8 year old Mass. boy dies after accidentally shooting himself

[anon1]

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

Some people just cannot fathom the concept.
Do only rightists own and use weapons? That would mean that China and Russia have no guns.
It was Mao that said "Political power grows from the barrel of a gun"

I'm a leftie and a gun owner.

 

[Aardvark154]

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.

Needless to say you need to know specifically what the law states where you are.

In many jurisdictions the mere fact that I have entered your dwelling at night without your permission to do so gives you the right to use deadly force.

There is smart shooting and there is foolish shooting. In my opinion, no on
e (outside certain military or counter-terrorist operation settings) should ever shoot without first giving a "surrender option" e.g. "Halt, put your hands out to your sides, get down on your knees etc. . . "

 

[Aardvark154]

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.

With the exception of the first half of the first sentence, I don't see why anyone would disagree.

 

[fuji]

Massachusetts has extremely restrictive firearms laws! Minors (under 18) have to have permission from a parent or legal guardian and be under the supervision of a certified and licensed firearms instructor to shoot firearms at public events such as Sunday*s.

And how's that working?

 

[fuji]

I see mention about the American right to bear arms, but what keeps getting forgotten is that when that law was passed, the state-of-the-art weapon was a musket, not an Uzi. The founding fathers thought it was OK for everyone to have a gun that could inaccurately fire a lead ball about 100 yards, and not fire another lead ball for at least 30 seconds while the gun was reloaded. The right to bear arms was not intended for fully automatic modern weapons. The right to bear arms is about as relevant as laws that require you to walk in front of your horseless carriage waiving a flag.

Quoted for truth.

 

[fuji]

Outdoor target practice with a Remington 700P would be instructive and fun for a younger shooter.

Or for an older shooter as well, though why would you need it to be the police model? The 700 line is extremely accurate and can shoot well enough that very, very, very few people can reach its limits in terms of accuracy, even at great distances. It has a .22 model as well I think which would be perfect for a 15 or 16 year old.

An 8 year old should not ever be shooting any kind of gun, that is just stupid.

My opinion is that there is actually no reason to have guns available to the population other than bolt action rifles which take a maximum of five rounds in the clip.

The Remington 700 is a great line of guns for practically anyone, and about as safe as a gun gets.

An Uzi, AK-47, M16, or any kind of handgun has no business being in the hands of a civilian, let alone an 8 year old.

 

[fuji]

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.

There are multiple problems with this line of reasoning:

1. Rapes by strangers are rare. Rapes in public places by strangers jumping out from the bushes are EXCEEDINGLY rare: Your solution lacks a problem in need of solving. Most women are raped by someone they knew who "went too far", or are carried out with the help of a date rape drug. In neither csae would a gun help.

2. These exceedingly rare cases of prevented rapes have to be balanced against all the murders committed in rage and anger. People do dumb stuff when they fight. They escalate conflict situations to ridiculous levels, and if you add a gun to the mix, you're going to get a lot of dead spouses. Some of the dead will be the women, whose boyfriends will take their gun from their purse and use it against them in anger.

So yeah, you'll likely wind up with a "50% reduction" in the number of rapes by strangers--say from 4 rapes to 2--and you'll have a 2000% increase in deaths resulting from domestic violence, like from 20 to 400.

It's not an apples to apples comparison but it did make a huge difference in Florida.

Florida does not strike me as the sort of place we should emulate, whatever Florida is doing with respect to crime, and especially violent crime, it is not working.

The main reason I jump into these threads is because it's my sport and I'm losing it little by little.

I am all in favour of target shooting. Very few people get killed by bolt action rifles like the Remmington 700 models mentioned up thread. They are generally kept properly locked with the ammunition separate--by the time you find all the keys and unlock all the cases you've cooled off.

Handguns, since their nature is to be weapons against people, even if the law says they should be locked up you know that there are going to be idiots walking around with them stuffed in their jeans or their glove compartment, or just lying next to the bed at home "for defense".

They'll wind up shooting their own kids, their wives, etc., and the number of deaths resulting will dramatically outweigh whatever minimal reduction in crime there is.

However I agree with you that there are people who fail to distinguish between things like handguns and assault rifles on the one hand and a bolt action Remington 700 on the other.

I am against the long gun registry in Canada, for example, but I am in favour of a complete ban on handguns and assault rifles.

 

[fuji]

There is a saying that goes "when you only have seconds help is minutes away"

How frequently is that relevant in the lives of the average Torontonian?

Never.

You have better odds of winning the lottery than of finding yourself in a situation where you might actually need a gun to defend yourself if you're an average person.

Now if you're a drug dealer someone might be hunting you.

 

[baci2004]

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.

Danmand my brother I never said anything about safety courses. If anything I think they are too easy to pass and why range time is not part of it I'll never know.
With regards to registration, it leads to confiscation and also makes a handy shopping list for thieves.

 

[danmand]

Danmand my brother I never said anything about safety courses. If anything I think they are too easy to pass and why range time is not part of it I'll never know.

Agreed, I had to pass a fence consisting of two chairs and a broom.

With regards to registration, it leads to confiscation and also makes a handy shopping list for thieves.

I don't see the political climate in Canada deteriorating to the point where there
will be confiscation of firearms. If it happens, we have worse things to worry
about than confiscation of firearms. And how many police officers are thieves?

I think it is good for police, in case of domestic troubles, etc. to know if there
are firearms on the property. When my uncle in Denmark, who had dozens of firearms,
died, the police came the next day to pick up the firearms. I had to go and retrieve
them from the police station. That prevented theft.

 

[baci2004]

There are multiple problems with this line of reasoning:

1. Rapes by strangers are rare. Rapes in public places by strangers jumping out from the bushes are EXCEEDINGLY rare: Your solution lacks a problem in need of solving. Most women are raped by someone they knew who "went too far", or are carried out with the help of a date rape drug. In neither csae would a gun help.

2. These exceedingly rare cases of prevented rapes have to be balanced against all the murders committed in rage and anger. People do dumb stuff when they fight. They escalate conflict situations to ridiculous levels, and if you add a gun to the mix, you're going to get a lot of dead spouses. Some of the dead will be the women, whose boyfriends will take their gun from their purse and use it against them in anger.

So yeah, you'll likely wind up with a "50% reduction" in the number of rapes by strangers--say from 4 rapes to 2--and you'll have a 2000% increase in deaths resulting from domestic violence, like from 20 to 400.

Things have gotten a bit muddled in this thread. Origionally we were talking about the boy, then the U.S. constitution and now here. My points were mostly about the U.S. and generally hypothetical. In short I basically agree with what you are saying.

Florida does not strike me as the sort of place we should emulate, whatever Florida is doing with respect to crime, and especially violent crime, it is not working.

To be more specific I should have said Miami. Around 15 years ago(?) gun crime was out of control in Miami. People were being held up in super markets and car jacking's were common. For a short time (a month if IIRC) open carry was allowed which was a bit much even for them so it was changed to concealed carry. Everyone and their mother went out and bought a gun and those types of crimes virtually ceased for several years. Slowly Miami became the new California and things were great. Now it's going to shit again, which I can't explain.

by the time you find all the keys and unlock all the cases you've cooled off.

I agree, that's pretty much the only reason we are required to lock them, and to keep the kids from getting a hold of them. However this doesn't apply to bolt actions or pump shotguns, they don't need to be loacked up nor the ammo. They only need to be kept out of sight with the ammo in a separate place.

Handguns, since their nature is to be weapons against people, even if the law says they should be locked up you know that there are going to be idiots walking around with them stuffed in their jeans or their glove compartment.

Yup happens all the time but they are rarely legal gun owners. Out of all the gun crime this year so far only two have been legal gun owners.

or just lying next to the bed at home "for defense".
They'll wind up shooting their own kids, their wives, etc., and the number of deaths resulting will dramatically outweigh whatever minimal reduction in crime there is.

You're implying that people are stupid and I can't disagree.

However I agree with you that there are people who fail to distinguish between things like handguns and assault rifles on the one hand and a bolt action Remington 700 on the other.

Respectfully I think you fail to distiguish between them as well. No one in the gun community nor the manufacturers know what an assault rifle is. I even asked Dion since he seems to know but I didn't get a response.The closest thing we can come up with and now brand as an assault rifle is a fully auto or select fire machine gun. They stoped issuing licsences for these firearms in 1976. The guys that had them could continue shooting them at approved ranges untill 1995. They can still own them today and even sell them to other guys with granfathered licsences but are no longer allowed to shoot them.
I have no recalection of anyone ever being shot with a full auto in Toronto in my lifetime do you?

The guns that are reffered to as assault rifles are actually military or black rifles. They are just light weight ergonomic versions of their hunting counterpart. They aren't anymore deadly than a hunting rifle, they just look more scary to someone who doesn't know the difference.

The AR15 (semi-auto version of the M16) shoots a .223cal/5.56 nato round which is basically a very high powered .22. That round was origionally intended for shooting wolves and cyotes, it's barely suitable for deer hunting. I've read countless articles about the soldiers in the sanbox complaining that they need more than one round to put a man down with this caliber. Yet my 300 WinMag hunting rifle (I don't hunt) can drop an elephant out past 300 yards and no one has a problem with me owning it?

The shotgun is another misconception. No one minds the shotgun, it's for hunting and everyone's grandfather has one. To put their capability into perspective, the Germans wanted them added to the Geneva convention because they found them to be a cruel weapon...the Germans!

I know from your posts in other related threads that you're against the semi auto in general not so much the type of gun or what it looks like. I get your point about that but I personally don't see the difference. I do alot of action/tactical style shooting at my club. I can tell you with absolute certainty that if I ever lost my marbles and decided to shoot up a school I wouldn't be any less affective with a bolt or pump verses a semi auto.

 

[baci2004]

Agreed, I had to pass a fence consisting of two chairs and a broom.

Lmao! I forgot all about that part.

I don't see the political climate in Canada deteriorating to the point where there
will be confiscation of firearms. If it happens, we have worse things to worry
about than confiscation of firearms.

The first words out of Dion's mouth when he started his campaign was that he was going to get all of the semi-auto assault rifles. Since there there no such thing I can only assume all semi auto's. That would include almost all handguns except single action cowboy guns, shotguns and rifles. All the other left party's are of the same mind set. I figure I have 2 years tops then I guess I'll have to take up golf.

And how many police officers are thieves?

I think you're implying that the only ones with guns after a confiscation would be the police but I know that you're smarter than that.

I think it is good for police, in case of domestic troubles, etc. to know if there
are firearms on the property.

All of the law enforcement agencies have said at one time or another that the registry is useless. Blair changed his tune after a very enthusiastic BBBJCIM from Miller but the rest maintain that they always assume there is a gun regardless of what the registry tells them. The bad guys don't register remember?

 

[danmand]

The first words out of Dion's mouth when he started his campaign was that he was going to get all of the semi-auto assault rifles. Since there there no such thing I can only assume all semi auto's. That would include almost all handguns except single action cowboy guns, shotguns and rifles. All the other left party's are of the same mind set. I figure I have 2 years tops then I guess I'll have to take up golf.

It is not going to happen. Again, when did it become a right wing issue? In the old days, the
governments wanted to keep guns away from the population for fear of a communist revolution.

I think you're implying that the only ones with guns after a confiscation would be the police but I know that you're smarter than that.

Thank you, please tell my ex wives. I was referring to your comment that a
gun registry is useful for thieves. I imagine that only LE has access to the gun registry.

All of the law enforcement agencies have said at one time or another that the registry is useless. Blair changed his tune after a very enthusiastic BBBJCIM from Miller but the rest maintain that they always assume there is a gun regardless of what the registry tells them. The bad guys don't register remember?

One of the guys on my safety class told us that he once had some issue in
the family, and that police showed up and wanted to make sure that his guns
were under lock and key. Remember, suicide accounts for 81% of gun related deaths.

 

[Aardvark154]

How frequently is that relevant in the lives of the average Torontonian?

Never.

You have better odds of winning the lottery than of finding yourself in a situation where you might actually need a gun to defend yourself if you're an average person.

However, hard as this is to imagine. Canada is not Toronto nor is North America Toronto.

 

[Aardvark154]

The Hampden County District Attorney's Office has launched an investigation of Sunday's shooting.
http://www.masslive.com/springfield/republican/index.ssf?/base/news-17/122526487163830.xml&coll=1

Any possible charges hinge on the definition of "furnishing" in Massachusetts General Law: Chapter 140, Section 130
http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/140-130.htm

I believe that they are going to have a hard sell - that "furnishing" doesn't require a permanent possession.

 

[baci2004]

It is not going to happen.

