8-year-old's Uzi death at gun show

[Lord Mountbatten Reborn]

Wow, the Second Amendment looks just as brilliant as it always did.

I wonder if the family blames Israel because they invented Uzis, which obviously means they meant to kill that boy. It's a Xanatos Gambit.

 

[VicunaBlue]

Yet the Americans are still so firm about defending their right to bear arms, you never seem to hear about guns saving people just constant tragic accidents and attacks with them.

You do know my country's obsession with guns is a result of a supreme court bastardization of a constitutional right for MILITIAS to bear arms. Damn Republican judges had to change it to the individual's stupid, stupid right

sorry, that sounded a bit condescending. Anyway, what I'm trying to say is that our modern interpretation of the second amendment wasn't at all what the founding fathers had in mind

Any group of rednecks can call themselves a militia.

 

[Sick boy]

My European brain has issues understanding this. So first of all we have a family that thinks it's a good to take an 8 year old kid to a gun show. Then we have 15 year old instructor who is demonstrating an Uzi. This teen clears the Uzi and gives it to the 8 year old to try it out. Apparently up until this part there is no problem at all. I do see a problem with a teen being a gun instructor, or a kid going to a gun show, or a teen giving a gun to a kid to try it out. But again, that must be my European close-mindedness.

Don't worry it's not your european close-mindedness, this article and this hole situation are completely fucked. 1. Guns are bad, it's as simple as that. 2. You don't give an 8 year old a gun. 3. You don't give a 15 year old the power to handle uzi's and hand them out to whoever they want, they're only one year older than me and to be honest, I wouldn't trust myself with a gun. For the reason that I couldn't handle the guilt if I caused something like this happen. I hate guns and I shall hate them forever.

 

[rcuhljr]

Ok so that's not the only scenario, but it is most common. And, as I also said, in a lot of cases the criminal actually wouldn't have a gun if they were ilegal.

It's illegal for them to have the guns currently, why would they suddenly stop having guns? Why are guns still used in crimes in places where they are illegal? Also why do you say it is the most common? Do you have actual citations for that claim? I can provide some but you won't like it.

And if everyone gave up the right do decide whether others live or die would you even need to make the choice? Would there be a murderer? Would the mother need defending?

So you're saying if something impossible happens, we don't need guns? Ok that's awesome, but completely unrelated to the real world. Guns aren't what gives people the power to take others lives, free will does.

 

[The Austin]

Who would give an Uzi to an 8 year old?

 

[paasi]

mostly illogical, contradictory and supported by myths, half-turths... reminds me a bit of evolutionists.

Must resist the urge to reply ... Ah damnit

You are joking, right? I just hope so.

To the topic. Things like this happen if you live in a society that loves weapons.

Not really. Check his posts. With a bit of education you'll find that he dodges the real issues and plays on some obscure possibilities and illogical arguments.... much like evolutionists. I hate that bunch.

Well, probably all boys are like that; they love guns because they represent masculinity.
Hell, I got the kicks of my life when I fired a fast burst of 40 rounds on a 30mm autocannon (2a42). The pressure waves were almost enough to make my floaties flap.
Note that I have military training and that was during service.

 

[Heathrow]

So you're saying if something impossible happens, we don't need guns? Ok that's awesome, but completely unrelated to the real world. Guns aren't what gives people the power to take others lives, free will does.

I never said guns were the only way for people to kill I said they were a way and should therefore not be allowed for the time being. And it's not impossible, it is a slow process and it will take many years and probably cost the lives of good men and women but if our race adheres to this principle then we will be better for it. Unless you think a world where no one kills each other is a bad thing.

 

[rcuhljr]

I never said guns were the only way for people to kill I said they were a way and should therefore not be allowed for the time being. And it's not impossible it is a slow process and it will take many years and probably cost the lives of good men and women but if our race adheres to this principle then we will be better for it. Unless you think a world where no one kills each other is a bad thing.

s/bad/impossible/ You're sacrificing lives for an impossibility. Why not figure out how you could get 6 billion people to live together without WANTING to kill each other, then you can take away the things that let them kill each other since no one would be using them. Until then you might as well argue for outlawing hands and feet.

 

[demoman_chaos]

Stupidity, thinning out the population at least 1 poor sap at a time.

