Girl, 9, kills shooting instructor

[psyche101]

No need to punish all for a very small group's mistake. That range's owner hasn't had an accident prior to this for 14+ years.

In a serious accident like this, one mistake is more than enough. That the range provides Uzi's to children under ten ought to be enough to haul his backside into court alone I would have thought.

[green_dude777]

http://m.wistv.com/wistv/pm_/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=od:GMNOOKqK

Imagine that, a 6 year old girl was hunting with her old man. Nobody but the deer died.

Even crazier, there are multiples.

https://www.google.com/search?site=&source=hp&ei=NqX-U8qiFdC2ogSW-IDgBA&q=minimum+age+of+hunter+in+ohio&oq=minimum+age+of+hunter+in+ohio&gs_l=mobile-gws-hp.3...2681.16417.0.17111.27.27.0.8.8.0.256.2966.11j15j1.27.0....0...1c.1.52.mobile-gws-hp..6.21.1603.3.hHkhXomDW_M#q=6+year+old+shoots+a+deer

Not everyone is irresponsible.

[green_dude777]

In a serious accident like this, one mistake is more than enough. That the range provides Uzi's to children under ten ought to be enough to haul his backside into court alone I would have thought.

The man who committed the error is dead..

[psyche101]

http://m.wistv.com/w...uid=od:GMNOOKqK

Imagine that, a 6 year old girl was hunting with her old man. Nobody but the deer died.

Even crazier, there are multiples.

https://www.google.c...d shoots a deer

Not everyone is irresponsible.

You're just not getting the "kid" aspect here are you. It would seem this girls parents and the trained shooting instructor felt they were responsible too. These are bloody kids, you get it? Kids. It matters not if there are many people who think this is a good idea, it is most certainly not. It's a personal choice that some people make, just like some religious folk think modern medicine is a crock and if you get sick you should just pray to God. Kids die, but the parents think "that's OK, the child is on Gods hands now" Replace God with "Responsible" and you have the same situation. Kids die, but some feel personal choice mitigates that because shooting is heaps good fun. And "it wont happen to me, I am responsible".

There is no reason to place a deadly weapon in the hands of a child. It's a choice people make. Others making the same "choice" is irrelevant. That's just pack mentality.

[psyche101]

The man who committed the error is dead..

The Range admitted her and took the payment and gave her the gun I presume, not the instructor.

And he had an employer who is supposed to be responsible for his establishment and the behavior and actions of his employees. If one of our boys stuffs up on site, I get the phone call, said employee does not get chastised by the builder, I do. Then it goes down the line. And it is probably much worse second hand I would think too, you have seen me frustrated, imagine me in a rage!! It is the owner's responsibility to provide a safe environment. A little girl with an Uzi seems to contradict that to me and places the safety onus on the owner.

That's not common sense or placing blame, here it is the law, I would be rather surprised if it was not law there too. However, your outlook has provided more than one surprise for me to date.

Edited August 28, 2014 by psyche101

[+Hammerclaw]

The Range admitted her and took the payment and gave her the gun I presume, not the instructor.

And he had an employer who is supposed to be responsible for his establishment and the behavior and actions of his employees. If one of our boys stuffs up on site, I get the phone call, said employee does not get chastised by the builder, I do. Then it goes down the line. And it is probably much worse second hand I would think too, you have seen me frustrated, imagine me in a rage!! It is the owner's responsibility to provide a safe environment. A little girl with an Uzi seems to contradict that to me and places the safety onus on the owner.

That's not common sense or placing blame, here it is the law, I would be rather surprised if it was not law there too. However, your outlook has provided more than one surprise for me to date.

Believe it or not I agree. This is the most stupid, unnecessary and horrific accident I've heard of in recent memory. What kind of parent would want their child of such tender age handling firearms, to begin with? This business deserves to lose their license forever. My dad had a single shot small caliber rifle at about that age and hunted rabbit with it on the dairy farm he grew up on. He was a product of his times and was well-grounded in firearm safety by age six. Then he found out it was a lot easier to raise rabbits than to hunt them, and spent most of his young years fishing, instead. I had one at age ten, but never used it except for plinking. We lived in the city at the edge of town but we didn't need the meat and dad didn't see anything sporting about hunting for fun. This, however was totally irresponsible. To put a semiautomatic weapon in the hands of a girl child of such tender years was so stupid.. I am revolted by this.

[green_dude777]

You speak as though you're an authority on what is right or wrong. Who granted this title of 'determiner'?

Apparently not most of the legislators in the U.S.

Here's a breakdown of hunting age requirements;

http://www.ncsl.org/research/environment-and-natural-resources/minimum-hunting-age-statutes.aspx

I personally found it weird that I met 18 year olds who didn't know how to fire and clean a gun when I moved away. Apparently we're all 'wrong' in the rural U.S.

[Yamato]

Believe it or not I agree. This is the most stupid, unnecessary and horrific accident I've heard of in recent memory. What kind of parent would want their child of such tender age handling firearms, to begin with? This business deserves to lose their license forever. My dad had a single shot small caliber rifle at about that age and hunted rabbit with it on the dairy farm he grew up on. He was a product of his times and was well-grounded in firearm safety by age six. Then he found out it was a lot easier to raise rabbits than to hunt them, and spent most of his young years fishing, instead. I had one at age ten, but never used it except for plinking. We lived in the city at the edge of town but we didn't need the meat and dad didn't see anything sporting about hunting for fun. This, however was totally irresponsible. To put a semiautomatic weapon in the hands of a girl child of such tender years was so stupid.. I am revolted by this.

If it was only not-semiautomatic! Gosh darnit, if it was just a single action revolver or a pump gun or a lever gun it wouldn't be nearly as revolting! Children who shoot guns should have something else they have to do with the gun in between pulling the trigger because as we all know, trigger actions and maturity levels are highly correlated.

Fully auto though and I agree. In the hands of anyone with no experience, hair triggers that spray bullets seemingly by accident enough already probably aren't the smartest idea for nine year olds.

Edited August 28, 2014 by Yamato

[psyche101]

You speak as though you're an authority on what is right or wrong. Who granted this title of 'determiner'?

Apparently not most of the legislators in the U.S.

Here's a breakdown of hunting age requirements;

http://www.ncsl.org/...e-statutes.aspx

You did not read my post in full yet again, you seem to have missed this part:

That's not common sense or placing blame, here it is the law, I would be rather surprised if it was not law there too.

Can you confirm or deny responsibility of an establishment owner? Why would that law change? That would be the natural order would it not? The Employer has to provide certain conditions for an employee. Amongst those would be providing training and a safe work environment.

Even from just a personal aspect, I remember once a good friend of mine was killed on site - electrocuted. My boss was crushed, he kept paying his wages to his wife for another three months until the legals settled and she could afford to pay her mortgage and for their children.

I personally found it weird that I met 18 year olds who didn't know how to fire and clean a gun when I moved away. Apparently we're all 'wrong' in the rural U.S.

I have not even once challenged the rural aspect of gun ownership and would not, I used one when living on broadacre farms here. That has nothing to do with kids or 18 year olds. I have even said that the rural parts of the states which have Bears are the most needy. I would not oppose people in Bear Country having freaking cannons and rocket launchers.

[+Hammerclaw]

[/size]

You did not read my post in full yet again, you seem to have missed this part:

That's not common sense or placing blame, here it is the law, I would be rather surprised if it was not law there too.

Can you confirm or deny responsibility of an establishment owner? Why would that law change? That would be the natural order would it not? The Employer has to provide certain conditions for an employee. Amongst those would be providing training and a safe work environment.

Even from just a personal aspect, I remember once a good friend of mine was killed on site - electrocuted. My boss was crushed, he kept paying his wages to his wife for another three months until the legals settled and she could afford to pay her mortgage and for their children.

I have not even once challenged the rural aspect of gun ownership and would not, I used one when living on broadacre farms here. That has nothing to do with kids or 18 year olds. I have even said that the rural parts of the states which have Bears are the most needy. I would not oppose people in Bear Country having freaking cannons and rocket launchers.

Funny that. The farm my dad grew up, on where my grandfather worked in the dairy, was called Broadacre Farm, or just Broadacres at Powell Station TN. Edited August 28, 2014 by John Wesley Boyd

[green_dude777]

The Range admitted her and took the payment and gave her the gun I presume, not the instructor.

