9yr old girl kills her gun instructor with an uzi

by EndofMysteries 137 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • nugget
    nugget

    A gun is a huge responsibility and meant to be a lethal weapon. It's main purpose is to kill. To give children the tools and training to kill something is a cause of concern. Is it their responsibility to shoot intruders? Accidents happen and it is irresponsible to put a child in the position where they have to deal with the consequences of a gun accident. Guns are not entertainment akin to a visit to a theme park. Firing an Uzi isn't some right of passage that proves they are a grown up or a cheap thrill. Shooting for sport, hunting or self defence wouldn't usually require the use of an automatic weapon as has been mentioned it is a miltary weapon. People should not be allowed to shoot these weapons without military training this would prevent children getting into situations where they try to handle guns they are not equipped to deal with and parents from putting pressure on instructors to go against their better judgement.

    It is not the owning of guns that I object to but the trivialising them that is the issue. Naming a range "Bullets and Burgars" does not inspire me with confidence. It emphasises fun and entertainment rather than safety or anything else. People who want to support the right to own a gun cite many reasons for the right to bear arms but not that they are super, awesome fun.

    If you feel there is a serious reason to own a gun then perhaps it is time to review the way guns are treated and certainly people should be encouraged to treat them seriously and take responsibility for how they own, maintain and shoot their weapons and not be able to casually walk into a range and fire weapons as a one off fun day out. They need to be able to realise that movie and TV shows do not reflect the reality of firing a gun.

  • LogCon
    LogCon

    ADCMShirley said

    ' It's not as if the parents just handed their 9 year-old an Uzi and told her to go out and play. She was receiving instruction by a professional in a controlled setting.'

    A professional not acting as a professional. Firearms owners know that, when instructing someone, you stand at the 6 o'clock position, which means, BEHIND THEM. Always controlling their every move, always aware of the possible recoil actions of the firearm. Oh, and teach them at 19 not 9.

  • Apognophos
    Apognophos

    The guy who owns the range said that the instructors were supposed to stand on the side of the gun, with one arm out and ready to push it down if the barrel kicked up. This would seem to be the most safe thing to do. He didn't seem to be doing that in the picture I saw (haven't watched the video).

    By the way, if a kid has a responsible personality there's no reason why you can't take them shooting at a range just for fun.

  • HowTheBibleWasCreated
    HowTheBibleWasCreated

    9 years old. Hmmm 150 years ago 'kids' knew how to fire a rifle etc BEFORE that age in many parts of America/Canada ..... Kids today are raised not to be men or woemn but to be kids... that is the problem

  • Twitch
    Twitch

    Well said, nugget

  • Gregor
    Gregor

    What's next? How about letting first graders throw real live grenades?

  • BizzyBee
    BizzyBee

    HTBWC

    Hmmm 150 years ago 'kids' knew how to fire a rifle etc BEFORE that age in many parts of America/Canada ..... Kids today are raised not to be men or woemn but to be kids... that is the problem

    HTBWC

    Hmmm 150 years ago 'kids' knew how to fire a rifle etc BEFORE that age in many parts of America/Canada ..... Kids today are raised not to be men or woemn but to be kids... that is the problem

    I don't believe automatic weapons were around 150 years ago.

    This gun thing is out of control. Well-regulated militia my Aunt Fanny.

  • wolfman85
    wolfman85

    It's crazy that kids can't drive until they are 15 or 16, drink until 21, but the law lets them handle and shoot uzi's with no age limit?

    Totally agree with you EoM!!

  • TD
    TD
    A Reader Just Bought This 9mm Uzi....

    --Sigh...

    I don't even know where to start. How do you explain cam bearing sequence to someone who apparently can't change a flat tire?

  • Caedes
    Caedes

    Flawed logic caedes.

    Accidents happen, whether through deliberate misuse of something or if all safety precautions have been observed.

    A firearm is a tool (whether for hunting, self-defense or target shooting) and has an inherent risk in using it. Power saws and air nailers are also tools that have an inherent risk in their use. And, even when done safely, accidents still happen.

    The difference is when a carpenter accidentally cuts off a finger or hand with a power saw, no one begins clamoring for the banning of power saws.

    If this girl was being instructed in the use of an air nailer, and she accidentally killed her instructor with that air nailer, would you use the same argument you used above??

    ADCMS

    Yes, accidents do happen even if all safety precautions have been taken. In this case however the correct safety precaution would have been to not give a small 9 year old child a high powered military grade full auto weapon.

    Some firearms may be tools, an uzi cannot be used for any of the things you mentioned, it is far too indiscriminate a weapon.

    As I stated in my earlier post those items have a use beyond killing people and thus is a risk we bear as a society.

    No, I wouldn't use the same argument because an air-powered nail gun has a use that is not killing people, I stated that quite clearly in my earlier post.

    Just because someone disagrees with you does not mean their logic is faulty, however there may be a fault in your logic if you cannot see that indiscrimate military grade weapons do not sit in the same category as cars, motorbikes, power tools or any of the other things that could potentially cause a fatal accident. All of those other things have some sort of beneficial use, an uzi is only of use if you want to kill someone. You couldn't even use it for self defense since it is such an indiscriminate weapon.

    People have fatal accidents with all sorts of inoccuous objects, that doesn't mean we should not exercise common sense with regard to how really dangerous equipment is allowed to be used. I can see no problem with the fact that I had to go through rigorous tests to obtain car and motorbike licenses to show that I can operate those machines safely. I am unable to drive a heavy goods vehicle because I have not had the training or taken the test to show that I can operate such a dangerous machine safely. A child would not even be allowed to do the training or take the test.

    If you cannot see how it would be appropriate to apply the same logic to even more dangerous machinery then I would have to say that you are beyond reason on this topic.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit