Person accidentally shoots himself with Uzi

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: Chiropteran

Originally posted by: Atheus

You're missing the point - it's not how many guns exist, it's how many < 13 year olds fire them. Very few I bet.

Very few kids fire guns BECAUSE OF THE SAFEGUARDS built into guns. Kids can't buy guns, people who do buy guns can't just give them out freely to kids, guns are generally kept out of kid's reach etc.

LOL, well clearly not man, did you read the article?

Pools, which lack these strict control safeguards, cause many more deaths. Lacking safeguards = more dangerous.

I would advocate more safety features for kids in pools too. Please address the point about exposure to the threats and how that affects the statiastics or do not reply again.

Guns are safer than pools.

This isn't even a debate, it is a proven fact.

Anyone with a brain would laugh in your face if you said this is public, you do know that eh?

 

[IEC]

Originally posted by: Chiropteran

Originally posted by: Atheus

You're missing the point - it's not how many guns exist, it's how many < 13 year olds fire them. Very few I bet.

Very few kids fire guns BECAUSE OF THE SAFEGUARDS built into guns. Kids can't buy guns, people who do buy guns can't just give them out freely to kids, guns are generally kept out of kid's reach etc. Pools, which lack these strict control safeguards, cause many more deaths. Lacking safeguards = more dangerous.

Guns are safer than pools.

This isn't even a debate, it is a proven fact.

Well at least where I grew up (town of about 100K) most of the people I knew had fired a gun and gone hunting more than once before the age of 12. That said, automatic weapons should never be shot by an eight year old... even a .22 has enough recoil for them...

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: nkgreen
What's more dangerous about a semi-auto handgun as opposed to revolver? Or one of those musket pistols?

It is a more effective weapon against multiple opponents than a single shot or a revolver, right? Therefore more 'dangerous' to other people in that sense.

Again, see my post above about lines and where to draw them.

 

[Kirby]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: nkgreen
What's more dangerous about a semi-auto handgun as opposed to revolver? Or one of those musket pistols?

It is a more effective weapon against multiple opponents than a single shot or a revolver, right? Therefore more 'dangerous' to other people in that sense.

Again, see my post above about lines and where to draw them.

So if an opponent wanted to kill you, you'd be perfectly content to use the revolver/musket, yes?

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

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?

Really?

Firearms outnumber swimming pools in the US by 30:1 (that is, there are 30 times as many guns as there are swimming pools). However, for children under 13, the ratio of pool deaths to gun deaths is 11:1. So, there are fewer pools, but more children die in pools than die from firearms.

Statistically the pools are more dangerous.

ZV

You're missing the point - it's not how many guns exist, it's how many < 13 year olds fire them. Very few I bet.

Also, there is every reason for a child of that age to learn to swim - they may need it at any time. A child should never need an automatic weapon and there is no reason to train them in their use, at least not until they are much older than 8, therefore this is not a good risk to take.

I would also point out that this kid was clearly NOT trained in it's use anyway, so it's analagous to putting a kid in a pool who DOESN'T KNOW HOW TO SWIM... what are the stats for that I wonder...

Yes, relatively few actually fire the guns. However, it's important to remember that most drownings occur when children go into pools unsupervised and without permission, which makes the drownings much more analogous to children who find a gun and play with it. Most of the drownings are indeed children who have don't know how to swim, usually a young child who wanders into the pool without having the life jacket or floats that his parents make him wear when he's supervised.

If the drownings typically occurred in public pools where there were lifeguards on duty, etc, then it would be different, but the fact is that most drownings occur in private pools when the child sneaks in and uses the pool without supervision. This is absolutely analogous to the situation where a child finds an improperly-stored firearm and plays with it.

And, as I have already said, I think it was horrifically irresponsible of the father and the instructor to allow an 8 year old to fire a select-fire weapon. I don't think that we need specific laws against it, but I do think that the situation as described stands a decent chance at being a legitimate example of depraved indifference. At the very least, it seems to me like a case of clear criminal negligence.

ZV

 

[hiromizu]

Originally posted by: nkgreen

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: nkgreen
What's more dangerous about a semi-auto handgun as opposed to revolver? Or one of those musket pistols?

