Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To wonder what kind of idiot teaches a 9-year-old to use an Uzi

397 replies

BadLad · 27/08/2014 11:33

m.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-28948946

A 9-year-old kills her shooting instructor when she loses control of the Uzi he is teaching her to use.

Apparently many (that's right, many) firing ranges have strict rules when teaching children.

Oh well, that's all right then, what was I worried about?

OP posts:
mathanxiety · 28/08/2014 18:05

*of African Americans by African Americans

merrymouse · 28/08/2014 18:07

Why would a gun need to fall into your hands if you can buy one from a supermarket?

Who are the wrong people? A 14 year old who commits suicide with his parent's gun that they keep to 'protect themselves'? The man who shot michael brown? An upstanding member of the community who has a nervous breakdown?

Surely America is going to hell in a hand basket if people on suburban streets don't feel safe without guns.

AllMimsyWereTheBorogoves · 28/08/2014 18:11

We live a couple of miles from where this happened, seven years ago. Fortunately events like this are still very rare in the UK, even in inner London. I can't imagine what it would be like to have to face this all the time.

Stealthpolarbear · 28/08/2014 18:16

As pag has mentioned it's benefits vs risks

I guess it would go some,thing like this

9yo with bike
Risk of minor injury to self - moderate to high
Risk of minor injury to other - moderate
Risk of serious injury to self (broken bone etc) - low to moderate
Risk of serious injury to other - low
Risk of killing or maiming self - low
Risk of killing others - very low

Vs
Good aerobic exercise
Reduced chance of obesity
Sociable sport
Form of transport

9yo with gun
Risk of minor injury to self (recoil?) - moderate
Risk of minor injury to others - low
Risk of serious injury to self or other -high
Risk of killing or maiming self or other - high

Vs
Get to look cool Hmm
Get to shoot stuff, which you can eat maybe because food is expensive

ChazsBrilliantAttitude · 28/08/2014 18:22

I wonder if one of the factors is the purpose of owning a gun. If you live in a rural area and own a hunting rifle to hunt food then a gun is a functional item with a clear purpose. If you own guns for protection against "them" whoever they are then a gun is an extension / symbol of your fear and anxiety. I have to ask what some people are afraid of that they campaign for the right to own automatic weapons and armour piercing bullets?

It is very interesting to hear the views of the Americans on this thread as a Brit because I struggle to understand the US relationship with guns.

Stealthpolarbear · 28/08/2014 18:28

Ds sorry forgot protection
That is (genuinely) something I a, so far removed from I can't imagine it. The scariest animals round here are the rabbits and I fairly often leave the front door open and go out.

Tikimon · 28/08/2014 18:29

Well, when you can come up with a solution to our gun problem that doesn't just keep honest people honest, you let me know. Wink

Until you can show me a gun that can magically load itself up, and fire without a person holding it, it's the person not the gun. Interestingly enough, they try people at courts, not the murder weapons. I wonder why that is. Look how easy it is not to murder someone. I'm sitting right here. I'm typing to you instead of murdering a person. See how easy that is? Guns don't make people dangerous, people make any weapon dangerous.

More guns, gun violence down

In any case, I already stated a 9 year old should not be holding an Uzi. I have also already stated that guns are not toys and should be used responsibly.

But if we're all gun-ho about protecting people from something because of a few idiots, let's get rid of alcohol which is harmful and makes people lose judgement. People kill themselves and each other with drunk driving all the time, and it raises the risk of domestic violence. Drunks clog up the A&E's so doctors can't deal with more pressing matters. There's no practical reason to need alcohol is there? After all it's sole purpose is to alter your mental state.

Tikimon · 28/08/2014 18:44

I also don't know what your naive belief in youth centres as a substitute for sane gun control is founded upon. Nor do I understand how you can blithely state that things have improved since the 90s. Maybe you are setting a very high bar for what is an acceptable level of murder in any given society.

