Funny, according to CNN “The boy was with a certified instructor”. You’d think that would make everything safe, since one of the arguments we hear constantly is that firearms are safe if you know what you’re doing.
-Joe
I’ve fired many types of firearms (but not an Uzi), so I’m familiar with muzzle climb. What I can’t figure out is how he wound up with the muzzle pointed at his head and his hand still on the grip and holding the trigger. I’d think the gun is too long for that - I can see how the top of barrel could hit his head, but not actually have the muzzle pointing at his head. Obviously I’m wrong.
This is Massachusetts. Shooting at a human shaped silhouette target is illegal. Shooting at a picture of Hitler or Osama bin Laden is illegal. To be specific, a club can get its range license pulled for allowing people to shoot anything that resembles a human. I’m guessing that’s what the ad referred to.
It’s so cool and erudite and European – all things that most members of this board wish they were, but aren’t.
Wow, the father is an ER doctor AND an idiot.
What a dumb fucking conclusion to come to. I f they instructor’s hand was on the gun, it’s very likely the recoil would have been better controlled.
I agree with Catsix that the only way this could have happened is if the kid opened fire from the hip. Maybe he also began leaning forword in an attempt to balance himself against the recoil. One would think that a decent instructor would have been much more careful with a small child – even as far as putting the kid’s arms in the proper position for shooting supported by the shoulder.
Don’t Uzis have telescoping, or maybe folding, stocks? I wonder if it was in position? If there was no shoulder stock in position, it maybe that a waist level stance seemed to make more sense to the kid. God forbid that the instructoractually told him to do so.
double post
I’m guessing said instructor isn’t going to be “certified” (or licensed, or whatever) for much longer. I know jackshit about guns and/or gun laws. And before anyone says anything, I have NO problem with responsible gun owners-as long as you don’t act like Homer Simpson did in that one episode where he got a gun, or, hey-like these dumbasses did.
Wow! Cool way to win an Darwin award. -> Hand your kid a loaded Uzi.
Any event where it is OK for an 8-year old to hold/fire weapons … The mind boggels.
Go USA!
This is kind of reminiscent of that cop (or maybe ATF agent?) who managed to shoot himself in front a classroom full of little kids while demonstrating gun safety.
An 8 year old child has no business handling a gun. Period. Look, certainly. Possibly even touch, if the weapon is a. unloaded and b. held by a responsible adult. And by ‘touch’ I mean maybe one finger to the barrel, say.
I say this as someone who was taught to shoot as a teenager, by my father who was taught–as a teenager–by his father. I also say this as someone from a family of rife with gun enthusiasts who make catsix and UncleBeer seem mild on the subject. None of them hunt–not their thing at all–as they’re mostly fascinated by the mechanics and engineering of the things. Family get-togethers were a blast, not the least because we’d usually end up in the fields by the bluffs, trying out their nifty new muzzle loaders or flint locks or obscure import with an unpronounceable name. (Hint: muzzle loaders 1. are complicated to arm and 2. can just about shatter your shoulder when fired. Soldiers of yore were tough SOBs.)
It’s a lot of fun; all target shooting, and done purely for the sport of seeing if you can manage to hit the broad side of a barn with an unfamiliar gun. Or even a familiar one, if you’re sufficiently out of practice.
But here’s the thing: every single one of my gun-mad relatives are fanatics, outright assholes, about gun safety. Kids might yearn to get their mitts on a gun but it’s a strictly enforced rite of passage thing. Even staring too long at the locked gun cabinet would rate a stern warning lecture along the lines of guns are not toys, you will not even touch one until I say so and if you try you will regret it so bitterly you won’t want want to touch another until you’re old and gray. And they meant, and enforced, every single word.
By mid-teen years, if a kid showed signs of sufficient maturity, an adult might teach the kid how to shoot. It was always an earned privilege. The process always started with basic gun safety, with the drills continued by rote until precautions became second nature. Any hot-dogging or carelessness brought lessons to a screeching halt and the ban reinforced, a scathing humiliation.
Any gun show that allows children to handle guns is grossly irresponsible. Any parent that allows it is grossly irresponsible. Of course children are fascinated by guns. They go BOOM and look wicked cool in TV and movies. So do explosions but …well, some idiots hand their kids fireworks and matches too. If adults lack discipline and respect for destructive power how can kids possibly know better?
