Nine-Year-Old Accidentally Kills Instructor With Uzi

Reminds me of the outrage in the gun community sparked every time there's a news report of perpetrators using high-powered assault rifles to commit a crime.

"They're calling an AK47 HIGH POWERED? Are they KIDDING ME?"

-

It's a bad idea to let a nine-year old with absolutely no experience fire a fully-automatic weapon... just as it's a bad idea to let anyone with little experience fire an Uzi.

RIP to the guy... but that was pretty stupid.
 
@Beeblebrox237 - Low powered hunting rifle... Is that like the 2.2 Camry of firearms? :dunce:

Personally, I wouldn't let young children handle firearms, let alone submachine guns. If I had enough confidence in the ability & the maturity of the kid, I may let him/her get started with a single, or bolt action .22, or something along that line, but certainly not the type of firearms that would be a handful to many adults.

I'm glad we don't hear of news like this very often(first one I've ever heard of). I agree with niky on the instructor. He was a pro. I really wish he could take that one back.
 
I'm surprised nothing was learned after that story about a kid around the same age accidentally killing himself through similar means, Uzi and its recoil.
 
Bolt-actions are fun... and about as safe as any firearm can be on the range.

I've been meaning to get myself a .22 for "plinking" practice. It's like zen gardening, only, you know, with a (somewhat) deadly weapon.
 
A shooting range like this seems like the perfect place to use smart guns that won't fire unless they're properly oriented with an external sensor.



Instead of being linked to a specific person or a watch, wristband etc, link it to the range. The gun only fires when pointing down a cone down range. If the muzzle points out of the cone, the gun stops shooting. The reliability issue that makes smart guns a risk in self defense doesn't really matter much on a shooting range.
 
I don't think this incident has anything to do with the age of the person shooting the weapon. I also don't think the parents are to blame for taking their daughter to the range (which is supposed to be a controlled environment). IMO it's simply very poor judgement on part of the instructor, with fatal consequences.
 
A shooting range like this seems like the perfect place to use smart guns that won't fire unless they're properly oriented with an external sensor.



Instead of being linked to a specific person or a watch, wristband etc, link it to the range. The gun only fires when pointing down a cone down range. If the muzzle points out of the cone, the gun stops shooting. The reliability issue that makes smart guns a risk in self defense doesn't really matter much on a shooting range.


I am thinking more of a laser, if a laser detects that there is an object with in a set range it doesn't fire, who shoots things with in a 1m range? idiots?
You could also add gyros so if the gun thinks it is not being controlled correctly it stops firing
 
So, they're taking an automatic weapon that is a handful for pretty much anyone, and teaching a nine year old how to shoot it. Nobody thought that this could end badly at all. :rolleyes:

I'm aware of what an AR-15 is. It's a tool designed purely for harming and killing people. Assault weapons are not dangerous for the reasons automatics are, but why should civilians be allowed to have them? There's no point other than for attacking other people.

An AR-15 is just an example. The only weapons civians will ever "need" are hunting grade weapons, either low powered or single action, or both.

High powered weapons are generally only for show or for crime. When you go hunting you only need one or two shots, and in a self defence situation you only need one or two well placed shots from a low powered handgun, rifle, or shotgun.
So what your saying is that a non "assault weapon" is less dangerous? :odd:
 
A weapon is a weapon is a weapon. Regardless of it's "assault" status, a gun can be used to end your or another human beings life. Just like a car, alcohol, or tobacco.

In Michigan:

Min age for driving: 14 years and 9 months (with heavily restricted learners' permit), 17 years (full license)

Tobacco: 18 years

Alcohol: 21

Using a firearm: NOT SPECIFIED


There is something wrong with that.
 
In Ontario:

Min age for driving: 16, can't drive alone until 17, can't be fully licensed until 18.
Tobacco: 19
Alcohol: 19
Using a firearm: NOT SPECIFIED.

omg guys Ontario must have so many shootings.
 
omg guys Ontario must have so many shootings.

My point is entirely valid. It doesn't matter how many shooting accidents (or not accidents) happen in any given region of the world; one is too many. Why should a 9 year old child without a fully developed brain be trusted with a deadly weapon? That's just a recipe for disaster.

Michigan does actually have a lot of shootings though...
 
A gun is significantly more dangerous.
As is a knife when compared to a spoon. What's the level of danger required for you to ban children from access to something - and what's the level of age required for you to no longer ban them from it?

You didn't answer how banning them from training with something solves the problem of them not knowing what they hell they are doing with it.
 
I'm not saying that it would solve that. I'm just saying that it's common sense to keep a dangerous object from them in most situations.
 
I'm not saying that it would solve that. I'm just saying that it's common sense to keep a dangerous object from them in most situations.
What situations would you say that common sense would regard as okay then?

Personally I'd put "private tuition at a firing range" in that list. In fact, that would be the entire list.
 
What situations would you say that common sense would regard as okay then?

Personally I'd put "private tuition at a firing range" in that list. In fact, that would be the entire list.

I would agree with you, if this was something like a .22 rifle or a semi-automatic 9mm pistol, but this is a fully-automatic Uzi we're talking about. Not something I would ever put in the hands of ANY 9 year old under any circumstance.
 
A safety teacher once told me: "Safe is the word for an acceptable danger"
Some would call a spoon save, but a child running with a spoon in it's mouth risks the danger to fall and get seriously injured.
Even "safe" things can be dangerous.When is the acceptable danger really safe?
Teaching the child, but that is not 100% insurance that it will not happen.
But that is the best way.

The only way this accident would be reduced to acceptable safety?( what i think)
Use "blank ammunition" first, so the child could get used to the recoil and moves from the weapon.
Use a weapon that can't accidentally switch to automatic fire.( remove a pin?)
The supervisor would have burnwounds and worse case scenario, blind.


But it is sadly too late for this accident.
Isn't a supervisor or second person supposed to get behind the person with the weapon? I don't know.
Found some answers:
Australia? The licensed supervisor must be able to immediately render assistance to the unlicensed person, if required
Source here

America scouts: The adult coaches or instructors must be close to the shooters for close supervision.
Source here

I could not find a state law with that info.
According to the two i found, there was nothing wrong with the standing position of the instructor.
Is this true? Can anyone confirm this?
 
I would agree with you, if this was something like a .22 rifle or a semi-automatic 9mm pistol, but this is a fully-automatic Uzi we're talking about. Not something I would ever put in the hands of ANY 9 year old under any circumstance.
What are the limitations of ALL nine year olds that preclude them ever handling an uzi?

What if it was set to semi-auto? Would that make a difference?
Pretty much.
Since the incident took place under private tuition at a firing range, you don't have a problem with the girl being given an uzi then. Glad we cleared that up.
 
I was on vacation in SC when I heard this apparently the owner of the gun range said "Well we can't just take away her right to bear arms. Since she isn't 8 anymore we can give her big guns." I say its a stupid right that shouldn't exist.

Wrong. Can you honestly not even consider any other purpose that someone would want one than killing people? These things get bought outside of America too, the guns you see at gun clubs in the US are the same as the ones you'll see here, and nobody buys them to attack people in either country.

I can buy all the same assault weapons that an American can. What I can't buy in the same way are handguns, and those are what make up the bulk of the gun deaths in the US. What I find strange is that you're reasonably OK with handguns for personal defense, yet they're used for murder more than any other method in the US. It seems odd to me when the discussion hinges on purpose built for killing, it becomes centered around guns that are a drop in the US gun violence bucket (we're talking ~300 murders using rifles and 6000+ with handguns).



So where is the line drawn when it's too powerful? The way you're using high powered suggests to me that you don't know how this stuff all works. The round an AR-15 uses is actually fairly low powered in the grand scheme of things, substantially less powerful than the rounds that any of the standard issue rifles in WWI used.Most people wouldn't even consider it enough for deer hunting, they'll use shotguns or a .308 (M21) or a 30-06 (M1 Garand). Get into moose, elk, or bear hunting and people regularly use even more powerful rounds.