Gang violence is on the decrease. Violence in general is decreasing. Those are facts. Did I say they were fixed? No. I said they were decreasing. Part of the reason is because they were jailed, the other part of the reason is that youth centers have given young kids (the ones who join gangs), something else to do. I didn't say it was a magical cure and it was all sunshine and rainbows.

Guns are still at the same numbers, yet gangs are not as bad as the 80's and 90's. So logic would say guns are the symptom not the problem.

Cracking down on guns doesn't solve the problem of the black market. Taking away guns only gets guns away from people that went about it legally and registered so they're on the grid. Unless you're suggesting a total police state where cops can come in and search every house, you will never get rid of guns.

So how do you propose we get all these illegally acquired guns out of the hands of gangs?

This is a horribly callous attitude. Is 'attrition' of this sort acceptable to you?

Just because you're more likely to get shot dealing with drugs doesn't mean I condone people getting shot. Just like unless you're in an abusive relationship you're not likely to be killed by your partner, doesn't mean I condone people being killed by their partners. Put the straw man away. It's not a big secret that those who live by the sword die by the sword. It's just how it is. No malice intended.

The fallout from gun availability and frequent gun use in American cities is much worse, far more comprehensive and more pervasive than the figures for death and injury can possibly convey (and despite your claim about who the victims are, many innocent bystanders are killed and injured.)

Actually, gun availability decreases gun violence. Would you pull a gun on someone that might also have a gun? Most people wouldn't.

The places with the highest gun murders have the strictest laws. Criminals aren't stupid, if they know they have the advantage, they'll use it. If I was a criminal and I knew the person I was robbing was likely to not have a gun, I'd bring a gun to give me the upper hand.

mathanxiety · 28/08/2014 18:44

There is a tragic misconception that the gummint is in the business of taking away your rights and you might find yourself defending home and hearth and all you hold dear against Barack Obama and his hordes of cosmopolitan commies one bright fine day.

Never mind that the wars against the native Americans are glossed over or considered a Good Thing, and ditto the war against the Mormons and the imposition on them of the concept of marriage held by the federal government of the 1850s. I don't think people who believe in the well ordered militia (i.e. citizenry with an untrammeled right to bear arms) as a defence against over-reaching government really understand much of American history. Either that or they don't have much radar for irony. What that particular foundation of the right to bear arms platform boils down to is the proposition that armed citizens reserves the right to challenge a democratically elected government if its decisions do not go their way. It's fundamentally anti-democratic.

Tikimon · 28/08/2014 19:02

Surely America is going to hell in a hand basket if people on suburban streets don't feel safe without guns.

To be fair, we don't feel safe without having as many nukes as Russia has either.

People don't typically go into fights they know they might lose. If you both have big sticks, is the fight really worth it?

Perhaps these suburban women are hiding from domestic partners? There's all sorts of reasons a person would want a gun. Gun owners are not one big group.

There is a tragic misconception that the gummint is in the business of taking away your rights and you might find yourself defending home and hearth and all you hold dear against Barack Obama and his hordes of cosmopolitan commies one bright fine day.

Don't know where this was all mentioned, but ok.

In anycase, I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't own a gun, nor do I intend to, but I wouldn't stop someone else from doing it just because of a few idiots.

merrymouse · 28/08/2014 19:05

Guns don't make people dangerous, people make any weapon dangerous.

It's quite tricky to make another weapon or implement as dangerous as a gun. I suppose cars can be quite dangerous, but then you have to pass a driving test to drive a car, you can have your licence taken away, you can't drive if you have certain medical conditions and it is illegal to drive drunk.

True, excepting occasions where a gun goes off by accident, you need a person to fire a gun. It is therefore sensible to do things like background checks before you allow somebody to have a gun, register people with guns, check that they have suitable storage and not give the general public access to certain kinds of gun.

mathanxiety · 28/08/2014 19:13

Until you can show me a gun that can magically load itself up, and fire without a person holding it, it's the person not the gun.

