8-Year-Old Killed in Uzi Accident

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.

The Gun Lobby Will Go to Any Length

On the site Mother Jones, there's a fascinating article entitled “There’s something about Mary: Unmasking a gun lobby mole,” which was published on July 30, 2008. The authors James Ridgeway, Daniel Schulman, and David Corn have put the spotlight on the "industrial espionage" that goes on between powerful lobbying groups and their antagonists, in this case the NRA and the Brady Campaign. It seems, Mary Sapone is nothing less than a bona fide undercover agent for the gun lobby.

Using her maiden name, McFate, Sapone began posing as a gun control activist in the mid-1990s. Bryan Miller, the executive director of Ceasefire New Jersey, a grassroots gun control group, recalls first meeting her in the summer of 1998. The NRA was holding its annual convention in downtown Philadelphia, and the event drew the usual bevy of protesters. Among them was a middle-aged woman then living in Pennsylvania who made a point of introducing herself to Miller. In the following years, Miller would remember this encounter well, as he watched McFate rise from a street protester to a figure known nationally within his movement.

During Sapone's ascent through the ranks of the gun control movement, she worked for the NRA, according to a business associate.

On the Brady Campaign site a challenge of sorts is proffered in an article called, "The NRA's Dirty Tricks Revealed."

Brady President Paul Helmke wrote in his blog "When the National Rifle Association asks its members for their next contribution, they might want to disclose how much of that money will be spent to spy on gun violence victims and their families."

What occurs to me is another challenge to the pro-gun folks. Let's find a way to reduce the gun violence in America to the point that the gun-control people will get off your back. Instead of encouraging the "us against them" mentality, lets work together to get the guns away from the criminals. Some of you guys are too defensive about your "right to bear arms." The moment we start talking, you think we want to take your guns away. I don't.

Can we all agree there are too many guns in the hands of criminals? From there we can discuss what's to be done.