Stupidity, times three

[Sandy]

http://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/uzi-g ... 2667587762

Sam Scarmado, the owner of the gun range where one of his employees was killed by the Uzi-wielding eight year old, doesn't seem to upset about his employee, and good buddy's death, and sure isn't going to let it change his attitude about allowing children access to high calibre, high powered weapons.

At least they did call the Presbyterian church to pray for the guy after he got shot in the face.

Some of the more unbelievable quotes:

"This is just part of the Las Vegas entertainment industry."

"Maybe we will have something like Disneyland with the sign that says you can't shoot if you are under this height."

Gotta love this country. A death is not going to interfere with our cash cow.

[Tim Bonney]

I'd say criminal stupidity. If we don't see a lawsuit from the family of the killed instructor and the family of the traumatized child I'd really be surprised.

[Ed Pettibone]

[Mrs Haruo]

I remember the surprise of the kick-back when I was 18 and was on a military firing range and shot a 45 pistol for the first time! Let alone out in the woods plinking holes in an old discarded refrigerator with a friend's "enforcer" 30 years later. My dad had a modest arsenal of hunting rifles and a pellet gun for getting rats out of the hay shed, but he never let me do anything more than look at them when he had the locker open when I was her age. He never took me hunting, as his hunting buddies were people he didn't want me spending much time with. I feel sorry for everyone involved with this tragic accident.

[Sandy]

[Tim Bonney]

Ed, I used the wrong word. I should have said reckless and foolish. And I think it should have been illegal.

I think there is a good chance of a lawsuit simply because the assumption is that when you allow your child to be instructed on operation of something as serious as an Uzi you'd be assuming the instructor is qualified. I don't know what the qualifications of the instructor were. But if it could be proven that he wasn't up to snuff on gun instruction a lawsuit against the business could be in the offing. It is just fortunate the child didn't actually get killed as well.

[Dave Roberts]

Sadly, I predict a lifetime of counseling for the young girl who may face flashbacks of this trauma the rest of her life. This is a tragic misuse of all freedoms.

I have been a gun-owner much of my life and was a hunter for a number of years. When I was 8, my dad began to train me on a single-shot .22 rifle. All I needed to fire was a single bullet. Part of his training was also that if you do not learn to make your first shot count, you do not need a second one, so I learned to take careful aim and to survey the scene always before firing. When I was 10, I moved up to a .410/.22 over-and-under. At 13, I graduated to a 12-gauge, single-barrel shotgun. At 14, he taught me how to use a high-powered rifle and how to fire a .38 police special revolver. I was 18 when I fired (for the only time in my life) a .45-caliber Thompson sub-machine gun. After the first two shots, the Thompson (which was 60 rounds per minute) was missing the target because of its recoil.

The parents may have been ignorant of gun safety, but this gun-culture promotes this absurd behavior. There should be definite size restrictions on children and military weapons.

[Tim Bonney]

I've fired some rifles but never an automatic. I can only imagine the possible recoil on a gun that can shoot 600 rounds per minute. As you said, you were an adult before you'd fired the machine gun. It sounds like you had sensible gun instruction which taught an appropriate respect for guns.

[Ed Pettibone]

[Tim Bonney]

Ed, as I said, I've fired guns before. The difference on the automatic is that you will get done recoil as long as you are firing. Correct?

[Ed Pettibone]

[Tim Bonney]

[ET]

[Tim Bonney]

Ridiculous ET. It isn't a "freak accident." It is a likely accident putting an automatic weapon in the hands of an untrained small child. Frankly some of the gun enthusiasts are so afraid that someone is going to take away their weapons that they'll defend almost any use of a gun by anyone, qualified or not, trained or not just to make sure they can keep their guns.

It should have just been common sense that a small child had no business firing a dangerous weapon in the first place. But I am afraid common sense is no longer a factor in much of the current discussion about gun safety.

[Sandy]

[Ed Pettibone]

Sandy writes "What nine year old girl would have the hand or arm strength, not to mention presence of mind, to handle a weapon with the recoil and force of an Uzi? And terms like "high power" and "high caliber" are selective. Anything bigger than a 22, especially for a kid under 12, is high powered and high caliber.

I think the competence of the instructor is probably up for question. He should have been able to tell, if he was such an expert, that the recoil would be too much for a child of that age. This isn't the first time where fanaticism over guns trumped good judgment and common sense."

In answer to his first question< I have been acquainted with several 9 year old Kids who play some serious soccer, do gymnastics, trick bicycle even motorcycle riding (now talk about crazy), aerobic dance, and Marshal arts. And often the girls especially at that age out do the boys. Thus I believe many have the hand and arm strength to handle an Uizi. Also having observed kids 9 years old in these sports and even little league baseball, yes many of them demonstrate amazing presence of mind and I will throw in discipline. Admitted. there are some this age who generally seem to be in a fog, apparently this girls parents and the instructor believed she was in the first group. BYW I also know 12 year olds that I wouldn't be comfortable even allowing on a firing range. And I am in MHO some gun control advocates are just as fanatical as any ARA member.

BUT personally, I do not understand why any one outside of law enforcement needs an UizI. I couldn't afford the amo.

[Sandy]

[Tim Bonney]

I'm bowing to Sandy's experience with children on this one. Also, what on earth is the point of allowing a young child to fire such a weapon? Aren't we creating a desire in young people then to use more and more spectacular and destructive weapons for the cool factor?

[Ed Pettibone]

[Sandy]

If it were just a matter of parental decision, and no one else was affected, fine. But this "parental choice" cost a man, not a family member, his life. A simple law, with an age limit on use of automatic, military style weapons, accompanied by a fine, would have prevented his death. That's the crux of this issue, not the firepower of the weapon or the ability of a child to use it. You said it yourself, Ed, why does a nine year old need to learn how to fire an Uzi? What possible purpose does that have? If she's planning on joining the military, then let them train her.

[Ed Pettibone]

[Sandy]

[Dave Roberts]

I'm not certain that the passing of laws about machine guns on firing ranges solves the problem. However, there is a definite educational need for parents to know what any gun can do but especially to be aware of what any fully automatic weapon can do. The Uzi can fire 600 rounds per minute as ET correctly pointed out my error in a previous post. The particular weapon used had a 60-bullet magazine, so it could have been emptied in 6 seconds. If there is criminal liability for carelessness, it should belong to the range owner who allowed this, the instructor who did not take any precautions (such as strapping the weapon to the table as is often done the first time new military recruits fire a fully automatic weapon), and the parents who took such a risk not only with the instructor's life but also with their daughter as well who could just as easily have been shot.

[William Thornton]

This is just insane. I was allowed to fire exactly one magazine on full auto while at Army BCT. Range safety was paramount.

[Tim Bonney]