• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

9 year old girl kills instructor accidentally with UZI

Deuce said:
Handing an uzi to a 9-year old with no shooting experience is like handing a Learjet to a 9-year old with no flying experience.



Why are guns the one topic that we're not allowed to discuss after a bad event? When the levees broke in New Orleans, nobody said "NOW IS NOT THE TIME TO TALK ABOUT FLOOD PROTECTION." After 9/11, not one person said "NOW IS NOT THE TIME TO TALK ABOUT AIRPORT SECURITY."

This is exactly the time you talk about guns. A bad thing happened. What can we do to reduce the risk of a similar incident? That's how rational, intelligent beings operate. They observe their surroundings, they observe events, and they alter their behavior going forward based on that. Even a freaking rat can learn from its experiences. Maybe talking about this is what makes some other gun range instructor think "You know, I've been letting little kids handle powerful weapons... maybe I should consider NOT DOING THAT."
Click to expand...

The decision making is poor. Gun rights are not the issue and shouldn't be the issue. The events you gave are good examples. Turning this discussion from guns should not be allowed in the hands of the American citizenry would be like saying the solution to the levees is not have cities near the water.
 
So the parents were at the shooting range and approved the girls training with an Uzi? Did the parents also let the girl drive the family home?
 
tres borrachos said:
Why was it "his responsibility" to refuse to comply? It's perfectly legal in the state of Arizona. He was a trained professional. He had probably done this before. He was an employee, not a psychiatrist.

The responsibility lay with her parents, not him. She could just have likely hurt herself.
Click to expand...

Are you kidding me? It was his responsibility because he was the trained professional. Legality does nothing to absolve him from responsibility for his actions. It was clear the girl knew nothing or very little about firearms or firearm safety and was too small and weak to handle an automatic weapon and yet he went ahead and put a loaded Uzi in her hands and he's not responsible in any way? WTF
 
Last edited:
Winchester said:
Are you kidding me? It was his responsibility because he was the trained professional. Legality does nothing to absolve him from responsibility for his actions. It was clear the girl knew nothing or very little about firearms or firearm safety and was to small and weak to handle an automatic weapon and yet he went ahead and put a loaded Uzi in her hands and he's not responsible in any way? WTF
Click to expand...

If it's legal in the state, and legal at the gun range, and he had done it before without anyone being shot, why would he "refuse" to do it? On what grounds? He worked at a gun range and knew the rules, and the parents - the people ultimately responsible for the child - were not only all for it, they filmed it. Who is he to say "no" unless his boss orders him to? I doubt he thought he was going to be fired?

I personally as a parent wouldn't let my 3 year old child skydive, but if it's legal, it's been done, and a parent says he wants his 3 year old to skydive, should the skydiving provider say "No, I'm not going to do this"?
 
tres borrachos said:
If it's legal in the state, and legal at the gun range, and he had done it before without anyone being shot, why would he "refuse" to do it? On what grounds? He worked at a gun range and knew the rules, and the parents - the people ultimately responsible for the child - were not only all for it, they filmed it. Who is he to say "no" unless his boss orders him to? I doubt he thought he was going to be fired?

I personally as a parent wouldn't let my 3 year old child skydive, but if it's legal, it's been done, and a parent says he wants his 3 year old to skydive, should the skydiving provider say "No, I'm not going to do this"?
Click to expand...

Absolutely he should say no if he has any misgivings about the safety of the participant. Just because something is legal does not absolve one of responsibility or personal judgement.
 
tres borrachos said:
If it's legal in the state, and legal at the gun range, and he had done it before without anyone being shot, why would he "refuse" to do it? On what grounds? He worked at a gun range and knew the rules, and the parents - the people ultimately responsible for the child - were not only all for it, they filmed it. Who is he to say "no" unless his boss orders him to? I doubt he thought he was going to be fired?

I personally as a parent wouldn't let my 3 year old child skydive, but if it's legal, it's been done, and a parent says he wants his 3 year old to skydive, should the skydiving provider say "No, I'm not going to do this"?
Click to expand...

I'm sure his ghost feels much better that it was legal.

I'm not going to run around saying "ban all the guns," but it takes a special kind of stupid to give an automatic weapon to a child and then stand nearby.
 
tres borrachos said:
If it's legal in the state, and legal at the gun range, and he had done it before without anyone being shot, why would he "refuse" to do it? On what grounds? He worked at a gun range and knew the rules, and the parents - the people ultimately responsible for the child - were not only all for it, they filmed it. Who is he to say "no" unless his boss orders him to? I doubt he thought he was going to be fired?
Click to expand...

