You can have my Uzi when you pry it from my cute widdle fingers...

a reply to: Riffrafter


When I read this story I thought to myself boy the anti-gun crowd is going to go crazy and point endless fingers again. Guess what I was right.


Do I think this girl was skilled enough for this weapon.....NO. Do I Think they should ban class 3........NO. You can cry a river of anti-gun tears and nothing will change. Too many people own guns and the odds of them just giving them up is 0%. So all the back and forth is for nothing other than ego and arrogance.



History is not on the anti-gun crowds side. Take a look back at other places in the past that banned firearms and the fallout that followed. And before you say look at the EU the history is still being written on that one. I believe they will end up just like the others as the governments that control them take hold. Everything is fine as long as the people are fat and entertained wait until that ends.

The second amendment was ratified in 1791 when a gun was still a musket. I am a lifelong hunter and I believe in everyone's right to have a gun, although at this point in time they can no longer be argued that they are for protection. Protection from what? Murderers? You're not special, no one is coming to murder you. The argument that they are protection from a tyrannical government is so ludicrous. The government has drones, you're bringing guns to a drone fight.

originally posted by: kicked
The second amendment was ratified in 1791 when a gun was still a musket. I am a lifelong hunter and I believe in everyone's right to have a gun, although at this point in time they can no longer be argued that they are for protection. Protection from what? Murderers? You're not special, no one is coming to murder you. The argument that they are protection from a tyrannical government is so ludicrous. The government has drones, you're bringing guns to a drone fight.

Basically.

Do not underestimate the ingenuity of the oppressed person.

a reply to: kicked

The second amendment was ratified in 1791 when a gun was still a musket. I am a lifelong hunter and I believe in everyone's right to have a gun, although at this point in time they can no longer be argued that they are for protection. Protection from what? Murderers? You're not special, no one is coming to murder you.

And yet hundreds of thousands of Americans use guns to defend themselves from people trying to murder them, rape them, and rob them every year. This argument is incredibly invalid.

The argument that they are protection from a tyrannical government is so ludicrous. The government has drones, you're bringing guns to a drone fight.

We've had drones for a long time. And yet we are still fighting in places like Afghanistan with people who have little more than indirect fire weapons, AKs, RPGs, and PKMs.

If you think We've dragged Afghanistan along for a long time due to an insurgency, imagine what an American insurgency would look like.

Arguments like this ignore the realities of war. Something very few have any idea about on this site, yet feel the need to prattle on about it like they have all the answers.

There were many poor decisions made that day. It happens. Won't stop people from doing stupid $#!+ either. We can argue all day who was to blame, but that is ultimately irrelevant. I just hate it for the hurt it caused to those involved. BTW, I'm sure my 9 yo daughter would love to shoot an Uzi, but I would not let her. I have 5 children, and they all know how to shoot accept for my 2yo son, and he is going to be starting soon with a .22. So, in closing, parents educate your kids about gun safety. Its never too early to teach them about safety, and use good judgement and common sense when you teach them to shoot. Always respect what the firearm can do, as soon as you forget, it reminds you.

a reply to: Riffrafter

Never let a crisis go to waste - Ralm Emanuel. The authoritarian left will jump on this to further push gun control.

a reply to: kicked

Oh.... let me jump on my soap box! The sole purpose for the second amendment is for protection of the people from our government. Period, that's it. The fact that weapons have advanced far beyond what they were when the amendment was written has no bearing on any argument. We have weapons, and national guard to overthrow our government if needed.

originally posted by: rockoblocko
There seems to be debate as to wether this is actually real or not........

What do you guys think?

I've been a gun collector for over 30 years. I own more than 30 guns, including some full-auto and a handful of suppressors. My first reaction when I saw the video is that it sounded like an H&K MP5 with integrated suppressor, which is one of my favorite guns. It did not sound like an unsuppressed 9mm Uzi, which I have also fired many times. The next closest thing it sounds like was my sons H&K full-auto Airsoft MP5. I can support the possibility it was one of the new .22 lr Uzi's, but it did not sound like a 9mm as reported by CNN. That's my reaction. That said, the only one of those that could have removed part of his cranium (as reported) is a 9mm. I am just a little perplexed.

originally posted by: TrueBrit

Furthermore, the issue with the sound of the gun... anyone who knows anything about audio visual issues, knows that in order to compare one sound beside another, and expect the same exact result from two like sources, one must record the sound with IDENTICAL recording gear.

Hi TrueBrit
I agree to a point, but what caught my ear was the extra mechanical sound on the video that was posted. It sounded like there was a lot more going on with the gun the girl was holding. You hear the initial pop, and then some extra noise, that noise couldn't be heard on the compared gun.
Also, see post above by ArJunaBug.

a reply to: projectvxn

And yet hundreds of thousands of Americans use guns to defend themselves from people trying to murder them, rape them, and rob them every year. This argument is incredibly invalid. We've had drones for a long time. And yet we are still fighting in places like Afghanistan with people who have little more than indirect fire weapons, AKs, RPGs, and PKMs.
If you think We've dragged Afghanistan along for a long time due to an insurgency, imagine what an American insurgency would look like. Arguments like this ignore the realities of war. Something very few have any idea about on this site, yet feel the need to prattle on about it like they have all the answers.

I definitely don't have all the answers, but you seem to. If you think that the government can't do as they please because everyone has a gun then that is your opinion, all power to you.

Let's take a look at your supposed 'hundreds of thousands' defend themselves against rape, robbery and murder argument.

