Fatal Shooting with Uzi

Gary,

While not a trained/accredited instructor, what you describe is basically the same method I used.

Its not just for "novices" either, even amoungst those of us who own and shot all manner of things, you still get the familiarization run down, basic operation, feel for the trigger and controls, and then usually a "short" mag or belt for the first run. Its usually not anywhere near as involved as a novice, but its still something thats done, if nothing more than a courtesy. Never had anyone with "experience" complain about it.
 
If you had any hope that Huges would one day be repealed or that the MG registry would reopen, our hopes are dashed. Huges was an ingenious piece of legislation and social engineering.
Click to expand...
What always amazed me about it, was the fact that most gun owners didnt make a squeak when the machine guns were "banned", and no one seemed to think it was a bad idea, just as long as thier favorite guns werent affected.

Early on after the 86 ban, I joined a group, NFA something or other (Im getting CRS :)),who were trying to fight the bill and get it repealed. There big thing was the NATO act of gun owners, in other words, we all need to stand up for each others interests here, regardless of our interests, and I was amazed at the number of staunch gun owners who wanted nothing to do with it. Many seemed to feel that banning machine guns was a good idea. Seems the NRA felt the same, as they never made a squeak either, and in fact, didnt really even bother to let us know it was coming. I quit the NRA that year too, and other than a lapse of judgement for a year, a number of years later, wont ever give them another cent.

In many respects, nothing has changed since '86, and many are still ignorant as to machine gun ownership, and seem to feel the same, as long as their favorites are still "OK". These days, I dont put much faith in anyone but a few when it comes to all of this, and I personally feel "most" will give you up, if they feel it will save them till the end. We seem to never pay attention to history, and it just keeps coming around, and we let it.
 
While not a trained/accredited instructor, what you describe is basically the same method I used.
Click to expand...

Not an instructor of full-auto, but I was range instructor in the CI Basic Course at the Army MP School for three years. Half that time I spent in charge of investigative training development for the MP School. So I was trained as an instructor, and instructional systems designer. For the past 20 years, I've trained law enforcement and armed security professionals on judgmental use of force and gunfighting tactics.

Bottom line: I've shot fully automatic weapons, and have extensive experience in training and training development, mostly having to do with firearms. Based on my experience I would NEVER allow an inexperienced 9-year old child to fire a fully automatic weapon.

I frankly question the sanity of anyone who would.

Just realized this might be construed as a negative response to AK103 That was not my intention -- we essentially agree that newbies shouldn't be given full autos with full mags to start out with!
 
Last edited:
We are all advocates for the shooting sports every time we discuss them, engage in them and even more importantly, instruct others. This instructor has done more to damage the sport than any 100 antis combined. He has paid his price and we will be held by the public accountable as well. Likewise the instructor in MA where the other kid was killed. It does not matter what the fool father insisted, the instructor/range officer is GOD on the line.

Rules are different for minors and they should be. If new restrictions aren't enacted for minors with FA weapons I will be astonished and you can expect them to steamroller right through almost any legislature. The best we can probably do is prevent anything else from piggy backing onto such legislation.

Unless you want to be responsible for your own anti gun legislation DON'T BE STUPID.
 
My kids wouldnt have liked your rules, but would have complied. :)

To bad too, at 9, they probably would have still given you a run for your money. :D
 
AK103K said:
Seems the NRA felt the same, as they never made a squeak either, and in fact, didnt really even bother to let us know it was coming. I quit the NRA that year too, and other than a lapse of judgement for a year, a number of years later, wont ever give them another cent.
Click to expand...

The NRA funded the attack on 922(o) in the court system in Farmer v. higgins, which was litigated by Stephen Halbrook. They filed the case less than a month after the law passed. They litigated it up to the Circuit Court level and lost. I forget whether they were denied cert or decided it was wiser not to appeal it to the Supreme Court at that point; but your categorization of what the NRA did is unfair to them and factually wrong.
 
What always amazed me about it, was the fact that most gun owners didnt make a squeak when the machine guns were "banned", and no one seemed to think it was a bad idea, just as long as thier favorite guns werent affected.
Click to expand...
You might want to do some research on the actual passage of the Hughes Amendment. It was snuck in under the radar, and at the last minute. It passed by a rushed voice vote. "Most gun owners" didn't know about it until it was too late.

You're trying to drive some imaginary wedge between the True Believers and the Sellouts. It's disingenuous and counterproductive.

The fact of the matter is this: machine guns are more difficult to use than other guns. They're not for the untrained, and they're not for the vast majority of 9-year-olds. Arguing that doesn't mean I approve of the legal restrictions on them, so let's drop that silly line of reasoning.
 
Children develop at different rates.
While one may be able to easily master a new skill, another may struggle.

Just like your 1st motorcycle as a teen probably should not be a
1000cc plus "super bike", I don't think that an UZI makes for a
good gun to learn with.

This little girl was just a child and she didn't look particularly comfortable.
I contrast this to watching a dad at my local gun range showing
an even smaller child how to shoot a .22 rifle.

The girl look relaxed and her dad was guiding her very carefully.

I noticed that the media referred to the UZI as "sub-automatic".
Is that different from full auto or???

You can never be too careful, IMHO.
"I'm a grown ass man" but I recently taught myself how to fire
an AK variant with nothing more than YouTube videos and answers I got here.
I had never fired a rifle before, having grown up in the city.

When I finally fired the AK, I felt prepared and the experience
went smoothly and safely. Some 30 years of shooting handguns
certainly didn't hurt, either.
 
Last edited:
There is video of the incident that clearly shows what happens. The instructor was out of position, standing over the girl's left shoulder instead of behind her. She fired one shot then he set the gun to auto and told her to shoot. The gun immediately went up and left, but her left hand lost contact and didn't control the recoil and the muzzle came all the way back over her left shoulder after just a couple rounds. He was in position to control the weapon with his left hand but didn't appear to be prepared to do so. Unfortunate accident.

I didn't fire a full auto rifle or smg until I was 18 and joined the Army, the effort required to maintain muzzle control caught me off guard at first. The effort required to control an M103 grease gun over more than a 3-round burst made you limit your fire to 3-round bursts.

If I was trying to teach a first time or very young shooter I'd probably limit the magazine to three rounds and maintain contact with the weapon or the shooter's wrist for at least the first few bursts.
 
I skimmed over most of the posts, but didn't take the time to read each in it's entirety.

I'm sure that there are some that will defend the premise of a 9 yr. old girl or boy, taking control of a full-auto weapon and shooting it.

That's just so much bull hockey. No kid that young needs to be in control of a full-auto firearm. They don't understand the premise or concept of a machine gun, don't have the fine motor skills or muscle to fully control it, and don't need to experience one at that young of an age.

I'm so tired of parents treating their kids as if they are young adults. Parents these days seem to think kids have rights, are entitled to whatever adults are, and unable to raise a kid in a common sense way to insure that their off-spring grow up to become responsible adults.

One poster even went as far to say that there are no differences in shooting a full-auto firearm vs. a semi-auto one, or something to that effect. He's one of the parents I'm talking about. Probably provides alcohol to his kids as long as they drink responsibly at home. :rolleyes:

Anyways, that young girl is going to have issues for some time to come. I'm sure that a good amount of blood was splattered all over her.

Maybe mom and dad will see if they can get special counseling rates if they go as a family.
 
Watching this incident unfold on the video was bad enough. This poor girl was clearly not experienced and comfortable with this weapon; she did not appear to be an experienced, accomplished shooter (age aside).

Logging in here and seeing certain individuals pretend away all logic, reason, and common sense by pretending that there is no inherent reason to control access of a young, apparently inexperienced, and small-stature individual to a fully-loaded automatic weapon -- and imply that any person wanting to put weapon or ammo amount restrictions on such a person is anti-gun -- takes it to a whole other level of frustration. I don't see people calling for extra laws and regulation here, just an iota of common sense.

I'm sure those taking such positions go straight to training their 5-6-year-olds on full-auto weapons and forego single shots, .22s, and bolt actions...since full-autos "are no more dangerous".....

When you deny all reason and logic, you are as much a damage to our cause as the antis. Factually unsupportable positions just make us look dumb and dishonest.

