PDA

View Full Version : 8 year old boy shoots self with UZI at gunshow



kapione
28-10-2008, 11:26
look at this story !!!!

Boy, 8, fatally shoots self with Uzi at gun show - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081028/ap_on_re_us/boy_shoots_himself)

being from a NYC Police family I find this shocking ,after the 1st Thompson submachine guns(1st called trench broom for WW1 soldiers) were used legally by gangsters in the 1920's till the 1930's).
As I understand Federal law , private persons by law can own a machine gun if you have a federal permit, but the federal government does NOT print of issue these permits.

I am speculating , this was a altered semiautomatic weapon, when these are "altered" they are very unstable...therefore dangerous in the hands of a trained person,an adult, not a 8 year old child .....

even toy guns for a boy is a bad idea,it teaches that a deadly weapon is a toy, guns are made to kill and do kill !
My Uncle allowed me to play with his service revolver at 6 or 7 years old, he had a simple policy
here is the gun, here are the bullets , DO NOT put the bullets in the gun it isnt a toy.....
you hear of hillbillys being simple people, but they use gins for shooting food, you never hear of their children killing themselves, or their friends, they are taught guns arent toys as I was ......

I hope the Dad and the other fools who allowed a boy to shoot a illegal fully automatic weapon go to jail without parole.....

whats wrong with people ? did they even think of what could go wrong ,even with an untrained adult , let alone an 8 year old boy ???

Transparent Theatre
29-10-2008, 01:46
It's funny how you never hear the NRA gun-nuts shouting their mouths off when a story like this breaks?

Isn't one of that bunch of scum going to tell us that it's "not guns that kill people"??

Try telling the kid's parents? I wonder if they will believe you now?

I hope the father of this poor kid goes down for a minimum of 20 years without parole.

The Traveler
03-11-2008, 17:15
I'm not part of the NRA, I'm not a lobbyist, and I don't think that gun rights are something that I would put much time and effort into fighting for if I were at home. However, I do believe they should be kept in place. As tragic as this is, I can respect TT's aggravation towards the sayings of the NRA and gun-toters such as "Guns don't kill people, people kill people.", and although as previously specified, it's not something that I would go around praising, I do believe there's more truth to it than many care to believe.

As Kapione himself stated, he was "speculating" as to the nature of this firearm, and what surrounded the situation. But we don't really know for sure. I suppose it's not extremely important, because the fact still remains that some person chose to take that child to a gun show, hand him a gun, and allow him (if I read this correctly) "...try it out.". I am still in awe as to what person exactly would allow, or have reason to permit an eight year old child to "try out" any gun, let alone a machine gun, and I'll agree with TT that some major form of punishment is due for this. But I can't put it directly to gun rights.

Gun rights are certainly an interesting topic. Some countries have them, some don't, and although myself not a strong believer in toting firearms around, I AM a firm believer that when you outlaw guns, only the outlaws will have guns. Although it cannot be completely proven, it is highly regarded among economists that one of the reasons we have such a low rate of crime in the United States (compared by population and country size, mind you) is because criminals are aware of the fact that the average citizen is fully able to defend themselves to great lengths.

The other interesting point that I've often read about is the actual facts on accidental death rates and the causes of them. Motor vehicle accidents (traffic-related), falls, poisoning, fires and flames, drowning, inhalation and ingestion of foreign objects, and complications due to medical procedures and malpractice all top the list way ahead of firearms.

Now, before somebody gets seriously offended and starts the insulting process here, let me step back and make sure that I am comparing apples to apples. We are talking about a child here, under the age of 18, and a firearms case. So then, I'll take out all other references and be specific on this.

Number of accidental deaths per year, children and firearms:
1 child under the age of ten for every 1,000,000+ firearms.

Number of accidental deaths per year, children and swimming pools:
1 child under the age of ten for every 11,000 swimming pools

Every child under the age of ten has a 100 times greater chance of drowning in a swimming pool than being involved in a gun-related death.

I don't see anybody outlawing swimming pools, nor have I seen or heard of parents going to jail for an accidental death of a child in a swimming pool. In my opinion, they are very close to the same responsibility level. But I am going to openly be a hypocrite, and I admit to this. I DO believe that this parent should be punished for this accident. Why? I'm not sure, really, and I admit to that also. Maybe because it seems so horrible that the person would actually BRING the child to this place, and GIVE them a destructive weapon, and in my mind it's a lot worse than a true accident with something fun-related like swimming.

Nevertheless, it still comes down to a responsibility issue. Man made the swimming pool, man made the gun, man made just about every other cause on that list of "accidental deaths" if you take out the falls which occurred with natural objects, and the poisonings which can occur from natural instances. So, I don't think I'm "scum" as TT posted, but I do believe that even though this is a horrible accident that cost the life of a child, we still need to step back and take a look as to just what it is we are putting the blame to.

adamst56
07-11-2008, 14:20
I'm not part of the NRA, I'm not a lobbyist, and Now, before somebody gets seriously offended and starts the insulting process here, let me step back and make sure that I am comparing apples to apples. We are talking about a child here, under the age of 18, and a firearms case. So then, I'll take out all other references and be specific on this.

Number of accidental deaths per year, children and firearms:
1 child under the age of ten for every 1,000,000+ firearms.

Number of accidental deaths per year, children and swimming pools:
1 child under the age of ten for every 11,000 swimming pools

Every child under the age of ten has a 100 times greater chance of drowning in a swimming pool than being involved in a gun-related death.

I don't see anybody outlawing swimming pools, nor have I seen or heard of parents going to jail for an accidental death of a child in a swimming pool. In my opinion, they are very close to the same responsibility level. But I am going to openly be a hypocrite, and I admit to this. I DO believe that this parent should be punished for this accident. Why? I'm not sure, really, and I admit to that also. Maybe because it seems so horrible that the person would actually BRING the child to this place, and GIVE them a destructive weapon, and in my mind it's a lot worse than a true accident with something fun-related like swimming.

What you need to figure out is the number of children exposed to automatic weapons that are killed or injured compared to adults in the same situation. A swimming pool is not relevant to this discussion. Pools are not designed to be killing machines. The point being that the weapon is too dangerous for a child to handle.
I am not a big fan of the NRA. Too many Americans have too many guns. Nobody outside of the miltary and law enforcement needs a fully automatic (or even semi-automatic) weapon. I do take my son to shoot rifles, pistols and shot guns. We enjoy target practise and in particular shooting skeet. My son is 14 years old and 6' tall. We have been shooting since he was 10.
They ought to string this 8 year old boy's Dad to the rafters by his balls and let him rot to death. He is too ignorant to function in society. More than just my opinion, he took a decision that endangered his son and resulted in his death.

J.D.
07-11-2008, 20:09
Why do the police need fully automatic weapons?

The Traveler
07-11-2008, 21:45
What you need to figure out is the number of children exposed to automatic weapons that are killed or injured compared to adults in the same situation. A swimming pool is not relevant to this discussion. Pools are not designed to be killing machines. The point being that the weapon is too dangerous for a child to handle.
I am not a big fan of the NRA. Too many Americans have too many guns. Nobody outside of the miltary and law enforcement needs a fully automatic (or even semi-automatic) weapon. I do take my son to shoot rifles, pistols and shot guns. We enjoy target practise and in particular shooting skeet. My son is 14 years old and 6' tall. We have been shooting since he was 10.
They ought to string this 8 year old boy's Dad to the rafters by his balls and let him rot to death. He is too ignorant to function in society. More than just my opinion, he took a decision that endangered his son and resulted in his death.

While I can see your point, I can't say that I agree, because I fully believe that they are comparable in this situation. Only because although the weapon is indeed a weapon, that was not the intent of use at the time, therefore making the situation an accidental death. If you have a vase, and you kill somebody with it, that vase is no longer a vase. It is also a weapon. However, if you bought...oh, I don't know...a Samurai sword as a collectors item and hung it on your wall, it is now (to you) not a weapon, it is a decoration. That item will only become a weapon again when it is used as such. That is the thinking that is used in economical equations and the court of law at our present frame of time, and although it isn't always correct, I'll have to agree with it in this instance for the sense of successfully and accurately comparing statistical information.

As for the NRA and guns, it's a difficult choice. I do think that they go a little far with pushing the gun rights, but at the same time, haven't you looked at the opposite side, and thought about what would happen to our crime rate if guns were outlawed? Think of how many crimes are prevented only because we, as americans, have the choice to arm ourselves, and it leaves the possibility that we may possibly choose to fight back.

Automatic weapons...that indeed is a good question, TD.

Qdos
07-11-2008, 23:28
What would happen to our crime rate if guns were outlawed? Think of how many crimes are prevented only because we, as americans, have the choice to arm ourselves, and it leaves the possibility that we may possibly choose to fight back.

Where I live, the United Kingdom, civilian guns are illegal (unless related to a persons trade, such as a farmer needing a shotgun) and guns in shooting clubs have to remain on the premises.

We do not have anything like as much gun crime here like you have in the US, and the reason is not that the UK is any less afflicted by violent criminals than the US, but is simply that the majority of criminals don't feel there is a necessity to carry arms, most likely because they do not expect to encounter them.

Bear in mind that few police personnel are armed here, and that we also don't have the death penalty, and you have an easy to reach conclusion:-

'if you threaten the criminal faction with arms then they will also arm themselves...'

:fudd:

Ash85
09-11-2008, 10:51
I too live in the UK so can not really make judgement about having firearms available to the public. Something which i disagree with and would second Qdos's comment about criminals threatened with arms will arm themselves.

Also, Traveller i think you are missing the point slightly. A gun is a gun, in my eyes created for killing. Whether it is in a gun show, in toy form sold in toy shops or sat behind glass in some museum the purpose of the object "gun" remains the same. The gun was made as a weapon, even as a toy it is made to represent a killing weapon for a "fun" simulation of the sort. The same goes for a samuri sword, you may hang it on your wall as an "ornament", however it does not then, stop being a weapon.

In terms of America's crime rates being low due to the fact that people have access to guns is ridiculous. Look at the size of America and the areas that are actually inhabited - i think you will find that the crime rate is not as low as you think and i am almost 99% sure that generally guns play no part in making it any less.

How swimming pools and other accidental deaths such as those listed can be compared to guns again is uncomprehensible for me. Children are exposed to cars and swimming pools etc much more regularly than they are to guns. Which may i add is obvious and welcomed - the car is a mode of transport, the swimming pool made for recreation and sport, the gun made for killing.

The Traveler
09-11-2008, 15:41
But, again when looking at the economic data we use to apply figures and numbers, this is how the subject falls. Weapon or not, that was not the intent of the situation, therefore it's rated as an accidental death. For me it's not something that I can say I agree with, or disagree with, it just "is". Any disagreement on those terms should then be directed towards how economists gather and use data and information, instead of at specific situations.

Something else that I've found is that after the claim of this being such a rare occurance in the UK, I urge you to look up the following:

-Population of the UK and the USA
-Firearms (which are legally registered and known about) in the UK, and the USA
-Number of deaths per year, accidental or non due to firearms in the UK and the USA

You'll find that although the UK is a bit lower, it's not quite the large "gap" that everyone portrays it to be. Apples to apples, oranges to oranges. Take the true numbers as a comparative form and match them together, do the division, and you may be surprised at what you find.

I really should also add that I can't say that I have a whole hearted opinion about this, only that I believe this man should be severely punished. Most of what I'm stating here and previously is coming from literature that I've read from economic journals, books, studies, and published papers. I always take the sides of the numbers, because in my opinion...they are the only ones that never lie.

Qdos
10-11-2008, 02:51
Something else that I've found is that after the claim of this being such a rare occurance in the UK, I urge you to look up the following:

-Population of the UK and the USA
-Firearms (which are legally registered and known about) in the UK, and the USA
-Number of deaths per year, accidental or non due to firearms in the UK and the USA

You'll find that although the UK is a bit lower, it's not quite the large "gap" that everyone portrays it to be.

Who was it said that there are 'Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics...' :ak:

Not wishing to piss on your fireworks, but whilst the UK's topmost echelon of robbery merchants might well have access to firearms, the fact is the common criminal can't source firearms and couldn't afford them because their illegality is what keeps the black market price high enough to make them affordable only to the really bad boys...

In the USA all you need is a piece of plausible ID and a creditcard, and you'll find it easy to buy a gun for far less than you would obtain one in England!

Gun crime here in the UK, where I have forty odd years of knowledge of the news and current affairs, is mahoosively less than we see reported in the news for the USA, and I gave reasons why in my former post.

Not to mention that Texas alone is somewhat larger than England at last count, so how could there ever be comparable levels of gun crime when the USA has about another fifty states to account for too... :9451:

It's a chicken and egg situation when aggressor and victim are both armed, and until you disarm I'm afraid accidents, killings, hold-ups and all other type of gun assisted or abetted crime will continue to rise.

The Traveler
10-11-2008, 23:33
I still don't buy it, but I'll agree to disagree. I'm happy that you feel it's indeed "so much safer" in the UK, but I'll still remain quite skeptikal when narrowing down the numbers.

Which brings me to a seperate interesting point. Statistics. Take any situation which is strongly presented in the public eye, and look at the pros, the cons, then go find the government and agency published statistics. The pros and cons use percentages, sometimes deducted from hidden meanings although not specified, in order to obtain percentage numbers in favor of their causes. The actvists (pros and cons) rarely use numbers, it's always percentages, and if you really pay close attention, they only use the percentages which are going to grab your attention, even if they don't completely pertain to what they're getting at. There are loads of this crap around, and I just cannot believe that nobody has taken any of them in for false advertising. However, go and look at the actual government, agency, or economically published statistics and numbers for the same subject. You get the real "numbers", and if there are percentages, usually they're only used to show a change, difference, or a comparison between other situations.

I refrain from using percentages in my posts, when I speak, or when I write. Only because I also am soured by this now standard fleecing by posting such things. Sure, I could go around saying I'm 99% sure of this, and 75% sure of that, or I think that 65% of this is such. To my eyes, I take them all with a grain of salt, and I actually give LESS credit to the one who posts such nonsense. Why? Because it has no backing. If a person writes that they are 99% sure of something, does that mean that they counted their own thoughts on that subject 100 times, and 1 time they thought differently?

I'm glad you brought that up, I've wanted to have a chat about that for quite sometime. Numbers don't lie, but be careful, because sometimes the people that write them do!

J.D.
11-11-2008, 05:42
63% of all statistics are just made up on the spot.

Qdos
15-11-2008, 12:26
Statistics are a system of information dissemination developed by big brother as a means of disguising the truth of course, with that I agree entirely...

Gun crime wise I'd still feel safer in the UK than the USA, although I'm currently stuck in Tverskaya trying to find a taxi for Kazanski Boksal and I've just seen an advert for a bulletproof 730i Beemer... :yikes: