Fatal shooting of firing range instructor by 9 year old girl and an Uzi

[Denny Crane]

We should blame a flawed 2nd Amendment in the Constitution. No other civilized country legally allows such atrocities.

USA Today for the win. Every time!

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ntrol-tourism-hawaii-assault-weapons/1957653/

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Anyone who thinks that the kid was brought to the shooting range for "training" is fooling themselves. The opportunity to use a fully automatic firearm is nothing more that a thrill event, like bungee jumping. I don't agree with the parents' choice to have their kid participate in such an activity, but I support their right to do it.

I agree that the blame for this incident falls more on the range and the instructor than on the parents. Yes, it wouldn't have happened if they hadn't brought their kid in, but they did so under the presupposition that the range had done everything necessary to protect itself and its patrons from the inherent hazards of the activity. Clearly, that didn't happen.

 

[Minstrel]

You know that's such a straw man statement!

It really isn't, because the thrust of blue's comment was "uzis are fine because we is free people and limits are Chinese"...but almost everyone has limits. Somewhere between 99-100% of the population would favor not allowing nuclear weapons to be legally possessed by citizens. The question is not "Are we free or not," because the answer is always "Not totally, thus we have laws." The question is "where should the limits be," and whether uzis belong on this side of the limit or that side is a perfectly reasonable thing to question.

 

[magnifier661]

It really isn't, because the thrust of blue's comment was "uzis are fine because we is free people and limits are Chinese"...but almost everyone has limits. Somewhere between 99-100% of the population would favor not allowing nuclear weapons to be legally possessed by citizens. The question is not "Are we free or not," because the answer is always "Not totally, thus we have laws." The question is "where should the limits be," and whether uzis belong on this side of the limit or that side is a perfectly reasonable thing to question.

Well most are in favor of some sort of gun control. Call me crazy, but I really think owning Uzi's aren't even in the same realm as a nuke.

I think the incident has no relevance on taking an Uzi away from the people.

 

[Denny Crane]

Lost in all the strawman arguments being made against guns is the fact this range has been open for 14 years without accident or murder. Clearly there's a use aside from killing for guns (14 years worth of thousands of customers' uses).

 

[Denny Crane]

Well most are in favor of some sort of gun control. Call me crazy, but I really think owning Uzi's aren't even in the same realm as a nuke.

I think the incident has no relevance on taking an Uzi away from the people.

The nuke argument is a joke. Who can afford one?

Iran with its national income and wealth hasn't been able to complete one yet. Good luck with minstrel doing it on his salary or savings.

 

[Further]

Well most are in favor of some sort of gun control. Call me crazy, but I really think owning Uzi's aren't even in the same realm as a nuke.

I think the incident has no relevance on taking an Uzi away from the people.

I agree mostly, but I do think it might be a good idea to place some restrictions on what types on guns certain aged kids should be permitted. Perhaps fully auto weapons should be restricted to those over 18, or perhaps somewhere in between, like 14 years old.

 

[magnifier661]

I agree mostly, but I do think it might be a good idea to place some restrictions on what types on guns certain aged kids should be permitted. Perhaps fully auto weapons should be restricted to those over 18, or perhaps somewhere in between, like 14 years old.

Well technically there is. The law states that 18 and over can own rifles and 21 and over handguns.

 

[Further]

The nuke argument is a joke. Who can afford one?

Iran with its national income and wealth hasn't been able to complete one yet. Good luck with minstrel doing it on his salary or savings.

They haven't because it's illegal. If everything were free markets, Iran would just spend the couple billion to the companies That specialize in nukes, and make them for western powers.

 

[Minstrel]

Well most are in favor of some sort of gun control. Call me crazy, but I really think owning Uzi's aren't even in the same realm as a nuke.

Obviously owning an uzi isn't the same as owning a nuke, I was using nuclear weaponry as an example that (almost) all of us would agree is over the line to show that we (almost) all have limits. Considering the wide disparity in opinion on this forum on gun control, it required something extreme to find something we'd (almost) all agree on.

My point wasn't that uzis are just as dangerous as nuclear weapons, only that the debate isn't whether we, as a "free people," should have limits or not (as blue32 was essentially arguing)...but rather, where the limits should be.

 

[Further]

Well technically there is. The law states that 18 and over can own rifles and 21 and over handguns.

However their parents or ranges allow for a workaround.

 

[magnifier661]

The nuke argument is a joke. Who can afford one?

Iran with its national income and wealth hasn't been able to complete one yet. Good luck with minstrel doing it on his salary or savings.

Regardless if one can afford one or not, it's moot. No one in the NRA is lobbying for americans to own nukes.

 

[donkiez]

The nuke argument is a joke. Who can afford one?

Iran with its national income and wealth hasn't been able to complete one yet. Good luck with minstrel doing it on his salary or savings.

How about mustard gas then?

 

[magnifier661]

Obviously owning an uzi isn't the same as owning a nuke, I was using nuclear weaponry as an example that (almost) all of us would agree is over the line to show that we (almost) all have limits. Considering the wide disparity in opinion on this forum on gun control, it required something extreme to find something we'd (almost) all agree on.

My point wasn't that uzis are just as dangerous as nuclear weapons, only that the debate isn't whether we, as a "free people," should have limits or not (as blue32 was essentially arguing)...but rather, where the limits should be.

But wouldn't it be better to use rights of weapons that the NRA is lobbying to protect? Even the NRA isn't lobbying RPGs... I think we can go from that on down okay?

 

[magnifier661]

How about mustard gas then?

(ClCH2CH2)2S is a controlled substance. Even our military can't own it.

 

[Minstrel]

But wouldn't it be better to use rights of weapons that the NRA is lobbying to protect?

Sure, we could use RPGs (and we have, in the past) to show that we all have limits. It doesn't matter which we use, when the point is the same: even so-called free societies establish limits.

 

[magnifier661]

However their parents or ranges allow for a workaround.

So one incident destroys the rights for all? Sounds silly to me. Do we ban drinking because one person killed someone driving drunk?

 

[magnifier661]

Sure, we could use RPGs (and we have, in the past) to show that we all have limits. It doesn't matter which we use, when the point is the same: even so-called free societies establish limits.

And I agree with those limits. I also agree with background checks as well. What I don't agree with is limiting my mag capacity on my guns. Or not being able to own fully automatic weapons. As cliche as it sounds, you are only taking the guns away from the law abiding citizens and allowing criminals to have an upper hand.

 

[donkiez]

So one incident destroys the rights for all? Sounds silly to me. Do we ban drinking because one person killed someone driving drunk?

We banned 7oz liquids from planes because some jerk had to go an try to blow one up.

We do regulate drinking though, much better than guns.

 

[magnifier661]

We banned 7oz liquids from planes because some jerk had to go an try to blow one up.

We do regulate drinking though, much better than guns.

Um, well there you go... That 7 oz. ban is fucking stupid! One event made it happen.

And the regulations of drinking is far more lenient than any gun laws.

 

[MadeFromDust]

The fact that this is plastered all over the Internet is just a testament about how this sort of thing rarely ever happens. People are killed every day because of other negligent stuff and not a word. It's not surprising though since most of the people who scream gun control are the same people who voted Obama into the White House not but twice. You know who else was for gun control? Hitler, Stalin, Qaddafi, Castro, Idi Amin, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Jong-Il, etc.

It should also be worth noting that fully automatic weapons are illegal for civillians to own, and more people are killed by choking on forks than in gun ranges each year.

 

[donkiez]

Um, well there you go... That 7 oz. ban is fucking stupid! One event made it happen.

And the regulations of drinking is far more lenient than any gun laws.

Must disagree. We take a common sense approach to regulating drinking. We take a bullets and burgers approach with guns.

 

[donkiez]

The fact that this is plastered all over the Internet is just a testament about how this sort of thing rarely ever happens. People are killed every day because of other negligent stuff and not a word. It's not surprising though since most of the people who scream gun control are the same people who voted Obama into the White House not but twice. You know who else was for gun control? Hitler, Stalin, Qaddafi, Castro, Idi Amin, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Jong-Il, etc.

It should also be worth noting that fully automatic weapons are illegal for civillians to own, and more people are killed by choking on forks than in gun ranges each year.

You dont watch the news much do you?

 

[MadeFromDust]

Hilarious and went pretty much exactly as you would expect

[video=youtube;j6Ex2rVOUWs]

 

[Minstrel]

I actually agree that this incident is relatively meaningless (beyond the scope of the tragedy of someone dying) and isn't a particularly strong reason for gun control.

I don't personally think fully-automatic or semi-automatic weapons are good ideas to be widely available, but it's not due to random incidents like this in firing ranges.

 

[MadeFromDust]

You dont watch the news much do you?

I watch the news every day, and I also know that 90+ million gun owners did not harm anyone yesterday or have a single accident. Punishing the entire population for the actions of a minute fraction is ludicrous.

 

[Further]

So one incident destroys the rights for all? Sounds silly to me. Do we ban drinking because one person killed someone driving drunk?

Actually, I'm not even going that far with this particular issue. Perhaps ranges could have state set protocols for children or something lie that. My real problem isn't with this exact issue, it's with the unwillingness of people on all sides to (of many issues) to realize there are common sense measures that should be adhered to. Not overly restrictive ones meant to punish law abiding citizens like disallowing "evil looking" guns instead of paying attention to the actual usage and effect of the gun of issue at hand. And not overly loose laws like allowing person to person gun sales that avoid a background check.

 

[andalusian]

So one incident destroys the rights for all? Sounds silly to me. Do we ban drinking because one person killed someone driving drunk?

Right for all whom? For all 9 years old? I have a 9 y/o and let me tell you, this is not a right she needs, heck, the kid can't even keep the floor of her room safe for human habitat.

I handled plenty of guns in my time and I have seen what they can do when you put them in the hands of people that had actually gone through extensive safety training - some people really should not handle guns no matter how much supervision and education you give them - putting one in a 9 y/o hands is moronic on so many levels it is not even funny, even if there are properly trained instructors there. The blame, imho, is both on the parents for bringing a kid there for the activity and the instructor for allowing them to do so and not properly monitoring it - and to me, at least, anyone that puts kids in a position like that is a moron and maybe, just maybe, society should stop the morons from putting innocents (kids) in these situations.

FWIW - I personally do not care for Uzi's at all, they are crappy little guns and you can see that these things were designed in the 50s or so. I do not have any desire to fire guns anymore, but when I did - Uzi's were pretty much my least favorite semi's.

 

[Denny Crane]

They haven't because it's illegal. If everything were free markets, Iran would just spend the couple billion to the companies That specialize in nukes, and make them for western powers.

Is it illegal? Are you sure?

Whatever company might try and make nukes would need the resources of a government. See Oak Ridge and Savannah River facilities for example.

 

[magnifier661]

Must disagree. We take a common sense approach to regulating drinking. We take a bullets and burgers approach with guns.

The nation disagrees

http://www.recoveryfirst.org/alcohol-related-injuries-and-deaths-in-the-us.html/

In fact, alcohol related car accidents kill more people between the ages of 17 and 34 than any other cause.

. . . data from the United States suggests that about 30% of assaults involve alcohol (without other drugs) and 40 to 50% of violent crimes involve alcohol or a combination of alcohol and drugs.(3)