Tragic Gun Club Accident...

[atx_newbie]

It appears to me that they may need to be a bit tighter.

Why?

I agree here.  "Locks work for honest people."  There are already pretty strict rules controlling fully automatic weapons, so chances are that even tighter controls would not have prevented this tragedy.  Rules and laws can only do so much.  For example:

Back in my fraternity days, it was always tough to get some members to pay their dues.  The standard practice was to fine and add late fees.  The problem here, of course, was that if someone isn't paying the dues, why would they pay the fines?

So in this case, chances are that some regulations were already broken, so why would tighter regulations change anything?

[wagn]

There is no difference between a Remington 700, Winchester 70, Ruger M77, Ithaca 37, Colt 1911 or an Uzi.

[burleytog]

There is no difference between a Remington 700, Winchester 70, Ruger M77, Ithaca 37, Colt 1911 or an Uzi.

C'mon man, this simply isn't true. There's a big difference between a full automatic and other guns. If there wasn't a difference then our military wouldn't give our soldiers automatic weapons just 1911's. An auto is more dangerous by nature.

It's like saying there is no difference between a compact car and a Semi. Yeah they both are vehicles but are different in many respects

I own guns and shoot myself, and can't imagine if my son was killed like that. I don't know how I'd go on.

[wagn]

I was saying that a 1911 wasn't automatic. I was stating that if full auto's were the same as a semi-auto then we might as well give our soldiers only 1911's (not full auto) instead of M4's and other full autos. Better yet let's just give them all muzzleloaders. A gun is just a gun after all.

I did leave a coma out of my orignal post so I can see why you read it wrong. My mistake.

If guns are all the same then I guess having a single shot 22 cal in my house is as good a home defense weapon as 45. cal semi-auto. If somone had told me this before I would  have bought a cheaper gun and saved myself some money  :

[skunked_again]

Not passing judgement, I just don't understand. I can see teaching a child to shoot a rifle if hunting is a part of your life. What I don't understand is what is the purpose of having an eight year old learn how to fire an Uzi?

There is no difference between a Remington 700, Winchester 70, Ruger M77, Ithaca 37, Colt 1911 or an Uzi.

i agree 100%. that being said the only thing an 8 year old should have is a red rider BB gun.

[Mrs. Matstone]

IMO this has nothing to do with guns or gun control.

Where are the parents? #1 problem with every accident involving a young kid. Its easy to point a finger, but there isnt anyone to point them too but the parents.

The owner should have known a 8yro cant handle that. The parents should have know not to let him shoot it without thier hands on it.

I've shot quite a few full autos. They take 100% attention. Especially with kids.

I agree, Excellent points.

[Valascus]

It appears to me that they may need to be a bit tighter.

Why?

Why? You may say below that there is no difference between an automatic or semi-automatic weapon, but I respectfully disagree. I am no gun expert by any means, but if they was no difference between the two, then why is there so much more training required to properly fire or own an automatic weapon? How much of the general population can properly, safely, and accurately fire an automatic weapon? How many hours of range time do military personnel have to practice firing automatic weapons? When it comes down to it, the general population, for the most part, is far too untrained and unprepared for automatic weapons. Those who care to go through all proper licensing, hours upon hours of autmatic weapons training, automatic weapons safety courses, and automatic weapon maintenence should be allowed to own one.

[J Francho]

I don't think the blame game is going to bring back that little boy, and I don't think it'll prevent more accidents. His father will probably be emotionally tortured for the rest of his life, which probably is punishment enough. Man, that story really gets to me. Nightmare.

Wrongs have to be righted and the guilty have to pay the price. The child is dead before his time and the people responsible must pay.

I don't know, man - maybe you're right.  Its a tough call.  According to the article, its initially being ruled an accident.  Was it questionable to let a 3rd grader shoot the weapon?  Ummm, it seems pretty reckless to me, but according to Mass. gun law, "It is legal in Massachusetts for children to fire a weapon if they have permission from a parent or legal guardian and they are supervised by a properly certified and licensed instructor."  

Perhaps there is no crime here.  Perhaps the law should change.  I don't know that that would have prevented this outcome, other than some common sense by the adults here.  

I guess I'm wondering who you'd send to jail?  The father?  Would he feel any more punished by sitting in jail?  Probably not.  Who would be punished in that scenario?  The young boys mother and 6th grade brother, that's who.  

If it turns out that the instructor's certs, or something about the show wasn't kosher, then that would lead to a whole 'nother can of worms, with both criminal and civil litigation.  None of which erases the stupidity of that tragedy.  

Nope, the whole story and any subsequent litigation will be used for stumping on both sides, the young victim and his family becoming martyrs for someone's political motives.

None of which brings the boy back.  A freaking nightmare, as I said in my first post.  I don't know, the more I think about it, the more angry I get, and want make someone pay for it.  I dislike those vindictive feelings.

[tyrius.]

There is no difference between a Remington 700, Winchester 70, Ruger M77, Ithaca 37, Colt 1911 or an Uzi.

The fully automatic nature of the uzi is what caused this boy's death. The recoil pushed the barrel up and back and the fact the weapon did not stop firing is what caused him to be struck in the head and killed.

Saying there is no difference between a rifle, a pistol, a shotgun and an automatic machine gun is 100% false. Pretty much the only similarity between all of the weapons listed is that they all fire a bullet. After that they are very different.

edited to add one more similarity: they all have no business being fired by an 8 year old without HANDS ON supervision (ie the instructor or the parent actually physically holding the weapon with the kid).

[Catt]

I am a gun expert and can tell you the general populations who deal regularly with guns are better trained than the general military population. Let me clarify in the military excluding infantry, special ops or military police the general military population is no better trained than the general civilian population. Depending on your military job description you may only be require to qualify with a weapon once a year and the requirements for qualifying are not the stringent.

It does not matter if one is using a single shot or a fully automatic weapon operator error will result in serious injury or death. In my personal opinion the is no way any eight year old should have been allowed to shoot any thing larger than a .22 caliber.

[skunked_again]

There is no difference between a Remington 700, Winchester 70, Ruger M77, Ithaca 37, Colt 1911 or an Uzi.

The fully automatic nature of the uzi is what caused this boy's death. The recoil pushed the barrel up and back and the fact the weapon did not stop firing is what caused him to be struck in the head and killed.

Saying there is no difference between a rifle, a pistol, a shotgun and an automatic machine gun is 100% false. Pretty much the only similarity between all of the weapons listed is that they all fire a bullet. After that they are very different.

edited to add one more similarity: they all have no business being fired by an 8 year old without HANDS ON supervision (ie the instructor or the parent actually physically holding the weapon with the kid).

i think the point might be all of those guns can and will kill in the wrong hands.

whats more dangerous, the fire arm or the hands holding the fire arm?

[tyrius.]

i think the point might be all of those guns can and will kill in the wrong hands.

I agree with your point, but a fully automatic weapon is actually more dangerous than a single fire weapon.  This case shows that to be true.  Any single fire weapon would not have killed this kid.

I'm also not proposing more regulations or anything of the sort.  The sole responsibility for this accident lies with the father.

[Maxximus Redneckus]

More Kids are killed driving cars with 500 hp doing 11 seconds in a 1/4 mile then guns  ....  why not attack the  car makers???  why not blame parents????  hmmmmm  nothing against us Americans but we sure do like to blame anyone or anything but ourself s for our own mistakes BUT only if it is politically correct .We can keep blaming things,places,others for bad things that WE know are bad... but where does that get us in society after 200 yrs  500 yrs 1000 yrs???

[TexFishin]

This is a tragedy that nobody should have to encounter.  To want to punish the people involved without knowing all the facts is dumb.  If they simply gave the kid the loaded gun and said pull the trigger then yes by all means punish them.  Now if they went through all the steps and instructions involved with teaching someone to fire a gun they have never handled then I dont believe there should be any real punishment for those involved as they will be tortured by the incident for the rest of their lives.  Do I think that an 8 yr. old should be firing an automatic weapon such as an Uzi?  No.  I have been firing weapons for as long as I can remember.  I think that younger kids such as this are capable of shooting most weapons under adult supervision and I actually believe that all kids should have the knowledge of the use and danger involved with them.  I personally would be fine with an 8 yr old shooting any of the guns that I own but the simple fact is that automatics are an entirely different thing.  Automatics do have different habits to their recoil as there is not just one recoil but multiple that in this case caused the barrel to continue to rise and fire which led to this tragedy.  

[Catt]

More Kids are killed driving cars with 500 hp doing 11 seconds in a 1/4 mile then guns .... why not attack the car makers??? why not blame parents????  hmmmmm nothing against us Americans but we sure do like to blame anyone or anything but ourself s for our own mistakes BUT only if it is politically correct .We can keep blaming things,places,others for bad things that WE know are bad... but where does that get us in society after 200 yrs 500 yrs 1000 yrs???

What?

There aint but one person responsible for this tragic accident and that is the father period. Would I bring legal charges against him? Nope living with his son's death will be punishment enough. Now on to the instructor I don't think he will ever let a child that young handle any thing larger than a .22 caliber. Is a fully auto weapon more dangerous than a single shot? No it is not, in the hands of an 8 year old any weapon is equally dangerous but in the hands of a person with better mental capacity & larger stature it is totally safe.

[Pencil Pusher]

I am a gun expert and can tell you the general populations who deal regularly with guns are better trained than the general military population. Let me clarify in the military excluding infantry, special ops or military police the general military population is no better trained than the general civilian population. Depending on your military job description you may only be require to qualify with a weapon once a year and the requirements for qualifying are not the stringent.  

Is there anything you're not an expert at? Exactly when were you in the military? I can tell you this, while most non-combat specialties qualify only periodically, the safety on the range far exceeds what goes on at many civilian ranges and shooting events. As a veteran and a gun owner, in my opinion, no civilian should be allowed to own a fully automatic weapon of any kind, much less be allowed to shoot it. There is absolutely no use for a fully auto weapon except one: to kill another human.

[Tin]

Stupidity.

I think that one word sums up this whole tragic "accident" as well as most other "accidents".

[Catt]

Is there anything you're not an expert at?

