Arizona-9 Year old girl kills gun instructer

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: NavyDoc

Still avoiding the issue of the gun relative to the user then with regards to the power statement used by the media.

That's why I said are you having a laugh.



From moblie!

Everyone has said it was too much gun for such a little girl--that issue is not being ignored in the least.

a reply to: Jakal26

Jakal26 - I need to let you know that while it certainly does reflect tragic accidents, your first link goes to "The National Report" which is a satire website similar to TheOnion.

I'm for guns although I've never owned one and just have to make the point that if children dying in car accidents were to create an outrage about the legality of car ownership, would that make sense?
What happened is very sad.
I also don't understand why an uzi was her practice gun. That alone just doesn't add up. I hope, I really hope that such an event wouldn't be set up somehow, but I don't trust big politics/lobbyists anymore whatsoever. I don't know much about the actual incident at this time.

This little girl's life will be forever changed all because of the abject failure in judgement by the adults around her.

how is this not seriously irresponsible?

the only thing a 9 nine year old needs needs to know is DONT TOUCH IT

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Briles1207
I always wondered why many countries get by just fine without the "right to bare arms" But America cant/wont?

Surely if it saves one life it'd be worth it?

Ah, the "if it saves one life" argument. So, if it saved one life to deprive you of another civil liberty, such as requiring a warrant to search your home, would you be okay for that.

If it was a choice between somebody dying, and someone searching my home then search away. I've nothing to hide. Also, just because something is a "civil liberty" does not make it right. Especially one which was governed in the early days of democracy in your country.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: IkNOwSTuff
What a shocking and tragic situation, I mean who could ever imagine that giving a 9 year old an automatic weapon could result in someone getting killed

Any country where its possible for a child to handle let alone fire an Uzi needs to have a long hard look at itself

You mean every country in the entire world?

If by every country in the entire world you mean The Mid East, some parts of Africa and Asia and the good Ol US of A then yes thats what I mean.

If you think its possible for anyone let alone children to go to a gun range and start firing off Uzi rounds in any civilized country besides the US (civilized being used loosely in the situation) you really need to educate yourself.
In most countries if parents took their kid to a shooting range to play with an Uzi it would make the news and make them candidates for worst parents of the year even without a stupid and pointless death involved

a reply to: NavyDoc

I think the difference is that if you go to a shooting range in the UK and get a bad instructor. You still cannot go and easily get a gun afterwards and use bad technique or knowlege.

IMO its a catch 22...... Because in America you can use guns and fair enough. Thefore it is perfectly sensible to teach and be tought at a youngish age how to do it properly (Though prob not as young as 9)

Yet if you are tought poorly and survive then you grow into an adult who beleives it is perfectly fine to hand thier own children a firearm at the age of 9 such as the Uzi or tbh in 20 years probally something alot easier to loose control of at 9 years of age. Ive seen a few post how they felt it is ok because they had the same experiance with a firearm at a young age. Mostly down to proper training and Im all up for that. Then again people go through 'training' to drive a car and accidents happen all the time for both ofcourse but I do not know a country that legally allows a 9 year old to drive.

originally posted by: Maltese5Rhino
a reply to: NavyDoc

I think the difference is that if you go to a shooting range in the UK and get a bad instructor. You still cannot go and easily get a gun afterwards and use bad technique or knowlege.

IMO its a catch 22...... Because in America you can use guns and fair enough. Thefore it is perfectly sensible to teach and be tought at a youngish age how to do it properly (Though prob not as young as 9)

Yet if you are tought poorly and survive then you grow into an adult who beleives it is perfectly fine to hand thier own children a firearm at the age of 9 such as the Uzi or tbh in 20 years probally something alot easier to loose control of at 9 years of age. Ive seen a few post how they felt it is ok because they had the same experiance with a firearm at a young age. Mostly down to proper training and Im all up for that. Then again people go through 'training' to drive a car and accidents happen all the time for both ofcourse but I do not know a country that legally allows a 9 year old to drive.

this complete bull#.

