This may be upsetting to watch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfMzK7QwfrU

I read this on the news.
What possible benefit does a nine-year-old gain from being instructed how to use such a weapon (any weapon!) as this?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-28948946

Another incident in which an eight year old boy died while firing an Uzi.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/27399337/ns/us_news-life/t/boy-accidentally-kills-self-gun-show/#.U_4SCmMguGc

Words fail.

I have fired many automatic weapons, and it can be difficult for a trained adult to control the fire pattern. That instructor was a fool to stand anywhere but well to the rear of that girl.

Shelly

One report I read stated that the instructor should have been holding the weapon along with the girl.

You have to wonder how the father feels now, having condemned his daughter to a lifetime of remembering this horrific event.

He paid dearly, but that instructor was a fool to agree to allow that child to handle, never mind discharge, that weapon. And the little girl's parents deserve a horse whipping. Their daughter will carry the memory of that horrific moment with her the rest of her life.

F'n guns!

MSU

I strongly agree with that

Visit the Basement

I think it's fairly safe to assume that f'n idiots are far less lethal without firearms than with them. But as long as the attitude remains that, no matter the evidence to the contrary, "I am a responsible gun owner and shit like this could never happen on my watch," the carnage will go on.

http://www.childrensdefense.org/child-research-data-publications/data/state-data-repository/protect-children-not-guns-key-facts-2013.pdf

Telling statistics, but unlikely to move gun enthusiasts.

Sadly, true. It's dismaying that some persons appear to love their guns and their perceived rights under their sacrosanct second amendment more than they do their children.

That is a bit harsh. the problem is not with the Second Amendment, but with the broad interpretation of it by the NRA, and the political power (fear) they exert on elected officials.

I am entirely in favor of the right of sane, responsible citizens to own firearms, and sensible enforcement of those rights with full background investigations of buyers and their training in the ownership and use of their weapons.

Shelly

This will surprise Mize, but by and large I agree with that, with some reservations about age limits and automatic weapons. And I don't think it's unreasonable for said firearms to be registered. Does anyone object to their cars being registered?

Driving a car isn't a right, Paul. It's a privilege.

The forefathers of my country gave me the right to own a gun. They didn't say a DAMN thing about having to register it with big brother so they can track me down to take said weapons if they feel the need to.

Visit the Basement

And that privilege is bestowed by your driver's licence. The registration of the vehicle you drive does not in itself give you the privilege of driving that vehicle.

That's his point Paul. Driving a car is a privilege not a right. Owning a gun is a right, expressly provided for in the US Constitution, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".

MSU

Funny how the gun rights people always omit the militia preamble to that quote.

When the amendment was passed, the USA's total population was between 3 & 4 million people. Native Americans were a genuine threat to safety (we won't go into why that was so) and there was little or no formal law enforcement. The intentions of the amendment were clear, and they no longer apply. The Supreme Court's interpretation of the amendment is just plain stupid, and the current position rests on that iinterpretation, not the amendment itself.

Well if I don't take the car on public roads, I don't need to register it. So when you mentioned the need to register it, that in and of itself would mean that I'm driving in a place where registration is required and such a place is a privilege not a right.

Visit the Basement

What irks me about all this is that just because a right was granted over 200 years ago doesn't mean it's still legitimate or sensible now and a God given right. Societies change, hundreds of laws/rights have been repealed or changed for good reasons.

We already have restrictions on gun ownership. The problem is some people are afraid the government is coming to take there gun, so they say they want no regulation at all. But the less we put smart controls on gun ownership the more dangerous living in the US is. Then the guy who can afford the biggest, badest weapons becomes the ruler. And our laws become meaningless. Our laws are designed to protect the weak, and those who cannot defend themselves. It's not, "survival of the fittest", (even thou it seams like we are heading in that direction).
We have laws so I can enjoy all this country has to offer, without having to ware a gun. And when we all have to ware a gun just to get by then we are as bad as Iraq, with the most powerful, most guns, most ruthless running the country. We have police to protect us so we don't have to carry a gun ourselves. And when they are the ones shooting unarmed citizens, ... well that's another abuse of power.
Dennis

MSU

Yes the police usually come after the fact and an arrest and fair trial come after that. That is our justice system. Do you think some untrained joker with a gun will stop crime? It would become the wild west!
Unrestricted gun ownership doesn't fix that situation. We have to have limits... no military weapons, no fully automatic weapons, limited clip capacity, Some age limit, not 9, no explosives, canons, tanks, or weaponized drones! Keep your nine mil, hunting rifle, revolver, but keep it safe. And back ground checks for every sale! Will there be people who dont follow the law, yes. Does this mean we shouldn't try, no.

A very sensible post. Thank you.

Dave

I'm sorry but I just don't put much faith in what the NRC finds.

Everyone smiles in the same language (Unknown)

Then doubtless you'll understand why we don't put much faith in what the NRA finds, given that nowadays it is essentially a tool of weapons manufacturers.

I doubt either of us will sway the other from his conviction. As far as I'm concerned, that is not, and has never been, the point of the exercise.

Visit the Basement

I don't look to Guns and Ammo for my information on anything. I look at what is going on around me in real life

You don't live here and don't see all the violent criminals who walk out of court free or put on probation for their first offense through some "deal" their lawyer made, only to go out and repeat their crimes a lot of times with devastating results through the loss of life.

"Fire center mass until the threat is neutralized"
This is exactly why you should not have a gun!

Once again educate yourself before commenting

Seeing as there are over three times as many automobile deaths in the US in a year, maybe we should also be saying that you own a car not only at your own risk but at the risk of those nearest and dearest.

MSU

Automobiles are not manufactured with the express purpose of killing other living things.

You always listen James

Here we go round and round the anti-gun tree. Where this stops...

Same old crap...

Maybe I feel the same way about all the airplane posts. But, since others seem to enjoy them, I just skirt the subject, and keep the ennui to myself.

I've been real busy posting about airplanes lately, right James?

You posted a good topic about poor judgment. But it's degenerated again into the same rut.

I'm posting from my phone. Maybe later I'll respond to some of the inane comments.

The second amendment on Guns:


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.

The Supreme Court interpretation Of the second amendment:

Ruled that the right vests in individuals, not merely collective militias, while also ruling that the right is not unlimited and does not prohibit all regulation of either

Shelly

I understand that your Supreme Court left the door open to sensible regulation of firearms. And if your legislators would do what is the clearly expressed will of the majority instead of the amoral guns and ammo merchants and their deluded apologists, it certainly would be a step in the right direction.

And although the Court affirmed the individual right to keep a firearm, in light of the overwhelming evidence that even more guns in circulation would only serve to aggravate the situation, maybe its time that thinking people felt it a near moral obligation not to have one.