8 year old Mass. boy dies after accidentally shooting himself

[fuji]

A "mad minute" is 15 shots in one minute, traditionally, which is one every four seconds. It usually requires a magazine that holds more than the five manually loaded bullets I specified, along with a changeable clip for fast reloading, which I have said should be banned. Even at that one shot every four seconds is significantly slower than the rate of fire achievable with a typical semi-automatic rifle. Achieving this rate of fire with any accuracy requires a fair degree of skill as well. You may be able to fire the bolt action rifle faster than that--but not while aiming.

The slower rate of fire effectively limits you to confronting a single individual were you to try and use the rifle as a weapon, putting a mad man in a room full of people at a significant disadvantage. The strict limit on magazine size also limits the number of times the criminal can shoot before having to stop to reload--during which time either people escape, or he is overpowered.

If you think that with five shots you could still be a mass murderer, and you can present evidence of the same, then we can discuss lowering the maximum allowed magazine size to three rounds.

One shot per four seconds for ten or twenty seconds is, however, a perfectly acceptable rate of fire for hunting game. If you can't hit an animal at that rate after three shots, well, you don't deserve to hit it--therein lies the sport.

The Remington 700, an excellent gun, fits the above requirement (the models without a clip anyway) and is the sort of firearm that is fun and enjoyable to use, able to challenge even a good marksman with its accuracy, and, in my opinion, is the sort of gun which everyone should have at home, trigger locked and stored unloaded in a locked gun cabinet, separate from the ammunition.

Given rules like this there would be absolutely no need for anyone to register any firearm ever, as the problem guns would simply not be legal, and the remaining guns would be useful tools and sporting devices rather than effective anti-personnel weapons.

 

[LancsLad]

Bolt action instills the aim discipline that is lacking with semi's and full. This goes a long way to compensating for the lower per minute fire. The taxpayers paid good money for that cartridge son, make every one count.








.

 

[fuji]

Bolt action instills the aim discipline that is lacking with semi's and full. This goes a long way to compensating for the lower per minute fire. The taxpayers paid good money for that cartridge son, make every one count.

Actually I agree. Though the military does need the automatic and selective fire anti-personnel weapons that I think should be banned in civilian use.

 

[baci2004]

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.

Agreed. I do and most of the guys I shoot with do.

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

A ridiculous statement but I'll weigh in anyway...people could make them.

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

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?

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

The is what I and thousands of other men and women in 88 country's around the world do on our days off. http://mikeburrell.ca/ (click the five minute vid on the front page) I and many of them do this with shotguns and semi automatic rifles as well. We are the most law abiding citizens in the world (extensive background checks). We do it 12 months of the year rain or shine. We have never had an accident in the 40+ years our sport has been around. We don't think chasing a little white ball is fun. We give a % of the proceeds from our matches to charity. We insist on sportsman like conduct. We are not the fucking problem!

 

[fuji]

The is what I and thousands of other men and women in 88 country's around the world do on our days off.

Your sport, while you may call it sport, is essentially the development of a skill the only practical purpose of which is to kill people, using a tool the only practical use of is to kill people. I am referring to handguns here.

That may be fun for you, and you may be law abiding, but the reality is that those tools wind up being used to kill a whole lot of people. Also, when I look at that video it's plain that the targets being shot at are human outlines--not something we should be encouraging. I imagine quite a lot of the participants are fantasizing about killing people, which glamorizes the whole activity.

There is a trade-off to be made here and unfortunately when it boils down to someone's fun on the weekend versus someone else's life, lives matter more to me.

It's ultimately extremely selfish that you participate in an activity which contributes, however indirectly, to the deaths of a lot of people.

You could say that people would make guns, but realistically, if it comes down to the only criminals with guns had to make them on their own, while there might be a few who do that, it's going to be a LOT less common.

I am not even sure the military needs handguns, and the police could resort to tasers and rifles. Maybe we should just not manufacture handguns anymore, period.

I'm willing to be persuaded that the police still need access to handguns but in no way shape or form should the civilian population have them, nor should anyone's ownership of them be grandfathered. They should all be collected and destroyed.

Eliminate the legal hanguns and you eliminate the grey market as well. Eliminate the grey market and the black market dries up too.

 

[fuji]

In a perfect world that would make sense fuji, unfortunately we live in real life and ANYONE with rudimentary skills can make a handgun or a rifle.

