Death at show fuels US gun debate

[Cybmatt]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7694560.stm

---

Quote:

---

New questions have been raised about US gun laws after a boy aged eight shot himself in the head with a submachine gun at a Massachusetts weapons fair.

Christopher Bizilj died after losing control of a recoiling Uzi submachine gun as he fired it at a pumpkin.

Both the boy's father and an instructor were present when the accident happened on Sunday at the gun show in Westfield.

State legislators are now considering drafting a bill banning under-21s from firing automatic weapons, reports say.

"We should take swift action to provide some reasonable restrictions on this type of unreasonable practice," Congressman Michael Costello told the Boston Globe newspaper.

"It's almost indescribable that within a year of leaving a booster seat, an eight-year-old can be holding a submachine gun."

The boy's father, Charles Bizilj, said he was 10ft (3m) behind Christopher when the accident happened at the Machine Gun Shoot and Firearms Expo.

Mr Bizilj told the Globe he had allowed his son to shoot the Uzi - which can fire hundreds of rounds a minute - because it was considered to have little recoil.

He said Christopher had fired handguns and rifles before, but never an automatic weapon.

"This is a horrible event, a horrible travesty, and I really don't know why it happened," said Mr Bizilj, a hospital director from Ashford, Connecticut.

Police have described the incident as a "self-inflicted accidental shooting".

But they are continuing to investigate whether the fair's organisers and Westfield Sportsmen's Club - the private shooting club where the gun show was held - held the appropriate licences.

Massachusetts has strict gun laws that require parental consent and the presence of a certified and licensed instructor before a child is allowed to fire a weapon.

---

[Cybmatt]

Only in America tbh.

[dav1d]

inb4 J_c

[lasershock]

BUT BUT WE NEED GUNS TO DEFEND OURSELVES.

[BLACK^WOLF]

he shot himself with a class 3 weapon, which should have been restriction enough seeing as they are the most restricted guns in america, making it impossible to have a fully auto weapon that's made after 1986.

---

Quote:

---

Massachusetts has strict gun laws that require parental consent and the presence of a certified and licensed instructor before a child is allowed to fire a weapon.

---

also WHY THE FUCK WOULD YOU LET AN 8 YR OLD FIRE AN AUTOMATIC WEAPON, REALLY.

stupid parent.

[BLACK^WOLF]

apparently there is no edit button for these forums btw

also I have to point out that I'm for a restriction on fully autos if they are under 18, however I can understand the 21 rule

I MEAN FREAKING REALLY AN 8 YEAR OLD WHO THE FUCK IN THEIR RIGHT MIND WOULD LET AN 8 YR OLD DO THAT. it's sad that we would need restrictions like this in place

also, sucks to be the owner of the Uzi, probably paid around thousands for the thing.

[giantpenisguy74]

yeah gonna have to say it was the parents fault.

[SmithersPrime]

I loled.

[J_c]

Natural selection at it's best.

"HEY GUIS LETS PUT EVEN MORE REDICULACE LAWS ON AUTOMATICS CAUSE AN IDIOT GOT HIS SON KILLED"

[lumbergh]

Guns are the stupidest pieces of shit in the world. Ban them all.

[weedbag]

natural selection actually.

[J_c]

Quote:

---

lumbergh opened his big mouth to say:
Guns are the stupidest pieces of shit in the world. Ban them all.

---

Quote:

---

faceless opened his big mouth to say:

"YEAH BAN GUNS CAUSE IT WORKS, LIKE DRUGS, NO ONE HAS DRUGS "

---

[NickJames?]

If they ban guns then noone would have a reason to need one because if they use it it will just be an extra penalty.

[J_c]

Quote:

---

NickJames? opened his big mouth to say:
If they ban guns then noone would have a reason to need one because if they use it it will just be an extra penalty.

---

If they banned guns who would be the ones still using them?

It amazes me that there can be this much retardation in the world. You put forth feel good laws that only apply to the ones who actually follow the law. You put signs on your store saying "Gun free zone" with the expectation that everybody will follow it. You make decisions on pure emotion with no factual evidence.

If banning guns works so damn well why to the places that have actually taken guns from the law abiding people still have gun crimes?

[NickJames?]

The ones using guns to rob other people will only face higher charges because of having an illegal weapon. It will make thieves more hesitant to actually have them.