8-Year-Old Accidentally Kills Self at Gun Show

A Uzi is a bitch to hold without the stock extended, people that try to shoot it like that are usually rambo wanna bes. The point of the stock is to make it easy to conceal, then whip it out and extend the stock.

Paleocon wrote:

As a class three license holder, Muay Thai-practicing, long distance running, buff, well-hung etc etc etc show-off, I hope they hang that bastage from the nearest lamppost.

Completed.

All of Paleo's posts from here on out must be prepended with "As a class three license holder", regardless of thread topic.

At least just for a day!

JoeBedurndurn wrote:

What we've actually done in the past is have some .22 rifles available for young kids to shoot. The rifles there have a couple of extra loops attached to the stock and we steel cable them to the bench so that they can't be rotated or elevated to point anywhere unsafe, because we're normally smart.

At the range where I learned at 10, this was MANDATORY for anyone under 13, on any weapon. They didn't allow any handgun use until you were 16, and then only with a parent/guardian. Of course, San Francisco Bay Area is a little nuts on safety, but at least we've still got some good ranges! I heard some idiots want to outlaw places for safe, recreational use of firearms!

Bigger, more detailed article:

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

Who are the ad wizards who wrote:

"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.

And this ladies and gents... is why you don't let morons write your ads... *sigh*

At least they didn't say "Guns so awesome, they'll blow you away."

JoeBedurndurn wrote:

Bigger, more detailed article:

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

Can we call this one belated Darwinism?

LobsterMobster wrote:
JoeBedurndurn wrote:

Bigger, more detailed article:

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

Can we call this one belated Darwinism?

Dead 8 year old kid man... not cool. Technically perhaps, but let them at least get into high school before we laugh at their demise.

(Though I'll fully acknowledge that I might laugh in other circumstances, but I know I'm an asshole.)

It's a little kid who got killed. Not his dumbass father. Hardly an appropriate occasion for Darwinism jokes.

Triple your pleasure.

Gorilla posts three times for moral indignation.

Damn! Posting from a train, using my cellphone.

Gorilla.800.lbs wrote:

Damn! Posting from a train, using my cellphone.

Your thumbs are mad as hell and they're not going to take it anymore!

What I just said.

Double post.

Sorry, bad taste. I'll remove the comment if people want.

I'm not understanding how the recoil would be strong enough to turn the muzzle toward his head. if anything, wouldn't the weapon fire straight up at the point of maximum recoil?

93_confirmed wrote:

I'm not understanding how the recoil would be strong enough to turn the muzzle toward his head. if anything, wouldn't the weapon fire straight up at the point of maximum recoil?

Extend your arms in front of you like you're holding a pistol. Take a look at your elbows and notice which way they're ready to bend.

They're going to bend in so the weapon comes towards my head but never to the point where the weapon is aimed at my head or face. My hands would essentially have to rotate 180 degrees from the aimed position for that to happen.

Gorilla.800.lbs wrote:

At 8, I think he'd be better off shooting BBs, not even .22s.

Just for the sake of counter-argument, I shot my first deer at 8. If it matters, the rifle was a Remington Model Seven .243 with a shortened stock.

Edit: Just to be clear, I also agree that the situation that started this thread is sad and lacked foresight. I was only responding to the implication that "even .22s" might be inappropriate for an 8-year-old.

I think it would take enough force for one bullet to go that direction to pull it off, and an 8-year-old doesn't have the strength to keep that from happening if there's enough recoil.

93_confirmed wrote:

They're going to bend in so the weapon comes towards my head but never to the point where the weapon is aimed at my head or face. My hands would essentially have to rotate 180 degrees from the aimed position for that to happen.

The pistol does not elevate upwards. The recoil torques around the fulcrum of your palm. If you continue to grip the pistol but lack the strength, temperament, or body weight to keep it trained forward, it will continue to rotate along the fulcrum until it is pointed backward.

Here's two ways of getting hurt by recoil. Both youtubes and let's just call them NWS.

Elbow bend

Spin in your hand

Both of those are just 1 shot.

Paleocon wrote:
93_confirmed wrote:

They're going to bend in so the weapon comes towards my head but never to the point where the weapon is aimed at my head or face. My hands would essentially have to rotate 180 degrees from the aimed position for that to happen.

The pistol does not elevate upwards. The recoil torques around the fulcrum of your palm. If you continue to grip the pistol but lack the strength, temperament, or body weight to keep it trained forward, it will continue to rotate along the fulcrum until it is pointed backward.

From the limited amount of time I've spent shooting, I would say that the situation with the child comes from one of those constant rules of recreational firearm use:

"If you take your eye of the ball, f*cked up sh*t is going to happen as fast as possible."

The subtlety of physics comes second after that.

JoeBedurndurn wrote:

Spin in your hand

Both of those are just 1 shot.

Right, and you can imagine what would have happened to her if that thing was an SMG on full auto.

On the plus side, she kinda looks like Meryl from Metal Gear Solid, which I imagine is why she is using a Desert Eagle.

What an absolute tragedy.

Can you imagine having to call your wife and explain to her that your 8 year old son is dead because you let him fire a fully automatic weapon? That must have been an interesting conversation.

Funken, the kid knew about guns, had fired them before. He'd been taught. This was just a stupid accident, not a policy error.

Regarding BB guns versus guns for kids, I learned to shoot .22s at summer camp when I was six. I don't know if this could happen now. It was well supervised and we followed the rules. Compare that with the way we used to use BB guns. No supervision and a lot of stupidity like shooting each other in the ass. So I'd rather see kids learning about guns.

I've looked into getting my kid some training, but local ranges don't seem to make much effort to lure in new shooters here in CT. I haven't been able to locate a program that provides a class for kids.

I wasn't talking about any particular policy. Just the idea that BB guns were going to be safer than .22s.

Points re BB guns vs .22s taken.

Edit: myself, I wouldn't know. In my childhood, we didn't have guns. We had slingshots. The best and most prized ammo for those was 10mm BBs and used 9mm Makarov bullets. 8|

Funkenpants wrote:

I wasn't talking about any particular policy. Just the idea that BB guns were going to be safer than .22s.

I don't know about that. With a .22 I've shot cans and paper targets. With a BB gun, I've shot cans, paper targets, the side of a car, two different florescent lights, a TV, the supply line to a hot water heater, my friend, myself.

I find that with guns I am thinking about safety, with BB guns I'm not really thinking about much.

Maybe that's just me being an idiot, but, I would trust the respect a firearm demands over the mischief BB guns stir up.