Created Tue 28th Oct 2008 5:57am PDT by 
jhouseholder
All questions » General » Tragedy » jhouseholder 
Will U.S. gun fairs begin having age restrictions to enter?
Current forecast: 27% chance 
Combining all predictions, the current forecast is that this is 27% likely to happen (unchanged in last 1 day)
Fox News: WESTFIELD, Mass. — With an instructor watching, an 8-year-old boy at a gun fair aimed an Uzi submachine gun at a pumpkin and pulled the trigger as his dad reached for a camera.
It was his first time shooting a fully automatic gun, and the recoil of the weapon was too much for him. He lost control and fatally shot himself in the head.
Now gun safety experts — and some gun enthusiasts at the club where the shooting happened — are wondering why such a young child was allowed to fire a weapon used in war. Local, state and federal authorities are also investigating whether everyone involved had proper licenses or if anyone committed a criminal act.
"It's easy to lose control of a weapon like that ... they are used on a battleground for a very good reason," said Jerry Belair, a spokesman for Stop Handgun Violence, based in Newton, Massachusetts. "It's to shoot as many times as you possibly can without having to reload at an enemy that's approaching. It's not a toy. It's not something to play with."
Police said Christopher Bizilj of Ashford, Connecticut, was pronounced dead at Baystate Medical Center in Springfield, Massachusetts, on Sunday afternoon, shortly after firing a 9mm micro Uzi submachine gun at the Machine Gun Shoot and Firearms Expo at the Westfield Sportsman's Club, co-sponsored by C.O.P. Firearms & Training.
Clarification: As per the question creators clarification this market settles based on a federal decision. Not one which would be carried out by states individually.
It was his first time shooting a fully automatic gun, and the recoil of the weapon was too much for him. He lost control and fatally shot himself in the head.
Now gun safety experts — and some gun enthusiasts at the club where the shooting happened — are wondering why such a young child was allowed to fire a weapon used in war. Local, state and federal authorities are also investigating whether everyone involved had proper licenses or if anyone committed a criminal act.
"It's easy to lose control of a weapon like that ... they are used on a battleground for a very good reason," said Jerry Belair, a spokesman for Stop Handgun Violence, based in Newton, Massachusetts. "It's to shoot as many times as you possibly can without having to reload at an enemy that's approaching. It's not a toy. It's not something to play with."
Police said Christopher Bizilj of Ashford, Connecticut, was pronounced dead at Baystate Medical Center in Springfield, Massachusetts, on Sunday afternoon, shortly after firing a 9mm micro Uzi submachine gun at the Machine Gun Shoot and Firearms Expo at the Westfield Sportsman's Club, co-sponsored by C.O.P. Firearms & Training.
Clarification: As per the question creators clarification this market settles based on a federal decision. Not one which would be carried out by states individually.
Settlement details:
As reported by a major mainstream news source. Must be a law passed requiring everyone admitted to be over a certain age. (Regardless of whether with an adult or not)
Make your prediction!
| Yes |
| ||||
| No |
|
Activity: H$18,285
Question suspends in 11 weeks
Suspend date: Sun 29th Mar 12:59am PDT (11 weeks to go)
Initial likelihoods: Yes: 50%
Action history:
Created Tue 28th Oct 2008 5:57am PDT by jhouseholder
jhouseholder
Clarified Fri 31st Oct 2008 8:22am PDT by 
ryanj![[Admin]](http://www.hubdub.com/images/icon_admin.gif "This user is an admin")
: As per the question creators clarification this market settles based on a federal decision. Not one which would be carried out by states individually.
ryanj: As per the question creators clarification this market settles based on a federal decision. Not one which would be carried out by states individually.
Suspend date: Sun 29th Mar 12:59am PDT (11 weeks to go)
more info...
Get widget!Predictions (34)
34 predictions
evilbeth
predicted No (H$50 at 73%)
lcsnor
mrperfkt
predicted No (H$1,000 at 72%)
constable1664
predicted No (H$50 at 71%)
bernardo
predicted Yes (H$100 at 29%)
predicted No (H$20 at 57%)
GREAT point about the car wrecks.