It is a more effective weapon against multiple opponents than a single shot or a revolver, right? Therefore more 'dangerous' to other people in that sense.

Again, see my post above about lines and where to draw them.

So if an opponent wanted to kill you, you'd be perfectly content to use the revolver/musket, yes?

😀

 

[ThePresence]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: ConstipatedVigilante
It's pretty stupid to let an 8-year-old handle anything more than a low-caliber semi-automatic. When I was 13 (first started shooting) I barely had the wrist/hand strength to keep a semi auto 9mm on target, let alone a full-auto uzi. The kickback of any high-caliber weapons would be pretty painful for a kid, too.

That's actually where I think the chain of stupid started.

The Uzi uses the standard 9mm Luger handgun cartridge. It is not a "high-caliber" weapon by any stretch. The dad probably figured that it was "just a 9mm" and wasn't bright enough to realise that there is a lot more kick from a full-auto than from a single shot.

ZV

I don't know, I've shot Uzi's full-auto many times and I don't think it has more kick than shooting it single shot. The ability to lose control from multiple recoils is definitely there, but the kick of each shot actually feels a little weaker for some reason.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: nkgreen
What's more dangerous about a semi-auto handgun as opposed to revolver? Or one of those musket pistols?

It is a more effective weapon against multiple opponents than a single shot or a revolver, right? Therefore more 'dangerous' to other people in that sense.

Again, see my post above about lines and where to draw them.

No, not really. A revolver can carry 8 shots and in .357 magnum is more powerful than any common semi-auto chambering.

A revolver operates, from a user's perspective, in exactly the same way as a semi-auto: pull the trigger and the gun fires once, pull it again, and the gun fires again.

Statistically, gunfights involve fewer than 3 shots. It is obscenely rare for a gunfight to last longer than 6 shots. The fear over semi-automatics holding more cartridges is not based in rationality.

Finally, a firearm, in and of itself, presents no danger to anyone. The danger only exists in how the firearm is used. Used irresponsibly (e.g. an Uzi in the hands of an 8 year old) they are dangerous. Used responsibly, they are not. Just like kitchen knives.

As far as carrying weapons on the street, there has never been any statistical evidence to support the idea that allowing people to carry increases crime. However, those statistics I pointed out earlier certainly show a correlation between banning firearms and an increase in crime.

ZV

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: ConstipatedVigilante
It's pretty stupid to let an 8-year-old handle anything more than a low-caliber semi-automatic. When I was 13 (first started shooting) I barely had the wrist/hand strength to keep a semi auto 9mm on target, let alone a full-auto uzi. The kickback of any high-caliber weapons would be pretty painful for a kid, too.

That's actually where I think the chain of stupid started.

The Uzi uses the standard 9mm Luger handgun cartridge. It is not a "high-caliber" weapon by any stretch. The dad probably figured that it was "just a 9mm" and wasn't bright enough to realise that there is a lot more kick from a full-auto than from a single shot.

ZV

I don't know, I've shot Uzi's full-auto many times and I don't think it has more kick than shooting it single shot. The ability to lose control from multiple recoils is definitely there, but the kick of each shot actually feels a little weaker for some reason.

You're right, I chose my wording poorly. I meant that the rapid combination of several shots is "a lot more kick", not that the individual kicks are harder.

ZV

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: nkgreen

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: nkgreen
What's more dangerous about a semi-auto handgun as opposed to revolver? Or one of those musket pistols?

It is a more effective weapon against multiple opponents than a single shot or a revolver, right? Therefore more 'dangerous' to other people in that sense.

Again, see my post above about lines and where to draw them.

So if an opponent wanted to kill you, you'd be perfectly content to use the revolver/musket, yes?

Don't be a obtuse.

Since you seem incapable of finding it amongst all these big words, I will reply directly by repeating myself:

You are advocating everyone should have access to weapons, right? What weapons? How about nuclear weapons? Should ordinary people have those? No? Then you admit there must be a line drawn somewhere, correct?

Then our arguement is meerly about where to draw the line. I would draw it somewhere between having a shotgun in your house for self defence, and handing SMGs to 8 year olds. You would presumably draw it some distance after handing SMGs to 8 year olds... why?

/edit: and also, I'm not advocating British gun laws any more than I am American ones, i was meerly correcting an ignorant post, so don't reference that shit as if I believe in it word for word.