I bought my 6-year-old daughter a single-shot .22 for her 6th birthday. There were some good teachable moments in there, some where it was good she only had a single shot bolt action in her hands. Now at age 7.5, she has advanced a lot and her progress makes me proud. But even with all the range time I've put in with her....we can shoot at home regularly....I can't imagine putting her in such a situation with such a hard-to-control weapon. Big difference between a bipod-mounted weapon or one resting solidly on bags, and an unstable hand-held auto pistol.
 
I don't know if the instructor did a 1 round familiarization then a 2 through many round full auto test which is a good idea for all first timers shooting any hand held full auto weapon. That little girl needed one, in my opinion.

When instructing small arm marksmanship for US Navy ship crews, when the BAR and Tommy gun was at hand, each man went through that drill.

First magazine, 1 round, just to get a feel of what to expect when a round fired.

Second magazine, 2 rounds, fired in full auto just go get the feel of it. If the student seemed apprehensive, do this again. Don't go further until he demonstrates competance and comfort.

Third magazine, 3 rounds. Same as the second one but one more round.

And so on incrementing one more round up through 10 or 12.

Some of those swabbies got a bit wild with only 3 or 4 rounds full auto; I stopped them from going further. Others handled 12 round maggies with great ease and accuracy firing few to several shot bursts. Those were advanced to 20 round ones and the best of them were designated automatic riflemen for the ship's Prize Crew and Boarding Parties. The other armed men carried Garands.

This was my idea on how to train them, but it seemed to work and everyone liked it. Especially for those few who were not adept at handling one. It was interesting as some of the best were skinny 97 pound weaklings by appearance and some of the worst were 260-pound hulks the size of football players.

I think that little girl was not aware of what was going to happen. She should have been.
 
Last edited:
This is so sad. I feel HORRIBLE for the little girl.

But, I don't think this is any reason to not allow individuals this young to fire fully-automatic weapon. As has clearly been stated, it's a matter of training and technique and it is clear the girl was not in a position to fire the weapon at her current training level. As others have said, many children younger than this girl (including members in this thread) have fired automatic weapons with absolutely no negative consequences.

If the instructor had done a better job at actually teaching the girl how to fire the Uzi, I'm sure he would still be here today. I think the video makes it clear that the girl was very aprehensive and it seems like the Uzi was thrust into her hands. It seemed like it was the first time she had fired the gun, and having it loaded with what seemed to be a full or near full magazine was the fatal error.
 
I have to wonder whether the insurance agent who covers this range was ignorant of what was going on or is a fool. Or does the owner have no insurance?
 
The girl had no idea as to what she was about to do. It was most likely her stupid father's idea to get her to shoot a full-auto firearm, so that he could brag about it later while at work in the office.

No child needs to shoot a full-auto weapon. It serves no purpose, other than to somehow let a parent get his or her kicks somehow by allowing it.

I didn't fire my first full-auto until I was in the army. I was 22 at the time. Although I didn't fire one as a child, I still turned out okay. ;)
 
Exactly. I don't think many 9yo girls are whining to go to the range to shoot full-auto. Dad probably wanted a clip for facebook.

Load the magazine with two rounds. Cock. Fire one shot. Fire one shot.
Click to expand...

Actually, with an open-bolt gun like the Uzi, it's cock, load, fire; if you insert the mag first, then don't execute the cocking correctly the gun will fire, so you lock the bolt back, first.
 
This tragic incident was avoidable. 9 years is way too young for FA and being a Submachine gun even makes it a no, no. The most important thing that the instructors forgot to think about was whether the child was capable of controlling the firearm at all times. I know some adults that I wouldn't even give a SA better yet a FA. What is the rush that 9 yr. child should shoot a FA? I put the blame on the parents because under no circumstances will my child shoot another person’s firearm except my own because only I knows their capability i.e. strength, skill etc. This is very sad and unfortunate.
 
We should not lose notice of the fact that the place in question, makes money off of those that want to experience shooting a full-auto firearm.

If they thought they could make enough money and get away with it, they'd probably let a monkey take a swing at one.

With a business name like Burgers and Bullets, what do you expect?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top