You can have my Uzi when you pry it from my cute widdle fingers...

Saw this CBS headline and was speechless.

"Gun Debate Grows After 9-Year-Old Accidentally Kills Shooting Instructor"

There's actually a debate about this?!?

At what point does the pro-gun lobby/militia stand back and say - "We've lost our collective mind"

BTW - I am not anti-gun or anti 2nd amendment. I am anti-stupidity, anti-closed mindedness, and anti-common sense.

Here's a link to one of the stories...

Gun Debate grow after 9 year old...

I just have to wonder why a nine year old girl had a gun, especially firing full-auto if I heard correctly. I don't care that she was at a range with an instructor. Nine is much too young to be handling any firearm in my opinion.

a reply to: Riffrafter

Your "cute widdle fingers eh!" never heard them called that before.

Accidents happen but I suppose its a topic of the time but were I an American I certainly wouldn't want to loose my right to carry a gun if I felt it necessary. Surely it personal choice and the PHB have far more control over an unarmed public?

a reply to: Riffrafter

"BTW - I am not anti-gun or anti 2nd amendment. I am anti-stupidity, anti-closed mindedness, and anti-common sense."

most full grown men cant handle an uzi... for me thats pretty much it. I blame the parents actually.

Sadly most kids her age are a part of the "We must take photos of every waking minute" generation. The range should not have allowed it and most certainly the parents shouldn't have. It's getting quite ridiculous the lengths people will go through for their latest Facebook update.

originally posted by: Riffrafter
At what point does the pro-gun lobby/militia stand back and say - "We've lost our collective mind"

Why should they?


The parents and the location at which the incident happened needs to be held accountable for giving a child of that age such a weapon. I'm pro-automobile, you wouldn't see me putting a Porsche in the hands of a 9 year old.

All blame lies on the parents and instructor. As I said in another thread, the instructor should have known his students weakness and never allowed her to fire the weapon. 9 is not too young to start shooting, but give them a firearm they can handle, such as a .22. Gun safety can never start too early.

It was a tragic and epic fail in parenting .. idiocy in action .. put the blame where it rightfully belongs - with the parents ..

originally posted by: DAVID64
All blame lies on the parents and instructor. As I said in another thread, the instructor should have known his students weakness and never allowed her to fire the weapon. 9 is not too young to start shooting, but give them a firearm they can handle, such as a .22. Gun safety can never start too early.

Theres different layers.

1. Parents - Should have said NO
2. Range - Should have said NO
3. Instructor - Should have said NO

But the primary layer... the fault of all faults, the guilt of all guilts, the sin of all sins... the parents - letting a 9 year old child hold a weapon that can shoot 600 rounds per minute? REALLY? What are you? RETARDS? Even if it was a BB gun... that rate of fire? Dumb people!

Next time... a Mac-10 in classroom... next level, let her operate the Aegis in front of the Superbowl. Way to go DAD!

a reply to: FraternitasSaturni

Next time... a Mac-10 in classroom... next level, let her operate the Aegis in front of the Superbowl. Way to go DAD!

Great points in your post. Main point of my OP is the absurdity that there is *any* debate on this tragedy.

I mean, what are the pro-gun arguments? "Well, she shouldn't have had an UZI but a Glock is OK"....or how about a Desert Eagle .50 Cal?

WTF?!

And the parents belong in jail. Not for murder, but for endangering the welfare of an entire species. Not for years, but at least for a few months. They earned that.

And this 9 year old has to live with this the rest of her life. Tragic doesn't even begin to describe it...

originally posted by: Aldakoopa
I just have to wonder why a nine year old girl had a gun, especially firing full-auto if I heard correctly. I don't care that she was at a range with an instructor. Nine is much too young to be handling any firearm in my opinion.

Not any firearm. A .22 caliber rifle would suit a 9 year old just fine. But I agree with the fact that a 9 year old should not have had her hands on an uzzi.

Wait OP said......when is pro gunners gonna stand back and say "have WE lost OUR minds" this is placing all pro gunners into one category.

This shows me that you either lied when you say you are not anti pro gunner or you are just very uneducated when it comes to responsible gun handling.

The instructor conducted himself in a very irresponsible manner no doubt. I think you to be extremely very extremely hard pressed to find any pro gunner or anyone for that matter that would argue with that fact.

would you suggest that we put a total ban on guns to stop this sort of thing or would you just go with what I would suggest. Responsible gun handling.

Instructor was an idiot for letting her use it in the first place, so no loss there.

The saddest thing about this is the kid. Her life is pretty much forever changed. Sure, she can go through years of therapy, but it won't do much. Being 9 years old and making someone's head explode right in front of your eyes will still damage your mind forever.

I got my first .22 for my eighth birthday party. I couldn't get to it on my lonesome until I was 15 yrs old, Dad kept it locked up and I could only shoot it when he wanted to. Not only did my Dad beat gun safety into my head (sometimes literally), but I had to attend all the gun/hunters safety classes as well.

This kid probably couldn't even ride some amusement park rides and yet the business (seeking profit), the instructor (thinking he could control the range) and the parents (lacking any common sense) deemed that it was safe to put such a weapon in a childs hands? That is astounding on the stupid meter.

a reply to: Riffrafter

There is nothing wrong with a child learning to use a low powered weapon, designed for low recoil, slow rate of fire, and all that malarkey. Simply put, if you have a right to bear arms written into the core values laid down by your nations constitution(you lucky buggers!!!) then it is necessary to become familiar with all aspects of being a part of the society which came up around that constitution, as early as possible. However, since there are ADULTS who cannot handle some automatic weapons, it is not reasonable to assume that someone who weighs in at around the "damp towel" mark, ought to be able to begin training on one of the most ornery bastard guns ever created.

However, that is not to say that she should not have been handling weapons at all. I believe that it is a good idea to teach children about firearms and knives and all manner of dangerous things, as early as possible because if done with some sense, that training will promote greater respect for the equipment concerned, and a greater understanding of the use and safe treatment of such things. So yes, an UZI was a bad choice, and no, a comparative pea shooter would not have been.

originally posted by: Riffrafter
At what point does the pro-gun lobby/militia stand back and say - "We've lost our collective mind"

BTW - I am not anti-gun or anti 2nd amendment. I am anti-stupidity, anti-closed mindedness, and anti-common sense.

These two lines are at odds with each other. What does this situation have to do with the pro-gun lobby/militia? Everyone agrees this was a case of stupidity. This certainly isn't a reason to restrict guns from people though.

There seems to be debate as to wether this is actually real or not........




What do you guys think?

The age cut off is eight. She was nine. How could anything go wrong.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

He's anti common sense.

No way this is fake. The girl was a known member of ISIS.