And he had an employer who is supposed to be responsible for his establishment and the behavior and actions of his employees. If one of our boys stuffs up on site, I get the phone call, said employee does not get chastised by the builder, I do. Then it goes down the line. And it is probably much worse second hand I would think too, you have seen me frustrated, imagine me in a rage!! It is the owner's responsibility to provide a safe environment. A little girl with an Uzi seems to contradict that to me and places the safety onus on the owner.

That's not common sense or placing blame, here it is the law, I would be rather surprised if it was not law there too. However, your outlook has provided more than one surprise for me to date.

For clarification, you are or are not shifting blame from the instructor and parents to the establishment?

I've gathered you're used to a life of subordinance, 'sacrificing' for the state (well, at least when it's agreeable or not much inconvenience, unless you have given up peanuts and beef, to "save even one life"), but a large portion of the U.S. were raised to take care of ourselves. You mock those that tile their own kitchen, or drywall their own house. Well, I wired the a/c outlets in our house when I was thirteen, house hasn't burnt down in 17 years. This is common in rural America.

So while this is 'unfathomable' to you, I know several people who bagged their first deer at 8 years old. Get over it, cultures are different.

With that said, the instructor had every right/ability to not go through with this. He did, and it was a bad call. He paid the highest price for his mistake. No need to shift blame and add yet another law to the stuffed rulebook.

[green_dude777]

[/size]

You did not read my post in full yet again, you seem to have missed this part:

That's not common sense or placing blame, here it is the law, I would be rather surprised if it was not law there too.

Can you confirm or deny responsibility of an establishment owner? Why would that law change? That would be the natural order would it not? The Employer has to provide certain conditions for an employee. Amongst those would be providing training and a safe work environment.

Even from just a personal aspect, I remember once a good friend of mine was killed on site - electrocuted. My boss was crushed, he kept paying his wages to his wife for another three months until the legals settled and she could afford to pay her mortgage and for their children.

I have not even once challenged the rural aspect of gun ownership and would not, I used one when living on broadacre farms here. That has nothing to do with kids or 18 year olds. I have even said that the rural parts of the states which have Bears are the most needy. I would not oppose people in Bear Country having freaking cannons and rocket launchers.

Did you say

"There is no reason to place a deadly weapon in the hands of a child. It's a choice people make. Others making the same "choice" is irrelevant. That's just pack mentality."

I'm not disagreeing with the fact it was a bad decision to let a 9 year old fire an automatic weapon. I'm disagreeing with your emotional pandering against firearms, and more specifically, in this thread, youths and firearms.

[psyche101]

Believe it or not I agree. This is the most stupid, unnecessary and horrific accident I've heard of in recent memory. What kind of parent would want their child of such tender age handling firearms, to begin with? This business deserves to lose their license forever. My dad had a single shot small caliber rifle at about that age and hunted rabbit with it on the dairy farm he grew up on. He was a product of his times and was well-grounded in firearm safety by age six. Then he found out it was a lot easier to raise rabbits than to hunt them, and spent most of his young years fishing, instead. I had one at age ten, but never used it except for plinking. We lived in the city at the edge of town but we didn't need the meat and dad didn't see anything sporting about hunting for fun. This, however was totally irresponsible. To put a semiautomatic weapon in the hands of a girl child of such tender years was so stupid.. I am revolted by this.

I hope is results in a safety review at the very least. That seems a good idea, as Kahazel posted, in another incident, the child became the victim. If posters here can say the recoil on an Uzi is too much for a female adult, surely someone who has a gun range and only deals with weapon would have to be aware of this as well?

[psyche101]

Funny that. The farm my dad grew up, on where my grandfather worked in the dairy, was called Broadacre Farm, or just Broadacres at Powell Station TN.

Funny names here, often they are Indigenous, and all the ones surrounding the area I grew up in and the won I went to school in were, except those two towns. I lived next to places called Buri Buri (pronounced Burra Bur i ) and or but lived in a place called Pelican and went to school in a town called Chinchilla.

Great way to grow up I reckon.

[psyche101]

For clarification, you are or are not shifting blame from the instructor and parents to the establishment?

No, I feel they all have blame in some way or another. The blame upon the establishment was to have insufficient safety practises in pace and sufficient age guidelines. It's part of quality control.

