9 year old and an Uzi???

[Seasider]

:thumbdown: Sometimes I feel like everyone in this country is just working as hard as they can to chase everyone out of the center, away from reason, and into their extremest corners.

 

Yeah, either by false logic or fear.

[Mrs Mungo]

I do think the owner of the establishment has some responsibility in this. They should limit the ages for certain weapons.

 

 

I do, however, think such weapons should absolutely be legal for adults to possess, because the fundamental reason for U.S. constitutional protection of ownership of firearms is to ensure the right of the people to armed rebellion should it ever again be appropriate. A disarmed polity is a disempowered one.

Do you think a citizenry armed with uzis could defeat bombers and tanks? Do you think citizens should be able to own bomber jets and tanks?

 

eta: We're gun owners. My family all own guns. DH got his first gun when he was 10. He grew up hunting squirrel and doves, which prepared him well for combat. This isn't about "guns."

[Tanaqui]

I feel certain there is some way better gun control could've prevented this, perhaps by not putting automatic weapons into the hands of a child who isn't even in her double digits. And yes, part of better gun control is MUCH better education about gun safety. The instructor should've had basic gun safety so drilled into his mind that he would not have beenin a risky position should she lose control of the weapon.

[Ravin]

You really think this is the place for a 2nd amendment debate? Or do you genuinely believe most people agree with that definition??

I was mostly responding to Mergath's comment. I could add that using weapons like this as entertainment for anyone is at best in poor taste and perhaps should be banned. An Uzi has one real purpose--killing people.

[Mrs Mungo]

I feel certain there is some way better gun control could've prevented this, perhaps by not putting automatic weapons into the hands of a child who isn't even in her double digits. And yes, part of better gun control is MUCH better education about gun safety. The instructor should've had basic gun safety so drilled into his mind that he would not have beenin a risky position should she lose control of the weapon.

 

I wonder what kind of waiver the instructor signed. I wonder what kind of insurance the range carries. I wonder if they won't be able to get insurance after this. I feel like the range is the *most* wrong in this situation. They should have rules that prevents overly powerful guns from entering the hands of children.

[Catwoman]

Am I the only one who is wondering why any parent would pack the kids in the car and take them to a place called "Burgers and Bullets???"

 

The potential for deadly accidents -- even among people who are only there for the "burgers" part -- boggles my mind, and I would never have brought my ds to a place like that.

 

I mean, seriously, have a burger and fries and then let the kiddies take turns shooting an Uzi??? Who does that???

 

Who even came up with such an idiotic premise? And what kind of city or town government would have given them the permit to open such a place?

 

I am outraged that a little girl was given "lessons" in how to use an Uzi. That poor child will never be the same as a result of that tragic accident.

[SemiSweet]

Am I the only one who is wondering why any parent would pack the kids in the car and take them to a place called "Burgers and Bullets???"

 

 

Nope, it completely disgusts me.

[Scrub Jay]

I wonder if they serve alcohol as well.

[suzybluecheese]

I was mostly responding to Mergath's comment. I could add that using weapons like this as entertainment for anyone is at best in poor taste and perhaps should be banned.

:iagree:  It's not a toy.  It's not for amusement.

 

Somehow I deleted the part of your quote that I wanted to bold.  Uzi's are made for killing people.

Edited August 28, 2014 by suzybluecheese

[Negin]

I seriously cannot even understand why this is legal. We don't let children drive, drink alcohol, heck even ride bikes without helmets, but they can go to a firing range and use a weapon that most adults don't even know how to use. What in the heck?! The more I think about it, the angrier I feel. :(

I have not read all the replies yet, but this was my immediate reaction. How on earth and why would children be allowed to use such weapons when they can't even drive, etc. yet? It boggles my mind. 

[maize]

This has been such an interesting discussion to me. As someone who was taken as a child (not in the US) to shoot semiautomatic weapons--along with a whole group of summer camp kids, some much younger than 9--I tend to think the issue isn't American "gun culture", or the NRA, or, really, anything very definable. Maybe there is a general problem with deadly weapons being seen as appropriate to use for recreation. That, however, is certainly nothing new. We just have more deadly weapons available now than the people arranging archery contests and armed tournaments in the middle ages did.

 

I'm very much on board with the sentiment that weapons of war are not appropriate to put into the hands of a child (though my childhood self saw them as purely exciting--I suppose that really just goes to prove the point). I just don't think this problem was created by some specifically American gun lobby or gun culture.

[Tap]

I think that anyone who needs physical assistance to fire a weapon, should not be firing a weapon.  Any person, who is reaching around, on top of, underneath or holding a gun in anyway that is not in the typical 'butt to shoulder' or appropriate stance for the weapon, is the stupid and culpable one in my eyes.  I don't care if the current laws say that she could legally use the weapon or that there were wavers signed.  The person, in charge of the weapon, could not control the recoil from all directions by holding the weapon at an inappropriate angle ESPECIALLY with someone else's finger on the trigger.  I put 100% of the blame on the adult who put it in her hands, and if the parents had ANY idea of what 'automatic weapon' and 'recoil' really mean, then they are just as culpable. I actually fault the parents based More on how much they understand guns, than if they understand them less and just believed the false security provided by the environment.  

 

 

I hope that after this accident, they enact new rules that raise the age of firing automatic weapons to 16 like the state of Massachusetts,, and I wouldn't even mind seeing 18. I don't like there being a lot of laws around our ability to own/carry/use weapons, but some people are just too stupid or arrogant to know better than to put an automatic weapon in the hands of someone who can not conceivably control the kickback.  I know that a petite adult woman may not be able to control a weapon better than a stout 14yo boy, but at least there is some age and maturity that will hopefully come into play, before even picking up the gun (Especially just for fun!), that may prevent accidents like this in the future.

 

:rant: off my soap box now.

 

 

 

PS I am pro-gun. Own guns. Have fired guns and so have my kids. They are properly trained in the use and safety of weapons that they can adequately control. 

 

 

[Wheres Toto]

 

Do you think a citizenry armed with uzis could defeat bombers and tanks? Do you think citizens should be able to own bomber jets and tanks?

 

 

:iagree:   This is what I always wonder when I hear the well-armed citizenry to prevent government tyranny argument.

[BlessedMom]

Simply beyond sad & tragic!

[Ravin]

:iagree: This is what I always wonder when I hear the well-armed citizenry to prevent government tyranny argument.

I didn't say the concept had feasible implementation. It was merely a statement of the framers' intent. They also never intended us to retain a standing army in times of peace. But things have changed since the 18th century. Small arms are still better than nothing. Ideally, governments wouldn't have the big stuff, either. No one would.

 

But I'm fairly sure even by 18th century standards, putting something that dangerous in the hands of a nine year old would be viewed as idiocy.

[SemiSweet]

I didn't say the concept had feasible implementation. It was merely a statement of the framers' intent. They also never intended us to retain a standing army in times of peace. But things have changed since the 18th century. Small arms are still better than nothing. Ideally, governments wouldn't have the big stuff, either. No one would.

 

But I'm fairly sure even by 18th century standards, putting something that dangerous in the hands of a nine year old would be viewed as idiocy.

 

I fully believe in allowing citizens to be armed, I support the 2nd amendment so much that I actually support the whole thing, unfortunately the gun culture doesn't.  They only support the "right to keep and bear arms" and never say anything about the "well-regulated" part.  

 

But yes, in no way, does anything support the idea of 9 year olds bearing those types of weapons. My mind is still reeling over this tragedy.  :(