How can you say that? Christ it's all they talk about. Every time someone gets shot they cry ban. They have already confiscated countless models over the years. One model that really pissed me off was the Franchi spaz 12. http://www.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://www.kitsune.addr.com/Firearms/Shotguns/Franchi_SPAS-12-1.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.kitsune.addr.com/Firearms/Shotguns/Franchi_SPAS-12.htm&h=156&w=558&sz=12&tbnid=R1fXA3FdRtgJ::&tbnh=37&tbnw=133&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dfranchi%2Bspas%2B12&hl=en&usg=__IKXPks2qL67W7nTrP_aDsyififs=&sa=X&oi=image_result&resnum=3&ct=image&cd=1

They banned and confiscated it because it could be switched from pump to semi and because it looks scary. The reality is that it shoots the same shells as any other shotgun and is no more lethal.

Again, when did it become a right wing issue? In the old days, the
governments wanted to keep guns away from the population for fear of a communist revolution.

I don't know? All I know is that all of the left wing party's want to take them away and the right focuses on crime not the gun.

Thank you, please tell my ex wives. I was referring to your comment that a
gun registry is useful for thieves. I imagine that only LE has access to the gun registry.

An off duty RCMP told a few of us at the range that it had been hacked on more than one occasion. That may or may not be true but as you very well know when we buy a gun or bullets for that matter we often give a snotty nosed kid our personal info which he records in a book. What's to stop him from sharing/selling that info? Our licenses don't have our address on them for good reason yet we give up the info to complete strangers when we purchase.

One of the guys on my safety class told us that he once had some issue in
the family, and that police showed up and wanted to make sure that his guns
were under lock and key.

This is a good point and helps save lives but is it worth $2B? We could save a lot more lives with that money starting with MRI's.

Remember, suicide accounts for 81% of gun related deaths.

This means nothing to me. If someone has had enough and they want to go that way it's their business IMO.

 

[fuji]

those types of crimes virtually ceased for several years. Slowly Miami became the new California and things were great. Now it's going to shit again, which I can't explain.

Probably the Hawthorne effect.

However this doesn't apply to bolt actions or pump shotguns, they don't need to be loacked up nor the ammo.

Handguns should be banned. Rifles and shotguns should be trigger locked, unloaded, with the ammunition locked separately. That minimum standard should be exceeded by anyone who has a brain--a sensible person would actually lock the gun in a cabinet in addition to the trigger lock.

Out of all the gun crime this year so far only two have been legal gun owners.

If there were NO legal owners the supply of guns would dry up. All those guns were legal at some point.

Respectfully I think you fail to distiguish between them as well. No one in the gun community nor the manufacturers know what an assault rifle is.

You're referring to the law which is attempting to strike a bad compromise. The definition need not be so convoluted, this would suffice: Ban anything with a short stock, a short barrel, a semi-automatic or automatic action, a folding stock, or a clip that takes more than five rounds.

A bolt action rifle is perfectly usable for hunting or for target practice and I fail to see the need for anything else.

Walk into a room with a bolt action rifle and start trying to kill people, and after shooting the first guy, while you're grasping the bolt and attempting to load the second round you will get the crap beat out of you by whoever else is present.

The guns that are reffered to as assault rifles are actually military or black rifles. They are just light weight ergonomic versions of their hunting counterpart. They aren't anymore deadly than a hunting rifle, they just look more scary to someone who doesn't know the difference.

Sure, we should probably ban the 700p as well simply because it is painted black. What is the valid civilian use for a rifle that does not glint in the sunlight anyway?

I've read countless articles about the soldiers in the sanbox complaining that they need more than one round to put a man down with this caliber.

Irrelvant in my opinion. What is relevant is the speed with which the gun can be fired and whether it is short and maneuverable enough to be used effectively at close quarters. Whether it kills the target or simply badly maims them is irrelevant.

No one minds the shotgun, it's for hunting and everyone's grandfather has one.

Shotguns with short barrels, or which take more than two hand loaded shells, should be banned.

if I ever lost my marbles and decided to shoot up a school I wouldn't be any less affective with a bolt or pump verses a semi auto.

I dispute that. If I had my way you would have a long barreled rifle that is not very maneuverable at short ranges, so you would miss more often. You would take your hand off the barrel (losing your aim) to operate the bolt between rounds. You would have no more than five rounds before you had to manually reload the gun (no clip to change, insert five bullets one by one).

I think more people would get away and there would be many more opportunities for your targets to jump you between rounds.

 

[fuji]

those types of crimes virtually ceased for several years. Slowly Miami became the new California and things were great. Now it's going to shit again, which I can't explain.

Probably the Hawthorne effect.

However this doesn't apply to bolt actions or pump shotguns, they don't need to be loacked up nor the ammo.

Handguns should be banned. Rifles and shotguns should be trigger locked, unloaded, with the ammunition locked separately. That minimum standard should be exceeded by anyone who has a brain--a sensible person would actually lock the gun in a cabinet in addition to the trigger lock.

Out of all the gun crime this year so far only two have been legal gun owners.

If there were NO legal owners the supply of guns would dry up. All those guns were legal at some point.

Respectfully I think you fail to distiguish between them as well. No one in the gun community nor the manufacturers know what an assault rifle is.

You're referring to the law which is attempting to strike a bad compromise. The definition need not be so convoluted, this would suffice: Ban anything with a short stock, a short barrel, a semi-automatic or automatic action, a folding stock, or a clip that takes more than five rounds.

A bolt action rifle is perfectly usable for hunting or for target practice and I fail to see the need for anything else.

Walk into a room with a bolt action rifle and start trying to kill people, and after shooting the first guy, while you're grasping the bolt and attempting to load the second round you will get the crap beat out of you by whoever else is present.

The guns that are reffered to as assault rifles are actually military or black rifles. They are just light weight ergonomic versions of their hunting counterpart. They aren't anymore deadly than a hunting rifle, they just look more scary to someone who doesn't know the difference.

Sure, we should probably ban the 700p as well simply because it is painted black. What is the valid civilian use for a rifle that does not glint in the sunlight anyway?

I've read countless articles about the soldiers in the sanbox complaining that they need more than one round to put a man down with this caliber.

Irrelvant in my opinion. What is relevant is the speed with which the gun can be fired and whether it is short and maneuverable enough to be used effectively at close quarters. Whether it kills the target or simply badly maims them is irrelevant.

No one minds the shotgun, it's for hunting and everyone's grandfather has one.

Shotguns with short barrels, or which take more than two hand loaded shells, should be banned.

if I ever lost my marbles and decided to shoot up a school I wouldn't be any less affective with a bolt or pump verses a semi auto.

I dispute that. If I had my way you would have a long barreled rifle that is not very maneuverable at short ranges, so you would miss more often. You would take your hand off the trigger or barrel (losing your aim) to operate the bolt action between rounds. You would have no more than five rounds before you had to manually reload the gun (no clip to change, insert five bullets one by one).

I think more people would get away and there would be many more opportunities for your targets to jump you between rounds.

 

[fuji]

However, hard as this is to imagine. Canada is not Toronto nor is North America Toronto.

Yeah, the rest of the country is no doubt even safer.

 

[LancsLad]

Probably the Hawthorne effect.



Handguns should be banned. Rifles and shotguns should be trigger locked, unloaded, with the ammunition locked separately. That minimum standard should be exceeded by anyone who has a brain--a sensible person would actually lock the gun in a cabinet in addition to the trigger lock.



If there were NO legal owners the supply of guns would dry up. All those guns were legal at some point.



You're referring to the law which is attempting to strike a bad compromise. The definition need not be so convoluted, this would suffice: Ban anything with a short stock, a short barrel, a semi-automatic or automatic action, a folding stock, or a clip that takes more than five rounds.

A bolt action rifle is perfectly usable for hunting or for target practice and I fail to see the need for anything else.

Walk into a room with a bolt action rifle and start trying to kill people, and after shooting the first guy, while you're grasping the bolt and attempting to load the second round you will get the crap beat out of you by whoever else is present.




Sure, we should probably ban the 700p as well simply because it is painted black. What is the valid civilian use for a rifle that does not glint in the sunlight anyway?



Irrelvant in my opinion. What is relevant is the speed with which the gun can be fired and whether it is short and maneuverable enough to be used effectively at close quarters. Whether it kills the target or simply badly maims them is irrelevant.



Shotguns with short barrels, or which take more than two hand loaded shells, should be banned.



I dispute that. If I had my way you would have a long barreled rifle that is not very maneuverable at short ranges, so you would miss more often. You would take your hand off the trigger or barrel (losing your aim) to operate the bolt action between rounds. You would have no more than five rounds before you had to manually reload the gun (no clip to change, insert five bullets one by one).

I think more people would get away and there would be many more opportunities for your targets to jump you between rounds.

You think the bolt is slow???



Look up "mad minute" and Mons.




God Bless the SMLE4



.