8 years old Killed 2 people o.O

[Grandphoenix]

WESTFIELD, Mass. - An 8-year-old boy died after accidentally shooting himself in the head while firing an Uzi submachine gun under adult supervision at a gun fair.

The boy lost control of the weapon while firing it Sunday at the Machine Gun Shoot and Firearms Expo at the Westfield Sportsman’s Club, police Lt. Lawrence Vallierpratte said.

Police said the boy, Christopher Bizilj of Ashford, Conn., was with a certified instructor and called the death a “self-inflicted accidental shooting.”

As the boy fired the Uzi, "the front end of the weapon went up with the backfire and he ended up receiving a round in his head," police Lt. Hipolito Nunez said. The boy died at a hospital.

The boy's father and older brother were also there at the time, a gun club member and school official said. Francis Mitchell, a longtime member and trustee of the club, said he was told the boy's father was supporting his son from behind when the shooting happened.

Although the death appeared to be an accident, officials were investigating.

It is legal in Massachusetts for children to fire a weapon if they have permission from a parent or legal guardian and are supervised by a properly certified and licensed instructor, Lt. Hipolito Nunez said. The name of the instructor helping the boy was not released.

Who gives an 8 year old an uzi thinking they'd be able to stand?

 

[Sabia]

So let's punish the majority for the idiocy of a few? That's a very awful way of dealing with any situation.

The majority is being punished anyway by becoming victims of gun violence on a day to day basis, personally I'd rather give up an out-dated right to have 7 guns in my house than my right to live - I guess we all have different priorities though....

Who gives an 8 year old an uzi thinking they'd be able to stand?

Irresponsible gun owners and gun-promoters - but hey! It was legal because his dad and a registered gun instructor was watching him!

 

[Skaw]

I really don't understand how other countries don't realize that outlawing guns won't remove them from the hands of gang members, criminals, and murderers. They're already breaking the law doing what they do in the first place. Do you guys honestly think that making owning a gun illegal will prevent them from getting one? Protip: Illegal guns are sold every day as is. Let's just make it a more lucrative market.

Edit: Honestly, if you're crusading because of tragic accidents like the kid and the uzi, wheres your equally important crusade against toys with small parts, or plastic bags?

 

[Mirewen]

Who gives an 8 year old an uzi thinking they'd be able to stand?

Wow..

 

[Kerowynn]

We're talking about humans, not rabid dogs. You can't compare a criminal to a rabid dog. By the end of the day, a criminal is still a sleeping-pooping-eating-fucking human built with flesh and blood, a dog, while doing the same things, is not a human.

Those statistics isn't how many people actually own a gun. It simply shows that out of every 100 US citizens, there's 90 guns to go around.

And really, as I mentioned before, I'm not sure why exactly people living in the states care more about their rights then any other country. Most western countries care about their rights, and fight just as much for them. If a government ever tried to take a right away from them, I'll promise they would fight just as hard as any US citizen would.

The difference is that in most Western countries, owning a gun isn't a right. Free speech etc. are rights. Owning a gun is not. I don't exactly know why you think the rest of the Western world would NOT fight just as hard as you would if our right for, say free speech would be taken away from us.

You're right, an animal is different. The animal is innocent whereas the person made their choices. I believe people should take responsibility for their actions, this is why I support the death penalty as well.

I'm sorry if I implied that other countries would not fight so hard for their rights, I was referring to this right in particular because this country is very stubborn on this issue. I certainly don't think that people in other countries would be any less-stubborn on issues that were important to them.

But it's harder to accidently kill someone with a spoon. :dur:

You obviously have not seen me wield a spoon! :bb:

Someone determined to kill someone will probably do so but without a gun it's going to be a hell of a lot harder. I have a chance of outrunning someone who has a knife or hammer but am just going to get shot in the back if I try to outrun someone who has a gun. Also you don't usually have innocent people killed when someone is being stabbed. I have yet to hear of a situation where some gang member is trying to kill another gang member and a stray knife goes flying through a wall into a little girl sitting there watching TV - this however is quite a common occurrence when it comes to gun violence.

