Comments on: Uzis for tots; it’s what’s for Christmas this year

By: Savantster

Savantster — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 21:06:04 +0000

I’m 5′8″ and 175 lbs. There are a lot of 6′2″ and taller folks out there, weighing 220lbs or more, and plenty of them are “good fighters”.

Plenty of them are also narcissistic arrogant pricks that think it’s funny to bully people and beat them up, and when they get drunk and stupid, they can even “accidentally” beat you to death.

Now take that same person and have them intend on breaking in to your house. Sorry, but at 3am and 1/2 asleep I’m not much of a match for someone like that who’s intentionally trying to harm me. And I don’t think I should have to hope beyond hope that I can hold my own and get lucky in a fist fight with that guy. Pulling a gun out of my night stand and blowing his head off, that I’m OK with.

Or what about “little old ladies”, 5′ nuthin, 80 lbs., living on their own? A 9mm goes a long way toward getting people out of the house, or preventing a rape/murder.

And what about tyrants and martial law and deployed military on home soil? We see all over the world where corrupted leaders try subverting their country’s government. Can’t well have a means to protect yourself if that happens if the only person with guns is the guy stealing power.

I agree that our Founding Fathers could never have imagined 30 round per second guns, but they also probably never could have imagined many of the trials and tribulations we have today. But the premise was sound and still holds today. People will occasionally need to defend themselves from others who are physically bigger. Guns are equalizers in that sense.

In an ideal world, there would never be a need for any guns.. but we don’t live in that world.

By: Ann Ivins

Ann Ivins — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 01:46:39 +0000

Cody – comment thread – look into it, especially #14.

Being an effective smartass takes work, Cody.

By: cody

cody — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 00:16:25 +0000

Gribble… Spellcheck, look into it… Also, Sweden and Switzerland are separate countries…

By: cody

cody — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 00:12:34 +0000

Ann Ivins… It is better to have a gun and not need it, then to need a gun and not have it…

we have more to fear than scallywags and hooligans in the US.

By: cody

cody — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 00:03:25 +0000

I’d actually be surprised if this happened anywhere but in the US… we’re so sophisticated… 8 more years of BUSH… WOOOOOHOOOO DOGGY

By: JS OBrien

JS OBrien — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 15:54:57 +0000

Eric,

Agreed. The genie is out of the bag on guns in the US, and it’s not politically or feasible to take them away from people. So, like you, I’m thinking that people get trained and, if they make a mistake with a gun, they go to prison for a long time. That will encourage people either not to own a gun or to be especially cautious if they do.

Gribblethemunchkin: Best … posting name … ever.

Good points. You’re right in theory, but it won’t work in practice I’m afraid. Not in the US. Not at this time.

By: Eric Bosen

Eric Bosen — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 15:44:22 +0000

“If America were to return gun ownership to this level, i.e. for a purely military purpose to prevent government tyranny and foreign invasion, and to train all gun owners in military discipline regarding guns, your murder rate would drop. But the current system seems to be guns for everyone, no matter what kind of dumbass unhinged loon they may be.”

I agree with a lot of what you said here. Guns are something that won’t be disappearing anytime soon within the U.S. so instead of trying in vain to remove them, we should be focusing our attention on the proper use of said firearms. That means training and safety courses should be more available to those interested(perhaps these should be mandated when someone goes to buy a gun) and working on increasing the number of licensed instructors. And while there will always be crimes committed with guns, there are steps that can be taken to reduce this and they simply are not being pursued doggedly enough for my liking.

By: Ann Ivins

Ann Ivins — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 14:55:09 +0000

Finally, where do you Yanks think YOUR criminals get their guns? They either buy them legally or they steal them off law abiding gun owners. Neither is possible in my country (save for shotguns from farmers) and the pool of firearms is massively reduced.

*applauds wildly*

By: Gribblethemunchkin

Gribblethemunchkin — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 14:12:29 +0000

