8 year old accidently shoots himself with an Uzi

@Intrepid,

Intrepid wrote:

oralloy wrote:
"Intrepid" wrote:
The fact that we are intelligent enough to realize that guns are not good for the public good and only add to the decline in population

I don't think Canadians have "realized" that (and it isn't true regardless).

Where are your facts and statistics? Provide proof that it isn't true.

The last I heard, about 30% of Canadian households own guns. That is a fairly good indicator that Canadians have not concluded what you claimed. I don't have stats on hand for that 30% number on hand however.

As for it being untrue that guns are not good for the public good, here are a number of things that guns provide besides a decline in population:

They provide food for hunters.

They provide protection for people who use them for self-defense.

They provide recreation for people who use them for target shooting.

0 Replies

@Intrepid,

Intrepid wrote:

You may want to note that they are talking about gun deaths.

"Gun deaths" is an irrelevant figure when it comes to intentional killing.

If you take the gun away from a murderer and force him (or her) to kill with a knife instead, the victim ends up just as dead.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

do we need to add you to the list of nun guts, oral?

(kurious in kansas)

1 Reply

@Intrepid,

Intrepid wrote:

oralloy wrote:
Target-shooting guns are made for the purpose of punching holes in non-living objects.

Self-defense guns are made for the purpose of saving lives.

The child was not shooting a target pistol. He was shooting a uzi.

Yes, but I was responding to a blanket statement that "a gun is made for killing" -- which appeared to be directed at all guns in general.

Intrepid wrote:

What is a self defence gun as opposed to guns used for crime?

A self-defense gun is one that is designed to rapidly incapacitate an attacker before the attacker can cause any serious damage to the person wielding the gun.

The term can apply for two-legged or four legged attackers.

0 Replies

@Intrepid,

Intrepid wrote:

oralloy wrote:
Intrepid wrote:
Bullshit. Killing is never wholesome or good.

You would starve to death if no one ever killed (unless you were a plant and were able to use photosynthesis).

Even a moron would understand that this referred to killing of humans. We are not talking about the food chain here.

Most guns that are designed for killing are hunting weapons designed for killing non-humans.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

i'm lost. what are we arguing here, please sirs?

3 Replies

@Rockhead,

Rockhead wrote:

i'm lost. what are we arguing here, please sirs?

Damned if I know. I got lost in the whirlwind.

0 Replies

@Rockhead,

I think I'm lost, too, Rocky. I've got a compass but I think this map is waaay outdated.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Oralloy please take note of the below news story and yes if I was sure I would have bear trouble I would be carrying a 12 guage with slugs however a 45 is not a bad backup for a bears.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charging Bear Killed Near City
Animal Downed by Deputy 1 1/2 Miles From Bakersfield

Los Angeles Times (1886-Current File) - Los Angeles, Calif.
Date: Sep 17, 1961
Start Page: i17
Pages: 1
Section: E
Text Word Count: 331

Abstract (Document Summary)

A black bear that charged to within 5 ft. of him was killed with his 45-caliber pistol by Sheriff Dep. Ken Terry Saturday morning in an orange grove a mile and a half east of this city.

R

0 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

After seeing the size holes a 45 acp round will create in an oak 2 by 4 I do not think that any bear but perhaps a polar bear could stand up to 7 such hits over a period of 2 or 3 seconds at point blank range.

The 45 acp round was design to do what a 38 round could not put a drug up and enraged human down cold and it did a fine job in the Manila war .

Bears are far tougher then humans but not that tougher!

I wouldn't want to use a .45 ACP against an Alaskan bear of any color. They get BIG when they have an ample diet of salmon.

I'm not sure I'd be all that comfortable using it against a grizzly attack either.

I could see using a .45 ACP against a black bear from the eastern US (though a .44 mag would be more decisive).

1 Reply

@Rockhead,

Rockhead wrote:

do we need to add you to the list of nun guts, oral?

(kurious in kansas)

Depends. I generally regard the term as an extreme insult, and will often not take a post seriously if it uses the term.

I do however yearn for the day when machine guns and armor-piercing ammo are freely sold to the general public.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

nuff said, nun guts you are...

thankee for the clarification, nancy.

(ima crossbow guy myself)

0 Replies

<leaves the thread to the gun nuts and quietly slips out the door>

must be something in the water in Michigan

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Oralloy first I am from the east and black bears are the threat of concern here as they are the ones that from time to time view humans as prey.

Most other bears will attack only if they feel threaten or you are unluck enough to get between a mother and her clubs for example. Being aware and careful can cut that kind of risk to near zero.

A hand gun of any kind is a back up weapon when dealing with an animal the size and power of a bear if I was under the impression that there was a high likelihood of a bear attack I would be carrying my 12 guage with slugs or not going into that area at all.

1 Reply

@Rockhead,

Rockhead wrote:

i'm lost. what are we arguing here, please sirs?

There seems to be a point repeated often in the thread that gun deaths are somehow "different" from non-gun deaths since "guns are designed for killing".

Even assuming that we have a "gun designed for killing" I am not sure how that makes any related death more special than a non-gun death.

However, I also dispute the claim that all guns are made for killing. Olympic shooters, for example, use guns designed for striking non-living targets.

Killing is also not the goal of self-defense (though it may well be a side effect). Rather the goal is to end the attack on the person who is defending themselves.

And apparently now the term "killing" is supposed to really mean "killing people". Hunting weapons that are designed for killing game animals can also be excluded from the category "guns designed for killing people".

1 Reply

@oralloy,

how does this relate to an eight year old child blasting lead through his brain...

just kurious again.

2 Replies

@Rockhead,

Careful, you are asking rational questions

0 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Oralloy first I am from the east and black bears are the threat of concern there as they are the ones that from time to time view humans as prey.

I'm in Michigan -- black bears are the only ones we have here. (And unfortunately black bears everywhere are willing to look on humans as prey.)

I currently don't live near any bears. I'm out in open farmland, but all the dangerous animals were driven out of this area generations ago. But until a few years ago I was in a more remote area where the black bears lived in the woods right out back.

BillRM wrote:

Most other bears will attack only if they feel threaten or you are unluck enough to get between a mother and her clubs for example. Being aware and careful can cut that kind of risk to near zero.

True. Brown bears are a lot safer if you are aware. It's the monochrome ones that tend to wanna eat you.

BillRM wrote:

A hand gun of any kind is a back up weapon when dealing with an animal the size and power of a bear if I was under the impression that there was a high liklihood of a bear attack I would be carrying my 12 guage with slugs or not going into that area at all.

Me too.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

I get it, it's the old fingers in the ears lalalalalalalala trick...

good luck with that, jack.

(see ya round)

1 Reply

@Rockhead,

Rockhead wrote:

how does this relate to an eight year old child blasting lead through his brain...

just kurious again.

Well, some of the posts made the point that "this gun was made for killing" in regards to the gun used by the boy.

In that case, I suppose the gun really was made for killing people. (Though I am still unsure how that makes the death any more notable than if the boy had died from something not made for killing people.)

The posts that claimed "all guns are made for killing" or "all guns are made for killing people" are probably not too closely related to the boy's death. I just disputed them because they are wildly incorrect.

2 Replies

8 year old accidently shoots himself with an Uzi

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know