8 year old Mass. boy dies after accidentally shooting himself

baci2004

Bad girl Luv'r
Mar 21, 2004
2,572
1
36
53
At the range!!!
serviceman said:
I don't need to know the details, all I need to know is that the general public is allowed to carry deadly weapons and that conflicts with my basic sense of morality.
This is a different argument but lets indulge anyway.

Why? Why does it conflict with your basic sense of morality?
Why is a raped woman morally superior than a dead rapist? Why is a murdered family morally superior than a dead home invader?

They aren't and you know it.


So why don't they?
God only knows.
 

serviceman

Member
Jul 17, 2008
225
0
16
baci2004 said:
This is a different argument but lets indulge anyway.

Why? Why does it conflict with your basic sense of morality?
Why is a raped woman morally superior than a dead rapist? Why is a murdered family morally superior than a dead home invader?

They aren't and you know it.
.

Because, in the happy little world that I live in, the justice system, flawed as it is, decides guilt and innocence, and applies the punishment as prescribed by the law. My sense of morality does not accept the general public being judge, jury, and in many instances, executioner. Now before you get started, let's make it quite clear that rape and home invasion are NOT capital crimes punishable by the death penalty.
 

Berlin

New member
Jan 31, 2003
11,410
1
0
WESTFIELD, Mass. – An 8-year-old boy has died after accidentally shooting himself in the head while firing an Uzi submachine gun under adult supervision in western Massachusetts.

Police Lt. Lawrence Valliere says 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 say the force of the weapon made it "travel up and back" to the boy's head.
...tragic.
 

serviceman

Member
Jul 17, 2008
225
0
16
Sheik said:
If anyone invades my home I have the legal right to be judge jury and executioner if I feel my life or my family's life is in danger.

You break into my house, you're dead as a doornail.
My god people, are we all a bunch of savages? I thought we were modern, educated, moral. You can't just go killing people because you feel threatened. If that's how you want to live, I'm sure there is room in the middle east for you. C'mon folks, an eye for an eye? Let's be civilized.
 

alexmst

New member
Dec 27, 2004
6,939
1
0
serviceman said:
You can't just go killing people because you feel threatened.
Um, yes you can - at least in South Florida you can :cool:
 

alexmst

New member
Dec 27, 2004
6,939
1
0
serviceman said:
C'mon folks, an eye for an eye? Let's be civilized.
If a guy breaks into my home in Florida to rob and kill me, he isn't being civilized.
 

baci2004

Bad girl Luv'r
Mar 21, 2004
2,572
1
36
53
At the range!!!
serviceman said:
Because, in the happy little world that I live in, the justice system, flawed as it is, decides guilt and innocence, and applies the punishment as prescribed by the law.
Mine does too when the perpetrator is caught after the fact.

My sense of morality does not accept the general public being judge, jury, and in many instances, executioner.
There is a saying that goes "when you only have seconds help is minutes away" The police can't be everywhere all the time and they are under no obligation to protect us from harm, they just try their best.


Now before you get started, let's make it quite clear that rape and home invasion are NOT capital crimes punishable by the death penalty.
WTF? So a raped woman is morally superior than a dead rapist in your world...got it.

You'd let harm come to your family before defending them. If you came across a woman being raped you'd hide and call 911.

Seek help!
 

serviceman

Member
Jul 17, 2008
225
0
16
baci2004 said:
Mine does too when the perpetrator is caught after the fact.


There is a saying that goes "when you only have seconds help is minutes away" The police can't be everywhere all the time and they are under no obligation to protect us from harm, they just try their best.




WTF? So a raped woman is morally superior than a dead rapist in your world...got it.

You'd let harm come to your family before defending them. If you came across a woman being raped you'd hide and call 911.

Seek help!
WTF? I'LL TELL YOU WHAT THE FUCK:
YOU DO NOT GET THE DEATH PENALTY FOR RAPE IN THIS COUNTRY. JESUS CHRIST, YOU CAN"T JUST GO AROUND KILLING PEOPLE!!!

If there were no guns, I would happily defend my family from a knife wielding assailant with a bigger knife. My point is not about defending you family or the morality of rape, my point is about the danger of guns. Now go ahead and tell me guns are no more dangerous than cars, or alcohol, or cigarettes, etc, etc. I've heard all the arguments, guns are still evil and have no place in a civilized society.

