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

[Cherry Cola]

I have to say, this thread is very interesting. This is an arguement that has gone from liveing rooms to the Senate. But to clear the air on some things here.
-The 15 year old would have received a course on the safty, function, and operating procedures of the weapon system. At the same time, it was reported the weapon jammed twice. It should have been cleared and an armorer come over to inspect and check the weapon. This isn't a law, it's just good practice.
-It is unclear the particular weapon system nomenclatured "Uzi" was of the full-automatic varient. However, it does seem that on the day of the event several automatic weapons were present and were fired.
-For this child to have fired the weapon. Since he was under 18, should have been under supervision of an instructor and an occupying parent.
-This was a fully legal event with all the required safty precautions (Hence, the EMT's on site) where you CAN bring you're children too. There are games, show cases, vehical shows and demonstrations. And an oppurtunity to join one of the five branches of the military (COAST GUARD COUNTS!)
---- THE EVENT OF THE CHILD SHOOTING HIMSELF WAS COMPLETLY PREVENTABLE. There is a leson here. One that doesn't involve labeling all weapons as safe and unreasonably dangerouse. And I shall go on to that.
-The parent or the instructor haveing realized the weapon was out of control should have attempted to keep the barrel pointed downrange and called "NO CONTROL!"
-An armorer should have been called after the SECOND jam and the weapon placd down in a control and cleared manner.

It's like you're expecting people these days to have common-sense. I think you're asking for too much.

 

[Chimpaco]

It seems a bit silly to designate one particular tool as having no ability to entertain because its function is to cause death.

No, it doesn't. But this quote in itself sums up what happened in the article. Like I said: if the kid wouldn't have shot himself then it would have been a perfect family trip. That in itself seems weird to me. But I can live with cultural differences. I am shocked by this story, and you are not. But you live by the same cultural values as the boy's family (when it comes to guns) so I'll just have to leave it at that.

Just to twist other people's minds further: who would have gotten the blame if the kid would have shot another kid with the loaded Uzi?

Video Games Industry.

 

[Robert632]

the parents claimed that the gun was "unreasonable dangerous"? what, as apposed to the uzi's that shoot confetti?

 

[Cherry Cola]

I'm on the fence about gun control, but this is ridiculous. No child so young should be permitted to handle a firearm, especially not one as dangerous as an Uzi.

So a bb-gun or an air rifle or a pellet gun or a paintball gun is any better?
None of those are "firearms".

Kids will find ways to kill themselves with anything.

Yes, because all the guns you just listed will instantly kill people.

Although you would think that a little common-sense from the parents side could prevent usage of dangerous objects. Then again, as many people say, common-sense is very uncommon.

ALL of them have the potential to kill with a single shot.
No weapon kills instantly.

I think the potential for each weapon is a bit different.

You can kill a man with both a spoon and a baseball bat, but it's harder to beat him to death with the spoon.

You might now ask yourself "But why a spoon? Why not an axe or a knife?"

To that I answer: "Because it's dull you idiot, it'll hurt more!"

 

[Superior Mind]

Again, according to child psychology, an eight year old can fully understand the consequences to potentially the same degree as the 15 year old (many 15 year olds are still in the concrete stage). Which sort of undermines your argument.

Not to mention, it was a controlled environment. You could have had a 2 year old shoot it with the same amount of risk as an 80 year old.

Potentially understand? Is that good enough for you to give an Uzi to a small child? Having the potential to understand doesn't mean that one can understand and given that something going wrong can, and in this case has resulted in someone's death I would strongly suggest that the mere potential to understand is not even close to being good enough.

And this was not a controlled environment. A fifteen year old who clearly did not have the experience was acting as an instructor to an eight year-old in the use of, not an airgun or a humble .22 that most people start on, but an Uzi. The kid managed to shoot himself in the head, that kind of thing does not happen in a controlled environment.

 

[FluffyNeurosis]

I?m from Massachusetts and love guns and remember when this happened. The kid couldn?t control the recoil and lost control of the gun, from stories at the time it sounded like it rocked back and shot him in the head. Nobody should have given this kid a gun if he couldn?t control it. In fact nobody should give an 8yr old anything that can go full auto. Jamming has nothing to do with him shooting himself?. jam = no boom

 

[Mopbucket]

I just hope they didn't have to cancel the rest of the show.

 

[Ph33nix]

your a few months late here man. Also who the fuck gives a kid an automatic weapon? stupid parents. Parents will blame anyone else problems involving there kids except themselves.

 

[Skeleon]

I'm on the fence about gun control, but this is ridiculous. No child so young should be permitted to handle a firearm, especially not one as dangerous as an Uzi.

So a bb-gun or an air rifle or a pellet gun or a paintball gun is any better?
None of those are "firearms".

Kids will find ways to kill themselves with anything.

Don't be pedantic. The article is about firearms. I could have listed any number of things that children can kill themselves with, but it wouldn't be relevant. So I refrained.

A sharpened stick.

So because a kid might kill himself with a pointy stick, we should give them tools made for killing?
What?

 

[Woem]

Again, according to child psychology, an eight year old can fully understand the consequences to potentially the same degree as the 15 year old (many 15 year olds are still in the concrete stage). Which sort of undermines your argument.

Not to mention, it was a controlled environment. You could have had a 2 year old shoot it with the same amount of risk as an 80 year old.

Potentially understand? Is that good enough for you to give an Uzi to a small child? Having the potential to understand doesn't mean that one can understand and given that something going wrong can, and in this case has resulted in someone's death I would strongly suggest that the meer potential to understand is not even close to being good enough.

And this was not a controlled environment. A fifteen year old who clearly did not have the experience was acting as an instructor to an eight year-old in the use of, not an airgun or a humble .22 that most people start on, but an Uzi. The kid managed to shoot himself in the head, that kind of thing does not happen in a controlled environment.

I was thinking the same thing about the "controlled environment" thing. Now there's something I'm wondering. I don't know a thing about guns but the article states the gun jammed twice before eventually going off. Are those two jams not enough for the teen instructor to intervene?

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Only thing to go through my mind: "It's not Texas again, is it?"

Nope, it's Massachusetts.

 

[cprs_]

Inadequate supervision is to blame here.