I understand that as a European my views on firearms are radically at odds with those of many Americans but simply put, this would not, could not have happened in the UK where i live. Firearms are illegal here, especially handguns and automatic weapons. Law abiding citizens cannot shot themselves, leave the gun out accidently and have their kids shoot themselves or have tragic accidents when handling guns with the kids.
The only people over here with guns are cops and criminals. Furthermore, the vast majority of criminals do not carry guns because the cops come down on such people like a ton of bricks.
Finally, where do you yanks think YOUR criminals get their guns? They either buy them legally or they steal them off law abiding gun owners. Neither is possible in my country (save for shotguns from farmers) and the pool of firearms is massively reduced.
I’m not going to pretend that we don’t have gun murders here, of course we do, but we have significantly less per capita than you do.
If you are serious about reducing gun deaths, you must restrict weapon sales.
I often hear the old arguement about Switzland and the universal gun ownership there. The Swiss actually use their guns in the manner described in the US constitution, i.e. as a well regulated militia. Swiss national service means that the people with guns are taught a healthy respect for them and the purposes behind ownership of a gun (i.e. to make Sweden near impossible to invade).
If America were to return gun ownership to this level, i.e. for a purely military purpose to prevent government tyranny and foreign invasion, and to train all gun owners in military discipline regarding guns, your murder rate would drop. But the current system seems to be guns for everyone, no matter what kind of dumbass unhinged loon they may be.

By: Eric Bosen

Eric Bosen — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 05:30:42 +0000

This is a tragedy. A young life taken through no fault of his own. The story presented here is yet another lesson in parental responsibility that I feel is lacking throughout our society. I could hypothesize on why it seems to be lacking these days yet I fear I do not have the time nor tolerance to write a thesis here. May he rest in peace.

By: Shawn White

Shawn White — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 02:39:43 +0000

My thoughts exactly. It’s a f*&king shame. Well said by the author and the earlier comment of hugging my children extra hard tonight without trying to explain why. I have a tear sneaking out right now as I type. That father has his punishment, unfortunately. But f^$king dumbasses, every one of them involved. And I read he was too focused on reaching for his camera as it happened.

By: Ann Ivins

Ann Ivins — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 00:59:02 +0000

NoLem(m)ingsHere, do you believe there is any situation which would justify owning or carrying a gun? No baiting, I promise – just an honest question.

By: NoLemingsHere

NoLemingsHere — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 00:25:58 +0000

Listen to all you gun nuts trying to be reasonable and sound responsible–including the JS O’Brien. Your outrage is meaningless. Guns are made solely for killing and you know that. You just enjoy holding the power of death in your hands! I’m sorry the kid died. Unfortunately for him he was a member of a community that thinks implements of death are cool. Maybe instead of teaching kids to fire Uizis or .22’s parents should be out flying kites and playing ball with their kids. Maybe instead of instilling the love of that raw power they should helping their kids use the imagination. Nah, that not in the constitution.

By: floyd

floyd — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 21:49:58 +0000

the laws are on the books already, why are not the pro gun advocates screaming bloody murder over the lack of enforcement of such laws
it would lead to a more believable group of people as far as there intentions are concerned

By: JS OBrien

JS OBrien — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 21:45:09 +0000

Thank you, Ann, for reminding me of that long-ago post. For those interested, here is my earlier post on forgetting gun control and just holding people extremely accountable for gun safety:

http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2007/11/30/if-you-want-real-gun-control-stop-trying-to-control-the-sale-and-possession-of-guns/

By: Ann Ivins

Ann Ivins — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 21:18:52 +0000

This kind of thing is exactly why I agree with JS: one of the best safety measures we could take as a country is not to abolish guns, but to punish the hell out of any adult who misuses one, on purpose OR “accidentally.”

By: floyd

floyd — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 21:07:05 +0000

children can not be expected to make adult decisions or they would be voting…
the father was a doctor?
i wouldent let him make life or deth decisions on me, is that father adult enoughf to have a child or own a gun?
man as long as he only accidentley takes out his own…
pro gun, pro comon sense? cant expect comon sense to be legistrated i guess
no excuse this was a bad move on the pro gun instructor who should not be teaching anything to any one and ill bet he screams the loudest sigh when they tell him he cant teach any more i hope his inshurance pays out big
guns dont kill
stupid or people acting illegaly do

By: jackie sheeler

jackie sheeler — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 20:49:45 +0000

well said. nothing wrong with owning guns or gun-owners.

it’s the lack of basic common sense that enables children to kill themselves by accident.

what a horrendous event.

By: Ann Ivins

Ann Ivins — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 17:28:55 +0000

The Cop Firearms site is down now… but I noticed before it disappeared that “partial proceeds” from the machine gun shoot were going to Shriners Hospitals for Children.

By: Russ Wellen

Russ Wellen — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 17:01:13 +0000

Right, Librul. When the Second Amendment guaranteeing the “right to keep and bear arms” was ratified, the Founding Fathers had no idea what kind of super-efficient weaponry it would be used to justify the possession of. Remember, with rifles in those days, you could only get off one shot at a time, and after much preparation.