And furthermore, why the fuck can't an 8 year old play with lego, or action figures, or his dick, why in all your conservative wisdom does an 8 year old child need to play with an uzi, supervised or not?
 

serviceman

Member
Jul 17, 2008
225
0
16
Sheik said:
Only savages break into people's houses threatening to kill them unless they give them all their valuables....

Only savages rape women......

Only savages shoot people on the street.....

Only savages are turning their lives around when they get shot by other savages....

So if a savage breaks into my home and has a weapon in his or her hand, she;s as good as dead and the law will be on my side. Does that make me a savage? No it doesnt. If I ever come across someone raping a woman, that individual then becomes my target and I will use whatever means I have at my disposal to get him off the woman. Does that make me a savage?

I think you really need to do some serious thinking..... When the cops say just give the criminals what they are asking for..... I'm not prepared to give a criminal the life of a family member, but I will put myself at risk in order to prevent my family from being harmed. Does that make me a savage?

Since when did criminals have more rights than law abiding citizens? Oh I forgot..... its the liberal way of thinking..... well guess again. When it impacts you PERSONALLY, then your way of thinking will change and then you will be angry that your family or your life was endangered by a SAVAGE. You will then be looking at people like me to help you learn how to protect your family at any cost from those Savages.

And one last thing, home invasions, rape, burglary and killing innocent people is not an act of a moral or civilized society. It's an act of a SAVAGE..... preventing it from happening is considered Civilized. I want to live in a city that's free from crime, where anyone can walk at any time of the day or night without fear of being raped or murdered. Does that make me a savage?

A savage response to a savage act, and society goes down the tubes. If you feel you have to carry a weapon around with you all the time than yes, in my opinion, you are uncivilized.
That very gun you keep to defend your family is just a likely to harm your family.
 

serviceman

Member
Jul 17, 2008
225
0
16
Sheik said:
Yes, guns are dangerous when they are in the hands of people who do not respect them. As for your argument about 8 year olds playing with legos instead of guns.... well I cant fault you for that, I agree with it.
Exactly, thank you. We can't even teach people how to drive safely, or how to take care of their own children, maybe gun ownership is out of the question for the general public.
 

serviceman

Member
Jul 17, 2008
225
0
16
OK, well, you conservatives are a stubborn bunch, and it's way too late to continue this argument.

I regret that every gun owner is not as responsible as you.

it's been a pleasure debating with you gentlemen this evening, but I am signing off for the night...
 

mmouse

Posts: 10,000000
Feb 4, 2003
1,844
22
38
All this stuff about people breaking into homes.

Well, how often does this actually happen in Canada?
The few times it does happen, the burglars are just looking to grab stuff and will run if confronted.

It must suck to be so paranoid and live in fear.
 

baci2004

Bad girl Luv'r
Mar 21, 2004
2,572
1
36
53
At the range!!!
serviceman said:
WTF? I'LL TELL YOU WHAT THE FUCK:
YOU DO NOT GET THE DEATH PENALTY FOR RAPE IN THIS COUNTRY.
JESUS CHRIST, YOU CAN"T JUST GO AROUND KILLING PEOPLE!!!
In my previous examples I used the terms "dead rapist" and dead home invader". The truth of the matter is if a woman is defending herself from being raped or someone is protecting their family from harm with a gun chances are they won't need to fire the gun anyway. Brandishing a gun alone would most likely end the situation immediately. Wouldn't you agree? It's quite rare that someone needs to pull the trigger.

If there were no guns, I would happily defend my family from a knife wielding assailant with a bigger knife.
There are guns, so you wouldn't defend your family with your big knife? I'm going to assume that you didn't mean it that way. In either case what difference would it make? You would be willing to kill with a knife but not with a gun? I don't see the logic.


My point is not about defending you family or the morality of rape, my point is about the danger of guns. Now go ahead and tell me guns are no more dangerous than cars, or alcohol, or cigarettes, etc, etc.
Okay I'll tell you gun are no more dangerous than the things you mentioned or any other tool for that matter. I've been shooting for 27 years and have never hurt myself or anyone else nor has anyone else that I know. This is my 19th year working in construction and I can safely say that I have hurt myself with just about every power tool I own at some point or another.