Ridiculous. If the person only had a breadknife as a weapon, there wouldn't be the problem of death due to having six bullets rip your innards to shreds along with collateral damage to eight people standing close by. If the person only had a fist, then we are talking bruises, maybe a fractured bone.

And yes, the person who chose to use a weapon knowing how dangerous it was and knowing that use of it could cause death is who is tried in court and the degree of responsibility is decided according to circumstances - premeditated, reckless, etc., and the nature of the weapon and what it is capable of is one of the factors used in deciding the degree of murder a suspect is charged with.

The black markets in guns and drugs alike only exist because not enough resources have been made available to destroy them, and also because not enough resources have been made available to tackle the issue of demand. Demand for guns is just as much a sickness as demand for drugs. I am not suggesting a total police state or searches of homes. I am suggesting a serious effort to treat the sick, paranoid mindset that informs the zealots who wrap themselves in the second amendment. I am also suggesting a serious effort to refine the national assessment of the value of each individual life. Because right now, it seems to me that the cost to the inner city poor, men, women and children alike, is considered by good ole boys and their kinfolk a reasonable one to make them pay. Why should the poor and black and hispanic pay the price so that ignorant, under-educated racist bigots can indulge their paranoid fantasies?

I don't think you understand at all what I meant by 'fallout from gun availability and frequent gun use'. I don't think you understand at all how different society can be without the wallpaper of widespread gun ownership. I grew up in a society where even the police were not armed. My children are living in one where you can openly carry a gun to the supermarket.

More guns does not mean less violence, More guns means more danger of stupid, prejudiced fools like George Zimmerman using them to shoot other people dead.

Even one death as a result of gun violence should be completely unacceptable, but you state again and again that 'most people' wouldn't pull a gun on a person they suspected had a gun, as if somehow the exceptions are something we can do nothing about, and you say that living by the sword makes it more likely that you will die by the sword apparently without really extrapolating that to a national level and acknowledging the scope of the national disease.

You shrug when you see gang members die violent deaths at the hands of other gang members, and you seem to think that is one small isolated issue separate from the wider picture. It is in fact the whole problem - guns are available and guns cause immense escalations in violence (they are the ultimate instant gratification weapon) and they are available because life in America is cheap and machismo (which has as one of its major elements reliance on the gun as a prop) is a huge part of culture.

Machismo being of course one of the foundations of DV...

What a gun offers is instant power, whether to the fundamentalist patriarch determined to fight off the gummint or the thug in the hood. The easy availability of guns to people who want that power is the heart and soul of the problem.

merrymouse · 28/08/2014 19:15

People don't typically go into fights they know they might lose.

No. Apparently they get a bigger, more destructive gun. Or they use a gun because they think the other person must have a gun. If nobody has a gun they can just use a big stick. This might be painful and indeed kill somebody. But you can run away from a big stick. A big stick can't go off accidentally. A big stick can't automatically hit you 600 times in a minute.

Stealthpolarbear · 28/08/2014 19:26
dreamingbohemian · 28/08/2014 19:27

"In 2011, a total of 478,400 fatal and nonfatal violent crimes were committed with a firearm" -- Bureau of Justice Statistics

Sounds like more than 'a few idiots' to me

It's absurd to think that tighter regulation of the legal gun market would have no effect on the black market. If guns become more difficult and expensive to buy legally, they will also become harder to get illegally.

If you're a 'good person' and deserve to have a gun, then you should have no problem with jumping through a few more hoops to keep the 'bad people' from getting them. But no, people freak out about any attempt to make guns even a tiny bit harder to get.

Stealthpolarbear · 28/08/2014 19:29

How many violent crimes were committed with bicycles?

LegoSuperstar · 28/08/2014 19:34

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

MrsBoldon · 28/08/2014 19:34

In 2010 in the US there were 12, 996 murders. 8,7775 were murder by firearm (67.5%).

2010 in the UK there were 638 murders, 58 by firearm (9%).

