Gun range tragedy: 9 year old girl kills instructor with uzi
- Thread starter Flying Spaghetti Monster
- Start date
Then why are you starting a discussion thread about a gun incident that proper laws might have averted?
I'm in favor of laws banning children from firing automatic weapons, even at ranges.
I hope everyone else present sues the heck out of the girl's parents and the range itself for emotional damages.
Because according to the reports, no laws were broken.. The range had a policy that allows children 8 and up to fire such weapons. (5 and up under special circumstances). So don't misread me or whatever opinions I might have regarding the second amendment. This has nothing to do wtih that. It has more to do with, uh, common sense.
This is so effed up.
My heart is breaking -- for the instructor's family and, especially, for the little girl. I hope she gets prompt, competent therapy to help her through this. Unfortunately, I can't picture the kind of parents who would allow (encourage?) a nine-year-old to fire a Uzi being the kind of parents who would appreciate how traumatic this probably is for her.
Aside from that, all I can say is
.
My heart is breaking -- for the instructor's family and, especially, for the little girl. I hope she gets prompt, competent therapy to help her through this. Unfortunately, I can't picture the kind of parents who would allow (encourage?) a nine-year-old to fire a Uzi being the kind of parents who would appreciate how traumatic this probably is for her.
Aside from that, all I can say is
.
Last edited:
At the very, very, very least the instructor should have been glued to that girl tight and holding her arms as she fired the gun. You just don't put a gun like that in a girl's hands and just let her shoot it on full-auto after she's taken a SINGLE shot with it on semi. Christ. Uzi is a heck of a gun, ideally the girl should have been nowhere neat the thing, semi-mode or not, but if it was such an insistent thing for her to fire such weapon there's countless safety measures, rigs, or just an adult set of hands that could have prevented this mess.
Apparently, no charges will be filed.
I agree the girl should not be charged.
I do think the parents should be charged, along with the gun range (especially the idiot with the mustache who casually and cavalierly says that 8-year-olds can be allowed to shoot.. his attitude bugs me and I think he runs the place) along with local lawmakers who either allowed this practice to happen or didn't have tight enough laws to prevent it.
I agree the girl should not be charged.
I do think the parents should be charged, along with the gun range (especially the idiot with the mustache who casually and cavalierly says that 8-year-olds can be allowed to shoot.. his attitude bugs me and I think he runs the place) along with local lawmakers who either allowed this practice to happen or didn't have tight enough laws to prevent it.
I don't think any charged need be filed. Technically the laws of the state were being followed and the shooting was clearly an accident. I do wonder if a civil suit won't be applied by the victim's family towards the gun-range.
If anything comes from this, hopefully the range, the state and maybe the country will reevaluate the gun laws and not allow fourth-graders to handle such powerful weapons.
Now, excuse me, there's a naked Olivia Wilde waiting for me on my bed.
If anything comes from this, hopefully the range, the state and maybe the country will reevaluate the gun laws and not allow fourth-graders to handle such powerful weapons.
Now, excuse me, there's a naked Olivia Wilde waiting for me on my bed.
This isn't an issue of guns, and we certainly don't need laws to legislate common sense, especially forrecent Congresses that have shown they are inept and incapable of even remotely handling such delicate subjects, but rather the common sense of an adult.
It doesn't matter if it's automatic or semi automatic, or what ever knee-jerk term people might come up with to scare people about firearms, but rather the type or gun and/or ammo used. There are any number of guns a young kid, regardless of gender, can handle safely. Most kids cannot handle a weapon that has a power kick or are not aware of just how strong the kick or pull will be, so be it automatic or semiautomatic, there are just some weapons a kid should never fire.
The article I read, over at www.theblaze.com, states at the time they don't know if she was in there underage or if going through safety training. Either way, the adutls errored; there certainly no safety training I know of where a little muscless kid like that should be holding a weapon that can pull in other directions (depending on how you are holding it) and even kill yourself. I've not even gone through an entire NRA training or other training course, and even I know this. This reminds me of the driver who was trying to set a land speed record and ran our of room, flew off a cliff, and hit a rockside, killing himself and earnign a spot in the Darwin awards; super fast car, limited space with a cliff at the end = DUH!
Now, on the other hand, with proper training, a kid her age and even younger, can fire certain smaller firearms and do so safely, as kids have done in countries, like America, for over a hundred years.