When it comes to guns or fishing I know a little on both subjects

Exactly when were you in the military?

One does not have to be in the military to know what goes on in the military; I've worked on many a military contract.  

Not been to many sanctioned shooting events have you?

[Joe Boss]

What a horrible accident.

It is unfortunate that certain people will use accident's like this to fuel anti-gun laws. There needs to be a law against stupid parents instead.

[mattm]

As a veteran and a gun owner, in my opinion, no civilian should be allowed to own a fully automatic weapon of any kind, much less be allowed to shoot it. There is absolutely no use for a fully auto weapon except one: to kill another human.

I agree 100%.  I own guns, but I don't see the point in owning an uzi.

More Kids are killed driving cars with 500 hp doing 11 seconds in a 1/4 mile then guns  ....  why not attack the  car makers???  why not blame parents????  hmmmmm  nothing against us Americans but we sure do like to blame anyone or anything but ourself s for our own mistakes BUT only if it is politically correct .We can keep blaming things,places,others for bad things that WE know are bad... but where does that get us in society after 200 yrs  500 yrs 1000 yrs???

C'mon man give us credit for having some brain cells.  Of course more kids are killed by cars.  Wvery child in America comes in contact with a car every single day.  The same can't be said for automatic weapons and kids fortunately.  Using your logic I say we start letting kids fly planes.  Very few kids were killed flying a plane last year.

[llPa1nll]

As a veteran and a gun owner, in my opinion, no civilian should be allowed to own a fully automatic weapon of any kind, much less be allowed to shoot it. There is absolutely no use for a fully auto weapon except one: to kill another human.

I agree 100%. I own guns, but I don't see the point in owning an uzi.

See I agree as well that civilians dont really need automatic weapons. BUT I have a problem with a govt or a law that says that someone cant have one.

I would leave it upto that persons better judgment to say "I really dont need to own an automatic weapon". If a civilian takes the required safety courses and passes any accreditation and permits, I dont have a problem with someone owning one. Like I said I just have issues with laws trying to protect me from myself.

This also isnt the problem in this instance. The automatic weapon was not privately owned but was being used at a gun club, under Instructor's supervision.

What I think too prevent this is that a child that young should have had the Instructor or the Father actually physically hold the weapon and let the child pull the trigger.

[Joe Boss]

What I think too prevent this is that a child that young should have had the Instructor or the Father actually physically hold the weapon and let the child pull the trigger.

How about not letting a child near a automatic weapon period. As a father every fiber of my being is geared towards protecting my son from danger. How am I protecting my son by placing him anywhere near a fully automatic weapon?

[mattm]

See I agree as well that civilians dont really need automatic weapons. BUT I have a problem with a govt or a law that says that someone cant have one.

I would leave it upto that persons better judgment to say "I really dont need to own an automatic weapon". If a civilian takes the required safety courses and passes any accreditation and permits, I dont have a problem with someone owning one. Like I said I just have issues with laws trying to protect me from myself.

This also isnt the problem in this instance. The automatic weapon was not privately owned but was being used at a gun club, under Instructor's supervision.

Not that you care or need my permission, but I have no problem with your stance.  In fact I wish people would show evidence that they could be trusted with this responsibility.  Most probably due, but its the few bad apples that ruin it for everyone.

[llPa1nll]

What I think too prevent this is that a child that young should have had the Instructor or the Father actually physically hold the weapon and let the child pull the trigger.

How about not letting a child near a automatic weapon period. As a father every fiber of my being is geared towards protecting my son from danger. How am I protecting my son by placing him anywhere near a fully automatic weapon?

Well Gulfman since I dont have any kids or guns. Im not really in a position to say whats right or wrong. I however would agree 100% with you that I would make the choice not to put my child in harms way. I wouldnt allow him to fire an automatic weapon. If the decision was already made that the Father had no problem letting his child close to an automatic weapon, what I was trying to convey was the least that should have been done was to have an adult take physical control of the gun and let the kid pull the trigger.

See I agree as well that civilians dont really need automatic weapons. BUT I have a problem with a govt or a law that says that someone cant have one.

I would leave it upto that persons better judgment to say "I really dont need to own an automatic weapon". If a civilian takes the required safety courses and passes any accreditation and permits, I dont have a problem with someone owning one. Like I said I just have issues with laws trying to protect me from myself.

This also isnt the problem in this instance. The automatic weapon was not privately owned but was being used at a gun club, under Instructor's supervision.

Not that you care or need my permission, but I have no problem with your stance. In fact I wish people would show evidence that they could be trusted with this responsibility. Most probably due, but its the few bad apples that ruin it for everyone.

Well I again agree with you mattm, it only takes a few careless irresponsible people to ruin it form the masses.

[IMPY03]

Fueling the gun-control fire.....

It is horrible that an 8 year old was killed but it was not his fault nor the weapons fault.

1: where were the parents and why would you let an 8 year old shoot a fully automatic weapon heck when I was 8 I could hardly shoot a .22 or .410

2: Whoever allowed the kid to shoot the gun should be punished severely...Who in their right mind hands a automatic weapon to a child? what ignorence!