Fatal shooting of firing range instructor by 9 year old girl and an Uzi

[BLAZINGGIANTS]

Yes, the range is to blame for allowing that happen as we as the parents for asking them (the range instructors) to show their daughter how to shoot the loaded uzi.

Such a terrible position to be put into by an idiotic group of supposed adults.

We have a drinking age. And for driving autos. Why don't we have some sort of age for kids using automatics?

 

[magnifier661]

We have a drinking age. And for driving autos. Why don't we have some sort of age for kids using automatics?

Well automatics are actually illegal for every age. Unless you purchased guns manufactured before 1983 or something.

This range has autos because they have some special permit. Normal citizens don't get to have those weapons.

Which is why I say it's the range's fault first and foremost.

As they say in the historical records: Spider-Man... "With great power brings great responsibility"

 

[barfo]

Well, I think you make my point for me. It would be extraordinarily expensive for anyone to try and make a bomb so having one is moot.

For you and I, yes. Warren Buffett, for example, could afford one.

It is legal and constitutional.

I don't know - it seems to me you'd need a permit from various government agencies (NRC?) and you wouldn't get the permit, so you'd be violating the law by not having the proper permits.

barfo

 

[barfo]

To wit:

It shall be unlawful, except as provided in section 2121 of this title, for any person, inside or outside of the United States, to knowingly participate in the development of, manufacture, produce, transfer, acquire, receive, possess, import, export, or use, or possess and threaten to use, any atomic weapon. Nothing in this section shall be deemed to modify the provisions of section 2051 (a) or 2131 of this title.

barfo

 

[BLAZINGGIANTS]

Well automatics are actually illegal for every age. Unless you purchased guns manufactured before 1983 or something.

This range has autos because they have some special permit. Normal citizens don't get to have those weapons.

Which is why I say it's the range's fault first and foremost.

As they say in the historical records: Spider-Man... "With great power brings great responsibility"

No doubt I blame the range first and foremost. They ultimately allowed access. It's like, if I, as an irresponsible parent told my kid they couldn't drink at our house, in the privacy of our home, but then took them to a bar and the bar said yes.... Sure, I'm likely a terrible parent, but the bar was the last barrier to prevent drinking.

The parents were irresponsible, too, though.

 

[MARIS61]

With the passing of this dangerously unqualified shooting instructor, the overall collective quality of shooting instructors nationwide has improved a couple notches.

 

[BLAZINGGIANTS]

With the passing of this dangerously unqualified shooting instructor, the overall collective quality of shooting instructors nationwide has improved a couple notches.

Wow.

Uzily too soon.

 

[BLAZINGGIANTS]

Stoopid autocorrect.

 

[Further]

Well, I think you make my point for me. It would be extraordinarily expensive for anyone to try and make a bomb so having one is moot. It is legal and constitutional. When the 2nd was written, they absolutely meant all forms of weapons, especially the biggest and baddest of the day possessed by the British military.

What's not legal is transporting the material, though nuclear material is all over the place (like X-Ray rooms at hospitals).

As barfo said, Warren Buffett could handle the cost. So could many other billionaires or corporations. Hey, exon just nuked Spain. But even so, it's illegal, not just expensive. Although big nukes are mega expensive, you could build a dirty bomb for a few mil. (Cheap smoke detector is ~$8. 100,000 smoke detectors contain enough of the isotope americium-241 to make a powerful dirty bomb.). But large sales are tracked by our government and you would be arrested for building such a bomb. How many Americans could afford a few million bucks?

And yes, when the 2nd amendment was written of course it meant everything they had at the time. But the biggest baddest thing at that time might be able to kill a dozen people at a time. We now have weapons that could kill millions. That's a it of a game changer. We also have many more people and much easier access to due to relative affordability of all our legal weapons.

In my fathers lab back in the day he used to work with palytoxin, one of the most toxic things known, made by some sea creatures, can't recall exactly. He needed it as a way to study a specific cellular pathway, but part of the way through his experiments the government banned it, even for most scientists. My father ended up smuggling it into America for his experiments. Because it was illegal and could be weaponized. That was over a decade ago, my father is retired and the substance has long since been destroyed.

Nukes, dirty bombs, mustard gas, and a whole bunch of other things are illegal. No matter how you want to say it's just economical reasons people don't have them, you are wrong. There are laws, laws and more laws.

 

[Denny Crane]

To wit:



barfo

To wit: unconstitutional.

