| for the gun control people
Posted: 10/13/2009 7:07:55 PM | Here is the article:
USA TODAY 27/10/2008
Boy, 8, dies after accidentally shooting self at gun show
WESTFIELD, Mass. (AP) — 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.
The boy, Christopher Bizilj of Ashford, Conn., was with a certified instructor and "was shooting the weapon down range when the force of the weapon made it travel up and back toward his head, where he suffered the injury," a police statement said.
"The weapon was loaded and ready to fire," police Lt. Hipolito Nunez said. "The 8-year-old victim had the Uzi and as he was firing the weapon, the front end of the weapon went up with the backfire and he ended up receiving a round in his head."
Christopher died at Baystate Medical Center.
Police said the boy's father, Charles Bizilj, attended the event with his son. The father is the medical director of emergency medicine at Johnson Memorial Hospital in Stafford Springs, Conn.
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 accident happened.
"My reaction is shock," said Mitchell, who lives down the street from the club. "In the last five years, there has never been a problem or a bad accident. I've been sick all night."
Although police called it a "self-inflicted accidental shooting," police and the Hampden district attorney's office were investigating, officials said.
"We are going to review all the circumstance regarding what happened, who was involved, what authorities they may or may not have had, who was supervising," District Attorney William Bennett said Monday.
It is legal 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, Nunez said.
Those conditions were met in this case, he said. He declined to release the supervisor's name.
The club said on its website that the event, run in conjunction with C.O.P Firearms and Training, is "all legal and fun." People are allowed to fire weapons at vehicles, pumpkins and other targets, it said.
----------------------------------------------------------
Bloody madness, especially considering the boy's father was the medical director of a hospital, who would have seen his fair share of gunshot wounds one would presume. | |
|
| for the gun control people
Posted: 10/13/2009 7:08:14 PM |
You are absolutely correct. Any fully functional genuine submachine gun or assault rifle is not necessary for recreational purposes. Any that are found to be not made for the common market should be found and modified to be no more than semi-automatic at best. While it would be unique and exhilarating to go to a range and fire an automatic rifle or pistol a couple times per year it is not a necessity. I don't believe even police should have automatic weapons
It may not be necessary, but it is a right. What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand. Its assinine to expect law enforcement to give up select fire guns. I guess you're not familiar with the North Hollywood shootout. The police were greatly outgunned and had to go to a nearby gunshop to get better guns to defend themselves with. | |
|
| for the gun control people
Posted: 10/13/2009 7:10:57 PM |
Did you miss the part where I said "assisted as well"? Meaning hands on assistance.
I didn't miss that part. If you read the subsequent USA Today article I posted you will see his idiot and criminally negligent father was 'assisting' him. | |
|
| for the gun control people
Posted: 10/13/2009 7:13:46 PM | | ^^^ All it says was supporting him from behind. It doesn't go into how. I've seen other articles that said that the father was just standing behind him. Neither of us were there to say for sure what happened | |
|
| for the gun control people
Posted: 10/13/2009 7:20:16 PM |
Neither of us were there to say for sure what happened
I can say with reasonable certainty that an 8-year-old boy is dead because he was given an automatic weapon to fire.
And you're defending the people who put the gun in his hands. | |
|
| for the gun control people
Posted: 10/13/2009 7:26:32 PM |
It may not be necessary, but it is a right. What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand. Its assinine to expect law enforcement to give up select fire guns. I guess you're not familiar with the North Hollywood shootout. The police were greatly outgunned and had to go to a nearby gunshop to get better guns to defend themselves with.
By making these things semi-auto rather than full auto it does not infringe upon the right to bear arms. Gun control does not infringe upon the right of the mass population to bear arms it simply elects to remove that right from some individuals and limits the product availible to the populous as a safety measure.
Is this north hollywood thing where 2 guys held them off for a long time because they had body armor and automatic weapons? If it's what i'm thinking of then you only needed one shot for each guy. Stop shooting the vest and go for a knee or head shot with a high powered rifle. Don't need to throw 1000 rounds and miss with most and hope you hit a soft spot. Aim. | |
|
| for the gun control people
Posted: 10/13/2009 7:31:14 PM |
It is legal 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, Nunez said.
