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

[lod01]

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.

Did any witnesses say he was unarmed?

 

[Otis]

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.

Is there any good reason at all that a 9-year old (repeat, "NINE") should fire an Uzi? Regardless of the "mode" you put it in??

 

[Otis]

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.

A little blasé for the 3 year old, but how about my six month old? (Do they come in purple?)

 

[Jobber]

Still amazed that someone compared this to cheerleading.

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

It's almost as ridiculous as comparing guns to ballistic missles.

 

[Otis]

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.

Guys, look, you don't understand. (Yes New Yorkers, I'm looking mostly at you guys, and maybe the Bostonites). These are professional gun owners who are responsible. They take classes. They have leather wallets with fancy permits and certifications inside. Just stay out of this and leave it to the professionals, mkay?

 

[Otis]

Still amazed that someone compared this to cheerleading.

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

It's almost as ridiculous as comparing guns to ballistic missles.

One was a serious comparison. One was purposeful hyperbole to try and convey a point to a segment of the population that seems to have difficulty processing said point, with a dash of humor sprinkled in.

Hope this was helpful for you.

 

[Arizona Ron]

Guns, dogs, racism, liberal media bias, reclining airline seats, tatted up nymphos. So many divisive threads this week. Doesn't somebody have a good story about bewbs, blackouts, or burritos they can share?

I think it's time for me to write a life update.

 

[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.

A little blasé for the 3 year old, but how about my six month old? (Do they come in purple?)

I can paint it, I guess. I'll just charge you for the cost of the paint.

 

[El Floppo]

for Woz's legal updates.

 

[Jobber]

Still amazed that someone compared this to cheerleading.

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

It's almost as ridiculous as comparing guns to ballistic missles.

One was a serious comparison. One was purposeful hyperbole to try and convey a point to a segment of the population that seems to have difficulty processing said point, with a dash of humor sprinkled in.

Hope this was helpful for you.

I always skim or skip your posts entirely, so my bad.

 

[Limp Ditka]

Guns, dogs, racism, liberal media bias, reclining airline seats, tatted up nymphos. So many divisive threads this week. Doesn't somebody have a good story about bewbs, blackouts, or burritos they can share?

I think it's time for me to write a life update.

 

[igbomb]

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.

Dude, there is plenty of global data that shows that the less immediate access people have to guns the less deaths happen. From everything from murder to suicide, more guns equals more deaths.

 

[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.

Guys, look, you don't understand. (Yes New Yorkers, I'm looking mostly at you guys, and maybe the Bostonites). These are professional gun owners who are responsible. They take classes. They have leather wallets with fancy permits and certifications inside. Just stay out of this and leave it to the professionals, mkay?

"No need for any gun skills here ..just fire at will and have a BLAST" August 20 from the Bullets and Burgers Facebook page.

Oh and Otis, she was from either New Jersey or New York (I've seen both quoted in articles), so it's really the fact that she was cooped up in this liberal enclave that was the root cause of this mess.

 

[Sammy3469]

Another "responsible" gun owner (from the same Sheriff's press release on the UZI "accident"):

Mohave County Sheriff’s deputies responded to the Kingman Regional Medical Center Monday (8/25) evening in

reference to a male subject suffering from a gunshot wound. At about 5:20 p.m., deputies contacted medical staff.

Deputies learned that a male subject thought his gun was clear when he pulled the trigger and shot himself in the

hand at his residence in Golden Valley. The wound was non-life threatening.

http://resources.mohavecounty.us/File/Sheriff/PressReleasesArchives/2014/08-26-2014_Press_Release.pdf

 

[Arizona Ron]

I love this part:

Scarmardo said that the range has never had a similar incident in over a decade of being open — "not even a scratch."

So...it's the 9 year old's fault?

 

[Sammy3469]

More responsibility from this gun range:

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=933320310028171&set=vb.519082914785248&type=2&theater

 

[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.

A little blasé for the 3 year old, but how about my six month old? (Do they come in purple?)

I can paint it, I guess. I'll just charge you for the cost of the paint.

So I ran the numbers, with paint and I can get you a nice one, barely used, for just under $650,000. But if you get two, It'll be closer to $600k each. Just don't go telling people this is the price I'm quoting you. Because this is a deal I only do for good guys like you.

 

[Otis]

Still amazed that someone compared this to cheerleading.

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

It's almost as ridiculous as comparing guns to ballistic missles.

One was a serious comparison. One was purposeful hyperbole to try and convey a point to a segment of the population that seems to have difficulty processing said point, with a dash of humor sprinkled in.

Hope this was helpful for you.

I always skim or skip your posts entirely, so my bad.

Well thanks for responding twice to my posts in a thread that I started. Great having you here.

 

[Fat Nick]

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.

So why do you view letting a 9 year old shoot an Uzi as different than a similarly aged child jump off a cliff? That's kind of my point.

 

[Otis]

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.

A little blasé for the 3 year old, but how about my six month old? (Do they come in purple?)

I can paint it, I guess. I'll just charge you for the cost of the paint.

So I ran the numbers, with paint and I can get you a nice one, barely used, for just under $650,000. But if you get two, It'll be closer to $600k each. Just don't go telling people this is the price I'm quoting you. Because this is a deal I only do for good guys like you.

Will you show us how to use it at least?

 

[TheIronSheik]

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.

So why do you view letting a 9 year old shoot an Uzi as different than a similarly aged child jump off a cliff? That's kind of my point.

Yeah, I'm thinking the same thing. I wouldn't put an uzi in the hands of a 9 year old. But I also wouldn't have them diving off of cliffs. They both seem incredibly dangerous.

 

[zDragon]

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.

http://www.nps.gov/rabr/planyourvisit/upload/CliffJumping_Poster_042805.pdf

 

[top dog]

If nothing else at least I've learned from this thread to NEVER let my daughter be a cheerleader.

 

[Arizona Ron]

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.

So why do you view letting a 9 year old shoot an Uzi as different than a similarly aged child jump off a cliff? That's kind of my point.

What?

 

[Tom Skerritt]

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.

So why do you view letting a 9 year old shoot an Uzi as different than a similarly aged child jump off a cliff? That's kind of my point.

 

[Fat Nick]

More responsibility from this gun range:

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=933320310028171&set=vb.519082914785248&type=2&theater

This is nuts...You can just see the kid struggling to keep the weapon under control...

 

[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.

A little blasé for the 3 year old, but how about my six month old? (Do they come in purple?)

I can paint it, I guess. I'll just charge you for the cost of the paint.

So I ran the numbers, with paint and I can get you a nice one, barely used, for just under $650,000. But if you get two, It'll be closer to $600k each. Just don't go telling people this is the price I'm quoting you. Because this is a deal I only do for good guys like you.

Will you show us how to use it at least?

The guy who brings them will show you. You'll need a way to launch them. Not sure if you have that or not. If not, I can hook you up with something. Let me know if you prefer a ship or a sub.

 

[Zow]

Id also note that in this jurisdiction just yesterday a man by the name of "Melvyn pitchfork freedom" - who legally changed his name after gaining local notoriety for attempting to enter the county admin building with a weapon a few years back - came in second for the justice of the peace position, receiving several hundred real, actual votes.

 

[TheIronSheik]

Id also note that in this jurisdiction just yesterday a man by the name of "Melvyn pitchfork freedom" - who legally changed his name after gaining local notoriety for attempting to enter the county admin building with a weapon a few years back - came in second for the justice of the peace position, receiving several hundred real, actual votes.

Was the weapon a pitchfork, by chance?

 

[Fat Nick]

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.

So why do you view letting a 9 year old shoot an Uzi as different than a similarly aged child jump off a cliff? That's kind of my point.

I really think you need to go back and read my ORIGINAL post you replied to. You're treating me like I'm some kind of Pro-gun person. I've said numerous times that I'm NOT OK with this...my original response in response to your post asking why anyone would do this is that it's another form of thrill seeking.

I still have yet to see why it's any different. People go shoot guns for the same reason they do anything else risky. It's different, and it can be fun, and it's inherently dangerous. I don't really understand why people think shooting a gun is inherently more dangerous than jumping off a cliff. Both are risky. Both can be done safely. Both CAN kill you. Neither should be done by a 9 year-old.

ETA - you still didn't answer my question...

 

[Zow]

Id also note that in this jurisdiction just yesterday a man by the name of "Melvyn pitchfork freedom" - who legally changed his name after

gaining local notoriety for attempting to enter the county admin building with a weapon a few years back - came in second for the justice of the peace position, receiving several hundred

real, actual votes.

Was the weapon a pitchfork, by chance?

Nothing gets by you. The second time, yes. When he was initially not allowed entry with his gun (there are gun safes at the entry of the building that visitors can store their guns in), he showed back up with a pitchfork.

 

[Tom Skerritt]

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.

So why do you view letting a 9 year old shoot an Uzi as different than a similarly aged child jump off a cliff? That's kind of my point.

I really think you need to go back and read my ORIGINAL post you replied to. You're treating me like I'm some kind of Pro-gun person. I've said numerous times that I'm NOT OK with this...my original response in response to your post asking why anyone would do this is that it's another form of thrill seeking.

I still have yet to see why it's any different. People go shoot guns for the same reason they do anything else risky. It's different, and it can be fun, and it's inherently dangerous. I don't really understand why people think shooting a gun is inherently more dangerous than jumping off a cliff. Both are risky. Both can be done safely. Both CAN kill you. Neither should be done by a 9 year-old.

ETA - you still didn't answer my question...

Okay. You win. We won't go to the local pool and jump off of the diving board either. Thanks!

 

[Fat Nick]

Id also note that in this jurisdiction just yesterday a man by the name of "Melvyn pitchfork freedom" - who legally changed his name after

gaining local notoriety for attempting to enter the county admin building with a weapon a few years back - came in second for the justice of the peace position, receiving several hundred

real, actual votes.

Was the weapon a pitchfork, by chance?

Nothing gets by you.The second time, yes. When he was initially not allowed entry with his gun (there are gun safes at the entry of the building that visitors can store their guns in), he showed back up with a pitchfork.

This. Is. Awesome.

I want to live where you live just to see the sights.

 

[bryhamm]

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.

So why do you view letting a 9 year old shoot an Uzi as different than a similarly aged child jump off a cliff? That's kind of my point.

Yeah, I'm thinking the same thing. I wouldn't put an uzi in the hands of a 9 year old. But I also wouldn't have them diving off of cliffs. They both seem incredibly dangerous.

One risks just the child's life. The other the lives of folks around. While both are incredibly dangerous and stupid, they are not equal.

 

[Fat Nick]

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.

So why do you view letting a 9 year old shoot an Uzi as different than a similarly aged child jump off a cliff? That's kind of my point.

I really think you need to go back and read my ORIGINAL post you replied to. You're treating me like I'm some kind of Pro-gun person. I've said numerous times that I'm NOT OK with this...my original response in response to your post asking why anyone would do this is that it's another form of thrill seeking.

I still have yet to see why it's any different. People go shoot guns for the same reason they do anything else risky. It's different, and it can be fun, and it's inherently dangerous. I don't really understand why people think shooting a gun is inherently more dangerous than jumping off a cliff. Both are risky. Both can be done safely. Both CAN kill you. Neither should be done by a 9 year-old.

ETA - you still didn't answer my question...

Okay. You win. We won't go to the local pool and jump off of the diving board either. Thanks!

So now you're equating jumping off the diving board to jumping off a cliff... So are you also against people shooting spitballs? Because that's kind of the jump you just made. Or are you arguing for the sake of arguing? I really don't know what your point is at this point.

 

[Fat Nick]

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.

So why do you view letting a 9 year old shoot an Uzi as different than a similarly aged child jump off a cliff? That's kind of my point.

Yeah, I'm thinking the same thing. I wouldn't put an uzi in the hands of a 9 year old. But I also wouldn't have them diving off of cliffs. They both seem incredibly dangerous.

One risks just the child's life. The other the lives of folks around. While both are incredibly dangerous and stupid, they are not equal.

OK. That's a fair argument. Safety of others vs. just endangering yourself.

Regardless, back to Tom's original post...people do this for the same reason they do any other dangerous activity...thrill.

Since I have to say it every time to keep people on track - I'm not saying I agree or that it's OK...I'm just saying that's why people do this. I'm very risk averse...I'd never let my kid shoot an Uzi, jump off a cliff, bungee jump, etc. I'm not into it, but I can get why some people are.

 

[Jobber]

Still amazed that someone compared this to cheerleading.

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

It's almost as ridiculous as comparing guns to ballistic missles.