I've heard all the arguments, guns are still evil and have no place in a civilized society.
Dave, Jack, Stephane, and may would be so happy to hear you say that. The brainwashing is working! Listen to yourself, you're calling an inanimate object evil and you refer to society as civilized, you must be joking. Everyday we read about kids stabbing other kids, grown men fucking children and even babies, woman being raped...by people they know and trust a lot of the time and you think we live in a civilized society?


And furthermore, why the fuck can't an 8 year old play with lego, or action figures, or his dick, why in all your conservative wisdom does an 8 year old child need to play with an uzi, supervised or not?
He doesn't, I never said he did. That being said I suspect there is more to the story. I've fired an Uzi and I can't see how that could happen even to a little kid. It must have been a Mini Uzi, the full size has a stock. Like Sheik I'll wait for more info.

Anyway FWIW I'm not a paranoid redneck chomping at the bit to shoot someone I just get annoyed when people and politicians spew BS about guns when the real problem is people and the legal system. Truth be told if Canadians were allowed to carry firearms I probably wouldn't because I don't feel threatened walking the streets. With regards to protecting my family they would all be harmed or killed if an intruder broke into my home because the firearms act has made it impossible for me to defend them with a gun anyway. I have them trigger locked and locked in a safe with the ammo in a different part of the house also locked.

Take a moment and read this article http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/293283 and tell me honestly, better yet don't just think about it and ask yourself if the outcome would have been more palatable if the woman had a gun.
 

baci2004

Bad girl Luv'r
Mar 21, 2004
2,572
1
36
53
At the range!!!



Grieving father says he gave son, 8, permission to fire Uzi

October 27, 2008

By David Abel and Andrew Ryan, Globe Staff, and Matthew P. Collette, Globe Correspondent

Dr. Charles Bizilj stood 10 feet behind his son this weekend at a "Machine Gun Shoot" in Westfield as the 8-year-old aimed an Uzi at a pumpkin in the distance.

As Bizilj reached for his camera, the boy clutched the gun in his arms, squeezed the trigger, and lost control of the weapon, which flipped backwards and fatally shot his son, Christopher, in the head.

“It was all a blur,” Bizilj said this afternoon in a telephone interview. “I’m still in the grieving process.”

Christopher was accompanied by a trained professional as he held the 9-mm Micro Uzi machine gun at the Westfield Sportsman's Club Sunday afternoon, but Bizilj said he doesn’t think the shooting guide was holding the weapon as his son pressed the trigger.

“This accident was truly a mystery to me,” he said. “This is a horrible event, a horrible travesty, and I really don’t know why it happened. I don’t think it’s relevant that he wasn’t holding the weapon.”

He said his son, a third grader who loved to hike and bike, had experience firing handguns and rifles. But he said this was the first time he had fired an automatic weapon.

"I gave permission for him to fire the Uzi,” Bizilj said. “I watched several other children and adults use it. It’s a small weapon, and Christopher was comfortable with guns. There were larger machine guns with much more recoil, and we avoided those.”

Bizilj, the medical director of the emergency department at Johnson Memorial Hospital in Stafford Springs, Conn., said that his son was “very cautious, very well trained, and very much enjoyed firing.”

When his son pressed the trigger Sunday, it was the first gun he had fired all day. “It took about an hour to get there, and it was something he was looking forward to for months,” Bizilj said.

The annual Machine Gun Shoot and Firearms Expo is a two-day event. Police are investigating whether the Westfield Sportsman’s Club and the group running the event were licensed. “We haven’t confirmed whether either have been licensed,” said Westfield Police Lieutenant Hipolito Nuñez.

The sportsman's club boasted in an advertisement for the event posted on its website that the $5 entry fee was waived for children under age 16 and there was "no age limit or licenses required to shoot machine guns."

"It’s all legal & fun," the advertisement says. "You will be accompanied to the firing line with a Certified Instructor to guide you. But You Are In Control – "FULL AUTO ROCK & ROLL."

Shooting targets for the event included vehicles, pumpkins, and "other fun stuff we can’t print here," according to the advertisement.

Christopher Bizilj was firing the weapon at an outside firing range and was wounded once in the head when the recoil forced the gun to rotate upward and backward, Nuñez said. The boy was taken to Baystate Medical Center in Springfield. He was pronounced dead at the hospital with one gunshot wound to the head. No one else was injured.