But no-one does, and no-one will. Coloured me not worried about criminals having home made guns.

There are hundreds of millions of firearms out there right now. Good luck getting rid of them all and good luck trying to take them from the criminals, god knows the cops and courts keep giving criminals lifetime bans but it doest stop them.

That's because they are plentiful in supply in the grey market and in the United States, and our laws are all aimed at the criminals at the bottom of the chain. There are a lot of semi-legal and even legal businesses in the loop who are not targetted currently.

The nice thing about making handguns illegal completely is that, with no exceptions, there would be no room for the grey market upon which the illegal market thrives.

All that said in Canada we actually have had quite a lot of success in limiting the number of guns out there DESPITE our proximity to the United States--so plainly much of what we do does work. Criminals here have far fewer guns, and use them far less often.

I also think that there should be a massive class action lawsuit against gun manufacturers seeking multiple millions per firearm victim on the grounds that they had a duty of care to ensure that their products did not wind up in the wrong hands. The "wrong hands" here of course includes not only garden variety criminals, but anyone who ever shot anyone else in anger at home. In my view the gun company has a duty of care to assess the mental and emotional stability of every single person who winds up owning their product legally or illegally. Yes, I hold them accountable for any point in the supply chain where their product enters the illegal market--for example, they're legally liable in my view if they sell a gun to someone who does not store it properly and as a result it gets stolen.

If that theory of law does not currently work under the law as it is currently written (and it might work) then legislation should be enacted to make it so--fining gun manufacturers with a hefty fine every time one of their weapons turns on on the street.

Yes, that means they would have to tightly control their distribution chains--no passing the buck off on some middle man, they're responsible all the way down the line for what happens to the extremely dangerous product they produce.

 

[LancsLad]

But no-one does, and no-one will. Coloured me not worried about criminals having home made guns.



That's because they are plentiful in supply in the grey market and in the United States, and our laws are all aimed at the criminals at the bottom of the chain. There are a lot of semi-legal and even legal businesses in the loop who are not targetted currently.

The nice thing about making handguns illegal completely is that, with no exceptions, there would be no room for the grey market upon which the illegal market thrives.

All that said in Canada we actually have had quite a lot of success in limiting the number of guns out there DESPITE our proximity to the United States--so plainly much of what we do does work. Criminals here have far fewer guns, and use them far less often.

I also think that there should be a massive class action lawsuit against gun manufacturers seeking multiple millions per firearm victim on the grounds that they had a duty of care to ensure that their products did not wind up in the wrong hands. The "wrong hands" here of course includes not only garden variety criminals, but anyone who ever shot anyone else in anger at home. In my view the gun company has a duty of care to assess the mental and emotional stability of every single person who winds up owning their product legally or illegally. Yes, I hold them accountable for any point in the supply chain where their product enters the illegal market--for example, they're legally liable in my view if they sell a gun to someone who does not store it properly and as a result it gets stolen.

If that theory of law does not currently work under the law as it is currently written (and it might work) then legislation should be enacted to make it so--fining gun manufacturers with a hefty fine every time one of their weapons turns on on the street.

Yes, that means they would have to tightly control their distribution chains--no passing the buck off on some middle man, they're responsible all the way down the line for what happens to the extremely dangerous product they produce.

That dream world you live in sounds very regimented.

After that lets sue the booze makers and the auto industry. A car is a weapon in the wrong hands. Also a water soaked facecloth can be deadly.

You wouldn't happen to be of the solicitor ilk would you??



.

 

[HAMSTER INSPECTOR]

I have fired Uzis.

All firearms have some sort of recoil. The Uzi comes in a variety of calibers and I will asume that the most likely caliber is 9mm. An 8 year old boys physical strength will vary frim chid to child. I can only asume that the child did not have the physical strength to hold the weapon firmly. It was the recoil or the boy might have flinched and let go of the weapon when he fired it.

FYI.

The Uzi is a short range quick assault weapon. After discharging a 30 round clip the very short 2 in. barrel is heated and will expand. The accuracy of this weapon is not that good, but with a expanded barrel after only several seconds of shooting it is even worse. Police forces never use this weapon, it has very limited military use as well. It is a low cost weapon constructed from stamped parts.

 

[fuji]

That dream world you live in sounds very regimented.

I believe in holding people responsible for what they do.

If your lax processes result in guns in the hands of criminals then you need to pay for that in a big way. The people responsible for this mess at the end of the day are the people who are allowing guns to enter the black market through their failures to properly control their inventory of dangerous goods.

 

[danmand]

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.

Confiscated, I don't quite believe that. And I think you were able to get along
quite well without that particular shotgun. Last I looked there were lots of different
shotguns available for sale.

Look, there has to be a middle ground somewhere in between a. not allowing citizens
to own guns, and b. free for all. I think the government of Canada is
doing not that bad a job of insisting on safety training and registration, and
allowing many guns to be owned, that would never be available in most european countries.

I doubt that you have been materially hindered in your sport from the policies
of the government.

 

[Sexy_Dave]

An interesting case....

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20081022/tessier_shooting_081022/20081022?hub=Canada

 

[Aardvark154]

All firearms have some sort of recoil. The Uzi comes in a variety of calibers and I will asume that the most likely caliber is 9mm. An 8 year old boys physical strength will vary frim chid to child. I can only asume that the child did not have the physical strength to hold the weapon firmly. It was the recoil or the boy might have flinched and let go of the weapon when he fired it.

It was a 9mm.

This is Massachusetts we are speaking of. Therefore the investigation isn't to determine what went wrong. Rather it is somewhat like Salem Village of 315 years ago - the search is on for someone to blame.

 

[S.C. Joe]

Well who here blames the 8 year old boy....its either him or the people running the shooting range. Even at amusement parks they have rides that a 8 year old can not ride but at a shooting range every type of gun is OK for an 8 year old the fire

I think the 18 or 21 year old or older bit is going too far....14-15 seems good.

On U-tube theres videos of kids even younger than 8 firing machine guns...that seems crazy to me. I was a teenager the first time I fire a shot gun...and it hurt...was a 12 gauge. Yes, I had it up tight to my shoulder as well.

 

[baci2004]

Confiscated, I don't quite believe that.

I kid you not, the police went around and retrieved them from their owners without compensation. I'll find some proof tomorrow.

And I think you were able to get along
quite well without that particular shotgun. Last I looked there were lots of different
shotguns available for sale.

I was but that wasn't my point.

Look, there has to be a middle ground somewhere in between a. not allowing citizens
to own guns, and b. free for all. I think the government of Canada is
doing not that bad a job of insisting on safety training and registration, and
allowing many guns to be owned, that would never be available in most european countries.

With the exception of bill c-68 it isn't that bad at all. The problem is (which you don't seem to notice because you spend all your time reading Danish news) that the leftist party's and our wing-nut Mayor will stop at nothing to ban firearms. Every time someone was shot this year his blondness was on t.v. crying ban. He demonizes inanimate objects and creates fear instead of focusing on the real problem....the gang problem. The general public that doesn't have any experience or knowledge of guns buy into it because it feels right.

Vote pandering at it's finest.

http://www.liberal.ca/story_14419_e.aspx
“A new Liberal government will make our cities, our communities, and our schools safer by getting military assault weapons off our streets,” said Mr. Dion at an event at Dawson College. “Military assault weapons have no connection to hunting or sport shooting, and serve absolutely no purpose in our society. No one outside of the military needs these weapons and we would all be safer without them in Canada.”

Have me over one day for some of your wine, I'll bring a case of clay birds and I'll tell you about the 7 hours I spent at a city council meeting.

 

[S.C. Joe]

Maybe Canada is too strick on gun laws but where did this 8 year old get killed at...in the USA of course.

Sometimes I wish Canada and the USA could like merge...the USA get more relax on soft drugs, gays, sex laws..the USA get more strick on guns, get health care cost down..I rather wait a few hours to see a doctor than have to pay $1,000+ if I need to see a doctor at night.

But it won't happen

 

[fuji]

class action lawsuits against the firearms manufacturers?
why not class action lawsuits against alcohol producers or car manufacturers or even chemical companies?

Let's finish the discussion about the responsibility the firearm manufacturers have, rather than clouding it with these others.

There are several reasons for forcing firearm manufacturers to take direct responsibility for the harm caused by inappropriate use or inappropriate ownership of firearms:

1. They are best placed to take responsibility for it. No-one else is better placed to control the manner and means of distribution, the safety features, storage systems, etc., than the company ultimately responsible for the development and distribution of the product.

