- Joined
- Jun 26, 2013
- Messages
- 3,044
- Reaction score
- 1,500
I think, regardless of our individual views on guns and gun control, that everyone here agrees with this statement.
9-year old accidentally shoots instructor with Uzi
- Thread starter firedrake
- Start date
I think, regardless of our individual views on guns and gun control, that everyone here agrees with this statement.
Yes, but it's rather difficult to kill your instructor or anyone else doing those activities.
I disagree. If these parents exercised such poor judgement in this particular area, I sincerely doubt it's the only area in which they do and that this was a solitary lapse - this was beyond letting a kid ride a bike without a helmet or sit in the back of a pickup truck. Thankfully some kids with SFPs still go grow up to be reasonably intelligent themselves since they need to constantly compensate for their parents' idiocy.
We simultaneously teach kids that haven't even hit puberty yet how to use one of the deadliest handheld weapons ever created by mankind, and act surprised and shocked when kids and teenagers misuse these weapons and kill people.
I see no reason why a civilian would ever need to use a semi-automatic weapon, let alone a nine-year-old child. Her parents and her instructor are (were) idiots.
And what kind of shooting range has an eight-year-old minimum?!
I see no reason why a civilian would ever need to use a semi-automatic weapon, let alone a nine-year-old child. Her parents and her instructor are (were) idiots.
And what kind of shooting range has an eight-year-old minimum?!
ATVs and other similar activities carry a certain amount of potential hazard. Letting a kid fire a .22 carries a certain amount of potential danger.
Putting a machine gun in the hands of a child is an exponential increase of that danger.
Yes, it's possible for someone - anyone - to accidentally shoot another person with a hunting rifle, but that rifle isn't designed to actually kill a human being without a precision or horribly coincidental shot involved.
An uzi on the other hand is meant specifically for a human target. It's not necessary for the shooter's aim to be precise because the projectile volume coming from the barrel makes up for the lack of aim and control.
No sane or responsible person puts an automatic weapon in the hands of a child. At most, they'd do it loaded with blanks if they for some reason want the kid to get a feel for the recoil.
An automatic, by definition, will fire as long as the trigger is squeezed and there's ammo. Most people, when upset, don't release the thing they're holding, they lock down on it. When the gun continued to fire and was more than the kid bargained for, force-wise, she wouldn't have dropped it or released the trigger; her grip would have gotten tighter, making it more difficult to stop firing.
That's not even in the same neighborhood as putting a kid on an ATV, taking them zip-lining, or teaching them to shoot a single-shot hunting rifle.
Putting a machine gun in the hands of a child is an exponential increase of that danger.
Yes, it's possible for someone - anyone - to accidentally shoot another person with a hunting rifle, but that rifle isn't designed to actually kill a human being without a precision or horribly coincidental shot involved.
An uzi on the other hand is meant specifically for a human target. It's not necessary for the shooter's aim to be precise because the projectile volume coming from the barrel makes up for the lack of aim and control.
No sane or responsible person puts an automatic weapon in the hands of a child. At most, they'd do it loaded with blanks if they for some reason want the kid to get a feel for the recoil.
An automatic, by definition, will fire as long as the trigger is squeezed and there's ammo. Most people, when upset, don't release the thing they're holding, they lock down on it. When the gun continued to fire and was more than the kid bargained for, force-wise, she wouldn't have dropped it or released the trigger; her grip would have gotten tighter, making it more difficult to stop firing.
That's not even in the same neighborhood as putting a kid on an ATV, taking them zip-lining, or teaching them to shoot a single-shot hunting rifle.
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2013
- Messages
- 3,044
- Reaction score
- 1,500
For what it's worth, the weapon wasn't semi-automatic, it was automatic, which is an entirely different animal.
Quick vocabulary lesson for anyone who's interested:
Single Action: 1 Cock of the Hammer + 1 pull of the trigger = 1 shot (Often seen in Westerns. If the shooter is brushing the top of the gun with the left hand between each shot, it's a single-action)
Semi-Automatic: 1 pull of the trigger = 1 shot. (think Cop Movies)
Automatic: 1 pull of the trigger = lots of shots. (Rambo)
Most modern firearms are semi-automatic because single action is a PITA. Automatic weapons, on the other hand, are rarely used outside of combat scenarios.
I do agree, though, that the parents and instructor were idiots.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2012
- Messages
- 16,171
- Reaction score
- 3,734
There's a range in Pennsylvania where (at least this is how it operated a few years ago) the guns are just chained to a bench, several feet apart. All manner, including Uzis. You pay, they let you out onto the range. They too allow kids, teens, etc., and idiotic adults fucking around could surely just turn and shoot each other.
I doubt it's the only one.
The parents are nuts, the instructor wasn't better, gotta love the 'gun culture' that demands no regulation whatsoever, of anything, ever.*
*I'm not talking about individuals, or anyone here, but the general kickback against any gun regulation.
I doubt it's the only one.
The parents are nuts, the instructor wasn't better, gotta love the 'gun culture' that demands no regulation whatsoever, of anything, ever.*
*I'm not talking about individuals, or anyone here, but the general kickback against any gun regulation.
Well, they certainly succeeded there, did they not?
A way that ends with a body bag and a traumatized child, yes indeedy.
And it is so important for a child of 9 to know that! Because if they didn't know that, and they fired such a weapon, it might rear up and splatter the brains of the person behind them. So these parents chose an extremely effective way of teaching their child this all-important, real-world bit of physical reality. Next time they take her to the range, I'll bet she'll be a lot more careful not to accidentally slaughter her instructor. F'n brilliant.
That was my point. The second that weapon was placed into the hands of a small child, that was improper supervision because no one who cared about the child's well being or about the life or safety of anyone within firing range of that weapon would have placed it in her hands.
No, not really. When people idiotically let their kids engage with horribly dangerous items that were never meant to be handled by children, and people wind up dead as a result of that lousy decision making, "accidents can happen" doesn't excuse any of it.
I hope you're saying that "failure to properly supervise" was the putting this weapon into the hands of a 9 year old in the first place. If not, then it's a tautology.
Last edited:
Okay, that… sounds like my point is even more valid now. Why would a civilian ever need to use an automatic weapon, let alone a child?
Normally if someone like an enthusiast wants a truly automatic weapon, it's a real pain to get it. (that's not a complaint). You're talking 20K or so between the purchase price and required hoops.
The problem is that you can take (some, but I don't know if it's all) semi-auto weapons and remove the "semi" part illegally.
The problem is that you can take (some, but I don't know if it's all) semi-auto weapons and remove the "semi" part illegally.
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2011
- Messages
- 16,926
- Reaction score
- 5,297
- Location
- Near the gargoyles
- Website
- www.alessandrakelley.com
Okay, at this point what does it even mean that fully automatic weapons are "prohibited" in Arizona if anyone can hand one to a nine-year-old on a gun range?
Is there some special legal meaning of "prohibited" that I am missing here?
To answer your second question, yes, kinda.
Note item B. at the bottom of the page you linked.
Automatic weapons must be registered in the national firearms registry, which requires a hefty fee for a federal tax stamp. Thus they are not prohibited under subsection A, paragraph 8, subdivision (a), item (iii).
ETA: Basically, all the weapons listed in subsection A, paragraph 8, subdivision (a), items (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) are perfectly legal to own if you're rich enough to pay not only the price of the weapon, but also FedGov's Dane-geld. It's only poor folk that are prohibited from legally owning them.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2005
- Messages
- 16,339
- Reaction score
- 4,110
- Location
- East O' The Sun & West O' The Moon
- Website
- www.jlevitt.com
As far as gun restriction laws go, politicians have been unwilling to make any new laws whatsoever. The only changes have been in relaxing many of the few existing gun restrictions we have had -- exactly the opposite of what you are suggesting.