The United States of America was made possible by citizens with firearms who decided to stand up to big government. Our forefathers wanted to make sure that American citizens had that ability in the future. If anything we should eliminate all gun control laws. So yes curios, our forefathers would absolutely still support the second amendment today.
As far as this question goes, the father and the instructor should have known better than to let an 8 year old fire an uzi. That weapon walks up on Israeli soldiers so of course an eight year old kid's not going to be able to handle it.
GREAT point about the car wrecks.
consider so many people running around wearing fire arms as there are cars driving ...
That's what one's first instinct often is, but there's a reason that one of the first actions of just about every tyrannical government is to disarm the populace. Of course, the US's government is immune to ever becoming tyrannical.
No, but a disarmed populace is typically necessary for a tyrannical government to survive for long. I'm reminded of the old quote, "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the ammo box."
soap box: We guarantee freedom of speech even if people say bad or stupid things, because it ensures that people can speak out against a tyrannical government.
ballot box: We guarantee the right to vote even if people are stupid, because limiting access to voting in the past is often used as a way to repress segments of the populace.
jury box: Jurors sometimes make dumb decisions, but a trial by jury when used to try government officials helps prevent situations where government officials just let each other off the hook (as sometimes happens in certain countries).
ammo box: Even though there's ~1 murders per 20,000 people annually using firearms, it's considered a small price to pay for the deterrence an armed populace serves against a tyrannical government.
I know you know better than that. Do you remember this quote? “1935 will go down in History! For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient and the world will follow our lead to the future!”
@notable can you kill a deer with a police officer? Yes. Is it as effective as a gun? No.
and you where (not all ) the rights to vote but how many actually do ,see what was it last time a little above 50% and then they got it wrong, there is a lot to say for compulsory voting sure you don't have to vote you can just strike a line through your voting cards but at least you have to turn up, and not turn your backs on who ever you prefer my not voting, and then turn to your neighbor and accuse him if things go wrong,? true democracy works if you only let it.
does anyone of you wonder about the image the US has in foreign countries? being aggressive, militant, intolerant?
I thought these attributes were used to describe to Islamic fundamentalists ...
wow, I'm glad that I don't have to live there (yeah, I know, you guys don't want me to live there, and yeah, I know, nobody forces me to, and yeah, I know, I have the freedom to decide where I want to live) .
:-P
its a story i will not go into.
and you believe in mighty mac i bet we hear after Wednesday crocodile tears from the dragon?
that one prejudice too: all Americans are fat.
Nicely said, potatp!
LOL
btw today we've got the first snow of the season over here (around 15cm over night)
if it comes down to consider which risk to take:
1) having a firearm in my household with the risk that someone gets hurt just because of a incident
2) having someone breaking into my home and than hurt me (or my relatives)
I'd say I take option 2)
Really: A thief is not a murderer. So if a thief breaks into someones home, he'll make sure it is an easy robbery. He ensures himself that nobody is at home. He ensures himself of easy access to get into the home. He ensures himself to not getting disturbed while carrying away the stuff.
So the best way to defend yourselves against burglars is to put a good lock on your door (and windows), simulate being at home if you are not (by timed lights, for example), and get yourself a really laud alarm system. If you still do not feel safe, get yourself pepperspray or a dog.
For me, when "defending" myself against theft, it does not mean I should be preparing to kill.
There just is no need to have firearms which justify the risk to utilize them in an unintended or overhasty but fatal way.
sentences like this just prove the prejudice to be correct. Saddam could have said these words - and it would have even been true in his eyes (and proven by his own scientists) as your words are true in your eyes. as soon as you put up words in this absolute way, leaving no alternatives, it can't be true.
Yes. After long and painstaking experiments, scientists have conclusively proven that American citizens are worth intrinsically more, they hold intrinsically better values 100% of the time and that their government is more powerful.
If guns are important for safety, then how come they are used to kill family members more often than criminals? Speaking of criminals, if you were one and wanted to harm the occupants of a house, do you honestly think that you could not find a way of overpowering the owner and taking his gun? The whole point of gun control is that it makes it harder for criminals or murderers to buy guns. So what are you going to do: try your hardest to get a gun legally, or go into someone's house (which you already know how to do) and take their gun/s?
