Gun show accident; Child dies

[Nikose Tyris]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/10/christopher-biziljs-famil_n_351732.html



SPRINGFIELD, Mass. — The family of an 8-year-old boy who fatally shot himself at a gun show in western Massachusetts say the Uzi submachine gun jammed twice before he lost control of the weapon and fired into his head.

The family of Christopher Bizilj (bah-SEEL') of Ashford, Conn., says in a civil lawsuit filed Friday that a 15-year-old instructor who cleared the gun and handed it back to the victim failed to provide proper guidance.

The lawsuit names the owners of a gun club where the fair was held, promoters of the event and those who supplied the weapon and ammunition. None of those named in the lawsuit could be reached for comment after business hours Monday.

Bizilj shot himself at the Westfield Sportsman's Club in October 2008.

The boy's family claims the gun was defective and unreasonably dangerous, and they blame the failure to properly service it.

Gun Shows = NOT a fun activity for children?

[NonCon]

Gun Shows = NOT a fun activity for children?

More that handing loaded submachine guns to eight year old children is just a fucking horrendous idea. I can't help but feel the parents should be held accountable to this for some degree.

[Kurosen]

Fifteen year-old instructor also sets off some alarms.

[Fifthfiend]

Now the liberal fascists are gonna come in with their "regulations" and their "political correctness" and their "you can't have fifteen year olds giving uzis to eight year olds".

[NonCon]

Now the liberal fascists are gonna come in with their "regulations" and their "political correctness" and their "you can't have fifteen year olds giving uzis to eight year olds".

Those people who got shot by the crazy soldier wouldn't have died if we weren't so obsessed with political correctness! Political correctness needs to go right in the garbage bin where it belongs.[/FoxQuotes]

[Meister]

The boy's family claims the gun was defective and unreasonably dangerous
Seems to me like it was pretty much exactly as dangerous as it's supposed to be.

[Ryanderman]

I'm all for gun freedoms, but I think we can safely agree that keeping loaded Uzi's out of the hands of 8 year olds is not infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

I'm less concerned about the age of the instructor as I am about the fact that he gave a loaded Uzi to an 8 year old. Seems to me a 15 year old can be responsible enough to be trusted with guns. Just not this 15 year old. Or those parents.

[Smarty McBarrelpants]

Wait, so you just rock up to this fair and they give you uzis and things to play with? How did noone see this coming?

[Fifthfiend]

I'm just about okay with saying 15 year olds can be trusted with guns but somewhere between there and 15 year olds being trusted as instructors in the handling of submachine guns I gotta jump off the boat.

EDIT: Like you could just about convince me that it's cool for a 15 year old to drive a car under certain circumstances but there's a big gap between that and saying that 15 year old should be instructing people on how to handle a Formula 1 car.

[MasterOfMagic]

So, uhm, why was it even loaded in the first place?

[Ryanderman]

I'm just about okay with saying 15 year olds can be trusted with guns but somewhere between there and 15 year olds being trusted as instructors in the handling of submachine guns I gotta jump off the boat.

EDIT: Like you could just about convince me that it's cool for a 15 year old to drive a car under certain circumstances but there's a big gap between that and saying that 15 year old should be instructing people on how to handle a Formula 1 car.

You have a point.

[Meister]

So, uhm, why was it even loaded in the first place?
Because they meant for him to shoot it.

The gun being loaded isn't the problem here just like the gas in the tank isn't the problem when you let a 15-year-old drive that Formula 1 car.

[phil_]

Wait, so you just rock up to this fair and they give you uzis and things to play with?Gun shows in Virginia aren't like this. It makes me sad. We can't even have loaded uzis in most places. Well, people with concealed weapons permits can, but they couldn't let you play with their uzi.

[MasterOfMagic]

Because they meant for him to shoot it.

The gun being loaded isn't the problem here just like the gas in the tank isn't the problem when you let a 15-year-old drive that Formula 1 car.
Oh, I just realized my mistake, I wasn't thinking of a firing range, just lots of tables with guns to be shown off.

Nevermind me, then~

[Mirai Gen]

I have to wonder just exactly how ignorant the people standing there were to let this bad situation (15 year old handing a gun to an 8 year old) get worse (him pointing it at his head).

[Marc v1.0]

I have to wonder just exactly how ignorant the people standing there were to let this bad situation (15 year old handing a gun to an 8 year old) get worse (him pointing it at his head).

SMGs have a horrible amount of kickback that make fully-automatic fire a very inaccurate prospect unless you hold on for dear life.

I doubt an 8 year old could hold on tight enough to keep the first round of shots from kicking the gun up enough to get his head.

[MasterOfMagic]

Here's an article with more detail:
http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2009/11/family_of_christopher_bizijl_s.html
The Uzi machine gun jammed twice and was inspected by a 15-year-old before 8-year-old Christopher K. Bizilj attempted to fire it a third time and was met with a lethal recoil during a gun exposition in Westfield a year ago.
The details in the court documents show the gun apparently went off when the boy was attempting to keep it from falling after the stock of the weapon slipped down from his shoulder. His father, Dr. Charles D. Bizilj, who brought Christopher and his 11-year-old brother Colin, to the show, had been ordered to remain away from the firing line behind restraining ropes, according to the suit.

The gun stuck twice when Christopher Bizilj attempted to fire it, the complaint says. The teen went back to clear a jammed round of ammunition. The boy put his finger on the trigger a third time.

“Without further instruction or guidance from the line officer, the decedent placed his fingers on the trigger mechanism of the weapon and attempted to raise the Micro Uzi to his shoulder. The stock of the weapon slipped down from the decedent’s shoulder and the barrel of same spun upward. The decedent attempted to prevent the weapon from falling, and in doing so, the gun spun upward,” according to the complaint.

[Mirai Gen]

SMGs have a horrible amount of kickback that make fully-automatic fire a very inaccurate prospect unless you hold on for dear life.

I doubt an 8 year old could hold on tight enough to keep the first round of shots from kicking the gun up enough to get his head.

Again, and this never occurred to anyone?

I didn't necessarily think he intentionally pointed it at his head but at some point I had to wonder why exactly the parents and brother decided to let an 8-year old wield a Micro-Uzi which is notorious for awful kickback.

[Marc v1.0]

Notorious with people who know.

Your average jo-blo with only movie-fed knowledge of SMGs think you can hold them in one hand while running

[Mirai Gen]

They were attending a gun show.

I get the feeling they knew a bit more than Awesome McSteroids's Two Fisted/Rock and Roll build adventure.

[Doc T]

They were attending a gun show.

So they're not the brightest bunch to begin with.

[Archbio]

Your average jo-blo with only movie-fed knowledge of SMGs think you can hold them in one hand while running

The Big Lebowsky has taught me all I need to know about how dangerous handling an Uzi can be.

[Mirai Gen]

Nah there's nothing wrong with going to gun shows - if you're a wilderness hunter aficionado, that's exactly the kind of thing that you probably love. Some people also like storing and having their own piece for the specific purpose of supporting gun ownership. There's nothing bad about having weaponry as a psuedo-hobby.

[Doc T]

Some people also like storing and having their own piece for the specific purpose of supporting gun ownership.

Sounds like they're like mafia-wives making it possible for the sociopaths and dangerous morons.

There's nothing bad about having weaponry as a psuedo-hobby.

It's just pool-of-drool retarded.

[Marc v1.0]

Nah there's nothing wrong with going to gun shows - if you're a wilderness hunter aficionado

Absolutly correct..but see, my point is that your average person doesn't know these things.

A responsible firearms aficionado wouldn't have let an 8 year old use an Uzi, which brings me back to my original point.

EDIT: Or we could forget about rational, responsible dialogue and just insult and troll...

[BitVyper]

They were attending a gun show.

I get the feeling they knew a bit more than Awesome McSteroids's Two Fisted/Rock and Roll build adventure.

Or at least SOMEONE, like say THE INSTRUCTOR should have known. But really, when did handing an eight year old a gun of any size become family fun?

[Fifthfiend]

So they're not the brightest bunch to begin with.

It's just pool-of-drool retarded.

That's probably getting meaner than we need to be to the entire population of gun-show viewers.

Gonna assay you let us call it a zero-point warning non-infraction for these two posts here I guess.

[Doc T]

Duly noted. Sorry for being crass.

[Fifthfiend]

It's more that you were a shade more crass than the level of crassness normally permitted on this forum, as determined and adjudicated by your resident NPF Doctors of Tastelessnessology.

[BitVyper]

It's more that you were a shade more crass than the level of crassness normally permitted on this forum, as determined and adjudicated by your resident NPF Doctors of Tastelessnessology.

Which is pretty much the only thing any of us on this forum could get a doctorate in.

[Jenwrath]

Here's hoping the judge tells the parents off for letting their 8 year old fire a submachine gun. Though not knowing the specific details of it, it seems like that 15 year old is already going to spend the rest of their life knowing that they had a hand in what happened to that kid - why go to the extra length of the court?

On top of that, how would they know if the 15 year old who instructed their little boy informed him wrongly of how to use it? If they knew the gun was defective or that the kid wasn't properly trained/informed of how this gun reacts, why did they let their EIGHT YEAR OLD hold it, let alone even shoot it?

My dad let me shoot guns when i was around the same age, but spent a long time making sure to teach me what he thought i should know, and never let me near anything like that <__<

Sounds to me like everyone screwed up on their parts here, now a child's dead ;\

[Sithdarth]

Just a question but I thought automatic weapons were like Federally illegal for private citizens. Like you can own an automatic weapon as long as the automatic part is disabled so you can only fire one shot at a time. I'm pretty sure this Uzi would have had to have been set up like that or it would have been illegal to have.

In fact here is the Mass. State Law:
A license to possess or carry a machine gun may be issued only to a firearm instructor certified by the Criminal Justice Training Council for the sole purpose of firearm instruction to police personnel, or to a bona fide collector of firearms upon application or renewal of such license.

A "bona fide collector of firearms," for the purpose of issuance of a machine gun license, shall be defined as an individual who acquires firearms for such lawful purposes as historical significance, display, research, lecturing, demonstration, test firing, investment or other like purpose.

For the purpose of issuance of a machine gun license, the acquisition of firearms for sporting use or for use as an offensive or defensive weapon shall not qualify an applicant as a bona fide collector of firearms.

I don't see how Gun Show qualifies there as instruction to bona fide collector of firearms. Especially not to an 8 year old. Looking at what it take to be a certified instructor I don't see how a 15 year old would qualify either. So I see no way for that thing to have been fully automatic unless someone was doing something illegal. So handing the kid an automatic disabled Uzi is really no worse than handing him a pistol with a decent kick or a small rifle. Still not a great idea but not as bad as people are making it out to be.

The other point is that it wasn't even the recoil that got the kid anyway. He essentially dropped the gun and in the process of trying to catch it shot himself in the head. Pretty much anyone regardless of age could have done the same exact thing if not properly instructed on how to handle the weapon. In short, this has absolutely nothing to do with handing an 8 year old a weapon he couldn't conceivably handle and everything to do with handing an untrained person a firearm with insufficient instruction. The difference is small but important and both of them are horrible anyway.

Of course if it was fully automatic capable then the gun itself was illegal to begin with and that is a whole other story.

edit: That and a 15 year old shouldn't be considered a qualified instructor for any firearm what so ever. Seriously that is just wack.

[MasterOfMagic]

I don't think it was fully automatic. From the account in the article I linked, it sounds like he was firing single shots.

[Sithdarth]

The point is that if we're going to be outraged we should be outraged at the right things. We shouldn't react to an exaggerated situation because in the end that just weakens the position. There is plenty here to get mad at but it doesn't really have to do with the type of gun given to the 8 year old.

[Kepor]

Just a question but I thought automatic weapons were like Federally illegal for private citizens. Like you can own an automatic weapon as long as the automatic part is disabled so you can only fire one shot at a time. I'm pretty sure this Uzi would have had to have been set up like that or it would have been illegal to have.


Some automatic weapons that were manufactured before a certain date are civilian-legal. I think it was before the Firearms Act of 1986, I'll look it up. Anyway, those guns are legal, so probably this Uzi was one of those.