 

[Denny Crane]

For you and I, yes. Warren Buffett, for example, could afford one.



I don't know - it seems to me you'd need a permit from various government agencies (NRC?) and you wouldn't get the permit, so you'd be violating the law by not having the proper permits.

barfo

I call bullshit on you and further.

http://fas.org/blogs/fas/2013/04/new-report-analyzing-irans-nuclear-program-costs-and-risks/

Iran’s quest for the development of nuclear program has been marked by enormous financial costs and risks. It is estimated that the program’s cost is well over $100 billion, with the construction of the Bushehr reactor costing over $11 billion, making it one of the most expensive reactors in the world.

---

I've seen $170B reported. Who has $170B?

Exxon-Mobil has $52B in cash on hand. Not enough.

 

[Denny Crane]

As barfo said, Warren Buffett could handle the cost. So could many other billionaires or corporations. Hey, exon just nuked Spain. But even so, it's illegal, not just expensive. Although big nukes are mega expensive, you could build a dirty bomb for a few mil. (Cheap smoke detector is ~$8. 100,000 smoke detectors contain enough of the isotope americium-241 to make a powerful dirty bomb.). But large sales are tracked by our government and you would be arrested for building such a bomb. How many Americans could afford a few million bucks?

And yes, when the 2nd amendment was written of course it meant everything they had at the time. But the biggest baddest thing at that time might be able to kill a dozen people at a time. We now have weapons that could kill millions. That's a it of a game changer. We also have many more people and much easier access to due to relative affordability of all our legal weapons.

In my fathers lab back in the day he used to work with palytoxin, one of the most toxic things known, made by some sea creatures, can't recall exactly. He needed it as a way to study a specific cellular pathway, but part of the way through his experiments the government banned it, even for most scientists. My father ended up smuggling it into America for his experiments. Because it was illegal and could be weaponized. That was over a decade ago, my father is retired and the substance has long since been destroyed.

Nukes, dirty bombs, mustard gas, and a whole bunch of other things are illegal. No matter how you want to say it's just economical reasons people don't have them, you are wrong. There are laws, laws and more laws.

The dirty bomb scenario is nothing new. When I was in high school many many years ago, we discussed the possibility that someone might use a stick of dynamite and radiological waste from the top of the Hancock building to radiate a large area.

 

[Sinobas]

9 year old = learn to shoot a pellet gun.

 

[Further]

The dirty bomb scenario is nothing new. When I was in high school many many years ago, we discussed the possibility that someone might use a stick of dynamite and radiological waste from the top of the Hancock building to radiate a large area.

Might not be new, but is illegal.

 

[Denny Crane]

Might not be new, but is illegal.

So the honest people are honest and the evil ones obey this law.

 

[barfo]

To wit: unconstitutional.

I'm pretty sure the courts have not and are not ever going to overturn that law as unconstitutional. So you can cling to your belief that it's legal to own a nuke, but it's only legal in your mind, not in reality.

barfo

 

[barfo]

I call bullshit on you and further.

http://fas.org/blogs/fas/2013/04/new-report-analyzing-irans-nuclear-program-costs-and-risks/

Iran’s quest for the development of nuclear program has been marked by enormous financial costs and risks. It is estimated that the program’s cost is well over $100 billion, with the construction of the Bushehr reactor costing over $11 billion, making it one of the most expensive reactors in the world.

---

I've seen $170B reported. Who has $170B?

Exxon-Mobil has $52B in cash on hand. Not enough.

Just because it cost Iran that much doesn't mean it would cost another party the same to acquire a bomb.
You didn't read your own link, did you?

The program’s cost—measured in lost foreign investment and oil revenue—has been well over $100 billion.

I don't think those costs apply to Warren.

In addition, Iran's cost includes the cost of rebuilding facilities after they get blown up, concealment of the facilities from the outside world, and doing everything from scratch because there are few sources for parts & equipment. Finally, Iran has attempted to build power reactors as well in order to show the outside world that they aren't just building bombs, and that is included in the costs.

If Warren was building himself a totally legal bomb in Dennyland, he wouldn't have any of these issues.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Just because it cost Iran that much doesn't mean it would cost another party the same to acquire a bomb.
You didn't read your own link, did you?



I don't think those costs apply to Warren.

In addition, Iran's cost includes the cost of rebuilding facilities after they get blown up, concealment of the facilities from the outside world, and doing everything from scratch because there are few sources for parts & equipment. Finally, Iran has attempted to build power reactors as well in order to show the outside world that they aren't just building bombs, and that is included in the costs.