Here is where the control has to start. The type of weapon should be restricted to age as well as training levels, particularily training. Grown men lose control of automatic weapons when they first begin to use them. An 8 year old child does not have the strength nor the mind and body control to gain competent control of an automatic weapon. | |
|
| for the gun control people
Posted: 10/13/2009 7:55:08 PM |
Wow, how shìtty do you have to be to try to steal a man's glory for doing something that might have potentially saved somebody's life just so you can promote some petty personal belief that guns are bad.
Hang your head in shame. You sicken me.
Since he posted that story for the purpose of insulting people he doesn't agree with, I think some criticism was warranted. | |
|
| for the gun control people
Posted: 10/13/2009 8:33:28 PM |
By making these things semi-auto rather than full auto it does not infringe upon the right to bear arms. Gun control does not infringe upon the right of the mass population to bear arms it simply elects to remove that right from some individuals and limits the product availible to the populous as a safety measure.
Is this north hollywood thing where 2 guys held them off for a long time because they had body armor and automatic weapons? If it's what i'm thinking of then you only needed one shot for each guy. Stop shooting the vest and go for a knee or head shot with a high powered rifle. Don't need to throw 1000 rounds and miss with most and hope you hit a soft spot. Aim
So if you have a pistol and your target is, say 40 yards away, you're really going to take the time to take well aimed shots to hit a small target, when they're firing back at you with automatic weapons? I'd like to see that. | |
|
| for the gun control people
Posted: 10/13/2009 8:41:49 PM | | Too funny. This thread is not 'for the gun control people.' It's for the gun loving people to pat each other on the back and say how wonderful it is for private citizens to be armed to the teeth. Y'all have fun... | |
|
| for the gun control people
Posted: 10/13/2009 8:56:48 PM |
So if you have a pistol and your target is, say 40 yards away, you're really going to take the time to take well aimed shots to hit a small target, when they're firing back at you with automatic weapons? I'd like to see that.
Actually i stated to use a high powered rifle. If all you have is a pistol, let them go and follow the vehicle and then when it is safe take it out. Use a rocket if you have to and have a clear spot. Don't create a shootout just because it looked good for a movie hero. If they were trained for this kind of thing they could have handled it better. There is a reason snipers are born and this case was a good example. | |
|
| for the gun control people
Posted: 10/13/2009 9:12:44 PM | ^^^Letting criminals like those try and escape is extremely risky. They didnt create a shootout because it would make an interesting movie. I like how you say that automatic rifles are bad, but rocket launchers are ok. I also wonder what you would say about a civilian owning that same high powered rifle that you suggested the police use. This incident showed many weaknesses in America's LE agencies. It showed that they needed better weapons, training, and armor. At that point, situations such as those hadn't occured, and budget restrictions, as well as public reaction, make it so that departments can only go so far to prepare for "what ifs".
I also forgot to address a comment you made earlier about making rifles semi-auto instead of full not infringing upon the right to bear arms. The same could be said about automobiles, electronics, or anything. At what point does it stop? At what point do you tell the government that enough is enough. You don't need a Carrera GT to go out for the evening. Why not ban those? But wait. There's traffic laws in effect so that even if someone owns one, they can't use it to its full potential (legally) unless they do so in a safe designated spot. Kind of like owning a full auto weapon. Only using it at a in an area or a range that they can safely be discharged | |
|
| for the gun control people
Posted: 10/13/2009 10:02:14 PM |
I like how you say that automatic rifles are bad, but rocket launchers are ok. I also wonder what you would say about a civilian owning that same high powered rifle that you suggested the police use.
I didn't say automatic rifles are bad, there is no such thing as a bad gun but are they necessary? I don't believe they are. They are not accurate and are basically point and pray weapons if not used properly. That is why we are trained to do bursts of 3, the natural tendency of the machine to lift and pivot. A semi-auto can do the job just fine you don't get the same erection though.
A civilian who is cleared for it should be able to purchase whatever rifle he wants as long as the rifle meets certain limitations, full auto being one of those limitations.
I agree we don't need those vehicles and they are not a right granted by the constitution partially because, like automatic weapons, they were not concieved of yet.
