Are people in Boston friggin' stoopid...?
 

On Oct 29, 11:02*pm, wrote:
On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 06:55:52 -0700 (PDT), riverman
wrote:





On Oct 29, 8:43*pm, wrote:
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/reg...28_DA:_Crimina....

Lessee here - an 8-year-old boy is dead, having shot himself with an
out-of-control full-auto Uzi, and the local DA is wondering if anyone
might have been negligent...uh, ya think?

While I firmly believe that gun ownership, in general, is a
Constitutionally-protected individual right in the US, I'm pretty sure
it doesn't apply to allowing preteens to operate full-auto
close-quarters combat weapons. *What possible defense to criminal
negligence could a parent or instructor possibly have to allowing a 8 YO
child to even handle such a weapon with a loaded magazine, much less
fire the ****ing thing?

And for those that don't know (probably most readers), a Micro Uzi on
full-auto is difficult to control for an untrained adult of average
strength and weighs considerably more than the average pistol or
revolver. *I have experience with ones in all of the available calibers,
including while fitted with sub-caliber training devices (.22), and I
would say that there is no way whatsoever that a child could possibly
fire any of them safely while on full-auto. *Such a firearm is not a
target pistol nor a "plinking" firearm, it is purely and exactly what it
was designed to be: a weapon, and children have no business whatsoever
even handling such weapons, to say nothing of actually firing the thing.

A sad sheesh,
R
...and yeah, the father, the (alleged) "instructor" and anyone else
involved in allowing this tragedy deserve some jail time, with the
alleged "instructor" never being allow to so much a touch a firearm ever
again or "supervise" anyone else doing so...

It ain't just Bostonians (wait, that didn't come out right...)

Stoopid people aren't just in Boston...
http://tinyurl.com/6obk3t

This is nothing like _an adult_ firing a revolver and having the barrel
hit them in the head due to recoil. *Aside from it being an adult, the
weapon the child fired was still firing when the recoil from the first
shot caused the muzzle flip - and the potential for something like this
was made it so stupid and dangerous. *In your video link, by the time
that woman got hit with the muzzle, that bullet was _LONG_ gone. *In
this case, it is difficult for an untrained adult to fire a weapon such
as a Micro Uzi (or 9mm/,45 cal. Ingram or other such machine pistol) as
a handheld and keep the muzzle on-target/downrange. *It would be
essentially impossible for an 8 YO child to do so, so IOW, the potential
for the second and subsequent fired bullets to go "off-target" was so
high as to be a virtual certainty, whether or not anyone was killed or
injured. *To allow any untrained person to fire such a weapon is stupid
and negligent. *And considering that "grip-squeezing" the trigger would
produce a burst of several rounds (depending on the exact configuration,
it fires about 25-30 rounds a second), allowing a child to fire _this
particular weapon_ is incredibly stupid and IMO, absolutely criminally
negligent.


All your points are accepted. But I'd say that giving a 40cal handgun
to a drunk woman to fire just for laughs is still bordering on the
insanely stupid, as is videoing it to post on YouTube. I'm not going
to play 'my stupid is bigger than your stupid'...they're both
excellent examples of why 'common sense' tends to be pretty uncommon
in the best scenarios. Sometimes lethally so.

--riverman

OT: Are people in Western Mass friggin' stoopid...?
 

On Oct 29, 4:20*pm, DaveS wrote:
On Oct 29, 12:30*pm, wrote:
Snip
Richard
1. Of course the adults should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of
the law. Manslaughter at least. Idiots.
2. How did you wind up blaming the "liberals" for whatever? I'll bet
you $25 godzillion that "liberals" were few and far between at this
"let's shoot machine guns with the kids" family gun lover event. It
seems like a case might be made that WTF were these gun whacks
thinking. But the "liberals?" Come on dude, that is overworking the
material at hand.
Dave
Now if you had worked the Clintons into the narrative I might have
understood, but the "liberals?" Really.

Dave,
There weren't many liberals at the machine gun event, but there are a
whole bunch in the legislature that can't wait to add another gun law.
Thing is, as I said before, this really isn't a gun issue as much as a
negligence issue, and I agree that those directly involved, especially
the father and range officer should be prosecuted.

Are people in Boston friggin' stoopid...?
 

On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 16:59:41 -0700 (PDT), riverman
wrote:

On Oct 29, 11:02*pm, wrote:
On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 06:55:52 -0700 (PDT), riverman
wrote:

On Oct 29, 8:43*pm, wrote:
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/reg...28_DA:_Crimina...

Lessee here - an 8-year-old boy is dead, having shot himself with an
out-of-control full-auto Uzi, and the local DA is wondering if anyone
might have been negligent...uh, ya think?

While I firmly believe that gun ownership, in general, is a
Constitutionally-protected individual right in the US, I'm pretty sure
it doesn't apply to allowing preteens to operate full-auto
close-quarters combat weapons. *What possible defense to criminal
negligence could a parent or instructor possibly have to allowing a 8 YO
child to even handle such a weapon with a loaded magazine, much less
fire the ****ing thing?

And for those that don't know (probably most readers), a Micro Uzi on
full-auto is difficult to control for an untrained adult of average
strength and weighs considerably more than the average pistol or
revolver. *I have experience with ones in all of the available calibers,
including while fitted with sub-caliber training devices (.22), and I
would say that there is no way whatsoever that a child could possibly
fire any of them safely while on full-auto. *Such a firearm is not a
target pistol nor a "plinking" firearm, it is purely and exactly what it
was designed to be: a weapon, and children have no business whatsoever
even handling such weapons, to say nothing of actually firing the thing.

A sad sheesh,
R
...and yeah, the father, the (alleged) "instructor" and anyone else
involved in allowing this tragedy deserve some jail time, with the
alleged "instructor" never being allow to so much a touch a firearm ever
again or "supervise" anyone else doing so...

It ain't just Bostonians (wait, that didn't come out right...)

Stoopid people aren't just in Boston...
http://tinyurl.com/6obk3t

This is nothing like _an adult_ firing a revolver and having the barrel
hit them in the head due to recoil. *Aside from it being an adult, the
weapon the child fired was still firing when the recoil from the first
shot caused the muzzle flip - and the potential for something like this
was made it so stupid and dangerous. *In your video link, by the time
that woman got hit with the muzzle, that bullet was _LONG_ gone. *In
this case, it is difficult for an untrained adult to fire a weapon such
as a Micro Uzi (or 9mm/,45 cal. Ingram or other such machine pistol) as
a handheld and keep the muzzle on-target/downrange. *It would be
essentially impossible for an 8 YO child to do so, so IOW, the potential
for the second and subsequent fired bullets to go "off-target" was so
high as to be a virtual certainty, whether or not anyone was killed or
injured. *To allow any untrained person to fire such a weapon is stupid
and negligent. *And considering that "grip-squeezing" the trigger would
produce a burst of several rounds (depending on the exact configuration,
it fires about 25-30 rounds a second), allowing a child to fire _this
particular weapon_ is incredibly stupid and IMO, absolutely criminally
negligent.


All your points are accepted. But I'd say that giving a 40cal handgun
to a drunk woman to fire just for laughs is still bordering on the
insanely stupid, as is videoing it to post on YouTube. I'm not going
to play 'my stupid is bigger than your stupid'...they're both
excellent examples of why 'common sense' tends to be pretty uncommon
in the best scenarios. Sometimes lethally so.

First, I may have missed it, but I didn't see the woman drinking
anything, much less enough to call her "drunk." The caption said she
was drunk, but YouTube captions are often iffy at best. If she was
drunk, then no, drinking and firearms don't mix. IAC, I'm not trying to
say "my cited example of stupid is bigger than yours" (I'll happily
concede that your stupid is bigger than mine, if you wish...), but IMO,
there is considerably more risk in allowing most folks, and certainly a
small child, to fire a machine pistol vs. an adult firing a revolver and
to equate the two is improper and incorrect. For example, would you
equate a commercial airline allowing a pilot to fly a full airliner
while extremely intoxicated versus you driving after having had a small
glass of wine 6 hours before driving? No? Well, that's about the
difference in the two firearm examples.

Not all firearms are the same - it would have been, IMO, reasonably safe
to allow a _properly-supervised_ 8 YO child to fire a full-auto
full-sized Uzi with a .22 kit. My view of this has nothing whatsoever
to do with the "machine gun" aspect of this, it has to do with several
adults allowing a situation in which a supposedly supervised child was
allowed to handle and then fire a firearm they should have known was
completely and totally unsafe for him to be handling and firing - these
idiots gave a handful of double-edged razorblades to an infant and now
are apparently shocked that he got cut. It was not "possibly
negligent," "possibly unsafe," or "potentially dangerous," it was
criminally-negligent under even the most defense-strained stretching of
the term.

HTH,
R

--riverman

Are people in Boston friggin' stoopid...?
 

wrote:


http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ed...8_inktank?pg=8