Doug Huffman
Banned
imported post
Mr. Y wrote:
Mr. Y wrote:
Three? LOADED, MUZZLE, TRIGGER, TARGET?
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Boy 8 shoots himself in Mass
- Thread starter DeadCenter
- Start date
Mr. Y
Regular Member
imported post
:quirky
:quirky
KBCraig
Regular Member
redlegagent
Regular Member
imported post
Achild died because idiot adults were arrogant enough to believe that they were "in control" of the situation and only saw things thru their eyes and not the childs and a child who trusted the "big people" around him was failed in a horrible way. When you hand a loaded weapon to someone - THEY are now in control and this "certified" instructor forgot that. I am ex-military and have shot automatic weapons many times. They require discipline and practice to control and an 8 year old has none of these traits. I have an 8 year old son and have let him shoot a .22 pistol and rifle with me right next to him helping him hold both. I would never allow him to try to shoot an automatic weapon at that age. This was stupid and we're going to get buried by the anti's because of it. :cuss:
Achild died because idiot adults were arrogant enough to believe that they were "in control" of the situation and only saw things thru their eyes and not the childs and a child who trusted the "big people" around him was failed in a horrible way. When you hand a loaded weapon to someone - THEY are now in control and this "certified" instructor forgot that. I am ex-military and have shot automatic weapons many times. They require discipline and practice to control and an 8 year old has none of these traits. I have an 8 year old son and have let him shoot a .22 pistol and rifle with me right next to him helping him hold both. I would never allow him to try to shoot an automatic weapon at that age. This was stupid and we're going to get buried by the anti's because of it. :cuss:
deepdiver
Campaign Veteran
imported post
Certainly tragic and avoidable.
As to the anti's using this against gun owners, I think this is going to fall under the adage of "A single death is a tragedy, a million a statistic." This is so unusual and strange that it will get attention and at least all class III weapon holders will be painted with a broad brush of irresponsibility. Unfortunately, this will also be used to paint all "assault weapons" as broadly and irrationally defined by the anti's as inherently dangerous to even the shooter even when used properly.
Certainly tragic and avoidable.
As to the anti's using this against gun owners, I think this is going to fall under the adage of "A single death is a tragedy, a million a statistic." This is so unusual and strange that it will get attention and at least all class III weapon holders will be painted with a broad brush of irresponsibility. Unfortunately, this will also be used to paint all "assault weapons" as broadly and irrationally defined by the anti's as inherently dangerous to even the shooter even when used properly.
Dustin
Regular Member
imported post
The Father is ruined for life, but the organiztion should be charged with negligence.
Bad things happen when humans stop thinking.
The Father is ruined for life, but the organiztion should be charged with negligence.
Bad things happen when humans stop thinking.
SlackwareRobert
Regular Member
imported post
I think the instructor was wrong in useing a fully loaded clip, a 3 round burst
should have been first to try out, and then go for broke. I still can't see how he held the trigger and pointed at his head at the same time though, you would have to
realy bend your wrist I would think.
It is still a tragic accident that could be avoided with a little thought.
No one deserves this to happen to thier child.
But I remember an officer using m-16 sites to aim m203, and hit 8 people at the range. You would think that everyone else pointing up in the air would have been a clue you don't fire straight ahead.
I think the instructor was wrong in useing a fully loaded clip, a 3 round burst
should have been first to try out, and then go for broke. I still can't see how he held the trigger and pointed at his head at the same time though, you would have to
realy bend your wrist I would think.
It is still a tragic accident that could be avoided with a little thought.
No one deserves this to happen to thier child.
But I remember an officer using m-16 sites to aim m203, and hit 8 people at the range. You would think that everyone else pointing up in the air would have been a clue you don't fire straight ahead.
Walleye
Regular Member
imported post
Now that I realize this story came from Massachusetts, perhaps that is why this accident occurred. If there is only licensed gun ownership there, then the explaination is guns are not widely respected by the population at large, and as such do not approach them with the caution that they should be.
Now that I realize this story came from Massachusetts, perhaps that is why this accident occurred. If there is only licensed gun ownership there, then the explaination is guns are not widely respected by the population at large, and as such do not approach them with the caution that they should be.
Sonora Rebel
Regular Member
imported post
Evil Ernie wrote:
+1 An Uzi's not a toy. Everybody involved with lettin' this kid shoot that thing will have that to live with the rest of their lives... 'accident or not'. It was flat out stupid.