If Warren was building himself a totally legal bomb in Dennyland, he wouldn't have any of these issues.

barfo

You mean in barfoland.

It would cost hundreds of $billions to make a bomb for Buffett, too.

He could make a dirty bomb for cheap, though. But that's not what I'm talking about.

Sure, anyone can buy a bomb for $.01 if someone else has one and is willing to sell for that. There clearly aren't any to be bought/sold.

But in barfoland, a Warren Buffet can buy weapons grade plutonium or uranium at the super market. Or something.

 

[barfo]

You mean in barfoland.

It would cost hundreds of $billions to make a bomb for Buffett, too.

He could make a dirty bomb for cheap, though. But that's not what I'm talking about.

Nor is it what I'm talking about.

Sure, anyone can buy a bomb for $.01 if someone else has one and is willing to sell for that. There clearly aren't any to be bought/sold.

But in barfoland, a Warren Buffet can buy weapons grade plutonium or uranium at the super market. Or something.

Or something. Obviously, we are trying to describe a fantasyland where Warren would actually be allowed to build a bomb. That's your fantasyland, not mine.
In your fantasyland, it is legal for him to do so (despite the law that quite literally says it is not legal).

So, if it is legal to build a bomb, what costs would Warren realistically incur? It isn't hundreds of billions of dollars. The US government can build a nuke for much much less than that (maybe $20 million?), and if the US government was ok with Warren doing it, there's no reason it would cost him all that much more. He might have to spend a billion or so on facilities that the government already has, but that's not hundreds of billions.

But this is silly because, contrary to your assertion, it is actually illegal.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Nor is it what I'm talking about.



Or something. Obviously, we are trying to describe a fantasyland where Warren would actually be allowed to build a bomb. That's your fantasyland, not mine.
In your fantasyland, it is legal for him to do so (despite the law that quite literally says it is not legal).

So, if it is legal to build a bomb, what costs would Warren realistically incur? It isn't hundreds of billions of dollars. The US government can build a nuke for much much less than that (maybe $20 million?), and if the US government was ok with Warren doing it, there's no reason it would cost him all that much more. He might have to spend a billion or so on facilities that the government already has, but that's not hundreds of billions.

But this is silly because, contrary to your assertion, it is actually illegal.

barfo

The US government has invested more than Buffett's net worth in facilities that allow for making bombs for $20M or whatever. Buffett would have to build a nuclear reactor, or several, for the cost of several $billions each, to make a minuscule amount of bomb grade material. He doesn't already own facilities like those at Oak Ridge or Savannah River.

In barfoland, he does.

 

[barfo]

The US government has invested more than Buffett's net worth in facilities that allow for making bombs for $20M or whatever. Buffett would have to build a nuclear reactor, or several, for the cost of several $billions each, to make a minuscule amount of bomb grade material. He doesn't already own facilities like those at Oak Ridge or Savannah River.

In barfoland, he does.

I don't think he needs several reactors. No, I'm not assuming he already has all the necessary plant and equipment, I stipulated that he does not. On the other hand, he does not need to reproduce the entire US infrastructure, he's only building one relatively primitive nuke, not hundreds of various different types. And he doesn't have to build a reactor, he already owns at least one and could buy more if needed.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

I don't think he needs several reactors. No, I'm not assuming he already has all the necessary plant and equipment, I stipulated that he does not. On the other hand, he does not need to reproduce the entire US infrastructure, he's only building one relatively primitive nuke, not hundreds of various different types. And he doesn't have to build a reactor, he already owns at least one and could buy more if needed.

barfo

He doesn't own a nuclear reactor.


And you're pretending he would be doing this entirely illegally. He would have to build a reactor according to specs, operate it according to law, dispose of waste proper, etc.

A nuclear reactor is not "arms" so those are not covered by the 2nd.

But you seem to think he already has one.

 

[barfo]

He doesn't own a nuclear reactor.


And you're pretending he would be doing this entirely illegally. He would have to build a reactor according to specs, operate it according to law, dispose of waste proper, etc.

A nuclear reactor is not "arms" so those are not covered by the 2nd.

But you seem to think he already has one.

Even if he doesn't already have one (it seems he does, Mid-America Energy says on its website that its power sources include nuclear) he could easily buy one today. He's purchased a number of power companies, he could buy more. Presumably existing, operating nuclear reactors in the US are operating within the legal requirements.

