The unfortunate similarity is, children at a shooting range. What makes anyone think that’s a good idea?
Eh, firing a single shot .22, not so bad. Even the 9 old with the Uzi fired a single shot without incident. In the case of the 7 year old boy, I can see it being an accident. It could happen to anybody and there doesn’t seem to be any negligence involved. Now, handing a novice of any age an Uzi and telling them to “git 'er done!” is a different matter. The muzzle is going to keep climbing and climbing. A small caliber single-shot is easy enough to control, even for a 7 year old and it doesn’t seem as if anybody was firing their guns in an unsafe manner.
At what age should you start teaching firearm safety? The Boy Scouts have looked at this for a long time with their attorneys:
>= 2nd grade (~age 7): bb guns
>= 5th grade (~age 10): .22 single shot rifles, single shot with a shotgun
>= Age 14: Handguns, larger caliber rifles, hunting
I was trained on a .22 at age 8. We never had bb guns - dad thought that they made guns like toys.
My boys learned the rules on a .22 at age 7 (opportunity presented itself).
The boy with the .22 was not the issue. The homemade range sounds like it had issues (rocks? metal posts for the targets?). Ricochets do happen - that is part of why we all wear shooting glasses.
And this is one reason it’s difficult to have a reasonable discussion about appropriate levels of gun control. Seriously, BG, you’re not helping.
A single shot .22 rifle is precisely the type of weapon you’d want a child using, with the appropriate levels of supervision. Along with small caliber target pistols and other long barreled weapons that can be accurately sighted, it’s the sort of shooting that can give kids confidence and teach responsibility and control.
Would you object to having kids at an archery range? How about 9 year olds beginning to learn woodworking/carpentry, or metal fabrication skills? How about chemistry? There are all sorts of activities that present higher than normal levels of risk, but we can mitigate those through proper procedure and supervision, and balance them with the desired benefits. (Which can just be the level of fun associated with them.)
It’d be cool if we could all just think like human beings regarding this subject.
The 9 year old was an irresponsible gun owner, sure. But she was just one bad apple and nothing larger can be drawn from this. Still, if only the instructor was armed himself, he could have prevented this tragedy from happening. If we just get more guns into the hands of citizens, they’d have the ability to protect themselves from those with guns who wish to do them harm. At the very least, just knowing that the instructor had a gun would have made the 9 year old girl think twice before tangling with him.
I don’t do hats. I still have all my hair, unlike many of my age-group and even those much younger. Like you, perhaps.
Delicious sarcasm. Using the “logic” of the illogical; makes gun-ownership sound like a tangle of rationalizations. That’s what it is.
And it’s really creepy keeping it in those bags around your house.
Naw, it’s still on my head. Sorry if yours isn’t. Ok, I’m happy if it isn’t. But don’t blame me; it’s in our genes. I’m not that happy about my looks, either. Luckily, I never was as vain as most people. Confident ? Yes. Arrogant ? Perhaps, a little. Vain ? No. That’s for women.
Yes, the overriding reason to own guns is to defend against other people with guns. And obviously, if we banned guns, they’d all dissapear, so you wouldn’t need guns anymore. It’s so simple. People must be crazy and dumb not to see it.
Just out of curiosity, what percentage of gun owners do you think have “defending against people with guns” as their primary or sole reason for gun ownership?
“Sole reason”, I wouldn’t hazard to guess, but you have to have seen the argument made as an important reason to own a gun or to support 2nd amendment rights or to oppose restrictions on ownership, etc. I just don’t think it’s an uncommon sentiment at all.
I think self defense is an argument, not self defense against people with guns specifically. That’s basically a straw argument, combined with magical thinking, says “oh gun owners need guns to defend themselves from other people with guns, which is stupid because if we banned guns then that need dissapears!”
As if A) outlawing guns makes them dissapear magically as a threat, or B) even when no one has guns, somehow those who are physically more capable of overpowering, or who have advantage of surprise, or who have another weapon, or who have larger numbers cease to be a threat that requires self defense.
I agree that the self defense argument is more sophisticated than “I need a gun to defend myself against criminals with guns” (although I’ve heard it put exactly that way), but I think the strong gun control arguments are also more sophisticated than “ban them all and we won’t have to worry” (although this paraphrases some arguments I’ve seen).
Self defense, hunting and recreation are well respected arguments, deservedly so, for the right to own firearms, but they are self-limiting arguments. Self defense does not require ownership of any and all firearms, with any and all capabilities, used in any and all circumstances and locations. Nor hunting, nor pure recreational uses.
Control and regulation is not a binary choice between liberty and prohibition. Only a tiny percentage of Americans believe in either absolute unfettered access to firearms or a complete ban on their private ownership and use. And there is no way our American society is going to accept either of those extremes while it still exists as any recognizable form of democracy.
There’s no “slippery slope” in enacting legislative controls and restrictions, even if -like every other damn law ever written- they’re not perfectly rational and immune to abuse. It shouldn’t be legal to put a fully automatic machine pistol in the hands of a 9 year old on any gun range in this country. Full stop. But that threatens no one’s inalienable rights. It shouldn’t even be a controversial opinion, and it won’t lead to a ban on .22 plinking rifles, despite the existence of a few BrainGluttons here and there.
Uh oh. The consent forms the parents signed for the girl to shoot the Uzi were “blown away by the wind” and were lost.
I wonder what that means?
That’s gun country talk for " into the shredder it goes!"
It means the instructor had them sign the papers at the outdoor range and put the papers there with nothing holding them down, or with something holding them down that got moved in the aftermath of the fatal shooting. This allowed the papers to be blown away by the wind.
Bwahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!
Oh. Wait. You were serious.
-cough-
So, if we’re looking for answers here …
Sorry, but until someone presents me with actual knowledge of content in the waiver that matters in this case, I find that a perfectly plausible explanation.
If the parents never signed the waiver at all, what difference will it make? And are they claiming that?
Does the waiver have some embarassing stipulations that the range wants to hide? Well then I have to ask if they’ve lost all other copies.
Make a case for someone wanting the waiver to disappear, with actual knowledge rather than making shit up because … well I don’t know what your damage is.
How many rounds can an Uzi spit out,
Until the instructor is down?