State law requires anyone under age 18 to have parental consent and a licensed instructor to fire an automatic weapon. Otherwise, there’s no minimum age to fire such a gun, Nuñez said.

“We do not know at this time the full facts of this incident, and it's being investigated," Nuñez said.

The event at the club was organized by C.O.P. Firearms & Training, an Amherst company that, according to its website, organizes machine gun shoots throughout New England. Officials from that group also could not be reached.


Devin Connery of Lunenburg, Mass., fired a Heckler & Koch UMP on Sunday at the Machine Gun Shoot and Firearms Expo at the Westfield Sportsman’s Club. This photograph was taken before 8-year-old Christopher Bizilj apparently lost control of an Uzi and shot himself in the head.
__________________
 

Aardvark154

New member
Jan 19, 2006
53,768
3
0
serviceman said:
My god people, are we all a bunch of savages? I thought we were modern, educated, moral. You can't just go killing people because you feel threatened. If that's how you want to live, I'm sure there is room in the middle east for you. C'mon folks, an eye for an eye? Let's be civilized.
I'm sorry, but if you break into my house, you just forfeited a lot of rights including not being shot. I may subsequently feel sad for having taken your life. But the responsibility was yours.
 

RTRD

Registered User
Sep 26, 2003
6,004
3
0
The problem with this...

baci2004 said:
Take a moment and read this article http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/293283 and tell me honestly, better yet don't just think about it and ask yourself if the outcome would have been more palatable if the woman had a gun.
...is that while I fundamentally understand your point and agree with it in isolation, the reality is that:

a) Opportunities like this are EXTREMELY rare...you will find it difficult to find a senior law enforcement official who would agree that the majority of citizens are prepared and equipped to defend themselves with a hand gun. They will tell you that there simply aren't very many instances where a crime could have been prevented had the victim carried a gun, because most assaults and the like have the element of surprise at their core. Contrary to TV and movies...most people don't walk up to you, say "I am going to steal you money - hand it over" and then wait for you to rifle through your pockets for a wallet / gun. In this instance, much better that this woman had been provided street smart / situational awareness training in order to avoid the attack / rape if possible, and self defense training in order to defend herself if accosted. I doubt if in the middle of a rape the rapist is going to allow the victim to go through her purse in most instances....

b) The VAST majority of gun deaths / homicides occur between people who know each other - again, debunking the myth that their are so many people each year who are killed by total strangers. I do not have a mental catalog of all the gun deaths in Toronto this year, but it seemed that most of them involved either people who were "shady" on both sides of the fence (implication - they probably knew each other), minors who were assaulted in seemingly random acts of gang violence (are we advocating giving guns to minors for self defense? And yes, in these instances as well the victims more than likely knew their assailant) or people who are killed in random crossfire (i.e the chick smoking outside the bar, and the Creba kid....having a gun does no good when you aren't anticipating getting shot at)

If you combine these two facts, the rational conclusion is that if you give everyone a gun, your ability to lower assaults between strangers will only be diminished to a degree, but the opportunity for people to now react in anger with a gun goes up exponentially. As terrible as it is now with school violence and guns, can you imagine how it would be if EVERY kid were packing? Or if EVERY kid knew his parents had a gun somewhere? What about road rage incidents? Drunken bar fights? Angry spouses? I once read that in the U.S. more spouses shoot their partners each year than people shoot home invaders...if EVERYONE is given a gun...do you think that stat will get better or worse?

Having a gun only protects you from assault IF you either a) Know you are going to be assaulted, or b) Have time to retrieve and use the gun. This is why guns for business protection perhaps DOES make sense on some level.

But giving everyone a gun on the street will only deter crime so much...criminals will simply make sure you never get a chance to use it. Then people will start walking around with guns in their hands shooting anyone who "looks" like trouble...like the big scary Black man who they THINK is following them (ask me how many times a year I deal with that....oh yeah...I wanna see nervous old ladies and scary cat punk ass wimps carrying guns....)
 