No, I'm not pretending he's doing it illegally, we are both pretending it is legal for him to do it. That's the basis for this entire silly debate.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Even if he doesn't already have one (it seems he does, Mid-America Energy says on its website that its power sources include nuclear) he could easily buy one today. He's purchased a number of power companies, he could buy more. Presumably existing, operating nuclear reactors in the US are operating within the legal requirements.

No, I'm not pretending he's doing it illegally, we are both pretending it is legal for him to do it. That's the basis for this entire silly debate.

barfo

It's constitutional for him to bear arms, including a nuke. It's not constitutional for him to kill indiscriminately with it. How he gets it isn't the point, but you made it so. It is ridiculously expensive to get one, even if you are a government who hasn't been investing $billions in it per year since the 1940s.

Midamerican Energy is not Warren Buffett.

 

[barfo]

It's constitutional for him to bear arms, including a nuke.

According to Denny. Unfortunately for your argument, it's currently illegal and there's pretty much zero chance of that changing.

It's not constitutional for him to kill indiscriminately with it.

Finally, something we can agree on.

How he gets it isn't the point, but you made it so.

No, you made it so. I said that Warren could afford it, and you 'called bullshit' on that and quoted Iran's (supposed) costs, which turned out to be mostly lost oil revenue. That's what started the 'how he gets it' debate.

It is ridiculously expensive to get one, even if you are a government who hasn't been investing $billions in it per year since the 1940s.

Of course it is. No one said it was cheap, it's just that your use of Iran as a benchmark is ridiculous, when it includes costs like lost oil revenue and other economic sanctions, and rebuilding bombed out reactors. Those costs don't apply to a supposedly-legal private US bomb-maker.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

According to Denny. Unfortunately for your argument, it's currently illegal and there's pretty much zero chance of that changing.

Congress can pass any law it wants, constitutional or not. It takes a court case to overturn the law as unconstitutional. That there has been no case regarding nukes says nothing about the constitutionality of owning one.

However, the court has ruled against your POV, so... you are on the wrong side of the argument again.

No, you made it so. I said that Warren could afford it, and you 'called bullshit' on that and quoted Iran's (supposed) costs, which turned out to be mostly lost oil revenue. That's what started the 'how he gets it' debate.

He cannot afford one.

Of course it is. No one said it was cheap, it's just that your use of Iran as a benchmark is ridiculous, when it includes costs like lost oil revenue and other economic sanctions, and rebuilding bombed out reactors. Those costs don't apply to a supposedly-legal private US bomb-maker.

barfo

http://cshr.org.uk/en/hr-magazine/articles/5-reason-for-stop-nuclear-program-in-iran/

$40B over 20 years in construction and operation of nuclear infrastructure. They still don't have a bomb. So $40B and counting.

It wouldn't be an easy thing for Buffett to raise $40B+. Who'd loan it to him? If he sold enough holdings to raise that kind of money, he'd probably tank his own portfolio's worth long before $40B.

 

[barfo]

Midamerican Energy is not Warren Buffett.

Figured you'd say that. Absolutely true, it is merely a corporation controlled by Warren Buffett. Doesn't really matter, as he could, if he desired, buy a power company that has an operating nuke with his personal money.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Figured you'd say that. Absolutely true, it is merely a corporation controlled by Warren Buffett. Doesn't really matter, as he could, if he desired, buy a power company that has an operating nuke with his personal money.

barfo

Suuuuuure.

 

[barfo]

Congress can pass any law it wants, constitutional or not. It takes a court case to overturn the law as unconstitutional. That there has been no case regarding nukes says nothing about the constitutionality of owning one.

However, the court has ruled against your POV, so... you are on the wrong side of the argument again.

Huh? There's no court case, but the court has ruled against it? Explain that.
I'm not going to argue the constitutionality. I agree with you that a court could overturn the law. I don't think it will happen, in part because I don't think it will ever be considered, and in part because I think it wouldn't be overturned even if it was considered, but I agree that being overturned is theoretically possible.

Until that happens, though, the law is the law, which makes it illegal, which makes you wrong:

It is legal and constitutional.

He cannot afford one.

Yes, yes, Warren Buffett = Iran. That's a very convincing argument, all right.

barfo

 

[barfo]

Suuuuuure.

That's not a very convincing rebuttal. Here's one he could buy, Westar Energy. It's just down the road from him in Kansas, he could buy the whole thing today for less than $5 billion, and it has a bunch of assets other than the nuke, so he could sell those off to reduce his cost if needed.

barfo