It doesn't matter if it's automatic or semi automatic, or what ever knee-jerk term people might come up with to scare people about firearms, but rather the type or gun and/or ammo used. There are any number of guns a young kid, regardless of gender, can handle safely. Most kids cannot handle a weapon that has a power kick or are not aware of just how strong the kick or pull will be, so be it automatic or semiautomatic, there are just some weapons a kid should never fire.
The article I read, over at www.theblaze.com, states at the time they don't know if she was in there underage or if going through safety training. Either way, the adutls errored; there certainly no safety training I know of where a little muscless kid like that should be holding a weapon that can pull in other directions (depending on how you are holding it) and even kill yourself. I've not even gone through an entire NRA training or other training course, and even I know this. This reminds me of the driver who was trying to set a land speed record and ran our of room, flew off a cliff, and hit a rockside, killing himself and earnign a spot in the Darwin awards; super fast car, limited space with a cliff at the end = DUH!
Now, on the other hand, with proper training, a kid her age and even younger, can fire certain smaller firearms and do so safely, as kids have done in countries, like America, for over a hundred years.
That's my point.. these "laws" are unacceptible
I agree. But we can't really prosecute or charge someone for breaking a law that doesn't yet exist. In this situation the law was being followed and it was obviously an accident so it makes sense that no charges are being filed.
See, the thing is, maybe sometimes we DO need laws to legislate common sense. Because clearly the adults involved in this accident thought it was perfectly okay to put a powerful sub-machine gun into a fourth-grader's hands and pretty much give her barely any assistance with it. (Many gun-training experts have criticized how quickly the instructor here went to full-auto and where he positioned himself in aiding the girl.)
So, we need to ask ourselves the question: Is it really that important we let a 9-y.o. girl handle such a weapon that we make it perfectly legal for it to happen?
I say it isn't. I doubt there'll be any situation where a 9-y.o. will need to be able to use such a weapon and the it's certainly not something the Framers had intended when they wrote the Constitution. I'm for gun-rights. But... Maybe it should be illegal to but an Uzi in the hands of a 9-year-old.
I wholeheartedly agree, Flying Spaghetti Monster. The child can not be held responsible - the poor little thing will have to live with that horrible experience for the rest of her life and propably never be able to sleep without nightmares.
The responsible ones are the parent(s) who had this idiotic idea in the first place and brought the girl to the shooting range and the instructor who didn't refuse to let the child use a machine gun.
While the latter payed for his mistake (though a bit steep imo because he did almost everything he could to keep things safe), the matter of the parent(s) punishment is still open. I am not famliar with US law but if there is such a thing as assisting 2nd degree murder, he/she/they ought to be charged with it.
The moderator said it overly clear: these people are sick!
The responsible ones are the parent(s) who had this idiotic idea in the first place and brought the girl to the shooting range and the instructor who didn't refuse to let the child use a machine gun.
While the latter payed for his mistake (though a bit steep imo because he did almost everything he could to keep things safe), the matter of the parent(s) punishment is still open. I am not famliar with US law but if there is such a thing as assisting 2nd degree murder, he/she/they ought to be charged with it.
The moderator said it overly clear: these people are sick!
Except for, you know, crouch-standing BEHIND the child while helping her hold the gun by using his own grip and body mass to make sure she doesn't lose control of a powerful weapon. Having the gun secured with straps, brackets, or some other mechanism to prevent it from moving in an unexpected direction should control be lost. And that he switched the gun to full-auto after she had taken ONE shot with the gun set to semi. But, yeah, he did everything he could to keep things safe.
That's ridiculous. There is not a chance in hell the parents should be charged with anything. They haven't broken any laws, and the safety of the situation was 100% the responsibility of the instructor and the gun range.
I disagree with their decision to let the child do this, but that's not even vaguely the point.
let's agree that we disagree on that point, Pingfah.
It's perhaps a case of different national/legal backgrounds. In my country children under the age of 14 can not be held responsible for what they are doing. The whole responsibility lies with their parents and they'll be charged accordingly. It's their job to see to it that their children can't cause harm and if they don't do that job properly they'll have to bear the consequences. We made excellent experiences with that system.
I thought in your country it was similar (the age limit being 12 IIRC)? But judging by your reaction it isn't.
I wouldn't dare saying one system is better than the other. They are different and both surely have their advantages and disadvantages.
What I do say, however, is that it's highly unlikely a 9 year old girl gets the idiotic idea to shoot with a machine gun all by herself. I suspect it was the father's idea.
And as adults both the father and the instructor should have been aware that the child could not possibly control such a weapon. The risk was way too high and because both ignored it, a man had to die. A man who in this video seemed a decent and friendly guy and who very likely had a family and - judging by the way he treated the girl - also children.
The lives of the girl, the instructor, his wife, children and other family members were destroyed because a parent proved irresponsible. Stupidity shouldn't get rewarded by getting away with the consequences unpunished. If it takes a few years prison to make that guy think first before he acts, then so be it.
It's perhaps a case of different national/legal backgrounds. In my country children under the age of 14 can not be held responsible for what they are doing. The whole responsibility lies with their parents and they'll be charged accordingly. It's their job to see to it that their children can't cause harm and if they don't do that job properly they'll have to bear the consequences. We made excellent experiences with that system.
I thought in your country it was similar (the age limit being 12 IIRC)? But judging by your reaction it isn't.
I wouldn't dare saying one system is better than the other. They are different and both surely have their advantages and disadvantages.
What I do say, however, is that it's highly unlikely a 9 year old girl gets the idiotic idea to shoot with a machine gun all by herself. I suspect it was the father's idea.
And as adults both the father and the instructor should have been aware that the child could not possibly control such a weapon. The risk was way too high and because both ignored it, a man had to die. A man who in this video seemed a decent and friendly guy and who very likely had a family and - judging by the way he treated the girl - also children.
The lives of the girl, the instructor, his wife, children and other family members were destroyed because a parent proved irresponsible. Stupidity shouldn't get rewarded by getting away with the consequences unpunished. If it takes a few years prison to make that guy think first before he acts, then so be it.
No, i'm English, and if it were up to me it would have been illegal for the girl to shoot the weapon in the first place.
But that is irrelevant, it wasn't illegal, and it isn't a matter of opinion that can be agreed to disagree upon. The parents had no reason to suspect that a licensed gun range engaging in legal activity would not have an Instructor capable of ensuring such an accident did not happen, and frankly avoiding the accident was a simple matter. It doesn't matter who's idea it was, they took their child to a facility licensed to allow children to shoot guns. They are no more legally responsible than if they had taken their child to Disneyland and a ride operator fell in front of a rollercoaster.
But that is irrelevant, it wasn't illegal, and it isn't a matter of opinion that can be agreed to disagree upon. The parents had no reason to suspect that a licensed gun range engaging in legal activity would not have an Instructor capable of ensuring such an accident did not happen, and frankly avoiding the accident was a simple matter. It doesn't matter who's idea it was, they took their child to a facility licensed to allow children to shoot guns. They are no more legally responsible than if they had taken their child to Disneyland and a ride operator fell in front of a rollercoaster.
Ah, now I get what you mean. Sorry for being so slow today. Please blame it on the fact that I've been sick since Saturday. (Caught a mean fever and a sinusitis - my head feels as if it'd explode any moment.)
Yes, total agreement there. By the letter of the US law they didn't do anything wrong.
I just meant to point out that over here the situation would be treated differently. We have much stricter laws for which I am deeply grateful as they prevent such cases.
Also, in the US a lack of common sense is treated in a very different manner than would be the case in our respective countries.
It stands to fear that as the only consequence of this incident from now on every Uzi in the US will come with a label "May kill people. Don't hand to children under 10".
A 9 year old girl would need an adult to accompany her to the buffet line. 
The restaurant industry considers children 10 and under lack the skills needed to place food on a plate by themselves. Shows how seriously people take their food.
The restaurant industry considers children 10 and under lack the skills needed to place food on a plate by themselves. Shows how seriously people take their food.
ISIS trains kids that young to fire AK-47's in combat, and as so far as I am aware they haven't had many safety issues, and I'm not sure the children have had many mental health issues about shooting infidels in the head, unless you classify children who relish shooting infidels in the head as some sort of problem. Of course, she did shoot her own instructor, which over there would've marked her as a spy for Israel, the US, Iran, Hezbollah, Al Nusra, Assad, the Iraqis, or as an agent of Satan.
Anyway, I'm forced to wonder if putting her through all kinds of court testimony as part of a lawsuit, and then having her spend years talking to a psychiatrist about what was just a momentary "oopsie", digging down into her subconscious in a determined effort to find lasting scars, would do way more harm than good. Chuck Yeager shot his baby brother and turned out just fine.
Anyway, I'm forced to wonder if putting her through all kinds of court testimony as part of a lawsuit, and then having her spend years talking to a psychiatrist about what was just a momentary "oopsie", digging down into her subconscious in a determined effort to find lasting scars, would do way more harm than good. Chuck Yeager shot his baby brother and turned out just fine.
Similar threads
