Arizona nine-year old in Uzi gun lesson accident

[Longbow]

You say you can't give me an example of a place in the US where a nine year girl would be shown how to use automatic weapons even though you're posting in a thread about a nine year old girl in the US being shown how to use automatic weapons that resulted in a death.

Err, because we are already talking about it and thus it's obvious...

Quit with the person attacks as well.

 

[panyan]

Much like everyone else - i dont understand the logic behind giving children guns

 

[Qitarah]

@ Rroff Yer, Guessed as much. They look like insanely scary pieces of equipment, I just dont see how can any one put that in the hands of a 9 year old?

 

[Eurofighter]

God bless the USA.

 

[helpimcrap]

Stupid things happen in the hands of incapable people....

Sometimes you get burned when you play with fire.

Or shot when playing with guns.....

Don't like to see people get hurt but don't like to see kids playing with guns even more so maybe a lesson can be learned? Maybe kids shouldn't use guns? It's not rocket science.

 

[Nitefly]

I feel sorry for the parents and the child. It probably felt no different from taking your child go-karting considering the reassurances that it was safe.

To some extent though, the consequences must have been partially unforeseeable when you think that the instructor to willingly give that girl that weapon, considering his apparent experience.

Tragic all round.

 

[opstrat]

I feel sorry for the kid that has to go up knowing that she killed someone.

The only person at fault here is the instructor. For agreeing to instruct a 9 year old and for not properly instructing her.

 

[One]

Guns are probably the one right most fiercely defended in America, more so than freedom of speech. The same people are pretty anti-feds too. That's any sort of federal intervention. So much so that the people of the southern states genuinely dislike Obama's healthcare program despite them being the people that would most benefit from it.

Here is how they reacted when one lone farmer in Nevada had the feds try to reclaim federal land on which he had cattle grazing yet was paying no tax

Guns will not be leaving the US anytime soon, not without a President that has a majority in both houses and also has the support of the people in his party. He/She wouldn't even have the support of his own party senators/congressmen though as funnily enough, just like our own politicians, they like to keep getting voted in and keep their jobs.

So in a away, the people do have a democracy, it's just the plebs can outvote intellectuals.

 

[manoz]

Is it just me or is it becoming more and more difficult to feel sympathy for the victims of gun crime in the US?

I feel sorry for the kid that has to go up knowing that she killed someone.

The only person at fault here is the instructor. For agreeing to instruct a 9 year old and for not properly instructing her.

I'd say the parents are most at fault, they guy was just trying to do his job as stupid as it is

 

[=XDC=FluphyBunny]

.....

Guns have one purpose. To kill. If you're pro gun for civilians then you're scum in my eyes. I can't be any clearer than that.

So what happened in the RAF for you to developed this attitude towards guns?
Shot in the back?




Clearly a nine year girl can't handle an uzi, so why the hell you would give her one and switch it to full auto! Absolutely insane.

 

[Tombo]

Is it just me or is it becoming more and more difficult to feel sympathy for the victims of gun crime in the US?



I'd say the parents are most at fault, they guy was just trying to do his job as stupid as it is

Well for one thing, no because it's not the person killed by a guns fault they are so common but also this wasn't a crime.

I'd say the person most at fault was the instructor too, it's his job to understand what the people he's instructing can handle to shoot and this is a girl that clearly can't control fully automatic fire. He must have missed the last time when a boy shot himself in the head because he couldn't control the gun.

 

[Craterloads]

Wonder what it will take to happen in the US for them to think about their gun laws.

 

[manoz]

Well for one thing, no because it's not the person killed by a guns fault they are so common but also this wasn't a crime.

ok should have said gun incidents, It just feels like it happens so often, end up feeling numb to it

 

[C.R.A.Z.Y]

In fact taking those legally held firearms away has not stopped criminals from using guns in crime - which was the point of the ban in the first place.

Utter nonsense

The point of the ban in the first place had NOTHING to do with street gun crime, it was a DIRECT response to the massacre in Dunblane and by definition it's impossible for it not to succeed in what it set out to do. But hey don't let the facts get in the way of your pro gun rant

 

[itchy]

Give a monkey a big enough stick, it will soon poke your eye out!

 

[Mark A]

Wonder what it will take to happen in the US for them to think about their gun laws.

If Sandyhook didn't change anything then I doubt anything will.

 

[Tombo]

ok should have said gun incidents, It just feels like it happens so often, end up feeling numb to it

I know what you mean, I'm not particularly shocked by any deaths reported in the media but I can still feel sympathetic to people and their families. It's just that it won't stick in my mind.

Utter nonsense

The point of the ban in the first place had NOTHING to do with street gun crime, it was a DIRECT response to the massacre in Dunblane and by definition it's impossible for it not to succeed in what it set out to do. But hey don't let the facts get in the way of your pro gun rant

Did it set out to prevent a mass shooting with a legally held weapon? Because even if it has succeeded in making that impossible I'm not sure it makes a difference whether the gun is legal or not.

 

[Angilion]

Can someone explain to me why anybody actually needs to shoot a gun? Especially a child?

Nobody should have access to them except for the police/army. I'd even go as far to say that guns are not required for hunting.

The reasons for the USA gun laws were fairly clear when they were written:

1) To enable individual states to form armies that would be powerful enough to defeat the federal government if it tried to takes states rights away.

2) To enable the people to revolt against the government (local, state or federal) and overthrow it by overwhelming force.

3) To dissuade invasion by other countries.

They're sort of still appropriate or might become so at some point in the future. Maybe another country might consider invading the USA at some point in the future. Maybe some form of tyranny would arise in the USA at some point in the future.

I see their reasons, but I'm not at all sure it's worth the extremely high cost they pay for widespread lightly controlled gun ownership and use.

But this case is a bit different because it's not about gun use per se, nor even about the age at which it's appropriate. At the core of it is a lack of understanding or consideration of basic physics and biology. She lacked the ability to control her own use of that weapon on full auto and there was no way she was going to have that ability. Not a chance. So it was foolish and dangerous from the start. It's not about guns alone, it's about being bloody dumb with guns. They're not tools. They're weapons designed to be very easily used to very efficiently kill. That's the whole point of a gun. That's why they replaced swords and bows. That's precisely why they were written into the USA constitution. Full auto weapons aren't even designed to be particularly accurate because they can't be. They're about throwing lots of bullets in the general direction of whoever you want to kill, especially if there's a group of people you want to kill.

In the context of a gun-laden culture, I can understand teaching a child to use guns effectively. It's even sensible in that context. But not guns they can't control. That's dangerous and stupid even in that context.

 

[Rroff]

Utter nonsense

The point of the ban in the first place had NOTHING to do with street gun crime, it was a DIRECT response to the massacre in Dunblane and by definition it's impossible for it not to succeed in what it set out to do. But hey don't let the facts get in the way of your pro gun rant

As much as I mostly support the firearms laws in this country - they don't prevent certain elements getting their hands on some pretty heavy stuff.

 

[platinum87]

Full auto weapons aren't even designed to be particularly accurate because they can't be. They're about throwing lots of bullets in the general direction of whoever you want to kill, especially if there's a group of people you want to kill.

Yes they are, and yes they can.