Gary L. Griffiths
New member
+1 on that. Welcome to The Firing Line, Malibru!
Fatal Shooting with Uzi
- Thread starter skizzums
- Start date
+1 on that. Welcome to The Firing Line, Malibru!
Sure Shot Mc Gee
New member
Private Ownership. One has to be 18-yrs.old for shotgun and long rifle purchases. 21 for handgun and civilian assault look alikes. Special licenses are required for F/A firearms and that individual is required by Law to be 21 years of age to be issued those special F/A licenses. He/she also accepts the responsibility to see that type of weapon stays in their possession and also accepts responsible for the firearms proper & safe use. To purposely put F/A firearms the hands of children or others not entitled to have in their possession such F/A weaponry or any firearm period. Is a illegal change in possession is it not. Even if its for a short period. Illegal possession is illegal possession. In this sad Gun Range situation no one has been held accountable~~yet.
I believe that the physics of firing a fully automatic weapon are different from the physics of firing a non fully automatic weapon.
It must surely follow as the night follows the day that I believe that all firearms should be banned./sarcasm
"Because I therefore all" That's usually a false argument no matter what the subject.
To paraphrase. Because I shot a fully automatic weapon as a young age all children should. Because my children shot a fully automatic weapon at a young age all children should.
It's an argument that ignores the fact that not all people are alike and not all situations are alike.
Several people have used the good old slippery slope argument. If we disagree with one use of a firearm then the people who want gun control will win.
Maybe we should if this is the level of debate we get.
And why is that? imho a good part of why legislation is ineffective is that there are always absolutists that would rather destroy public debate than allow any form of compromise.
Let me propose that people who instruct minor children in the use of fully automatic weapons be trained and licensed. Further let me propose that until a minor child has demonstrated proficiency in using a fully automatic weapon; that any fully automatic weapon they train with be secured from pointing in an unsafe direction.
Of course my next move will be to confiscate all firearms.
It must surely follow as the night follows the day that I believe that all firearms should be banned./sarcasm
"Because I therefore all" That's usually a false argument no matter what the subject.
To paraphrase. Because I shot a fully automatic weapon as a young age all children should. Because my children shot a fully automatic weapon at a young age all children should.
It's an argument that ignores the fact that not all people are alike and not all situations are alike.
Several people have used the good old slippery slope argument. If we disagree with one use of a firearm then the people who want gun control will win.
Maybe we should if this is the level of debate we get.
And why is that? imho a good part of why legislation is ineffective is that there are always absolutists that would rather destroy public debate than allow any form of compromise.
Let me propose that people who instruct minor children in the use of fully automatic weapons be trained and licensed. Further let me propose that until a minor child has demonstrated proficiency in using a fully automatic weapon; that any fully automatic weapon they train with be secured from pointing in an unsafe direction.
Of course my next move will be to confiscate all firearms.
JT-AR-MG42
New member
Good post Buzz.
I believe you are right concerning the 'physics' part of the post.
When I have a 'new to auto' shooter fire one of mine I ask if they have fired the caliber before.
Most say yes. I then demonstrate a somewhat exaggerated stance that they
WILL assume before the gun is loaded, explaining that, for instance, a .45 ACP
carbine round does not have a lot of recoil.
But the gun is going to fire and recoil faster than you can react. The forward leaning - crouch type stance is to compensate for that.
Not preaching here, as this was a tragic event for all involved.
It has never occurred to me to allow minors or those of small stature to fire an
auto without me directly assisting in holding the gun. Not even for some parent's video phone.
I've flat out turned away (maybe this makes me look like a snob, but I really don't care) shooters that came up with a
'screaming girl' or 'I know all about this stuff' attitude. Same with youngsters that are being pushed into it by their parents.
From reading on-line, it is looking like this tragedy and it's aftermath may have legs.
JT
I believe you are right concerning the 'physics' part of the post.
When I have a 'new to auto' shooter fire one of mine I ask if they have fired the caliber before.
Most say yes. I then demonstrate a somewhat exaggerated stance that they
WILL assume before the gun is loaded, explaining that, for instance, a .45 ACP
carbine round does not have a lot of recoil.
But the gun is going to fire and recoil faster than you can react. The forward leaning - crouch type stance is to compensate for that.
Not preaching here, as this was a tragic event for all involved.
It has never occurred to me to allow minors or those of small stature to fire an
auto without me directly assisting in holding the gun. Not even for some parent's video phone.
I've flat out turned away (maybe this makes me look like a snob, but I really don't care) shooters that came up with a
'screaming girl' or 'I know all about this stuff' attitude. Same with youngsters that are being pushed into it by their parents.
From reading on-line, it is looking like this tragedy and it's aftermath may have legs.
JT
Situations like these are often called accidents. The word accident has several definitions, one of them being an unforeseen event that is not the result of intention or has no apparent cause.