Gun control is the first step in gun safety. There has to be a limit to everything. All of the population has the same rights under the constitution but isn't it a duty of the government to protect the people also? Should known gang members be allowed firearms? How about Charles Manson and other convicted mass murderers? Should they be granted full access to automatic weaponry upon release from prison? Limiting who can get firearms is no different from limiting which firearms you can acquire. | |
|
| for the gun control people
Posted: 10/13/2009 10:21:57 PM | | ^^^They may not be necessary, but there is no reason to ban them. I agree that in combat situation that 3rd burst leads is a better choice for the average soldier. When it comes to limiting them however I don't agree. Limiting who can own and what you can own are completely different. If someone has no criminal record why should the be restricted? They have done nothing wrong. A criminal on the other hand forfeits his rights when he decides to commit the crime. Gun control does nothing to promote firearm safety. The laws in place now don't prevent crime. When it comes to the constitution, civilians were allowed to own the most technology advanced arms of that time. If you read the part about them being necessary for a free state, and remember the oppressive government that they were under you can see why they didn't put restrictions on it. | |
|
| for the gun control people
Posted: 10/13/2009 11:00:41 PM |
If someone has no criminal record why should the be restricted? They have done nothing wrong.
Like the 8 year old in the story earlier who was killed. If there was a limit as to what his age and training would allow him to operate he may well be alive today. Trained instuctor present or not no 8 year old should be trusted to have the mental capacity necessary to properly handle an automatic weapon even if he was physically strong enough. I could see allowing automatics to be used under strict controls in a closed range.
So under the constitution we should be able to purchase nuclear weaponry? After all the government you have now is worse than the one the drafters of the constitution had to face and the weapons have evolved. Heehee it's an absurdity the liberals would bring it to so i thought i'd beat em to it.
Proper gun control does promote firearm safety in that it places an emphasis on training and age restrictions. Much like a graduated driver's licence. The better trained and more mature you become the wider the range of firearms available to you. that is a safe practise. What we have being promoted is not gun control but a movement to ban guns from society, that is wrong and should be fought as strenuously as is possible. A ban is not a control, limitations are a control and a safe practise. | |
|
| for the gun control people
Posted: 10/13/2009 11:17:53 PM |
What we have being promoted is not gun control but a movement to ban guns from society
Again, I ask for a cite. | |
|
| for the gun control people
Posted: 10/14/2009 5:34:23 AM | ^^^read the agenda of handgun inc. nuff said.
as far as the arguement about owning full auto arms...believe it or not.....YES..thats exactly what our founding fathers intended...it was intended that the people of the united states do indeed have the right to own the same weapons the military has........thats why they used the term militia.as opposed to hunters, target shooters or farmers.....the intent was for the population to be sufficently armed so they could defend their rights,,,,,,even against the government if nessairy........dont forget......they had just wont their freedom by doing exactly that.rebelling against an oppressive government........
i do agree that the average citizen doesnt..nor should he......have the right to own a nuculear divice.....nor an aircraft carrier.........shoot.......i'll even go as far as rocket launchers or howitzers.......but small arms.of any type....most definately......body armor?.......yup............lest you forget.....most of the old muzzleloading cannon you see in parks and cemetarys....espically in small towns.....were at one time actually owned by the citizens of those towns,,,,,,,,,TO BE USED IF NEEDED..they arent army surplus | |
|
| for the gun control people
Posted: 10/14/2009 7:29:06 AM |
Like the 8 year old in the story earlier who was killed. If there was a limit as to what his age and training would allow him to operate he may well be alive today. Trained instuctor present or not no 8 year old should be trusted to have the mental capacity necessary to properly handle an automatic weapon even if he was physically strong enough. I could see allowing automatics to be used under strict controls in a closed range.
So under the constitution we should be able to purchase nuclear weaponry? After all the government you have now is worse than the one the drafters of the constitution had to face and the weapons have evolved. Heehee it's an absurdity the liberals would bring it to so i thought i'd beat em to it.
Proper gun control does promote firearm safety in that it places an emphasis on training and age restrictions. Much like a graduated driver's licence. The better trained and more mature you become the wider the range of firearms available to you. that is a safe practise. What we have being promoted is not gun control but a movement to ban guns from society, that is wrong and should be fought as strenuously as is possible. A ban is not a control, limitations are a control and a safe practise
A lot of the firearms forums I visit will have members post pictures of their hunting trips. Including kids younger than 8 who have taken a deer, turkey, whatever. If taught firearm safety and properly supervised, I see nothing wrong with. Something in those regards failed when it came to that 8yo boy. As I said, neither of us were there to say for sure. As for nuclear arms, I can honestly say Why not be allowed to own them? Here's why. The cost alone just to buy/make one would be extremely prohibitive. Not to mention everything that would be needed to actually use it. It would end up only be a novelity item to the super rich. So now you're saying that select fire is ok if the person is of a certain age and training level? What training startards would you set? | |
|
| for the gun control people
Posted: 10/14/2009 8:13:51 AM |
read the agenda of handgun inc. nuff said.