2. It is morally correct that they take responsibility for what they do, just as everyone should take responsibility for what they do. You do believe in personal responsibility?

3. It would be highly effective

As for home made guns...

Bring this up again if it is ever a problem. Plainly the guns that are on the street are manufactured guns and not home made guns. Why? The home made ones must be inferior, less effective, and therefore less lethal. Also likely the people with the skills necessary to make a home made gun also have the skills to be gainfully employed and are far less likely to be involved in crime in the first place.

If you would like Fuji, I would be more than happy to take you up to one of the gun ranges to meet law abiding firearm owners.

I'm a law abiding firearm owner. I just don't believe that handguns, automatic or semi-automatic weapons, weapons with changeable clips, large magazines, short barrels, folding stocks, suppressors, etc., should be in the hands of civilians.

I have posted repeatedly on how I do not see a gun like a Remmington 700 as a problem to anyone providing that it is properly stored and cared for.

 

[baci2004]

Great article

By MICHAEL COREN
Sun Media

I hate guns. They terrify me. I have never owned one and never will.

I have little sympathy for the gun culture or the gun lobby. Both seem crass and crude. If I had my way, guns would not exist. But - and this but is the size of a Liberal grant - we do not live in a perfect world and I am prepared to admit that reality sometimes stings.

More than this, the relative lack of gun control legislation in the United States had nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with a 6-year-old in Michigan shooting another child to death. Nor had it anything to do with other child killings, with murders by street gangs, with any of the shootings in Canada.

Indeed, gun control is one of the great misnomers of modern times. We cannot control guns and we don't have to either. What we have to control is the decaying social fabric of North America and our headlong rush into an ethical vacuum.

Good God, this one isn't rocket science. A few fundamentals:

Guns are extraordinarily common in Canadian and American rural communities, where the crime rates are lower than anywhere else in either country. Farm kids shoot from an early age and are in the company of firearms before they can walk. Yet there are hardly any violent rampages and so-called accidental discharges of weapons.

Guns have existed in very large numbers for more than two centuries. They were common among ordinary families from the 1740s. Children did not kill with them. After 1945 Canada was flooded with handguns brought home from Europe and Asia by soldiers. Teachers of the time report of half of the class bringing dad's shooter to school. These were military weapons, deadly and efficient.

Were there mass slaughters? Of course not. But according to some zealots, it's all about registration. So just who are these people so anxious to tell us what to do and how to do it?

Curiously enough, the activists campaigning for draconian gun control seem to be the same activists who are calling for a lower age of sexual consent, for more children's rights, for increased funding of daycare rather than support for families, for a wholesale dismantling of the society that has served us so well for so long.

If you doubt me, just take a look. It is an almost infallible rule that the more permissive a person is on social and moral issues the more in favour they are of strict gun control. Coincidence?

Please. It is not that such people are sinister, simply that they are wrong. Dangerously wrong. Ignore the disease, misinterpret the diagnoses and then prescribe the wrong medicine.

It's too late for that nonsense now. The patient is dying and we have to operate fast. As for the ailments, they should be obvious.

Single-parent families and the absence of male authority figures. Parents never seeing their kids because both are working and junior is parented by the television. Teachers emasculated and unable to chastise children who instead revel in their thuggery. An obsession with the self-esteem of kids who in fact scream for boundaries and borders.

Endless discussions about children's feelings, encouraging them to act out the slightest whim. Constant attacks on the virtues of family, chastity, faith, respect, order and tradition. TV that deadens the mind and the sensibilities with graphic violence, grotesque pornography and vacuous pop videos, and then hosts long discussions wondering why kids are going wrong.

I want, I need, I must have, I know, I am, I rule, I'm cool, I'm everything. You're nothing, you're not me, you don't understand, you suck, you don't matter. And I'm the centre of the universe. I know it because I feel it and nobody dares tell me otherwise.

Laugh when Jimmy uses obscene language, believe that Susan can do no wrong even when the cop and the teacher tell you otherwise, decide that your "self-fulfillment" in some job is more important than Jake seeing his mother when he comes home from school, and say you can't control what Brittany watches on television when you haven't even tried.

It ain't about guns, it's about you. And you, and you. Don't blame mechanics for your own madness.

 

[Aardvark154]

Not having been able to locate this thread the other day here is the link to the thread on the criminal indictments made by the Grand Jury.