An injury resulting from bad ammo that you purchased is an accident. An injury resulting from gun failure is an accident. An injury resulting from you looking down the barrel of a shotgun when it didn't go bang is not an accident (thinking about that hole in the baseball cap that I saw in a video yesterday).
In this situation there were at least three adults that failed to assess the child's ability and to think about consequences. It amazes me how people resist to accept that.
It also amazes me that saying so makes you a closet anti gun, yet people who accuse you of that are as cautious, careful and through in letting children handle guns as anyone can be.
An injury resulting from bad ammo that you purchased is an accident. An injury resulting from gun failure is an accident. An injury resulting from you looking down the barrel of a shotgun when it didn't go bang is not an accident (thinking about that hole in the baseball cap that I saw in a video yesterday).
In this situation there were at least three adults that failed to assess the child's ability and to think about consequences. It amazes me how people resist to accept that.
It also amazes me that saying so makes you a closet anti gun, yet people who accuse you of that are as cautious, careful and through in letting children handle guns as anyone can be.
Art Eatman
Staff in Memoriam
Seems to me that "blame" is easy. The parents didn't know any better, so they're out of it. The girl was untrained, so she's out of it. Can't blame the gun; it's an inanimate chunk of metal and plastic.
Guess who that leaves? The deceased did a whole bunch of wrong and wound up paying for it. Put him on the Darwin Award list.
Guess who that leaves? The deceased did a whole bunch of wrong and wound up paying for it. Put him on the Darwin Award list.
I watched the video again, and...>
...whilst there was a litany of faulty decisions leading up to this, the final nail in the coffin was the girl commencing the full auto fire before the instructor was ready. You'll note he's saying, "...alright, full auto..." and continues to talk as the girl starts shooting and the weapon rises toward him. It seems he intended to keep talking, perhaps to get the girl ready and then he'd back off to the rear, but if so he didn't get the chance.
Of course, it's not the fault of the girl. She was clearly inexperienced. Her stance indicated she was unfamiliar with shooting. A real pity all round, and so frustrating to see a firearm being allowed to be employed in such a frivolous manner.
...whilst there was a litany of faulty decisions leading up to this, the final nail in the coffin was the girl commencing the full auto fire before the instructor was ready. You'll note he's saying, "...alright, full auto..." and continues to talk as the girl starts shooting and the weapon rises toward him. It seems he intended to keep talking, perhaps to get the girl ready and then he'd back off to the rear, but if so he didn't get the chance.
Of course, it's not the fault of the girl. She was clearly inexperienced. Her stance indicated she was unfamiliar with shooting. A real pity all round, and so frustrating to see a firearm being allowed to be employed in such a frivolous manner.
Art Eatman
Staff in Memoriam
Part of the deal for an instructor, same as for a range safety officer, is that they are always ready. It's their job to always be ready. There is no down-time from thinking until all guns are cleared.
Sure Shot Mc Gee
New member
Sorry Sir. No mention of Vacca's name in my thread. My comment never said Vacca himself deliberately broke any Laws. As I see it Local Law Enforcement determined no Laws were broken. What I question is the weapons possession and its Leagality in such situation. (loaned to another to use) Frankly: The individual I believe who may have too share some responsibility in this tragic event is the weapons ATF registered owner. Who is He/she? Was that individual present or on site at the time of their restricted weapons firing? Did that individual make an attempt to intervene seeing such event taking place?
As far as license/s in regards to F/A weaponry that Sir was figuratively written. Permit/s if you prefer. My bad.
I was under the impression Felons and those not court expunged of their crime which precludes one to have in their (possession) any type firearm is a violation of the Law.
As far as under age children. That is exactly what they are. To young under Law to purchase new. Used weapons. If the Law can prove negligence of the parent/s or some other in charge of the child. Concerning that child's actions to where that child had uninhibited access to a weapon. We both know who's going to be held accountable for Fines and out of court Wrongful Law suites. Thus a Law must have been broken Sir. In this situation no one seems to want to press charges. Not even the County Prosecutor {for the time being it appears.}_"But it ain't over till its over."_ Outside pressure to do something will come to bare on that Local Law establishment. In either case. Felon or underage child. There is that possibility someone's always going to give financially or their freedom. Perhaps both. To satisfy Lady Justice.
It's not what I prefer. When we're talking about legal issues, it's incumbent upon us to use very precise language.
We have no way of knowing whether or not Vacca was the owner at the moment. Even if it was owned by the range, it's perfectly legal for her to be in possession of the firearm.
Nope. Civil litigation can be brought without a law being broken.
SPEMack618
New member
The morning talk shows, from Fox to MSNBC, were all over this again this morning.
Tom Servo is right, they are frothing at the bit to dance in this blood.
It really has everything for them to exploit, scary black gun, a real life machine gun, a little girl, and an instructor with a military back ground.
Tom Servo is right, they are frothing at the bit to dance in this blood.
It really has everything for them to exploit, scary black gun, a real life machine gun, a little girl, and an instructor with a military back ground.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Unfortunately, said 'instructor' gave them the material to exploit. However, there is a reasonable evaluation of the ill thought out actions of 'said' instructor.
If you want to argue for the possession of articles of lethal force, you should keep your own house in order.
Zealotry is not an excuse for stupidity. We have to argue for the RKBA but we also have to be prime examples of why it is a reasonable thing for society to support.
Not to expect folks unfavorably inclined to pounce on this is naive. However, realistic critiques for that range and its practices are well deserved.
If you want to argue for the possession of articles of lethal force, you should keep your own house in order.
Zealotry is not an excuse for stupidity. We have to argue for the RKBA but we also have to be prime examples of why it is a reasonable thing for society to support.
Not to expect folks unfavorably inclined to pounce on this is naive. However, realistic critiques for that range and its practices are well deserved.
Gary L. Griffiths
New member
I've never seen it expressed better or more succinctly.
My thoughts on the matter, exactly!
SPEMack618
New member
I confess sort of a morbid fascination with how the media is covering this.
Their barely concealed glee is horrible to watch.
I mentioned to my girlfriend last night while watching Hillary Clinton speak that nothing was as bad to when one of the anti-gun politicians was parroting the same talking points you had discussed with your gunner friends online.
All I'm reminded of is what it says about being an ambassador for the shooting community on the back of my NRA Instructor card.
Their barely concealed glee is horrible to watch.
I mentioned to my girlfriend last night while watching Hillary Clinton speak that nothing was as bad to when one of the anti-gun politicians was parroting the same talking points you had discussed with your gunner friends online.
All I'm reminded of is what it says about being an ambassador for the shooting community on the back of my NRA Instructor card.
While you are perfectly correct to question it, you are incorrect in automatically assuming a law is being broken.
Full Auto arms are in a legal world all their own. Some can be legally owned by individuals, some cannot be. Corporations and trusts can legally own them.
Also, there are situations machinegun "rentals" are allowed.
Firing the gun under the direct supervision of the registered owner (or their designated representative) is something else. Generally, the law does not prohibit this, for anyone who is not a prohibited person.
Age requirements for purchase are a different matter again, and don't confuse the two. Minors are routinely allowed to use firearms under "supervision", such as while hunting, that they would not be able to purchase legally.
It's a tangled web, and sometimes seems contradictory, but at this time, as far as I know, its not a crime for ranges to let people shoot their guns.
I wonder why the parents thought their little girl would be interested
in firing an UZI. I also wonder if she had ever been to a range before.
I let my daughter know that if she ever wanted to learn, I would
be happy to take her to the range. I didn't want her to think she would
ever need to sneak around and "borrow" dad's gun, like me.
I inherited his "pea shooter". Never use it but it's another fond memory of him.
I wish he offered to take me shooting but I guess that's how it goes, having grown up in the liberal northeastern US.
She never indicated an interest and I didn't push the matter.
BTW, the liberal media is surely frothing over this incident.
This CNN article, as predicted, argued that this incident should
be cause for banning all "assault rifles".
I can't connect the dots but they are using it for all it's worth:
http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/28/opinion/parini-guns-uzi-second-amendment/index.html?hpt=hp_t3
in firing an UZI. I also wonder if she had ever been to a range before.
I let my daughter know that if she ever wanted to learn, I would
be happy to take her to the range. I didn't want her to think she would
ever need to sneak around and "borrow" dad's gun, like me.
I inherited his "pea shooter". Never use it but it's another fond memory of him.
I wish he offered to take me shooting but I guess that's how it goes, having grown up in the liberal northeastern US.
She never indicated an interest and I didn't push the matter.
BTW, the liberal media is surely frothing over this incident.
This CNN article, as predicted, argued that this incident should
be cause for banning all "assault rifles".
I can't connect the dots but they are using it for all it's worth:
http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/28/opinion/parini-guns-uzi-second-amendment/index.html?hpt=hp_t3
Last edited:
Double Naught Spy
New member
Both my daughters were shooting by 6 years of age. Both expressed interest in doing so. That a 9 year old would want to shoot full auto is NO surprise.
I fully expected that. The next time Feinstein trots out her revised AWB, expect it to be accompanied by that video running in a loop.
There's really no way we come out ahead on this politically. Our opponents have positioned themselves as the only compassionate people in this debate, and they've learned to play the won't someone think of the children card to the hilt.
As for the article, it's a mess, but the readership won't care. The 2A is about the National Guard and slavery. I've been seeing them hammer these points ever since S. 649 went down in flames last year.
We've been forced into a defensive position, and count out any reform/repeal of Hughes/NFA for another decade after this.