord_sutekh wrote:If it hadn't been available, it wouldn't have happened. Simple, straightforward cause and effect.

Giving the kid the gun was illegal already.

Meanwhile, every time a woman is assaulted and doesn’t have gun to defend herself… is that proof that society needs more people with guns?

Or is it, you know, a complicated issue that can’t be decided by reference to a single, bizarre incident.

Illeix wrote:you know, I'm actually dissapointed, I thought that Dakka was the last place I'd have to deal with vicious Anti-Rights posts.

Vicious anti-rights posts? Dramatic much?

Also, there's been three or four gun rights threads in the last month, and at least one of them linked to that exact article. I have no idea where you'd form the opinion that nthis is a pro-gun site.

dramatic, perhaps, but have you seen the soap opera that is the Brady Campain?

and, I didn't think that the pro-rights/anti-rights debate would really come up here on Dakka at all. Not that i had any preconcieved notion that the users really cared one way or the other.

I'd like to see some actual proof that access to high-powered firearms actually makes life safer for your common American. I'll wait here while you go get it.

The gun rights crowd predicates their stance on the concept that Americans can safely and responsibly own and operate these types of weapons... which this case is a blatant counterpoint.

I fully believe that ownership of a handgun, shotgun, rifle, or the like is a reasonable and justifiable right. You get into battle weaponry, and that's where we diverge.

I'll agree. I'd like to see better gun control in America. A country full of people who are insane with fear should not be allowed to have so many guns.

@ sutekh:
The root problem with gun control is just that anti-rights congressmen refuse to draw the line as clearly as you do. From what I gather, you say that anything is fine as long as one passes a background check and the firearm doesn't fire more than once per pull of the trigger, right?
That, in all honesty, is sensable.

@Typeline:
insane with fear? clinical paranoia is a no-go on a background check. "mental defects" are not allowed to possess firearms.

Illeix wrote:
@Typeline:
insane with fear? clinical paranoia is a no-go on a background check. "mental defects" are not allowed to possess firearms.

Him: Sir do you have any mental handicaps or defects?
Me: No sir I do not.

Was that easy.

Most people that actually have mental disorders don't have them identified or go to a small town counselor rather than an actual psychologist who is required to inform some kind of authority to put it on your background. I'm just saying there is a lot of fear pumped into this country and we tend to shoot first and ask questions later because of it.

In essence, that's my standard. I wouldn't really oppose a graduated competency proof to enable people to own more powerful weapons. Anyone who honestly thinks a child can handle ANY form of full-auto fire automaticly fails that, though.

the fear that gets pumped into this country I blame on mass media (the "lamestream" media) who add thier slant and blow things way out of proportion.

and background checks aren't a test to fill out yourself, silly, it checks for any criminal or psycological issues in a database, and then adds your history into another database, called NICS.

Illeix wrote:dramatic, perhaps, but have you seen the soap opera that is the Brady Campain?

and, I didn't think that the pro-rights/anti-rights debate would really come up here on Dakka at all. Not that i had any preconcieved notion that the users really cared one way or the other.

Yeah, the Brady campaign is embarrassing in its ‘think of the children’ rhetoric. But there’s no reason for anyone here to stoop to their level.

Illeix wrote:the fear that gets pumped into this country I blame on mass media (the "lamestream" media) who add thier slant and blow things way out of proportion.

Part of it is the media, but the media was feeding into an appetite that was already there. There are a lot of American cultural myths that support a more paranoid outlook. The constant references to government turning bad and needing violent revolution. The idea of the frontiersman, defending his family from invaders.

I have no problem with people wanting to own guns. I think the bigger problem is in so many people believing they need to own one.

Well, seb, that's the American culture.

America's history was written with a quill in one hand, and a rifle in the other.

But as for a need to own firearms, I say they do play a neccisary part in modern society (don't believe me? check the nearest police officer's belt)
I own several, and I have needed one to remove unwanted "guests" a few times.

There is a need, a small one, but you also need to know how to properly handle one!