If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
The stupidity of gun laws in America
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7694560.stmNew questions have been raised about US gun laws after a boy aged eight shot himself in the head with a submachine gun at a Massachusetts weapons fair.
Christopher Bizilj died after losing control of a recoiling Uzi submachine gun as he fired it at a pumpkin.
Both the boy's father and an instructor were present when the accident happened on Sunday at the gun show in Westfield.
State legislators are now considering drafting a bill banning under-21s from firing automatic weapons, reports say.
"We should take swift action to provide some reasonable restrictions on this type of unreasonable practice," Congressman Michael Costello told the Boston Globe newspaper.
"It's almost indescribable that within a year of leaving a booster seat, an eight-year-old can be holding a submachine gun."
No driving until 16. No sex until 18 (if one really must do it at all before getting married, evil thing as it is :rolleyes: ). No drinking until 21.
But please children, help yourself to a weapon, and an automatic one at that. Nothing wrong with that at all. It's what makes America the only truly free country in the world, at the end of the day. You betcha!
How fucked up things are in that country...
The mind fucking boggles.
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
If they're thinking about changing the law so that no one under the age of 21 can fire a gun then it's safe to assume that the child was allowed to hold it.
Fucking nut job of a country. :shocking:
But that's not the most astonishing thing. If you look at the bottom of the article you'll notice this:
And that apparently make their gun laws "strict"!!
So does that mean that in other States with not so 'strict' gun laws, not only are children allowed to handle and fire guns, but that they can do so without the presence of a licensed instructor??
Those people are really fucked up...
True, but I imagine it'd been done thousands of times before without a kid shooting themselves. This time it was just a tragic accident; it wasn't a problem with a lack of law, just plain stupidity.
Just a hunch, but I'm guessing such tragic accidents happen a lot less in countries where kids aren't allowed to play with fully-automatic weapons.
That's a ridiculous analogy seeing as there is a huge world of difference between leaving your house and playing around with a loaded weapon whose only use is to injure and kill people.
My point is Aladdin seems to think this was solely a problem with US gun laws when it was obviously a problem with the parents stupidity. Sure, if the law was there the situation wouldn't have happened but the situation shouldn't have happened anyway, regardless of what the law states or doesn't.
I'm just nabbing that before you go back and make your post a '.'
I disagree. As a 14 year old cadet I got my hands on rifles with a lot more firepower than an Uzi. It just depends on where and how they are used.
Giving an 8 year old, regardless of the law an automatic weapon at a fair is idiocy . Allowing a young person to shoot a rifle in a controlled environment on a range is not.
To many others, I guess freedom can be defined by being able to have same sex relations without being jailed. Or having oral or anal sex with the missus. Or travelling to any country one pleases (namely Cuba) without fear of harrassement. Or being able to drink at 18. Or not ever having to face the death penalty. Or publicly expressing political alliegances to socialism or communism without being persecuted.
If you ask me, freedom can be defined by the above far more than it'd ever be by being allowed to own a device designed to kill human beings. But each to their own I guess...
I know full well that there isnt a corellational effect between gun ownership and the murder rate, but in the US the free for all gun situation isnt helping. Yes its a restriction on freedom for the individual, but it would come with a benefit for the rest of society.
Or do they accept that allowing individuals to own nukes is completely wrong, and that no individual should be "free" to own one, and to hell with any claims of freedom rights?
Well, I obviously can't speak for others but I feel my personal freedom 100% untouched by the fact that I am not allowed to own a device which sole purpose is to kill another human being. I have a big problem with the fact that possession of recreational drugs is not legal, however. Though I guess it's too much to hope that the gun fundamentlists in America who claim one is not truly "free" if he's not allowed to bear arms would have sat down and thought about that one for a minute...
Well they key point is whether the parent in charge should have taken advantage of such a foolish law.
That's an interesting stance. I mean, my freedom would feel completely untouched if they made abortions illegal, after all, why legalise something thats sole purpose is to kill babies?
Do tell me: would you say your personal freedom is being infringed by not being legally allowed to keep a working ICBM loaded with nuclear warheads in your back yard, if you wished to do so? Do you feel oppressed by that fact? Or do you agree your personal freedom is not really being affected at all by it?
Perhaps I am not as hardline as you, I havent anything per say against gun ownership, I have friends who live on a farm on Montana who take a rife out riding because of bears, there are sections of the US where gun ownership is probably a good idea.
That and gun ownership by itself does not make the society more or less violent, I think the US has to address its deep social issues before it can bring down its murder rate, gun control would help but it wouldnt bring a drastic change.
My objection is with weapons which serve no purpose other than to kill humans, an uzi is not a hunting weapon. And its not even that section of the market which is the most dodgy its the buying and selling of guns second hand, which can be done with almost no paperwork whatsoever.
Or of course they could just enforce the full 2nd amendment (not just the first half), which would stop virtually everyone in the US owning a gun, but I dont see that happening.
I think anyone who doesn't live in cuckoo land would know the difference between a nuclear bomb and a gun and realise that comparing the two is worthless for making a point.
I don't even need to use nukes as an example. Do you feel oppressed because you can't legally own a surface to air heat seeking missile? Or an armed fighter jet? So long as you don't actually use it to decimate the neighbourhood there should be no problem about owning one. Right?
So since both of us agree on the principle of that, could you care to explain why should it be important to anyone that they can legally own a device whose only purpose is to kill human beings? Or indeed, why should those who are not allowed to own such devices feel their "freedom" is being restricted?
The kid is an hero. Better dead than red.
You're missing a huge point. All of those freedoms have been won through the barrel of a gun.
You think if Nazi Germany had won the second world war, men would be allowed to have relationships with each other?
You think black people would be allowed to even live free if the Royal Navy hadn't gone tear-arsing around the world shooting up slave ships or if the South had won the American civil war?
What if Russia had won the cold war and invaded Western Europe?
It sounds extreme, but all our freedoms have been won, ultimately on a battlefield and have evolved from there to the freedoms we enjoy today.
I dont think that he is suggesting we give up having an army. My history isnt perfect but I dont think our freedoms have ever been protected by an 8 year old with an uzi.
There's no legitimate reason for private citizens to own armed fighter jets or nuclear bombs. There are not, for example, criminals running around the UK with nukes and fighter jets, not are they hunting with them, or using them for target practice.
The 'principle' is not important, the specifics are. You may feel comfortable painting your world view with such a wide brush but I'm not hence I disagree.
I'll further add that there's no reason that it should be important for anyone to choose what clothes they wear, if someone did it for me I wouldn't suffer cold or the embarrassment of walking around naked. There's also no reason why I need to choose what GP I visit besides me merely wanting a choice. The fact someone LIKES to do something and it doesn't impact anyone else's life too negatively is enough to grant freedoms.
How does disallowing private individuals to own guns have a negative impact? It's pretty obvious to anyone that criminals who use guns in a negative way have no problem getting a hold of them; the only people penalised are those who would want to go through the proper channels and own a gun responsibly.