Idiot: 9-year-old girl accidentally kills shooting instructor w/Uzi

[Doc]

Haven't had a good gun argument lately so figured this was a good poke

link (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/08/27/chilling-footage-shows-the-seconds-before-9-year-old-girl-accidentally-killed-shooting-instructor-with-uzi/)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=cfMzK7QwfrU

It wasn't the girl that was killed but rather the instructor.

[CitizenBBN]

You won't get one from me, and likely not any other pro-gun person on here.

I had my first rifle when I was 6. There were particular rules about it. there were reasons it was a 22 single shot rifle and not a handgun or a FULL AUTO submachine gun. really good reasons.

I have no issue with 8-9 year olds shooting guns, or going hunting. It has gone on for generations with an outstanding safety record. I'm completely against parents and other adults irresponsibly thinking that a child of that age should be firing short barrel machine guns, under any kind of supervision.

It is like the dumb-asses on youtube who hand their girlfriend the big shotgun or rifle and let it kick them to the ground and then laugh. One has a guy who handed his girl a semi auto shotgun with 3 rounds in it. That's insane. She lost control, thank goodness all 3 went into the air harmlessly, it could have killed someone.

taking her to the range: fine. Have her shoot a gun, even an Uzi, single shot with an adult with hands on the gun? Maybe OK, but only a semi-auto and only with an adult hands on until the child proves they can handle the weapon safely and responsibly. FULL AUTO playing after firing ONE round and the child not being properly trained or tested in any way? dumb as can be.

per the video the guy had her fire ONE round in that gun, then cranked it to full auto. No it's not that girls fault, it's absolutely the fault of the instructor and the parents.

I guarantee most every "pro gun" person wishes people like that would just not have guns. They make us look bad.

[blueboss]

Fully auto, not the greatest idea, I think I've mentioned before that I own a few holes in the roof at the Knob Creek gun range. I was thirty something years old shooting an SKS with the pin shaved, my first time with a fully automatic assault weapon and it rode up on me, and before anyone could say boo I had about 5-6 holes in the overhang roof.

Can't imagine handing a 9 year old a fully auto anything for their first outing....

[suncat05]

This tragedy very simply could have been avoided IF the instructor would have used better sense. Now, unfortunately, he is dead, and this little girl is going to have to live with this for the rest of her life.

Letting her shoot that Uzi single shot, absolutely. But on full auto, nope, not no way, not no how. Just a very bad decision by him all the way around, and he paid the ultimate price for that bad decision.

And because of this, I'm am sure the anti-gun people are rallying their troops & resources for more inane unworkable gun control.

[Darrell KSR]

This tragedy very simply could have been avoided IF the instructor would have used better sense. Now, unfortunately, he is dead, and this little girl is going to have to live with this for the rest of her life.

Letting her shoot that Uzi single shot, absolutely. But on full auto, nope, not no way, not no how. Just a very bad decision by him all the way around, and he paid the ultimate price for that bad decision.

And because of this, I'm am sure the anti-gun people are rallying their troops & resources for more inane unworkable gun control.

The facility markets itself to 8 year olds and up shooting machine guns.

"Scarmardo said his policy of allowing children 8 and older to fire guns under adult supervision and the watchful eye of an instructor is standard practice in the industry. "

http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2014/08/28/year-old-killing-instructor-puts-spotlight-gun-tourism/gBqtOmH1YOUTQZopeN2baP/story.html

I'm not a fan of putting machine guns in the hands of 8 and 9 year olds. An 8 year old killed himself accidentally with one a few years earlier.

Let them shoot semi-automatic weapons. Good training, and fun at any age. I don't know the right age here, but it's not single digits.

[Doc]

This tragedy very simply could have been avoided IF the instructor would have used better sense. Now, unfortunately, he is dead, and this little girl is going to have to live with this for the rest of her life.

Letting her shoot that Uzi single shot, absolutely. But on full auto, nope, not no way, not no how. Just a very bad decision by him all the way around, and he paid the ultimate price for that bad decision.

And because of this, I'm am sure the anti-gun people are rallying their troops & resources for more inane unworkable gun control.

While I agree with you I can't ignore the fact that the tragedy also could have been avoided if it were ILLEGAL to have firearms in the hands of children. In my opinion a gun is a dangerous tool and should only be used by responsible individuals. I see no situation in which a 9 year old is a responsible individual regardless of the amount of supervision. Gun advocates have long used the argument that under proper supervision, children using guns is fine. Well here is a child under parental supervision with a gun instructor at a gun range. Its made even worse when you have automatic weapon. Good lord. This kid should be playing with a barbie, not a uzi.

[kingcat]

While I agree with you I can't ignore the fact that the tragedy also could have been avoided if it were ILLEGAL to have firearms in the hands of children. In my opinion a gun is a dangerous tool and should only be used by responsible individuals. I see no situation in which a 9 year old is a responsible individual regardless of the amount of supervision. Gun advocates have long used the argument that under proper supervision, children using guns is fine. Well here is a child under parental supervision with a gun instructor at a gun range. Its made even worse when you have automatic weapon. Good lord. This kid should be playing with a barbie, not a uzi.

Amen!

[CitizenBBN]

While I agree with you I can't ignore the fact that the tragedy also could have been avoided if it were ILLEGAL to have firearms in the hands of children. In my opinion a gun is a dangerous tool and should only be used by responsible individuals. I see no situation in which a 9 year old is a responsible individual regardless of the amount of supervision. Gun advocates have long used the argument that under proper supervision, children using guns is fine. Well here is a child under parental supervision with a gun instructor at a gun range. Its made even worse when you have automatic weapon. Good lord. This kid should be playing with a barbie, not a uzi.

When you want to save the 700+ kids under 14 who drown in swimming pools every year, something also easily avoided, I'll take the position seriously.

Until then it's just cherry picking which kids you want to restrict from certain activities, carefully avoiding the ones you think are OK and hammering the ones that don't impact you and your kids. Very convenient, but when you want to restrict the thing that kills a handful of kids and leave the one that kills hundreds alone, the agenda is all too clear.

Parents sometimes do stupid things. This involved NO poor decisions by the child IMO, the fault was totally on the adults. Whether it is with a gun or a pool or a minibike or whatever, it's all the same. They chose badly how to have their child participate in shooting, so we now ban every parent and child from having them participate in any way.

The only "solution" is to further restrict parents and ban them from letting their kids shoot guns, or ride minibikes, or own private pools without lifeguards. It's all just safety Nazism, passing laws to restrict us all for the failings of a very tiny number of people. It's easier to pick on guns even if the numbers say it's not the place to focus, but it's all the same "0.01% of people are stupid enough to do this wrong, so we should ban everyone from doing it right as well."

Safety over liberty. Second verse, same as the first. But of course we carefully cherry pick those liberties to infringe, careful to pick those in which we don't engage and avoid those we enjoy.

[Doc]

Ah, the swimming pool defense. Next up is lawn mowers follow by private property.


And you will end with second verse same as the first? Next time a gun advocate comes up with a new argument will be the first time they come up with a new argument. The pool/lawn mower/private property arguments are as old and tired as they come. Wait, we haven't had the guns aren't dangerous argument yet. Better get that one in or you will lose you NRA card

And when all else fails, misrepresent the other side and argue against it. Who said safety over liberty? I've always been a supporter of a responsible adults right to own a gun, any gun.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk3

[Doc]

You want to talk your stupid irrelevant pool argument, fine. When I put my pool in, the law required it be fenced in even though it was on private property. The law required that I have alarms at all entrances to the pool even if I had no kids even though it was on private property. The LAW said I had to do this for safety reason even if it was my private property. And I could not decide that I did not want to abide by the laws because I was a parent and felt I could teach my kids pool safety. No, my word wasn't good enough and it being private property wasn't good enough either. See there are laws established that determine what is safe for my pool on my private property and I am not allowed to ignore those laws. I can't take down the fence around my pool because that is deemed unsafe by law. But stick an Uzi in a 9 year olds hand? That's OK. Regulating that is.....Nazism. ??


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CitizenBBN]

Ah, the swimming pool defense. Next up is lawn mowers follow by private property.


And you will end with second verse same as the first? Next time a gun advocate comes up with a new argument will be the first time they come up with a new argument. The pool/lawn mower/private property arguments are as old and tired as they come

And when all else fails, misrepresent the other side and argue against it.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk3

I'm not misrepresenting you at all.

You are picking a risk to children that is not in the TOP TEN most dangerous, and want to ban that one, but NOT the others that are more deadly.

Anyone sincere in wanting to solve a problem objectively picks their targets based on maximizing results. if they don't, it's a sure sign they aren't really interested in the stated goal but just using it to justify some other goal that won't sell as well.

I could pick any number of other examples, the point is you want to ban something that doesn't impact you or your values or beliefs to protect kids, and skip over things that would impact your life choices that would do a lot more to protect kids. It's duplicitous.

But none of that bears on the fact that it's also safety Nazism, where we pass a law in response to the 0.1% of people that restricts the liberty of the other 99.9%. It's just that in this case it's selective safety Nazism, where we restrict the 99.9% that you don't happen to be part of or respect.

For many parents and families having children shoot with their parents and families is a cultural value, to be cherished in its own right. Since you don't share that value you dismiss it as without value and want it banned, even though any safety good that comes from it pales in comparison to other policy options.

It's no different than dismissing the importance of a family's faith or a parent's right to communicate that faith to their children, or any other values they hold. You'll say faith doesn't risk their safety, but doing chores on a farm does, so do we ban those? Those are considered values and rights of passage too.

I about got my chest caved in by a calf when I was showing cattle as a child not even 8 or 9. do we ban FFA? just kids showing cattle? or is that value, that social norm important enough to maintain despite there being injuries? do you get to sit in judgement of that line? simple majority rules?

This isn't about swimming pools. this is about the ever-expanding American penchant to restrict the rights of the minority when the majority doesn't share their beliefs without regard to the need to respect their values as a matter of principle. If it were just about safety you'd be the first to fill in the swimming pools, but it's not about safety or maximizing lives of children saved, it's about how you see laws banning gun use by kids as costless b/c they don't cost YOU anything, and anyone who thinks they do cost them something you dismiss with no respect to the fact that they are your equals and their values should be given equal weight as yours.

Like I said, when anti-gun people agree to objectively maximize safety by addressing the biggest risks first, as well as risks that are far more easily solved (easy to tell if someone has a swimming pool versus the 300 million guns out there), I'll accept they really care about kids and safety. Until then they are just like the enviro-fascists hiding behind "global warming". They just need an excuse to pursue a policy they accept as good without regard to its real world impact.

[Doc]

I'm not misrepresenting you at all.

You are picking a risk to children that is not in the TOP TEN most dangerous, and want to ban that one, but NOT the others that are more deadly.

Anyone sincere in wanting to solve a problem objectively picks their targets based on maximizing results. if they don't, it's a sure sign they aren't really interested in the stated goal but just using it to justify some other goal that won't sell as well.

I could pick any number of other examples, the point is you want to ban something that doesn't impact you or your values or beliefs to protect kids, and skip over things that would impact your life choices that would do a lot more to protect kids. It's duplicitous.

But none of that bears on the fact that it's also safety Nazism, where we pass a law in response to the 0.1% of people that restricts the liberty of the other 99.9%. It's just that in this case it's selective safety Nazism, where we restrict the 99.9% that you don't happen to be part of or respect.

For many parents and families having children shoot with their parents and families is a cultural value, to be cherished in its own right. Since you don't share that value you dismiss it as without value and want it banned, even though any safety good that comes from it pales in comparison to other policy options.

It's no different than dismissing the importance of a family's faith or a parent's right to communicate that faith to their children, or any other values they hold. You'll say faith doesn't risk their safety, but doing chores on a farm does, so do we ban those? Those are considered values and rights of passage too.

I about got my chest caved in by a calf when I was showing cattle as a child not even 8 or 9. do we ban FFA? just kids showing cattle? or is that value, that social norm important enough to maintain despite there being injuries? do you get to sit in judgement of that line? simple majority rules?

This isn't about swimming pools. this is about the ever-expanding American penchant to restrict the rights of the minority when the majority doesn't share their beliefs without regard to the need to respect their values as a matter of principle. If it were just about safety you'd be the first to fill in the swimming pools, but it's not about safety or maximizing lives of children saved, it's about how you see laws banning gun use by kids as costless b/c they don't cost YOU anything, and anyone who thinks they do cost them something you dismiss as fools.

Like I said, when anti-gun people agree to objectively maximize safety by addressing the biggest risks first, as well as risks that are far more easily solved (easy to tell if someone has a swimming pool versus the 300 million guns out there), I'll accept they really care about kids and safety. Until then they are just like the enviro-fascists hiding behind "global warming". They just need an excuse to pursue a policy they accept as good without regard to it's real world impact.

You want to start a thread about pool safety then do so. It's classic gun advocate strategy to take a thread that starts with somebody getting killed by a gun and making it about something else because it's easier to defend. So a thread with a video of a 9 year old shooting an Uzi killing an instructor and you talk about every else. It's a classic diversionary tactic.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CitizenBBN]

You want to talk your stupid irrelevant pool argument, fine. When I put my pool in, the law required it be fenced in even though it was on private property. The law required that I have alarms at all entrances to the pool even if I had no kids even though it was on private property. The LAW said I had to do this for safety reason even if it was my private property. And I could not decide that I did not want to abide by the laws because I was a parent and felt I could teach my kids pool safety. No, my word wasn't good enough and it being private property wasn't good enough either. See there are laws established that determine what is safe for my pool on my private property and I am not allowed to ignore those laws. I can't take down the fence around my pool because that is deemed unsafe by law. By stick an Uzi in a 9 year olds hand? That's OK. Regulating that is.....Nazism.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There are a dozen or so "pool laws". about 20,000 gun laws.

I had a pool. I'm familiar with those laws as well. let's get apples to apples here.

does the law prevent your kids from swimming unsupervised? is there an age minimum on who can use it? Maximum depth of the pool if you have kids of X age? Does it prevent your kids from having friends over? Are they required to wear life vests in the pool?

i never said a kid should be allowed to have an Uzi. You never suggested we ban just full auto weapons. You suggested making "firearms", presumably of any kind, illegal by age. Now you shift that to create an absurdity that I never proposed. Clever, but not clever enough. I'm not defending giving 8 year olds full auto weapons, i'm defending letting 8 year olds shoot FIREARMS in general. That doesn't mean any firearm in any circumstance and never has meant such.

Full auto weapons are heavily restricted, I have no problem further restricting that law by age. It does little to impact the important cultural values of having children shoot with parents and family or participate in hunting and shooting sports, and it is not necessary for self defense. I can live with a restriction there.

But you ddin't suggest that, you went right to the notion that kids shouldn't have access to firearms in general, so that's what I expect you to defend unless you care to relent and say it's OK except full auto. In which case we're done.

The laws on your pool are not really any more restrictive than the laws on kids and guns. They can go swimming without you there, without life vests, without certified classes, without a lifeguard supervising. they can play games, jump off the diving board, etc. as they choose.

Except those loose laws on pools cost 700 or so lives of kids under 14 every year. The loose laws on guns cost far less.

The only difference is you value the benefits of a pool. it's fun, it's good exercise. You don't value the benefits of a kid learning to shoot and hunt, so that's an easy activity for you to want to restrict.

Personally I don't care to ban either. I had a pool as a kid, I was expected to be responsible. I had guns as a kid, I was expected to be responsible. I fail to see any difference between the two. Either could have gotten me or someone else killed if we acted like idiots, so don't act like an idiot.

[CitizenBBN]

You want to start a thread about pool safety then do so. It's classic gun advocate strategy to take a thread that starts with somebody getting killed by a gun and making it about something else because it's easier to defend. So a thread with a video of a 9 year old shooting an Uzi killing an instructor and you talk about every else. It's a classic diversionary tactic.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I know you see it that way, that's OK, but it's not.

I'm outright questioning your priorities with this, but it's very much still a gun discussion. I'm just trying to see if you care about the lives of kids or just don't like guns. If you care about the lives of kids you'll support laws against those things that are even more dangerous to kids than guns, at least ALONG WITH the gun laws, but if you are just being duplicitous and out to ban things that don't inconvenience you without regard to what would do the most for child safety then we'll find that out too with this line of discussion.

Are you 'pro child" or just "anti gun"? I'm not changing the debate, I'm exposing the fact that you aren't objectively pursuing the best course to save children but recommending the course that best suits your life choices and values over those of others.

Call for a ban on anyone 8 or 9 swimming in a private pool AS WELL AS having access to guns and you'll be consistent. Until then you're just cherry picking, and that's never good public policy. It feels good, it's often what happens, but it's not sound objective policy.

As for me I'm for improving safety until it starts to step on liberty. Liberty isn't the safest way to live in any way. Kids are more at risk, as are adults, from themselves and from others. I can accept that, and try to work where we can to be safer within that restriction.

So I'm good with kids not having access to full auto weapons. I find that irresponsible and cannot see how not having such access impacts their ability to defend themselves or enjoy shooting sports beyond a very modest limitation for a very few. The impact to liberty is very narrow versus the improvement in safety.

But restrict them for all kids in every circumstance to save a few dozen lives, while we let things that kill hundreds a year remain OK? that's not fair, it's not equality before the law, it's not liberty ahead of safety.

that's why I see it as safety-Nazism. Your position does nothing to try to insure liberty, shows no concern for equality before the law. No, gun owners get a full blanket restriction, zero access, pool owners have to have a fence. that's not very equal.

[CitizenBBN]

You want to start a thread about pool safety then do so. It's classic gun advocate strategy to take a thread that starts with somebody getting killed by a gun and making it about something else because it's easier to defend. So a thread with a video of a 9 year old shooting an Uzi killing an instructor and you talk about every else. It's a classic diversionary tactic.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And I'll gladly defend kids having access to guns for shooting sports and hunting, etc. Gladly. It's a deep cultural norm and right of passage that I shared with my grandfather and others and has deep meaning to me. I learned, I bonded with people I loved, I was taught values that I carry to this day in responsibility and conservation, and I learned them with a gun in my hand when I was six years old.

Defend that? No problem.

Defend them shooting full auto weapons? I said that was indefensible in my first post. I'm fine to draw that distinction and focus on this specific case. YOU are the one broadening the discussion to "children shooting firearms" in general, as if a 9 year old being handed a full auto uzi is the same risk or issue as my grandfather teaching me how to shoot a single shot 22 rifle behind the tobacco barn on a farm.

who's changing the subject again?

[Doc]

I know you see it that way, that's OK, but it's not.

I'm outright questioning your priorities with this, but it's very much still a gun discussion. I'm just trying to see if you care about the lives of kids or just don't like guns. If you care about the lives of kids you'll support laws against those things that are even more dangerous to kids than guns, at least ALONG WITH the gun laws, but if you are just being duplicitous and out to ban things that don't inconvenience you without regard to what would do the most for child safety then we'll find that out too with this line of discussion.

Are you 'pro child" or just "anti gun"? I'm not changing the debate, I'm exposing the fact that you aren't objectively pursuing the best course to save children but recommending the course that best suits your life choices and values over those of others.

Call for a ban on anyone 8 or 9 swimming in a private pool AS WELL AS having access to guns and you'll be consistent. Until then you're just cherry picking, and that's never good public policy. It feels good, it's often what happens, but it's not sound objective policy.

As for me I'm for improving safety until it starts to step on liberty. Liberty isn't the safest way to live in any way. Kids are more at risk, as are adults, from themselves and from others. I can accept that, and try to work where we can to be safer within that restriction.

So I'm good with kids not having access to full auto weapons. I find that irresponsible and cannot see how not having such access impacts their ability to defend themselves or enjoy shooting sports beyond a very modest limitation for a very few. The impact to liberty is very narrow versus the improvement in safety.

But restrict them for all kids in every circumstance to save a few dozen lives, while we let things that kill hundreds a year remain OK? that's not fair, it's not equality before the law, it's not liberty ahead of safety.

that's why I see it as safety-Nazism. Your position does nothing to try to insure liberty, shows no concern for equality before the law. No, gun owners get a full blanket restriction, zero access, pool owners have to have a fence. that's not very equal.

I absolutely support laws which further safety. I support anti-smoking laws, anti-drunk driving laws, etc. but none of those are the subject.

Gun advocates take any action, even ones that make common sense and fight it tooth and nail. Putting an automatic gum in the hands of any 9 year old defies common sense under any circumstances. That's the point of the original post. It should be illegal and no parent, gun instructor or anybody else regardless of location should be allowed to counter that. That is my agenda. Do I believe that guns should only be used by responsible people? Yep. Do I believe they should not be used by people who are not responsible? By folks who are not old enough to make even the most basic decisions such as who to vote for, whether or not to smoke, to have a credit card, etc. in your world that makes me a Nazi?

To question my priorities and question my motives as pro- child etc is insulting. The mere fact that you would suggest that my motive could be more anti gun than pro child is so belittling and moronically stupid that to be honest it is beneath you. You should actually consider the target audience before posting standard pro gun arguments.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Doc]

Since it was my agenda and my motive/parenting priorities that were questioned, let me clarify

Let's use a better analogy. Let's say we had a video of a scuba dive instructor taking a 9 year old on a dive and the 9 year old freaked out, grabbed the regulator of the dive master and the dive master drown. I'd post that video and comment on how stupid it was to take a 9 year old diving, on how that should not be done (and its not as a 9 year old can not get certified-more on that later) and many other things. None of those would be that should ban scuba diving for responsible adults. The conversation would be more along the lines that first, the dive instructor was stupid and broke pretty much every rule he could. Divers acknowledge their sport is dangerous and require certification. Dive shops won't sell or rent equipment to non certified people even if a parent says its OK and even if the equipment is for use on private property. One can't get a dive card until 14 yrs of age, then only dive with parent or dive instructor. No exceptions. Once one is 16, a responsible age, then they are able to rent/purchase equipment and dive w/o direct parental supervision. You won't find 8,9 or 10 year old kids scuba diving on a regular basis, period. If you did and if there were thousands of accidents involving children scuba diving on an annual basis I would comment on it as well. Those comments would parallel my thoughts on gun usage by children. Those thought would also not, repeat NOT, center around banning the activity for responsible adults.

Now back to the idiotic pool analogy, and I question myself for doing this,..... in my neighborhood 9 out of 10 homes have pools. When the county enacts new regulations concerning the pools the pool owners do not start screaming and crying that the non pool owners are out to ban their pools! Sometimes the laws are for the good and safety. Now I do understand with guns there is a large segment of the population that wants them banned. I am not one of them. I have made that crystal clear over the years. If my brashness about your lack of understanding of that bothers you then I am sorry but to repeatedly be accused of something that I have time and time again refuted gets old and tiresome. Then throwing the anti-child bull on top of it is uncalled for.

[suncat05]

Although the both of you are in disagreement, this is an interesting discussion. I see both sides, and both sides make good points.
I was taught to shoot at an early age, as was CBBN. I was seven years of age. My Dad and paternal grandfather took me out of Louisville, somewhere close to LaGrange to someone's property that they both knew, and that's where we started my introduction to guns & shooting. We went several times a year(3 or 4 times), and I was taught to shoot several different types of guns. I shot a .22 rifle, a .38 special, a 9mm, a .45 ACP and a .45 revolver, and a 20 guage shotgun. My Dad was adamant about correctly handling a gun, always making sure that it was pointed downrange, and that when I held it in my hand that my finger was not on the trigger unitl it was pointed downrange and I was ready to shoot. And my Dad repeated, over and over again, that the purpose of any gun was for self-defense first, and then for hunting or other reasons second. Again, I was taught correctly, and by the time I was 8 years old I understood the idea of safely handling any firearm.
My Dad never put a full automatic weapon in my hands because he didn't have one. And I am certain that if he would have had one, that I would NOT have had a chance to shoot it unitl I was older and stronger.
I am all for kids learning how to shoot a gun, as long as it can be handled correctly. But a full auto Uzi? No, not at that age. It takes a little bit more strength and training to handle a weapon that can shoot full auto. An example that I can use for that is my time in Basic Training when I was in the Army. How many times did I shoot that rifle, an M-16A1, in single shot mode only before I was allowed to shoot it in full auto mode? It was well into the 5th week of Basic, and after I had fired, field stripped and cleaned and carried that rifle everywhere with me, to include in bed and into the latrine, and anywhere else I was told to go. THAT is the correct way to teach someone how to handle a weapon in full auto mode. You have to manually handle the weapon until you know it like you know yourself.
That is what my Dad and grandfather taught me, and what I learned in the U.S. Army. Shooting any type of weapon requires training and discipline, both outer and inner discilpine. You have to respect the weapon for what it is, which is as a tool of self-defense, and for hunting or other shooting sports.

Plain & simple, this instructor should never have put that Uzi on full auto and allowed that kid to shoot it in that manner. That kid clearly did not have the strength or the necesssary knowledge of how to properly handle that weapon in that mode. JMHO.
I think we are all in basic agreement here, but we see other ways to achieve the end result.

[Darrell KSR]

An example that I can use for that is my time in Basic Training when I was in the Army. How many times did I shoot that rifle, an M-16A1, in single shot mode only before I was allowed to shoot it in full auto mode? It was well into the 5th week of Basic, and after I had fired, field stripped and cleaned and carried that rifle everywhere with me, to include in bed and into the latrine, and anywhere else I was told to go. THAT is the correct way to teach someone how to handle a weapon in full auto mode. You have to manually handle the weapon until you know it like you know yourself.

Great example.

Here's what bothers me. This wasn't a rogue instructor. It's a regular part of their business. I think your example is a fantastic one that shows how critical it is to learn the right way, even as an adult.

I mirror your comments, by the way, on the discussion. I often just peek in on these discussions and don't add anything because the discussion is so good. :)

[CitizenBBN]

Rather than try to tie up every loose end, I'll see if I can distill it this way:

Every year, despite a lot of gun laws, 30-40 kids under 14 are killed in in firearms accidents. This has led you to post stories of at least 2 of them here, and call for more legal restrictions on the access children have to firearms, both shooting them knowingly and access to them in the home.

Every year, despite the laws you mentioned about fences, 700 kids under 14 are killed in swimming pool accidents. Do you think there should be more legal restrictions on swimming pools, their ownership and the access children have to them?

If one is solely focused on maximizing the lives saved, one has to at least support both having further restrictions placed on them. At a minimum you should support more laws regulating ownership and access to swimming pools as more than 10x more children are killed every year by them.