Not sure that applies here, as police say the range did nothing wrong, broke no laws. There may be an exception for gun ranges. I mean, they've got grenade launchers there. I'm guessing those aren't legal for citizens in AZ.
Just once I'd like to see AZ in the headlines for something good. Like "high school kid discovers cure for cancer in his lab in parents garage".
Oh well, I might win the Powerball someday too.
MM
Oh well, I might win the Powerball someday too.
MM
Because of the gun culture, Americans have a high level of comfort in the presence of guns. Your parents owned and used guns. You learned to safely use a variety of guns as a child. You now own and use guns. You teach your children how to safely use a variety of guns. And so on. The cycle of gun culture, bolstered by the constitutional right to bear arms, is monumentally difficult to break. It's hard for most Americans to imagine a life without the right to acquire, own, carry and use guns.
Like Kevin, I'm Canadian. While my country has a high per capita statistic of gun ownership, I've never had a gun, I don't have a single friend who owns a gun, and I support tight regulation around acquiring and using guns and other deadly weapons. I can scarcely imagine even having the right to bear arms. I also believe it's very hard for the majority Americans to understand the perspective of people who don't have, and don't want, the right to bear arms.
That said, this tragic accident was entirely preventable if only the people involved had exercised a modicum of common sense.
Like Kevin, I'm Canadian. While my country has a high per capita statistic of gun ownership, I've never had a gun, I don't have a single friend who owns a gun, and I support tight regulation around acquiring and using guns and other deadly weapons. I can scarcely imagine even having the right to bear arms. I also believe it's very hard for the majority Americans to understand the perspective of people who don't have, and don't want, the right to bear arms.
That said, this tragic accident was entirely preventable if only the people involved had exercised a modicum of common sense.
Going to weigh in on this.
I have a friend who is a military veteran and a gun collector.
He absolutely agrees that a 9-year-old female had no business shooting an Uzi, although it's his opinion that the recoil on them is not as bad as a lot of people think - the weapon is not as "notoriously uncontrollable" as you read on the internet.
I have a friend who is a military veteran and a gun collector.
He absolutely agrees that a 9-year-old female had no business shooting an Uzi, although it's his opinion that the recoil on them is not as bad as a lot of people think - the weapon is not as "notoriously uncontrollable" as you read on the internet.
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2011
- Messages
- 16,926
- Reaction score
- 5,297
- Location
- Near the gargoyles
- Website
- www.alessandrakelley.com
No offense, but not this American. Not comfortable, my parents (Quaker family) never used them except for my Grandma in the Spanish Civil War, my friends and their families don't own them, I never was taught to use them and I don't like being near them.
I imagine I am not atypical (apart from the Spanish Civil War thing).
Yes, we have a lot of people in the gun culture. But I am willing to bet we have more not.
Last edited:
Not offended. I tried to qualify my references by using "most" and "the majority of" Americans. I don't know whether more Americans are in or out of the gun culture but my impression was that more were in it. I'm aware I might be wrong.
Yep. Our perception of Americans--correct me if I'm wrong, Caroline--is that most of them are packing. It's a thin border a hop skip and a jump away, but it's an entirely and vastly different world on the other side. I too am aware that there are Americans who are not as gun-culture-y...but we honestly don't hear about them when the sensationalism of guns and the culture is the focus. Between media, and the loudest voice gets the ear...we hear a skewed reality.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2009
- Messages
- 6,902
- Reaction score
- 3,781
- Age
- 50
- Location
- MA
- Website
- www.rebeccaburrell.com
It's actually not most - Pew estimates it at 37% and falling. NYT puts it at 32%. The NRA begs to differ, but what data is available tends to show that the people who do own guns are buying more rather than new gun owners. For some reason I vaguely remember reading a study where it said the average gun owner now owns 8 guns, which, if true, is just boggling. But that said, I might be way off.
Last edited: