Kid Shoots Himslef With Uzi At Gun Fair.

Longbow said:
Yeah, bowling and shooting, they are definitely in the same category aren't they. That's why you get all that drive-by bowling in downtown LA, because they are equally dangerous. Oh wait, no.

An adult may have been able to control the firearm in question, an 8 year old would not have. Quite frankly I question why anyone should be able to fire a weapon like that which had fairly poor support, without prior experience.
Click to expand...

a bowling ball to the head is just as dangerous as a bullet...
 
He should have started playing with guns younger so he waould have had more practice and be less liekly to make such a mistake. no son of mine.
 
Kickback on those things is ridiculous, its just pure negligence to let an 8 year old handle one. We can berate the father all we want but im sure he knows what poor judgement it was letting him near the thing now he has to live with it, very sad. :(
 
An 8 yr old with a small gun isnt too bad as long as its in a safe environment with supervision and is educational. This is just unnacceptable
 
Aleksandrs said:
I quite like the sound of that WWII package with the Thompson and the MP40.
Click to expand...

I didn't fire the Thompson but I wish I had.

I did have a go with the Colt .45 pistol which is a 100 year old design and for me it is still the best pistol I have fired.

I also fired the Beretta M92F with a 15 round magazine ( and a sneaky Lethal Weapon one up the spout to make it 16 ) and while it was a nice pistol to shoot, it was not a good to fire as the .45.
 
I'd have to say guilty there. Even a M16 or AK47 has more weight to it but UZI is nothing, no wonder it carried on firing too quick for them to help the kid stop it.
Why didnt they limit the bullets. One, two, a few is more then enough, just a lack of precaution or care while taking a profit on 'rental'

Shotgun again doesnt compare, not usually auto and often a fair weight and stock to it

 
I think the father has good grounds in this case and will most likely win the court case.

Regardless if it is right or wrong for a child to fire a weapon; the father placed his trust in the person beside his child. The person aiding the child is responsibly for his death, quite clearly. The owner of the gun fair will be dragged in to this due to poor training.

The father is a doctor and has a professional job, but it doesn't mean he knows about automatic firearms and recoil.

Is a very sad story.
 
2StepSteve said:
The father is a doctor and has a professional job, but it doesn't mean he knows about automatic firearms and recoil.
Click to expand...
It seems clear in the video footage that the child was struggling to keep control of that gun. I think the father showed incredibly poor judgement in not taking the gun away from his son there and then.

Whilst the people running the fair are partly responsible the father must shoulder some of that responsibility. Trying to imprison the organiser (I assume that imprisonment would be the outcome of a guilty verdict) seems like overkill, in my opinion.
 
Have a look on youtube. There's dozens of people getting injured with guns due to irresponsible tutors. This is just another case of irresponsibility.

They should have started him off with a single round pistol and given extra support to his arm so to get a feel of the kickback/recoil force. Giving a child a ****ing fully loaded automatic machine gun who has absolutely no idea of the potential force of kickback/recoil is an accident waiting to happen.
 
It appears to me that the range staff had little understanding of the recoil characteristics of a small sub-machine gun like the mini uzi.

All of these rapid fire weapons have tendencies to "wander" when being fired. The wooden stock uzi, the folding stock paratrooper uzi and the Carl Gustav for example have a marked tendency to fire upwards and to the left.

This effect may have been magnified by the very light weight of the mini uzi, thus rendering it even more difficult to control.

It seems to me that the child was steadying the stock of the gun over the area of his chest. This is an area of minimal control of the weapon. It should either have been held against the shoulder or clamped to the side.

All this should have been known to those operating the range.
 
jp_bl_68 said:
It seems clear in the video footage that the child was struggling to keep control of that gun. I think the father showed incredibly poor judgement in not taking the gun away from his son there and then.

Whilst the people running the fair are partly responsible the father must shoulder some of that responsibility. Trying to imprison the organiser (I assume that imprisonment would be the outcome of a guilty verdict) seems like overkill, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

I disagree.

The father saw his first kid shoot the Uzi and didn't think much of it, there was slight recoil but nothing to show that the gun was out of control.

The father probably knows nothing about guns and entrusted the range staff to keep his child safe. Why give an Uzi to a child and why load it with so many rounds?

Inexperienced range staff member is to blame, he shouldn't of given a Uzi to any of the fathers kids.
 
Last edited:
2StepSteve said:
Inexperienced range staff member is to blame, he shouldn't of given a Uzi to any of the fathers kids.
Click to expand...
What was the father doing allowing his son to use any firearm, let alone a fully automatic weapon?

You don't need to know anything about guns to realise that they are incredibly dangerous in the wrong hands. Ultimately, it was the father's decision to let that boy use the gun. He could have stopped this.
 
jp_bl_68 said:
What was the father doing allowing his son to use any firearm, let alone a fully automatic weapon?

You don't need to know anything about guns to realise that they are incredibly dangerous in the wrong hands. Ultimately, it was the father's decision to let that boy use the gun. He could have stopped this.
Click to expand...

The supervisor could have stopped it also , more so as they are the one should know the exact dangers amd the one all the parents place their trust in.

Lots of parents allow their children to take part in dangerous activities with the potential for serious injury, imo they do so as they trust that the risk is greatly reduced because they expect the staff to be trained, experienced and know exactly what they're doing.

The father made a poor decision allowing his child anywhere near such a weapon and it's not something I'd let a child do but the ultimate decision is with the supervisor imo, who the parents (not just the ones of the dead child) place their trust in, he should be adequately trained and knowledable to foresee such a risk and say no or be suffieciently trained to avoid the situation becoming deadly.

bad judgement all round
 
Last edited:
You want to know what really sent me sick-

The fact a company has paid to advertise on the video. Diamonds...for special occasions.

Sums it up really.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom