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.

"It's all legal & fun — No permits or licenses required!!!!" reads the ad, posted on the club's Web site.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27399337/

Yep, all legal and fun until your child dies.

The adult doing the supervising was an emergency room medical director! I guess my mom was right when she said that even intelligent people can lack "common sense." That guy was lucky that HE didn't get shot when the gun went out of control.

Nonetheless, I don't think that one guy doing a dumb thing (letting a small boy handle a gun with too much kickback for him to handle) should mean that other people shouldn't be allowed to fire the same kind of gun.

"I'm not a complete idiot.....parts of me are missing"

Slap that on the ass of those who let an 8 year old child fire that weapon because they sure as hell are missing their brains!

An 8 year old should never be allowed to fire any gun, much less a Uzi submachine gun, supervised or not. But this is the culture that surrounds guns. They think the 2nd amendment means no rules or common sense.

Personally, I don't think there should be ANY shooting allowed at a gun show. That's like smoking a cigar in a TNT warehoue.

They were at a shooting range, so shooting is fine.

An 8 yr old with proper supervision is fine firing a gun.

I guess by the same token then an 8 year old shouldn't go snowboarding because people have run into trees and died.

Or maybe just cut down all the trees?

Accidents happen. How is this accident any different than a 8 year old riding his bike out and getting hit and killed by a car?

At what age is is OK for kids to learn gun safety? He was with a certified instructor, not a bunch of drinking red necks is some Arkansas swamp.

The ONLY difference is that there is a gun involved and it gives the lefty liberals something to bitch about. They'd bitch if you hung them with a new rope.

Get a life.

Nope. Current regulations made it all too easy for an EIGHT YEAR OLD TO FIRE A LOADED UZI AT A GUN SHOW!

Yes, lots of kids get hit by cars on bikes, but millions of kids ride bikes. Very few kids have access to an UZI, but if one does, being able to fire one at a crowd of people is apparently not that uncommon.


CLEARLY, common sense is lacking in the average gunowner as opposed to the average car owner.


Skybill, you're losing me. I used to be a moderate on gun control and I slide to the left each time progun nuts use this argument instead of suggesting that careless gunowners be stripped of their rights to own guns (and have kids). The choice is yours.

Any parent allowing their 8 year old child to shoot any kind of gun should have their kids taken away. They are not fit to be parents and are a danger to their kid and others.

Guns don't kill people.... PEOPLE kill people! So instead of getting rid of guns let's just get rid of people....
Starting with the EXTREME RIGHT nutjobs!

Speaking of law abiding gun owners: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27405681/

Is that a boy or a girl in the picture?

Ask the two dead Central Arkansas students if they should "get a life". Ooops, they're dead, thanks to an idiot with a gun.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27396351/

I'm with you Trixter. Let them have all the guns they want, maybe Darwin will take over.

Unfortunately, those that end up being the victims of Darwinism are usually the innocent bystanders.

How can it be said that the man who let the 8 year old boy fire an UZI was an "average" gun owner? Here is a video of an UZI being fired: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aax35iZsBU Even to me, let alone to people with training, it seems obvious that this gun would be too clumsy for an 8 year old to handle safely. By itself, this gun weighs almost 8 pounds. The 8-year-olds should stick to BB guns, and I think that this tragedy will hammer that point home, without the need for more laws.

Ya, that was real bad judgement, legal or not, on the part of the show management AND the instructor.

AND the Father!

I'll bet Daddy didn't think it was too much "fun" trying to hold the pieces of his kids head together as he died in his "arms". I'll bet the phone call to Mommy wasn't too much "fun" either.

"Guns" and "Fun" are 2 words that should not be used/advertised together for anyone under 18.

This is just fucking senseless.

Agreed.

Morans!!

I think firing *a* gun at 8 years old, under supervision can be a perfectly fine activity. I don't think that kind of gun is a viable choice. Maybe something minor league for starters?

Just because it can be done, doesn't mean it should be done.

This was sponsored by a sportsman and gun club and there was a certified instructor there with the boy.

Should the instructor have known about the recoil? Absolutely.

Should the instructor have helped support or control the weapon so the barrel wouldn't rise? Probably. It might have prevented the accident.

In reading the other posts in this thread, that is EXACTLY why I don't want Obama for president.

He thinks like all of the other liberals on gun control. In fact he is more anti gun than Nancy Pelosi and she's as nutty as a fruit cake when it comes to taking away our constitutionally guaranteed right.

One of the reasons I'm so pro gun is that it aggravates the snot out of the liberals.

And, by the way, I agree with K'man's last post about the poor judgment. EDIT ADD: And Missing's post. He posted it while I was typing this one.

How can it be said that the man who let the 8 year old boy fire an UZI was an "average" gun owner?

Alfredo, it takes all kinds of special permits from the BATFE to own a fully automatic weapon. So, no, he is not an average gun owner.

While you or I can go buy a handgun, long gun or shotgun, in all reality, you or I probably couldn't get the required permits to own a fully auto weapon.

This is why Mr. M will never be taking Baby M. (at any age) hunting with him.

It will be over my dead body. And probably because it has a bullet hole or 20 in it.

Heh!!

Seriously, I think this kind of stuff happens way too often. As I posted on the radio side, we regulate through law, money, social norms and physics.

IMHO, there are ways to control guns, with the goal of higher gun safety, without having to infringe on the rights.

Given the recent SCOTUS ruling, you can bet those are coming too, and a Conservative majority has all but said, "Go Ahead and do it."

Something to think about for those thinking Liberals are gonna take the guns.

Truth is NOBODY is taking the guns. Isn't gonna happen. This is a wedge issue, like abortion is.

So then, we move outside the law as the primary tool and into social norms, money and physics.

IMHO, using a small amount of law to ENFORCE serious gun education for gun owners would be a perfectly fine start. Make them fund it too, with a tax on sales and or AMMO.

"Bullet Control" -->Chris Rock.

If you've had the serious education, perhaps you have the liability considerations you do right now. If you don't, then you are a whole lot more liable.

My primary beef is with STUPID gun owners. That includes not being around, failure to secure the firearms, inebriated, profound ignorance and self-interest trumping the safety of those around the gun owner.

All of these things combined account for the majority of gun issues, so we need to fix those and the gun issues mostly go away.

Remember, SCOTUS said having the right to own a gun is not infringed, if regulation is done that clearly addresses a known harm. (that's essentially the result of the DC case, and it's seriously worth thinking about)

I personally chose to own NO guns while I have kids in the house. I know better, don't need them, and am completely aware of the non-gun options and aware of the escalation of violence that occurs when guns are in play.

(my family has used a few bats in our time, and they worked just fine)

My right to own and use a gun has not been infringed, yet I know my family is safe.

BTW: All of my kids got good gun education at 12-14 or so, with the right protection and at the appropriate scale of firearm for their physical attributes.

These clowns didn't think of any of that, and I think they are totally liable, as in "maybe you shouldn't own your house any more" kind of liable.

To top it off, they were above average enthusiasts! They really should absolutely, with no excuses, hope they fall HARD in court, should know better.

Anyway, that's my position going forward. Don't infringe the right, but do increase the burden on that right so that people who do exercise it know what the fuck they are doing.

To top it off, they were above average enthusiasts! They really should absolutely, with no excuses, hope they fall HARD in court, should know better.

They should be shot. With an Uzi.

I wonder if there are any stats . . . the stupider one is, the more likely one is to have a gun?

The best thing that could happen are rules to make sure this sort of thing does not happen again. I'm not saying take anyones gun rights away but just some age restrictions regarding the use and firing of weapons which require a federal firearms license in order to own them.

Most states:
Drinking age = 21
Tobacco = 18
Driving = 16

So lets just say that an average age of 18 for these other potentially lethal activities.

Bottom line is if you are not old enough to be able to apply for the permit needed to own the weapon then you are not old enough to fire it either.

It's sad that an 8 year old can fire a full automatic weapon at a gun show in which he killed himself and had the potential to do so to a great many other should he have sprayed the crowd with it and that there are more restrictions keeping that same 8 year old from getting into an "R" rated movie and seeing a little TNA.

**** ID REQUIRED ****
MUST BE 18 YEARS OF AGE
TO HANDLE AND/OR DISCHARGE
AUTOMATIC WEAPONS

This was sponsored by a sportsman and gun club and there was a certified instructor there with the boy.

That boy is dead even with that around him....
I have 3 guns of my own that I shoot on a regular basis and would never advocate that we get rid of guns. What we should do is not give guns to ANYONE with an IQ lower than 100. That would weed out MILLIONS of people in the US. If your too GD stupid to own a gun you shouldn't have one.

So, no guns in Arkansas or Washington DC then!

Or 99% of the south and the WHOLE midsection of the US. TexASS specially....

"My primary beef is with STUPID gun owners."

And the problem is, the gun culture attracts the stupid people like a fly is attracted to the stink on shit.

And Skybill, there's only one way to prevent the accident that happened, and that is to not have the gun in your hand. An 8 year old has no business using any sort of gun that's capable of killing, much less an automatic Uzi machine gun!

Oh man, you know it!

I'm actually liking the license idea Darktemper has. It's not going to stop the morons, but it might deter them, or at least set a better social norm for responsible gun ownership and use.

BREAKING NEWS . . .

It looks like the gun used in the Hudson killings belongs to one of the killed family members.


Like I keep saying, every time one's personal gun goes off, its nearly a hundred time more likely to kill oneself, a family member, a friend or a stranger than used in self defense.

Americans are so stoopid in buying the NRA-lead BS for all these years.

You know you're not buying a gun for self defense, you're only buying a gun because having . . .

A gun makes you feel powerful and feared

. . . when in reality, you're just fearful and insecure. So when you argue for guns, don't lie and say its for self defense.

I buy my guns because it's my RIGHT to do so.

The Constitution says so.

I didn't say the Constitution didn't give you a right to bear arms. I'm saying people need to stop buying bullshat from the NRA about "self-defense". Gunowners want to have guns because it makes them feel powerful and feared. A gun has nearly zero redeeming value as a self-defense tool. And that's a fact.

The problem is not in the gun it is in the owner who does not understand what proper care, storage, and use of it means. Neglegent gun owners, the ones whose children find them and hurt themselves or others should have their gun rights revoked and the guns taken away. It is our right to own them but also our responsibility to see that they are cared for in the proper manner. That means trigger locks and gun safes when not in use.

And might I recommend that if you live in an area that you feel you have to have it in your home to protect yourself, MOVE. Life is to short to have to contend with fear like that.

Spider-Man
"With great power comes great responsibility"

"A gun has nearly zero redeeming value as a self-defense tool. And that's a fact."

That is NOT a fact. Click for info.

I buy my guns because it's my RIGHT to do so.

The Constitution says so.



And if you have too many the Government will come take them away from you with MORE arms.....

magic eye said: That is NOT a fact. Click for info.

You didn't provide any facts. You just sent me to a pro-gun web page expecting me to look for them myself.

The fact is one's gun is far more likely to be used to kill, harm or maim a family member, friend, stranger or ones self than self defense. Debunk that.

IMHO, this is true!

Having a gun can be intimidating and that's defensive, but that's really about it. Unless you hit somebody with it, and not fire it, the main function is offensive.

The thing about this is escalation, and awareness.

For the defensive element to work, others have to know you have the gun! I know there is the idea that lots of guns increases the chances of running into somebody with one, but you can say the same thing about lots of security measures.

And on that, know there is no absolute security. There is only the risk / reward ratio. If you make your home a PITA for would be thieves and rapists, you change that risk / reward ratio to be less favorable and thus are more secure.

Now, here's the interesting bit about how that works.

If there are a lot of guns, and others know that those guns are there, the risk reward ratio turns unfavorable. For a time, this is good.

What also happens is that there still are criminals and there still is the socio-economic pressure that creates them. Let's say both of those are true.

How does that impact the gun scene?

Things escalate, that's how.

If they arm up, then that risk / reward ratio tips back toward being more favorable to criminals and now, we've got crime, plus we've got more violence!

That is what has happened in many inner cities, BTW. And that is also why the violence there, involving guns is a lot higher than other places.

The way to greater security isn't to arm up to a greater degree than your neighbors. That works for a time, but not a very long time.

The right way is to reduce those socio-economic pressures that push people toward crime in the first place! This then limits the incentive for things to escalate as people have options.

Sure, there are always gonna be baddies out there. No getting away from that. It's a set piece that we can't do much about.

We can address those pressures though, and with that keep honest people honest.

If somebody is hungry, in need of drugs, out of money or just angry, and they don't have options, they are highly likely to commit a crime. Maybe the better way to say it is that the incentive, in the form of risk / reward, is more favorable to criminal activity.

Think about the "I've got nothing to lose!" mindset. If there is little to lose, then there isn't a whole hell of a lot of risk, meaning any reward is likely to be favorable!