 

[bdude]

Noob is right.

 

[mugs]

Side note: I'm "pro-gun"

Originally posted by: nkgreen

What's more dangerous about a semi-auto handgun as opposed to revolver? Or one of those musket pistols?

A semi-auto handgun is a much more effective weapon than a revolver. Generally higher capacity and easier to reload. A muzzle loader can only fire one shot per barrel before reloading, so it's no competition for either a revolver or a semi-auto.


The comparisons to a swimming pool are silly. You can't compare based on quantity of swimming pools/guns and the deaths they cause. That's like comparing cars and airplanes accident statistics based on the total number of cars and airplanes. Cars and airplanes are compared based on total passenger miles. Guns and swimming pools would probably be compared based on man-hours of usage. I doubt you'll find any statistics on that. It seems highly likely to me that the average swimming pool has more man-hours of usage than the average gun, but by how much I won't even venture a guess. It's a bad statistic, just like the one that says your gun is ~40 times more likely to be used against yourself or a family member than an intruder.

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: mugs
Side note: I'm "pro-gun"

Originally posted by: nkgreen

What's more dangerous about a semi-auto handgun as opposed to revolver? Or one of those musket pistols?

A semi-auto handgun is a much more effective weapon than a revolver. Generally higher capacity and easier to reload. A muzzle loader can only fire one shot per barrel before reloading, so it's no competition for either a revolver or a semi-auto.


The comparisons to a swimming pool are silly. You can't compare based on quantity of swimming pools/guns and the deaths they cause. That's like comparing cars and airplanes accident statistics based on the total number of cars and airplanes. Cars and airplanes are compared based on total passenger miles. Guns and swimming pools would probably be compared based on man-hours of usage. I doubt you'll find any statistics on that. It seems highly likely to me that the average swimming pool has more man-hours of usage than the average gun, but by how much I won't even venture a guess. It's a bad statistic, just like the one that says your gun is ~40 times more likely to be used against yourself or a family member than an intruder.

Thank you - a voice of reason.

 

[Chiropteran]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: Chiropteran

Originally posted by: Atheus

You're missing the point - it's not how many guns exist, it's how many < 13 year olds fire them. Very few I bet.

Very few kids fire guns BECAUSE OF THE SAFEGUARDS built into guns. Kids can't buy guns, people who do buy guns can't just give them out freely to kids, guns are generally kept out of kid's reach etc.

LOL, well clearly not man, did you read the article?

Either way, you lose. This isn't a debate.

There are more guns than pools, yet more kids die from pools than guns.

Your original argument was that guns are kept out of the hands of kids, and that is why they cause fewer deaths.

If that is true, that just proves guns are safer- being kept out of kids hands makes them safe, wouldn't you agree?

Now you are trying to claim that guns aren't kept out of kids hands, because this article showing a single example of a kid handling a gun? Yeah okay, your logic is bullshit, but just for the hell of it let's assume you are correct and guns are NOT being kept away from kids.

Given that, we are right back at the start, and the simple fact that guns out number pools 30 to 1 and yet cause less than 10% as many deaths proves the guns are safer.


Please, just quit posting.

 

[ThePresence]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: ConstipatedVigilante
It's pretty stupid to let an 8-year-old handle anything more than a low-caliber semi-automatic. When I was 13 (first started shooting) I barely had the wrist/hand strength to keep a semi auto 9mm on target, let alone a full-auto uzi. The kickback of any high-caliber weapons would be pretty painful for a kid, too.

That's actually where I think the chain of stupid started.

The Uzi uses the standard 9mm Luger handgun cartridge. It is not a "high-caliber" weapon by any stretch. The dad probably figured that it was "just a 9mm" and wasn't bright enough to realise that there is a lot more kick from a full-auto than from a single shot.

ZV

I don't know, I've shot Uzi's full-auto many times and I don't think it has more kick than shooting it single shot. The ability to lose control from multiple recoils is definitely there, but the kick of each shot actually feels a little weaker for some reason.

You're right, I chose my wording poorly. I meant that the rapid combination of several shots is "a lot more kick", not that the individual kicks are harder.