To focus on the one that threatens far fewer kids, and not support legislation on at least both, I find duplicitous. You can be mad about that if you choose, but yes I think it's absolutely b/c one such activity is directly tied to your lifestyle and culture (not a lot of pools in upstate Maine), and how restricting the other (and far less dangerous) activity wouldn't impact your life choices nearly so much.

that's the only reason I can find why that would be the choice, if that is in fact the choice, but I'm open to other explanations why we'd ignore the 800lb gorilla in the room and legislate the lemur.

of course if you support both then you are at least consistent in your application of safety concerns for children, and we're fine on that topic and can then move on to discussing your specific legal recommendations on guns.

Personally I could probably live with age restrictions or some other qualification for firing full auto weapons. what I cannot support is using this one insane situation as justification for restrictions on access to all firearms, which is what you suggested. That's when this kicked in the equivalency test of swimming pools, when it went from beyond solving this problem to using this incident to justify much broader legislation that would dramatically impact the values and norms of tens of millions of American citizens.

[CitizenBBN]

Great example.

Here's what bothers me. This wasn't a rogue instructor. It's a regular part of their business. I think your example is a fantastic one that shows how critical it is to learn the right way, even as an adult.

I mirror your comments, by the way, on the discussion. I often just peek in on these discussions and don't add anything because the discussion is so good. :)

I find their business model disturbing.

It didn't work out, but I was hoping to get to take my niece out to shoot some time back. She'd never shot before but wanted to. Dad is a gun guy,just hadn't happened yet.

I had a very specific plan. We were going to shoot 22 rifles. Not handguns, not 44 magnums, certainly not full auto 16" barrel machine guns. I never even considered starting her off with handguns, and putting my Uzi in her hand even semi-auto was never a thought either. Too much gun for her to handle and thus also too much gun for her to ENJOY.

LIke I said, this was like the vids of guys getting a kick out of having their girlfriend get a concussion or nearly killing someone by having them shoot a gun they aren't ready to shoot. I'd like to beat idiots like those guys.

There is one exception to this: if the gun were mounted and constrained on the mounts such that it could only fire in a certain zone and there was no recoil to cause a problem, I can see letting someone untrained pull the trigger. The gun would be mechanically safe from shooting outside the range area, that would be safe.

At a bare minimum the instructor should have had a good grip on the weapon around the child shooting it, but I cannot condone even that sort of thing.

FWIW a 9mm uzi has almost no recoil for any adult. but at nine it would be something, esp on full auto. But the gun is not a light one, her muscles would already be strained just holding it, nothing left for control. That plus full auto was always a recipe for disaster, and I bet more than one kid has been pretty wild in their shooting on the range. Maybe not out of the range, but I bet some of of them have looked awkward enough bells should have been going off.

[Doc]

Rather than try to tie up every loose end, I'll see if I can distill it this way:

Every year, despite a lot of gun laws, 30-40 kids under 14 are killed in in firearms accidents. This has led you to post stories of at least 2 of them here, and call for more legal prestrictions on the access children have to firearms, both shooting them knowingly and access to them in the home.

Every year, despite the laws you mentioned about fences, 700 kids under 14 are killed in swimming pool accidents. Do you think there should be more legal restrictions on swimming pools, their ownership and the access children have to them?

If one is solely focused on maximizing the lives saved, one has to at least support both having further restrictions placed on them. At a minimum you should support more laws regulating ownership and access to swimming pools as more than 10x more children are killed every year by them.

To focus on the one that threatens far fewer kids, and not support legislation on at least both, I find duplicitous. You can be mad about that if you choose, but yes I think it's absolutely b/c one such activity is directly tied to your lifestyle and culture (not a lot of pools in upstate Maine), and how restricting the other (and far less dangerous) activity wouldn't impact your life choices nearly so much.

that's the only reason I can find why that would be the choice, if that is in fact the choice, but I'm open to other explanations why we'd ignore the 800lb gorilla in the room and legislate the lemur.

of course if you support both then you are at least consistent in your application of safety concerns for children, and we're fine on that topic and can then move on to discussing your specific legal recommendations on guns.

Personally I could probably live with age restrictions or some other qualification for firing full auto weapons. what I cannot support is using this one insane situation as justification for restrictions on access to all firearms, which is what you suggested. That's when this kicked in the equivalency test of swimming pools, when it went from beyond solving this problem to using this incident to justify much broader legislation that would dramatically impact the values and norms of tens of millions of American citizens.
What you choose to do is take any discussion with any anti gun angle and make it about something else. If its pro gun then we leave it be. We had multiple threads about a single black kid killed by a supposedly racist police officer in Missouri and you chistized nobody about discussing that. That single death was of such importance, the loss of that single life, that we were able to discuss it as an entity by itself. Why was that thread originator not asked to delve into pool death, etc since surely more people are killed in pool accidents than are killed by racist cops? The answer to the rhetorical question is because pools had nothing to do with Micheal Brown getting shot, just like pools had nothing to to do with the instructor getting shot. What was presented was a single incident that occurred with video. There was no pool present hence a pool had no part in the discussion. What was present was a 9 year old child, an Uzi fully automatic gun, and instructor pre-mortum and a shooting range. All of which were discussed. Pools we're not present so they were not discussed. More folks die of cancer than guns but nobody there had cancer that we know of so we didn't discuss cancer either. I suspect more folks die of heart attacks than gun shot on a yearly basis but nobody in the video died of a heart attack so I did not discuss a heart attack. I suspect more folks get bite by dogs on an annual basis than get shot but there were no dogs in the video. What I try to do is actually discuss what is in the video. I typically find that more interesting. I think it would be confusing if I had posted a video of a guy getting shot then talked about cancer, heart attacks, pools and dog bites..... but that's just me.