What you are seeing is the difference between a common European mindset and one more prevalent in America. Many Americans love their freedoms and know that the price of freedom is that they need to show initiative and solve problems on their own. They do not wait for "the authorities" to solve every little problem, and often resent it when government tries to be a problem solver. Many Europeans, on the other hand, want to be taken care of - see http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2006-01/05/content_4010016.htm for a story about a train with 600 people in France, aparently doing nothing about a rampage for two hours while they waited for police to come and solve the problem. This would be unlikely to happen in America - people tend to try solving the problem first there (both approaches have mixed results, admitedly).
This freedom that we enjoy here is why I choose to live here. Those who want to wait for "authorities" to solve everything for them have places they can live too. I won't judge them for their preferences, but I prefer liberty, with all its responsiblities, and the Second Amendment gives us one of the tools we need to exercise this.
you don't really think you have TRUE FREEDOM for starters, you don't let all of your countrymen to vote.?
i plead the fifth, lol
A CENTER IN NEED OF STUDY
By WENDY RUDERMAN
Philadelphia Daily News
rudermw@phillynews.com 215-854-2860
THOMAS JUDUE was a master at breaking into homes in his Southwest Philly neighborhood, according to police.
Over three months in 2007, at age 15, Judue allegedly committed six burglaries, some while armed. In one case, he held a gun to a girl's head. In another, he shot a woman in her chest and hip, nearly killing her, after she maced him inside her home, police records show.
The teen was expert at forcing open doors and scaling walls. He seemed equally skilled at sneaking out, records show.
And apparently, for a seasoned prowler like Judue, escaping from the problem-plagued Youth Study Center was a snap.
On Wednesday, Judue, 17, and two other teens busted out a first-floor window, climbed a too-short fence, and disappeared into the night as the city celebrated its World Series win.
Judue's victims yesterday described him as a "terror" with a penchant for violence. Now, he and other recent escapees are on the loose. good question for huddub
as well as US citizens don't have the complete and absolute "freedom" you claim to, the Europeans don't want to have every little thing dictated by authorities. See, there is "gray".
you pay taxes, don't you? why? because you don't have the freedom to decide yourself if you want to pay taxes. see, your freedom is limited. freedom is relative.
freedom depends on how much others tolerate you to do.
freedom as you proclaim is just an illusion. get realistic.
one question: ain't the 2nd amendment not just a little bit outdated, just a tiny bit needless nowadays? I mean, the US have evolved since than, didn't they?
I agree 100% - without the 2nd amendment, our other freedoms are not guaranteed. That amendment is not about hunting... although hunting is an excellant side-benefit!
You are right - taxes take away liberty. That is why we have elections. When a canidate tells us that he will let tax cuts expire, we are free to vote against that canidate. High taxes means we are working for the government - lower taxes let us work toward our own goals and dreams. If we have money left over, we can invest it in another side-arm, for example :-)
I believe that gun control laws should be loosened. When you consider that the government has jets, smart bombs, cruise missiles, satellites, unmanned drones, etc...; semi-automatic pistols/rifles, or even fully automatic rifles don't seem that bad. Plus target shooting is really fun. Unless you're an eight year old kid firing an uzi.
As per the question creators clarification this market settles based on a federal decision. Not one which would be carried out by states individually. Please remember to include specifics in your markets when creating them, or they often have to be voided. Anyway though if any would like me to cancel your prediction because of this I'd be happy to do so. Just flag the market.
Regards,
Ryan
Regards,
Ryan
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122540831980086085.html
This would be bad news for those people who want to depend on policemen for anything. Those of us who don't want a nanny state can rejoice in the fact that taxpayers are saving a little money!
Several years ago I lived in a rural area in the PNW were there were no policemen. I would guess upwards of 80% of the population was armed. Neighbors respected each other, and crime was practically unheard of.
regarding taxes: that's just an example of a regulation which you cannot flee from (if your name is not Robinson, but hey, don't ask about Friday). There are many more, which we all would agree belong to a modern civilized society. I just don't think that the 2nd amendment still makes sense nowadays, just as the death sentence or the freedom of abortion under certain circumstances. ah, hear-hear: freedom to decide the abort of a pregnancy. would you restrict personal freedom?