Last edited:

baci2004

Bad girl Luv'r
Mar 21, 2004
2,572
1
36
53
At the range!!!
MLAM said:
...is that while I fundamentally understand your point and agree with it in isolation, the reality is that:

a) Opportunities like this are EXTREMELY rare...you will find it difficult to find a senior law enforcement official who would agree that the majority of citizens are prepared and equipped to defend themselves with a hand gun. They will tell you that there simply aren't very many instances where a crime could have been prevented had the victim carried a gun, because most assaults and the like have the element of surprise at their core. Contrary to TV and movies...most people don't walk up to you, say "I am going to steal you money - hand it over" and then wait for you to rifle through your pockets for a wallet / gun. In this instance, much better that this woman had been provided street smart / situational awareness training in order to avoid the attack / rape if possible, and self defense training in order to defend herself if accosted. I doubt if in the middle of a rape the rapist is going to allow the victim to go through her purse in most instances....

b) The VAST majority of gun deaths / homicides occur between people who know each other - again, debunking the myth that their are some many people each year who are killed by total strangers. I do not have a mental catalog of all the gun deaths in Toronto this year, but it seemed that most of them involved either people who were "shady" on both sides of the fence (implication - they probably knew each other), minor who were assaulted in seemingly random acts of gang violence (are we advocating giving guns to minors for self defense? And yes, in these instances as well the victims more than likely knew their assailant) or people who are killed in random crossfire (i.e the chick smoking outside the bar, and the Creba kid....having a gun does no good when you aren't anticipating getting shot at)

If you combine these two facts, the rational conclusion is that if you give everyone a gun, your ability to lower gun assaults between strangers will only be diminished to a degree, but the opportunity for people to now react in anger with a gun goes up exponentially. As terrible as it is now with school violence and guns, can you imagine how it would be if EVERY kid were packing? Or if EVERY kid knew his parents had a gun somewhere? What about road rage incidents? Drunken bar fights? Angry spouses? I once read that in the U.S. more spouses shoot their partners each year than people shoot home invaders...if EVERYONE is given a gun...do you think that stat will get better or worse?

Having a gun only protects you from assault IF you either a) Know you are going to be assaulted, or b) have time to retrieve and use the gun. This is why guns for business protection perhaps DOES make sense on some level.

But giving everyone a gun on the street will only deter crime so much...criminals will simply make sure you never get a chance to use it. Then people will start walking around with guns in their hands shooting anyone who "looks" like trouble...like the big scary Black man who they THINK is following them (ask me how many times a year I deal with that....oh yeah...I wanna see nervous old ladies and scary cat punk ass wimps carrying guns....)
With the exception of a few things you said I pretty much agree.

To clarify, I'm not a big advocate of people carrying guns in T/O. That said I'm not against it either. My position which can supported with stats is that if we did have CCW and the news started reporting that woman were going out in droves to buy guns and takes courses etc. And a few thugs/rapists showed up dead on the front page that this type of crime would drop. It's not an apples to apples comparison but it did make a huge difference in Florida. Either way it's like you said that most crime is between shady people anyway.

The main reason I jump into these threads is because it's my sport and I'm losing it little by little. My frustration comes from lefty politicians that think the streets will be safer if they spends billions keeping track of my guns and soon spending billions more taking them from me instead of dealing with the real problem.
 

danmand

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2003
46,500
4,906
113
Aardvark154 said:
I'm sorry, but if you break into my house, you just forfeited a lot of rights including not being shot. I may subsequently feel sad for having taken your life. But the responsibility was yours.

That is not the way the law sees it, so you could be in for a nasty surprise
after you kill somebody. The law authorizes you to use reasonable force, i.e.
only shoot someone when your own life is in danger.

PS: Most shootings of family members in the USA happens when the home owner
thinks a family member is an intruder and shoots without warning or identification.
 

danmand

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2003
46,500
4,906
113
baci2004 said:
The main reason I jump into these threads is because it's my sport and I'm losing it little by little. My frustration comes from lefty politicians that think the streets will be safer if they spends billions keeping track of my guns and soon spending billions more taking them from me instead of dealing with the real problem.
I cannot see how it can hurt anybody to register firearms and require firearms
safety courses etc. I have been around guns all my life and have had an FAC
and a possession licence. I recently took the firearms safety course, and I am
glad I took it, everybody should if they have not, even if not strictly required to.
Safety is important around firearms. Firearm caused deaths are suicides(81%),
accidents(5%) and homicides(14%). And the numbers are going down.

I do not see how the issue of firearm safety has anything to do with political
orientation, being leftist or rightist. Anybody is against unnecessary deaths.

The issue of criminals having firearms are caused by a. import from US and
b. unsafe storage of firearms.
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts