9-year-old girl accidentally kills instructor with uzi (1 Viewer)

[Otis]

It isn't really the age per se that is the problem. I started handling guns when I was about that age. But I got a 410/.22 over/under to start with. Single shot, light and easy to handle. I was only allowed to shoot it when adult supervision was available. And we were always taught to only shoot down range. Never point it at anyone, always know what you are shooting at, always assume it's loaded. So kids can handle guns if properly instructed and given reasonable things to start with. I would never give a child of 9 a weapon that easy to lose control of.

Or maybe we can just refrain from giving a child of 9 any weapons at all?

I know, I know. That's crazy.

I get that you don't understand the social underpinnings but kids are going hunting with fathers at that age. The reality is those kids generally grow up to be responsible gun owners who never harm anyone or themselves. And pass on that tradition to their own kids. You would much rather have those kids who grew up knowing what a gun does and how dangerous it is than a lot of these gunfondlers we have today who learned everything they know from TV and COD. Those of us that grew up handling guns are just as pissed off when some jackass let's a kid get a gun and hurt themselves or others as you are. Or when these open carry dooshes are prancing around. Many of us gave up on the NRA a long time ago when they became an industry cheerleader and not a responsible part of the dialogue. But that doesn't mean that something that doesn't work for you doesn't have a place.

You're wrong. This isn't about your "social underpinnings." It's about children and deadly weapons. It's a ridiculous debate.

 

[Otis]

Serious question, Otis: if the 2nd Amendment didn't exist and if you were in charge of all gun laws, what would you impose?

At a minimum? Let's use logic and reason for 3 minutes here, it shouldn't be that hard.

1. New law: Children can't play with firearms. There's little upside to a nine-year old human being firing deadly weapons. The downside is pretty obvious.
2. Another new law: let's ban people-killing machines. Crazy right? Well hold on a minute. Billy Bob wants to go buck hunting with his 15-year-old son on the weekend? Cool. Things like hunting rifles are fair game, and they have a legitimate design purpose beyond killing people, and they don't seem to come up all that often in these mass murders or tragic kid accidents. There's your "social underpinnings." You guys can still sit around the campfire with your tobaccer and wax poetic about your old hunting days with Pa. But then we don't have kids with assault rifles and uzis--weapons that are designed specifically for the efficient mass killing of other human beings--either barging into high schools and taking out half their Earth Science class, or shooting themselves at gun shows. No, that doesn't mean this is going to become Nazi Germany overnight. But it does mean that we're going to make a decision and enact a policy that values human life and the prevention of tragedy over nostalgia.

There would be my first day in Office. Pretty sure I could actually knock that out in the morning, and then kick off early for happy hour.

This really isn't that hard. But people will piss and moan about the above, for one reason or another.

 

[Otis]

By the way, if this will advance my ticket in any way, here's what I'd do on days 2 and 3 of my term (before knocking off for a 4-day weekend):

Day 2: Outlaw the breeding of pitbulls and similar breeds. I'd get some sciency and statistics guys to come in and show me which are the most deadly breeds. Little Gunther can still get a puppy for Christmas. He can even get a BIG puppy for Christmas, like a Black Lab or a St. Bernard. But let's stop the proliferation of violent, powerful animals that have time and again been at the center of tragedy.

Day 3: Legalize marijuana nationwide. Seriously, it's go time.

 

[the hairy scotsman]

Serious question, Otis: if the 2nd Amendment didn't exist and if you were in charge of all gun laws, what would you impose?

At a minimum? Let's use logic and reason for 3 minutes here, it shouldn't be that hard.

1. New law: Children can't play with firearms. There's little upside to a nine-year old human being firing deadly weapons. The downside is pretty obvious.
2. Another new law: let's ban people-killing machines. Crazy right? Well hold on a minute. Billy Bob wants to go buck hunting with his 15-year-old son on the weekend? Cool. Things like hunting rifles are fair game, and they have a legitimate design purpose beyond killing people, and they don't seem to come up all that often in these mass murders or tragic kid accidents. There's your "social underpinnings." You guys can still sit around the campfire with your tobaccer and wax poetic about your old hunting days with Pa. But then we don't have kids with assault rifles and uzis--weapons that are designed specifically for the efficient mass killing of other human beings--either barging into high schools and taking out half their Earth Science class, or shooting themselves at gun shows. No, that doesn't mean this is going to become Nazi Germany overnight. But it does mean that we're going to make a decision and enact a policy that values human life and the prevention of tragedy over nostalgia.

There would be my first day in Office. Pretty sure I could actually knock that out in the morning, and then kick off early for happy hour.

This really isn't that hard. But people will piss and moan about the above, for one reason or another.

It doesn't matter what you ban. People with hate in their hearts will find ways to kill as many folks as they want to.

It's sad, but that's just the way it is.

 

[Limp Ditka]

Wasn't there a story a few years ago about a young kid shooting himself with an uzi at an "outdoor show/try a gun on our safe range" type thing?

Probably. But but but.... SECOND AMENDMENT.

You're kinda coming off like an idiot here. I don't think anyone would advocate letting a 9yo girl shoot a fully automatic weapon. Father's an idiot. Instructor is a bigger idiot for allowing it... and for not having the gun stabilized.... and for standing where he did.

Sack full of stupid in that scenario.

Speaking of sack full of stupid.

'I don't think anyone would advocate..... '

But in your next sentence, here are two people that did

 

[pantagrapher]

Serious question, Otis: if the 2nd Amendment didn't exist and if you were in charge of all gun laws, what would you impose?

At a minimum? Let's use logic and reason for 3 minutes here, it shouldn't be that hard.

1. New law: Children can't play with firearms. There's little upside to a nine-year old human being firing deadly weapons. The downside is pretty obvious.
2. Another new law: let's ban people-killing machines. Crazy right? Well hold on a minute. Billy Bob wants to go buck hunting with his 15-year-old son on the weekend? Cool. Things like hunting rifles are fair game, and they have a legitimate design purpose beyond killing people, and they don't seem to come up all that often in these mass murders or tragic kid accidents. There's your "social underpinnings." You guys can still sit around the campfire with your tobaccer and wax poetic about your old hunting days with Pa. But then we don't have kids with assault rifles and uzis--weapons that are designed specifically for the efficient mass killing of other human beings--either barging into high schools and taking out half their Earth Science class, or shooting themselves at gun shows. No, that doesn't mean this is going to become Nazi Germany overnight. But it does mean that we're going to make a decision and enact a policy that values human life and the prevention of tragedy over nostalgia.

There would be my first day in Office. Pretty sure I could actually knock that out in the morning, and then kick off early for happy hour.

This really isn't that hard. But people will piss and moan about the above, for one reason or another.

It doesn't matter what you ban. People with hate in their hearts will find ways to kill as many folks as they want to.

It's sad, but that's just the way it is.

Then let them kill each other with steak knives and swimming pools. I suspect the murder rate will plummet.

 

[Limp Ditka]

By the way, if this will advance my ticket in any way, here's what I'd do on days 2 and 3 of my term (before knocking off for a 4-day weekend):

Day 2: Outlaw the breeding of pitbulls and similar breeds. I'd get some sciency and statistics guys to come in and show me which are the most deadly breeds. Little Gunther can still get a puppy for Christmas. He can even get a BIG puppy for Christmas, like a Black Lab or a St. Bernard. But let's stop the proliferation of violent, powerful animals that have time and again been at the center of tragedy.

Day 3: Legalize marijuana nationwide. Seriously, it's go time.

Thanks, Otisbama

 

[the hairy scotsman]

Serious question, Otis: if the 2nd Amendment didn't exist and if you were in charge of all gun laws, what would you impose?

At a minimum? Let's use logic and reason for 3 minutes here, it shouldn't be that hard.

1. New law: Children can't play with firearms. There's little upside to a nine-year old human being firing deadly weapons. The downside is pretty obvious.
2. Another new law: let's ban people-killing machines. Crazy right? Well hold on a minute. Billy Bob wants to go buck hunting with his 15-year-old son on the weekend? Cool. Things like hunting rifles are fair game, and they have a legitimate design purpose beyond killing people, and they don't seem to come up all that often in these mass murders or tragic kid accidents. There's your "social underpinnings." You guys can still sit around the campfire with your tobaccer and wax poetic about your old hunting days with Pa. But then we don't have kids with assault rifles and uzis--weapons that are designed specifically for the efficient mass killing of other human beings--either barging into high schools and taking out half their Earth Science class, or shooting themselves at gun shows. No, that doesn't mean this is going to become Nazi Germany overnight. But it does mean that we're going to make a decision and enact a policy that values human life and the prevention of tragedy over nostalgia.

There would be my first day in Office. Pretty sure I could actually knock that out in the morning, and then kick off early for happy hour.

This really isn't that hard. But people will piss and moan about the above, for one reason or another.

It doesn't matter what you ban. People with hate in their hearts will find ways to kill as many folks as they want to.

It's sad, but that's just the way it is.

Then let them kill each other with steak knives and swimming pools. I suspect the murder rate will plummet.

I doubt it would affect the murder rate in the least.

 

[BigJohn]

Wasn't there a story a few years ago about a young kid shooting himself with an uzi at an "outdoor show/try a gun on our safe range" type thing?

Probably. But but but.... SECOND AMENDMENT.

You're kinda coming off like an idiot here. I don't think anyone would advocate letting a 9yo girl shoot a fully automatic weapon. Father's an idiot. Instructor is a bigger idiot for allowing it... and for not having the gun stabilized.... and for standing where he did.

Sack full of stupid in that scenario.

Well not as big of an idiot as all the people that go to that range and let kids shoot UZIs. And it's not like this is an isolated incident, so yeah, people are advocating letting 9 year olds shoot UZIs.

Okay... let's tier the stupid then:

Adults letting kids shoot UZI's

Otis acting like any sensible folks advocate this via all caps and exclamation points.

Fringe gun rights lunatics

Fringe anti-gun lunatics

Abolish all Guns crowd

Responsible firearms owners

Not sure why you're bringing me into this. The amount of stupid I've seen in this forum recently has been a sobering reminder of just

how incredibly dumb the gen pop out there really is. If you think nobody finds this behavior acceptable, you must not have read the story where the parents of a nine year old girl let her shoot an uzi and she killed someone. Or the parents of the kid just a few years earlier accidentally killed himself with an uzi at a gun show.

So, yeah, I disagree. I think there are plenty of morons out there who find this level of risk, and this level of risk in similar activities, completely acceptable.

Speaking of which, whatdya say we get a dozen really sweet and loving pitbulls and let them loose in the daycare today. Honestly, these animals are soooooo sweet with my nephew, they'd never hurt a fly. What could go wrong?

Nobody is disagreeing with you that there are definitely idiots that will do stupid ####. YOU ARE RIGHT. The problem that a lot of people have is your ###holeish practice of lumping all the 'gun-loving hillbillies' into one group as if we are all jealous that this kid got to shoot an uzi and ours did not.

 

[pantagrapher]

Serious question, Otis: if the 2nd Amendment didn't exist and if you were in charge of all gun laws, what would you impose?

At a minimum? Let's use logic and reason for 3 minutes here, it shouldn't be that hard.

1. New law: Children can't play with firearms. There's little upside to a nine-year old human being firing deadly weapons. The downside is pretty obvious.
2. Another new law: let's ban people-killing machines. Crazy right? Well hold on a minute. Billy Bob wants to go buck hunting with his 15-year-old son on the weekend? Cool. Things like hunting rifles are fair game, and they have a legitimate design purpose beyond killing people, and they don't seem to come up all that often in these mass murders or tragic kid accidents. There's your "social underpinnings." You guys can still sit around the campfire with your tobaccer and wax poetic about your old hunting days with Pa. But then we don't have kids with assault rifles and uzis--weapons that are designed specifically for the efficient mass killing of other human beings--either barging into high schools and taking out half their Earth Science class, or shooting themselves at gun shows. No, that doesn't mean this is going to become Nazi Germany overnight. But it does mean that we're going to make a decision and enact a policy that values human life and the prevention of tragedy over nostalgia.

There would be my first day in Office. Pretty sure I could actually knock that out in the morning, and then kick off early for happy hour.

This really isn't that hard. But people will piss and moan about the above, for one reason or another.

It doesn't matter what you ban. People with hate in their hearts will find ways to kill as many folks as they want to.

It's sad, but that's just the way it is.

Then let them kill each other with steak knives and swimming pools. I suspect the murder rate will plummet.

I doubt it would affect the murder rate in the least.

Yeah, well. Enjoy the rest of your time in Fantasy Land.

 

[BigJohn]

Serious question, Otis: if the 2nd Amendment didn't exist and if you were in charge of all gun laws, what would you impose?

At a minimum? Let's use logic and reason for 3 minutes here, it shouldn't be that hard.

1. New law: Children can't play with firearms. There's little upside to a nine-year old human being firing deadly weapons. The downside is pretty obvious.
2. Another new law: let's ban people-killing machines. Crazy right? Well hold on a minute. Billy Bob wants to go buck hunting with his 15-year-old son on the weekend? Cool. Things like hunting rifles are fair game, and they have a legitimate design purpose beyond killing people, and they don't seem to come up all that often in these mass murders or tragic kid accidents. There's your "social underpinnings." You guys can still sit around the campfire with your tobaccer and wax poetic about your old hunting days with Pa. But then we don't have kids with assault rifles and uzis--weapons that are designed specifically for the efficient mass killing of other human beings--either barging into high schools and taking out half their Earth Science class, or shooting themselves at gun shows. No, that doesn't mean this is going to become Nazi Germany overnight. But it does mean that we're going to make a decision and enact a policy that values human life and the prevention of tragedy over nostalgia.

There would be my first day in Office. Pretty sure I could actually knock that out in the morning, and then kick off early for happy hour.

This really isn't that hard. But people will piss and moan about the above, for one reason or another.

Agree for the most part. Next question. How would you go about implementing these restrictions? This applies more to #2.

 

[Tom Skerritt]

I don't understand the point of having a 9yo girl fire an Uzi. Do the parents think that it will make her popular with her friends? Just to say that she did it? I cannot come up with a single good reason.

Parents should be charged with child endangerment, recklessness, and/or negligence IMO.

 

[Fat Nick]

Serious question, Otis: if the 2nd Amendment didn't exist and if you were in charge of all gun laws, what would you impose?

At a minimum? Let's use logic and reason for 3 minutes here, it shouldn't be that hard.

1. New law: Children can't play with firearms. There's little upside to a nine-year old human being firing deadly weapons. The downside is pretty obvious.
2. Another new law: let's ban people-killing machines. Crazy right? Well hold on a minute. Billy Bob wants to go buck hunting with his 15-year-old son on the weekend? Cool. Things like hunting rifles are fair game, and they have a legitimate design purpose beyond killing people, and they don't seem to come up all that often in these mass murders or tragic kid accidents. There's your "social underpinnings." You guys can still sit around the campfire with your tobaccer and wax poetic about your old hunting days with Pa. But then we don't have kids with assault rifles and uzis--weapons that are designed specifically for the efficient mass killing of other human beings--either barging into high schools and taking out half their Earth Science class, or shooting themselves at gun shows. No, that doesn't mean this is going to become Nazi Germany overnight. But it does mean that we're going to make a decision and enact a policy that values human life and the prevention of tragedy over nostalgia.

There would be my first day in Office. Pretty sure I could actually knock that out in the morning, and then kick off early for happy hour.

This really isn't that hard. But people will piss and moan about the above, for one reason or another.

My basic stance is that I'm 100% for gun control idealistically. The problem I have is that nobody has ever addressed how they plan to deal with all the guns that are already in the hands of the public...how do people propose to get rid of all the firearms that are already out there? So you ban Assault Rifles. Does that mean every criminal with one will just go hand them in?

I have yet to see a plan for this that I think would work. The reason gun control works in a lot of other countries is that folks never built up a stockpile of personal arms in the first place.

Then let them kill each other with steak knives and swimming pools. I suspect the murder rate will plummet.

I doubt it would affect the murder rate in the least.

Yeah, well. Enjoy the rest of your time in Fantasy Land.

I tend to agree with ths here...mainly because of my first point. The folks doing the murdering aren't just going to go hand in their guns. If you could idealistically get rid of all guns, it'd be great and you'd see results, but we're too far gone at this point.

 

[Zow]

I don't understand the point of having a 9yo girl fire an Uzi. Do the parents think that it will make her popular with her friends? Just to say that she did it? I cannot come up with a single good

reason.

Parents should be charged with child

endangerment, recklessness, and/or negligence

IMO.

Undoubtedly shooting an Uzi would be fun at any age. So I can see the parents thought process which was to let his daughter have fun. That doesn't mean it isn't a terrible idea.

 

[the hairy scotsman]

Serious question, Otis: if the 2nd Amendment didn't exist and if you were in charge of all gun laws, what would you impose?

At a minimum? Let's use logic and reason for 3 minutes here, it shouldn't be that hard.

1. New law: Children can't play with firearms. There's little upside to a nine-year old human being firing deadly weapons. The downside is pretty obvious.
2. Another new law: let's ban people-killing machines. Crazy right? Well hold on a minute. Billy Bob wants to go buck hunting with his 15-year-old son on the weekend? Cool. Things like hunting rifles are fair game, and they have a legitimate design purpose beyond killing people, and they don't seem to come up all that often in these mass murders or tragic kid accidents. There's your "social underpinnings." You guys can still sit around the campfire with your tobaccer and wax poetic about your old hunting days with Pa. But then we don't have kids with assault rifles and uzis--weapons that are designed specifically for the efficient mass killing of other human beings--either barging into high schools and taking out half their Earth Science class, or shooting themselves at gun shows. No, that doesn't mean this is going to become Nazi Germany overnight. But it does mean that we're going to make a decision and enact a policy that values human life and the prevention of tragedy over nostalgia.

There would be my first day in Office. Pretty sure I could actually knock that out in the morning, and then kick off early for happy hour.

This really isn't that hard. But people will piss and moan about the above, for one reason or another.

It doesn't matter what you ban. People with hate in their hearts will find ways to kill as many folks as they want to.

It's sad, but that's just the way it is.

Then let them kill each other with steak knives and swimming pools. I suspect the murder rate will plummet.

I doubt it would affect the murder rate in the least.

Yeah, well. Enjoy the rest of your time in Fantasy Land.

You too buddy.

 

[Fat Nick]

I don't understand the point of having a 9yo girl fire an Uzi. Do the parents think that it will make her popular with her friends? Just to say that she did it? I cannot come up with a single good reason.

Parents should be charged with child endangerment, recklessness, and/or negligence IMO.

Not justifying it, because I think it's completely ludicrous myself...but it was probably just for the fun of it. No different than risks taken bungee jumping, skydiving, etc. "Look what I did that we don't do every day and is a little dangerous." It's not really abnormal behavior other than the fact that it's a 9 year-old.

 

[Tom Skerritt]

I don't understand the point of having a 9yo girl fire an Uzi. Do the parents think that it will make her popular with her friends? Just to say that she did it? I cannot come up with a single good

reason.

Parents should be charged with child endangerment, recklessness, and/or negligence

IMO.

Undoubtedly shooting an Uzi would be fun at any age. So I can see the parents thought pr

Are you ####### serious?

 

[BigJohn]

I don't understand the point of having a 9yo girl fire an Uzi. Do the parents think that it will make her popular with her friends? Just to say that she did it? I cannot come up with a single good

reason.

Parents should be charged with child endangerment, recklessness, and/or negligence

IMO.

Undoubtedly shooting an Uzi would be fun at any age. So I can see the parents thought pr

Are you ####### serious?

He's not agreeing with them, genius.

 

[Zow]

Yes, Clark. Just like I can understand the thought processes of people who cheat, ingest meth, and cliff dive. It's fun in the moment.

All are still pretty awful ideas.

 

[Guest]

I don't understand the point of having a 9yo girl fire an Uzi. Do the parents think that it will make her popular with her friends? Just to say that she did it? I cannot come up with a single good reason.

Parents should be charged with child endangerment, recklessness, and/or negligence IMO.

I'm sure the whole point of filming it was to post it on Facebook or something. Great idea.

 

[NCCommish]

Serious question, Otis: if the 2nd Amendment didn't exist and if you were in charge of all gun laws, what would you impose?

At a minimum? Let's use logic and reason for 3 minutes here, it shouldn't be that hard.

1. New law: Children can't play with firearms. There's little upside to a nine-year old human being firing deadly weapons. The downside is pretty obvious.
2. Another new law: let's ban people-killing machines. Crazy right? Well hold on a minute. Billy Bob wants to go buck hunting with his 15-year-old son on the weekend? Cool. Things like hunting rifles are fair game, and they have a legitimate design purpose beyond killing people, and they don't seem to come up all that often in these mass murders or tragic kid accidents. There's your "social underpinnings." You guys can still sit around the campfire with your tobaccer and wax poetic about your old hunting days with Pa. But then we don't have kids with assault rifles and uzis--weapons that are designed specifically for the efficient mass killing of other human beings--either barging into high schools and taking out half their Earth Science class, or shooting themselves at gun shows. No, that doesn't mean this is going to become Nazi Germany overnight. But it does mean that we're going to make a decision and enact a policy that values human life and the prevention of tragedy over nostalgia.

There would be my first day in Office. Pretty sure I could actually knock that out in the morning, and then kick off early for happy hour.

This really isn't that hard. But people will piss and moan about the above, for one reason or another.

See here's your problem. You bring all this stupid hate of people you have never been around to it. I don't know anyone who goes hunting with anything other than a hunting rifle or shotgun. I don't know anyone who would say a 9 yr old should be handling an Uzi. Even those tobaccer spitting people you so badly want to denigrate. It isn't your traditional hunters and their children that are problem. It's people who don't have that tradition or understanding of guns. A gun is a tool. I would let a 9 year old child use a hammer. I wouldn't let them use a compressor driven nail gun.

 

[Zow]

A gun is a tool... If the job requires killing.

 

[timschochet]

Still amazed that someone compared this to cheerleading.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

I don't understand the point of having a 9yo girl fire an Uzi. Do the parents think that it will make her popular with her friends? Just to say that she did it? I cannot come up with a single good reason.

Parents should be charged with child endangerment, recklessness, and/or negligence IMO.

Not justifying it, because I think it's completely ludicrous myself...but it was probably just for the fun of it. No different than risks taken bungee jumping, skydiving, etc. "Look what I did that we don't do every day and is a little dangerous." It's not really abnormal behavior other than the fact that it's a 9 year-old.

It is certainly different in that a 9 year old girl is not likely to be physically capable of controlling an Uzi. I wouldn't send a kid skydiving if I didn't think she could pull the cord.

 

[Tom Skerritt]

I don't understand the point of having a 9yo girl fire an Uzi. Do the parents think that it will make her popular with her friends? Just to say that she did it? I cannot come up with a single good reason.

Parents should be charged with child endangerment, recklessness, and/or negligence IMO.

Not justifying it, because I think it's completely ludicrous myself...but it was probably just for the fun of it. No different than risks taken bungee jumping, skydiving, etc. "Look what I did that we don't do every day and is a little dangerous." It's not really abnormal behavior other than the fact that it's a 9 year-old.

I get that it is a rush to shoot guns. But that does not remove the fact that they are designed to kill.

I took my kids cliff jumping a few weeks ago. A similar rush. Nothing ridiculous... 10-20 (though probably 15 at most) feet above the water. Is that a risk? Absolutely. Accidents happen. And I would take responsibility for anything happening to my kids. But cautious cliff jumping is not designed to kill the participants. Accidents are much less likely to be fatal.

There were spots where more experienced people jumped from 50ft and higher. In fact, speaking of not being able to fix stupid hillbilly pitbull-owning parents... there was a 6yo kid who was allowed to jump from this high. Nearly gave me a heart attack watching this kid be up that high. He almost fell at one point as he wobbled. No way in hell I would let my kids go up that high. It's just not worth the risk to me.

 

[drummer]

Still amazed that someone compared this to cheerleading.

It's closer to the reach than any of your takes.

 

[Fat Nick]

I don't understand the point of having a 9yo girl fire an Uzi. Do the parents think that it will make her popular with her friends? Just to say that she did it? I cannot come up with a single good reason.

Parents should be charged with child endangerment, recklessness, and/or negligence IMO.

Not justifying it, because I think it's completely ludicrous myself...but it was probably just for the fun of it. No different than risks taken bungee jumping, skydiving, etc. "Look what I did that we don't do every day and is a little dangerous." It's not really abnormal behavior other than the fact that it's a 9 year-old.

It is certainly different in that a 9 year old girl is not likely to be physically capable of controlling an Uzi. I wouldn't send a kid skydiving if I didn't think she could pull the cord.

You don't go skydiving solo the first time...there's an instructor there with you...just like there was here. Again, I'm not trying to justify doing it...just saying that there are a lot of things NON-gun related that aren't that different.

 

[Fat Nick]

I don't understand the point of having a 9yo girl fire an Uzi. Do the parents think that it will make her popular with her friends? Just to say that she did it? I cannot come up with a single good reason.

Parents should be charged with child endangerment, recklessness, and/or negligence IMO.

Not justifying it, because I think it's completely ludicrous myself...but it was probably just for the fun of it. No different than risks taken bungee jumping, skydiving, etc. "Look what I did that we don't do every day and is a little dangerous." It's not really abnormal behavior other than the fact that it's a 9 year-old.

I get that it is a rush to shoot guns. But that does not remove the fact that they are designed to kill.

I took my kids cliff jumping a few weeks ago. A similar rush. Nothing ridiculous... 10-20 (though probably 15 at most) feet above the water. Is that a risk? Absolutely. Accidents happen. And I would take responsibility for anything happening to my kids. But cautious cliff jumping is not designed to kill the participants. Accidents are much less likely to be fatal.

There were spots where more experienced people jumped from 50ft and higher. In fact, speaking of not being able to fix stupid hillbilly pitbull-owning parents... there was a 6yo kid who was allowed to jump from this high. Nearly gave me a heart attack watching this kid be up that high. He almost fell at one point as he wobbled. No way in hell I would let my kids go up that high. It's just not worth the risk to me.

Neither is cautious gun shooting. There is shooting a gun for the sake of target shooting, and there is shooting with the intent to kill...the only thing is, target shooting can be deadly with the wrong combination of circumstances. In this case, a neglignet instructor and a 9-year old child...I don't see how this is any different than cliff diving. It's not meant to be fatal, but it could very easily have been. Falling or jumping from any height isn't a joke, but in the company of trained professionals, it shouldn't be deadly.

 

[NCCommish]

I don't understand the point of having a 9yo girl fire an Uzi. Do the parents think that it will make her popular with her friends? Just to say that she did it? I cannot come up with a single good reason.

Parents should be charged with child endangerment, recklessness, and/or negligence IMO.

Not justifying it, because I think it's completely ludicrous myself...but it was probably just for the fun of it. No different than risks taken bungee jumping, skydiving, etc. "Look what I did that we don't do every day and is a little dangerous." It's not really abnormal behavior other than the fact that it's a 9 year-old.

It is certainly different in that a 9 year old girl is not likely to be physically capable of controlling an Uzi. I wouldn't send a kid skydiving if I didn't think she could pull the cord.

When he clicked the Uzi over to full auto he earned his Darwin award. I wouldn't do that with an inexperienced adult much less a 9 year old. That gun is small and hard to control on full auto. You are going to get a lot of muzzle movement. I would agree with Oats that children should never be allowed to use a gun on full auto as would most everyone I know.

 

[Tom Skerritt]

I don't understand the point of having a 9yo girl fire an Uzi. Do the parents think that it will make her popular with her friends? Just to say that she did it? I cannot come up with a single good reason.

Parents should be charged with child endangerment, recklessness, and/or negligence IMO.

Not justifying it, because I think it's completely ludicrous myself...but it was probably just for the fun of it. No different than risks taken bungee jumping, skydiving, etc. "Look what I did that we don't do every day and is a little dangerous." It's not really abnormal behavior other than the fact that it's a 9 year-old.

I get that it is a rush to shoot guns. But that does not remove the fact that they are designed to kill.

