Child firing Uzi at Arizona shooting range accidentally kills instructor, police say

[Exocet]

Holy c**p !

A 9-year-old girl learning to fire a submachine gun accidentally killed her instructor at a shooting range when the weapon recoiled over her shoulder, according to Arizona authorities.
The instructor, 39-year-old Charles Vacca, died at a hospital late Monday night after he was shot in the head.
The Mohave County Sheriff's Office said the girl was with her parents. The website of Bullets and Burgers, the shooting range where the accident happened, says children between the ages of 8 and 17 can shoot a weapon if accompanied by a parent or guardian.
Police identified the weapon as an Uzi, an Israeli-made submachine gun.
It wasn't the first fatal accident involving a child and an Uzi. In 2008, an 8-year-old boy in Massachusetts accidentally shot himself with a micro Uzi during a gun show.
In Arizona, cell phone video released by authorities Tuesday shows the moments before the fatal shots were fired, CNN affiliate KLAS reported.
In the video, Vacca and the girl are at an outdoor range. The wind blows a target in the distance. Vacca shows the child how to hold the gun and then helps her establish her grip and her stance. She fires one round and dirt flies above the target. Vacca adjusts the Uzi, places his right hand on her back and his left under her right arm.
She fires several rounds in rapid succession and the gun kicks to the left as she loses control. The video ends before the fatal head shot. In releasing the video, authorities did not identify who made it.
KLAS reported the girl was a tourist from the Northeast.
Kids and guns: What's your parenting style?
Sam Scarmardo, who operates Bullets and Burgers, told KLAS they "really don't know what happened."
"Our guys are trained to basically hover over people when they're shooting," he said. "If they're shooting right-handed, we have our right-hand behind them ready to push the weapon out of the way. And if they're left-handed, the same thing."
Vacca was married, well-liked and a veteran, KLAS said.
The range, which is about an hour's drive from Las Vegas, says on its Facebook page: "We separate ourselves from all other Las Vegas ranges with our unique 'Desert Storm' atmosphere and military style bunkers."
In the Massachusetts incident, former Pelham Police Chief Edward Fleury was found not guilty in 2011 of involuntary manslaughter in the 2008 death of 8-year-old Christopher Bizilj, who was firing the micro Uzi when he accidentally shot himself in the head at a gun show Fleury helped organize. The boy died instantly.
Fleury also was acquitted of three counts of furnishing a machine gun to a minor.
Christopher's father, Charles Bizilj, was present at the time of the shooting and videotaped the entire incident. Parts of that tape were shown to the jury, which also heard emotional testimony from the father.
"I ran over to him. His eyes were open and I saw no reason for him to be on the ground," Bizilj told members of the Hampden County jury. "And I tried to talk to him and he didn't respond. I put my hand behind his head to try to pick him up and there was a large portion of his cranium missing. And I put my hand against the back of his head."

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/08/26/us/arizona-girl-fatal-shooting-accident/index.html?hpt=hp_c3

[Hollywood]

Why the fuck would you let a 9 year old girl use a fucking Uzi?

[thatcountrykid]

It is an unfortunate accident. I feel bad for the guy and horrible for the girl. It's no ones fault it was simply an accident.

Why the fuck would you let a 9 year old girl use a fucking Uzi?

I shot my first gun at 9 and I'm doin good.

Posts merged
~P&S.

[Living For Love]

How people allowed that girl to get hold of that gun, that's the real question here.

[thatcountrykid]

How people allowed that girl to get hold of that gun, that's the real question here.

It's a public shooting range where people can pay and shoot all kinds of weapons with an instructor present.

[Living For Love]

It's a public shooting range where people can pay and shoot all kinds of weapons with an instructor present.

I know that, I'm just wondering what kind of person (owning a public shooting range like that) allows children between the ages of 8 and 17 to shoot a weapon like that one.

[conniption]

A child with a gun? Just wow.

[Harry Smith]

saw this on the news, I can understand taking a 13/14 year old out with an air rifle or a .22 but not a weapon designed to be used in Middle Eastern warfare, that's what the UZI is made for. I get that people under 18 can experience firearms without dying, I just don't get the need for a fully automatic sub machine gun

[thatcountrykid]

I know that, I'm just wondering what kind of person (owning a public shooting range like that) allows children between the ages of 8 and 17 to shoot a weapon like that one.

Well when I was ten I shot weapons like that. This was just one unfortunate incident. They were taking all precautions and this time this happened.

[Living For Love]

Well when I was ten I shot weapons like that. This was just one unfortunate incident. They were taking all precautions and this time this happened.

No, this wasn't just an accident, we all know the stuff that has been happening recently because of guns in America. As much as I like the USA, I simply can't agree with their gun policy. Basically, any idiot can own a gun in that country. This kind of establishments that allow children to use guns like that should simply be forbidden.

[thatcountrykid]

No, this wasn't just an accident, we all know the stuff that has been happening recently because of guns in America. As much as I like the USA, I simply can't agree with their gun policy. Basically, any idiot can own a gun in that country. This kind of establishments that allow children to use guns like that should simply be forbidden.

Are you serious? That is the safest place for people to shoot weapons. It was an accident. It's not like she was just given a gun and told "go wild." She had an instructor who was a vet and knew these types of weapons. If people can't shoot a gun there then where can they.

[Harry Smith]

That is the safest place for people to shoot weapons.

