Arizona-9 Year old girl kills gun instructer

I'm not trying to come off sounding insensitive or uncaring, because I am neither, but, these people got exactly what they allowed to happen. And now the parents want to sue?! Nobody should profit from ignorance.

The fact that this same type of incident happens to unsupervised children often, and happened recently to an 8 year old in exactly the same manner, shows me that these parents were acting as such. Children. They however are not, so they should have known damn well better. These parents caused this accident by classic Merriam-Webster definition:
2 a : an unfortunate event resulting especially from carelessness or ignorance

As for the Instructor, as unfortunate it is for his family and him, a "professional" firearms instructor, one who teaches safe handling of potentially dangerous weapons, should understand the possible consequences of handing an Uzi to an inexperienced individual (regardless of the legality or the recoil difference from that of a larger caliber semiautomatic). He made a decision, and it cost him his life. "Live by the sword, die by the sword". Which I interpret as you are most likely to die by the dangers you live by. Being so, if his family wanted to sue, the Merriam-Webster definition for legal compensation does not fit in my opinion:
an unexpected happening causing loss or injury which is not due to any fault or misconduct on the part of the person injured but for which legal relief may be sought

The real child (as that is what a nine year old is) is only responsible in this accident by the definition that of: 3 : a nonessential property or quality of an entity or circumstance
the accident of being a child...

We shouldn't need to make laws against this type of incident. We as adults should know better. I don't abuse children. Not because it's illegal, but because it's wrong.

On another note, these are things that come with living as part of a free society, I understand that. As senseless as it is, I would not give away the smallest of liberties we have to attemp preventing their misuse. It's education, not laws, that stop ignorance. Try a little intolerance. Try personal accountability.

originally posted by: Briles1207

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.

No it's not. It's quite apt. The principle is that we must restrict civil liberties, even for the law abiding, because some people might abuse those rights. Books carry ideas that have killed millions, from Mein Kampf to Mao's Little Red Book to various religious texts. If we are going to go about banning rights for law abiding people because there "might" be harm, then why stop at one position?

Criminals hide things in their homes, from drugs to guns. Why should the police need a warrant to search your home, after all, it's for your own good and you've nothing to hide unless you're a criminal? Who needs that pesky 4th Amendment if it's for our own safety?

Those are logical extensions of the logic you are using.

a reply to: NavyDoc

Star for that I tottally agree. I dont personally like the idea of having a firearm. But Im not American and have no right to vote for anything that should or shouldnt be changed. You make a brilliant point about the Tractors.. I was operating mobile Cranes at 5 years of age god knows the carnage I could have inflicted without proper supervision. Saying that my opinion on firearms is that I can pick up any gun be instantly able to hurt myself or others because I have had no training or even never held a gun before. With Tractors/Cranes I couldnt operate without being shown to first.

a reply to: 8675309jenny
These people are morons.

originally posted by: Biigs

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

Why would you be "letting" and adult woman do anything? Certainly she is capable of making up her own mind.

a reply to: Novaroc

i think that instructor had the mind of a nine year old to allow that.

but even though you can say "what an idiot he deserved it" no one needs to be shot, how can you learn a lesson if you are dead.

poor bastard. was he an idiot yes, did he deserve to be shot? of course not, he wasnt some violent rapist. he just made a bad judgement call and it cost him his life.

this is a very sad thing and that little girl is going to have to live with it for the rest of her life.

honestly i put her chances of survival at an extremely low level. killed a man at 9 years old? thats some heavy stuff

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Biigs

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

Why would you be "letting" and adult woman do anything? Certainly she is capable of making up her own mind.

id let her fire an AR-15 or any rifle or handgun (no 50 cals though) an uzi? why the hell would you fire an uzi?

damned right i wouldnt allow that, she trusts me and if i say "this is a bad idea" she will trust me and go with it.

# i dont think i trust myself with an uzi, a nine year old girl thats just completely irresponsible

edit: no its down right insane

i cant even own firearms in the uk but if i could and i had an uzi would i let my nine year old girl use it? DO YOU SMOKE CRACK? hell no not even remotely likley

why the hell would you fire an uzi?

a reply to: Biigs

This is the gangster or movie hero gun play portrayed in TV and Movies. That is why it was an Uzi. Real life isn't a movie.

a reply to: 8675309jenny

lol so much mad

i might be okay with a small arms rapid fire weapon like the mp5 or the g36c, somthing with two hands.

but an uzi, no way

that instructor was very irresponsible but didnt deserve to die for it, so this is very sad and unfortunate story

originally posted by: roadgravel

why the hell would you fire an uzi?

a reply to: Biigs

This is the gangster or movie hero gun play portrayed in TV and Movies. That is why it was an Uzi. Real life isn't a movie.

i agree, so why own one?

It fires 30 round or whatever in 5 seconds, the raise on the barrel must be incredible, and you want to give that to a nine year old? bullets everywhere

only a total nutcase would put somthing like that in the hands of a child

'Merica

Where practicing your "2nd amendment rights" is more important than basic common sense.

a reply to: kruphix

And where you have freedom of everything except healthcare.

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Briles1207

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.

No it's not. It's quite apt. The principle is that we must restrict civil liberties, even for the law abiding, because some people might abuse those rights. Books carry ideas that have killed millions, from Mein Kampf to Mao's Little Red Book to various religious texts. If we are going to go about banning rights for law abiding people because there "might" be harm, then why stop at one position?

Criminals hide things in their homes, from drugs to guns. Why should the police need a warrant to search your home, after all, it's for your own good and you've nothing to hide unless you're a criminal? Who needs that pesky 4th Amendment if it's for our own safety?

Those are logical extensions of the logic you are using.

A book has never killed anyone by accident. A Book and a Gun are totally different things. One is a tool that any idiot can kill with, the other is an idea which any fool can kill with. But you cannot accidently kill someone from something you have interpreted.

a reply to: IkNOwSTuff

Who said anything about a gun range? How do laws prevent me from handing a gun to a child and letting them play with it? Regardless of the country's stance on guns, I can do whatever the hell I want with them. Sure it may be illegal, but we all know it's only illegal if you get caught.

This is why looking towards big brother government for your protection is stupid. Laws only work on the people who listen to them.

originally posted by: Briles1207

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Briles1207

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.

No it's not. It's quite apt. The principle is that we must restrict civil liberties, even for the law abiding, because some people might abuse those rights. Books carry ideas that have killed millions, from Mein Kampf to Mao's Little Red Book to various religious texts. If we are going to go about banning rights for law abiding people because there "might" be harm, then why stop at one position?

Criminals hide things in their homes, from drugs to guns. Why should the police need a warrant to search your home, after all, it's for your own good and you've nothing to hide unless you're a criminal? Who needs that pesky 4th Amendment if it's for our own safety?

Those are logical extensions of the logic you are using.

A book has never killed anyone by accident. A Book and a Gun are totally different things. One is a tool that any idiot can kill with, the other is an idea which any fool can kill with. But you cannot accidently kill someone from something you have interpreted.

Yet hundreds of millions of people have been killed with the ideas contained in books. We need to ban books for the children.

No gun, like a book, has ever killed anyone without a human being behind it.

I see too many people talking about gun rights and saying the comments here are against guns and ''bashing'' America.

you seem to misunderstand the comments then cause I didn't see anyone say ''omg ban guns another person died'' what we are saying though is that teaching kids to use guns is completely idiotic which I'm sure most agree on.

you can have your guns that isn't the problem the problem starts when you start giving it to kids who can't understand the true dangers of a gun and don't tell me ''I shot guns when I was 10 and knew everything about them'' you certainly were not a 9 year old girl shooting an Uzi of all things and you being raised and taught about it outside of the city with your family isn't a comparison to the average kid today.

what kind of a ''family holiday'' consists of giving your 9 year old girl an Uzi to shoot with? stupid parents stupid instructor he didn't deserve to die but there was nothing stopping them from paying for this idiotic thing giving guns to kids on a gun range.

a reply to: Briles1207


Anyone would think The U.S. was a third world country.

originally posted by: kruphix
'Merica

Where practicing your "2nd amendment rights" is more important than basic common sense.

Common sense is applied to guns as well as any other machine and tool.


UK, where people wet their panties over inanimate objects.