Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Smacks wrote:
No one says you have to use it, there is no harm in having it right?

Just like a firearm

 Smacks wrote:
I said I would be willing to discuss this openly and reserve judgement, and I am. I am also not opposed to firearms, I am opposed to the damage they do when they fall into the wrong hands (the same is true for cars actually).

With regards to 'other reason' to own a gun. We agreed that people have the right to defend themselves. I hope we can agree that that right comes at a price, which is that we seem to have to tolerate a certain number of accidents and the occasional spree killing (which I will concede is dramatic but rare). However reasons such as 'sport' don't warrant such a high cost, and there are plenty of alternatives.

Really? Your first post in this thread gives a very different perspective

 Smacks wrote:
Urgh! more guns? It's an obsession with you guys. Obviously they do work, crime is down, but you you could also lower crime by keeping everyone sedated etc... The real question is at what cost? Now you've got a whole city full of chekhov's guns. And you never know when some hot head is gonna blow your brains out for stealing his parking space. "woo freedom..."

So do the others that followed it

 Smacks wrote:
I made no such claim. The issue is not concealed carry, it's guns in general. You have too many guns, and you think the answer is more guns. Here's some data for you.

The UK: hand guns have been illegal for 18 years. Number of spree killings in the past 18 years = 1 (carried out with a shotgun).

The USA: hands out gun permits like candy...

Need I go on? I can think of three spree killings that I read about this year alone. I remember looking at the Wikipedia page for spree killings, and the USA had to have its own page separate from the rest of the world because there was so many. I'm happy for you that you got more guns to play with, maybe it's just the best you can make of a bad situation. But it IS a bad situation. Throwing more guns into the mix isn't ever going to solve it.

And lets not ignore the 'some guns might possibly fall into the wrong hand at some point in the future'

 Smacks wrote:
Some of those guns might still be functioning 100 years from now. You can't say who's hands they will end up in. It could be people who aren't even born yet. Some will be stolen, some will be involved in murders, suicides, accidents, a lot can happen in that time... Eventually they feed back into the gun problem, and then what? More guns?

Or this gem

 Smacks wrote:
But gun rights people aren't helping either. More guns isn't better. It's like drinking more whiskey to cure your hangover. Which will totally work in the short term, but eventually you have to face your problems. You have what I would consider a nightmare scenario where all criminals and sociopaths have easy black-market (and sometimes legal) access to firearms, and some people have been stockpiling weapons and ammo like the apocalypse is coming. I don't know how you're ever going to fix it. You should probably try though

.

You've said that the law needs amended, but haven't given any sort of reason supported by evidence for it. Just your opinion

You even repeated an argument that was debunked on Page 1

 Smacks wrote:
With concealed carry and things like castle and 'stand your ground' laws, It's all starting to sound a bit 'wild west'.

And this

 Smacks wrote:
another solution is not have guns kept in homes where they can be stolen in the first place

Don't try and pretend to be objective because that ship sailed a long time ago


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Breotan wrote:
Should "a constant state of flux" be the norm for a civil right?

I would have thought the phrase "shall not be infringed" would be sufficient, but sadly not. I wonder how people would feel if we treated freedom of speech like the Second Amendment?

 Breotan wrote:

 sebster wrote:
Gun rights in the US aren't in steady erosion, but rather are in a constant state of flux.

Should "a constant state of flux" be the norm for a civil right?

I suppose it's a bit like smoking. Some people feel that they have a right to smoke (and why shouldn't they?). But when it effects other people (passive smoking) then perhaps that right needs to be curtailed, because people also have the right not to smoke. Smoking creates a hazard for others.

Guns also create a hazard for others, it is not just gun advocates who have to worry about the collateral damage that goes along with them.

 Smacks wrote:

I suppose it's a bit like smoking. Some people feel that they have a right to smoke (and why shouldn't they?). But when it effects other people (passive smoking) then perhaps that right needs to be curtailed, because people also have the right not to smoke. Smoking creates a hazard for others.

Guns also create a hazard for others, it is not just gun advocates who have to worry about the collateral damage that goes along with them.

I hate to break it, but they're in no way, shape, or form analogous.

A- smoking is not a constitutionally protected right.
B- shooting people (creating a hazard) is already illegal unless used in self defense.

We do infringe on speech (and the first in general) on a pretty regular basis, don't we?

 Smacks wrote:
My point is, lawfully owned guns can be stolen and so become unlawfully owned guns. Obviously it's difficult to find accurate statistics on this, but a quick browse around on google suggest a fair sized portion of criminals acquire their guns by stealing them (often from friends and family).

I'd say using the logic that just because something can be stolen means it must be legislated or restricted is somewhat silly, the people who don't care about stealing won't care about the restrictions either, and the people who get stolen from get stuck with restrictions meant for people who would be victimizing them.


Case in point, automatic weapons were illegal to purchase or import in California in 1997 when the North Hollywood shootout took place, but that ban didn't stop the bank robbers from illegally manufacturing their own automatic weapons and committed crimes across multiple states. As a result of these guys doing something illegal to commit another illegal act, CA implemented a ban on the otherwise legal weapons and features (which weren't responsible for a significant number of murders in the first place), which has made life very frustrating for law abiding citizens engaged in legitimate firearms activity, but would do nothing to prevent future criminals from doing the same because, just like the bank robbers, they can obtain and/or manufacture weapons on their own or in other states.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Spoiler:

 Smacks wrote:
I said I would be willing to discuss this openly and reserve judgement, and I am. I am also not opposed to firearms, I am opposed to the damage they do when they fall into the wrong hands (the same is true for cars actually).

With regards to 'other reason' to own a gun. We agreed that people have the right to defend themselves. I hope we can agree that that right comes at a price, which is that we seem to have to tolerate a certain number of accidents and the occasional spree killing (which I will concede is dramatic but rare). However reasons such as 'sport' don't warrant such a high cost, and there are plenty of alternatives.

Really? Your first post in this thread gives a very different perspective

 Smacks wrote:
Urgh! more guns? It's an obsession with you guys. Obviously they do work, crime is down, but you you could also lower crime by keeping everyone sedated etc... The real question is at what cost? Now you've got a whole city full of chekhov's guns. And you never know when some hot head is gonna blow your brains out for stealing his parking space. "woo freedom..."

So do the others that followed it

 Smacks wrote:
I made no such claim. The issue is not concealed carry, it's guns in general. You have too many guns, and you think the answer is more guns. Here's some data for you.

The UK: hand guns have been illegal for 18 years. Number of spree killings in the past 18 years = 1 (carried out with a shotgun).

The USA: hands out gun permits like candy...

Need I go on? I can think of three spree killings that I read about this year alone. I remember looking at the Wikipedia page for spree killings, and the USA had to have its own page separate from the rest of the world because there was so many. I'm happy for you that you got more guns to play with, maybe it's just the best you can make of a bad situation. But it IS a bad situation. Throwing more guns into the mix isn't ever going to solve it.

And lets not ignore the 'some guns might possibly fall into the wrong hand at some point in the future'

 Smacks wrote:
Some of those guns might still be functioning 100 years from now. You can't say who's hands they will end up in. It could be people who aren't even born yet. Some will be stolen, some will be involved in murders, suicides, accidents, a lot can happen in that time... Eventually they feed back into the gun problem, and then what? More guns?

Or this gem

 Smacks wrote:
But gun rights people aren't helping either. More guns isn't better. It's like drinking more whiskey to cure your hangover. Which will totally work in the short term, but eventually you have to face your problems. You have what I would consider a nightmare scenario where all criminals and sociopaths have easy black-market (and sometimes legal) access to firearms, and some people have been stockpiling weapons and ammo like the apocalypse is coming. I don't know how you're ever going to fix it. You should probably try though

.

You've said that the law needs amended, but haven't given any sort of reason supported by evidence for it. Just your opinion

You even repeated an argument that was debunked on Page 1

 Smacks wrote:
With concealed carry and things like castle and 'stand your ground' laws, It's all starting to sound a bit 'wild west'.

And this

 Smacks wrote:
another solution is not have guns kept in homes where they can be stolen in the first place

Don't try and pretend to be objective because that ship sailed a long time ago

Yeah but most of that was early in the topic. Then you started being quite rude, and it sounded like you were going to cry tbh. So I've been trying to listen and be more open minded, and less confrontational, in the hope that we could have a civil conversation. It's more difficult than it sounds.

The problem, smacks, is that some of your comments are a bit naive and underinformed.

It's very hard sometimes to have the conversations when one side is underinformed and unwilling to learn some of the facts. I don't mean you in this instance, because you do seem receptive to some of the facts, but that isn't always the case with those on the anti-gun lobby in the US.

 Vaktathi wrote:
I'd say using the logic that just because something can be stolen means it must be legislated or restricted is somewhat silly.

It is not one-size-fits-all 'logic', it is completely dependent on the risks and advantages. For example, it's rumored that certain countries maintain a stock of smallpox and other dangerous biological agents. Many people feel that they should be destroyed because if it were ever stolen or released, it would be a catastrophe. The advantages of keeping them around are highly questionable.

Obviously that is one end of the scale. There are other things that aren't hazardous if they go missing. I see guns somewhere in the middle. Guns that are stolen are very likely to be used in crimes, no one wants that.

Again, there's a big difference between smallpox and a gun.

Drop a vial of smallpox and it's going to kill some people.

Drop a gun and it's going to sit there on the ground.

 Breotan wrote:
Should "a constant state of flux" be the norm for a civil right?

Absolutely. Which is why trying to show gun rights as being constantly eroded per the cake analogy is so stupid.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cincydooley wrote:
I hate to break it, but they're in no way, shape, or form analogous.

A- smoking is not a constitutionally protected right.
B- shooting people (creating a hazard) is already illegal unless used in self defense.

Except that recognition of private ownership of firearms as part of the second amendment is itself a thing that hasn't been permanent through US history. Instead it's been just another part of that constant state of flux.

And plenty of products are restricted on a precautionary basis. Murdering someone with a bomb is illegal, but we still control explosives in order to prevent murder. Negligently running someone over in your car is manslaughter, but we still license cars. The idea that murder is illegal therefore guns can't be otherwise controlled is a bit of a non-starter.

 cincydooley wrote:
Again, there's a big difference between smallpox and a gun.

Drop a vial of smallpox and it's going to kill some people.

Drop a gun and it's going to sit there on the ground.

I think I was quite clear that I consider small pox more dangerous than a single gun.

My point was that there isn't any 'logic' that says you should or should not legislate against something so that isn't misused. It depends entirely on the thing. Small pox is an extreme case, it's really not worth keeping it around, it is far too dangerous.

In the UK hand guns are also considered too dangerous to have around. The government decided that the risk to the general public is too great.

In the USA things are different, but there is certainly a portion of people there who feel the risks are too great. In the end it is subjective, not logic.

It kinda seems like we just enjoy keeping smallpox laying around too, according to the news some few weeks ago.

 cincydooley wrote:
It's very hard sometimes to have the conversations when one side is underinformed and unwilling to learn some of the facts. I don't mean you in this instance, because you do seem receptive to some of the facts, but that isn't always the case with those on the anti-gun lobby in the US.

It's also a problem with the pro-gun lobby. I mean, I've posted in what, 25 gun threads, maybe 50? I've stuck to pretty much the same simple couple of facts throughout those threads (US has unique gun violence problem among developed nations, the other explanations for gun violence either are very minor (gang violence) or not unique to the US) and after all this time the same posters are still treating that stuff as new information each time it gets brought up. It's quite extraordinary really.

Give it up smacks , eventually you will get past "the US is different" and "you're not in the us so you don't understand""( and quite possibly we understand better because we live in a society without so many guns) arguments and end up at " we have too many guns in circulation to be able to sort out the problem" , which is rather a sad case of affairs.
Keep going if you want smacks, but i expect the results will be the same

One of the factors is also just a culture thing.

We probably think that you guys are crazier for living on a continent where everything is trying to kill you. At least we just have guns!

Thing is d-usa most things that try and kill you here are hard to hit with a firearm. Spiders, snakes and crocs all strike me as things that by the time they attack you having a firearm isn't going to help you much. Kangaroos on the other hand whilst they rarely kill someone can give them a heavy beating but are very firearm vunerable. And yes there have been cases of Kangaroos hunting humans.

 Bullockist wrote:
Give it up smacks , eventually you will get past "the US is different" and "you're not in the us so you don't understand""( and quite possibly we understand better because we live in a society without so many guns)

Yes, I'll keep that in mind the next time an American poster equipped with superficial knowledge of the subject tries to tell you what's what in your own country.

I'm not saying an outsider's perspective can't be valid, and even valuable, but you have to actually know something about the subject. The majority of foreign posters here (not all), have very limited actual knowledge on the subject of guns and gun laws in the US, and tend to make some rather large assumptions. A lot of anti-gun Americans suffer from this same problem.

 Breotan wrote:

 sebster wrote:
Gun rights in the US aren't in steady erosion, but rather are in a constant state of flux.

Should "a constant state of flux" be the norm for a civil right?

Make sure you make this argument in an abortion thread, another constitutional right under assault and in flux. Although you say you're a libertarian, so you might legitimately already feel that way and a perfectly good ideological potshot is totally wasted .

 Bullockist wrote:
Give it up smacks , eventually you will get past "the US is different" and "you're not in the us so you don't understand""( and quite possibly we understand better because we live in a society without so many guns) arguments and end up at " we have too many guns in circulation to be able to sort out the problem" , which is rather a sad case of affairs.
Keep going if you want smacks, but i expect the results will be the same

I hate to contradict you, but I feel your precis was incomplete. There is one final step, my friend, specifically for you, and Sebster, and company.

*

Note this was not aimed at Hordini, it just that it took me a few minutes to shop that up so now it seems that way.

 Hordini wrote:
but you have to actually know something about the subject. The majority of foreign posters here (not all), have very limited actual knowledge on the subject of guns and gun laws in the US, and tend to make some rather large assumptions. A lot of anti-gun Americans suffer from this same problem.

I don't think that's valid. I didn't live in 1830s America either, but I can still have an opinion on slavery I hope? I don't think it's really relevant that I'm not intimately familiar with the politics of the time. Slavery is barbaric and wrong. Of course many people back then would have disagreed (probably for quite selfish reasons), I'm sure loads of people were shouting about their god given 'right' to own slaves, etc...

By the same measure, it doesn't take a genius to grasp that if there were no guns then no one would get shot. As someone who lives in a country where few people have access to guns, I can attest that shootings are indeed incredibly rare. Sebster has made an excellent case repeatedly regarding high gun saturation. We might be foreign, but we also have societies, criminals, and firearm laws. To treat us like we are naive and ignorant is probably self deception as much as anything.

lol I love americans and the fda I think it is called the gun people.

Someone was shot what do we do sir.... give out more guns.

Sir more people got shot what now, Simple give them more guns.

Sir everyone is shooting everyone what do we do. Simple hire people with guns to keep people with guns from shooting me.

Sir everyone has a gun and people are shooting each other at movie theaters for throwing popcorn what do we do..... sir.... Sell them more guns and I am getting out of here

Can we all just stop? Stop spitting nonsense like more guns = more gun violence despite proof to the contrary? And automatic weapons are the problem? And stop nonsense like America doesn't represent a unique and specifically challenging scenario violence wise?

We need to stop tapdancing around what the real issue is - and it is an issue fairly unique to America as far as I know. If we took everyone who self identifies as African American, and forcibly deported them, our gun violence levels would drop to within spitting distance of European standards, if I am reading my statistics right. The problem isn't conceal and carry. The problem isn't the number of guns available. The problem is a vast and complex one that has resulted from our unique history as a nation and has led to large communities of people who have been straight up hosed - given less chance for education, legal justice and influence, integration into society at large and a fair interpretation in media. It's a giant mess echoed down through generations. And there really is no fair way to solve it, which is the worst part. Maybe time will help?


In case this needs to be said - I don't advocate forcibly deporting African Americans. I am not saying things are anyone's fault. I am not judging anyone. Life is messy and complicated, there are no easy answers.

 Bromsy wrote:
it is an issue fairly unique to America as far as I know. If we took everyone who self identifies as African American, and forcibly deported them, our gun violence levels would drop to within spitting distance of European standards.

Ergh, well this just went in an awkward direction. BUT It is not unique, sorry. We also have black people here, and black crime. According to 2009-10 police statistics, black men made up 67% of gun crime arrests in London, and the majority of arrests for violent crimes.

I'm reluctant to agree that if we removed black people from the equation then crime would drop 67%. But if that were the case then we should all get to omit black crime from our statistics before comparing. I'd love to see what a paragon of order South Africa would appear to be on that paper.

Suggest dropping this one

 Ninjacommando wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
Can you commit mass murder with a baseball bat or chemicals? No You can't. No matter what way you approach it, .
commit mass murder with chemicals?
No You can't.

Are you kidding me?

Do not take my quote out of context. I said it was a rare thing to happen compared to gun violence and stabbings.

If chemicals are used more often that guns and stabbings, I would be infinitely surprised considering the most easiest type of chemical reaction is an a explosive. And honestly even I a college student could make one in less than 24 hours.

Actually now that I've come to think about it maybe there should be someone who's job pertains to watching to see if anyone ever buys these items together. and just calls them and asks what you are using them for. :/ But people would consider that too invasive or something.

 d-usa wrote:
We do infringe on speech (and the first in general) on a pretty regular basis, don't we?

In some respects yes. But there is no waiting period for speaking in certain states, nor licensing for speaking in public. Also no one seems to seriously believe that email, Tweeets, texts, forum posts, phonecalls, etc. cannot be protected because the Founding Fathers did not envision them

 daedalus wrote:
It kinda seems like we just enjoy keeping smallpox laying around too, according to the news some few weeks ago.

Good thing we just gave the same people ebola to handle too

 Hordini wrote:

 Bullockist wrote:
Give it up smacks , eventually you will get past "the US is different" and "you're not in the us so you don't understand""( and quite possibly we understand better because we live in a society without so many guns)

Yes, I'll keep that in mind the next time an American poster equipped with superficial knowledge of the subject tries to tell you what's what in your own country.

I'm not saying an outsider's perspective can't be valid, and even valuable, but you have to actually know something about the subject. The majority of foreign posters here (not all), have very limited actual knowledge on the subject of guns and gun laws in the US, and tend to make some rather large assumptions. A lot of anti-gun Americans suffer from this same problem.

If people are going to comment on something that's great, but at least have a working understanding of the topic that goes beyond "guns are bad". Case in point;

 Smacks wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Spoiler:

 Smacks wrote:
I said I would be willing to discuss this openly and reserve judgement, and I am. I am also not opposed to firearms, I am opposed to the damage they do when they fall into the wrong hands (the same is true for cars actually).

With regards to 'other reason' to own a gun. We agreed that people have the right to defend themselves. I hope we can agree that that right comes at a price, which is that we seem to have to tolerate a certain number of accidents and the occasional spree killing (which I will concede is dramatic but rare). However reasons such as 'sport' don't warrant such a high cost, and there are plenty of alternatives.

Really? Your first post in this thread gives a very different perspective

 Smacks wrote:
Urgh! more guns? It's an obsession with you guys. Obviously they do work, crime is down, but you you could also lower crime by keeping everyone sedated etc... The real question is at what cost? Now you've got a whole city full of chekhov's guns. And you never know when some hot head is gonna blow your brains out for stealing his parking space. "woo freedom..."

So do the others that followed it

 Smacks wrote:
I made no such claim. The issue is not concealed carry, it's guns in general. You have too many guns, and you think the answer is more guns. Here's some data for you.

The UK: hand guns have been illegal for 18 years. Number of spree killings in the past 18 years = 1 (carried out with a shotgun).

The USA: hands out gun permits like candy...

Need I go on? I can think of three spree killings that I read about this year alone. I remember looking at the Wikipedia page for spree killings, and the USA had to have its own page separate from the rest of the world because there was so many. I'm happy for you that you got more guns to play with, maybe it's just the best you can make of a bad situation. But it IS a bad situation. Throwing more guns into the mix isn't ever going to solve it.

And lets not ignore the 'some guns might possibly fall into the wrong hand at some point in the future'

 Smacks wrote:
Some of those guns might still be functioning 100 years from now. You can't say who's hands they will end up in. It could be people who aren't even born yet. Some will be stolen, some will be involved in murders, suicides, accidents, a lot can happen in that time... Eventually they feed back into the gun problem, and then what? More guns?

Or this gem

 Smacks wrote:
But gun rights people aren't helping either. More guns isn't better. It's like drinking more whiskey to cure your hangover. Which will totally work in the short term, but eventually you have to face your problems. You have what I would consider a nightmare scenario where all criminals and sociopaths have easy black-market (and sometimes legal) access to firearms, and some people have been stockpiling weapons and ammo like the apocalypse is coming. I don't know how you're ever going to fix it. You should probably try though

.

You've said that the law needs amended, but haven't given any sort of reason supported by evidence for it. Just your opinion

You even repeated an argument that was debunked on Page 1

 Smacks wrote:
With concealed carry and things like castle and 'stand your ground' laws, It's all starting to sound a bit 'wild west'.

And this

 Smacks wrote:
another solution is not have guns kept in homes where they can be stolen in the first place

Don't try and pretend to be objective because that ship sailed a long time ago

Yeah but most of that was early in the topic.

Except for all those one that took place less than a page ago.

 Smacks wrote:
Then you started being quite rude, and it sounded like you were going to cry tbh.

No. You came into this thread signalling your hostility to people owning guns and trotting out the oldest gun control tropes in the book. Don't be surprised if people whose rights you want to strip away don't welcome you with open arms

 Smacks wrote:
So I've been trying to listen and be more open minded, and less confrontational, in the hope that we could have a civil conversation. It's more difficult than it sounds.

Except you haven't been, and you're still advocating for a disarmed population, which simply is not going to happen.

With the "restrict free speech" thing I was more thinking along the lines of the usual "can't yell fire", require license for ham radio, laws about telecommunication, "free speech zones", curfews, etc. z

Well this shouldn't rile up either side.

A 9-year-old girl vacationing with her family accidentally shot and killed an instructor at a shooting range, authorities said.

The shooting happened at 10 a.m. Monday at Arizona Last Stop, a tourist spot southeast of Las Vegas.

According to the Mohave County Sheriff’s Office, the instructor – identified as Charles Vacca, 39 – was standing next to the girl, teaching her how to use an automatic Uzi. The girl’s parents stood nearby, capturing video of the experience.

As the girl pulled the trigger, the recoil caused her to lose control of the gun, with Vacca accidentally shot in the head, the Mohave County Sheriff’s Office said. Vacca was flown to University Medical Center, where he was pronounced dead.

Sam Scarmardo, the gun range operator, was distraught about Vacca's death.

"It's like losing a brother," Scarmardo said. "These aren't employees or associates of ours, these are family. We're all family."

Many gun ranges allow children who are 8 years and older – with parental supervision – to shoot firearms, Scarmardo said.

"We instruct kids as young as 5 on .22 rifles, and they don't get to handle high firearms, but they're under the supervision of their parents and of our professional range masters," Scarmardo said.

Morons. Whomever allowed the 8 year old to fire that is a Moron and shouldn't ever be allowed to work with firearms in the future.

I also think parents that leave guns around that their kids get Into should be charged as criminally negligent.

 cincydooley wrote:
Morons. Whomever allowed the 8 year old to fire that is a Moron and shouldn't ever be allowed to work with firearms in the future.

I also think parents that leave guns around that their kids get Into should be charged as criminally negligent.

I concur.

 d-usa wrote:
With the "restrict free speech" thing I was more thinking along the lines of the usual "can't yell fire", require license for ham radio, laws about telecommunication, "free speech zones", curfews, etc. z

OK, gotcha. The likes of curfews are typically few and far between, and are usually imposed short term in the event of civil unrest. As far as can't yell fire well that just goes back to being responsible with your rights.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ahtman wrote:
Well this shouldn't rile up either side.

A 9-year-old girl vacationing with her family accidentally shot and killed an instructor at a shooting range, authorities said.

The shooting happened at 10 a.m. Monday at Arizona Last Stop, a tourist spot southeast of Las Vegas.

According to the Mohave County Sheriff’s Office, the instructor – identified as Charles Vacca, 39 – was standing next to the girl, teaching her how to use an automatic Uzi. The girl’s parents stood nearby, capturing video of the experience.

As the girl pulled the trigger, the recoil caused her to lose control of the gun, with Vacca accidentally shot in the head, the Mohave County Sheriff’s Office said. Vacca was flown to University Medical Center, where he was pronounced dead.

Sam Scarmardo, the gun range operator, was distraught about Vacca's death.

"It's like losing a brother," Scarmardo said. "These aren't employees or associates of ours, these are family. We're all family."

Many gun ranges allow children who are 8 years and older – with parental supervision – to shoot firearms, Scarmardo said.

"We instruct kids as young as 5 on .22 rifles, and they don't get to handle high firearms, but they're under the supervision of their parents and of our professional range masters," Scarmardo said.

Tragic death but it raises more questions than answers; had the child fire a gun before? If so what caliber? Was she given an opportunity to fire it on single shot first to evaluate recoil? Was she given a chance to fire the weapon with only a partially loaded magazine? What instructions did she receive? Where was the instructor standing during this?

Putting a firearm designed for an adult, that is fully automatic, into the hands of a child who's body is likely not built to handle it sounds like a disaster waiting to happen. A 7.2lb (unloaded firearm) plus 9mm ammo that kicks at a little over 7lb per round fired, and the associated muzzle kick does not sound like something an 8 year old should be able to manage.

When my wife and I last went to the range we rented a compact .45. Neither of us had fired this round before, I knew that the reduced weight of the handgun would not counter the recoil effectively, and that we're both novices when it comes to firearms. Because of that I made sure that for her first shot she only had one round in the gun so she could evaluate the recoil and her comfort levels.

 Ahtman wrote:
Well this shouldn't rile up either side.

A 9-year-old girl vacationing with her family accidentally shot and killed an instructor at a shooting range, authorities said.

The shooting happened at 10 a.m. Monday at Arizona Last Stop, a tourist spot southeast of Las Vegas.

According to the Mohave County Sheriff’s Office, the instructor – identified as Charles Vacca, 39 – was standing next to the girl, teaching her how to use an automatic Uzi. The girl’s parents stood nearby, capturing video of the experience.

As the girl pulled the trigger, the recoil caused her to lose control of the gun, with Vacca accidentally shot in the head, the Mohave County Sheriff’s Office said. Vacca was flown to University Medical Center, where he was pronounced dead.

Sam Scarmardo, the gun range operator, was distraught about Vacca's death.

"It's like losing a brother," Scarmardo said. "These aren't employees or associates of ours, these are family. We're all family."

Many gun ranges allow children who are 8 years and older – with parental supervision – to shoot firearms, Scarmardo said.

"We instruct kids as young as 5 on .22 rifles, and they don't get to handle high firearms, but they're under the supervision of their parents and of our professional range masters," Scarmardo said.

This is not the first example of this happening. At least once before that I recall, a child was shooting an select fire Uzi with the supervision of his father, and the muzzle flip brought it up under his head he (inadvertently) killed himself.

They wound up charging the police chief who had organized the gun expo, and he was acquitted at trial. A big part of that was that the father was warned twice the uzi was too powerful for the kid.