Or maybe it was just a semi version.

[Sithdarth]

Some automatic weapons that were manufactured before a certain date are civilian-legal. I think it was before the Firearms Act of 1986, I'll look it up. Anyway, those guns are legal, so probably this Uzi was one of those.

Even if it was the Mass. specific law still takes precedence as I quoted it in my post. It bans machine guns which I'm pretty sure includes sub-machine guns except for:

A license to possess or carry a machine gun may be issued only to a firearm instructor certified by the Criminal Justice Training Council for the sole purpose of firearm instruction to police personnel, or to a bona fide collector of firearms upon application or renewal of such license.

A "bona fide collector of firearms," for the purpose of issuance of a machine gun license, shall be defined as an individual who acquires firearms for such lawful purposes as historical significance, display, research, lecturing, demonstration, test firing, investment or other like purpose.

Which makes a fully auto gun illegal at a public gun show or at the very least illegal to be fired by the general public at a gun show.

Also the Micro-Uzi was first developed in 1982 so it seems unlikely but not impossible to find one made by 1986. The gun was probably an Uzi pistol with a shoulder stock.

[stefan]

everyone involved in this clusterfuck should serve a prison sentence. Yes, everyone. including the parents. Its counted as negligence if you leave a gun out where a minor can get at it, and this is so many shades worse than that its an entirely different fucking color.

[Loyal]

Re: getting angry at the right things.

So we aren't allowed to feel at least annoyed that someone was stupid enough to give a weapon (firearms or otherwise) to an eight-year old?

I mean I understand what you were saying, "It could have happened to anyone without the know-how," but we kinda gotta draw the line somewhere on when and how one is expected to have that know-how.

[BitVyper]

So we aren't allowed to feel at least annoyed that someone was stupid enough to give a weapon (firearms or otherwise) to an eight-year old?

Sure, but you aren't allowed to get angry at them for things they didn't actually do.

As for letting an eight year old handle a weapon... eh, it's a bit more understandable if it wasn't automatic. I mean, I was shown how to use a gun when I was younger than that. Probably still should have been something easier to hold onto, and I certainly wouldn't let my eight year old get hauled away to learn how to shoot from a fifteen year old if I wasn't going to be allowed to be right beside him.

[stefan]

Sure, but you aren't allowed to get angry at them for things they didn't actually do.

As for letting an eight year old handle a weapon... eh, it's a bit more understandable if it wasn't automatic. I mean, I was shown how to use a gun when I was younger than that. Probably still should have been something easier to hold onto, and I certainly wouldn't let my eight year old get hauled away to learn how to shoot from a fifteen year old if I wasn't going to be allowed to be right beside him.

I'd like to see proof that this wasn't an automatic. I hang around with gun owners a lot, most of the ones I know don't really give a shit about the whole "no automatic weapons" laws and have even offered to give me tutorials on how to undo the modifications to an AR-15 to give t back full auto capability.

[Sithdarth]

Re: getting angry at the right things.

So we aren't allowed to feel at least annoyed that someone was stupid enough to give a weapon (firearms or otherwise) to an eight-year old?

I mean I understand what you were saying, "It could have happened to anyone without the know-how," but we kinda gotta draw the line somewhere on when and how one is expected to have that know-how.

You misinterpreted or stopped reading. Let me quote myself to make it clearer:

So handing the kid an automatic disabled Uzi is really no worse than handing him a pistol with a decent kick or a small rifle. Still not a great idea but not as bad as people are making it out to be.

In short, this has absolutely nothing to do with handing an 8 year old a weapon he couldn't conceivably handle and everything to do with handing an untrained person a firearm with insufficient instruction. The difference is small but important and both of them are horrible anyway.


edit: That and a 15 year old shouldn't be considered a qualified instructor for any firearm what so ever. Seriously that is just wack.

There is no doubt it was stupid but it wasn't as stupid as say handing a fully automatic Uzi to an 8 year old. Feeling annoyed that a firearm was given to an 8 year old is the appropriate thing to be annoyed at. Being appalled that an 8 year old was allowed to play with an extremely dangerous submachine gun is the wrong thing to be appalled at. Seeing as its about 99% likely that the gun was no more dangerous than any other semi-automatic rifle given the laws in Massachusetts.

Being angry or upset that anyone, and extra especially upset that an 8 year old, was given a firearm without proper instruction is a completely sane and defensible position. Going on and on insanely about how this 8 year old was given essentially the most dangerous kind of fully automatic machine gun is overstating the events that occurred and does nothing but undermine an otherwise valid position. This is in large part why no one can agree on things like gun control, abortion, or drugs. Both ends tend to head right to the ridiculous extremes and either sugarcoat or totally exaggerate anything that seems to validate their viewpoint. If you want a meaningful discourse on any subject like this you must first understand the situation and then remove the bias. In this case they played up the name recognition of Uzi and our impressions about submachine guns to make it sound like the situation was much worse than it was which is why we must carefully avoid falling into that trap.

edit:
I'd like to see proof that this wasn't an automatic. I hang around with gun owners a lot, most of the ones I know don't really give a shit about the whole "no automatic weapons" laws and have even offered to give me tutorials on how to undo the modifications to an AR-15 to give t back full auto capability.

That of course falls under a whole other class as having such a weapon is probably a felony. Further, any parent that lets an 8 year old fire a fully automatic weapon is a complete idiot training or no training. They don't have the strength and coordination to handle that. However, I suspect if it was not automatic disabled then we would have heard about that specifically in the article and the charges brought against the gun show.

[BitVyper]

I'd like to see proof that this wasn't an automatic.

So this is guilty until proven guilty then? I mean, Sith made a pretty good point; there's not much reason to believe that it was from the outset. It's certainly possible, but I like to think that might have come up when charges were being laid and newspaper articles were being written.

[stefan]

So this is guilty until proven guilty then? I mean, Sith made a pretty good point; there's not much reason to believe that it was from the outset. It's certainly possible, but I like to think that might have come up when charges were being laid and newspaper articles were being written.

strictly speaking I'm not the one the burden of proof lies on here. Uzis are automatic weapons, and are manufactured as automatic weapons. removing the automatic fire function is a specific modification that is disticnt from the normal state of an Uzi. considering that this was a gun show, and gun shows are somewhat well-known for having unusual weapons, I see no reason why this wouldn't be an automatic, especially since I've seen nothing stating that it was modified to remove the automatic fire function.

[BitVyper]

strictly speaking I'm not the one the burden of proof lies on here

Actually, you are. You are accusing the handlers of the uzi of breaking a law. For that matter, you're accusing them with basically no reason beyond the fact that a few minutes ago we all just assumed that it had been broken until Sith pointed out that it was against the law at all.

The fact that it's possible the weapon could have been a capable automatic does not mean that it was. The whole idea behind the western legal system is that you can't just accuse someone of shit and force them to come up with proof that it isn't true (of course, whether or not this actually occurs in practice is another matter). Nowhere has it been suggested that the uzi was able to fire on automatic except for you who wasn't present at the event and has done no research.

This wasn't exactly just some hillbillies getting together to shoot some shit with a cool gun either. This was an event, which means it'd be pretty damn hard to hide if people were handing out fully automatic weapons.

[Eltargrim]

I made a few comments on this when it happened last year. The Uzi in question was indeed automatic, according to this article (http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2008/10/boy8_accidentally_shoots_himse.html).

[BitVyper]

I made a few comments on this when it happened last year. The Uzi in question was indeed automatic, according to this article (http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2008/10/boy8_accidentally_shoots_himse.html).

It calls it an automatic weapon, but it's unclear as to whether it was disabled or not. If it wasn't disabled and they knew it wasn't disabled, the news would be all over that shit. This sounds more like the news trying to suggest that it was capable without actually saying so because they either know it isn't true or don't know at all.

If they're not saying it, the assumption is that it was disabled.

But like I said, it's not like I won't acknowledge the possibility that it wasn't. It's just that it would be very strange for not one news source or witness to have reported that. And for no criminal charges to have been laid.

Edit: In fact, if this thing HAD been enabled, wouldn't the kid have shot himself like, twenty times with a single trigger pull? An uzi can empty a clip in something like three seconds from what I've been given to understand.

[Sithdarth]

I made a few comments on this when it happened last year. The Uzi in question was indeed automatic, according to this article.

The descriptions of the events don't seem to match up at all. I suspect crappy inaccurate reporting on the part of the first story. Mostly because I assume it would have come up in the charges filed in the lawsuit as it is illegal under Massachusetts state law to let the general public fire a machine gun. I'm pretty sure that would have been front and center in any news article.

strictly speaking I'm not the one the burden of proof lies on here.

Putting aside the US legal system. Generally speaking in a discussion if you say something you back it up with evidence that proves its right. Especially in this case since the people you are accusing have no opportunity to mount a defense. The only unbiased way to do this is to withhold a decision until either side is proven. There is lot of reason to believe it wasn't fully automatic and not a lot of reason to believe it was. We certainly just can't assume the worse and work from there. Its gets you in trouble like I said before. The event itself is tragic enough exaggerating it less than useless and even detracts from it.

Uzis are automatic weapons, and are manufactured as automatic weapons. removing the automatic fire function is a specific modification that is disticnt from the normal state of an Uzi.

Not true the Uzi pistol is an Uzi that is manufactured as a semi-automatic right from the start. This was not the gun in question but generalization tend to get you in trouble.

considering that this was a gun show, and gun shows are somewhat well-known for having unusual weapons, I see no reason why this wouldn't be an automatic,

This is what we call a fallacy. Just because some gun shows have fully automatic weapons doesn't mean all gun shows have fully automatic weapons. In other words the statement "Some fully automatic weapons show up at gun shows" is not the same as "Gun shows have some fully automatic weapons."

especially since I've seen nothing stating that it was modified to remove the automatic fire function.

Except for the bit where it was illegal and no criminal charges were indicated anywhere. That and the kid magically managed to shoot himself once in the head and no one else despite the micro Uzi having a 1700 round/min fire rate. Even at about a half second on the trigger that is 14 rounds. I think if it was fully automatic a lot worse would have happened.

edit: One of the news clips mentioned fully automatic but the cop they had said everything was legal and as far as I can tell that means no fully automatic weapons. Also the cop said something about his father supporting the kid while he fired but then the other article said his father was forced behind a rope. There was also talk of certified adult instructors not 15 year olds and the gun getting away from him while firing and not an accidental discharge while he dropped it. There are way to many inconsistencies to know what to trust at this point. Someone was negligent somewhere though.

[BitVyper]

I found another article that had 'witnesses' say it was the force of him firing down the range that drove the point up, so I'm not really sure which side of the story to go with there. However in that scenario, I'm much more sure that the kid would have plugged himself more than once if it weren't disabled, and probably a few other people too. That's part of what's bothering me about the idea that this thing wasn't disabled - there were a lot of people who know guns present, and from what I understand, seeing an eight year old fumbling around with an uzi is a "run the other direction and dive for cover" scenario.

I'm much more inclined to believe the account that says it slipped.

[Mirai Gen]

It's just pool-of-drool retarded.
I know where you're coming from with this - and for the most part I agree, I don't see anything good coming from owning a firearm myself - but many people

A - believe the best way to keep rights is to exercise them, and the right to bear arms is something that's crucial to our survival as a nation in case the government decides to get facist.

B - trying, inspecting, and knowing more about firearms is a fun hobby or worthwhile, which is to say preferring understanding over fear.

C - actually physically go out to hunting grounds for the purpose of killing, eating, and collecting a deer or duck or whatnot.

And really saying that they don't deserve to do whatever the hell they want (or that they are "retarded" for doing so) is a bit out-there.

[Aerozord]

there are so many things wrong with this, 15 year old instructor, 8 year old student, with a full automatic weapon I am suprised the kid can even hold. Why did it even get to that point, why would you bring a uzi to a crowded public event.

oh but they do have every right to carry a loaded weapon, and hand it to an 8 year old. This is insanely stupid, but perfectly legal. Must like covering yourself in blood and jumping into shark infested waters is perfectly legal

[bluestarultor]

A - believe the best way to keep rights is to exercise them, and the right to bear arms is something that's crucial to our survival as a nation in case the government decides to get facist.