Read jhttp://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/stagnaro5.html
STAGNARO: You make a strong point in defense of the Swiss military organization: Switzerland could resist against Germany thanks to its armed citizenry. Do you believe this system is still good, despite the dramatic changes we have experienced in the last decades, both in the kind of enemies (e.g., terrorism) and in the ways of waging wars?
HALBROOK: Shortly before World War I, the German Kaiser was the guest of the Swiss government to observe military maneuvers. The Kaiser asked a Swiss militiaman: "You are 500,000 and you shoot well, but if we attack with 1,000,000 men what will you do?" The soldier replied: "We will shoot twice and go home."
Imagine how different history could have been if dutch citizens were armed like that in May of 1940.
When the Nazis occupied France and other countries, they found the registration lists of firearm owners in the police departments. Gun owners who did not turn in their firearms within 24 hours were shot, as were those who failed to inform on their friends and relatives. For whatever reason, historians have shown no interest in highlighting the cruel fate of Jews and subjects in the occupied countries who were firearm owners. And yet some of these gun owners who eluded the Nazis were able to use their firearms to save their families, refugees, and others and even to mount armed resistance. The Warsaw ghetto uprising of 1943 was initiated with only a half dozen illegal handguns.
http://xkcd.com/386/
you really think criminals buy their guns leagally?
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/10/obamas-new-atta.html
Maybe they should just ban the illegal ways to get guns... :-)
No, I don't. I think that they steal them from people who use guns for 'self-protection'.
Okay, lets put it this way: for certain reasons you think you must be (possibly) owner of a gun. I won't say you may not. I won't forbid you to be.
But I can't follow the reasons you come up with: In my eyes there is no such thread neither from robberies nor from "terrorists" nor from any enemy state which would justify the risk of unintended harm a fire arm in my home would bring. The argument of "freedom" is not affected in my opinion as there are certain rules we all accept in living together within a civilized society - we don't have to discuss that. So absolute freedom does not exist as long as you do not live completely isolated far away from any other humans. Allowing something because you can't prevent it even if you forbid it is just as when you say "I did because if I didn't do it, someone else would have done so" - that's poor in my eyes and is anything but moral courage.
You won't convince me being wrong, and I doubt I can even give you a moment to think about alternatives to your point of view.
re your comic: that exactly what I'm trying to tell these guys!
LOL
thanks for sharing :)
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,24587336-23109,00.html
People never change. Whenever there is bad news, we always seem to hear some surprised voice yelp "But this is 2008... this can't be happening" or some such thing. LOL
History is there to show us human nature - it is there we learn something of what humans are capable of (the whole range from kindness, mercy, tolerance, to bigotry, violence, and deception). If something has happened, it is possible that it may happen again. Thankfully it does not seem likely at this time, but a large reason for it not being likely is that there are deterrents in place.
One of these deterrants is the Second Amendment here in the United States.
If you walk across the border from the United States into the country of Mexico, the laws change. Gun laws are strict. That doesn't prevent violence though - it only means that law abiding citizens have fewer tools at their disposal. See http://www.hubdub.com/m19659/How_many_people_will_be_killed_in_the_drug_war_in_Mexico_by_the_end_of_2008 for how that is working out for them.
http://www.kval.com/news/33546119.html
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/30/obama-and-guns/
http://ukpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5hej9ikqGtp1mtMRTKrzWf1KHY5QA
So this could happen to you too: Having fire aims at home at fearing robbery.
You make a good point but not the one I suspect you intended. The guy who killed the kid was a convicted felon and, by US law, is not legally allowed to own a firearm. Criminals will always be able to obtain weapons whether or not it is legal for them to do so. By tightening gun control laws the government just makes it harder for honest people to protect themselves and their families. Great point krujis.
"convicted criminal" or not: the guy had a fire arm and feared a robbery. just the situation you have because of the 2nd amendment. a common constellation.
fear + fire arms = fatal
If you read up on the story you'll see that the kid's father and brother were with him. If one of his family members had a firearm he may have been able to fire back through the door and prevent the child from being killed.
I understood what you were trying to say. The FACT is that convicted felons are stripped of there second amendment rights. The FACT is, as you pointed out, they are still obtaining firearms and committing murders with them. The only thing eliminating the second amendment would do is deny good people the ability to defend themselves and their families from said criminals.