Because most (if not nearly all ranges) give the instructor full authority to refuse training or range time to anybody for any reason- and that goes double for obvious safety issues. Each request is handled individually. It is simply a matter of trust between the owner and the instructors.

In short, the following does not guarantee training at most ranges:

-The activity is legal (so what)
-range time was purchased (here is a refund)
-the individuals want to do it (not here)
- one, a hundred, or a thousand other people have done it before (yawn)

Rather, as each case is evaluated individually and responsible range owners would never force an instructor to train or allow activity he did not feel comfortable with. Likewise, most instructors would never work for any owner who forces them to take safety risks or forced them to give training they were not comfortable with.
 
Last edited:
The parents and the instructor are both equally at fault.
 
rocket88 said:
I'm sure his ghost feels much better that it was legal.

I'm not going to run around saying "ban all the guns," but it takes a special kind of stupid to give an automatic weapon to a child and then stand nearby.
Click to expand...

Hey rocket, they give guns to cops don't they?
 
AJiveMan said:
The parents and the instructor are both equally dumb.
Click to expand...

I agree. The parents thought it would be probably be funny to have the video. Something they can share to their in-law cousins while sipping Moonshine from mason jars while sitting in their single wide.
 
voyager1 said:
I agree. The parents thought it would be probably be funny to have the video. Something they can share to their in-law cousins while sipping Moonshine from mason jars while sitting in their single wide.
Click to expand...

Uoh, you know how to kick it don't you!
 
rocket88 said:
I'm sure his ghost feels much better that it was legal.

I'm not going to run around saying "ban all the guns," but it takes a special kind of stupid to give an automatic weapon to a child and then stand nearby.
Click to expand...

He might still be alive if he stood down range in front of the target.
 
voyager1 said:
I agree. The parents thought it would be probably be funny to have the video. Something they can share to their in-law cousins while sipping Moonshine from mason jars while sitting in their single wide.
Click to expand...

Under supervision I could have handled that weapon at 9. But I shot a hell of a lot of rounds even at 9.

Btw...being a gun owner does not make one a "moonshine sipping hillbilly." That said...my first sip of alcohol was moonshine. Lol. Nasty stuff.
 
Jesus aged Christ.. That instructor was an idiot. The way the girl addressed the weapon with her left leg forward he should have known the gun would pivot left, and climb. I've fired an UZI and it's a relatively tame weapon with regards to kick, but I'm a full grown man with plenty of experience. No 9 year old should EVER shoot an UZI as their first weapon. Maybe a 410 shotgun or .22, but UZI?? Damn shame!

Tim-
 
Fenton said:
He might still be alive if he stood down range in front of the target.
Click to expand...

Maybe the "instructor" still needed some instruction...pulling someone off the street and calling them an "instructor" is a disservice to the customer.

He could have been making burgers the week before.
 
Winchester said:
Absolutely he should say no if he has any misgivings about the safety of the participant. Just because something is legal does not absolve one of responsibility or personal judgement.
Click to expand...

You seem to be missing what I'm saying. How do we know he had misgivings? You're assuming he did.
 
rocket88 said:
I'm sure his ghost feels much better that it was legal.

I'm not going to run around saying "ban all the guns," but it takes a special kind of stupid to give an automatic weapon to a child and then stand nearby.
Click to expand...

I agree that it's stupid for a 9 year old to shoot an Uzi. I think it's stupid for a 49 year old to shoot one. But if this didn't happen, we wouldn't be having this discussion. None of us know how many times in the past stupid parents allowed and encouraged their 9 year old to shoot an Uzi. For all we know, it could be happening every minute. The stupidity here was the parents. But for the grace of doG, she just as easily could have shot herself.
 
voyager1 said:
I agree. The parents thought it would be probably be funny to have the video. Something they can share to their in-law cousins while sipping Moonshine from mason jars while sitting in their single wide.
Click to expand...

They were from the Northeast
 
Winchester said:
Are you kidding me? It was his responsibility because he was the trained professional. Legality does nothing to absolve him from responsibility for his actions. It was clear the girl knew nothing or very little about firearms or firearm safety and was too small and weak to handle an automatic weapon and yet he went ahead and put a loaded Uzi in her hands and he's not responsible in any way? WTF
Click to expand...

The parents were responsible for allowing it but he was responsible for not doing his job properly. He didnt have to refuse, if he had retained control of the weapon, he'd still be alive. He made a mistake and it could have cost other people their lives too.

Making mistakes is human...sometimes justifiable, sometimes not....but since many activities are inherently dangerous AND we are dependent on the fallibility of other humans, accidents happen.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom