9yr old girl and Uzi

[riggerrob 643]

one-on-the-playground-and-the-one-with-an-uzi/[/url]

If you (general you) think authorities should go after the parents of the girl in the Uzi incident then one of the least convincing arguments you can make is presenting an example of authorities over-reacting and trumping up charges when they got involved in some other situation.


................................................................................

Worst possible action.
Only a heartless lawyer would suggest charging parents with criminal negligence. Lawyers would be the only people to profit from that sort of cruel lawsuit. That cruel a lawsuit would only prolong their grief.
And I do not believe that the parents are guilty of criminal negligence. They tried to protect their child by hiring a professional shooting instructor. The professional died because of his own incompetence. Let the guilt be buried with the shooting instructor, then quietly install new policies that prevent 9-year-old girls from shooting machine guns. You don't need any new regulations if gun range owners are bright enough to agree "that is not permitted on my range."
...... similar to USPA's Basic Safety Regulations (FARS etc.) keeping
all but the most stupid skydivers alive.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

If you (general you) think authorities should go after the parents of the girl in the Uzi incident then one of the least convincing arguments you can make is presenting an example of authorities over-reacting and trumping up charges when they got involved in some other situation.

"I knew it, I'm surrounded by assholes... Keep firing, assholes!"

I don't think they should go after the parents at all.

I think a society that displays the contrasts as outlined in the article has some serious problems.

[champu 1]

SkyDekker

I don't think they should go after the parents at all.

I think a society that displays the contrasts as outlined in the article has some serious problems.

Yeah, I gathered that. After I wrote my response I went back and added the "(general you)" caveat to address it more towards the author of the article. The contrast is indeed interesting and I think it stems less from the gun culture and more from the sentence, "Another parent noticed the girl there alone and contacted the police."

The chain of events that followed in that case are what I find most disturbing in the article, but the author is actually dismissive of how idiotic it was handled in the second to last paragraph.

The author suggests that the reader be terrified, scared to death, upset, infuriated, and absolutely terrified. He demands that "something has to change" and fails to realize that what that attitude leads to isn't fewer gun incidents but to more phone calls to police and school administrators, more mindless zero tolerance policies, more pressure from insurance companies for everyone to behave "nominally", more suspensions, and more parents being thrown in jail.

[stayhigh 2]

I feel like the gun range should be some what responsible for the death of the instructor.

They have created hazardous work environment for the employees that works at the firing range.

Because of the recoil issues(safety), many gun range that I've visited to have rules about rapid fire and fully automatic rifle and pistols.

Bernie Sanders for President 2016

[rehmwa 2]

stayhigh

I feel like the gun range should be some what responsible for the death of the instructor.

I suspect you mean held accountable for the results. They are already responsible for the actions (or lack of actions) they committed.

So in what fashion?
And what do you mean by "somewhat"? who else included and to what portions?

criminally or legally - who specifically should be taken to court or put in jail? what laws were broken?

financially - should they be forced to pay some amount to the instructor's or the girl's family?

How about legislatively - should the local legislature install some kind of oversight? or create new laws and retroactively punish specific individuals? How about the city or state come after them for some income just to make a gesture?

I'm actually interested in people's thoughts on this, I'm not just busting on you but that type of statement is vague and I wonder what would be actionable.....

or is it just a statement that if you owned the range, you'd voluntarily do something even if you don't know what yet, you'd try to 'make it right' somehow with (the family, the girl, society in general.....)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[stayhigh 2]

As you can tell from my other post, I'm not really a law savvy guy. Just an average American with an average law knowledge.

I feel like the gun range should at least pay up some money to instructor's family or kid if the instructor had one.

Maybe some criminal charge should be placed on the gun range owner as well, like probation. Not really a jail sentence but just to tell them that they were wrong.

And the state should intervene and make a new rules about little kid and high powered assault rife. They made rules so that the kids wouldn't buy cigarettes and alcohol, so I don't see why not.

I'm all about freedom of having firearms but giving it out to a 9 year old doesn't really make sense. They can go play with a watergun and shoot each other. That's way more fun than to a 9 year old than coming to a gun range where the mood is really serious.

I remember the story where kid shot himself to death with an Uzi at the gun show, I believe someone at the show ended up with a manslaughter.

Bernie Sanders for President 2016

[billvon 2,998]

>I'm all about freedom of having firearms but giving it out to a 9 year old doesn't
>really make sense.

To me it's more the different standards we apply to these things.

Had a woman shown a 9 year old boy her breasts, she could easily be arrested. (And if the parents were REALLY mad, and the woman didn't have a good lawyer, she might even end up listed as a sexual predator, and forever be denied jobs and housing as a result.)

However, a man giving a 9 year old girl a fully automatic weapon and letting her shoot it? No issues.

That's just a very odd set of priorities for us as a society.

[quade 4]

rushmc

******You guys are gonna have to pry my gun off from my cold dead hand.

It is god given right. U.S. Constitution says so.

.............................................................................

God did not write the American Constitution or the Bill of Rights. Both those documents were written by long-dead white men.
They wrote both those documents for a vastly different country than the modern USA.
That was long before the industrial revolution, long before steam locomotives, long before breach-loading fire-arms, long before magazine-fed rifles, long before machine guns.
Back then the worst drug dealers imported tea without the appropriate tax stamps.
Back then some of the authors of the Constitution and BOR investing in tea importation business.
Their primary motivation was to arm local militias to prevent British soldiers from meddling in the tea trade .... tax stamps or no tax stamps.
By that logic the American Constitution and BOR were both written by out-law drug dealers who wanted to entrench their "God-given right" to arm their gang members against the British government's tax-enforcement officers.
B

You really need to read the Federalist Papers......

Why? Did God write those?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[SkyDekker 1,465]

billvon

>I'm all about freedom of having firearms but giving it out to a 9 year old doesn't
>really make sense.

To me it's more the different standards we apply to these things.

Had a woman shown a 9 year old boy her breasts, she could easily be arrested. (And if the parents were REALLY mad, and the woman didn't have a good lawyer, she might even end up listed as a sexual predator, and forever be denied jobs and housing as a result.)

However, a man giving a 9 year old girl a fully automatic weapon and letting her shoot it? No issues.

That's just a very odd set of priorities for us as a society.

Fully agreed!!

[JerryBaumchen 1,369]

Hi bill,

Quote

Had a woman shown a 9 year old boy her breasts

I'm thinking age discrimination. My ex-wife showed our one week old son her breasts and no one cared. Of course, he was hungry at the time.



JerryBaumchen

[davjohns 1]

Jerry, I can't respond to your position without seeing your wife's breasts...

This whole thread is silly. An instructor did something stupid. Dumb actions often come with bad consequences. I call it 'natural, logical consequences'. I'm sorry it happened. I am particularly sorry for the impact on that little girl. I question the decision of the parents, but don't have all the fact to say they were wrong (although the results are a strong indicator).

None of this is relevant to the debate about firearms, the US Constitution, self-defense, defense of freedoms, etc. Someone handled a device in a less than prudent fashion and there were predictably negative consequences. If this guy had let a 9 year old girl drive a bull dozer and she ran over him, nobody would be discussing any of these issues. They would just recognize that getting close to a bull dozer operated by a 9 year old is a really bad idea.

Oh, wait. There's video involved and it went viral. That makes it a relevant fact, right?

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[davjohns 1]

BTW...if it helps you understand at all...the Uzi, like most fully automatic weapons, has a tendency to track up and right when fired in automatic mode. Most diminutive people can resist the movement to the right, but not the upward movement. When I first watched the video, I was most concerned the girl was going to hit herself in the head with a rapidly recoiling weapon. The fact that it went left indicates that SHE turned it toward the instructor against it's nature. I don't think that makes it the girl's fault. It likely startled her into being unable to release the trigger and she was turning to the instructor for help. It isn't uncommon with new shooters.

I place responsibility on the instrucotr and possibly on the parents.

I'm just pointing out that one can hardly blame the weapon.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[rushmc 23]

davjohns

Jerry, I can't respond to your position without seeing your wife's breasts...

This whole thread is silly. An instructor did something stupid. Dumb actions often come with bad consequences. I call it 'natural, logical consequences'. I'm sorry it happened. I am particularly sorry for the impact on that little girl. I question the decision of the parents, but don't have all the fact to say they were wrong (although the results are a strong indicator).

None of this is relevant to the debate about firearms, the US Constitution, self-defense, defense of freedoms, etc. Someone handled a device in a less than prudent fashion and there were predictably negative consequences. If this guy had let a 9 year old girl drive a bull dozer and she ran over him, nobody would be discussing any of these issues. They would just recognize that getting close to a bull dozer operated by a 9 year old is a really bad idea.

Oh, wait. There's video involved and it went viral. That makes it a relevant fact, right?

the ONLY post in this thread worth reading
Nice job
Thanks

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SkyDekker 1,465]

davjohns

Jerry, I can't respond to your position without seeing your wife's breasts...

This whole thread is silly. An instructor did something stupid. Dumb actions often come with bad consequences. I call it 'natural, logical consequences'. I'm sorry it happened. I am particularly sorry for the impact on that little girl. I question the decision of the parents, but don't have all the fact to say they were wrong (although the results are a strong indicator).

None of this is relevant to the debate about firearms, the US Constitution, self-defense, defense of freedoms, etc. Someone handled a device in a less than prudent fashion and there were predictably negative consequences. If this guy had let a 9 year old girl drive a bull dozer and she ran over him, nobody would be discussing any of these issues. They would just recognize that getting close to a bull dozer operated by a 9 year old is a really bad idea.

Oh, wait. There's video involved and it went viral. That makes it a relevant fact, right?

So you are perfectly fine for it to be very illegal for a 9 year old to see a breast not belonging to their mother, but pefectly legal to hand them a fully automatic firearm.

[rehmwa 2]

SkyDekker

So you are perfectly fine for it to be very illegal for a 9 year old to see a breast not belonging to their mother, but pefectly legal to hand them a fully automatic firearm.

How do you hand a firearm to a breast?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[SkyDekker 1,465]

rehmwa

***So you are perfectly fine for it to be very illegal for a 9 year old to see a breast not belonging to their mother, but pefectly legal to hand them a fully automatic firearm.

How do you hand a firearm to a breast?

You can't in the US, the breast has to stay fully covered. Society may fall apart otherwise.

[turtlespeed 221]

SkyDekker

******So you are perfectly fine for it to be very illegal for a 9 year old to see a breast not belonging to their mother, but pefectly legal to hand them a fully automatic firearm.

How do you hand a firearm to a breast?

You can't in the US, the breast has to stay fully covered. Society may fall apart otherwise.

They why the soap box?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

They why the soap box?

I like breasts.

And I like 9 year olds not being in a situation where they end up killing some one.

I guess I have to understand many people feel different.

[riggerrob 643]

stayhigh

I feel like the gun range should be some what responsible for the death of the instructor.

They have created hazardous work environment for the employees that works at the firing range.

Because of the recoil issues(safety), many gun range that I've visited to have rules about rapid fire and fully automatic rifle and pistols.

.........................................................................................

Do you work for the Workmans' Compensation Board of British Columbia?
...... WorkSafe B.C.?

[riggerrob 643]

Good analogy with the bulldozer.
If the victim/instructor got bulldozed on a construction site, authorities would lock down the construction site and impose stiff fines on the employer.

[rushmc 23]

SkyDekker

***Jerry, I can't respond to your position without seeing your wife's breasts...

This whole thread is silly. An instructor did something stupid. Dumb actions often come with bad consequences. I call it 'natural, logical consequences'. I'm sorry it happened. I am particularly sorry for the impact on that little girl. I question the decision of the parents, but don't have all the fact to say they were wrong (although the results are a strong indicator).

None of this is relevant to the debate about firearms, the US Constitution, self-defense, defense of freedoms, etc. Someone handled a device in a less than prudent fashion and there were predictably negative consequences. If this guy had let a 9 year old girl drive a bull dozer and she ran over him, nobody would be discussing any of these issues. They would just recognize that getting close to a bull dozer operated by a 9 year old is a really bad idea.

Oh, wait. There's video involved and it went viral. That makes it a relevant fact, right?

So you are perfectly fine for it to be very illegal for a 9 year old to see a breast not belonging to their mother, but pefectly legal to hand them a fully automatic firearm.




You are getting desperate



And funny

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

riggerrob

Good analogy with the bulldozer.
If the victim/instructor got bulldozed on a construction site, authorities would lock down the construction site and impose stiff fines on the employer.

Not necessarily

but then, you really dont care

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[riggerrob 643]

rushmc

***Good analogy with the bulldozer.
If the victim/instructor got bulldozed on a construction site, authorities would lock down the construction site and impose stiff fines on the employer.

Not necessarily
.....................................................................

Every week, WorkSafe BC imposes multi-thousand dollar fines when inspectors find: roofers without fall-arrest-harnesses: workers exposed to loose asbestos dust, no seat belts in vehicles, no hard hats, no hi-vid vests, guards missing from saws, noxious chemicals, inadequate lighting, cluttered work spaces, inadequate ladders, etc.
Employees also have the right to refuse dangerous work.
Unions point out unsafe practices every week.
Bottom line is that WorkSafeBC is tired of paying hundreds of thousands of dollars (medical, physio-therapy, unemployment insurance, disability benefits, re-training, etc.
One way to reduce the cost of accidents is to reduce the number of accidents.

[BartsDaddy 7]

Well since the victim/ instructor lived in Nevada, I don't see where worksafeBC laws or regs mean anything. People get killed on construction sites quite often with them never being shut down.

Handguns are only used to fight your way to a good rifle

[riggerrob 643]

The bottom line: some businesses only care about safety when the cost of accidents ruins profits.

In the long run various states, provinces and nations standardize practices to remain competitive. In the long run we expect the Nevada Labour Code to resemble the BC Labour Code.