Civilians use AR-15's for hunting, defense, and sport shooting for various reasons. Mostly it's a combination of the accuracy, low recoil, and light weight of the rifle. Two of those 3 are the qualities of the round it fires, and that doesn't change whether it's an AR-15 or one of the hundreds of other guns that use the same round (both sporting and assault weapon type). AR-15's in particular are a convenient platform for a sport shooter because accessories and parts are affordable and easy to work with. The overlap in this case is that military and sport shooting (and defense) uses are similar in their requirements.

Once again, it's the Honda Civic of the gun community, right down to there being an equivalent to the V8 muscle guys that think they're not powerful enough and a real man uses a .30 calibre. All the pistol grips, foregrips, flashlights, lasers, and other "tactical" stuff that you'll see attached to them are the fartcan and ricer bodykit of the gun world. It's often just stuff to look cool with mild practicality, just like ricers want their unmodified cars to look/sound fast, and they don't make the rifle any more powerful or capable.

I'm not trying to just go gun nerd on you here and argue about semantics. I'm bringing up specifics because they're important to this discussion. There are a ton of misconceptions about assault weapons and their capabilities that can influence this kind of discussion. Think of a round as a car's engine, just as the same engine might go into a small car, full size car, and minivan, the same round might be used in an assault, bolt action, and other types of rifles.
Here in Canada you need a license to even get near a firearm while in the USA you can by them everywhere from Bargain Beachwear to the convenience store. I saw them on sale at both these places in myrtle beach SC this week.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Since the incident took place under private tuition at a firing range, you don't have a problem with the girl being given an uzi then. Glad we cleared that up.
I misinterpreted what you said. I understand what you mean by training someone to use a firearm, but giving a fully automatic weapon to a child is just plain stupid.
 
I was on vacation in SC when I heard this apparently the owner of the gun range said "Well we can't just take away her right to bear arms. Since she isn't 8 anymore we can give her big guns." I say its a stupid right that shouldn't exist.
It's ridiculous, people shouldn't feel as if they are entitled to use or own firearms.

I misinterpreted what you said. I understand what you mean by training someone to use a firearm, but giving a fully automatic weapon to a child is just plain stupid.
It's hard to believe that some think it isn't stupid.
 
Here in Canada you need a license to even get near a firearm while in the USA you can by them everywhere from Bargain Beachwear to the grocery store.
Wrong.
Without a minor’s licence, the minor may still use firearms of any class, providing they are under the direct and immediate supervision of someone who is licensed to possess that class of firearm. This generally means that the licensed person must be close enough to them to take immediate action to prevent any unsafe or illegal use of the firearm.

This provision affects cadets and members of other youth organizations who receive instruction in the use of firearms or who take part in target practice. It also applies to young people who go hunting or who use restricted or prohibited firearms in organized shooting competitions.
http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/fs-fd/minor-mineur-eng.htm

It's perfectly legal for unlicensed people to use guns provided they're under close supervision by someone licensed. You can get your gun license when you're 12 (the exam is pretty mickey mouse), and then can buy ammunition and use guns to hunt, practice, target shoot, or to be taught to shoot. Other than buying a gun, a 12 year old can become a fully licensed gun owner and use them for sporting.

Canadians tend to think our gun laws are way tighter than they actually are because since we haven't had a mass shooting lately there isn't public outrage about it. If people knew how similar a lot of our laws were to the US when it comes to "assault weapons" they'd be shocked. Essentially everything an American buys we can buy here, save for a few rifles that were banned because they look scary. AK-47's are outright banned, and AR-15's are more tightly controlled than newer guns that have the exact same capabilities. Despite that, you can buy an FN-SCAR, or any of the other similar rifles (besides AR-15's and AK-47's because they're scary) with the same license that grampa buys his pump shotgun with.

The key difference is handguns, you just simply can not buy and use handguns in Canada in the way that Americans use them. Carrying a handgun for self defense, and taking it outside of your home for any purpose other than a designated shooting range or to be serviced is a great way to find yourself in prison.
 
Last edited:
If you are worried about self defense take martial arts classes. I'm a black belt and I can use just about any object I find as a weapon I don't need a firearm with me.
 
Back