It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Jakal26
Watch as the anti-gun crowd exploits this little girl.
Oh...that's not what you're doing? ummhumm.....anything to bash the right to bear arms, aye?
Tragic accident/dumb (understatement) instructor.....
But for those asking why a child would be taught to shoot or claiming that children don't need to learn to handle firearms...
And reasons 3-1000.....well, don't be lazy, go take a look at the plethora of reasons.
Now please, stop using this accident as a justification for not being able to understand why we teach children to shoot. It's exploitation, of course, I doubt too many of the anti-gun crowd even care about all that.
....carry on with the gun rights bashing. (Won't change a thing....whine and scream all you want, the rest of us will STILL keep our weapons)
originally posted by: Iamthatbish
I have a 10 yr old and a 13 yr old and the closest they get to guns is COD.
I didn't even let them play hockey because I know my kids would use that as a weapon.
So, I have no idea what besides the allowing a child to touch something they shouldn't is the process ... why wasn't an adult behind he helping with the recoil?
I can only imagine what this little one is going through. None of it is her fault.
originally posted by: DAVID64
While an Uzi is only 9 mm and not a "High powered rifle" [ where do they get their information? ] they "walk" on full auto and for a 9 year old to control that is asking a lot. I'm seeing post after post, almost all non American, pointing fingers and shouting "See!! See!! We were RIGHT" "Crazy Americans and their guns".
Proud of yourself for using a little girls' trauma for your agenda?
I feel sorry for the girl. The instructor should have known his students weaknesses and never given her the weapon.
You're also taking a child of 9 years old and making them responsible for adult actions - and placing expectations of an adult onto them. Which is unfair and also, in my opinion, unhealthy.
But hey - you love your guns and want to surround yourselves with them - all the more to you. When you wonder how and why young teens commit atrocities like school shootings - it is not because they were not taught how to use a gun responsibly. It's because they simply do not have a true value on the impact firing a gun at another human being has.
Sure, in your examples of rare occurrences when a child miraculously stops an intruder - great. Do they fully understand what they did? What it means? I doubt it. But they're your kids, so - go for it.
originally posted by: Jakal26
a reply to: AngryCymraeg
Not quite....don't whitewash what is being said.
I, for one, am not claiming that it wasn't irresponsible to give this child an uzi. Anyone that says otherwise is just being ridiculous.
.....the poor decision of this "instructor" and the parents that allowed this doesn't equate all parents who teach their children how to handle and shoot weapons being irresponsible.
When you are the anti-gun crowd....this is just one more reason to cheer on the stripping of the rights of others...clearly.
originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
What kind of moron thinks that a 9-year-old can handle an Uzi???? Why would a 9-year-old need to be able to handle one in the first place??? What was she supposed to be fighting off, a pack of ebola-infected ISIS agents at her school?
originally posted by: noonebutme
a reply to: Jakal26
LIfe isnt fair - i never said otherwise. However, as adults , we can help to make a child's life more fair than unfair. And teaching them to use guns at an early age isn't fair - it's idiotic. If you feel otherwise, then I think you're opinion is idiotic.
You want to prepare children for the world by teaching them how to use guns? I would think that would only teach them to approach such situations WITH guns or with a "gunhead" mentality - something your country needs less of.
Honestly, I cannot see how one could rationally argue to teach a child how to use firearms - for the rare (yes, still rare) occasions you provide when a child has used a firearm in self defence, I do not for one second believe it was a healthy act. They are too young to understand what it means to kill someone and too young to have that sort of emotional trauma inflicted on them, when it's completely avoidable.
This isn't Syria, or Iraq - this isn't ISIS. This is America. Your children should be able to grow up without having to know how to fire an automatic weapon at 9 years old - what sort of life is that??. Jesus Christ, what is wrong with you??
Ok, I tried to hold back here, but, with sooooooooooooo many generalizations being flung about here, I couldn't just sit here. There are plenty of mistakes to go around in this particular case. IMO, who knows a child's development level and ability to make good judgements? The parents. That being said, if the parent felt unqualified to teach the child proper gun safety, then that is strike one. If the instructor did not drill into the child the importance of handling this weapon, or assess the strength and ability of the child to handle this weapon, then strike two. If the range does not have any age limit and/or strength requirement/test prior to handling this weapon, then that is strike 3. IMO, the parent making that first mistake is the one truly responsible for this entire fiasco. Whether you like it or not, the parents are the legal guardians for their children and are ultimately responsible for their well being. I am all for our 2nd Amendment rights, and will stand tall in defense of it as well. However, as one great man once said, "You can't fix stupid". Had the parents not allowed their child to even get into this situation, and even PAID for it I'm sure, then they have no case or reason to sue the range itself. The only thing I can think of that the range could be taken to court over is if the weapon itself malfunctioned due to negligence on their behalf or if the instructor was not certified as an instructor on this particular model. Let's get a grip here folks. Yes, a man is dead, and a child has been changed emotionally (and likely psychologically) for life. But this is an accident that could have been prevented at many different points along the way. Respect for firearms must be taught, and ingrained into everyone prior to handling them, let alone using them. But, going on a banning spree is not the answer....for anything. And making generalizations about everyone's rights due to the exceptions is also a recipe for disaster. But then, YMMV, as this is just my opinion as a licensed and trained gun owner.