You're right and it sucks, I just don't think that eliminating guns will help considering these losers will still be able to get them.

So let's punish the majority for the idiocy of a few? That's a very awful way of dealing with any situation.

Yet a common one unfortunately.

I really don't understand how other countries don't realize that outlawing guns won't remove them from the hands of gang members, criminals, and murderers. They're already breaking the law doing what they do in the first place. Do you guys honestly think that making owning a gun illegal will prevent them from getting one? Protip: Illegal guns are sold every day as is. Let's just make it a more lucrative market.

Also true.

Wow..

=(

 

[Grandphoenix]

Wow..

Well I don't mean he's going to fly back 20 feet but some scrawny kid most likely won't be in the same position he started in.

 

[Mirewen]

Well it said that he was being supported by an adult... but what kind of parent wants their kid to fire that kind of a gun?

I know in certain areas (yes even up here in the "Great White North") it can be seen as a rite of passage for a boy to hunt for the first time, or learn how to use a gun. But seriously... what the fuck are some parents thinking?

 

[Kerowynn]

Well it said that he was being supported by an adult... but what kind of parent wants their kid to fire that kind of a gun?

I know in certain areas (yes even up here in the "Great White North") it can be seen as a rite of passage for a boy to hunt for the first time, or learn how to use a gun. But seriously... what the fuck are some parents thinking?

I can't even begin to figure that one out. =(

 

[Uzor]

If someone wants to kill someone, they're going to do so. Whether it be by gun, knife, fork, stone, or their bare hands.

Yes, but again, the majority of murders (close to 95% if not more) aren't random killings out in the streets. It is done by people that know the victim. In most cases I'd imagine the victim wasn't expecting it in the first place, and I doubt having a gun himself would help in that case. At least if it was bare handed the victim wold get a fighting chance.

Different tools for different applications. Much like like different sized wrenches and screwdrivers. My brother and grandfather are both avid hunters, and they both own several rifles and shotguns each. Saying there are 90 guns per 100 people randomly selected is moot. Since theoretically, they could all belong to a single person who likes to collect them.

Of course, but you can't argue that a lot of people in the states do have weapons in the form of guns.. Remember that infants and children are also included in those 100, and those are people that generally don't own a gun.

I really don't understand how other countries don't realize that outlawing guns won't remove them from the hands of gang members, criminals, and murderers. They're already breaking the law doing what they do in the first place. Do you guys honestly think that making owning a gun illegal will prevent them from getting one? Protip: Illegal guns are sold every day as is. Let's just make it a more lucrative market.

I'm not saying guns should be outlawed, just that the way you look at guns are skewed. I know just as well as anyone else that outlawing guns in the states would be close to impossible. And no where have anyone said that outlawing them would remove them from criminals.

I do believe we earlier said that it wouldn't change anything anyway. They already do have them, and if you meet a gang member on a killing rampage (not likely to happen anyway...) your gun likely won't help you, so using that as reason to HAVE a gun isn't very wise anyway.

Really, heavy criminals like gang members, murderers etc. don't really affect you, and if you go up against them your gun won't help you. So stop using that as a argument. If, against all odds, you'd meet one and your gun DO help you and you kill one, do you really think you wouldn't get killed eventually by the rest of his gang? The people you're talking about are mostly organized. The ones that aren't use a gun for the same reason you do, self-defense against a threat that most likely won't affect YOU.

 

[Courtney]

I really don't understand how other countries don't realize that outlawing guns won't remove them from the hands of gang members, criminals, and murderers. They're already breaking the law doing what they do in the first place. Do you guys honestly think that making owning a gun illegal will prevent them from getting one? Protip: Illegal guns are sold every day as is. Let's just make it a more lucrative market.

Edit: Honestly, if you're crusading because of tragic accidents like the kid and the uzi, wheres your equally important crusade against toys with small parts, or plastic bags?

I really don't understand how you justify the number of school shootings, drunken shootings, cases of mistaken identity etc etc. The number of shootings due to the availability of guns by non-gang members/thugs in the US is just huge.

Do you really believe that there are less armed robberies in the US because of the availability of guns?

 

[Sabia]

I really don't understand how you justify the number of school shootings, drunken shootings, cases of mistaken identity etc etc. The number of shootings due to the availability of guns by non-gang members/thugs in the US is just huge.

Do you really believe that there are less armed robberies in the US because of the availability of guns?

Court said clearly what I've been trying to say.

 

[Skaw]

Yes, but again, the majority of murders (close to 95% if not more) aren't random killings out in the streets. It is done by people that know the victim. In most cases I'd imagine the victim wasn't expecting it in the first place, and I doubt having a gun himself would help in that case. At least if it was bare handed the victim wold get a fighting chance.

Of course, but you can't argue that a lot of people in the states do have weapons in the form of guns.. Remember that infants and children are also included in those 100, and those are people that generally don't own a gun.

I do believe we earlier said that it wouldn't change anything anyway. They already do have them, and if you meet a gang member on a killing rampage (not likely to happen anyway...) your gun likely won't help you, so using that as reason to HAVE a gun isn't very wise anyway.

Really, heavy criminals like gang members, murderers etc. don't really affect you, and if you go up against them your gun won't help you. So stop using that as a argument. If, against all odds, you'd meet one and your gun DO help you and you kill one, do you really think you wouldn't get killed eventually by the rest of his gang? The people you're talking about are mostly organized. The ones that aren't use a gun for the same reason you do, self-defense against a threat that most likely won't affect YOU.

It's better to have the option to have one against someone who has one as well(legally or illegally obtained,) than to not have the option at all. Yes, theres the very real chance that owning a gun won't help you at all, but theres also the very real chance that it can. How can you honestly say that isn't a sound reason for owning a gun for self defense? That's the very definition of a retarded statement.

If 95% of gun violence crimes are premeditated, then they can easily be carried out using another weapon. Now, since only 5% are accidental/spur of the moment, you have to compare those crimes to the amount of times someone with a gun has prevented a crime from happening.

Stricter laws against ownership isn't the solution. Stricter punishments for gun crimes is.

 

[Uzor]

Because most crimes are easier to commit with a gun. And the number of people killed due to gun accidents, be it self-defense where it is not necessary or otherwise, is too high to be able to say it is fine the way it is.

And stricter punishment for gun crime is NOT the solution. That is rarely the solution to anything. As you can see, death penalty is obviously not helping in USA, as you have one of the highest numbers of homicide per 100000 citizen in the western world. You also have a life sentence that actually is for life. Sweden's life sentence is 20 years at the most, and it can be halved for good behavior, and yet we have 1.0 per 100000 citizen. That is the case for most European countries.

What exactly would a stricter punishment do? Put them in jail for a longer time? How long would that jailtime be? death penalty?

 

[.Curjos.]

It's better to have the option to have one against someone who has one as well(legally or illegally obtained,) than to not have the option at all. Yes, theres the very real chance that owning a gun won't help you at all, but theres also the very real chance that it can. How can you honestly say that isn't a sound reason for owning a gun for self defense? That's the very definition of a retarded statement.

If 95% of gun violence crimes are premeditated, then they can easily be carried out using another weapon. Now, since only 5% are accidental/spur of the moment, you have to compare those crimes to the amount of times someone with a gun has prevented a crime from happening.

Stricter laws against ownership isn't the solution. Stricter punishments for gun crimes is.

I like the way you put it into percentages. It makes that 5% seem menial, when if you look at it terms of numbers you'll see that 5% is an insane amount of people. And murder could have been premeditated because guns are legal. Anyways, even if it was only 0.00001% people killed due to the fact that guns are legal, thats still too many.

 

[Uzor]

And skaw, you can't compare it to the number of times a gun has prevented a crime from happening. You can't compare a robbery or break-in to the loss of someones life.

 

[Skaw]

I like the way you put it into percentages. It makes that 5% seem menial, when if you look at it terms of numbers you'll see that 5% is an insane amount of people. And murder could have been premeditated because guns are legal. Anyways, even if it was only 0.00001% people killed due to the fact that guns are legal, thats still too many.