One was a serious comparison. One was purposeful hyperbole to try and convey a point to a segment of the population that seems to have difficulty processing said point, with a dash of humor sprinkled in.

Hope this was helpful for you.

I always skim or skip your posts entirely, so my bad.

Well thanks for responding twice to my posts in a thread that I started. Great having you here.

You started this thread? Huh.

 

[fred_1_15301]

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.

A little blasé for the 3 year old, but how about my six month old? (Do they come in purple?)

I can paint it, I guess. I'll just charge you for the cost of the paint.

So I ran the numbers, with paint and I can get you a nice one, barely used, for just under $650,000. But if you get two, It'll be closer to $600k each. Just don't go telling people this is the price I'm quoting you. Because this is a deal I only do for good guys like you.

Will you show us how to use it at least?

The guy who brings them will show you. You'll need a way to launch them. Not sure if you have that or not. If not, I can hook you up with something. Let me know if you prefer a ship or a sub.

This is Otis we're talking about. He can just lay on his back, cup his hands together and launch it from his yard.

 

[Tom Skerritt]

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.

So why do you view letting a 9 year old shoot an Uzi as different than a similarly aged child jump off a cliff? That's kind of my point.

I really think you need to go back and read my ORIGINAL post you replied to. You're treating me like I'm some kind of Pro-gun person. I've said numerous times that I'm NOT OK with this...my original response in response to your post asking why anyone would do this is that it's another form of thrill seeking.

I still have yet to see why it's any different. People go shoot guns for the same reason they do anything else risky. It's different, and it can be fun, and it's inherently dangerous. I don't really understand why people think shooting a gun is inherently more dangerous than jumping off a cliff. Both are risky. Both can be done safely. Both CAN kill you. Neither should be done by a 9 year-old.

ETA - you still didn't answer my question...

Okay. You win. We won't go to the local pool and jump off of the diving board either. Thanks!

So now you're equating jumping off the diving board to jumping off a cliff... So are you also against people shooting spitballs? Because that's kind of the jump you just made. Or are you arguing for the sake of arguing? I really don't know what your point is at this point.

We were at a state park, sanctioned and supported water hole. Jumping into a pool is different than jumping into a lake how? Please explain.

Also... my daughter was wearing a life jacket. Please describe what safety gear is being worn in the Uzi shooting video. Any bulletproof vests? Helmets? Oh wait, they are wearing safety glasses. Their eyes will be protected in case of an accident.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

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.

In much the same way that there is absolutely no good reason to own a sports car or drink alcohol amiright?

 

[Fat Nick]

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.

So why do you view letting a 9 year old shoot an Uzi as different than a similarly aged child jump off a cliff? That's kind of my point.

I really think you need to go back and read my ORIGINAL post you replied to. You're treating me like I'm some kind of Pro-gun person. I've said numerous times that I'm NOT OK with this...my original response in response to your post asking why anyone would do this is that it's another form of thrill seeking.

I still have yet to see why it's any different. People go shoot guns for the same reason they do anything else risky. It's different, and it can be fun, and it's inherently dangerous. I don't really understand why people think shooting a gun is inherently more dangerous than jumping off a cliff. Both are risky. Both can be done safely. Both CAN kill you. Neither should be done by a 9 year-old.

ETA - you still didn't answer my question...

Okay. You win. We won't go to the local pool and jump off of the diving board either. Thanks!

So now you're equating jumping off the diving board to jumping off a cliff... So are you also against people shooting spitballs? Because that's kind of the jump you just made. Or are you arguing for the sake of arguing? I really don't know what your point is at this point.

We were at a state park, (1) sanctioned and supported water hole. (2) Jumping into a pool is different than jumping into a lake how? Please explain.

Also... (3) my daughter was wearing a life jacket. Please describe what safety gear is being worn in the Uzi shooting video. Any bulletproof vests? Helmets? Oh wait, they are wearing safety glasses. Their eyes will be protected in case of an accident.

(1) They were at a shooting range! They weren't in some schmuck's back yard. Again, how is this different?

(2)

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.

[snip]

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.

If you can't see how jumping off a diving board is different than jumping 50 feet off a cliff, I question your sanity. Lakes are uncontrolled bodies of water. They have varying depths. Murky Water. Cliffs are inherently steep rock faces. There are things to hit, places to slip, etc. Pools with diving boards are of a mandatory depth. There are specific platforms for diving. Do you really think the two are equal??????