I took my kids cliff jumping a few weeks ago. A similar rush. Nothing ridiculous... 10-20 (though probably 15 at most) feet above the water. Is that a risk? Absolutely. Accidents happen. And I would take responsibility for anything happening to my kids. But cautious cliff jumping is not designed to kill the participants. Accidents are much less likely to be fatal.

There were spots where more experienced people jumped from 50ft and higher. In fact, speaking of not being able to fix stupid hillbilly pitbull-owning parents... there was a 6yo kid who was allowed to jump from this high. Nearly gave me a heart attack watching this kid be up that high. He almost fell at one point as he wobbled. No way in hell I would let my kids go up that high. It's just not worth the risk to me.

Neither is cautious gun shooting. There is shooting a gun for the sake of target shooting, and there is shooting with the intent to kill...the only thing is, target shooting can be deadly with the wrong combination of circumstances. In this case, a neglignet instructor and a 9-year old child...I don't see how this is any different than cliff diving. It's not meant to be fatal, but it could very easily have been. Falling or jumping from any height isn't a joke, but in the company of trained professionals, it shouldn't be deadly.

There is nothing cautious about a 9yo girl shooting an Uzi. Sorry. It is just inarguable. It would be like putting her behind the wheel of a car with a driving instructor riding shotgun. It's just stupid.

 

[lod01]

Jesus

I don't care what any of you gun-loving hillbillies say, if you're putting an uzi in your NINE YEAR OLD DAUGHTER's hands, you're the dumbest ####### on the planet.

Instructor dead, and this poor girl will be a complete mess because the people who are supposed to take care of her in life allowed her to be put in this position.

Between crap like this and the pitbull thread, I just can't understand why people take such stupid, needless risks. So, so, so stupid.

But Otis, you're a liberal northern city wuss, you don't understand that it's part of our CULTURE

:facepalm:

She may not be a complete mess. if she grows up like her parents, she's already got major issues.

Gonna give my daughter a nuke for her birthday.

 

[TheIronSheik]

Gonna give my daughter a nuke for her birthday.

If you need any Tomahawk missiles, let me know. I know a guy who can get them cheap.

 

[lod01]

Its just natural selection of gun instructors. A good one would not have been shot.

A good one would have told the parents that they have totally lost their minds. He'd still be alive.

 

[lod01]

Gonna give my daughter a nuke for her birthday.

If you need any Tomahawk missiles, let me know. I know a guy who can get them cheap.

Not a bad secondary present in case some victims survive the nuke.

 

[Fat Nick]

I don't understand the point of having a 9yo girl fire an Uzi. Do the parents think that it will make her popular with her friends? Just to say that she did it? I cannot come up with a single good reason.

Parents should be charged with child endangerment, recklessness, and/or negligence IMO.

Not justifying it, because I think it's completely ludicrous myself...but it was probably just for the fun of it. No different than risks taken bungee jumping, skydiving, etc. "Look what I did that we don't do every day and is a little dangerous." It's not really abnormal behavior other than the fact that it's a 9 year-old.

I get that it is a rush to shoot guns. But that does not remove the fact that they are designed to kill.

I took my kids cliff jumping a few weeks ago. A similar rush. Nothing ridiculous... 10-20 (though probably 15 at most) feet above the water. Is that a risk? Absolutely. Accidents happen. And I would take responsibility for anything happening to my kids. But cautious cliff jumping is not designed to kill the participants. Accidents are much less likely to be fatal.

There were spots where more experienced people jumped from 50ft and higher. In fact, speaking of not being able to fix stupid hillbilly pitbull-owning parents... there was a 6yo kid who was allowed to jump from this high. Nearly gave me a heart attack watching this kid be up that high. He almost fell at one point as he wobbled. No way in hell I would let my kids go up that high. It's just not worth the risk to me.

Neither is cautious gun shooting. There is shooting a gun for the sake of target shooting, and there is shooting with the intent to kill...the only thing is, target shooting can be deadly with the wrong combination of circumstances. In this case, a neglignet instructor and a 9-year old child...I don't see how this is any different than cliff diving. It's not meant to be fatal, but it could very easily have been. Falling or jumping from any height isn't a joke, but in the company of trained professionals, it shouldn't be deadly.

There is nothing cautious about a 9yo girl shooting an Uzi. Sorry. It is just inarguable. It would be like putting her behind the wheel of a car with a driving instructor riding shotgun. It's just stupid.

I'm not saying it is, and never have...but are you saying that a similar aged kid jumping off a cliff IS cautious?

My point isn't that I agree with this situation. It's that there are lots of situations like this that happen every day that DON'T involve guns, but are just as risky, and just as stupid.

 

[Sammy3469]

I take it this is a "responsible" gun instructor/range.

Jeff Frichette, director of training for The Range 702 in Las Vegas, said the incident in Arizona would never occur at his business. He credited this to how continuously shooting range’s safety officers are trained.

“Hypothetically” a 9-year-old would be able to shoot a fully-automatic weapon, but it’s a discretionary decision, he said.

That decision is based on physical and safety guidelines, he said.

It's all "responsible" until an accident happens.

 

[Tom Skerritt]

I don't understand the point of having a 9yo girl fire an Uzi. Do the parents think that it will make her popular with her friends? Just to say that she did it? I cannot come up with a single good reason.

Parents should be charged with child endangerment, recklessness, and/or negligence IMO.

Not justifying it, because I think it's completely ludicrous myself...but it was probably just for the fun of it. No different than risks taken bungee jumping, skydiving, etc. "Look what I did that we don't do every day and is a little dangerous." It's not really abnormal behavior other than the fact that it's a 9 year-old.

I get that it is a rush to shoot guns. But that does not remove the fact that they are designed to kill.

I took my kids cliff jumping a few weeks ago. A similar rush. Nothing ridiculous... 10-20 (though probably 15 at most) feet above the water. Is that a risk? Absolutely. Accidents happen. And I would take responsibility for anything happening to my kids. But cautious cliff jumping is not designed to kill the participants. Accidents are much less likely to be fatal.

There were spots where more experienced people jumped from 50ft and higher. In fact, speaking of not being able to fix stupid hillbilly pitbull-owning parents... there was a 6yo kid who was allowed to jump from this high. Nearly gave me a heart attack watching this kid be up that high. He almost fell at one point as he wobbled. No way in hell I would let my kids go up that high. It's just not worth the risk to me.

Neither is cautious gun shooting. There is shooting a gun for the sake of target shooting, and there is shooting with the intent to kill...the only thing is, target shooting can be deadly with the wrong combination of circumstances. In this case, a neglignet instructor and a 9-year old child...I don't see how this is any different than cliff diving. It's not meant to be fatal, but it could very easily have been. Falling or jumping from any height isn't a joke, but in the company of trained professionals, it shouldn't be deadly.

There is nothing cautious about a 9yo girl shooting an Uzi. Sorry. It is just inarguable. It would be like putting her behind the wheel of a car with a driving instructor riding shotgun. It's just stupid.

I'm not saying it is, and never have...but are you saying that a similar aged kid jumping off a cliff IS cautious?

My point isn't that I agree with this situation. It's that there are lots of situations like this that happen every day that DON'T involve guns, but are just as risky, and just as stupid.

My point is that life involves taking risks. Calculated risks! A 9yo girl shooting an Uzi is not a calculated risk. It is an insane risk, and IMO a criminal risk.

 

[timschochet]

All right , but suppose she were 9 1/2?

 

[Dippa]

When I saw Uzi in the title, I really figured it would be a scary looking .22 semi-auto or something, and that people assumed was fully automatic because it's an "Uzi". But nope, the instructor is just like "Here little girl, now try it on full auto".

So incredibly stupid and tragic.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

My point is that life involves taking risks. Calculated risks! A 9yo girl shooting an Uzi is not a calculated risk. It is an insane risk, and IMO a criminal risk.

Pretty much this.

 

[TLEF316]

The parents should be charged and the owner of the range should be sued for letting a 9 year old handle that kind of weapon. I could possibly see the argument for teaching a 9 year old to responsibly handle a very small rifle of some sort (for future hunting purposes). I don't agree with it, but I could potentially be persuaded.

But a fully auto sub-machine gun? To a 9 year old? They might have well have given it to a golden retriever. They have about the same chance of safely and properly operating one.

 

[Zow]

Yeah so this occurred in my jurisdiction and just spoke to the prosecutor's office. They're investigating.

 

[Otis]

Wasn't there a story a few years ago about a young kid shooting himself with an uzi at an "outdoor show/try a gun on our safe range" type thing?

Probably. But but but.... SECOND AMENDMENT.

You're kinda coming off like an idiot here. I don't think anyone would advocate letting a 9yo girl shoot a fully automatic weapon. Father's an idiot. Instructor is a bigger idiot for allowing it... and for not having the gun stabilized.... and for standing where he did.

Sack full of stupid in that scenario.

Well not as big of an idiot as all the people that go to that range and let kids shoot UZIs. And it's not like this is an isolated incident, so yeah, people are advocating letting 9 year olds shoot UZIs.

Okay... let's tier the stupid then:

Adults letting kids shoot UZI's

Otis acting like any sensible folks advocate this via all caps and exclamation points.

Fringe gun rights lunatics

Fringe anti-gun lunatics

Abolish all Guns crowd

Responsible firearms owners

Not sure why you're bringing me into this. The amount of stupid I've seen in this forum recently has been a sobering reminder of just

how incredibly dumb the gen pop out there really is. If you think nobody finds this behavior acceptable, you must not have read the story where the parents of a nine year old girl let her shoot an uzi and she killed someone. Or the parents of the kid just a few years earlier accidentally killed himself with an uzi at a gun show.

So, yeah, I disagree. I think there are plenty of morons out there who find this level of risk, and this level of risk in similar activities, completely acceptable.

Speaking of which, whatdya say we get a dozen really sweet and loving pitbulls and let them loose in the daycare today. Honestly, these animals are soooooo sweet with my nephew, they'd never hurt a fly. What could go wrong?

YOU ARE RIGHT.

Thanks.

 

[TheIronSheik]

Yeah so this occurred in my jurisdiction and just spoke to the prosecutor's office. They're investigating.

I hope they throw the book at that ##### for shooting an unarmed man.

 

[Otis]

Serious question, Otis: if the 2nd Amendment didn't exist and if you were in charge of all gun laws, what would you impose?

At a minimum? Let's use logic and reason for 3 minutes here, it shouldn't be that hard.

1. New law: Children can't play with firearms. There's little upside to a nine-year old human being firing deadly weapons. The downside is pretty obvious.
2. Another new law: let's ban people-killing machines. Crazy right? Well hold on a minute. Billy Bob wants to go buck hunting with his 15-year-old son on the weekend? Cool. Things like hunting rifles are fair game, and they have a legitimate design purpose beyond killing people, and they don't seem to come up all that often in these mass murders or tragic kid accidents. There's your "social underpinnings." You guys can still sit around the campfire with your tobaccer and wax poetic about your old hunting days with Pa. But then we don't have kids with assault rifles and uzis--weapons that are designed specifically for the efficient mass killing of other human beings--either barging into high schools and taking out half their Earth Science class, or shooting themselves at gun shows. No, that doesn't mean this is going to become Nazi Germany overnight. But it does mean that we're going to make a decision and enact a policy that values human life and the prevention of tragedy over nostalgia.

There would be my first day in Office. Pretty sure I could actually knock that out in the morning, and then kick off early for happy hour.

This really isn't that hard. But people will piss and moan about the above, for one reason or another.

Agree for the most part. Next question. How would you go about implementing these restrictions? This applies more to #2.

I don't know specifically, but I have to imagine it's doable. In much the same way we don't let people buy ballistic missiles to keep in their garages.

 

[BigJohn]

Wasn't there a story a few years ago about a young kid shooting himself with an uzi at an "outdoor show/try a gun on our safe range" type thing?

Probably. But but but.... SECOND AMENDMENT.

You're kinda coming off like an idiot here. I don't think anyone would advocate letting a 9yo girl shoot a fully automatic weapon. Father's an idiot. Instructor is a bigger idiot for allowing it... and for not having the gun stabilized.... and for standing where he did.

Sack full of stupid in that scenario.

Well not as big of an idiot as all the people that go to that range and let kids shoot UZIs. And it's not like this is an isolated incident, so yeah, people are advocating letting 9 year olds shoot UZIs.

Okay... let's tier the stupid then:

Adults letting kids shoot UZI's

Otis acting like any sensible folks advocate this via all caps and exclamation points.

Fringe gun rights lunatics

Fringe anti-gun lunatics

Abolish all Guns crowd

Responsible firearms owners

Not sure why you're bringing me into this. The amount of stupid I've seen in this forum recently has been a sobering reminder of just

how incredibly dumb the gen pop out there really is. If you think nobody finds this behavior acceptable, you must not have read the story where the parents of a nine year old girl let her shoot an uzi and she killed someone. Or the parents of the kid just a few years earlier accidentally killed himself with an uzi at a gun show.

So, yeah, I disagree. I think there are plenty of morons out there who find this level of risk, and this level of risk in similar activities, completely acceptable.

Speaking of which, whatdya say we get a dozen really sweet and loving pitbulls and let them loose in the daycare today. Honestly, these animals are soooooo sweet with my nephew, they'd never hurt a fly. What could go wrong?

YOU ARE RIGHT.

Thanks.

 

[Otis]

Serious question, Otis: if the 2nd Amendment didn't exist and if you were in charge of all gun laws, what would you impose?

At a minimum? Let's use logic and reason for 3 minutes here, it shouldn't be that hard.

1. New law: Children can't play with firearms. There's little upside to a nine-year old human being firing deadly weapons. The downside is pretty obvious.
2. Another new law: let's ban people-killing machines. Crazy right? Well hold on a minute. Billy Bob wants to go buck hunting with his 15-year-old son on the weekend? Cool. Things like hunting rifles are fair game, and they have a legitimate design purpose beyond killing people, and they don't seem to come up all that often in these mass murders or tragic kid accidents. There's your "social underpinnings." You guys can still sit around the campfire with your tobaccer and wax poetic about your old hunting days with Pa. But then we don't have kids with assault rifles and uzis--weapons that are designed specifically for the efficient mass killing of other human beings--either barging into high schools and taking out half their Earth Science class, or shooting themselves at gun shows. No, that doesn't mean this is going to become Nazi Germany overnight. But it does mean that we're going to make a decision and enact a policy that values human life and the prevention of tragedy over nostalgia.

There would be my first day in Office. Pretty sure I could actually knock that out in the morning, and then kick off early for happy hour.

This really isn't that hard. But people will piss and moan about the above, for one reason or another.

See here's your problem. You bring all this stupid hate of people you have never been around to it. I don't know anyone who goes hunting with anything other than a hunting rifle or shotgun. I don't know anyone who would say a 9 yr old should be handling an Uzi. Even those tobaccer spitting people you so badly want to denigrate. It isn't your traditional hunters and their children that are problem. It's people who don't have that tradition or understanding of guns. A gun is a tool. I would let a 9 year old child use a hammer. I wouldn't let them use a compressor driven nail gun.

Right. My point is there is no good reason for anyone to own a weapon designed for and capable of the quick and efficient slaughter of people. In much the same way there is absolutely no good reason to own a pet pitbull, African lion, or Tyrannosaurus Rex.

 

[Otis]

Still amazed that someone compared this to cheerleading.

Not amazed in the slightest. Exactly why the world is so bananas.

 

[Zow]

I also have dealt with the gun range owner in previous litigation. He's a joy. Wanted to set up illegal immigration camps in the desert.

 

[BigJohn]

Serious question, Otis: if the 2nd Amendment didn't exist and if you were in charge of all gun laws, what would you impose?

At a minimum? Let's use logic and reason for 3 minutes here, it shouldn't be that hard.

1. New law: Children can't play with firearms. There's little upside to a nine-year old human being firing deadly weapons. The downside is pretty obvious.
2. Another new law: let's ban people-killing machines. Crazy right? Well hold on a minute. Billy Bob wants to go buck hunting with his 15-year-old son on the weekend? Cool. Things like hunting rifles are fair game, and they have a legitimate design purpose beyond killing people, and they don't seem to come up all that often in these mass murders or tragic kid accidents. There's your "social underpinnings." You guys can still sit around the campfire with your tobaccer and wax poetic about your old hunting days with Pa. But then we don't have kids with assault rifles and uzis--weapons that are designed specifically for the efficient mass killing of other human beings--either barging into high schools and taking out half their Earth Science class, or shooting themselves at gun shows. No, that doesn't mean this is going to become Nazi Germany overnight. But it does mean that we're going to make a decision and enact a policy that values human life and the prevention of tragedy over nostalgia.

There would be my first day in Office. Pretty sure I could actually knock that out in the morning, and then kick off early for happy hour.

This really isn't that hard. But people will piss and moan about the above, for one reason or another.

Agree for the most part. Next question. How would you go about implementing these restrictions? This applies more to #2.

I don't know specifically, but I have to imagine it's doable. In much the same way we don't let people buy ballistic missiles to keep in their garages.