That's pretty ironic

[CosmicNoodle]

This is what happens when you use americas gun laws

[Living For Love]

Are you serious? That is the safest place for people to shoot weapons. It was an accident. It's not like she was just given a gun and told "go wild." She had an instructor who was a vet and knew these types of weapons. If people can't shoot a gun there then where can they.

I still don't understand what was the instructor's intention when he was teaching that girl how to shoot a Uzi. I mean, why would she want to know about it? And you know her parents were there? What kind of "parents" allow that?

[thatcountrykid]

I still don't understand what was the instructor's intention when he was teaching that girl how to shoot a Uzi. I mean, why would she want to know about it? And you know her parents were there? What kind of "parents" allow that?

You see the thing about freedom and our right to bear arms is to shoot without a reason. He was teaching her to be safe and responsible. That's a big thing. I think it's important parents teach their kids about firearms.

I was tough and I respect them and know about them.

Yes I know here parents where there.

[Harry Smith]

you need a fucking good reason for a 9 year old to shoot a uzi? Is she being sent off to Iraq? Are her parents going to give her one to carry in school?

[TheN3rdyOutcast]

I banged my head on the computer table for 5 minutes to make sure this is real life and not a purgatory. Whoever let that kid have the gun should get a Darwin Award. You don't give guns to 9 year olds, especially highly powered guns. If you wanted her to shoot something, at least give her an air soft one that won't kill somebody if she aims it wrong.

[ksdnfkfr]

Mojave county....that figures. That's nuts putting something like that in the hands of a little kid. My dad and uncle took me out shooting in the Mojave desert all the time. But they never would have given me a gun that had anywhere near that kind if recoil.

BTW the reason for shooting something like an uzi is because it's really fun. We only used guns out there for recreation.

[Gamma Male]

9 seems pretty young to be handling a submachine gun. If she was a little older or if it was a smaller gun, I'd probably just be like "accidents happen. At least they were trying to teach her to be safe". But a 9 year old with an uzi? That's just irresponsible.

[ksdnfkfr]

It's basically setting up a situation where the gun goes out of control and bullets get spayed everywhere.

[Hollywood]

You see the thing about freedom and our right to bear arms is to shoot without a reason. He was teaching her to be safe and responsible. That's a big thing. I think it's important parents teach their kids about firearms.

I was tough and I respect them and know about them.

Yes I know here parents where there.

I say it again, she's 9 years old. Just because you handled them well doesn't mean everyone would, as this tragedy obviously shows. Why risk it? And more importantly, what does a 9 year old get out of shooting an Uzi? Hunting rifles, sure, I can understand that, hunting is a hobby and a lot of kids start at a young age. But a semi-automatic weapon? Civilian adults don't have any realistic need for those kinds of weapons, let alone young children. I agree that children need to have at least some knowledge about firearms, but this is just stupid.

[thatcountrykid]

I say it again, she's 9 years old. Just because you handled them well doesn't mean everyone would, as this tragedy obviously shows. Why risk it? And more importantly, what does a 9 year old get out of shooting an Uzi? Hunting rifles, sure, I can understand that, hunting is a hobby and a lot of kids start at a young age. But a semi-automatic weapon? Civilian adults don't have any realistic need for those kinds of weapons, let alone young children. I agree that children need to have at least some knowledge about firearms, but this is just stupid.

Because semi automatics are legal. Because people hunt with semi automatics and finally, because this is a free nation where we still have our basic rights, we fucking can.


And when you say we don't need semi automatics do you include handguns?

[Hollywood]

Because semi automatics are legal. Because people hunt with semi automatics and finally, because this is a free nation where we still have our basic rights, we fucking can.

You've still yet to give me a single good reason why a nine year old girl has any business using a gun like that, supervised or not. And "because it's legal" isn't an excuse, Westboro Baptist protests at military funerals are legal too but that doesn't make them right.

[phuckphace]

Why the fuck would you let a 9 year old girl use a fucking Uzi?

^

I'm also thinking WTF since I want to get an open-carry permit but you have to be at least 21(!) and I'm also pretty sure an Uzi requires an ATF license anyway.

[Harry Smith]

because this is a free nation where we still have our basic rights, we fucking can.

Another pretty ironic comment, the only other nation that has firearms as a right is Yemen

[Living For Love]

You see the thing about freedom and our right to bear arms is to shoot without a reason. He was teaching her to be safe and responsible. That's a big thing. I think it's important parents teach their kids about firearms.

I was tough and I respect them and know about them.

Yes I know here parents where there.

What do you mean by shooting without a reason? Shooting indiscriminately, without any logical explanation? You don't teach a nine year old child to be safe and responsible by teaching them how to handle a Uzi, you teach them to be safe and responsible at school or at home, using common education standards. You don't need guns to educate a child, it gives the impression safety can only be achieved if you're the owner of a gun, and that otherwise no one's safe. I've never held a gun in my life, does that mean I'm not safe or responsible?

[Vlerchan]

It's rather sad that not letting children (defined: people under eighteen) play with guns is not the prevailing opinion in parts of the US, I think.

---

@phuckphace: I can't imagine why you'd want an open invitation to 'shoot me first' in case something actually does ever go down. Because that's what open-carry has always seemed to amount to if you ask me.

[Southside]

Because semi automatics are legal. Because people hunt with semi automatics and finally, because this is a free nation where we still have our basic rights, we fucking can.


And when you say we don't need semi automatics do you include handguns?