ZV

Right. This story is a little hard for me to understand though. Every Uzi I've shot has a safety on the pistol grip that has to be squeezed to fired, and it's not too easy to squeeze, it takes effort. This prevents accidents like this. If your hand slips off the grip the gun wont fire. I don't see how it's possible to squeeze the grip safety and fire at someone's own head at the same time. i guess it's possible there is an uzi model that didnt have it, or they modified it which adds an entirely new level of stupid.

 

[CptCrunch]

i've been to knob creek a few times with their gun shows, and i have to say, even as a full grown adult, it's hard to keep a AK47 or M16 under control. I can't imagine giving an 8 year old kid an uzi to fire. bad call on the dad's part.

 

[Chiropteran]

Originally posted by: mugs


The comparisons to a swimming pool are silly. You can't compare based on quantity of swimming pools/guns and the deaths they cause. That's like comparing cars and airplanes accident statistics based on the total number of cars and airplanes. Cars and airplanes are compared based on total passenger miles. Guns and swimming pools would probably be compared based on man-hours of usage. I doubt you'll find any statistics on that. It seems highly likely to me that the average swimming pool has more man-hours of usage than the average gun, but by how much I won't even venture a guess. It's a bad statistic, just like the one that says your gun is ~40 times more likely to be used against yourself or a family member than an intruder.

The majority of children deaths in swimming pools occur when the child is in the pool alone. A populated pool with multiple adults and children is probably 1000 times safer than an otherwise unused pool with a single unsupervised child playing in or near it.

The statistics of all deaths occurring in a pool is used by multiple people at the same time can be completely thrown out and pools will still have a higher kill rate.

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: nkgreen
What's more dangerous about a semi-auto handgun as opposed to revolver? Or one of those musket pistols?

It is a more effective weapon against multiple opponents than a single shot or a revolver, right? Therefore more 'dangerous' to other people in that sense.

Again, see my post above about lines and where to draw them.

No, not really. A revolver can carry 8 shots and in .357 magnum is more powerful than any common semi-auto chambering.

A revolver operates, from a user's perspective, in exactly the same way as a semi-auto: pull the trigger and the gun fires once, pull it again, and the gun fires again.

Statistically, gunfights involve fewer than 3 shots. It is obscenely rare for a gunfight to last longer than 6 shots. The fear over semi-automatics holding more cartridges is not based in rationality.

Fair enough, but I'm not nescesarily saying British gun laws are any better than yours - I am saying that a line has to be drawn somwhere and there is NO justification for the incident with the kid and the Uzi.

Finally, a firearm, in and of itself, presents no danger to anyone. The danger only exists in how the firearm is used. Used irresponsibly (e.g. an Uzi in the hands of an 8 year old) they are dangerous. Used responsibly, they are not. Just like kitchen knives.

Well exactly - so they shouldn't be given to kids.

As far as carrying weapons on the street, there has never been any statistical evidence to support the idea that allowing people to carry increases crime. However, those statistics I pointed out earlier certainly show a correlation between banning firearms and an increase in crime.

If there are more cars there are more car accidents. If there are more swimmers there are more swimming accidents. If there are more guns there are more shootings. In general. Over time. I'm sorry, but it's just logical.

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

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Atheus
I would like to note that 'guns' are not 'banned' in the UK. You are allowed to keep shotguns, rifles, antique or collectable weapons, and certain types of pistols. you are not allowed to carry semi-auto handguns on the street and damn right too.

See my post above about lines and where to draw them.

You are arguing semantics. Obtaining a permit for pistols is ridiculously difficult and expensive (and only slightly less ridiculous for rifles and shotguns), while the restrictions on ammunition type and quantity all but ensure that the weapons cannot be used for self defense. The Firearms Certificate can be rejected by law enforcement for any reason, and can be revoked for any reason. Applicants are required to provide a specific reason why they should be allowed to have the gun and "self-defense" is not considered to be a valid reason for the issuance of a Firearms Certificate. Local police are allowed to assign any additional conditions (over and above national laws) on the Firearms Certificate that they may desire without listing specific reasons.

For all intents and purposes, handguns are banned in the UK. Yes, technically a very tiny percentage of people can spend a lot of money and successfully petition the government to allow them a target pistol, but such petitions are almost universally rejected.

For all practical purposes, handguns that are appropriate and effective for personal defense are banned in the UK.

ZV

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: Chiropteran

<some old bolox>

Your interpretation of the statistics is incorrect, your claims of what is and is not my point is twisted, and your logic is false. You are discrediting the others here who share your pro-gun stance but also have a brain.

 

[Kirby]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: nkgreen

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: nkgreen
What's more dangerous about a semi-auto handgun as opposed to revolver? Or one of those musket pistols?

It is a more effective weapon against multiple opponents than a single shot or a revolver, right? Therefore more 'dangerous' to other people in that sense.

Again, see my post above about lines and where to draw them.

So if an opponent wanted to kill you, you'd be perfectly content to use the revolver/musket, yes?

Don't be a obtuse.

Since you seem incapable of finding it amongst all these big words, I will reply directly by repeating myself:

You are advocating everyone should have access to weapons, right? What weapons? How about nuclear weapons? Should ordinary people have those? No? Then you admit there must be a line drawn somewhere, correct?

Then our arguement is meerly about where to draw the line. I would draw it somewhere between having a shotgun in your house for self defence, and handing SMGs to 8 year olds. You would presumably draw it some distance after handing SMGs to 8 year olds... why?

/edit: and also, I'm not advocating British gun laws any more than I am American ones, i was meerly correcting an ignorant post, so don't reference that shit as if I believe in it word for word.

Where have advocated citizens owning any weapons, much less nuclear weapons. 😕

Of course the man was stupid for giving the kid an Uzi, but citizens owning them are not crossing any line.

About the handgun, I was making a point that just because it hold more ammo doesn't mean it should be outlawed.

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

<true facts>

I guess that's true, but you *can* have a shotgun for self defence - I know people who do.

Besides, as I already said, I'm not defending British gun laws. If it were up to me all gun laws would be somewhere between US and British extremes.

Plus you didn't anwer why you think so many people get shot in the US.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Chiropteran

Originally posted by: mugs


The comparisons to a swimming pool are silly. You can't compare based on quantity of swimming pools/guns and the deaths they cause. That's like comparing cars and airplanes accident statistics based on the total number of cars and airplanes. Cars and airplanes are compared based on total passenger miles. Guns and swimming pools would probably be compared based on man-hours of usage. I doubt you'll find any statistics on that. It seems highly likely to me that the average swimming pool has more man-hours of usage than the average gun, but by how much I won't even venture a guess. It's a bad statistic, just like the one that says your gun is ~40 times more likely to be used against yourself or a family member than an intruder.

The majority of children deaths in swimming pools occur when the child is in the pool alone. A populated pool with multiple adults and children is probably 1000 times safer than an otherwise unused pool with a single unsupervised child playing in or near it.

The statistics of all deaths occurring in a pool is used by multiple people at the same time can be completely thrown out and pools will still have a higher kill rate.

Uh... if you think that throwing out deaths occurring in a pool used by multiple people will rectify any issues I had with that statistic, you didn't understand my objection to the statistic. If you have statistics on accidental deaths per man-hours of usage, that's a useful statistic. Accidental deaths per pool or per gun is a useless statistic.

 

[Fayd]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

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?

Really?

Firearms outnumber swimming pools in the US by 30:1 (that is, there are 30 times as many guns as there are swimming pools). However, for children under 13, the ratio of pool deaths to gun deaths is 11:1. So, there are fewer pools, but more children die in pools than die from firearms.

Statistically the pools are more dangerous.

ZV

well, that's slightly misleading statistics. better statistics would be incidence of exposure to firearms vs incidence of exposure to pools.

(it'd still be that there's more accidents with regards to pools, but that's because of the huge amount of safety restrictions inherent to firearms.)

tbh, even with the best safety checks, the best instructors, and the safest firearms, you WILL have people accidentally dieing. it's inevitable.

people need to quit crying, and realize that 1 life is just 1 life. it's nothing to change shitloads of laws that affect hundreds of millions of people over. especially when tens of thousands of people still die in alcohol related fatalities, and drug related fatalities, and...natural disasters, and whatnot.

get over it.

 

[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.

The Swiss have firearms everywhere, but significantly less firearm crime than the US.

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.

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)

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

ZV