Arizona-9 Year old girl kills gun instructer

i dont know why machine pistols are even allowed.

Its a death machine. its inaccurate, its uncontrollable and its utterly deadly.

It is not a handgun, its 30 bullets of death.

Why does anyone allow that sort of weapon in the hand of the public? forgetting for a moment that they gave one to a kid

originally posted by: BerenstEiner
I'm sorry, but every time I read the title of this thread, I laugh out loud.

Seriously, he should win a Darwin Award.

and you should win a sociopath award...

agreed.

no one needs to be shot unless you are at war and might get shot.

gun accidents suck.

a reply to: Biigs

lol, so i'm having a hard time determining whether or not you're being facetious or not....

a reply to: sg1642

i agree that a 9 year-old shouldn't have been operating a micro-uzi machine pistol.....but that doesn't make it a "war machine". they have plenty of NON-WAR applications.

originally posted by: Daedalus
a reply to: Biigs

lol, so i'm having a hard time determining whether or not you're being facetious or not....

kids cant aptly be punished realistically any more, im not kidding, i got beaten somthing wicked when i was young and it sorted me right out.

now you will find yourself in prison for assault.

so the kids grow up like total terrors

a reply to: Biigs

you completely missed the point, congratulations.

originally posted by: Daedalus
a reply to: Biigs

you completely missed the point, congratulations.

i think you did too, grats

a reply to: Biigs

-sigh-

there are plenty of things that could be classified as "death machines" if you wanna allow emotion to override reason....

the micro-uzi IS controllable.....not as easy to handle as say a Beretta M93R, but still....you CAN control it, if you know wtf you're doing.

there is no way in HELL a kid like that would be able to control something like that, so again.....it was dumb to put it in her hand..

a reply to: Biigs

yeah, pretty much.....well, at least we agree on something..

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: NavyDoc

As for your previous replies i have ignored they come under the heading " You doth protest to much"
You keep repeating yourself over and over again. You are a gun fanatic and nothing that anyone says is going to change your opinion.
As for my last reply to you............maybe those are issues that you want to avoid. Then again, maybe you can accept them for the horrors that they are.

No, you Ignored them because they pointed out a very large flaw in your premise--a flaw that you are unable to address, so you ignore it.

Ok clever clogs, what would that flaw be ?
The only flaw i see is that i disagree with about everything you have stated.

That some of those very nations you posted who are so much more dangerous than the UK also have stricter gun control than the UK, which disrupts your illogical premise that gun control equals safety.

You are now into the realms of you either completely fabricating what you think I stated or to give you the benefit of the doubt, you inadvertently misunderstood it. Therefore I shall give you a recap.

Poster “ Daedalus” stated that the U.K. was no safer than the U.S. This is in fact not correct. The U.K. is just under 10% safer country to live than The U.S. I posted this source to confirm my statement

www.numbeo.com...

Upon reading that source, poster” KrazyshOt “ stated that the information within that source was not accurate because:-
a) It was dependent on a country being an Island or not as the case may be
b) It was dependent on a country bordering a country with a higher crime rate
c) It was dependent on the size and population of a country
I then gave examples of countries that showed all those issues have no relevance what so ever on how safe a country is or is not as the case maybe.
Following on from that, we now have you stating that the information sourced is dependent of countries gun control legislation. That has nothing to do whatever for me using that source to show that the U.K. is a safer country than The U.S.
To repeat myself yet again, the source was provided to show only that The U.K. is a safer country to live in than The U.S. And that is in fact what it did.
You are digging yourself a hole and getting deeper into it. In fact your arguments are now becoming intellectually bankrupt.

the UK is very safe for guns theres basically no chance to be shot by cops or criminals.

you would have to have a gun to shot by cops, which is hard to obtain a gun. the chances of a criminal shooting you is absolutely tiny.

its nothing anyone in the UK worries about.

It doesn't matter what country your from !
You just need common sense !
And there's no border for that !

but that doesn't make it a "war machine". they have plenty of NON-WAR applications.

Can you list a few.

I imagine gangs use then for meet and greets and drive bys and police to shoot up a room. Some see it as a toy.

a reply to: projectvxn

May your efforts at child rearing be well rewarded.

Now, to the topic of these amusement park shooting ranges. You know what winter Olympic sport I have always loved to watch? Biathlon. The women and men of this event train so hard in two sports. Skeet shooting competition is also worth watching.

Now, I understand that Las Vegas is the mecca for living out fantasies. What I didn’t realize till now is that firepower is one of these fantasies. Shooting ranges (and the one involved in the tragedy is a grotesque example) exist there to fulfill the fantasy of firepower ala Rambo, catering to customers from all over the world, or here in the US, arriving from places that outlaw civilian use.

To fulfill this fantasy doesn’t require the hard work of reality; in fact, some ranges have given thought to physically support the gun, for an ADULT, to avoid what happened to this child. Many fantasies are harmless to fulfill, but a fantasy that involves lethal weapons is not Disneyland fantasy.

You can’t transition easily from game controller to gun. It takes practice with even the lightest of weapon. Military men and women have been trained to use weapons like this child used. A highly trained military force first used the Uzi.

In child rearing, the word. “No.” is needed, sometimes quite often. Sometimes adults need it, too.

You can’t transition easily from game controller to gun. It takes practice with even the lightest of weapon.

That's a good point. I also think too many are seeing death to others a casual event.

originally posted by: desert
a reply to: projectvxn

May your efforts at child rearing be well rewarded.

Now, to the topic of these amusement park shooting ranges. You know what winter Olympic sport I have always loved to watch? Biathlon. The women and men of this event train so hard in two sports. Skeet shooting competition is also worth watching.

Now, I understand that Las Vegas is the mecca for living out fantasies. What I didn’t realize till now is that firepower is one of these fantasies. Shooting ranges (and the one involved in the tragedy is a grotesque example) exist there to fulfill the fantasy of firepower ala Rambo, catering to customers from all over the world, or here in the US, arriving from places that outlaw civilian use.

To fulfill this fantasy doesn’t require the hard work of reality; in fact, some ranges have given thought to physically support the gun, for an ADULT, to avoid what happened to this child. Many fantasies are harmless to fulfill, but a fantasy that involves lethal weapons is not Disneyland fantasy.

You can’t transition easily from game controller to gun. It takes practice with even the lightest of weapon. Military men and women have been trained to use weapons like this child used. A highly trained military force first used the Uzi.

In child rearing, the word. “No.” is needed, sometimes quite often. Sometimes adults need it, too.

This. Firearms, although useful tools, are not toys and need to be treated with serious respect.

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: NavyDoc

As for your previous replies i have ignored they come under the heading " You doth protest to much"
You keep repeating yourself over and over again. You are a gun fanatic and nothing that anyone says is going to change your opinion.
As for my last reply to you............maybe those are issues that you want to avoid. Then again, maybe you can accept them for the horrors that they are.

No, you Ignored them because they pointed out a very large flaw in your premise--a flaw that you are unable to address, so you ignore it.

Ok clever clogs, what would that flaw be ?
The only flaw i see is that i disagree with about everything you have stated.

That some of those very nations you posted who are so much more dangerous than the UK also have stricter gun control than the UK, which disrupts your illogical premise that gun control equals safety.

You are now into the realms of you either completely fabricating what you think I stated or to give you the benefit of the doubt, you inadvertently misunderstood it. Therefore I shall give you a recap.

Poster “ Daedalus” stated that the U.K. was no safer than the U.S. This is in fact not correct. The U.K. is just under 10% safer country to live than The U.S. I posted this source to confirm my statement

www.numbeo.com...

Upon reading that source, poster” KrazyshOt “ stated that the information within that source was not accurate because:-
a) It was dependent on a country being an Island or not as the case may be
b) It was dependent on a country bordering a country with a higher crime rate
c) It was dependent on the size and population of a country
I then gave examples of countries that showed all those issues have no relevance what so ever on how safe a country is or is not as the case maybe.
Following on from that, we now have you stating that the information sourced is dependent of countries gun control legislation. That has nothing to do whatever for me using that source to show that the U.K. is a safer country than The U.S.
To repeat myself yet again, the source was provided to show only that The U.K. is a safer country to live in than The U.S. And that is in fact what it did.
You are digging yourself a hole and getting deeper into it. In fact your arguments are now becoming intellectually bankrupt.

Yet, many of those countries much less safer than the UK have much stricter gun control. Thus, logically, one cannot say they are safer BECAUSE of gun control because that is obviously not true given the data that you posted. Therefore, logically, there are other factors other than gun control that make a country safe or not safe.

originally posted by: Biigs
i dont know why machine pistols are even allowed.

Its a death machine. its inaccurate, its uncontrollable and its utterly deadly.

It is not a handgun, its 30 bullets of death.

Why does anyone allow that sort of weapon in the hand of the public? forgetting for a moment that they gave one to a kid

That's a bit of emotional hyperbole isn't it? "30 bullets of death." That's out of a B-list movie trailer.

IT is an inanimate object, a machine. Good or ill is defined by the person behind it. In the hands of a nine year old it is an awful disaster waiting to happen. In the hands of the police or military it can be a good thing. In the hands of a responsible collector, it can be a harmless thing.

That it exists is not the problem. That law abiding people own it is not the problem. That some irresponsible people misuse it is the problem. This tragic accident is just that--a tragic accident. I know children who were killed or paralyzed by being permitted to operate recreational vehicles that were too big, too powerful for them to handle. It is not the fault of the machine. It is not the fault of the manufacturer of the machine. It is not the fault of the state that permits such machines to be sold. It was the fault of the adult who should have known better than let the kid hop on the vehicle in the first place. No new laws are needed. People just need to be educated and held responsible. Not every tragedy that happens in life requires a law and no amount of laws will make us perfectly safe from ourselves.

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: desert

After following this report all day, the only people I know that think this is a good idea, are the gun lobbyists. I am suspicious that one of them is on this site. No compromise, even for the safety of the kids from stupid adults.

The old nonsense of "if I agree with him, he must be a paid lobbyist." That is moronic. Nobody has said "no compromise" everyone has said that this incident was stupid, negligent, and avoidable. You extrapolate from nothing. What law do you propose to make this once in a generation accident not happen?