Law enforcement reported 665 justifiable homicides in 2010. Of those, law enforcement officers justifiably killed 387 felons, and private citizens justifiably killed 278 people during the commission of a crime

In 2012, the last year available for full statistics, law enforcement ruled a total of 410 deaths as justified homicides, the FBI said. The annual number has been steady for much of the past few decades, officials said.

F BI - Justifiable HomicidesJustifiable Homicides Table
Washington Post

Another large case-control study compared women who were murdered by their intimate partner with a control group of battered women. Only 16 percent of the women who had been abused, but not murdered, had guns in their homes, whereas 51 percent of the murder victims did. In fact, not a single study to date has shown that the risk of any crime including burglary, robbery, home invasion, or spousal abuse against a female is decreased through gun ownership. Though there are examples of women using a gun to defend themselves, they are few and far between, and not statistically significant.

A new paper from the Violence Policy Center states that “for the five-year period 2007 through 2011, the total number of self-protective behaviors involving a firearm by victims of attempted or completed violent crimes or property crimes totaled only 338,700.” That comes to an annual average of 67,740

Link

You're welcome to reference that number to crime statistics and determine the percentage of that number in regards to those totals.

a reply to: Lawndartchief

The argument is not that the weapons have advanced to the point of being able to kill a school room full of children in a minute. The arugment, despite what others may believe, is that it is not a level playing field to the types of weaponry the government has compared to those available to the citizens. As i said, i believe in the right to own a gun. But it is your own opinion that they are enough to stop the government from doing as it pleases.

originally posted by: rockoblocko
There seems to be debate as to wether this is actually real or not........

What do you guys think?

What a colossal waste of time it was watching this video, there was zero evidence of a fake. I want my money back.

This was a very preventable tradgedy , there were very bsic firearms protocals not followed that catalysed the causality of this incident.


I was taught to shoot safely at 9 and was shooting a .303 British effectively and safely by 10 years old,this incident could not have happened if my own teaching basics and those of the majority of Firearms users had been followed.

The issue of putting a lethal weapon in the hands of any child is contentious, but to me is dependant solely on circumastance,situation and instructor acumen.

Some kids do not yet posess the capacity to follow directions to the letter,and this is critical,not to apply this to the incident in question, some instructors are not qulified,some weapons are unpredictable and over the abilitys physiclly of children to adequately control to meet safety protocals,if the weapon cannot be independantly controlled by the user under less than optimal circumstances it is to much for them to be using,again an instructor acumen issue related to decision making.

Such a sad and preventable accident.Hopefully Firearms protocols concerning kids are reviewed and improved everywhere to show respect for the victims of this accident because there were TWO of them and one still has a long hard journey of recovery ahead of her.

I think it is important for people who care to make an organised effort to bring a positive forward out of this so this young girl has something positive to carry her through some of the dark moments sure to come for her,WE can do that for her,there isnt much else we can do but we can do that.The NRA should have a Nationl Level innovation named in honor of this young girl that makes it safer for other kids and instructors in the future.Why dont some of the gunnys put there NRA money where their mouths are and help out one of the people using these guns they support when there is a tradgedy like this ,no complaint in that just an observation of misdirected focus.

Does anyone know how many bullets hit the guy? It had to be more than one, I would think.

originally posted by: Fylgje
Does anyone know how many bullets hit the guy? It had to be more than one, I would think.

does that really matter at all?

one in the right spot will end a person, it doesnt take 30 in the chest to be a threat at all

a reply to: SubTruth>> I don't see where this has any influence on gun control or gun banning. Okay, children shouldn't be allowed access to firearms with rates of fire or with calibers that they can't handle. So you allow those weapons without restrictions to owners, but you put an age restriction of 12 or 14 or 18. That's for recreational shooting ranges, obviously standard age restrictions for ownership would still apply.
Any incident they can complain about, the gun banners have gotten beyond desperate.

I kind of lean more towards a liberal approach when it comes to guns. I do think people should have the right to own a gun, but in modern day America, people (primarily the far-right) parade it around as if it is some type of cult item. As if it makes you a ultra American to own/use one. It's just been glorified far beyond what it should be.

So much so that someone thought it was a good idea to involve their young child in the gun culture, which resulted in the following incident.

I have no beef with guns themselves, but the whole mindset behind them is what I frown at. It's not used for it's specific purpose in and of itself a lot of the time. it mostly just serves a point, typically political, or perhaps social.

originally posted by: kicked
The second amendment was ratified in 1791 when a gun was still a musket. I am a lifelong hunter and I believe in everyone's right to have a gun, although at this point in time they can no longer be argued that they are for protection. Protection from what? Murderers? You're not special, no one is coming to murder you. The argument that they are protection from a tyrannical government is so ludicrous. The government has drones, you're bringing guns to a drone fight.

WRONG on so many levels. (Hypothetical= IF the fed began using drones to kill Americans en mass, (they already declared the legal right to do so (OBAMA)..
Then they can only be directed towards "known targets" Lets assume they already launched thousands of drones on individuals in America.. When you have 100 million angry citizens looking for revenge upon a tyrannical fed that already began using drones at will, who are now carefully sneaking up on enemy headquarters USA, how do they find targets? Carpet bombs on themselves?

Drones and the entire military could not stop the wrath of the American armed citizen coming in from every vector in the country.
This is why they are going for all the guns right now. Hell is coming

a reply to: kicked

Defensive gun uses arent limited to justifiable homicides.

There are thousands of cases where the criminal was injured and survived to be prosecuted. Tthen there is the use of a gun where the weapon is not fired but is enough to command compliance.

Defensive gun uses aren't always deadly. Most gun shot victims survive being shot. And most defensive gun uses do not involve the discharge of a firearm.