Of course the US gun culture increases gun crime and murder by guns. But given the US has a population about 5 times bigger than the UK but a murder rate twenty times higher, there's a hell of a lot of other stuff going on.

HesterShaw · 28/08/2014 19:37

America is not like that. We are surrounded by countries

Are you? It was two last time I looked at an atlas. Have you seen how many countries surround Germany or the Czech Republic or Poland, or Switzerland?

OK I used "gun laws" as a catch all expression for gun laws and trigger happy shoot first ask questions later culture. Same shit.

You talk like it's a good/inevitable thing. Jesus Christ, are you stupid or something? Yes I know that's rude. No I'm not going to apologise for it. A 9 year old little girl has inadvertently blown a man to bits FFS. Utterly sick.

MammaTJ · 28/08/2014 20:06

Sorry but every time I have seen this I have thought 'Sick Joke punchline' as in

To wonder what kind of idiot teaches a 9 year old to use an Uzi== a Dead one.

It is so not funny, but why the fuck was anybody teaching a child the same age as my baby girl, who has not even walked to school on her own how to use a gun, not only a gun but one that can kill many people in one shot without even realising.

That poor little girl will have to live with that forever, even though she is not the one who is responsible!

Onesleeptillwembley · 28/08/2014 20:11

Apologies if anyone thinks I'm correcting them - I'm not, as such, but I just want to make a point that occurred to me.
He wasn't 'teaching' her to use the Uzi (which would be fucked up enough) but was letting her 'have a go' of this extremely dangerous, hard to control weapon. Frankly he was an accident waiting to happen.

mathanxiety · 28/08/2014 20:32

'People don't typically go into fights they know they might lose.'

That was exactly my point about guns giving a technological edge to potential combatants and how violence mushrooms and escalates when there is little or no immediate danger to parties engaged in urban warfare of the drive-by or ambush variety. When the means of inflicting violence and intimidation on enemies is limited to bats, knuckle dusters and knives, both parties to a fight have a better chance of winning or at least surviving. When one party has a gun and a car and plans a driveby, nobody else stands a chance.

mathanxiety · 28/08/2014 20:55

'To be fair, we don't feel safe without having as many nukes as Russia has either.'

You really don't understand the concept of Mutual Assured Destruction too well either.

That statement exemplifies the tendency to create an enemy and to go on from there to justify using whatever means are necessary to make you think you have the edge over that enemy. It's exactly how the Vice Lords and Insane Deuces and the Four Corner Hustlers operate, and it's exactly the mindset of the Second Amendment/NRA and the X Files 'the enemy is out there.' It's a sickness, a national neurosis.

(And Russia is old hat. China owns mahoosive amounts of American debt. Part of every tax dollar an American pays goes straight to China. In a very real sense, China owns the US. It might be worth disengaging from the fixation with Russia and asking how the heck that happened...)

MrsMeeple · 28/08/2014 21:01

I can't believe there's someone on here trotting out the "it's not the gun, it's the person holding it" line!!!?! I can only quote Piers Morgan's tweet "Remember, according to the @NRA it's 'not the gun, it's the person holding the gun'. She was 9 and holding an Uzi."

MrsMeeple · 28/08/2014 21:08

What I haven't been able to stop thinking about all day does seem to have been lightly touched on already above. But I wonder:

Person A has a monkey. They hand the monkey a machine gun, show them how to use it, point the monkey towards a target and step back, possibly to film the process. The monkey looses control of the machine gun, and kills someone nearby (very very fortunately only one person. Could just have easily been many more). Is person A not responsible for that death? Wasn't it entirely predictable, or at least a very reasonable possibility, that the monkey would loose control? And the monkey cannot and should not be held responsible - it can't make rational decisions based on a reasonable understanding of the predictable consequences, whether it ought to shoot the thing it's been handed and encouraged to use.

Ok. Now take the above scenario and replace the word "monkey" with "9 year old child".

Doesn't the same still apply?

Swipe left for the next trending thread