In that scenario then, criminal activity goes up.

On the other hand, if that same person has options, then they do have something to lose; namely, their freedom or life in the worst cases.

There is risk then, which needs to be weighed against the reward. That's not a favorable equation, meaning crime will go down.

All things considered, guns exhibit far more potential for harm than they do good, when applied to this dynamic, and that makes the statement about guns having little to NO defensive value, true!

And this is coming from a firm 2nd amendment supporter. I think we should be able to own guns. I don't think that comes with no strings attached however. We do have civic obligations, and those were at the root of writing that amendment in the first place.

Ignoring those, means a futile conversation, IMHO.

"The fact is one's gun is far more likely to be used to kill, harm or maim a family member, friend, stranger or ones self than self defense. Debunk that."

You're right, Skep. I'll just shut up and go away now.

BREAKING NEWS . . . (a few days ago)

Ex-con shoots and KILLS Halloween trick or treater. He said he was trying to, yup, DEFEND himself from some people out to get him.

Even thugs with real world death threats seemingly cannot properly defend themselves with guns.

You're right, Skep. I'll just shut up and go away now.

Why not just destroy your guns and go buy a nice rifle or something. These things are far less likely to be used in the wrong way.

All things considered, guns exhibit far more potential for harm than they do good, when applied to this dynamic, and that makes the statement about guns having little to NO defensive value, true!

Try telling that to the 57 year old lady in this video; (And no, this isn't a shoot 'em up video. It is the city prosecutor telling the story)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NJQK2BscIg

Yes, there ARE times a gun is successfully used for self defense (as are mace, pepper spray, knives, heck even swords), again, for every successful defense, there is a truckload of deceased humans in body bags from gun usage that backfired.

What is wrong with packing pepper spray instead?

Guns are successfully used for self defense less than .875% of the time. So why do you have to have 25 of them?
Personally I have 4 but they are in a lock box so my daughters CAN'T get to them. Now tell me how is that going to help me when someone breaks into my house? IT'S NOT! But I have them....

You want to protect yourself, get an alarm system with a loud ass horn & siren! They won't stick around with the whole neighborhood awake. You don't even have to have the pay-per-month monitoring system just something that turns on lights and makes shitloads of noise.

Got that... A 120 lb black lad named Turbo! You move... You die...

Canine Security

Skybill, that's absolutely the same thing as the seat belt contraversy. Take seat belts and plug them into that statement and it works!

We legislated seat belts because of that reality.

I do think the gun is different. We have the right to own them, and the SCOTUS said so. No worries there.

IMHO, that ruling is as significant as Rowe v Wade. Women have the right to choose, just as we have the right to own a gun.

What both rulings didn't do is make that right absolute, and we will find some regulation makes sense on both matters.

I favor gun education for this reason. It isn't ok to just let communities escalate their crime and violence. Raw, un-regulated gun ownership does that.

And it's time for the spidey quote: "With great power comes great responsibility." I think the converse of that is: dodge the responsibility, and you lose great power.

Make some kind of sense?

How About:

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of bullets!

Cut back large bushes around the perimeter of the house, put outside lights up to illuminate darkened entry points, and some form of audible alarm when an entry point is opened without entering the proper code, and for crying out loud keep the door from the garage to the house locked.

Raw, un-regulated gun ownership does that.

Agreed. However, there are plenty of regulations on the books now. The criminals just don't pay any attention to them.

Seat belt laws are a farce.

Don't get me wrong. I'm a strong proponent for seat belt use. I wear mine all the time and everyone riding in a car I'm driving will wear one or walk.

I don't like the shoulder harness so I put that behind the head rest, but I wear the seat belt.

Seat belt laws only do 2 things. They save the insurance companies money and they generate revenue for the municipalities.

Go to states like Illinois, Wisconsin and Colorado and you can ride a motorcycle without a helmet, but you'll get a ticket for driving a car without wearing the seat belt.

They are NOT concerned one iota about safety; it's 100% about money and how much revenue the municipality can generate.

"However, there are plenty of regulations on the books now. The criminals just don't pay any attention to them."

Sure, but it's not just criminals that don't pay any attention to them, many self described "law abiding" gun owners don't pay attention either. In fact, I'll bet more gun deaths and injuries are due to the common idiot or accident than the common criminal.

Personally, I'd like to see some sort of licensing requirement if you want to own a gun. Get caught with a gun and no license to own it? Jail time for 1 year and a permanent ban of your gun ownership rights.

Actually, being concerned with safety or not, seat belt laws save a lot of lives!

The number one cause of death in the USA is trauma. It exceeds all others combined.

I ended up in a seat belt diversion once. Actually was doing a good job wearing the belt, when I had to deal with one of the kids. Got caught with it loose...

Anyway, I was pissed!

Went to the diversion and a trauma ER nurse, with 20 years experience, proceeded to tell us about the physics of the car and the impact the seat belt has on that equation.

Frankly, that was the best experience ever. The guy was just great, took questions, made a frank and honest presentation and I have no doubt he convinced everyone in the room. (which was the point of diversion anyway)

Glad I went.

The laws are not a farce. They are effective at saving a lot of lives with almost no personal cost, but one's pride. And that's easy to pay.

This is what is going to happen with gun regulation. The SCOTUS ruling affirmed we have gun ownership as an individual right. That's now not in question. Great huh?

With rights come responsibilities, and that's where some common sense regulation over the next 20 years will deal with some of this crap.

It's gonna come down to this:

If you are doing the right things with gun ownership, you are not gonna be regulated to any significant degree. If you aren't, well....

let's just say that will change.

Think hard about the risk / reward bit I mentioned earlier too. That came from a near retirement facilities security specialist. 25 years or so of experience.

I ended up working with him because he was downsized and had to work a while to get his full pension.

Any discussion about security, be it personal or property, needs to take that into context and be balanced against paranoia.

Mark my words here. A regulation that takes this into account, aimed at addressing a known harm will pass the SCOTUS, and it's a conservative court majority (well, one moderate) that is gonna take us down this path.

And that's probably the strongest statement of it being the right thing to do.

Prior to that ruling, these discussions were all wrapped up in "don't take my guns away!". Well, now that's done and settled. No need to say it anymore. Nobody is doing that. It's settled law.

Congrats! You are a lawful, entitled, American Gun Owner. Feel good? It should!

Now, comes the responsibility part, which is exactly why I strongly agreed with the court both taking the case (to settle the matter of gun rights), and the ruling. (settled, with clear open door to work on responsibility)

Because you can only hurt yourself by not wearing a seat belt or helmet, I'm for the most part opposed to a law mandating such behavior. However, I never drive without a seat belt on and if I were to ride a motorcycle, I would absolutely wear a helmet. I hold a live and let live philosophy as long as your behavior is not putting my life or property at risk.

I'm not arguing the point that seat belts save lives. They most definitely do. That's why I wear mine.

What I'm saying is that the whole purpose of the law is to save the insurance companies money and to generate revenue for the municipalities.

Wanna know where and why the "Click it or Ticket" campaign came about?

The explanation is from a friend of mine who works for the Federal Highway Administration.

The insurance lobbyists lobbied (pronounced; gave lots of money to) congress to press the program into existence.

Congress in turn leaned on the Federal Highway Admin. who in turn threatened to take away the states Federal highway funds if they don't comply.

Seat belts are good. It's the spirit of the laws that I object to.

Vitalogy, I'm in agreement with you on that.

FWIW, the argument I've heard is that if you don't wear your seat belt and are injured then the insurance companies have to pay more and everyone's insurance rates go up.

Again, it's back to $'s!

Unlike firearms, where there are already plenty of regulations that may or may not help solve issues, that may or may not be properly implemented, that may or may not help law enforcement, etc., the seatbelt and other safety guidelines (like OSHA, like manufacturing standards in various industries), the insurance industries have been poorly regulated. In an attempt to stay above politics on this issue, I do believe that saving lives is paramount, saving insurance companies money on the other hand only works for the pubic when insurance companies have guidelines that work not only for them but for us, i.e. keeping rates in order with the economic landscape.

How come they can tell me I have to wear my seatbelt to save my life under penalty of law yet sell me a pack of cigarette's which 75% of the cost is tax revenue and those cancer sticks will take my life.

NEWS FLASH

Man found dead behind the wheel of his car, the apparent cause of death was lung cancer. Police comment: On the bright side he was wearing his seatbelt.

Yeah, that's a sore one. Frankly, I think tobacco should be a grow your own deal. Nobody sells it in any form but a seed or seedling.