Your argument is baseless, your're trying to justify a nine year old being trained on using an Uzi just because people hunt with semi autos? I understand it was an accident but no kid should be handling a Uzi man, just my personal beliefs.

Why is it important for parents to teach kids about firearms? Now I agree it'd be good to teach your kid about firearm safety but not on shooting a weapon. I think by teaching a child how to use a firearm, that leaves them under the impression that a gun is the only way to protect themselves, and we don't want the next generation of kids to be trigger happy anytime someone bumps into them or something like that do we?

When will a child need to know how to fire and reload a weapon? Let's kick the ballistics here( get the pun?), majority of people will ever be in a situation where they need to use a firearm to protect themselves.You know where I live Dan, I've never been in that type of situation and I walk the streets everyday.

[PythonProject]

Its pretty much common sense that allowing a nine year old to shoot a uzi is a bad idea. A hunting rifle of a low calibre is understandable but not a uzi.

[phuckphace]

@phuckphace: I can't imagine why you'd want an open invitation to 'shoot me first' in case something actually does ever go down. Because that's what open-carry has always seemed to amount to if you ask me.

I don't follow. it has been my understanding that knowledge of the presence of armed citizens in an area is an effective deterrent against crime. shooting someone who is armed is risky because there is a good chance you'll miss or only wound them, after which they are still able to retaliate. unlike in movies, it's not always as simple as whipping the gun out and squeezing the trigger for a perfect one-shot. only the top 1% of the most unhinged would try to engage an armed person who wasn't already shooting at them.

[Vlerchan]

what do you mean?
You're standing around with you weapon holstered for me to see. I'm going to commit a crime. I scan for immediate threats:

Who's the obvious immediate threat in this scenario?

[phuckphace]

edited my post to explain further since the original sounded dumb.

[Vlerchan]

it has been my understanding that knowledge of the presence of armed citizens in an area is an effective deterrent against crime.
Sure. That's why I'm for concealed carry.

I'm against open carry because I've seen no evidence that it helps further. All it does is place that open-carriers life at unnecessary risk as a result of the outlined above. Lots of the arguments for open carry are stuff like "the second amendment is my permit" and "it's a visible political sign that my rights are well and good in the US of A": I've seen no argument based around the pragmatism of open carrying.

[phuckphace]

Sure. That's why I'm for concealed carry.

I'm against open carry because I've seen no evidence that it helps further. All it does is place that open-carriers life at unnecessary risk as a result of the outlined above. Lots of the arguments for open carry are stuff like "the second amendment is my permit" and "it's a visible political sign that my rights are well and good in the US of A": I've seen no argument based around the pragmatism of open carrying.

I always thought the main point of open carry is to make carrying easier, since a hip holster is more convenient and requires less fumbling than one awkwardly strapped underneath clothing. I think the visible sign in question is more of a psychological one - I'm definitely not going to fuck with a guy who has an SMG strapped to his chest unless I'm Neo and can bend time to dodge bullets.

[Stronk Serb]

I always thought the main point of open carry is to make carrying easier, since a hip holster is more convenient and requires less fumbling than one awkwardly strapped underneath clothing. I think the visible sign in question is more of a psychological one - I'm definitely not going to fuck with a guy who has an SMG strapped to his chest unless I'm Neo and can bend time to dodge bullets.

Get a trench coat and boots and nobody will fuck with you because you'lllook like Dean from Supernatural or someone from the S.T.A.L.K.E.R. games.

[Vlerchan]

Or some guy from the Trench Coat Mafia?

I always thought the main point of open carry is to make carrying easier, since a hip holster is more convenient and requires less fumbling than one awkwardly strapped underneath clothing.
The point I'm making is that no evidence that I'm aware of supports that areas with open carry do better than areas with just concealed carry. Whilst there's some practicality issues, minor ones, with concealed carry, they seem to be having no quantifiable impact on (violent) crime rates.

think the visible sign in question is more of a psychological one - I'm definitely not going to fuck with a guy who has an SMG strapped to his chest unless I'm Neo and can bend time to dodge bullets.
For someone set on committing a violent crime, your fear could translate into an eagerness to gun this guy down first.

I also believe there's a psychological effect already existent in the idea that if I draw, any single other one of these could be right after me.

[AdamS]

If we allow the public to drive tanks, there would be less gun crime.
If we let the people own RPGs there'll be less tank crime.
If there was no money in guns, America's laws would have already been changed...

Does anyone actually think that a world where a 9 year old girl is taken out to shoot Uzi's is a sane one?Guns are dangerous. Kids our age (not to mention younger) are likely to have accidents.

The longer you can keep people away from things that can end life, the better...

[thatcountrykid]

If we allow the public to drive tanks, there would be less gun crime.
If we let the people own RPGs there'll be less tank crime.
If there was no money in guns, America's laws would have already been changed...

Does anyone actually think that a world where a 9 year old girl is taken out to shoot Uzi's is a sane one?Guns are dangerous. Kids our age (not to mention younger) are likely to have accidents.

The longer you can keep people away from things that can end life, the better...

Guns are not dangerous. Stupid people are.

[Vlerchan]

Guns are not dangerous. Stupid people are.
But you support giving these stupid people (see: children) guns anyway?

[Harry Smith]

Guns are not dangerous. Stupid people are.

so lets give all the stupid people universal gun rights, but make them pay when they shoot each other

[thatcountrykid]

But you support giving these stupid people (see: children) guns anyway?