I did some searching, couldn't find any group called Handgun Inc. that wants to ban guns completely. Care to provide me with a cite? | |
|
| for the gun control people
Posted: 10/14/2009 8:45:49 AM |
As for nuclear arms, I can honestly say Why not be allowed to own them? Here's why. The cost alone just to buy/make one would be extremely prohibitive. Not to mention everything that would be needed to actually use it. It would end up only be a novelity item to the super rich.
The cost so far is prohibitive of mass production however if you give places like Korea and China enough time they will be able to reduce the cost and size of these things enough to make them more affordable for the general population. So if we want to have them for our homes lets not hinder tha Koreans in their effort to produce these things.
So now you're saying that select fire is ok if the person is of a certain age and training level? What training startards would you set?
I'm not completely sure but i know children up to 13 years old would only be allowed use of small arms with basic firearms training. Things would graduate up from there with different training levels and skill levels. Probably would like to see a certain number of range hours included, much like pilots need a certain number of hours or a tradesman. The training levels would eventually allow use of automatic weapons but by then you would have more training hours than the military and restrictions on the use of the weaponry. No hunting with an automatic weapon and that sort of thing.Seems goofy we want our plumber to have a certification and take years of study and work practical before letting him unclog a sink but will give an 8 year old a loaded uzi and think that right. | |
|
| for the gun control people
Posted: 10/14/2009 11:55:25 AM | Utah has allowed open and concealed carry in schools for over five years now.
Anybody ever hear of a school shooting in Utah? NOPE.
And as far as Gun Free Schools go...
"Suspect in Iowa coach's death was in police custody days earlier.
NEW: Mark Becker, who faces murder charges, had "recent contact" with police.
Coach Ed Thomas has died after being shot inside a school considered a "Gun-Free Zone"."
Yeah, we see how well all that works...
HEY, WE DON'T HAVE GUNS TO PROTECT OURSELVES AT SCHOOL, COME AND KILL US!!!
And you wonder why Texas just passed a law to allow Teachers to Carry Concealed as long as they get a permit...it's in the works in Florida and several other states as well. | |
|
| for the gun control people
Posted: 10/14/2009 2:21:30 PM |
I did some searching, couldn't find any group called Handgun Inc. that wants to ban guns completely. Care to provide me with a cite?
I doubt you really did any searching. I copy and pasted this "handgun inc." and had results on the first try. "Handgun Control Incorporated", he just used a short form, but google still knows what it means. Try harder next time.
http://www.handguncontrol.org/ | |
|
| for the gun control people
Posted: 10/14/2009 2:32:33 PM | If the attacker had had a gun, he could have killed even more people.
Consider this: Japan has a per capita homicide rate of .44 per 100,000 compared to the U.S. rate of 5.8 per 100,000. So, we have over 10 times the rate of Japan. By the way, Japan has some of the the most stringent gun control laws in the world.
I'm not sure what your point was in reprinting this article except that people go crazy and kill other people. Why you are addressing this to "the gun control people" escapes me. | |
|
| for the gun control people
Posted: 10/14/2009 5:20:27 PM |
The cost so far is prohibitive of mass production however if you give places like Korea and China enough time they will be able to reduce the cost and size of these things enough to make them more affordable for the general population. So if we want to have them for our homes lets not hinder tha Koreans in their effort to produce these things
Korea is still working on nuclear arms for themselves. Its not something thats just mass produces, and is still something that would be very expensive. Its not like you would be able to go down to your local walmart and buy one | |
|
| for the gun control people
Posted: 10/14/2009 7:55:32 PM |
I doubt you really did any searching. I copy and pasted this "handgun inc." and had results on the first try. "Handgun Control Incorporated", he just used a short form, but google still knows what it means. Try harder next time.
Yeah, I did find that site. However, I cannot find anywhere on it where the people involved state they want to ban guns altogether. If you know of such a statement, please direct me to it. | |
|
Home
login 