(3) How does a life jacket protect a child from impact with a rock when cliff diving???

Further...what does what safety gear the little girl is or isn't wearing have anything to do with my original post????

 

[Loan Sharks]

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.

Banning people killing machines? So why are you bringing cars into this?

 

[BigJohn]

Another "responsible" gun owner (from the same Sheriff's press release on the UZI "accident"):

Mohave County Sheriff’s deputies responded to the Kingman Regional Medical Center Monday (8/25) evening in

reference to a male subject suffering from a gunshot wound. At about 5:20 p.m., deputies contacted medical staff.

Deputies learned that a male subject thought his gun was clear when he pulled the trigger and shot himself in the

hand at his residence in Golden Valley. The wound was non-life threatening.

http://resources.mohavecounty.us/File/Sheriff/PressReleasesArchives/2014/08-26-2014_Press_Release.pdf

Kind of nullifies the 'responsible' part, no?

 

[Tom Skerritt]

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.

So why do you view letting a 9 year old shoot an Uzi as different than a similarly aged child jump off a cliff? That's kind of my point.

I really think you need to go back and read my ORIGINAL post you replied to. You're treating me like I'm some kind of Pro-gun person. I've said numerous times that I'm NOT OK with this...my original response in response to your post asking why anyone would do this is that it's another form of thrill seeking.

I still have yet to see why it's any different. People go shoot guns for the same reason they do anything else risky. It's different, and it can be fun, and it's inherently dangerous. I don't really understand why people think shooting a gun is inherently more dangerous than jumping off a cliff. Both are risky. Both can be done safely. Both CAN kill you. Neither should be done by a 9 year-old.

ETA - you still didn't answer my question...

Okay. You win. We won't go to the local pool and jump off of the diving board either. Thanks!

So now you're equating jumping off the diving board to jumping off a cliff... So are you also against people shooting spitballs? Because that's kind of the jump you just made. Or are you arguing for the sake of arguing? I really don't know what your point is at this point.

We were at a state park, (1) sanctioned and supported water hole. (2) Jumping into a pool is different than jumping into a lake how? Please explain.

Also... (3) my daughter was wearing a life jacket. Please describe what safety gear is being worn in the Uzi shooting video. Any bulletproof vests? Helmets? Oh wait, they are wearing safety glasses. Their eyes will be protected in case of an accident.

(1) They were at a shooting range! They weren't in some schmuck's back yard. Again, how is this different?

(2)

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.

[snip]

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.

If you can't see how jumping off a diving board is different than jumping 50 feet off a cliff, I question your sanity. Lakes are uncontrolled bodies of water. They have varying depths. Murky Water. Cliffs are inherently steep rock faces. There are things to hit, places to slip, etc. Pools with diving boards are of a mandatory depth. There are specific platforms for diving. Do you really think the two are equal??????

(3) How does a life jacket protect a child from impact with a rock when cliff diving???

Further...what does what safety gear the little girl is or isn't wearing have anything to do with my original post????

So shooting an Uzi is on par with jumping in a lake. Got it.

 

[mr roboto]

People say criminal risk. Again, I ask, isn't the instructor the one who took that risk? I could understand if the instructor allowed it and she shot someone else, but the person who judged and supervised the risk is the victim.

 

[Loan Sharks]

Also, I am having a problem with this entire thing. It is not like the kid accidentally hurt someone in her family. Let's be honest here the only loss is the shooting instructor and it is pretty obvious that he was a very bad shooting instructor and better him now than his lackluster safety policies rubbing off on his pupils and causing a real loss to someone who didn't deserve it.

 

[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.

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.

I want a T-Rex.

 

[bagger]

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:

haven't read link yet.Going to guess this happened in Mississippi or adjacent.

 

[bagger]

Oh f me in az.

Start hiding ammo.

 

[zDragon]

Still amazed that someone compared this to cheerleading.

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

No one compared the 9 year old shooting the instructor to cheerleader deaths.

Your the one that lumped a 9 year old shooting an Uzi at the same level as owning a Pitbull.

I simply pointed out and found your comment on needless risk funny. The fact is we all take stupid needless risk every day.

For Example: Go Kart, Go Kart