- Joined
- Jun 26, 2013
- Messages
- 3,044
- Reaction score
- 1,500
There's no reason and no excuse for this happening.
I think, regardless of our individual views on guns and gun control, that everyone here agrees with this statement.
There's no reason and no excuse for this happening.
Kids die swimming. Kids are allowed on zip lines across canyons. Kids bungee jump and skydive and all manner of other activities, with and without adult supervision.
But I don't think it's "remove the child" irresponsible to educate a child by allowing them to experience the physical reality of something like this. .
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.
Well, they certainly succeeded there, did they not?Because the parents wanted her well aware that guns are not toys?
A way that ends with a body bag and a traumatized child, yes indeedy.Yes, there are other ways to achieve that, but this is a way as well.
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.As I mentioned before, fully automatic weapons fire is a widely different experience than single-shot.
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.So... if it had blown off his arm, then supervision would have been proper?
Of course not.
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.Thus, it's not a tautology. Accidents can happen that kill people even under proper supervision. Death only means that something fatal took place.
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.In this case, it occurred because of failure to properly supervise.
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.
It does look like automatic weapons, but not semi-automatic ones, are prohibited in Arizona (along with silencers, sawed-off shotguns, and nunchakus).
http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/13/03101.htm
To answer your second question, yes, kinda.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?
B. The items set forth in subsection A, paragraph 8, subdivision (a), items (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) of this section do not include any firearms or devices that are registered in the national firearms registry and transfer records of the United States treasury department or any firearm that has been classified as a curio or relic by the United States treasury department.
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.Politicians are more than happy to respond to problems with legislation because it's much easier to "make something illegal" than to seek out ways to actually enforce the laws that are already on the books. In a way, it's high-level slacktivism.
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.It means that social problems can't be solved and foolishness can't be cured simply by passing laws, because there will always be people who break those laws.
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.
Grenade launchers are legal for any US citizen with the coin to pay not only for the relatively-rare device, but also to purchase a punitively expensive Federal Tax Stamp. See post #61.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.
Grenade launchers are legal for any US citizen with the coin to pay not only for the relatively-rare device, but also to purchase a punitively expensive Federal Tax Stamp. See post #61.
Grenade launchers are legal for any US citizen with the coin to pay not only for the relatively-rare device, but also to purchase a punitively expensive Federal Tax Stamp. See post #61.
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.
No offense, but not this American. Not comfortable, my parents (Quaker family) never used them except for my Grandma in the Spanish Civil War, 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.
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.