So let me get this straight

[Screw_Michigan]

Parents can have their children ripped from them for smoking dope, but allowing a 9 year old to shoot an fucking Uzi? Nope, nothing wrong with that AT ALL.

Nice job, gun freaks.

[Left Seater]

First off I am not familiar with the story of a 9 year old firing an Uzi so am taking your statement above only one the merits of each.

That said, your take above just shows how differently we are wired and look at issues. Having drugs in the house and potentially endangering children by using said drugs is far worse than allowing a 9 year old to shoot an Uzi with parental supervision.

At 9 I had shot and killed my first deer. By then I had been handling guns for years and had been taught the proper respect for them. I never fired a gun that I couldn't handle because my parents were always 1 step away.

Contrast that with having and using an illegal drug (Feds and most states) that clearly alters your mental state. Not to mention the lessons one teaches their kids by possessing and using and therefore breaking the law.

Sounds about right that CPS would step in if parents were smoking weed, but not if allowing their child to shoot a gun.

[Screw_Michigan]

Having drugs in the house and potentially endangering children by using said drugs is far worse than allowing a 9 year old to shoot an Uzi with parental supervision.

Dope = marijuana, for clarification. Nothing harder. A man is dead from a 9 y/o being allowed to shoot an Uzi with parental supervision. Wanna take another crack at this?

At 9 I had shot and killed my first deer.

Was it with an Uzi? Of course not, it was with a sensible weapon. A rifle, or some sort, right?

[Screw_Michigan]

It is OK to get stoned when you are supposed to be supervising your 2 year old child1.

It is NOT OK to allow your 9 year old to fire an automatic weapon at a gun range under the supervision of a trained and licensed instructor.

1 I read the article in Daily Kos too.

Who gives a shit if he's "trained and licensed?" He's also fucking dead.

Stop smearing the story with your Daily Kos, bullshit. You're better than that, I hope.

[Screw_Michigan]

Contrast that with having and using an illegal drug (Feds and most states) that clearly alters your mental state. Not to mention the lessons one teaches their kids by possessing and using and therefore breaking the law.

Hmmm. How about minding your own business and tending to your own family, Mr. Small Government Conservative? Oh, of course, unless it suits your agenda.

[Left Seater]

Having drugs in the house and potentially endangering children by using said drugs is far worse than allowing a 9 year old to shoot an Uzi with parental supervision.

Dope = marijuana, for clarification. Nothing harder. A man is dead from a 9 y/o being allowed to shoot an Uzi with parental supervision. Wanna take another crack at this?

At 9 I had shot and killed my first deer.

Was it with an Uzi? Of course not, it was with a sensible weapon. A rifle, or some sort, right?

So I just read the article on the gun range accident. The person at fault here is the range instructor. We do know he was standing on the wrong side of the kid, and not behind her, plus he had a hand under her arm. He put himself in the line of fire as the gun rose as it is want to do. Further, he was the one who had ultimate control over the weapons fired and by whom on that range.

As for your dope=marijuana comment, it is still illegal and mind altering.

It is far worse to use dope in your home or when responsible for your children than taking your child to a liscensed gun range and hiring an instructor to teach her how to shoot.

[Left Seater]

Contrast that with having and using an illegal drug (Feds and most states) that clearly alters your mental state. Not to mention the lessons one teaches their kids by possessing and using and therefore breaking the law.

Hmmm. How about minding your own business and tending to your own family, Mr. Small Government Conservative? Oh, of course, unless it suits your agenda.

Now you want to change the discussion. That has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. You do not know how I feel on the subject so don't strawman it.

The laws are the laws regardless of what we think of them. I still pay my taxes each year to the horror that is the IRS regardless of my thoughts or feelings on the matter.

[BSmack]

The laws are the laws regardless of what we think of them. I still pay my taxes each year to the horror that is the IRS regardless of my thoughts or feelings on the matter.

And I'm sure you come down real hard on companies that game the system in regards to taxes? Part of changing the law is changing the culture. So, if you really like small government, then why do you give a fuck if she had weed?

[Left Seater]

If you want to discuss such start a thread, BSmack. Might as well start it with companies you know are gaming the system.

[BSmack]

Might as well start it with companies you know are gaming the system.

Start with Burger King.

[mvscal]

A man is dead from a 9 y/o being allowed to shoot an Uzi

That man was the range instructor, you pindicked dumbfuck. He had complete control of the circumstances. He could have taken a look at that kid and said, "Nope. Not on my range." He didn't.

He is dead because he was an idiot and this particular problem has corrected itself. What, exactly, are you crying about?

[mvscal]

Might as well start it with companies you know are gaming the system.

Start with Burger King.

Maybe if we didn't have the highest corporate income tax in the world, they wouldn't bother "gaming" the system.

So, I take that you don't bother claiming all the tax deductions you can, right? That would be "gaming the system."

Dumbfuck.

[mvscal]

Does a 9 year old really need to be shooting an Uzi? Or any weapon for that matter.

What the fuck does "need" have to do with anything?

[Screw_Michigan]

It is far worse to use dope in your home or when responsible for your children than taking your child to a liscensed gun range and hiring an instructor to teach her how to shoot.

We're talking about a 9 y/o and an Uzi. Not a 9 y/o and a rifle. Even more disturbing than the actual incident is your propensity to circle the wagons instead of admitting it's pretty fucking stupid, unnecessary and IMO criminal to allow a 9 y/o to shoot a fully automatic weapon.

9 year olds, dude. Take another crack at it.

[Screw_Michigan]

What the fuck does "need" have to do with anything?

Why don't we let 9 year olds drive cars? Dumbfuck.

[Left Seater]

It is far worse to use dope in your home or when responsible for your children than taking your child to a liscensed gun range and hiring an instructor to teach her how to shoot.

We're talking about a 9 y/o and an Uzi. Not a 9 y/o and a rifle. Even more disturbing than the actual incident is your propensity to circle the wagons instead of admitting it's pretty fucking stupid, unnecessary and IMO criminal to allow a 9 y/o to shoot a fully automatic weapon.

So you want to offer you opinon on what should be criminal while comparing it to something that is actually criminal.

You might want to take another run at it yourself.

[Mikey]

Guns don't kill people. Dope and dumbfucks with guns kill people.

[mvscal]

We're talking about a 9 y/o and an Uzi. Not a 9 y/o and a rifle.

What the fuck difference does that make? You don't even know what the fuck you're talking about. You're just regurgitating buzzwords. "Ooohhh scary Uzi bad. Rifle good." Rifles are good, huh? Which would be easier for a 9 year old to handle? A .460 Weatherby or a 9mm Uzi? The Weatherby, right? It's a rifle.

...admitting it's pretty fucking stupid, unnecessary and IMO criminal to allow a 9 y/o to shoot a fully automatic weapon.

Of course it's pretty stupid to let an idiot instruct a scrawny 9 year old girl to shoot an Uzi on full auto. Stupid is supposed to hurt and, in this case, it was lethal. I fail to see the problem. A gun shy kid who shouldn't have been shooting will never shoot again and a dumbfuck who had no business instructing anyone how to use a firearm will never again teach anyone bad habits with lethal tools.

For the record, yes, 9 year olds can safely fire an Uzi on full auto. That guy did so many things wrong, I almost don't even know where to begin.

[Moving Sale]

Smoking pot is malum prohibitum not malum in se so it is criminal in name only. It is also one of the least toxic substances around. In fact it is less toxic than water.

Shooting an Uzi by a 9 yo is legal in NV but, as you can see from the article, highly dangerous. Neither should be illegal in my opinion.

[Moving Sale]

Can you even read lard boy?

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

He had complete control of the circumstances.

Apparently not.


Darwin 1

"They-can-have-my-gun-when-they-pry-it-from-my-cold-dead-hands" douchebag 0

[Moving Sale]

All bullshit aside, an Uzi is just as dangerous as any other firearm when not used properly.

And even more dangerous when used properly.

[Derron]

Even more disturbing than the actual incident is your propensity to circle the wagons instead of admitting it's pretty fucking stupid, unnecessary and IMO criminal to allow a 9 y/o to shoot a fully automatic weapon.

Equally disturbing is your level of stupidity and rehashing the take. As other have clearly mentioned and opined:

1. Instructor was a complete idiot and his mistake cost him his life. You only make one mistake in that business and that dude had made multiple mistakes,and was lucky shit did not go wrong a long time before it did.

2. Yes, it is unnecessary to let a 9 year old shoot a Uzi. Completely and beyond understanding of any trained marksman.

3. Criminal ??? Your true lib tard colors coming thorough here. The problem was resolved when dude got splatted. No more bad instruction and gun handling skills taught by him. Get you Beltway bastard friends on legislating that one next session, oh wait that is a states issue..right..

[Roger_the_Shrubber]

The person I am most concerned about in this story, and has yet to be mentioned, is the fact that the 9 year old girl now knows she killed someone. No matter how much counseling she gets, a child that age will blame herself. That is another tragedy in this.

And I agree that letting her fire an uzi is major league fucked up. And I also was out hunting at age 7, but my Dad literally beat into us gun safety rules.

[Wolfman]

We had these in my signal corps unit. Puts out a lot of lead if you get over-run. Not very accurate, but as that poor assed instructor found out, no need for accuracy when up close. RTS is correct about that poor little girl. It will be a miracle if she can come out of this with her head screwed on straight.

[Rooster]

So, Screwy, why does an Uzi not constitute a sensible weapon? Are you objecting to a child firing an automatic weapon in general? The cyclic rate? Or the length of the barrel? Or its' caliber? What is it about that particular model that you don't like? That Lefty hunted with a rifle at the age of 9 is not substantively different from a 9 year old shooting an Uzi on a range. The only real difference is that the deer was a purposeful kill and the instructor was an accident. Both weapons were fired for the intent of hitting a target, but one shot went awry in the act of shooting, something which could have conceivably happened to Lefty back then as well.

[Rooster]

Ok, Sale, I'll bite. Just how do you figure pot is less toxic than water? What parameters are you using? Being underwater for 10 minutes versus being in the shade of the mature marijuana plant? Drinking 12 ounces of filtered and purified water versus 12 ounces of purified and filtered hash oil? Your statement is so utterly ludicrous that it negates any possible argument you might have had.

[Rooster]

Smick, bow hunting is done at ranges less than what is the effective lethal range of an Uzi, so deer hunting is possible with a short barreled auto. As to the caliber issue, held steady enough, the volume of fire would offset the lack of penetration. But then, a poorly drawn bow or badly aimed arrow would be just as non-critically wounding as a 9mm, so the argument of distance to a deer or Nazi is moot.

[smackaholic]

I suspect the midget is referring to the fact that one can kill one's self by drinking massive quantities of water.

It really is an idiot statement though.

This reminds me of something that happened locally a number of years ago. An 8 or 9 year old boy was allowed to shoot an uzi on full auto at a range, supervised by alleged gun people, including his physician dad who was the HNIC at the local hospital ER dept. You would think such a person familiar with people and weapons would realize this was a bad idea. Anyhoo, the kid squeezed the trigger and the uzi did what uzis on full auto do, the barrel started climbing and the kid took one in the dome. Game over.

I am all for teaching young kids how to shoot, but, a nine year old has no business shooting anything more than a bolt action 22.

[Screw_Michigan]

Ok, Sale, I'll bite. Just how do you figure pot is less toxic than water? What parameters are you using? Being underwater for 10 minutes versus being in the shade of the mature marijuana plant? Drinking 12 ounces of filtered and purified water versus 12 ounces of purified and filtered hash oil? Your statement is so utterly ludicrous that it negates any possible argument you might have had.

Ever heard of water toxicity? Pull your head out of your fucking ass...for once.

[Screw_Michigan]

I am all for teaching young kids how to shoot, but, a nine year old has no business shooting anything more than a bolt action 22.

BUT BUT BUT there's nothing different about an Uzi than a rifle!

Sin,

Chicken pussy

[Moving Sale]

I suspect the midget is referring to the fact that one can kill one's self by drinking massive quantities of water.

It really is an idiot statement though.

And by idiot statement you mean true right?
THC has no LD50 and water does. Drinking to much water has killed many people. Pot has never killed anyone in 5,000 years of recorded history.

Put THAT in your pipe and smoke it.

[Screw_Michigan]

Rack Moving Sale

[Derron]

So, Screwy, why does an Uzi not constitute a sensible weapon? Are you objecting to a child firing an automatic weapon in general? The cyclic rate? Or the length of the barrel? Or its' caliber? What is it about that particular model that you don't like? That Lefty hunted with a rifle at the age of 9 is not substantively different from a 9 year old shooting an Uzi on a range. The only real difference is that the deer was a purposeful kill and the instructor was an accident. Both weapons were fired for the intent of hitting a target, but one shot went awry in the act of shooting, something which could have conceivably happened to Lefty back then as well.

This is really as big a load of horse shit as Screwed in the Ass's takes are.

Lefty hunted with a rifle at age 9. Lefty was likely properly supervised and trained by a responsible adult. Must states have a hunters safety class requirement for any minor child to obtain a hunting license. Lefty likely had put many rounds down range prior to going afield to hunt. They were multiple inputs to the shooting incident that Lefty did not have present in his hunting situation. Lefty probably did not have some idiot trying to show him what to do in an improper manner.

The range incident had multiple inputs for an "accident". An "accident" has to have at least 2 or more actions present for the " accident" to happen. Therefore they are not accidents, they are incidents.

Shooting range allowed an inexperienced shooter to handle a complex weapon. Kind of like putting a 16 year old kid in a Corvette with NO training or instruction what so ever.

1. Instructor put an improper weapon in the hands of a very inexperienced shooter who likely had never even shot a gun, much less a fucking piece of shit like the Uzi. Mistake one.

2. Instructor was in the wrong physical position during discharge. Mistake two.

3. Instructor had the girl fire ONE semi automatic round and then switched it over to full auto. Mistake three.

Now with the exception of item 3, you remove any one of those 2 previous actions and the " accident" never occurs.

Your analogy and reasoning are for shit.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

THC has no LD50

You make my head hurt (see page 6):

https://www.caymanchem.com/msdss/12068m.pdf

Don't see an LD50 there for humans.

Keep scratching that big pharma itch...

[Rooster]

Derron, I concede the point, however, I was referencing Screwy's use of the word "sensible," because broken up into its' component parts Lefty's childhood experience could have conceivably ended up as that little girl's experience at the range. That it didn't is partly due to the safety protocols we as parents place on our children. As he said, the training he received as a kid offset any danger presented by the handling of firearms at an early age. This could have been true as well of that girl, but as you pointed out, the instructor made a series of mistakes which cost him his life and quite possibly scarred the girl for some time to come.

All this goes back to the word "sensible." When my wife's father allowed her to drive the family pickup on the farm at the age of 9 (once her legs were long enough to reach the pedals), she was given the job of driving lunches out to the men working in the field. Was this sensible? In the context of my life, where I spent most of my childhood in towns or cities, no. But for her, even though her experience was nil and the danger inherent in driving a vehicle on county roads, was in theory, great, her father taught her well and determined the risk/reward was acceptable. And her experience was not atypical of farm kids in the Midwest.

My objection is the blanket rejection of any particular activity based on another person's experience, aka Screwy's rejection of any and all training in automatic weaponry. For him and his, sure, don't let the kids shoot Uzis. But for others? Who knows? Who are we to say that those parents are wrong to introduce that kind of activity-- apart from accidentally killing a man --to a child?

My own experience was that my father gave me a single shot shotgun and wouldn't let me operate anything else until I had demonstrated competency with it to his satisfaction. And for me and mine, those guidelines are what I used as well for my children, but I wouldn't place those restrictions on other parents. That's their responsibility.

[titlover]

He had complete control of the circumstances.

Apparently not.


Darwin 1

"They-can-have-my-gun-when-they-pry-it-from-my-cold-dead-hands" douchebag 0

only one thing wrong. he wasn't holding the uzi

[Moving Sale]

THC has no LD50

You make my head hurt (see page 6):

https://www.caymanchem.com/msdss/12068m.pdf

The estimated LD-50 (lethal threshold) for marijuana,established in 1988 by the DEA’s appropriate fact-finder, is 1:20,000 or 1:40,000.

Quote:

“At present it is estimated that marijuana’s LD-50 is around1:20,000 or 1:40,000. In layman terms this means that in order to induce death a marijuana smoker would have to consume 20,000 to 40,000 times as much marijuana as is contained in one marijuana cigarette. NIDA-supplied marijuana cigarettes weigh approximately .9 grams. A smoker would theoretically have to consume nearly 1,500 pounds of marijuana within about fifteen minutes to induce a lethal response.

cannabis-science.com/content/DEA%20Ruling%20Judge%20Young.pdf

In Judge Young’s report cannabis is referred to as marijuana

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
_______________________________________
)
In The Matter Of
)
)
Docket No. 86-22
MARIJUANA RESCHEDULING PETITION )
_______________________________________)
OPINION AND RECOMMENDED RULING, FINDINGS OF
FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION OF
Administrative LAW JUDGE.
FRANCIS L. YOUNG, Administrative Law Judge
DATED: SEP 6 1988

FRANCIS L. YOUNG, Administrative Law Judge

……………………

Part VIII.

ACCEPTED SAFETY FOR USE UNDER MEDICAL SUPERVISION

With respect to whether or not there is “a lack of accepted safety
for use of [marijuana] under medical supervision”, the record shows the
following facts to be uncontroverted.

Findings of Fact

Point 3. The most obvious concern when dealing with drug safety is the possibility of lethal effects. Can the drug
cause death?
4. Nearly all medicines have toxic, potentially lethal effects. But marijuana is not such a substance. There is no record in the extensive medical literature describing a
proven, documented cannabis-induced fatality.
5. This is a remarkable statement. First, the record on marijuana encompasses 5,000 years of human experience.
Second, marijuana is now used daily by enormous numbers of people throughout the world. Estimates suggest that from
twenty million to fifty million Americans routinely, albeit illegally, smoke marijuana without the benefit of direct
medical supervision. Yet, despite this long history of use and the extraordinarily high numbers of social smokers,
there are simply no credible medical reports to suggest that consuming marijuana has caused a single death.
6. By contrast aspirin, a commonly used, over-the-counter medicine, causes hundreds of deaths each year.
7. Drugs used in medicine are routinely given what is called an LD-50. The LD-50 rating indicates at what dosage
fifty percent of test animals receiving a drug will die as a result of drug induced toxicity. A number of researchers
have attempted to determine marijuana’s LD-50 rating in test animals, without success. Simply stated, researchers
have been unable to give animals enough marijuana to induce death.
8. At present it is estimated that marijuana’s LD-50 is around 1:20,000 or 1:40,000. In layman terms this means that in
order to induce death a marijuana smoker would have to consume 20,000 to 40,000 times as much marijuana as is
contained in onemarijuana cigarette. NIDA-supplied marijuana cigarettes weigh approximately .9 grams. A smoker
would theoretically have to consume nearly 1,500 pounds of marijuana within about fifteen minutes to induce a lethal
response.
9. In practical terms, marijuana cannot induce a lethal response as a result of drug-related toxicity.
10. Another common medical way to determine drug safety is called the therapeutic ratio. This ratio defines the
difference between a therapeutically effective dose and a dose which is capable of inducing adverse effects.
11. A commonly used over-the-counter product like aspirin has a therapeutic ratio of around 1:20. Two aspirins are
the recommended dose for adult patients. Twenty times this dose, forty aspirins, may cause a lethal reaction in some
patients, and will almost certainly cause gross injury to the digestive system, including extensive internal bleeding.
12. The therapeutic ratio for prescribed drugs is commonly around 1:10 or lower. Valium, a commonly used prescriptive
drug, may cause very serious biological damage if patients use ten times the recommended (therapeutic) dose.
13. There are, of course, prescriptive drugs which have much lower therapeutic ratios. Many of the drugs used to
treat patients with cancer, glaucoma and multiple sclerosis are highly toxic. The therapeutic ratio of some of the
drugs used in antineoplastic therapies, for example, are regarded as extremely toxic poisons with therapeutic ratios that may fall below 1:1.5. These drugs also have very low LD-50 ratios and can result in toxic, even lethal reactions, while being properly employed.
14. By contrast, marijuana’s therapeutic ratio, like its LD-50, is impossible to quantify because it is so high.
15. In strict medical terms marijuana is far safer than many foods we commonly consume. For example, eating ten raw
potatoes can result in a toxic response. By comparison, it is physically impossible to eat enough marijuana to induce
death.
16. Marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man. By any
measure of rational analysis marijuana can be safely used within a supervised routine of medical care.”

[Moving Sale]

Who knows? Who are we to say that those parents are wrong to introduce that kind of activity-- apart from accidentally killing a man --to a child?

I know she has been quoted as saying that even before the accident she thought the gun was too much for her. That's how we know that this was something she should not have been doing in the first place.

[smackaholic]

So, the instructor basically pressured a little girl into shooting an Uzi? Hopefully this fukker never reproduced. Rack chuckie D, the girl and the Uzi for taking him out.