I've gathered you're used to a life of subordinance, 'sacrificing' for the state (well, at least when it's agreeable or not much inconvenience, unless you have given up peanuts and beef, to "save even one life"), but a large portion of the U.S. were raised to take care of ourselves. You mock those that tile their own kitchen, or drywall their own house. Well, I wired the a/c outlets in our house when I was thirteen, house hasn't burnt down in 17 years. This is common in rural America.

What you call "subordinance" is a heartfelt genuine concern for my fellow man. If that concept is foreign to you perhaps you may wish to explore it at some point in your life. Many benefits are provided by community support for each other. Whilst you find my social standing distasteful it benefits me, and those in my community. We all win, not just me. That seems to be where you and I part ways.

You are insane for wiring electrical outlets in your house, and all you have provided is a model of complete stupidity. It is not cool or tough, or sensible to carry out hazardous work. 9 times out of 10 it is not the halfwit doing his home wiring that gets killed, it's someone using his dodgy work. You have done anything but impress me with your tale of foolishness. It is pure dumb luck that you are alive today to type how stupid you can get. You do not see electricity coming you know. Idiots like you are the cause of needless death, and major problems in the industry, With the handyman work out there being exposed, all you are doing is forcing more inspectors to be employed raising your bills.

If that was indeed common in rural America, I expect your population count to start dropping soon. Doing your own electrical work is one of the most foolish things you can do.

So while this is 'unfathomable' to you, I know several people who bagged their first deer at 8 years old. Get over it, cultures are different.

Yes cultures are different, in the Middle East you can get beheaded for being a smart ass, or you can be stoned to death if you are a woman in the company of a non family man. You should be happy that they are pleased with that way of life yes?

Good on you, you know several people who did something I consider insane. I can offer you links to women who have been stoned to death for being on the company of a non family man. Does that make it acceptable or right?

Kids are kids, let them be kids.

With that said, the instructor had every right/ability to not go through with this. He did, and it was a bad call. He paid the highest price for his mistake. No need to shift blame and add yet another law to the stuffed rulebook.

Yes he did, and accountability goes down the line, the next employee should be working in conditions that would not put his life in danger. And age restrictions should be implemented. Why do you think blame is sole? Several people did the wrong thing here, not just one,and two people paid the price for it. Id ten people rob a bank, you think only the ringleader should go to jail?

You do not understand business models, quality control, accountability, nothing, this is not a single blame, and you do not go "oh, damn it, an employee dead, get an ad in the paper quick" an investigation needs to be carried out, and measures put in place to make sure this does not happen again, unless one was to not care if it happened again?

[psyche101]

Did you say

"There is no reason to place a deadly weapon in the hands of a child. It's a choice people make. Others making the same "choice" is irrelevant. That's just pack mentality."

I'm not disagreeing with the fact it was a bad decision to let a 9 year old fire an automatic weapon. I'm disagreeing with your emotional pandering against firearms, and more specifically, in this thread, youths and firearms.

So you are going to avoid the fact that you indeed misread my post, cannot answer it, and shift focus?

Yes I said that, what of it? When an accident happens, a sole blame is not always the case. Sometimes it is a series of unfortunate events that culminates in a tragedy like this. And that seems to be the case here. Parents took a young child to a shooting range, she was admitted by the range, her parents paid and approved her, the range issued her the weapon, and the instructor failed to take any action.

The parents should not have had her there for one, and they let her near a submachine gun, the establishment should not have given her an Uzi and questioned her age, the instructor should have also said something when he took over. All three have a part in this. Not one dead person.

[SHaYap]

Well on the bright side .... at least no one is blaming the UZI ~ maybe in the future there will be 0.1 kiloton nuclear device detonation parks ~ pushing a BUTTON and get a big big boom for the fun of it ~ should be relatively 'safe' ~ I think ~

edit ~ disastrous spelling ~

Edited August 28, 2014 by third_eye

[psyche101]

Well on the bright side .... at least no one is blaming the UZI ~

Cheers for lightening the mood.

[Shiloh17]

The recoil could just as easily have killed her. Just who thinks a 9 year old with an Uzi is a good idea? This is not the first time children have killed or been killed by Uzi recoil.

[Rafterman]

I think we can all agree that firearms have the potential to be deadly and that they deserve our utmost respect. Like everything, there are lapses in judgement and accidents happen. Fortunately most do not have the result of this case.

But I find it interesting that because it's a "gun thing" all of the same arguments pop up and it garners national media attention. But compare it to this case:

http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/story/23807951/13-year-old-girl-killed-in-snowmobile-safety-class

A 13-year-old girl is killed while participating in a supervised snowmobile safety course. From what I can tell, the story never made it out of Wisconsin/Minnesota media and yet one could make pretty much the same arguments against children and snowmobiles that are being made about children and firearms - who "needs" a snowmobile, what parents in their right mind would let a child drive one alone, etc. etc. Also interesting to note that given the number of snowmobiles vs the number of firearms, deaths from snowmobile accidents occur at significantly higher levels.

So, again, many of the things we choose to do for sport/recreation are potentially dangerous - especially so if you don't respect whatever piece of equipment you're working with.

[White Crane Feather]

[/size]

The entire argument is stupid. Guns are not tools, that is just lying to yourself, a gun is a gun is a gun. Changing the terminology is what most people do to soften a tough subject. It's been done before in a million different ways. Guns exist for one reason, to apply deadly force. A Vehicle exists to get children to shool, get to shops and feed yourself and get to work so you can have a roof over your head. todays wide cities with so many roles to fulfill demands that until we have transporters like Star Trek, we have no option but to use a vehicle. If you do not use a gun, you will not starve, it will not hamper your ability to pay your mortgage, and it wont stop your kids from recieving schooling. Not having a vehicle will impacrt on wevery single one of those aspects. We have been farming for thousands of years now, the actual need for a gun in this respect went out before they were invented. Just be honest, you think they are cool, and you like them. Don't BS us all with some regaling tale of hunter gathering, or required skills, does not cut the Mustard, fact is there is no good reason to place a gun in the hands of a child at all. It's a personal thing that you think is a good idea because you think guns are cool. I do not consider a vehicle a "tool" but "transport". I today's world, the dictionary is big enough to encompass both.

Guns are not targetted on an emotional aspect at all, that is a really silly thing to say. The risks are more than obvious, and very real as we can see in this headline. What is emotional is the attachment to them.

You know, I bet this little girls father may well have had the very same thought as they embarked on their family day out.

It will never happen "to you" will it?

In more danger of having stairs? So you think hey, this added risk is fine, stairs seem worse to me? You know what, I hate stairs. Built a single story house. You only have stairs as a space saver when required surely. Stairs suck. Long live the escalator.

Did you realise that Cows killed 108 people between 2003 and 2008, an average of about 22 deaths a year? Yet sharks only kill one single, solitary person in the United States each year, a 1 in 3,748,067 chance in your lifetime, so you should give up your camping trips and start heading to the beach instead if you want to run with statistics.

If you say you wish to avoid emotional rheotric out of it, you have to leave it at the door yourself as well you know.

Yes that's exactly my point. Cows kill more people than sharks and bufallow more than bears. So by the emotional idealology of the anti gun lobby, we should give up camping and and go to the beach more and not carry bear spray at yellow stone but some sort of buffalow repellent. Or better yet just ban Japanese tourists from yellow stone because by and large because they are the ones the get up next to the hulks for pictures. You see how rediculous it is. Guns carry fewer risks than things we deal with every day but there is a huge outcry because some moron gives a kid an Uzi. It's completely and totally emotionally driven.

I do use my weapons. One goes with me every time I travel. It provides security for my family and I, there are sketchy people out there you can read about it every day if you like. I have spent many years hunting, and although I am vegan now as a personal choice, I expect my children to learn the skill ls that may feed them one day. I do not have faith in modern supply chains. They also learn other outdoor skills.

I also own a martial arts school that teaches self defense. Part of advanced training is to be able to strip a weapon from Somone's hand at close range. All my adult black belts are required to take a fire arms course. What good does striping a weapon do if you do not know how to handle it.

No! I do not think weapons are cool any more than I think a hammer is cool. It's a dangerous tool used for personal protection and security, possibly food gathering, and a deturent from deadly force before its used as deadly force. To be good at them and understand them they must be trained with often.

I could care less that somone gets emotional about it because they don't like how deadly they are. If somone can provide a well done statistical analysis of how much more dangerous they are then driving my kids to the movie theater I might reconsider my position, but as of now the risks are low, and the benefits of ownership far outweighes the risks. Can an accident happen absulutely, but I'm not going to walk my kids every were we go, I'm not going to move into a house without stairs, I'm not going to not let my kids ride their bikes ( far more dangerous than gun ownership by the way), I'm not stopping them from swimming at the lake, or climbing trees. I'm takeing all the knives out of my house, getting rid of my Chain saw or table saw, sliding glass doors. Balconies, tire swings, or the bath tube.

Gun accidents have always been a fact, just because the media is instantaneous now, and a certain portion of society thinks it needs to regulate everything according to their own values and emotions, dosnt mean that the rest if us have to follow suit. My father taught me to shoot, I trade lessons with a professional and competitive shooter to improve myself, and I will teach my 3 boys everything that I know. Not because its "cool" but because me and my family have always considered it a valuable skill, and its my constitutional given right to do so.

I'm not going to wrap my kids in straight jackets and throw them in a padded room. They will learn about the world around them and function within the realities of it. When they see some moron with an Uzi, they will know to make them selves scarce. Sadly all my students have been trained to flatten themselves at the sound of gun fire then crawl to cover.

The truth is we have absolutely no clue what the world will be like in 30 years. I dont plan to leave my children Nieve. Just as my father left me self suficiant and prepared. I honor the right of anyone who thinks differently than we do, but when somone threatens my rights to my values and traditions then we have a problem. I don't speak for other gun owners but by and large this is how we feel. Gun violence and accidents are sensationalized when in reality far far more people are killed by cars, pharmacuticls, Tabaco, alcohol, household accidents, and cheeseburgers. In fact, if properly taken care of a fire arm is probably the safest dangerous thing to own.

Edited August 28, 2014 by White Crane Feather

[Funky Poacher]

Sounds like 'merica to me.

[Jeremiah65]

Wow...just wow....

I started shooting when I was young. I had my "own" .410 shotgun by the time I was 10 and it went up from there...as the years went by, I got bigger shotguns and rifles...by 15 I had a Winchester model 70 .270. But I was taught how to use them and the training was slow and gradual. Heck I remember when my brother-in-law showed up with a sawed off 12 gauge double barrel with a modified pistol grip stock. Prick never bothered to tell me that it had a modified trigger....I drop it down to waist level, cupped my left hand over the breech to brace the inevitable up kick ...and "wham"...both barrels released at once...the thing kicked back so hard that the barrel break over release slammed into the part of my right hand between the thumb and forefinger so hard it split me wide open...I still have the scars to this day. My brothers...not thinking it was very funny...punched him in the face. Just another day in hillbilly land...

I feel so sorry for this little girl. I am somewhat going to blame whatever parent thought this was a good idea. She will be traumatized for the rest of her life.

I started shooting very young...yes I did...but it was with something I could control. First it was a .22lr...then came the .410...then a 16 ga...then a .22/250...then a .243...then a 12 ga...then my Winchester .270. I still recall the first time I shot what I considered at the time to be a cannon...my brother's Weatherby mark 5 7mm magnum...such an awesome firearm....I have since shot 300 magnums, .357 and .44 magnum handguns...I got another run in with a sawed off 12 ga double barrel...this time I was ready...but the cannon I test fired and I would love to have for..."home defense"...a 12 ga semi with a 12 shot rotary clip...it was the definition of "street sweeper"...load that baby up with saboted slugs and it will shoot through an engine block...I want one....I really-really want one...but at near a grand in price...will prob be awhile...

[aztek]

. Prick never bothered to tell me that it had a modified trigger....

did he really? or was it double triggers and you pulled front one first, while having two fingers on both triggers???

i did that quite often when used double trigger o\u for clay. i kept shooting both barrels, and was convinced it was guns fault, soon enough i realised i had both fingers on triggers, and front trigger when pulled pushed on finger behind, and it pressed rear trigger. normally you do not want want two figers on triggers, but when shooting clay it is faster than moving finger tosecond trigger, than i started pulling rear trigger first , and all was fine.

Edited August 28, 2014 by aztek

[aztek]

Just who thinks a 9 year old with an Uzi is a good idea? .

i'm sure thousands of kids shot that uzi before and nothing bad happened.

you do realise that in middle east, some places, kids as young as 7 already know how to shoot and care for ak. so age is not the issue here.