http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-28951893

A nine year-old girl in the US has killed her shooting instructor by accident while being shown how to use a high-powered submachine gun.

The instructor was giving the girl a lesson at a shooting range in Arizona when the recoil from the automatic fire caused her to lose control of the Uzi.

Charles Vacca, 39, was shot in the head and died after being airlifted to a hospital in Las Vegas.

The girl was at the shooting range with her parents, who filmed the lesson.

The footage shows the instructor coaching her as she fires a single shot at a target at the Last Stop shooting range in White Hills, Arizona.

The Uzi then appears to be switched to automatic as the girl pulls the trigger and loses her grip of the weapon.

The video, edited and released by the Mojave County Sheriff's office, ends abruptly before the instructor is shot.

Correspondents say it is common in parts of the US for children to be taught how to use firearms.

Many firing ranges have strict safety rules on instructing children. It is not clear what age limits the range has.

Teaching children fire arms seems to be more of a far western thing here in the U.S. I live in Mid-West in IL and I don't believe I have ever heard any ling like that here.

i love guns but we shouldn't give 9 year olds uzis

>>2 It should be a law that every citizen knows how to use a firearm.

>>3 I can agree with you there.
Start the little ones on rifles, save the sub machine guns for people that can actually lift more than ten pounds with one arm.

As someone whose never touched a gun in her life and hopes she doesn't ever have to, I'm 100% with >>4. If you live in a country where guns are widely accessible, you need to know how to use them and be responsible in doing so.
And which moron had the idea to give a nine year old a submachine gun? Even I know those things aren't suitable for kids. If you want to teach your child to shoot, use a gun they can actually handle.

>>5 from what I heard the parents were the ones recording the video... so id go wtih them being the morons with the idea

People in the US need to except the fact that guns aren't a necessity to live and with maybe a decade of crackdown the government could remove 75%-90% of the weaponry around them when I read this I was expecting to hear that the parents had been arrested for allowing their child access to a firearm but it appears that the sort of attutide towards guns is promoted in the US.

Ive been alive for 18 years and it that time on 2 major shootings have acurred with my entire country but the US has random shootings ever other month it seems this is a big issue and one that can be dealt with easily.

>the government could remove 75%-90% of the weaponry around them
>Ive been alive for 18 years

I'm done with this thread.

As a woman I'm automatically extremely skeptical of anyone who would suggest that guns need to be made illegal, especially when they are from another country and probably haven't grown up in an area where the police are miles away or where there's a nifty document known as the Constitution.

Here's the fact: the police force doesn't stop crime. It cleans up after them. Their job is to find and jail the person who mugged you after the fact.

Thanks for wanting to take away my right to self-defense. Much appreciated. :\ I'm gonna go to the shooting range later this week.

In regards to the article, this is really sad. It's honestly a terrible accident and I don't think this was anyone's fault. Maybe it was a bad idea to give a younger child a gun that could have a lot of recoil, but I'm not going to point fingers because someone's dead and we can only pray. Gun safety definitely needs to be promoted.

This incident was entirely the fault of the instructor. I believe someone her age can be taught how to safely shoot a select fire weapon(look at the Congo), but the instructor was ignorant to her experience. Instead of shooting the weapon on semi-auto first, I assume they went full auto right out the gate. An Uzi shoots a 9x18mm, a arguably weak round when coupled with a larger platform like a Sub-Machine Gun that shoud have had a stock, can have more controllable recoil than a pistol. But when you fire in full auto, the recoil of the round begins to stack up and multiply with each millisecond your finger is depressing the trigger.
The instructor should've had some control of the weapon, instead he stood to the side. He was also leaning forward, 6 inches back and this wouldn't have been news because he wouldn't be dead. The instructor was an idiot and got himself killed, end of story.

>>10 Not even that, he didn't even bother to steady her aim with his hand. You're suppose to hold the top of the gun down because there was no way in hell she could handle the recoil of that gun.
All in all it was a terrible accident, and way too many anti gun law supporters are hopping on this train of using this as evidence against guns.

>>11 "The instructor should've had some control of the weapon.."
I was thinking more along the lines of helping her hold it by gripping the weapon with her. Uzis have a reciprocating bolt on top of the receiver so what you suggested would result in injury.

Wait a minute...

A 9 year old girl was being trusted with a submachine gun?


That's all i have to say...

>>13 Word. I don't get it. Why the fuck would anyone in their right mind give a 9 year old girl a gun and start to coach her? I don't think this fits the scope of when a use of a gun is necessary. I mean, let's say she learns to use the uzi and aim well until she's 12 or 13. What will she use that knowledge for? What purpose would've that had? Things like this make me wonder. Y'know anti-gun law supporters may not be right, but if people are cerebral incompetents to this level, just leave the guns the fuck out of their hands...

>anyone in their right mind give a 9 year old girl a gun
Well, it's our right for one.
And for two, children can learn to use guns, it's the best time to learn, but a submachine gun is not for children.

>What will she use that knowledge for
Shooting with her dad, probably.

>What purpose would've that had
"Better to have the training and not need it than to need the training and not have it.

>>15 I do respect your opinion, but I would still like to add a few words to this...

>Well, it's our right for one

So if you'll have the right to rape a 4 year old, you will do that because it's your right? Or if your neighbor has the right to feed you to lions, when he does, would you just think "Well, it WAS his right to do it. It can't be helped."?

I mean, my common sense is tingling real bad on this one...Just because you have a right to do sg, doesn't mean it's not hurting someone else. Also just because sg is your right doesn't even remotely mean, that it's in your own best interest, depending on the context. For example, you now have the right to be silent. In the context of writing a reply, you certainly won't stay silent since your purpose is to reply to what I write. Get what I'm saying?

>And for two, children can learn to use guns, it's the best time to learn, but a submachine gun is not for children.

Yes. I totally agree with you.
It's just that it still doesn't explain what purpose that should serve. A gun is made for the intent of severely injuring another fellow human being without all the extra effort one has to put in elsewise, right? Or can the poor kid cook pancakes with it or what? I don't see the use of it. If we have the leisure to educate kids about how to efficiently use a gun, then we should be educating them instead on how to make their environment so that their children won't need to be able to use one in the first place. But that's just what I'm wondering about...

>>16
>So if you'll have the right to rape a 4 year old, you will do that because it's your right?

What? How is raping a four year old the same as recreationally shooting a gun? Owning a gun? Realizing that guns are a means of self protection?
Your point is lost to me.

Hunting and self defense are the main reason behind the invention of guns, the rest of your post is also lost to me.
Sorry, pal.

>>16 As someone who's quite anti-gun, I disagree.
'So if you'll have the right to rape a 4 year old, you will do that because it's your right?'
You seem to be missing the point. Guns aren't meant for just anyone - they're meant for people who can handle them responsibly. Same goes for children.
People who use guns to kill or harm others unprovoked are, just like child molesters, shitty human beings who break the law and don't act appropriately. That's why we punish them. People who keep guns for purposes like hunting and self defence aren't doing anything wrong and should not be penalised.
'A gun is made for the intent of severely injuring another fellow human being without all the extra effort one has to put in elsewise, right?'
Warfare is one purpose guns have taken up, but it's not all they do. Competitive or recreational shooting, hunting, and self defence are the first that come to mind. My hands might've evolved to punch faces, but that doesn't mean it's all they can do.

>>17 Read the text below, it's there for a reason. What I was trying to point out is, that having a right to do something isn't reason in itself to do it. In reply to "Well, it's our right for one" from >>15 Raping a 4 year old if you have the right to do so was an extreme example for that.

With hunting and recreational shooting I can agree, self-defence more or less, so I can accept that. Daddy hunting with her daughter.
But I never saw someone hunt with an automatic...I mean, why an Uzi FFS? :D Even if it's for self-defense, it's kind of overkill, especially for a 9 year old...

>>18 >Guns aren't meant for just anyone - they're meant for people who can handle them responsibly. Same goes for children.
Yeah. And I totally agree with you on that. That's why I don't accept "because I have the right to" as a reason. There's more to it.

With guns I might have overgeneralized the topic, I specifically meant that for the automatic. I mean there are many different types of guns made for different purposes, but that clearly wasn't made for hunting. And automatic guns are not the least bit made to harm anything else than other human beings.

>>19 >>20 I agree with you that the girl had no business with a sub machine gun.
I also agree that you can't hunt with an automatic gun.

>>19 >>20 >>21 I can't think of a single good reason for a civilian to posses an automatic, though I guess there's still some merit in learning to shoot one. And thank you for clearing that up.

The whole 'right to bear arms' is just a bit too ambiguous for my tastes.

>>22 "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.

I can think of several good reasons for a civilian to posses an autimatic.

>>23 Go on.

(Damn, I could've made a fantastic pun there.)

>>24 Protection mainly.
I'm not going to go into detail because I don't want FBI kicking in my door.

But, I have a lot of stuff that needs protecting, mainly my life.
There are people out there that want to hurt other people, some of those people are hardcore and have automatic weapons.
The day I need to defend myself against someone with an automatic, I would much rather be on the same level of fire power as they are.


Oh, but for the record, I only have one automatic gun as I see them as inferior to semi-automatic weapons.

Besides, the way I see it, if our government wants to give cartels in Mexico fully automatic weapons and keep law abiding citizens from owning them, it's not hard to smell that rat.

>>26 Which makes sense, but I think that semi-automatics are enough. Unless you live in a warzone (or maybe Honduras), you shouldn't be worrying about being unable to defend yourself properly with anything less than an Uzi, you know?
Also: is that a thing that Americans worry about? Heavily-armed madmen kicking down their doors and trying to murder them?
And what's that about giving the Mexican cartels automatics??

>>26 Well I guess it depends on the neighborhood where you live. I mean I wouldn't wonder about it if you live in Brooklyn or something. But I'm still on the opinion, that if you have the time to learn to shoot a gun at somebody, it would be just better to put that time in solving the root cause of the danger presented.

>>27 "Also: is that a thing that Americans worry about? Heavily-armed madmen kicking down their doors and trying to murder them?" Well, since your friendly neighborhood burgler has the right to own one too... I think you can do the math. I still don't agree that legal ownership of firearms may provide a solution to any human conflict, although I can accept the other side's arguments.

>>27 I worry about it every day. I'm paranoid though.
Also, I agree. Uzis and automatics are 9 and a half times out of 10 overkill for any and all situations.
But again, I'm paranoid bruh.

The cartel but is off topic, but look into it. I think it was called operation fast and furious, or something.
It helps give credit to at least some of my paranoia about shady Gubment.

Good luck to the girl.

yeah...

He should have taken proper precautions now that girl has to live with that for the rest of her life.

That there is why kids shouldn't have guns, especially if they're still in grade school. Most kids under 10 don't even know "The Birds And The Bees".

Who the hell places an Uzy in the hands of a kid... Actually who the hell places a gun with real bulets in the hands of a kid... How about some plastic bulets... With all the things that could have went wrong...

I don't think it was the kid's fault, I think it's the fault of whoever thought it was a good idea to take their kid shooting at a place called "Burgers and Bullets"