It was the parents fault for taking him there, the 15 year old's for giving him the gun, and his own fault for firing it. He would not have died if he didn't pull the trigger. Simple cold hearted logic.

With all shootings, you can try and blame the media and parents all you want, but in the end the maniac is firing the weapon under his own will.

The 2nd amendment in the American constitution was was not meant to protect hunters, you had to hunt to survive back then. It was made so that the people could rise against their government if they deemed it too corrupt.

 

[paragon1]

You know, if simply MUST take your 8-year-old to a gun show, and your going to let them handle guns, any guns, then the least you could do is teach them some basic fucking gun safety that you'll find in every single owner's manual made for every single gun ever.
Muzzle-don't point it at anything you don't intend to shoot for any reason, ever.
Action- Leave it open until your ready to fire.
Trigger-Don't place your fingers on the trigger until your ready to fire.
M.A.T. If you follow the first, you'll never shoot anything you don't want to (including yourself). If you follow the second two, it's impossible for the gun to fire in the first place.

Also, the event organizer's should be shot for allowing a 15 year old to be an instructor.
The 15 year old should be shot for allowing an 8 year old to handle a firearm more dangerous than a BB gun. He should then be dipped in acid for not taking it away after it jammed.
This is one of those rare cases were every person involved doesn't follow basic fucking safety procedures. If nothing else, who the hell expected an 8 year old to be able to handle an Uzi's recoil?

 

[lior13]

wtf! how does an 15 year old knows how to clean an uzi and way the hell are the guns loded
dont tell me you can test a gun befor you buy it(sory abot the spling mastics i have an righting and reding desoeder)

 

[SirDoom]

Who would give an Uzi to an 8 year old?

In all fairness, I was firing rifles and the like by 7. The Uzi involved in this story was probably a model without the auto-fire option, so really it's no different than most guns other than it looks "scary" to some people.

This is a sad incident. A jam caused a death. Not unheard of, actually. It's just the fact that it was an 8 year old child instead of a 40 year old hunter this time that caused people to get so riled up about it. It's as if they thought the parents were forcing the child to do it.

Rather, I'd be willing to bet that the child wanted to do it. It was a gun show, with certified instructors around, and numerous other people who had spent their lives around guns safely. If you are going to let your child shoot, that would be the place to do it. The fact that this death was caused by mechanical failure rather than human error is enough to make me think "Oh well, it is a very sad situation, but things like this do happen."

 

[Treblaine]

The title in itself contains a couple of words that shouldn't be used near eachother. The story behind it is even worse. Read it for yourself: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/10/christopher-biziljs-famil_n_351732.html

My European brain has issues understanding this. So first of all we have a family that thinks it's a good to take an 8 year old kid to a gun show. Then we have 15 year old instructor who is demonstrating an Uzi. This teen clears the Uzi and gives it to the 8 year old to try it out. Apparently up until this part there is no problem at all. I do see a problem with a teen being a gun instructor, or a kid going to a gun show, or a teen giving a gun to a kid to try it out. But again, that must be my European close-mindedness.

Now here is the real issue: the gun jams, and the kid shoots himself in the head. Quote from the article:

The boy's family claims the gun was defective and unreasonably dangerous, and they blame the failure to properly service it.

So the big issue in this whole story is that the gun jammed and as a result of that, the kid shot himself. It's no problem that the kid is at a gun show in the first place, or that a teen is handing out guns to kids, or that the kid is trying out guns. That's all just fine. But because it wasn't cleared properly the Uzi was deemed unreasonably dangerous. So when an Uzi is cleared properly it is reasonably dangerous for a kid to try out? If the kid hadn't shot himself it would have been a successful family trip. This really blows my mind. No pun intended.

All firearms are dangerous, from a fully automatic uzi to your grandpa's shotgun.

If they malfunction and are not used with care by adults then tragic accidents like this will happen again.

Also what's this "my European mind" acting so naive about guns. Have you any idea the extent of Gun ownership in places like Finland and Switzerland? Not just of revolvers put fully automatic submachine guns and .50 calibre sniper rifles.

Why does everyone act like America is the only country with extensive civilian gun ownership?

 

[paragon1]

Stupidity, thinning out the population at least 1 poor sap at a time.

It was the parents fault for taking him there, the 15 year old's for giving him the gun, and his own fault for firing it. He would not have died if he didn't pull the trigger. Just like with all shootings, you can try and blame the media and parents all you want, but in the end the maniac is firing the weapon under his own will.

You know it is possible to pull a trigger accidentally. I recall one incident where a man fired a Desert Eagle, and the recoil caused him to accidentally pull the trigger again. Unfortunately, the recoil also caused the barrel to be pointed at his head.

Guess I'm trying to say it's possible that it was just a horrible accident on the kid's part. Although it wouldn't have happened if his dumbass parents had taught him some basic fucking safety before taking him there.

 

[rcuhljr]

You know it is possible to pull a trigger accidentally. I recall one incident where a man fired a Desert Eagle, and the recoil caused him to accidentally pull the trigger again. Unfortunately, the recoil also caused the barrel to be pointed at his head.

That's kind of straining the term accidental. It was pure negligence that anyone that unprepared was allowed near a weapon.

 

[The Austin]

Who would give an Uzi to an 8 year old?

In all fairness, I was firing rifles and the like by 7. The Uzi involved in this story was probably a model without the auto-fire option, so really it's no different than most guns other than it looks "scary" to some people.

This is a sad incident. A jam caused a death. Not unheard of, actually. It's just the fact that it was an 8 year old child instead of a 40 year old hunter this time that caused people to get so riled up about it. It's as if they thought the parents were forcing the child to do it.

Rather, I'd be willing to bet that the child wanted to do it. It was a gun show, with certified instructors around, and numerous other people who had spent their lives around guns safely. If you are going to let your child shoot, that would be the place to do it. The fact that this death was caused by mechanical failure rather than human error is enough to make me think "Oh well, it is a very sad situation, but things like this do happen."

Yea dude, Rifles are all in good fun, and so are Shotguns, but a damn UZI?????

I personally think Handguns and anything of the "Assault" variety should be reserved for 13 and up..... But yea. I see your point. Still, despite the fact that he "wanted" to fire the thing, it doesn't mean he should.

 

[Heathrow]

s/bad/impossible/ You're sacrificing lives for an impossibility. Why not figure out how you could get 6 billion people to live together without WANTING to kill each other, then you can take away the things that let them kill each other since no one would be using them. Until then you might as well argue for outlawing hands and feet.

Okay I'm sensing a flaw in your logic. People are driven to violence by extreme circumstances and (except for the minuscule percentage of our population with psychopathic illness) they do not commit violent acts for violences sake. Violence is rooted in misunderstanding and fear and desperation. Do you honestly believe people actively want to kill each other for no reason? What does that gain for anyone?

 

[Woem]

The article isn't telling the full story: "...say the Uzi submachine gun jammed twice before he lost control of the weapon and fired into his head."

Oh, okay. So it jammed, then it re-jammed, then he lost control of it and shot himself in the head with a doubly-jammed gun. Nevermind the fact that you aren't supposed to fire guns at gun shows. The only way to tell if a gun is jammed is to fire it, so the gun must have been fired three times, with the third time killing the kid. After the first time, or second time, someone would have said "hey, someone's firing a gun in a crowded room, maybe we should take it away from him."

The article is wrong somehow. For instance, maybe he wasn't even at a gunshow, or maybe the gun behjaved diffferently than the article says.

No the article really is correct. Here is more information [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.154930?page=4#3766994].

Ummm, no. The article was purposefully misleading. The article states that the kid was at a gun show: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_show

Actually, thanks to the information you provided, we now know that he was at a shooting range.

Wow thanks for pointing that out, that is a big difference. It's odd that multiple news sources refer to it as a gun show then, the "Westfield Sportsman's Club machine gun show".

 

[I Resurection I]

This happened about a year ago you do relize this? Not to seem like a troll but I live one town over from where this 8 year old did, so i heard about it very soon after it happened. I think it was within a day.

Well for some reason the news seems to pop up again on several sources, such as this one [http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2009/11/family_of_christopher_bizijl_s.html]. I think it's because there's something new to rapport on the trial.

Yeah i know but still it was a year ago you think it would be considered old news by now.