Fatal Shooting with Uzi

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by 2123

A child gains nothing by shooting a full-auto firearm. I don't care how proficient they might be with a firearm. A child simply does not need to experience shooting a full-auto firearm, and doing so, does not make them a better person for it.

With age and responsibility, comes privilege. No 9 yr. old has earned the right to shoot such a weapon. Chances are, the young girl's experience could have been counted on a handful of fingers. It was a stupid decision on the part of her irresponsible parents.

A child who shoots a fully automatic firearm has the experience of having shot a fully automatic firearm. Since a need to handle a firearm is not a prerequisite to handling one, whether a child handled one previously is not pertinent.

None of us have sufficient information to decide whether this girl's parents made a decision out of stupidity.

Originally Posted by 2123

I learned to drive a tractor at age 10 or so. Pulled trailers full of bales of hay for 8-10 hrs. at a time. Having done that didn't qualify me to sit in the seat of a funny car at the drag strip.

A child gains nothing by driving a tractor for 8 to 10 hours at a time. I do not care how proficient a driver the child is, a child simply does not need that experience, and the experience does not make them a better person.

Given the number of children and adults maimed by tractor PTOs, I could question the wisdom of any parent allowing his child near tractor.

But then I might lack the information involved in individual circumstances that allowed you to learn to drive a tractor at age 10 without injury. So, in retrospect my unqualified assertions about tractors and children might lack merit.

[Tamara]

Man, we're quick to point out that five-gallon buckets and swimming pools are more dangerous to children than firearms, but put a selector switch on the thing and we all start sounding like the Talking Points Chorus from the Brady Campaign.
*golf clap*

[2123]

In response to Tamara.

Some parents are so bad at what they do, they need all the help that society can muster.

Some adults should be restricted from having off-spring all together. It's just a fact of life.

I stand-by my previous statement. There are times (and this is one of them) that others need to speak up and make their voice and opinions known.

I spent 4 yrs. in the US Army as an Airborne Ranger and then 30 yrs. as a federal police officer. Been around firearms more than I haven't. During those 30 yrs., if I wasn't receiving extensive firearms training, I was giving it.

Full-auto firearms are an adult activity. It's irresponsible for a child to be in control of one. It's irresponsible for an adult to allow a child to be in possession of one. It's even more irresponsible to conduct a business that allows children to shoot them.

I have to assume that the guy that was instructing the young girl how to shoot the firearm was more experienced than the regular "Joe" on the street. Even with all of his experience, the end speaks volumes.

[campingnights]

Shame that the child will have to live with what the "Instructor" caused. Seems sloppy and careless to me. When I let my 10 year old grandson shoot my Beretta 9mm, we both held the gun for a single shot. When I was confident that he wouldn't drop the gun and could handle the recoil and could keep it pointed in the right direction, I let him load two rounds at a time. That's the level he is currently at. It's a training process ya can't just hand anyone a machine gun and hope for the best. Just seems like common sense to me and I don't even claim to be an "Instructor". Horribly tragic.

[2123]

http://news.yahoo.com/gun-tourism-gr...052300809.html


Sounds as if the owner is questioning his own policies.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by 2123

Some parents are so bad at what they do, they need all the help that society can muster.

Some adults should be restricted from having off-spring all together. It's just a fact of life.

I stand-by my previous statement. There are times (and this is one of them) that others need to speak up and make their voice and opinions known.

Emphasis added. Some might assert that some opinions are so wrong that those who assert them need all the help a society can muster in the form of restrictions on speech. I do not think that is correct though.

Originally Posted by 2123

Full-auto firearms are an adult activity.

Why?

Originally Posted by 2123

I have to assume that the guy that was instructing the young girl how to shoot the firearm was more experienced than the regular "Joe" on the street. Even with all of his experience, the end speaks volumes.

Based on the video of this event, I do not assume that this fellow had sufficient experience, caution and foresight. I might be wrong, and we might have witnessed nothing more than a momentary lapse, a mistake. It is a very difficult matter to protect everyone everywhere from a mistake all the time.

[Gary L. Griffiths]

but put a selector switch on the thing and we all start sounding like the Talking Points Chorus from the Brady Campaign.

Why is it that when disagreements arise over what is or isn't wise in regards to firearms carry or use, some who feel threatened by adverse opinions must resort to accusations that all those who disagree with their viewpoints must be closet antis?

A lot of members believe that allowing a small child to operate a fully-automatic weapon is unsafe and therefore unwise. Others believe that with proper training some (at least) children are capable of safely shooting fully-automatic weapons. I, for one, don't believe that those who express the latter opinion are agents-provacateur for the Bradys and their ilk. I do believe that the "non-gunny" public views images of children shooting automatic weapons, even when doing so safely, in a negative manner. Even if unintended, this does play into the hands of those who would like to further restrict our 2nd Amendment rights.

Suggest we all take a step back from this obviously highly emotional issue, and concentrate on the two things I think we can all agree on: In this instance, the child shouldn't have been given a fully loaded automatic weapon to fire without considerably more training as several members have specified, and that this incident will make it more difficult to either legislatively or judicially overturn the Hughes Amendment and the 1934 National Firearms Act.

[2123]

Life is nothing more than a calculated risk at best. Some risks can be minimized, contained, and therefore, rationalized.

Others are such, that it very well could cost one their life. As an adult and parent, it's YOUR duty to be aware of them all, weigh the risk, calculate the odds if odds are involved, and then do your best to come to a rational decision, on behalf of your child.

The instructor was a military vet, according to the link I posted previously. Does that make him uniquely qualified? No! Did it make him qualified in the eyes of the business owner? I think the answer is rather obvious.

[zukiphile]

Why is it that when disagreements arise over what is or isn't wise in regards to firearms carry or use, some who feel threatened by adverse opinions must resort to accusations that all those who disagree with their viewpoints must be closet antis?

Let us not assume that anyone feels threatened by an adverse position when they disagree with it.

Some who have written here make an unqualified assertion that children should never handle or fire fully automatic weapons. That stands as a value judgment about whether someone else should be engaging in a fully legal activity.

In the absence of some additional reasoning, that is a judgment without a supporting argument.

[45_auto]

Full-auto firearms are an adult activity. It's irresponsible for a child to be in control of one. It's irresponsible for an adult to allow a child to be in possession of one. It's even more irresponsible to conduct a business that allows children to shoot them.

I guess I'll just have to live with being irresponsible in the eyes of some internet posters. Luckily for most of us we live in a free country and your opinion doesn't mean anything!

Just remove the words "full-auto" from your rant. I fail to see the difference in your rant between full-auto firearms and just plain old firearms. Either one in the control of an improperly supervised and improperly trained child is irresponsible.

And yes, I do have some small experience with NFA weapons. 4 years Army special weapons, 8 years LEO, then had a Type 7 FFL with a Class 2 tax stamp for about 10 years. Still have about a dozen pre-86. My 10 year old granddaughter's favorite soda can blaster is either an M16 with an M4 stock collapsed all the way so she can handle it, or a tripod mounted 1919 depending on whether the cans are down in a ditch or not.

[2123]

It's a fact of life that some adults should never have children. That has been proven and documented time and time again.

During my 30 yr. LE career, I saw first-hand, the end results of adults having children that never should have.

The results were devastating and destroyed the lives of many. Just because you are physically capable of re-producing, doesn't always mean that you should.

[KyJim]

Sure Shot Mc Gee had an excellent point. Regardless of personal opinion about teaching a young child to shoot a full auto firearm, anybody who does so is at significant risk for criminal liability if something goes wrong. Granted, there's a greater risk in some areas of the country than others. However, even in relatively gun-friendly areas, there is still a risk of criminal liability. Just look at the "gun nuts" here who think it's a bad idea. The general public would presumably think even more negatively about the idea.

Here, there apparently will be no criminal charges. That may be because the guy who put the gun in the child's hand is dead. What if the bullet had struck and killed another person? We'll never know for sure, but I think the question of criminal charges would still be hanging out there.

[zukiphile]

2123,

While your observations on procreation are fascinating and appreciated, could you explain why you believe that firing "Full-auto firearms [is]an adult activity"?

Are you asserting something universal and categorical, or a rule of thumb with many exceptions?

Thanks

[Tamara]

Originally Posted by Gary L. Griffiths

Why is it that when disagreements arise over what is or isn't wise in regards to firearms carry or use, some who feel threatened by adverse opinions must resort to accusations that all those who disagree with their viewpoints must be closet antis?

Didn't say we were closet antis. Said we sounded like Brady Campaign talking points. Stuff like this...

"A child simply does not need to experience shooting a full-auto firearm..."

"No 9 yr. old has earned the right to shoot such a weapon."

...wouldn't need many words changed at all to go on the Moms Demand Stuff homepage. How about we let them write their own ad copy?

[2123]

For all of those that say there's no difference between a bolt-action, semi-auto, or full-auto firearm, or simply say a gun is a gun is a gun, you are in denial......or are grossly misinformed.

Say what you will or want, but there are others that do know the difference.

This is America. You can't always pick and choose your neighbors. That's why I never shoot at public ranges as well.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by 2123

For all of those that say there's no difference between a bolt-action, semi-auto, or full-auto firearm, or simply say a gun is a gun is a gun, you are in denial......or are grossly misinformed.

You might want to place that in a thread in which that had actually been argued. You might find wider agreement if you addressed the basis for and limits of your opinion.

Could you explain why you believe that firing "Full-auto firearms [is]an adult activity"?

Are you asserting something universal and categorical, or a rule of thumb with many exceptions?

Thanks

[Evan Thomas]

Who "should" be allowed to shoot what isn't the real question here, IMO. Rather, it's what level of instruction is needed for a given person to shoot a gun, whatever it is, safely.

The type of experience offered by these "bus the tourists to the shooting range" programs is one thing; actual instruction is something very different. The goal of the former is to make money by offering the gun-range equivalent of a thrill ride at the amusement park, while the goal of the latter is, or should be, to introduce someone to the sport in a (safe, responsible) way that will lead them to pursue it further.

If your basic business model is to attract customers by offering a chance to do as much shooting as possible in a given amount of time, the amount of actual instruction you provide will necessarily be minimal.

I have no problem with the idea that a nine-year-old can shoot an Uzi safely, but I doubt that the level of competence she needs to do so can be acquired in an "amusement park shooting package" context.

[zukiphile]

This suggests to me, that a potential customer need have no previous experience with any firearm of any kind, but only require that an adult sign off on a waiver and present the proper amount of cash.

I don't disagree.

[44 AMP]

Well, I've read through this, and seen the video on the news (twice) last night. And here's my comments,

First off a terrible accident, and our prayers are for both families.

I'd like to point out that simply focusing on the child's age (in this case 9) is not seeing the forest but only a tree.

And while the overwhelming majority of 9 yr olds are not ready to shoot a full auto, there are some that can, and from comments in this thread, some that have, and do, without incident. So, categorically stating no 9 year old is capable/competent is a fallacy.

At the range, they rent machine guns, and for many, if not most people, its the only time in their lives that they will have that opportunity.

Customers assume it is all safely controlled, and, in general they are correct, however, we have this tragedy, (and the earlier one with the 8yr old boy) that prove even the best intentions at control and safety can fail.

There is no question in my mind that the instructor was at fault. Sadly, he paid the ultimate price for his mistake.

Full auto, as a group are no dangerous, mechanically than any other item that requires a minimum level of physical ability AND a minimum level of training to operate safely. They grab big headlines, and particularly with a child involved, really tug on the heart strings, but mechanically there are a huge number of things where an untrained child is a serious risk to operate.

Full auto, as a group has one feature, in particular that sets them apart from all other firearms, and that is the recoil. It is simply different than everything else, and while one can learn to manage it successfully and safely, it HAS to be approached differently than other systems.

A good system of training (starting with only one round in the gun, working up, etc.,) is a good way to begin. But that isn't the real issue here, either. We can discuss how a person, of any age, (physically capable of managing the weapon) should be trained, but that is a secondary issue.

My quals for my opinions? I'm not a full auto owner, or shooter, haven't been, since I got out of the Army. But I was a full auto user while I was in, and a machinegun repairman at that time, as well. Also, thanks to working with both our allies and some folks who are full auto owners and shooters, I have had the opportunity to fam-fire a number of full autos, from machine pistols to belt feds.

I think that one of the things that led to this tragedy is simple human nature, and the familiarity of the instructor with the weapon. And, by this I mean that when we are familiar with something, have done it many, many times, we get accustomed to it. One of the things ANY instructor has to constantly fight against is natural human (and usually subconscious) "knowledge" that we have about doing it (whatever it is) that beginners do not have.

Even though, on the surface we know the beginner doesn't know, its easy to be in the state of mind where the beginner's mistake come as a surprise to us.

The recoil of a full auto weapon is a surprise to a first time shooter. Firing even large numbers of single shots does not prepare you for the reality. It teaches you the recoil of single shots (a necessary first step) but does not go beyond that. Once you experience it, and have some idea, you can learn to control it, but until you personally experience it, no amount of instruction actually trains you. you can take driver ed, and learn things but until you get behind the wheel, and on the road, its not really real.

Uncle Sam taught me the M16A1 and the M60 in basic. No sweat. In my AIT, I learned the M14 (the original select fire version). It was a real eye opener for me. My first time with the M14 on full auto was on a performance test range, indoors, firing through a small port, on a level convenient for a kneeling or sitting position. 10rnds, full auto, short bursts! That was our instruction. I was quite confident, having fired thousands of rounds of .308 in bolt actions (literally, between 2-3 thousand in the years before I enlisted), so I felt pretty confident I knew what the recoil would be and could handle it.

Three previous shooters had all fired 2 shot bursts (fairly simple with the M14's trigger). I was going to show off a bit, and decided to fire a 3 rnd burst.

What I was unaware of was that the recoil feel is cumulative. You don't get over the first one before the second one hits you, and by the time the second one is pushing you, the third is on its way... (now, of course, the amount differs between designs and calibers, but its always there. Its most extreme in the M14, because of the light for caliber weight, and cyclic rate)

My "3 rnd" burst was 6 rounds, and moved me from a kneeling to a sitting position!!! My weapon did not, come out of the firing port. That much control I kept. My DI glared at me, and firmly stated "SHORT BURSTS!" Very much chastened, the remaining rounds were fired as 2 shot bursts, without incident.

I thought I knew what I was doing. I'd been shooting rifles a lot for several years before joining up. I was fortunate to get such a relatively painless education.

NO child, without experience (and likely a number of adults without specific full auto experience) knows what they are doing, and hasn't built up a skill set to deal with it.

Such people can safely fire full auto weapons, but the range environment must be hyper controlled. This is what the instructor in this incident failed to do, and tragedy was the result.

Its not the weapon, or the age of the child that let it happen, it was the failure of the instructor to anticipate what might happen, and act accordingly.

Also, seeing someone else do it (particularly when they are experienced) doesn't prepare you for what reality is. It's a start, but only that.

A young friend of mine (19) watched me shoot my T/C Contender .45-70. Even say me fire it off hand, one handed. When he shot it, the first time, he got wacked in the nose during the recoil. He had done a fine job locking wrists, but his elbows weren't prepared. We had a good laugh, cleaned up the blood from his nose, and he asked to do it again. The next time, and all other times, he never got hit by the gun again.

The particular gun, and the experience of the shooter meant that the instructor was in position of risk, and likely never realized it. There are ways these things can be done, and done safely. Sadly, in this case, they weren't.

[2123]

Shooting a full-auto firearm is not your single-shot .22 LR. Nor is it your typical semi-auto firearm.

When I entered into the military, many unlike me, had never fired a firearm in their life. When we went to the M-16 range, we didn't plop down on the ground, assume a good prone position, move the selector switch to full-auto and go at it.

From what I recall, we spent the better part of 3-4 days learning about the rifle, practicing shooting positions, bettering our shot groups, and completely dis-assembling and re-assembling the rifle, before we ever proceeded to FA action.

If (and it can be) a full-auto can be a challenge for an adult at times, it's simply too much for a child to fully understand the dynamics and responsibility of taking on such a challenge.

A child's muscle control is under-developed, their mental capacity is limited, and their reflexes are un-sophisticated. You combine all that and several other issues, and it doesn't add up to a child being "capable" of being in possession of a FA firearm.

[Tamara]

Originally Posted by Vanya

If your basic business model is to attract customers by offering a chance to do as much shooting as possible in a given amount of time, the amount of actual instruction you provide will necessarily be minimal.

I have no problem with the idea that a nine-year-old can shoot an Uzi safely, but I doubt that the level of competence she needs to do so can be acquired in an "amusement park shooting package" context.

Our rule was that you had to have shot at the range three times before you'd be given an SMG orientation (and you got a fresh orientation for each different one you rented; a Colt orientation didn't get you out of an MP5 check ride.) It occasionally caused lost business*, but I thought it provided at least a baseline that the person had been able to safely conduct themselves on the range without drawing any safety violations.


*The guy in the linked story was aggrieved that we A) Wouldn't let him rent an MP5 on his first visit, and B) Expected him to go through a safety orientation to use the range, despite his loudly proclaiming that he was an "ex-Special Forces operator!" to all and sundry.

[jeager106]

Here's yet another take on this tragic loss for all parties.
I am an instructor, or was for years. M-16, H&K 31, Thompson, Riesing, MP5, AUG, Ruger, and a host of others.
I watched the video of the very small 9 yr. old girl.
The weapon under full auto fire got away from her, rising up & to the left hiting the instructor.
This was completely preventable.
Coated wire cable teathered to prevent the weapon from rising more than a few degrees or swinging up & left more than a few degrees.
Another safety would have been a booth, narrow enough to prevent the muzzle going out of control. Too bad the instructor wasn't ready or didn't anticipate the possiblities. Perhaps he could have grabbed the weapon but perhaps it happened to quickly. I don't know.
But, those safety measures didn't happen, and a man is dead a child tramatized for life.
Clearly safety measures should have been in place to prevent this small girl from loosing control of the weapon on full auto fire.
I'm not one bit against teaching a child weapons safety & skills.
My own son was shooting a .22 auto handgun at 7 but believe me it had only one, then two rounds in it and & was ready to grab his arm should he swing the piece where he should not. And I stood close to him but BEHIND him where I could react with no one getting shot.
He was after all, only 7.
The little thin girl in the video had no idea the full auto weapon would control her! Perhaps if the instructor has stood close but behind her???????
But it happend and can't be made to unhappen.

[barnbwt]

"Those focusing on the child's age are seeing a tree and not the forest"
Absolute truth. Really, this isn't even a parenting issue, but one of gross negligence. No different from the woman who bump-fired a 500S&W revolver into her head after being given one unprepared for the recoil. A kid younger than 9 can swing an axe or hatchet safely (I did, in Scouts), but not until a lot of practice and demonstration of safety practices and technique is done. Why? Because you can't control a person with an axe; if you are close enough to guide them, you are in the kill zone.

The Uzi isn't quite that bad, in that a person can assist a shooter from behind without placing themselves in danger, but as we saw, it is still difficult for an instructor to control the situation effectively. Even holding her grip on the weapon properly and preventing the muzzle from rising would be at best an incredibly awkward maneuver, and the instructor would still have no ability to end shots being fired until the shooter relaxed their finger or the mag ran out. As was said, the parents ignorantly assumed the scenario was carefully controlled and safe (hard to blame them, I imagine the trained authorities told them exactly that), but in fact it was not. It was only as controlled as the instructor's discipline, which as we all know will lapse, the instructor being human.

The best course of action would have been to better control the situation by either affixing the gun (to control muzzle direction) or restricting the ammunition available until the shooter demonstrated the ability to master these limited scenarios. Yes, it was possible that this would be the kid's only exposure to full auto guns in her entire New Jersian existence, but that doesn't make it an intelligent option, same as flying an airplane or driving a race car (or four-wheeler!!!).

Hopefully this (these) incident(s) give the 'tourist gun range' community a bit of pause; that their entire operation is solely based upon their adhering to safety principles, which only the operators have the knowledge and wherewithal to practice, even though many of their shooters cannot be so controlled all the time. Cost of doing business, I suppose, but it's a might steep one. I suspect this place may well be closing its doors before long, since the criminal negligence/homicide lawsuit practically writes itself (the former a suit by the kid's family, the latter by the instructor's family).

I really hope we don't find out that the instructor felt pressured to help the kid shoot, in order to make a sale...

TCB

[jeager106]

Teathering the weapon so it can't swing out of control.
About the girls age? I'm looking at the little girls size.
She was a tiny thing, probably scared when the weapon rose left with recoil and no way to understand just let of go of the trigger.
She's 9, inexperienced, & small.
I visit Florida in the winter and use a nice inddor range while there.
This is the kind of range with metal booths so that an inexperienced person can not turn the muzzle left of right & if they do & let a round loose the metal booth stops the bullets.
I've seen bullet holes all over that range and you'd wonder " how could THAT happen??? "

[Jim567]

Carnival rides sometimes have signs -
"You must be this tall to ride".

In response to the above - post
In Army basic training the bunkers you practiced throwing live grenades - looked like, well, grenades had gone off in them!!
Grenades plural!