Ahaha. Ha, HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Yeah, right. The government doesn't have any laws against the military having automatic weapons and is MUCH better-funded, better-protected, and better-armed. With things like tanks and planes, aside from much better personal hardware. The idea that owning a gun is going to save you from the government is- I mean, how can anyone possibly think that? Seriously, that's got to be the most deluded argument I've heard in a while.

No, the right to bear arms came in so people could form militias before there was a centralized government to speak of, much less a national military. It's at best misconstrued and more realistically outdated, although not obsolete. I have no real problem with people owning a gun, but the fact of the matter is owning one is more likely to simply complicate a situation where people like to think they'd be a shining badass for having it.

[Aerozord]

no Mirai is actually correct, the right to bare arms, right to free speach, prevention of soldiers comendearing your home, in fact most of the bill of rights is a goverment kill switch designed to allow american citizens to rebel if need be. It is litterally a loaded gun pointed at the goverments head

True they are better funded, armed, organized, but the same can be said about Britian circa 1776, or any revolution in the history of the world. Since when has being technically weaker kept citisens from rising up.

[bluestarultor]

no Mirai is actually correct, the right to bare arms, right to free speach, prevention of soldiers comendearing your home, in fact most of the bill of rights is a goverment kill switch designed to allow american citizens to rebel if need be. It is litterally a loaded gun pointed at the goverments head

True they are better funded, armed, organized, but the same can be said about Britian circa 1776, or any revolution in the history of the world. Since when has being technically weaker kept citisens from rising up.

While that's true, 1776 didn't exactly have current technology to worry about. Basically, the question at this point is how many bullets there are compared to rebels, and if there's anything like a 2:1 ratio, I think the rebels are going to have problems.

I mean, if the people HAD to, I'm sure they could do damage, but the military has adequate resources to wipe the floor with them with guns, precision air strikes, etc. I mean, just LOOK at all the success Tibet's had rebelling against China. By which I mean pretty much none. I think the days of people being able to successfully rebel without outside intervention are pretty much over.

[Aerozord]

because rebels dont use "my stick is bigger" combat. Its why America won the revolution is from ignoring conventional battle tactics. Plans and tanks are rather ineffective against small infantry groups. Thats specifically why america's tactic for taking out tanks is two or three infantry with a missle. Also remember that in america the military IS civilian volunteers.

Reguardless this is besides the point. Even if civilians had no chance of winning in modern warfare, in 1776 the founding fathers did not know this. What they did know is that sometimes a goverment can become ruled by corrupt dicks and the only fix is to overthrow it. They knew this could be done and believed it was this was the best method. So in case it became nessicary they wrote in rights to make it easier for americans to once again rebel.

after all, 'there is nothing more american, then to decent'

[BitVyper]

Basically, the question at this point is how many bullets there are compared to rebels, and if there's anything like a 2:1 ratio, I think the rebels are going to have problems.

See, the shitty thing about having your citizens rebelling is that they're all around you already. They don't need to invade because they're already in your home. Hell, there's a good bet that they're in your military already, which among other things means you're losing the intelligence battle right from the outset. In fact, I seem to recall an assassination attempt on the president in the last decade or so that was made by a marine or something. So numbers, while important, are less important than you might think.

Also shooting back at them is a losing proposition; if the rebellion has any kind of momentum, you'll likely drive more people to their side, and since you're both drawing supporters from the same pool, that's a problem. In the end, shooting rebels is shooting your own citizens, and the government doesn't exist without people to govern. It'd be one thing if you could effectively institute martial law, but as far as I can see, America is too big and too well armed for any military to properly occupy it, so that isn't going to work either.

The technology advantage isn't so great either. You can't exactly go deploying heavy ordinance against your own cities, so that cuts out a lot of it out. And if you DO start that kind of shit, you'll lose even more friends. There's still an advantage present, but if a strong rebellion is going, that'll likely change.

I think one of your country's forefathers specifically said that there should be a rebellion every couple decades just to keep the government from getting too complacent.

And if all your citizens are armed, they can do a lot of damage, and they become EXTREMELY difficult to suppress if shit does go down.

Edit: Basically, I think how a good rebellion went would depend largely on how much support the American government was getting from the populous. Not "eh, whatever" but actual support.

[Mirai Gen]

I'm glad when people deflect Bluespeak before I have to.

Blues you may be right in that the army is much better equipped but if the people want to rebel against a government there's very little the government can do. That's all the more reason to own a gun - the original concept behind the American government was to say "We're doing things this way, but if we ever get it really wrong, feel free to come after us with weaponry."

The entire point is that if the government bans firearms it puts a real damper on a classic rebellion. People carry their guns for the specific reason to prevent this. I'm all in support of that mindset.

EDIT:
The idea that owning a gun is going to save you from the government is- I mean, how can anyone possibly think that? Seriously, that's got to be the most deluded argument I've heard in a while.
Gun is not a Paper to the Government's Rock - it has nothing to do with that. I think the fact that you so quickly sketch this philosophy as nutjobery really says all that needs to be said about the issue.

[bluestarultor]

because rebels dont use "my stick is bigger" combat. Its why America won the revolution is from ignoring conventional battle tactics. Plans and tanks are rather ineffective against small infantry groups. Thats specifically why america's tactic for taking out tanks is two or three infantry with a missle. Also remember that in america the military IS civilian volunteers.

Reguardless this is besides the point. Even if civilians had no chance of winning in modern warfare, in 1776 the founding fathers did not know this. What they did know is that sometimes a goverment can become ruled by corrupt dicks and the only fix is to overthrow it. They knew this could be done and believed it was this was the best method. So in case it became nessicary they wrote in rights to make it easier for americans to once again rebel.

after all, 'there is nothing more american, then to decent'

Well, first off, military people cease to be civilians once they get all their fancy training and weaponry. You can also assume that people who disagree aren't going to join the military unless they're going to sabotage it somehow by spying or stuffing gum in all the gun barrels or something.

And the founding fathers not knowing how things would advance into the present was pretty much my point. Simply put, no, they HAD no way of knowing the central government would overtake the individual states and form a national military. That doesn't make their assumptions any less outdated.

See, the shitty thing about having your citizens rebelling is that they're all around you already. They don't need to invade because they're already in your home. Hell, there's a good bet that they're in your military already, which among other things means you're losing the intelligence battle right from the outset. In fact, I seem to recall an assassination attempt on the president in the last decade or so that was made by a marine or something. So numbers, while important, are less important than you might think.

Also shooting back at them is a losing proposition; if the rebellion has any kind of momentum, you'll likely drive more people to their side, and since you're both drawing supporters from the same pool, that's a problem. In the end, shooting rebels is shooting your own citizens, and the government doesn't exist without people to govern. It'd be one thing if you could effectively institute martial law, but as far as I can see, America is too big and too well armed for any military to properly occupy it, so that isn't going to work either.

The technology advantage isn't so great either. You can't exactly go deploying heavy ordinance against your own cities, so that cuts out a lot of it out. And if you DO start that kind of shit, you'll lose even more friends. There's still an advantage present, but if a strong rebellion is going, that'll likely change.

I think one of your country's forefathers specifically said that there should be a rebellion every couple decades just to keep the government from getting too complacent.

And if all your citizens are armed, they can do a lot of damage, and they become EXTREMELY difficult to suppress if shit does go down.

Edit: Basically, I think how a good rebellion went would depend largely on how much support the American government was getting from the populous. Not "eh, whatever" but actual support.

See, you're assuming right off that most people are armed, which they aren't. Gun owners are but a fraction of the population, and many casual gun owners don't have the ammo to do much damage. The real problem would be the insano gun nuts, who represent the fringe. On top of that, standard military procedure circa World War II is to either confiscate or destroy weapon caches, so even the insano gun nuts don't provide much benefit unless they distribute everything, and once the guns hit the ground, they're pretty much as good as gone.

Another thing you're assuming is that the population would swamp the government, which totally ignores fear as a factor. People living in fascist countries sure as heck don't love it to death, but fear is a powerful tool. If you scare enough people into complacency, the rebel numbers suffer, and the population does crazy things like turn each other in out of fear that they'll face harsh penalties for knowing and not doing so. It's like those people who all stand on their porches watching a rape. Everyone thinks someone else will handle it and so no one does, and you can bet if the rapist has a gun, they're all barricaded inside because the one person to get shot might just be them.

Also, if we're thinking of the same assassination attempt, or really any, it's never done by CURRENT military, just for reference. You just get a lot of disgruntled FORMER military, who don't get to keep their equipment.

Aside from that, look at how many fascist states are still around the world. Yeah, we just toppled one, but that was just one, and in my opinion a personal vendetta. There are plenty that aren't getting overthrown, and it really depends on how willing the rest of the world is to mess in America's affairs whether the rebellion gets international help. You can bet America's allies are going to side with the government unless there's a damn good indication they benefit from doing otherwise, and its enemies are all going to want to instate something beneficial to themselves, meaning a puppet government, which may or may not last as the people decide whether they like it or not. Basically, you could expect to end up with major instability, just like in Iraq currently, as all the newly freed-up opposing sides vie for power and the remnants of the old regime cause mayhem. Basically, you're looking at a tangled mess the likes of which has never been seen before and I don't think anyone really wants to be in charge of that kind of snake's nest.

Basically, you're assuming a lot of conditions which may or may not be true if the time ever comes. I'll give you that I'm sure a LOT of places will want in on puppeteering the former most powerful nation on Earth, but if it ever gets to that point, the place will be like nitroglycerin in a mule-drawn cart with square wheels, where any attempt at progress is going to involve a big carrot and a lot of care to move slowly so as not to jostle things and cause another huge explosion.

[Nique]

Generally is appears that the only difference between the supporters of each political party (of the main two anyway) is what they want to be allowed to do, and what they want to prevent other people from doing. Neither "side" is more or less guilty of this, but the amount of 'freedom' allotted for personal firearms is pretty astounding.

[Smarty McBarrelpants]

I haven't read the whole thread but I know a bit about the history so I'll just throw in on that.
Firstly we don't even know what was intended by "the right to bear arms". Some historians argue that at the time that meant exclusively that civiliains could join the military as you could only "bear arms" in the military. There is contention on this as the sources we have on it are paltry at best.
As for the intentions, considering everything else we know about the founding of the US it seems unfathomable to me that the phrase was intended to empower a citizen militia. Everything we know about the founding fathers and their political dialogues showns an intense distrust in democracy, which was heightened by the building radicalism in France when the 2nd amendment was created (1791). This is the main reason why the US constitution is at it is- it is specifically designed to be hard to change so that the people cannot change the government easily. There was a genuine and very large fear of democracy at this time..
Considering all this, it seems far more likely that the right to bear arms was intended as a defensive measure from foreign powers. There is no way they would intend for the citizens to overthrow the government, that would have been unfathomable.

[Sithdarth]

there are so many things wrong with this, 15 year old instructor, 8 year old student, with a full automatic weapon I am suprised the kid can even hold. Why did it even get to that point, why would you bring a uzi to a crowded public event.

I though we established is was completely unclear as to the fully automatic nature of the weapon. It could have been but at the same time legally it shouldn't have been and if it wasn't then it wasn't any more dangerous than any other semi-automatic gun. Of course the 15 year old and 8 year old parts of the statement are perfectly valid. In fact the statement as a whole has greater credibility is you remove the stress on the fully automatic and Uzi parts because no matter what you do it tends to sound sensationalist.

[CABAL49]

because rebels dont use "my stick is bigger" combat. Its why America won the revolution is from ignoring conventional battle tactics. Plans and tanks are rather ineffective against small infantry groups. Thats specifically why america's tactic for taking out tanks is two or three infantry with a missle. Also remember that in america the military IS civilian volunteers.

There wasn't as big of a difference between America and the British. You are also assuming that that if America becomes fascist it won't change battle tactics. We are talking about about a Darfur sized gap. Missile launchers are not exactly found in people's homes. Air strikes and tanks would be devastating to the populace. Also, having the military being made up of volunteers isn't that big of an advantage for rebels either. It didn't stop the Chinese from killing thier own people.

Not to mention most gun culture is located here in the South. We are also encompassed by military bases.

[Smarty McBarrelpants]

Also as I've mentioned before, the people who are more likely to own a gun, conservative urban to middle class, are the kind of people who historically have supported fascist governments.
No government comes out as "let's be fascist", it's always drossed up in protecting rights, protecting the nation which appeals to the conservatie mindset. Fascist governments are pretty much always supported by civilian militia (I can't think of one that wasn't) and these are predominately drawn from this base.
These aree very broad trends but they are there. Unless you can arm all facets of society all you are going to do is to arm your oppressors.

[Lady Cygnet]

I read a case similar to this, except the child in question was 13, took a gun safety course, FAILED the course, was denied a hunting permit, and the guy took his son hunting anyway (which was legal, but only if the kid was supervised by a responsible adult the ENTIRE duration of the trip, which did not happen). Anyway, the guy let his son hunt in a boat alone with his brother. Mr. Rambo wanna be was messing around with the gun, which then "slipped," and discharged, killing the brother that passed the course and got his permit. The father then tried to claim that the facility that taught the gun safety course was to blame, but that argument is just flat-out ridiculous.

As for this case, both the parents and the gun show administrators are to blame. It does not make sense to allow a 15 year old to act as an "instructor" for dangerous weaponry. I wouldn't even trust a 15-year-old to properly instruct anyone in the use of a potato peeler. I'm sorry if that offends anyone who is 15, but really, instruction of that nature needs to be handled by a seasoned adult.

ETA: Kid was actually 13. An article about the shooting is here (http://www.tcpalm.com/news/2008/nov/25/teen-fatally-shot-brother-okeechobee-hunting-accid/?feedback=1). I knew about the shooting and the father trying to blame the instructor from a post in a community about unpleasant customers.

[Aerozord]

the founding fathers didn't trust the goverment, that is why the constitution is hard to change. You forget congress is who votes on changing it, not the average American. If they didn't trust democracy it would be unwise to make a constitution that protects those in charge of it. They believed death is preferable to oppression, that is why they rebeled in the first place.

Although govermental control has increased civilians are ultimately still the military's bread and butter. Most of America's military hardware is made by civilian contractors. The military is made up of civilian volunteers. All of which is funded by taxes collected from civilians.

Even then our military is still supplemented by private military groups. About ten percent of our armed forces are mercenary, which is a decent chunk. Not saying they'd all side with the rebels but would be the smarter move then siding with those that would most likely liquidate the organization post-rebellion

[Nikose Tyris]

the founding fathers didn't trust the goverment, that is why the constitution is hard to change. You forget congress is who votes on changing it, not the average American. If they didn't trust democracy it would be unwise to make a constitution that protects those in charge of it. They believed death is preferable to oppression, that is why they rebeled in the first place.

Although govermental control has increased civilians are ultimately still the military's bread and butter. Most of America's military hardware is made by civilian contractors. The military is made up of civilian volunteers. All of which is funded by taxes collected from civilians.

Even then our military is still supplemented by private military groups. About ten percent of our armed forces are mercenary, which is a decent chunk. Not saying they'd all side with the rebels but would be the smarter move then siding with those that would most likely liquidate the organization post-rebellion

Wait wait.

I thought the founding fathers only arranged for a president so that the common folk would think of him as a king and discouraged uprisings?

[Aerozord]

if they wanted that they would have gone with their original idea of having an actual King who selected his succesor (instead of it being a royal family).

Besides thats illogical.
"Ok we just rebelled against the King, now how do we keep them from rebelling against us?"
"I know, lets put a king in charge"

why would they want to put someone in charge thats viewed as a king, when they just had an uprising against a king.

[bluestarultor]

if they wanted that they would have gone with their original idea of having an actual King who selected his succesor (instead of it being a royal family).

Besides thats illogical.
"Ok we just rebelled against the King, now how do we keep them from rebelling against us?"
"I know, lets put a king in charge"

why would they want to put someone in charge thats viewed as a king, when they just had an uprising against a king.

Actually, they tried to get the king of I believe Monaco or someplace ridiculous to take over. He refused and told them they were on their own.

On the other hand, the idea that the President was supposed to be a pseudo-king is also probably misguided, considering their diaries show that they thought the Executive Branch as a whole was going to be the weakest, with the President having next to no power. We see how that all turned out now, but they were just writing the thing from scratch with nothing to base it on, so there way no way they'd ever know what the position would turn into.

[Smarty McBarrelpants]

the founding fathers didn't trust the goverment, that is why the constitution is hard to change. You forget congress is who votes on changing it, not the average American. If they didn't trust democracy it would be unwise to make a constitution that protects those in charge of it. They believed death is preferable to oppression, that is why they rebeled in the first place.

Although govermental control has increased civilians are ultimately still the military's bread and butter. Most of America's military hardware is made by civilian contractors. The military is made up of civilian volunteers. All of which is funded by taxes collected from civilians.

Even then our military is still supplemented by private military groups. About ten percent of our armed forces are mercenary, which is a decent chunk. Not saying they'd all side with the rebels but would be the smarter move then siding with those that would most likely liquidate the organization post-rebellion

The problem with this is it ignores everything we know about the politics of the founding fathers.
While they liked the idea of democracy there was great fear of the chaos of the mob and the rise of a demagogue so that is why they limited it. They were very much inspired by the ancients in that they liked the idea of the populace ruling but they wanted something to oversee everything just in case because democracy was panned as unfeasible by many of the thinkers of the day and there was genuine fear about what would happen with no safety measures. That's what the constitution is- a giant safety measure in case the people get led by a demagogue or something. It was an experiment and they wanted to be careful.
To claim they didn't trust government is a modern spin. Such an idea didn't even exist in their mindset, it wasn't a valid political ideology at the time. There is no evidence that any of the thinkers thought like this, it hard to believe that the thought even crossed their head.

Really I'm just going to reference here because this argument relies a lot upon a whole body of historical work which I'm not able to summarise here:
The New American History by Foner
and
The American Revolution seen from the bottom up by Lemisch were my two introductions.
These books- if I remember correctly, most of my books are on the other side of the world- also address why the historical story that the founding fathers distrusted the government and loved the people was created and disseminated as truth throughout US history books right up until today. Pretty much all countries have af ounding myth used to unify people and inspire them and draw them together. This was Americas. It's no different than the English myths of progressive government and beneficial colonisation or the Roman myth of Italian hegemony.

As for the who will milita side with- both the middleclass conservative and the militia/army types are all places where fascist groups draw their support. It's happened over and over again throughout history. These groups are attracted to fascism because it gives them the power they crave, the ability to shape the world how they want it.

[Azisien]

This immediately came to mind (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8fhbJilcfI) since I saw it the other day, after reading this thread:

I think my favourite (i.e. most horrible) part aside from the actual incident is the "friend" saying "well you know bad things happen to good people!"

YEAH WHEN YOU FUCKING INSTALL CABLE WITH GUNS.

[Aerozord]

yea back on topic. I am sure people will be using this for gun control and stuff, but really what happened was caused by pure stupidity. There was so much violation of common sense it simply shouldn't have happened

[Doc T]

I know where you're coming from with this - and for the most part I agree, I don't see anything good coming from owning a firearm myself - but many people

A - believe the best way to keep rights is to exercise them, and the right to bear arms is something that's crucial to our survival as a nation in case the government decides to get facist.

B - trying, inspecting, and knowing more about firearms is a fun hobby or worthwhile, which is to say preferring understanding over fear.

C - actually physically go out to hunting grounds for the purpose of killing, eating, and collecting a deer or duck or whatnot.

And really saying that they don't deserve to do whatever the hell they want (or that they are "retarded" for doing so) is a bit out-there.

I don't think you can trust people with the power and potential for carnage and disaster guns have. Then again, my country's general cultural attitude on the matter is:

a)we'd be screwed anyway if the government 'got facist' cause they've got much bigger guns. And helicopters. And tanks. Civilians with guns are threats to reasonable people, not to the government.

b) The possible entertainment value of guns is not worth the danger they represent.

c) Only posh people go hunting, so screw them anyway.

Different worlds, really.

[MasterOfMagic]

Yeah, seems that way. Pretty much everyone hunts where I'm from. Its not limited to any specific group. Deer jerky is amazing (squirrel is god-awful). Humans are also the deer's major predator around there, they'd most likely overpopulate if no one was killing/eating them.

[Kepor]

c) Only posh people go hunting, so screw them anyway.


Dude, whaaaat? Tons of people around where I live hunt, and I ain't exactly living in the Palisades.

Humans are also the deer's major predator around there, they'd most likely overpopulate if no one was killing/eating them.

We had a deer problem a few years back, so they brought in a deer's natural predator, coyotes. Now that we have a coyote problem, guess what they brought in?

God damn mountain lions.

[bluestarultor]

Dude, whaaaat? Tons of people around where I live hunt, and I ain't exactly living in the Palisades.



We had a deer problem a few years back, so they brought in a deer's natural predator, coyotes. Now that we have a coyote problem, guess what they brought in?

God damn mountain lions.

You know, none of it would be a problem if people hadn't cleared them all out in the first place. We have the same sort of thing with wolves around here. The farmers wanted to de-list them so they could kill them all again now that we have a breeding population for the first time in a hundred years.

[Kepor]

You know, none of it would be a problem if people hadn't cleared them all out in the first place. We have the same sort of thing with wolves around here. The farmers wanted to de-list them so they could kill them all again now that we have a breeding population for the first time in a hundred years.

Well, I'm overstating things a bit for the sake of comedy. There are a bunch of deer, but aside from a few in the road, nothing too bad. Never had problems with coyotes, although you can hear them howling some nights. And while there have been some cougar sightings, I'm sure the actual number is quite low.

[Sir Pinkleton]

You know, none of it would be a problem if people hadn't cleared them all out in the first place. We have the same sort of thing with wolves around here. The farmers wanted to de-list them so they could kill them all again now that we have a breeding population for the first time in a hundred years.

Oh hey, I actually donated money to the group that was working to stop that bill from passing. Never heard about what happened, and I forgot, but it's good to hear they're not going extinct or anything.

[bluestarultor]

Oh hey, I actually donated money to the group that was working to stop that bill from passing. Never heard about what happened, and I forgot, but it's good to hear they're not going extinct or anything.

You donated money to a Wisconsin campaign? o.0

I mean, kudos if you did, but I just want to be clear we're talking about the same thing, here. IIRC, the government pretty much flipped them the bird right away on it and said the numbers weren't high enough statewide and the few concentrated areas where they were didn't count.

[Sir Pinkleton]

Apparently some green-type group, maybe even Green-peace, were going to lobby against it or something. Seems they didn't mean my money, but I don't mind the donation anyway.

[greed]

Dude, whaaaat? Tons of people around where I live hunt, and I ain't exactly living in the Palisades.

He's in England if you look at his location. And there hunting is less a common past time in the country and more inbred nobles hogging miles of forest so they can ride around on hoses blowing horns and shooting foxes. It's quite a bit more silly up there.

[The Wandering God]

How is an Uzi useful for hunting and/or self defense? (Those being the only reasons I can think of for wanting to shoot a gun.)

I honestly can not understand why people would want to own anything more than pistols or rifles for the aforementioned purposes.

[Lev]

How is an Uzi useful for hunting and/or self defense? (Those being the only reasons I can think of for wanting to shoot a gun.)

I honestly can not understand why people would want to own anything more than pistols or rifles for the aforementioned purposes.
Because under the second amendment the arguing principle is that America must form a well functioning militia to combat British invaders, but the threat could come from China eventually... self defense of one's country.

I don't agree with this principle because in the widespread scope of America, it should be obvious that as a country they aren't responsible enough to BE a well functioning militia in their downtime since they are a threat to themselves.

A GOOD example of a well functioning militia would be Finland or Switzerland, they have much lower examples of gun abuse, and an extremely high amount of gun ownership. System works.