you dont teach a 9 year old how to handle or maintain a damned uzi.

a 22 rat hunter maybe but a machine gun? hell the heck no

they cant even hold it properly, you think you want to teach them gun saftey with an uzi? are you insane?

sure pop rats and stuff with a small caliber gun like a .22, bolt action, an uzi in the hands of a 9 year old girl is just as dangerous for her as it is anyone around.

when one of those goes off theres 9mm bullets everywhere

Another example of utter IRRESPONSIBILITY:



She understands NOTHING about the weapon. She clearly has no real interest in shooting. She doesn't know when the mag is empty, laughs about what 'semi' means. Has to have full auto explained.... I mean seriously WTF?? Why are you handing this person a seriously powerful lethal weapon like is a freakin sparkler!?!?

Have a look at all the dumbass idiot videos related to that one on youtube. People think it's a joke or something getting tiny girls to shoot .50cal handguns and MP5's etc.

Can those liberty-loving responsible humans among us go form our own nation of non-insane people somewhere in a hidden valley in Colorado???? Ellis Wyatt can come too.

a reply to: Biigs

Woah you missed what I was aiming at lol. Id prefer no child ever holds a gun. ANYGUN for that matter. But nothing is going to change.

originally posted by: Briles1207

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Briles1207
I always wondered why many countries get by just fine without the "right to bare arms" But America cant/wont?

Surely if it saves one life it'd be worth it?

Ah, the "if it saves one life" argument. So, if it saved one life to deprive you of another civil liberty, such as requiring a warrant to search your home, would you be okay for that.

If it was a choice between somebody dying, and someone searching my home then search away. I've nothing to hide. Also, just because something is a "civil liberty" does not make it right. Especially one which was governed in the early days of democracy in your country.

We also have a saying from the early days of our society: Those who give up liberty for security will have neither.

originally posted by: Biigs
they cant even hold it properly, you think you want to teach them gun saftey with an uzi? are you insane?

sure pop rats and stuff with a small caliber gun like a .22, bolt action, an uzi in the hands of a 9 year old girl is just as dangerous for her as it is anyone around.

when one of those goes off theres 9mm bullets everywhere

EXACTLY.

any 9-year old should be NOWHERE near a select-fire weapon. Absolutely outrageous.


I taught my wife how to shoot, and we started with a Sig .22 Once she understood everything about how it worked, the safety, reloads, magazine release etc then we stepped up to a 9mm S&W and went over everything again.

This guy was a pathetic excuse for an 'instructor'

There are people who see 'guns' as a status symbol and toy to play with. Scary people when they have a firearm in hand.

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Briles1207

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Briles1207
I always wondered why many countries get by just fine without the "right to bare arms" But America cant/wont?

Surely if it saves one life it'd be worth it?

Ah, the "if it saves one life" argument. So, if it saved one life to deprive you of another civil liberty, such as requiring a warrant to search your home, would you be okay for that.

If it was a choice between somebody dying, and someone searching my home then search away. I've nothing to hide. Also, just because something is a "civil liberty" does not make it right. Especially one which was governed in the early days of democracy in your country.

We also have a saying from the early days of our society: Those who give up liberty for security will have neither.

Its a "Civil Liberty" in Iran for a husband to lash his wife if caught committing an infidelity.

Still doesn't make it right.

Also it is possible to live without guns, as other countries show. So the real argument is "we have guns because we are allowed" not because you need them.

originally posted by: Maltese5Rhino
a reply to: NavyDoc

I think the difference is that if you go to a shooting range in the UK and get a bad instructor. You still cannot go and easily get a gun afterwards and use bad technique or knowlege.

IMO its a catch 22...... Because in America you can use guns and fair enough. Thefore it is perfectly sensible to teach and be tought at a youngish age how to do it properly (Though prob not as young as 9)

Yet if you are tought poorly and survive then you grow into an adult who beleives it is perfectly fine to hand thier own children a firearm at the age of 9 such as the Uzi or tbh in 20 years probally something alot easier to loose control of at 9 years of age. Ive seen a few post how they felt it is ok because they had the same experiance with a firearm at a young age. Mostly down to proper training and Im all up for that. Then again people go through 'training' to drive a car and accidents happen all the time for both ofcourse but I do not know a country that legally allows a 9 year old to drive.

This incident happened at a gun club range. In the UK this accident could have just as easily happened because the UK has gun club ranges as well. That is the salient point. All of the wailing and gnashing of teeth about this incident and 'Merica bashing is silly because it happened at a licensed range under a licensed instructor just like you have in the UK.

In pretty much every country you can legally drive on your own property at any age. Certainly this is the law in the US. It is not practical for most, but I've seen kids drive tractors and trucks on farms in the UK as well as the US.

As much as people want to make this about gun control, this isn't. It happened in a controlled environment--just like we are told that guns should be limited to. This is no different than an adult handing any other machine that is too much for a kid--a car, a chainsaw, a lawnmower--with an expected tragic result. Irresponsible , certainly. A call for gun control--nonsensical. An idiot gives a kid a chainsaw and tells him to saw some wood and he gets hurt is a statement about his individual irresponsibility, not a call to ban chainsaws for everyone.

originally posted by: Briles1207

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Briles1207

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Briles1207
I always wondered why many countries get by just fine without the "right to bare arms" But America cant/wont?

Surely if it saves one life it'd be worth it?

Ah, the "if it saves one life" argument. So, if it saved one life to deprive you of another civil liberty, such as requiring a warrant to search your home, would you be okay for that.

If it was a choice between somebody dying, and someone searching my home then search away. I've nothing to hide. Also, just because something is a "civil liberty" does not make it right. Especially one which was governed in the early days of democracy in your country.

We also have a saying from the early days of our society: Those who give up liberty for security will have neither.

Its a "Civil Liberty" in Iran for a husband to lash his wife if caught committing an infidelity.

Still doesn't make it right.

Also it is possible to live without guns, as other countries show. So the real argument is "we have guns because we are allowed" not because you need them.

So you don't "need" books to survive. Are you okay with a ban on books then?

originally posted by: Briles1207
Also it is possible to live without guns, as other countries show. So the real argument is "we have guns because we are allowed" not because you need them.

they need guns because other people have guns.

kids can use them, but not anything completly deadly like an uzi.

i dont think any kid should should be taught any gun stuff till they are 16 at least, some more adultish kids maybe, but only small arms at the absolute most.

a machine pistol is just completely mad, crap i wouldnt let my girl use one of those and shes 28

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Briles1207

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Briles1207

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Briles1207
I always wondered why many countries get by just fine without the "right to bare arms" But America cant/wont?

Surely if it saves one life it'd be worth it?

Ah, the "if it saves one life" argument. So, if it saved one life to deprive you of another civil liberty, such as requiring a warrant to search your home, would you be okay for that.

If it was a choice between somebody dying, and someone searching my home then search away. I've nothing to hide. Also, just because something is a "civil liberty" does not make it right. Especially one which was governed in the early days of democracy in your country.

We also have a saying from the early days of our society: Those who give up liberty for security will have neither.

Its a "Civil Liberty" in Iran for a husband to lash his wife if caught committing an infidelity.

Still doesn't make it right.

Also it is possible to live without guns, as other countries show. So the real argument is "we have guns because we are allowed" not because you need them.

So you don't "need" books to survive. Are you okay with a ban on books then?

The only books that ever kill anybody are religious texts. But that's another matter.

That's a ridiculous comparison.

This guy made a stupid decision. No kid should be shooting an Uzi or any automatic weapon.

I'm all for teaching my kids how to shoot and about gun safety. They only shoot .22's and a 410. I don't know what this guy thought he was doing. It's just bizarre to me. You wouldn't let your kid take off in a Lamborghini when they first start driving. It just boils down to someone who didn't have any sense and it makes all responsible gun owners look bad. Now this little girl will have to live with this nightmare when it was in no way her fault. Her parents are obvious idiots.