We don't need more 'laws'... we need morecommon freakin' sense!
Evil Ernie wrote:
+1 An Uzi's not a toy. Everybody involved with lettin' this kid shoot that thing will have that to live with the rest of their lives... 'accident or not'. It was flat out stupid.
We don't need more 'laws'... we need morecommon freakin' sense!
Flintlock
Regular Member
imported post
AWDstylez wrote:
LOL, then how old does one have to be to get their rights issued to them? Where in the constitution does it say that any of the 2nd amendmentdoesn't apply to children?
AWDstylez wrote:
LOL, then how old does one have to be to get their rights issued to them? Where in the constitution does it say that any of the 2nd amendmentdoesn't apply to children?
Flintlock
Regular Member
imported post
Evil Ernie wrote:
My point is that all kids are different andsome aremore able than others. Parents and instructors are the best judge of what our children can or cannothandle. This must be a completely rare event as I have never read of such a circumstance in my entire life.
Tragic yes, but to spew out that type of rhetoric as a response to this incident frankly gives the antis further ammunition to "take another inch", in my opinion.
Evil Ernie wrote:
That's a bit much Ernie... I was firing weapons at 8 years old and probably would have been able to fire UZI's if my father had owned such a weapon. I was also hunting with him in the Alaska wilderness when I was 9 and Icarried my own rifle.
My point is that all kids are different andsome aremore able than others. Parents and instructors are the best judge of what our children can or cannothandle. This must be a completely rare event as I have never read of such a circumstance in my entire life.
Tragic yes, but to spew out that type of rhetoric as a response to this incident frankly gives the antis further ammunition to "take another inch", in my opinion.
Orygunner
Regular Member
imported post
Flintlock wrote:
It's generally understood thatmany rights of the people do not apply to children where their parents or guardians are concerned.
Parents can search their children's property without warrant, seize their property without due process, limit their freedom of speech, press, and religion, and even deny them the right to keep and bear arms.
However, these are rights any child of any age can exercise in regards to anyone else or the government (at least once they reach an age where they can understand what those rights are), aren't they?
...Orygunner...
Flintlock wrote:
It's generally understood thatmany rights of the people do not apply to children where their parents or guardians are concerned.
Parents can search their children's property without warrant, seize their property without due process, limit their freedom of speech, press, and religion, and even deny them the right to keep and bear arms.
However, these are rights any child of any age can exercise in regards to anyone else or the government (at least once they reach an age where they can understand what those rights are), aren't they?
...Orygunner...
Flintlock
Regular Member
imported post
Orygunner wrote:
Orygunner wrote:
I agree with your response. I believe that it is within the abilitiesof the parents to raise their children away from government control. The constitution is a limit on government powers, not a limit on thepeople. If the founders really wanted rights to be for adults-only, then thefirst ten amendments would have stated the right of the adults as opposed to the right of the people...
2a4all
Regular Member
imported post
Theme parks with "dangerous" or "risky" rides at least post signs advising would-be riders of the possible risks, and post "policy rules", i.e. you must be THIS tall to ride this ride" or "each person must be strapped into their own seat. parents cannot hold small children in their laps" and operators check these things before the ride starts. They even have operators stationed at "kill switches" to stop the ride if things get out of hand (people standing up, extending arms outside of the ride, etc.)
I have to believe that these gun show attendees and staff have been to at least one such attraction in their life. Did they not notice these things, or just think that the parks were only covering their own asses? (Which is also true, BTW.)
That father won't need a camera to remember the images he saw that day.
The instructor won't need a voice recorder to recall the father's claim of "He can handle it."
What? Were they NOT thinking?:banghead:
Theme parks with "dangerous" or "risky" rides at least post signs advising would-be riders of the possible risks, and post "policy rules", i.e. you must be THIS tall to ride this ride" or "each person must be strapped into their own seat. parents cannot hold small children in their laps" and operators check these things before the ride starts. They even have operators stationed at "kill switches" to stop the ride if things get out of hand (people standing up, extending arms outside of the ride, etc.)
I have to believe that these gun show attendees and staff have been to at least one such attraction in their life. Did they not notice these things, or just think that the parks were only covering their own asses? (Which is also true, BTW.)
That father won't need a camera to remember the images he saw that day.
The instructor won't need a voice recorder to recall the father's claim of "He can handle it."What? Were they NOT thinking?:banghead:
Doug Huffman
Banned
PT111
Regular Member
imported post
2a4all wrote:
You bring up a good point. Should amusement parks who have the signs saying you must be this tall let a child ride if the parent says that the child can. Howabout if the parent wants to hold the child in his lap. How far do we let the parent make judgement for the child. How about if the parent wants to take their child mountain climbing with them. There was an outrage over Steve Irwin holding his son so close to a crocodile. Do we turn parents loose to do whatever they want to with their child. Do we repeal child seat laws. What make guns any different.
2a4all wrote:
Theme parks with "dangerous" or "risky" rides at least post signs advising would-be riders of the possible risks, and post "policy rules", i.e. you must be THIS tall to ride this ride" or "each person must be strapped into their own seat. parents cannot hold small children in their laps" and operators check these things before the ride starts. They even have operators stationed at "kill switches" to stop the ride if things get out of hand (people standing up, extending arms outside of the ride, etc.)
I have to believe that these gun show attendees and staff have been to at least one such attraction in their life. Did they not notice these things, or just think that the parks were only covering their own asses? (Which is also true, BTW.)
That father won't need a camera to remember the images he saw that day.
What? Were they NOT thinking?:banghead:
You bring up a good point. Should amusement parks who have the signs saying you must be this tall let a child ride if the parent says that the child can. Howabout if the parent wants to hold the child in his lap. How far do we let the parent make judgement for the child. How about if the parent wants to take their child mountain climbing with them. There was an outrage over Steve Irwin holding his son so close to a crocodile. Do we turn parents loose to do whatever they want to with their child. Do we repeal child seat laws. What make guns any different.
Doug Huffman
Banned
imported post
PT111 wrote:
'Children' make very good climbers because they don't appreciate the risks, the responsibility of the parent/teacher.
What makes 'guns' different is that the RAKBA "shall not be infringed."
PT111 wrote:
In an earlier life I was a very senior practitioner of 'rock climbing' (1960-ies Sierra Club, Loma Prieta Chapter, Rock Climbing Section, Qualified Leader Program before S.C. went left political), and perhaps a junior 'instructor'. I was in HS and college at the time.
'Children' make very good climbers because they don't appreciate the risks, the responsibility of the parent/teacher.
What makes 'guns' different is that the RAKBA "shall not be infringed."
redlegagent
Regular Member
imported post
Flintlock wrote:
Flintlock wrote:
You argument is hopelessly flawed. It is widely understood that many of the rights of "the people" excluded women and blacks to say nothing of children when they were written. Have you never heard of child psychologist Carl Jung or developmental stages etc. I bet the SCOTUS has and any argument to try and extend the second amendment to cover children who can't legally make many decisions or even give testimony except under limited circumstances is a dead end. The amusement ride and rock climbing argument is dead on - these kids cannot possible understand the risks involved and were failed by adults who foolishly thought they were in control of the situation. I don't care if the father signed a consent, the instructor should have been smart enough to make the father stand with the child and help him hold it rather than stand back for a photo op. He could have handed his camera to anyone else to take the damn picture instead of leaving the kid on his own. :banghead:
PT111
Regular Member
imported post
redlegagent - Your point is very well taken on the original meaning of "The People". It is rather amusing at times how many people love to define their rights using the argument of the orginalwording then when confronted by their original intentions change their meaning. I really don't believe that authors of the Constitution intended for all of it to apply to every person no matter what race, gender or age. That interpretation has come about much later primarily in 14A by which time most if not all of the original authors were dead. I also find it amusing that many of the people shouting the 2A from the top of the mountain have no idea that they are only shouting the second half of it.
I don't think that the original authors of the Constution felt that a one-year-old slave child was endowed with the same rights as a 35 year-old white male landowner. Therefore to use the thoughts and writings of the founders as absoluteGospel is like arguing with yourself, there is not going to be a winner. However this is all just my opinion.
redlegagent - Your point is very well taken on the original meaning of "The People". It is rather amusing at times how many people love to define their rights using the argument of the orginalwording then when confronted by their original intentions change their meaning. I really don't believe that authors of the Constitution intended for all of it to apply to every person no matter what race, gender or age. That interpretation has come about much later primarily in 14A by which time most if not all of the original authors were dead. I also find it amusing that many of the people shouting the 2A from the top of the mountain have no idea that they are only shouting the second half of it.
I don't think that the original authors of the Constution felt that a one-year-old slave child was endowed with the same rights as a 35 year-old white male landowner. Therefore to use the thoughts and writings of the founders as absoluteGospel is like arguing with yourself, there is not going to be a winner. However this is all just my opinion.
shad0wfax
Regular Member
imported post
A few things bothered me about this article:
A few things bothered me about this article:
- The headline says gun show (intentionally I'm sure) when in reality it was a machine gun shoot and gun expo with machine gun rentals and free handgunlessons.
- The state this occurred in requires a state permit as well as a federal permit to own an NFA firearm (like the micro-uzi the boy fired) and also requires a certifiedinstructor to supervise minors using the weapons, yet the instructor did not have the firearm secured in case of accidental discharge or discharge in an unintended direction.
- The boy (obviously) and his father (based on statements he made) were ignorant of fully-automatic fire and how even relatively benign cartridges, like the 9x19, can have recoil that is very difficult to control in a short-barreled weapon (like the micro-uzi). I'm willing to forgive all of this and pass it off as ignorance, no matter how unfortunate the circumstances, neither the father or the boy were knowingly negligent.
- Of all of the fully-automatic weapons you could choose for a first-time shooter to fire, the micro-uzi is one of the worst. (A mac-10 would probably be even worse.) The boy should have been firing a bipod mounted M-249 or a tripod mounted BAR or something heavy, not a PDW. The staff should have known better than to put a compact sub-machinegun into the hands of a first-timer. I'm a tall, heavy man and the first time I fired a fully automatic weapon from the shoulder, the person instructing me explained in no uncertain terms that I needed to lean forward much more than I normally would when shooting, have a very firm grip and stance, and he placed his hand about 1" behind my shoulder just in case I did have uncontrolled muzzle rise. Because of his advice, I did control the recoil well and I learned to "walk" the fire down onto my target relatively quickly. His hand was never necessary to control me, but it was there for the first few bursts just in case. Without hisinstruction I'd have probably put 2-3 rounds downrange and 2-3 more rounds at a dangerously high angle above the range before I had the presence of mind (and reaction time) to get my finger completely out of the trigger guard.
- It couldn't come at a worse time. (Not that there'sever a good time for an accidental shooting death.)Obama has been talking about "common sense" gun laws, and inmystate the liberals have been after gun shows for the last few years. (I think the liberals in D.C. have been harping on gun shows too.) Even worse, the article includes a quote from some socialist named Jerry Belair (spokesman for Stop Handgun Violence) claiming that:"It's easy to lose control of a weapon like that ... they are used on a battleground for a very good reason. It's to shoot as many times as you possibly can without having to reload at an enemy that's approaching. It's not a toy. It's not something to play with." Ignorance abounds, it's not a battlefield weapon, it's a PDW and you can't exactly shoot it long until you do have to reload, which is why you're taught controlled bursts, not shooting as many rounds as you possibly can... Even belt-fed or box-magazine LMGs like the M-249 (which are designed to shoot as many times as possible before reloading) are still fired in controlled bursts.
- Additionally, the criminal charges the DA is considering should only be for negligence on the part of the instructor, but the DA is pushing for charges allowing the minor to posess the firearm. The DA states that the law exempts rifles, pistols, and shotguns, but is silent on the issue of machine guns. Of course logic tells us that the NFA of 1934 and the FFA of 1938 had already been passedbefore stupid Massachusetts state laws exempting non-NFA weapons was written. Ignorance on the part of the Mass. law-makers made them assume that machine guns are illegal and no one can have them, so why include it in the law? Hopefully the instructor hires a decent attorney who is able to argue that a micro-uzi IS a handgun, it just happens to be an NFA handgun. It is illegal foranyone who doesn' thave the form-4 in their name to posess an NFA weapon, but the machine-gun shoot itself was legal because the certified instructor is present and the folks shooting the NFA weapon are only in temporary posession, and not actually owners. By that samelogic the DA has no legal basis to charge the instructor with allowing the minor to take posession of the NFA weapon, or else the DA would have to prosecute every single citizen who participated in the machine gun shoot, whether or not they are a minor. Anyhow, the instructor should be charged for gross negligence and perhaps be sued in civil court for wrongful death, but not transferring posession of an NFA weapon to a minor. That's just rubbish.