Boston.com reports on the tragic accident that resulted in the death of an 8-year-old.
As his father raised his camera, an 8-year-old boy aimed an Uzi at a pumpkin set up at a shooting event. Before his father could focus, the third-grader from Connecticut squeezed the trigger, and the high-powered weapon recoiled and fatally shot the boy in the head.
The tragic death of Christopher Bizilj has raised a furor in the gun blogging world. Bryan Miller, who you may remember was involved with the infiltrator Mary McFate, has written an article which describes the incident as "unconscionable, selfish, stupid." Not much to argue with there. But he goes on to question whether the real motivation for this "sport like any other" might not be psycho-sexual. I guess this is what gets people upset.
On the Snowflakes in Hell blog, which I like very much and often read, Sebastian says about Bryan, "He’s shown himself to be hysterical, and not interested in rational discussion." To me that doesn't seem like a fair criticism. Then Sebastian's commenters really go over the top, accusing Bryan of dancing in the blood of the little boy.
I say, it's perfectly reasonable to use a real life example to illustrate one's point. It's perfectly fair to ask questions like, what kind of sport is that? Is it really like any other, boating for example? Bryan's point seems to be that it isn't; that something's wrong with people who like guns. I can certainly understand why gun lovers would get defensive about this kind of questioning, but their anger and name-calling just obscures their answers.
Is there something to the theory that men who like to shoot guns are compensating for some kind of inadequacy in themselves? Is it so offensive to even ask the question? Isn't it possible that some gun enthusiasts are enthusiastic because of low self esteem, inordinate fear, feelings of inadequacy or paranoia? If so, how many, what percentage?
Another question arises in this case. A weapon like the Uzi seems to be outside the normal description of something needed for self defense or home protection. Or is it? Are these so-called assault weapons required for these purposes? If so, where do we draw the line? Should people be allowed surface to air missiles, hand grenades, land mines? For the very affluent gun enthusiast, the sky's the limit, I guess.
I say there should be some limits, but I honestly don't know where that line should be drawn. What do you think? What's your opinion.