This is so wrong. That little boy died of adult negligence and stupidity.
It is just as abusive to let an 8 year old use a table saw. Happy? Of course not.
I’ve got to disagree on the blanket statement, and I think there was criminal wrongdoing in this case. An 8 year old child with very close and careful and caring supervision could handle a firearm if it is the right child and the right parent. The parent needs to be responsible for decisions like that. In the several thousand years of human history, children have been required to hunt and fend for themselves in every year somewhere on the globe, and 100 years ago we here in this country would not have considered it all that unusual. And in some communities today children are taught to respect firearms from a very young age. Parents who do not teach this respect and subject their children to firearms ought to be prosecuted with more than a slap on the wrist “because they have suffered enough”. It sets a really bad example to let the losers off easily and it dishonors the inability of most children to accept this responsibility. Children who are not ready should not be pushed and tempted.
That said, I cannot see how it is not an ultra dangerous activity to let a child handle a loaded submachine gun. Idiots.
Well, I guess I’m grossly irresponsible. As was my father, his father, my mothers father, and so on. My kids have been shooting since they were 7, including AR15’s. I’ve been shooting since I was 8, my parents and grandparents were probably younger than that.
I’m not even going to try to defend that choice since I believe you are so fantastically wrong that there’s no point in discussing it.
Several government agencies disagree with your rant as well, but of course that doesn’t matter when you’re on a roll does it?
Clearly those involved were morons.
I don’t quite understand how the death of this boy has anything to do with an argument for or against gun control or ownership, however. The two are unrelated. As a matter of fact, it’s the rarity of the event that even made it newsworthy.
Morons kill themselves, their friends and their families via a variety of creative ways including electricity, bicycles and owning snakes. We don’t use those incidents as an argument to ban the offending mechanism (well…maybe snakes). We just sort of accept that morons can make almost anything dangerous and they can make dangerous things lethal.
They were morons. Any further outrage is recreational and not relevant to gun ownership in general.
Somebody wasn’t a member of the Lord’s Resistance Army.
This will represent my only other contribution to this thread. I’ve been waiting for some fuckwit to offer up this completely asinine and fuckwitted argument (although I commend him for the creativity of substituting snake ownership in place of buckets).
Figuring out the relative risk of guns versus bicycles or electricity (!) involves determining the number of times each is used with and without death occurring. The number of times bicycles and electricity are used without death occuring relative to when they are used is going to vastly outweigh the number of times firearms are used without death occuring.
This is like those retards who were making the argument that more deaths were occuring in California than in Iraq, so it was safer in Iraq!
Please make reasoned arguments without resorting to outright stupidity.
It’s fine to disagree.
In my experience, pre-teen kids lack the maturity to handle firearms, even when they can handle them physically. I’m willing to grant my condemnation might be too broad. It goes right against the grain and all my experience but hey, I’ve been wrong before and will be again.
I guess younger children could possibly handle guns, under very close supervision.
Eight years old still seems to push the outside limits though. That’s still a very young child. Maybe kids who regularly* watch adults use guns might absorb more lessons just by observation along the way. Small kids are just so limited about anticipating consequences…meh, I’m still wrestling with this.
With several excellent, thoughtful posters offering sound arguments contrary to my beliefs, guess I’ll have to rethink this. It still feels wrong but gotta wrestle the brain along on this one. So okay. I’m…processing.
*Attendance at gun shows does NOT seem like adequate exposure to me.
We only have one 2nd amendment. We have lots of 8 year olds. It is no big thing. He could have been hit by a car . He could have died lots of ways. You can not blame guns. All 8 year olds have responsible and intelligent adult parents. He could have stabbed himself with a knife or a carrot.
Gun’s don’t kill 8 year old’s, convicted felons who acquire guns illegally and use them irresponsibly kill 8 year olds…or something.
If I don’t exercise my 2nd Amendment Right how can I protect my other son?
[reprise]Or nuclear waste exposure. Yet far more American kids die each year from buckets than from exposure to nuclear waste. Therefore it makes more sense to regulate buckets than nuclear waste.[/reprise]
Hey, why not let 8 year olds drive cars? With supervision, of course.