Seconds, I stated my opinion was that children should not be using guns. That is my opinion. I have lots of opinions and often state them. My opinion that a lawyer charging me $300 an hour to write a letter is too much but that does not mean I'm suggesting capping layers fees. My opinion is the Chiek Diallo is rated too high but that does mean mean UK should recruit him. My opinion is Jimmy Carter is the worse president. I have many other opinions on many other issue and I've stated them in hundreds if not thousands of threads yet twice now I've posted two whole stories about kids killed! Wow, better star my account as an agenda poster. And to refresh your memory, the last story I started that was similar was the kid shot and killed who lived 1 mile from me, attended school with my son, was on my son lacrosse team and was a friend of my son. That child's memorial service, which we attended, had quite an impact on us. This occurred when my son was in seventh grade. He is now in 11th grade. That was FOUR YEARS AGO. It wasn't a story I cherry picked or received from some anti gun lobby. And if I take your word for it that "only" 30-40 children under age 14 get killed on a yearly basis due to gun accidents I'd say that is 1) 30-40 too many 2) obviously you are not a parent of a 14 year old 3) doubt you know the parent of a 14 year old who was killed. See in my book one child is too many. When Travon Martin was killed it was one kid too many. When Micheal Brown was killed it was one kid too many. When Liam Giannone died yesterday (drown is a swimming pool) that too was one too many. Any and every death, especially the death of a child, is important to me.

What I do is the same as everybody else here. I have opinions and I state them. I'm not changing any laws and certainly don't expect to change your or any other gun advocates stance. But I don't expect my motives to be questions nor my opinions to be equated to fascist Germany.

Its the typical gun advocate paranoia. Anybody who possess any opinion that isn't lock step with the NRA's is a tree hugging liberal hiding under a rock waiting to take away your gun away. So long as one possess that attitude, having a sane conversation is not possible

ETA: Since you seem to be keeping tabs, any guess on the number of pro gun threads you have started in the same time frame as my two anti-gun stories? That's approximately four years so I'd guess its more than a few. And in those threads started by yourself and others that were pro gun, any chance you got a feel for the number of times I supported the second amendment? Also during that time did you start a single thread on pool safety?

In fairness, I will say I see your point. In fact I posted something equating to your point concerning the attention Micheal Brown was getting compared to the lack of attention that James Foley received but my intent wasn't that Browns killing wasn't newsworthy or a topic of discussion in its own right but rather Foley's beheading was a more important current story of national impact that the media was ignoring. I elected to take that to a thread all its own rather than deflect from an important topic like the Brown killing.

[KeithKSR]

While I agree with you I can't ignore the fact that the tragedy also could have been avoided if it were ILLEGAL to have firearms in the hands of children. In my opinion a gun is a dangerous tool and should only be used by responsible individuals. I see no situation in which a 9 year old is a responsible individual regardless of the amount of supervision. Gun advocates have long used the argument that under proper supervision, children using guns is fine. Well here is a child under parental supervision with a gun instructor at a gun range. Its made even worse when you have automatic weapon. Good lord. This kid should be playing with a barbie, not a uzi.

That is a knee jerk reaction to a situation where poor discretion was used. Knee jerk reactions result in bad laws.

[Doc]

That is a knee jerk reaction to a situation where poor discretion was used. Knee jerk reactions result in bad laws.

Nope, its not a knee jerk reaction. A knee jerk reaction is a reflex that occurs without conscious thought. My reaction or opinion is something I've thought about and considered for some time. Because you disagree with it does not make it a knee jerk reaction.

[KeithKSR]

Nope, its not a knee jerk reaction. A knee jerk reaction is a reflex that occurs without conscious thought. My reaction or opinion is something I've thought about and considered for some time. Because you disagree with it does not make it a knee jerk reaction.

You obviously need more regulations for your pool.

[Doc]

You obviously need more regulations for your pool.

Nah. Pools are like guns. They are not dangerous at all so why the need for any regulations? Pools don't kill kids. They are just big holes in the ground full of water. Nothing dangerous about that. Its people who use pools in an unwise manner that kill kids and you can't regulate stupidity. Plus putting in more pool laws would mean that only crimminals would have pools.

[CitizenBBN]

I'm not changing the subject. I'm providing context for a policy decision.

What you see as changing the subject I see as you wanting to operate in a vacuum, something that safety based policy loves to do. "if it saves just one child it's worth this big expense or invasive law". that's policy in a vacuum, b/c the truth is one life may NOT be worth the price, depending on the price and if the gains can be made in some less costly way.

The Ferguson discussion didn't bring up policy suggestions, and if it had and they needed proper context so we could objectively evaluate the cost/benefit versus other options I'd have raised other things to provide that context.

You propose fundamentally changing cultural values for millions of people for the sake of saving a few dozen children's lives. You act like that is costless and it is not. You act as if it's worth it, and that's where the context comes in, b/c apparently it's only worth massive invasion of people's lives and norms and choices when it's one that doesn't impact you or your peers.

But that's not policy, I just find that duplicity interesting, it doesn't matter that you are duplicitous per se, just interesting.

But what is relevant is that as a policy your suggestion fails b/c there are BETTER CHOICES FOR SAVING THE LIVES OF CHILDREN than your proposal, that will save more lives with less invasive policies.

So I'm not changing the subject, I'm suggesting a BETTER POLICY ALTERNATIVE TO REACH YOUR STATED GOAL. It's no different than you saying you want to build a road from A to B and me suggesting a different route that is more efficient and/or less costly.

that's important b/c what that does is put your policy proposal into context and when we do we see that you are wanting to hunt ants with air strikes. It's a very small risk with very few deaths but you want to enact culture changing legislation.

By using the swimming pool policy alternative I have shown just how extreme that view is and how it isn't based in maximizing saving lives but in just devaluing the cost of the legislation by devaluing the values of those it would impact.

That's what this is about, showing how your policy is simply not good public policy. Like choosing an investment with a 5% return when there is one with a 50% return with identical risks and costs, you are choosing a policy option inside the envelope of efficient policy choices.

Maybe a graph will make the point clear. This is the "CAPM" model, where we plot the risk and return of investments and end up with an "envelope", a curve that defines the optimum investment choice for a given level of risk.

http://www.mathworks.com/cmsimages/64734_wl_portfolio_fig1_wl.jpg


In that curve, any investment along the blue line is the right choice, and any investment inside the curve is by definition suboptimal. You can get a better return for the same risk.

In this case I can save more lives of children 14 and under with a policy that costs a lot less to a lot fewer people. I therefore would NEVER choose to implement the suboptimal policy that costs more and does less.





You want to keep it in that vacuum, where we talk about the horrible tragedy of a child killed, or killing someone else in this case by accident, but the truth is that thousands of children die a year in this country and to when we make policy we have to step back and put context on those deaths and talk objectively about what if anything can be done to prevent them.

You want to only focus on this one aspect, which is how bad safety policy is made all the time, and it is always suboptimal, saving fewer lives at higher cost.

why on earth would I look at implementing your policy when there are so many superior options? the only reason I see you doing it is that this one you don't value the costs b/c they aren't YOUR costs, whereas my suggestion you and your group of peers would pay for in disruption to lifestyle.

But I'm not going to do it. in debate we call it "counter planning", which is to say you propose policy A, and I then say "hey I have policy B here that does a better job and costs less".

You think that doesn't deny the value of Policy A, I say it does, and argumentation theory and policy analysis supports my view.

[CitizenBBN]

Nah. Pools are like guns. They are not dangerous at all so why the need for any regulations? Pools don't kill kids. They are just big holes in the ground full of water. Nothing dangerous about that. Its people who use pools in an unwise manner that kill kids and you can't regulate stupidity. Plus putting in more pool laws would mean that only crimminals would have pools.

Very humorous, but ironic when you accuse me of changing the subject then put out the NRA ad hominem attack and now this one.

Yes I likely offended you by using the pool analogy when you own one, but I didn't pick it b/c of that reason. I picked it b/c it's the #2 killer of children under 14 in the US, which makes it a far more substantial problem than accidental gun deaths, and b/c it is tolerated due purely to it being an enjoyable activity, whereas gun ownership is a Constitutional right that performs a vital role in self defense and preservation of our liberty.

I'd have used bungee jumping or golf, but they don't kill a lot of people.

If we regulated pools anything like how we do guns few would go through the hoops to have one. First pool installers would have to be federally licensed and maintain detailed records on every pool they ever did work on, they'd be subject to unannounced audits by federal agents, and if they didn't have all their concrete receipts theyd' have their license taken and be subject to felony prosecution. that would sure cut down the number and raise the cost.

But I do agree, pools don't drown people. It's the water in them that does it. :)

[CitizenBBN]

I meant to mention that the comparative policy option is great at exposing whether people are truly accepting the "if it saves one life" mantra, or if it's just "if it saves one life and doesn't effect me", and that is important for policy b/c IMO if the suggestion itself is based on inequality before the law then I have no problem dismissing the policy.

Everyone should be equal in this country, and if the government is to regulate us to insure child safety it should do so based on objective criteria that are equally applied to us all, not applied based on which are more politically expedient or have better or worse lobbying groups.

So at a fundamental level of American principles of equality and fair play it is in fact very relevant if there are better policy options yet we are asked to implement a less optimal one that only impacts a minority of the population. it's wrong and un-American on its face. The law should impact us all, and when we call for a law we should be willing to ask nothing of anyone else we won't ask of ourselves.

So if you ask millions of americans to give up something they value you'd better be doing so in the context of sacrificing things you value that are equally (or greater) problems to society. If you arent' I have no problem calling it out.

Equality before the law in this country is a nearly lost concept, but I'm old school that way.

[Doc]

I'll take each wall seperately

1) cost analysis blah blah blah.. what I stated was my opinion. My opinion isn't changing any law, period. My opinion is the same and will continue to be the same. The law is what it was and will continue to be what it was. A graph doesn't make anything clear. What is clear is a kid who supposidly being supervised killed a guy. That is what is clear.

2) glad you saw humor. That was the intent, that and to illustrate some of what I see as the stupidity in the some of the gun advocates talking points (gun are not dangerous, one of a guns functions isn't to kill people, etc). You didn't offend me with your pool analogy. You did the expected which was not discuss the topic. What you did do was accused me of agenda posting and being more anti-gun than pro-safety. It was a stupid suggestion and inaccurate. Then on top of that involked Godwin's law.

3) we're are impressed with "comparative policy option". Its so much better than discussing what the topic is about. (dws).

I could make my replies longer but there really isn't much point, is there?

[KeithKSR]

...you can't regulate stupidity.

There is the crux of most regulatory attempts. The 9 year old didn't need to operate a full auto weapon any more than a two year old needs to be unsupervised around the pool.