Reading the posts before mine helps. I didn't bring percentages in to the conversation. As well, gun crimes will always exist, legal or otherwise. You can't really compare gun crime rates with every country and correlate that less guns means less crimes. You have to compare total crime rate and compare whether or not they're proportionate. I'm willing to bet America is pretty close to the top in total crime. It does have the third largest population after all.

And skaw, you can't compare it to the number of times a gun has prevented a crime from happening. You can't compare a robbery or break-in to the loss of someones life.

A gun preventing a crime doesn't mean you have to kill the would-be evil doer. Intimidation is one of the biggest reasons crimes can or cannot happen, and pointing a gun at someone can be pretty intimidating. Firing a warning shot even more so since it proves you aren't afraid to pull the trigger should you need to.

 

[Kurgon]

Once guns came out of "Pandoras Box" it can't go back in. I have my weapons for home protection and hunting. I don't carry on my person. I choose to not go to places that I would feel in danger and I think the random factor of violence in public is low enough that I don't need to carry. If guns are ever made illegal, that will be the day that I become a criminal. I'll never give up my guns. If you make a law banning guns, only the lawful citizens will obey that law. Criminals will feel more emboldened than ever knowing that most households aren't armed in a equal fashion as they are.

Stats can be made to say a lot. I can show you stats that show areas with higher percentages of home owners with guns have a lower rate of break ins. You could look at that same area and show that the crimes that happen in that area tend to end with guns being drawn. Both are valid stats.

My belief is that anyone who breaks into my house has made their peace with the notion that they may have to hurt or kill me to satisfy their selfish need. They might hope with 99.9% of their heat and soul that nobody is home but a part of them has to be comfortable with the notion that they might have to hurt or kill the person that lives in the house they are robbing. I hope and pray with the major majority of my soul that nobody ever breaks into my house and makes me feel threatened. Believe me when I say there is a small part of me that is at peace with realizing that if somebody does break into my house then I'll have to respond. Not saying I'll have an old fashioned western shootout. Moreso I will stay where I am at, call the police, and as long as he stays away from me, we'll be ok.

There is no such thing as a perfect world and there certainly isn't a perfect answer but this is where I stand on it.

 

[Kerowynn]

A gun preventing a crime doesn't mean you have to kill the would-be evil doer. Intimidation is one of the biggest reasons crimes can or cannot happen, and pointing a gun at someone can be pretty intimidating. Firing a warning shot even more so since it proves you aren't afraid to pull the trigger should you need to.

You're nicer than I am, I would at least aim for an arm or leg. >.> A non-lethal shot is all the notice someone who breaks into my house gets if they don't start running when I start yelling...

Edit: All theoretical right now since I don't actually own a gun right now though lol.

 

[Uzor]

A gun preventing a crime doesn't mean you have to kill the would-be evil doer. Intimidation is one of the biggest reasons crimes can or cannot happen, and pointing a gun at someone can be pretty intimidating. Firing a warning shot even more so since it proves you aren't afraid to pull the trigger should you need to.

I didn't say you had to kill it.

That wasn't even my point.

My point is that you said that guns are good, because they make some crimes not happen, and therefor you can't compare it to the people that accidentally die from guns, because after all, gun makes some crimes not happen.

That was my point, that you can't say guns are good for that reason. You can't compare crimes not happening due to guns with people dieing. You justify guns killing innocent people, by saying that guns also make soem crimes not happen. That is just not a logical argument.

Take the kid that shot himself in the head that was mentioned earlier in this thread. That is, by your logic, completely justifiable and OK, because a gun might have prevented an old man from stealing an old woman's purse the same minute in another part of the country.

Screw the kid, at least she still have her purse. Thank god for guns. She wouldn't have been able to buy a new sweater for her dog if it wasn't for her trustworthy gun.

 

[Skaw]

The accident with the kid is a moot point in the validity of guns. It could have easily happened with everyday household objects and toys.

I mean, how dumb does "It's completely justifiable and okay to plastic bags, because they make life more convenient, even if they can result in the death of babies accidentally" sound?

If it happened every day, you'd have a point, but it was a freak chance of irresponsibility.