It seems you get the idea we just hand out guns like candy on Halloween.

I think since it is everyone's basic right to own a fire arm that yes you should be able to buy and shoot a gun. I do support a harder background check and maybe a class on weapons safety and a mental eval when buying.

This case was just an accident. I know of hindered of kids my age or younger who shoot professionally. High schools have shooting teams. A few isolated instance shouldn't ruin children's lives when shooting sports have saved theirs.

[Vlerchan]

It seems you get the idea we just hand out guns like candy on Halloween.
I understand how guns are distributed in the US. I still feel that you're not strict enough - you agree with me below.

In regards to the girl I'm not seeing any significant different in the way candy and guns are treated around young children.

I think since it is everyone's basic right to own a fire arm that yes you should be able to buy and shoot a gun.
If you agree with anything from psych evaluations to not gifting ex-convicts guns then you don't.

This seems to be the case from your next line.

This case was just an accident.
Borne of bad policy.

High schools have shooting teams.
Is their any reason that the shooting teams couldn't use a non-lethal alternative?

Anything from firing plastic bullets to using air-guns instead works.

A few isolated instance shouldn't ruin children's lives when shooting sports have saved theirs.
'saved theirs'? I don't support giving suicidal people guns either.

Do you believe that bad American gun policy has saved a lot of children from committing suicide? Do you have a source to back this claim?

[Harry Smith]

I understand how guns are distributed in the US. I still feel that you're not strict enough - you agree with me below.

In regards to the girl I'm not seeing any significant different in the way candy and guns are treated around young children.


If you agree with anything from psych evaluations to not gifting ex-convicts guns then you don't.

This seems to be the case from your next line.


Borne of bad policy.


Is their any reason that the shooting teams couldn't use a non-lethal alternative?

Anything from firing plastic bullets to using air-guns instead works.


'saved theirs'? I don't support giving suicidal people guns either.

Do you believe that bad American gun policy has saved a lot of children from committing suicide? Do you have a source to back this claim?

I think he's referring to the fact that hunting is seen as somehow providing food sources to American families, and with them out people would somehow die.

NRA Propaganda

[Vlerchan]

I think he's referring to the fact that hunting is seen as somehow providing food sources to American families, and with them out people would somehow die.

NRA Propaganda
Oh. Lol then.

I have a hard time believing that young children head out into the woods each morning to hunt squirrel for breakfast.

[Harry Smith]

Oh. Lol then.

I have a hard time believing that young children head out into the woods each morning to hunt squirrel for breakfast.

aha nah they drive 4 hours to find a single deer to shoot rather than drive 2 hours to the shop.

[thatcountrykid]

I understand how guns are distributed in the US. I still feel that you're not strict enough - you agree with me below.

In regards to the girl I'm not seeing any significant different in the way candy and guns are treated around young children.


If you agree with anything from psych evaluations to not gifting ex-convicts guns then you don't.

This seems to be the case from your next line.


Borne of bad policy.


Is their any reason that the shooting teams couldn't use a non-lethal alternative?

Anything from firing plastic bullets to using air-guns instead works.


'saved theirs'? I don't support giving suicidal people guns either.

Do you believe that bad American gun policy has saved a lot of children from committing suicide? Do you have a source to back this claim?

Should they have to? It's an American right to own a gun. It's not a compromise.

When I say it's saved their lives I mean instances where, and I have seen this dozens of times, kids from bad backgrounds join 4h and do shooting sports and it keeps them of the streets and out of trouble.


I think he's referring to the fact that hunting is seen as somehow providing food sources to American families, and with them out people would somehow die.

NRA Propaganda

Maybe you'd like to know I'm not an NRA member. I don't even follow them.

Hunting actually is good for folks who maybe can't afford to go shopping and buy meat due to high prices and hunting does allow them to fill their freezers for a year.

[Vlerchan]

Should they have to?
Have to do what? Settle for using equipment that can't easily kill people so that we can avoid needless deaths?

Yes. I believe they should.

It's an American right to own a gun. It's not a compromise.
'Rhetoric'.

Americans done't have an absolute right to gun ownership (right now and at any time in the past). Let's stop pretending they do.

When I say it's saved their lives I mean instances where, and I have seen this dozens of times, kids from bad backgrounds join 4h and do shooting sports and it keeps them of the streets and out of trouble.
Right. I'm not against them doing shooting. I'm against them using equipment that fires live ammunition and can easily kill people. I offered alternatives.

---

I also don't believe your anecdotal evidence.

[Harry Smith]

Hunting actually is good for folks who maybe can't afford to go shopping and buy meat due to high prices and hunting does allow them to fill their freezers for a year.

oh come on, if you want deer you'd need a pretty decent rifle with optics-I'd estimate that costs about £500 plus if you want something that will last. That's in the UK at least.

You can go to the shop and buy salt meat for like 10 pounds.

It's not cheaper in any stretch

[AdamS]

Let's take a pair of twin children, give 1 kid an uzi. 1 a water-pistol. Wait a week and see which one causes more danger.

Guns aren't dangerous, LOL
Guns were invented to kill things. That makes them dangerous...

[thatcountrykid]

Let's take a pair of twin children, give 1 kid an uzi. 1 a water-pistol. Wait a week and see which one causes more danger.

Guns aren't dangerous, LOL
Guns were invented to kill things. That makes them dangerous...

Gun were invented as a tool. That's what most guns are. Very few guns are used to kill people.

Have to do what? Settle for using equipment that can't easily kill people so that we can avoid needless deaths?

Yes. I believe they should.


'Rhetoric'.

Americans done't have an absolute right to gun ownership (right now and at any time in the past). Let's stop pretending they do.


Right. I'm not against them doing shooting. I'm against them using equipment that fires live ammunition and can easily kill people. I offered alternatives.

---

I also don't believe your anecdotal evidence.

We do have te absolute right. As soon as I was born I was given the right that when I turn 18 I can buy a gun.


What gun does not fire live ammunition. Don't say an air rifle cause that's not a gun. And for shooting competitions the shells they use are plastic pellets.

Please use the 'multiquote' buttons or edit in later responses. ~Typhlosion

[Vlerchan]

We do have te absolute right. As soon as I was born I was given the right that when I turn 18 I can buy a gun.
If there's any government restrictions on gun ownership whatsoever then you don't have an absolute right.

You've suggested one restriction in the above (age). I can list more (mental state, criminal record, domestic history, etc.)

What gun does not fire live ammunition. Don't say an air rifle cause that's not a gun. And for shooting competitions the shells they use are plastic pellets.
Guns used in shooting competitions don't use live ammunition, according to you.

Which means you've absolutely no argument in regards to school shooting competitions.

---

I also said that air guns could be substitutes for real guns.

[PythonProject]

If we allow the public to drive tanks, there would be less gun crime.
If we let the people own RPGs there'll be less tank crime.
If there was no money in guns, America's laws would have already been changed...

Does anyone actually think that a world where a 9 year old girl is taken out to shoot Uzi's is a sane one?Guns are dangerous. Kids our age (not to mention younger) are likely to have accidents.

The longer you can keep people away from things that can end life, the better...

The public can drive tanks on the road... even in the UK its legal
Gun were invented as a tool. That's what most guns are. Very few guns are used to kill people.



We do have te absolute right. As soon as I was born I was given the right that when I turn 18 I can buy a gun.


What gun does not fire live ammunition. Don't say an air rifle cause that's not a gun. And for shooting competitions the shells they use are plastic pellets.

Please use the 'multiquote' buttons or edit in later responses. ~Typhlosion

A air rifle is a gun. The definition of a gun is "A gun is a normally tubular weapon or other device designed to discharge projectiles or other material.The projectile may be solid, liquid, gas or energy and may be free, as with bullets and artillery shells, or captive as with Taser probes and whaling harpoons." So please do not say that a air rifle is not a gun.

[AdamS]

Pretty sure that the public is not allowed to own tanks that fire live rounds Joseph XD

Daniel. Guns were invented before America existed. As a weapon of war.
A tool is just an object that has a purpose. The guns purpose was to shoot people.

Whatever America is tryin to rebrand the gun as now doesn't change what it was originally made for. So it's pretty amazing to me why people are suprised when they end up hurting people: it was their intended purpose XD

[Southside]

Gun were invented as a tool. That's what most guns are. Very few guns are used to kill people.



We do have te absolute right. As soon as I was born I was given the right that when I turn 18 I can buy a gun.


What gun does not fire live ammunition. Don't say an air rifle cause that's not a gun. And for shooting competitions the shells they use are plastic pellets.

Please use the 'multiquote' buttons or edit in later responses. ~Typhlosion

A tool? Really? Maybe for hunting, but where can a gun make my daily task simpler? Its not a tool, i don't see any handyman walking around with an AR15.

Guns are meant to harm, just ask the 400+ who've been shot this year in my city

So the first guns in the world were invented for peaceful purposes?

[PythonProject]

Pretty sure that the public is not allowed to own tanks that fire live rounds Joseph XD

Daniel. Guns were invented before America existed. As a weapon of war.
A tool is just an object that has a purpose. The guns purpose was to shoot people.

Whatever America is tryin to rebrand the gun as now doesn't change what it was originally made for. So it's pretty amazing to me why people are suprised when they end up hurting people: it was their intended purpose XD

You are xD However if you want to make it road legal the barrel has to be disarmed, creating weak points basically

[Gamma Male]

For the record I'd just like to say that for the most part I agree with thatcountrykid, there's nothing wrong with teaching someone how to safely use a gun early in their lives. It beats not teaching them gun safety at all by a long shot.

However, it is just plain irresponsible to give a 9 year old a gun with that much recoil. She was obviously unfit to be handling a gun like that and the instructor should've realized that beforehand. If her parents wanted to teach her gun safety at such a young age they should've started her out with something more suited to her(a 9 year old girls) strength. A 9mm perhaps. Accidents happen, but this one was the result of bad policy.

[Vlerchan]

For the record I'd just like to say that for the most part I agree with thatcountrykid, there's nothing wrong with teaching someone how to safely use a gun early in their lives. It beats not teaching them gun safety at all by a long shot.
I see no reason to teach someone who can't legally own a gun and who should be unable to access a gun, 'gun safety'. If someone wants to purchase and own a gun in the future they can learn then - and should, on that note, be forced to learn then.

---

I would presume you would support only allowing the use of non-live ammunition, and non-live guns when applicable, though anyway, which I'd personally be more comfortable with.

[Gamma Male]

I see no reason to teach someone who can't legally own a gun and who should be unable to access a gun, 'gun safety'. If someone wants to purchase and own a gun in the future they can learn then - and should, on that note, be forced to learn then.
But there's no reason not to start early as long as all the proper safety precautions are taken, which in this case they weren't. Especially if the parents are gun owners and the teenagers are going to be exposed to guns anyway. Yes, there is some risk in using guns and practicing marksmanship. But as long as proper precautions are taken it's not anymore dangerous(and perhaps even less dangerous) than other sports such as football.

I would presume you would support only allowing the use of non-live ammunition, and non-live guns when applicable, though anyway, which I'd personally be more comfortable with.

Well, that could actually have a negative effect. If only nonlive ammunition is used then the person training isn't going to take things as seriously and may develop bad safety habits that could carry over to the use of live ammunition. If someone knows that the gun they're using doesn't contain live ammunition they may be more lenient and less careful with it, and those are very poor habits to develop safetywise.

[Harry Smith]

I see no reason to teach someone who can't legally own a gun and who should be unable to access a gun, 'gun safety'.


I've shot a shotgun before, even though I can't legally own a gun purely because I had the opportunity to in a controlled environment-that's why I'm not against kids using guns in a training situation-I think the bigger issue is the gun culture that exists in the US and the myths surrounding the benefits

[thatcountrykid]

But there's no reason not to start early as long as all the proper safety precautions are taken, which in this case they weren't. Especially if the parents are gun owners and the teenagers are going to be exposed to guns anyway. Yes, there is some risk in using guns and practicing marksmanship. But as long as proper precautions are taken it's not anymore dangerous(and perhaps even less dangerous) than other sports such as football.



Well, that could actually have a negative effect. If only nonlive ammunition is used then the person training isn't going to take things as seriously and may develop bad safety habits that could carry over to the use of live ammunition. If someone knows that the gun they're using doesn't contain live ammunition they may be more lenient and less careful with it, and those are very poor habits to develop safetywise.

Yes exactly. Pellet and air rifles can be just as dangerous. Some air rifles are just like a 22.

This incident was simply an accident and nothing more.



I've shot a shotgun before, even though I can't legally own a gun purely because I had the opportunity to in a controlled environment-that's why I'm not against kids using guns in a training situation-I think the bigger issue is the gun culture that exists in the US and the myths surrounding the benefits

Beleive me guns are a benefit both for food and safety.

[Vlerchan]

But there's no reason not to start early as long as all the proper safety precautions are taken, which in this case they weren't.
I'm against creating potentially deadly situations that offer no tangible benifit to the involved (I don't consider children to derive benifit from learning skills that are of no use to the children). I also feel that letting children play with guns fuels the gun-fetishism that is plagues the US, in that it 'normalises' gun use across the board. I also feel that gifting children undue confidence in regards to guns is another bad idea.

If only nonlive ammunition is used then the person training isn't going to take things as seriously and may develop bad safety habits that could carry over to the use of live ammunition.
If your child isn't going to take a gun seriously because it doesn't pose the same probability of death if they shoot someone, then they don't deserve to play with guns at all, in my opinion. I also don't believe that children are going to take gun safety classes any less seriously because the gun isn't as deadly, if they've any interest in learning gun safety at all.

You should also note that I mentioned in my last post that I believe that people who apply for gun licences should be forced to participate in gun safety classes. I would feel that this would eliminate any issues arising from them picking up bad habits from playing with guns as children.

---

I've shot a shotgun before, even though I can't legally own a gun purely because I had the opportunity to in a controlled environment.
Right. You'll need to explain how this is off significance.

[Harry Smith]

Right. You'll need to explain how this is off significance.

Because it goes back to the fact that there's nothing wrong with people having experience in using firearms. As I said before the issue isn't an under 18 using a gun-the issue is that the parents feel they need there 9 year old girl to shoot a Uzi. Basically I'm not objecting to gun use by minors in all situations -as you say below.


I'm against creating potentially deadly situations that offer no tangible benifit to the involved

[Vlerchan]

Basically I'm not objecting to gun use by minors in all situations -as you say below.
The problem is that I'm not seeing the 'tangible benifit'.

[Body odah Man]

I heard about this. It's so sick!

[Harry Smith]

The problem is that I'm not seeing the 'tangible benifit'.

I'll agree in the case with the Uzi there isn't a benefit, my only guess would be that the parents buy into the idea that a girl is 'safer' if she has a gun (which is incorrect)

[Vlerchan]

my only guess would be that the parents buy into the idea that a girl is 'safer' if she has a gun (which is incorrect)
But even then, outside that controlled, or at least it was supposed to be controlled, envoirment, the girl doesn't have a gun, and the training is of no benifit.

Regardless of what gun we're talking about, I reach them same conclusion that there's no benifit to children training with weapons.

[Gamma Male]

This incident was simply an accident and nothing more.
I didn't say that. It was an accident caused by negligence on behalf of the trainer and parents. A 9 year old should not be handling any sort of weapon with recoil as strong as an Uzis.
I'm against creating potentially deadly situations that offer no tangible benifit to the involved (I don't consider children to derive benifit from learning skills that are of no use to the children).
Many recreational activities pose much greater risk to children than firearm practice. I assume you're also against football, rugby, swimming, snowboarding/skiing, and other dangerous recreational activities correct?
http://teamchirodm.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Football-Injuries-1024x853.jpg
You'll probably respond by saying that you do support measures to make football safer, but no matter how safe you make it there are always going to be accidents. I don't see how you can be logically consistent when saying that you're okay with children participating in one recreational activity with x rate of injuries, but not another recreational activity with a simular or lesser rate of injuries.
I also feel that letting children play with guns fuels the gun-fetishism that is plagues the US, in that it 'normalises' gun use across the board.
Teaching gun safety is not what fuels the unhealthy gun culture in America in my opinion. If you could better define "gun-fetishism" and then show that gun safety classes are what causes it as opposed to something else, that'd be great.
I also feel that gifting children undue confidence in regards to guns is another bad idea.


If your child isn't going to take a gun seriously because it doesn't pose the same probability of death if they shoot someone, then they don't deserve to play with guns at all, in my opinion. I also don't believe that children are going to take gun safety classes any less seriously because the gun isn't as deadly, if they've any interest in learning gun safety at all.
Regardless of intent, if somebody regularly trains with what they know to be a nonlethal and harmless weapon and then begin to train with a similar but lethal weapon, odds are the safety habits are going to carry over. And people are much more likely to develop bad safety habits when training with nonlethal weapons than with lethal weapons. Good instruction and training can wipe out these habits, but generally that's what would happen. It's better to train them with guns from the get go(under close supervision) and teach them the seriousness of holding and operating a gun.
You should also note that I mentioned in my last post that I believe that people who apply for gun licences should be forced to participate in gun safety classes. I would feel that this would eliminate any issues arising from them picking up bad habits from playing with guns as children.
I agree. Safety lessons should be mandatory in order to obtain a gun license.

[Vlerchan]

I don't see how you can be logically consistent when saying that you're okay with children participating in one recreational activity with x rate of injuries, but not another recreational activity with a simular or lesser rate of injuries.
I'm okay with children engaging in one recreational activity with a x rate of injuries, and which provides an identified tangible benifit. In the case of sport, this tangible benifit is 'improved fitness' and 'increased exposure to children in which to socialize with'.

---

It's also notable that 'death' was not mentioned in your picture, and that 'the death of innocent bystanders' is also not to be seen anywhere either.

If you could better define "gun-fetishism" and then show that gun safety classes are what causes it as opposed to something else, that'd be great.
No bother.

Gun-Fetishism (n): an irrational over-emphasis on the importance of guns in daily life; slang. It is synonymous with gun culture.

I never said that safety classes for children were the sole fuel to this phenomanon, but I do feel they are a fuel. It is fuel because in teaching the child how to use a gun, you're filling them with the idea early on that guns are a necessary tool to held safeguard ones-self, and thus over-emphasizing the importance of an armed society, which studies have shown are actually more dangerous. It's similar to teaching your child to hold an overrelience on the idea of god and his power in this world, though it's more concrete in this instance.

Regardless of intent, if somebody regularly trains with what they know to be a nonlethal and harmless weapon and then begin to train with a similar but lethal weapon, odds are the safety habits are going to carry over.
And I'm saying they'll be hammered out, if they occur at all, because if they persist then people won't pass.

I also still see no reason why people can't attach a sense of seriousness to non-lethal weapons as they do to lethal weapons, but for the sake of facilitating debate I'll pretend I do.

[thatcountrykid]

I didn't say that. It was an accident caused by negligence on behalf of the trainer and parents. A 9 year old should not be handling any sort of weapon with recoil as strong as an Uzis.

Many recreational activities pose much greater risk to children than firearm practice. I assume you're also against football, rugby, swimming, snowboarding/skiing, and other dangerous recreational activities correct?
image (http://teamchirodm.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Football-Injuries-1024x853.jpg)
You'll probably respond by saying that you do support measures to make football safer, but no matter how safe you make it there are always going to be accidents. I don't see how you can be logically consistent when saying that you're okay with children participating in one recreational activity with x rate of injuries, but not another recreational activity with a simular or lesser rate of injuries.

Teaching gun safety is not what fuels the unhealthy gun culture in America in my opinion. If you could better define "gun-fetishism" and then show that gun safety classes are what causes it as opposed to something else, that'd be great.

Regardless of intent, if somebody regularly trains with what they know to be a nonlethal and harmless weapon and then begin to train with a similar but lethal weapon, odds are the safety habits are going to carry over. And people are much more likely to develop bad safety habits when training with nonlethal weapons than with lethal weapons. Good instruction and training can wipe out these habits, but generally that's what would happen. It's better to train them with guns from the get go(under close supervision) and teach them the seriousness of holding and operating a gun.

I agree. Safety lessons should be mandatory in order to obtain a gun license.

An Uzi is a 9mm firearm. That is a very small cilice rand easily handled. Now if it was say a 45maybe or a larger caliber then it would be a good excuse.

[Harry Smith]

An Uzi is a 9mm firearm. That is a very small cilice rand easily handled. Now if it was say a 45maybe or a larger caliber then it would be a good excuse.

The problem is the way the Uzi is designed, I assume the one she was using had the crane stock which wouldn't help+the gun has a lot of kick to it and it's automatic. I don't know why they gave her a automatic when she was only shooting one shot at a time-at least with a pistol she would of just got a bruise from the recoil rather than holding down on the Uzi trigger and killing the instructor

[PythonProject]

The problem is the way the Uzi is designed, I assume the one she was using had the crane stock which wouldn't help+the gun has a lot of kick to it and it's automatic. I don't know why they gave her a automatic when she was only shooting one shot at a time-at least with a pistol she would of just got a bruise from the recoil rather than holding down on the Uzi trigger and killing the instructor

Its pretty pointless arguing because as many other Americans, they love their guns. And will try anything to keep them and make them sound safe

[Vlerchan]

And will try anything to keep them and make them sound safe
People kill people though?!

[CosmicNoodle]

I'm sorry, but I have a joke here that must be told:

The 9 year old who accidentally killed an instructor with an Uzi is being punished severally, she has been grounded and has had her AK47, Sherman Tank and land to air missile confiscated by her parents till further notice.

[Sir Suomi]

As a gun advocate, and as someone with experience with handling firearms, I'd say handing that 9 year old girl an Uzi was a pretty stupid decision. When it comes to teaching children proper gun handling (Which I fully support), small caliber rifles, like a Ruger 10/22 auto-loading rifle. It's the first gun I ever shot, and it was great for learning how correctly use it. Giving a little girl a weapon that shoots 9mm rounds at 600 rpm? Terrible decision. I haven't heard whether it was the parent's decision or the instructor's decision on the choice of weapon, but I know whoever it was made a bad call.

[Perfectly Flawed]

I fail to see how anyone from either side of the gun control debate could be okay with giving a child that young an uzi. Smaller firearms sure, but an uzi? Really?

[Uranus]

My question is, why the fuck would you let a 9 year old girl fire a gun?! Needless to say a fucking Uzi?! The fucking gun would break her hand off with the recoil, and it probably weighs more than she does. Idgaf if age 8 is ok with adult supervision, damn!

Why isn't she playing with Barbie dolls or something?! Ok maybe I'm overreacting, let the kid fire a gun.....BUT AT LEAST START HER OFF WITH A BB GUN!

I don't know what the hell is wrong with parents these days.

Might as well tell your 13 year old son to go fuck a girl when he shouldn't.

Damn!

[thatcountrykid]

My question is, why the fuck would you let a 9 year old girl fire a gun?! Needless to say a fucking Uzi?! The fucking gun would break her hand off with the recoil, and it probably weighs more than she does. Idgaf if age 8 is ok with adult supervision, damn!

Why isn't she playing with Barbie dolls or something?! Ok maybe I'm overreacting, let the kid fire a gun.....BUT AT LEAST START HER OFF WITH A BB GUN!

I don't know what the hell is wrong with parents these days.

Might as well tell your 13 year old son to go fuck a girl when he shouldn't.

Damn!

Yeah I'd say that's over reacting.

[Gamma Male]

Yeah I'd say that's over reacting.

I understand you support guns and whatnot. Personally, I'm skeptical of both sides of the gun control debate. But I do support teaching children gun safety if they're going to be around guns.

But giving a 9 year old girl a weapon like an uni is, as Patton said, an extremely stupid call. I don't see how you can think that would ever be safe.

[Uranus]

Yeah I'd say that's over reacting.

Ok maybe I am overreacting a tad bit. But who in their right mind would hand their 9yr old daughter an Uzi?

[James Dean]

The parents might be obsessed with the gun culture and usually what hobby the parents do, they force their kids to participate in. Yeah she shouldn't have been having a gun of that power anyways. Or at least put plastic bullets or bean bags in it or something.

[thatcountrykid]

I understand you support guns and whatnot. Personally, I'm skeptical of both sides of the gun control debate. But I do support teaching children gun safety if they're going to be around guns.

But giving a 9 year old girl a weapon like an uni is, as Patton said, an extremely stupid call. I don't see how you can think that would ever be safe.

There a risk in everything. Just because there was this case of a simple accident doesn't mean it should fuck it up for every one else. And Uzi is not a large caliber gun and I think nearly everyone on this site has some delusional I des its so huge ass 76.2 or 50 cal.


The parents might be obsessed with the gun culture and usually what hobby the parents do, they force their kids to participate in. Yeah she shouldn't have been having a gun of that power anyways. Or at least put plastic bullets or bean bags in it or something.

I'm not so sure you quite understand guns.

[James Dean]

There a risk in everything. Just because there was this case of a simple accident doesn't mean it should fuck it up for every one else. And Uzi is not a large caliber gun and I think nearly everyone on this site has some delusional I des its so huge ass 76.2 or 50 cal.




I'm not so sure you quite understand guns.

I don't, I agree. But I'm pretty sure they can use fake rounds or plastic bullets of that sort. :P

[thatcountrykid]

I don't, I agree. But I'm pretty sure they can use fake rounds or plastic bullets of that sort. :P

If the peers on knows tere is less risk then it is a pointless way to teach safety. And honestly, why should the have to. It's a free fucking country.

[Vlerchan]

There a risk in everything.
I don't see why you wouldn't want to minimise the risk of death occurring.

Do you oppose death-minimising regulation in other aspects of life?

Just because there was this case of a simple accident doesn't mean it should fuck it up for every one else.
I outlined why I wanted to "fuck it up for everyone else", "everyone else" referring to just children in this case. Feel free to address these arguments.

And Uzi is not a large caliber gun and I think nearly everyone on this site has some delusional I des its so huge ass 76.2 or 50 cal.
I don't believe children should be allowed to use small calibre guns either.

If the peers on knows tere is less risk then it is a pointless way to teach safety
I addressed this previously.

Feel free to elaborate on this as to bypass the issues raised by my previous counter.

It's a free fucking country.
Lol. It's not. And never has been.