Shooting instructor dies after being accidentally shot by girl

[xbuzzerx]

This is true; the 'leadership' would just play the states' rights card. But Congress has the authority under Article I to organize the militia, so La Pierre and his cronies can stuff it. Granted, there's no authority to regulate the weapon itself, but there's plenty of authority to set rules for who can "play" with one. In fact, I see no constitutional barrier to just flat out saying that no one not a member of the militia is allowed to so much as put a finger on the trigger of one.

How widespread is this interpretation within the gun and NRA camp, though? Because I give you credit for being reasonable that there is a place for rational regulation, but when I interact with gun people virtually anywhere else they cannot see anything in any other light than "the first step towards confiscation." I half suspect that a lot of NRA gun enthusiasts would want to firing squad you for this view.

To me it's as simple as you don't do this because putting a combat automatic in a kid's hands is absolutely no different than putting them behind the wheel of a monster truck and starting it up for her and taking it out of Park. They are not large enough, not physically capable enough, and not psychologically mature or responsible enough to control either piece of hardware. Gun nuts would say "One is a right and the other isn't!!!" but that rings completely hollow to the cold pragmatic reality that all either situation is doing is creating the potential for imminent danger for everyone around.

 

[Kulindahr]

How widespread is this interpretation within the gun and NRA camp, though? Because I give you credit for being reasonable that there is a place for rational regulation, but when I interact with gun people virtually anywhere else they cannot see anything in any other light than "the first step towards confiscation." I half suspect that a lot of NRA gun enthusiasts would want to firing squad you for this view.

To me it's as simple as you don't do this because putting a combat automatic in a kid's hands is absolutely no different than putting them behind the wheel of a monster truck and starting it up for her and taking it out of Park. They are not large enough, not physically capable enough, and not psychologically mature or responsible enough to control either piece of hardware. Gun nuts would say "One is a right and the other isn't!!!" but that rings completely hollow to the cold pragmatic reality that all either situation is doing is creating the potential for imminent danger for everyone around.

If someone with a following in the membership could stir things up, I think La Pierre would get cornered on this one. If there's anything NRA people get angry about besides threats to the Second Amendment, it's kids being hurt, especially with guns. The sheer stupidity of this one could carry the day, because it's about regulating moronic behavior with guns, not about regulating guns. It also goes back to one of the core reasons the NRA was founded: firearms safety.

The trouble is that LaPierre and his PR firm that run the NRA have engaged in potent little smear campaigns against anyone who has tried speaking up in the past. So I'm not hopeful.

The real tragedy, in NRA terms, is that this is an opportunity for the NRA to step forward and provide some leadership. The actual president -- the elected one, not the hired gun La Pierre -- should publicly call on Congress to require firearms instructors to be trained and certified, with an offer of bargain-basement prices for anyone currently serving as an instructor. He should enlist Richard Feldman to get the firearms industry behind him; Feldman knows the "right people" in the hunting community as well. Pitched properly, they could get an easy ten million emails and a quarter million letters to Congress in support (get John Oliver in on it and add another few million).

Maybe I should write him -- I'm an Endowment member, after all; that should be good for something!

 

[bankside]

Exactly. My hunter safety instructor had a marksman rating with fully auto, and it is very, very hard to get.

Tactically, automatic weapons aren't for killing people, anyway -- they're for spraying so many bullets into the air the other guy decides it's better to keep his head down.

The post below is why I decided to post in this thread as well -- I don't appreciate people lying about my position (I presume this is meant to be what I said).



The first two bullet points are accurate. The third is a distortion worthy of Rush Limbaugh.

The instructor made so many mistakes it's ridiculous, yes. I don't know if he was an idiot, or had been there too long that day, or what, but from viewing videos of other instructors with young shooters at that same rage, he wasn't even following their standard practices: he was standing on the wrong side of her, incorrectly in contact with her, and totally out of position to control the weapon if she lost control, as was almost inevitable.
There are no "procedures I've decided make sense", there are standard safety procedures that weren't followed. Besides the failings of the instructor already listed above, there are safety devices specifically made for keeping people safe when first-time students are attempting to handle automatic weapons -- but none were used.
The instructor -- who I doubt had any training or certification to be called that in the first place -- should have never handed her the weapon. Her body mass was too small to be able to handle it in the first place, and there is no way a kid that young is going to have the strength to control it anyway. Even if she had qualified on both those counts, the accident would have been likely anyway because the instructor gave not a single bit of guidance in how to control the firearm.
There is nothing "reasonable and sane" about this situation. And no, you don't "tie the end of the weapon down" -- that's sheer stupidity. It is not uncommon, though, to use a restraining loop for beginning students, to stop the muzzle swing before it goes too far.
The point of mentioning safety precautions which are available but were not used is to show that not only did the "instructor" foolishly allow the girl to even touch the weapon, but that his incompetence went far beyond that.

Finally, it's obvious that you can "make this stuff up", because you did.

I paraphrased your position very accurately.

 

[Kulindahr]

I paraphrased your position very accurately.

Kinda like Glenn Beck paraphrases things accurately -- twist things, make some up, with just enough truth to have some point to defend.

 

[Rolyo85]

If only there were more good people with guns to shoot her down before it happened ;_;

 

[MrPerfectMan]

i've seen youtube videos comparing the sound of an uzi to the sound of the gun the girl shot. its not the same.

 

[Kulindahr]

i've seen youtube videos comparing the sound of an uzi to the sound of the gun the girl shot. its not the same.

It happened:

http://www.snopes.com/info/news/uzi.asp


There are a couple of problems with the videos being used to claim that the sound was not the same:

1. the video was taken with a cell phone; cell phone microphones are not designed to be full fidelity devices
2. the videos giving sounds of Uzis shooting are all in totally different environments than at that shooting range, i.e. open spaces as opposed to an enclosure surrounded with dirt embankments

 

[levenshulme31]

https://forums.justusboys.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=1063416&d=1409169796

This ^ is what she should have been shooting, nothing else. It's specifically designed so kids can handle it.

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/05/crickett-rifle-marketing-kids

Yep, perfectly safe for kids to have. Another case was that of a boy of 9 or 10 who was allowed out turkey hunting on his own with his Crickett gun but slipped and fell and shot himself in the head. He died. Alone, in a ditch. Thanks to his perfectly safe for kids rifle.

The only guns kids should have the use of are nerf guns or water pistols. End of list.

 

[Kulindahr]

https://forums.justusboys.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=1063416&d=1409169796

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/05/crickett-rifle-marketing-kids

Yep, perfectly safe for kids to have. Another case was that of a boy of 9 or 10 who was allowed out turkey hunting on his own with his Crickett gun but slipped and fell and shot himself in the head. He died. Alone, in a ditch. Thanks to his perfectly safe for kids rifle.

The only guns kids should have the use of are nerf guns or water pistols. End of list.

By that "reasoning", kids should never be allowed in swimming pools, rivers, or bathtubs.

Stupidity is its own reward. That death was not the fault of the Cricket.

 

[Rolyo85]

I don't know how you make these depressingly flawed leaps in logic. I really don't get it.

 

[T-Rexx]

I don't know how you make these depressingly flawed leaps in logic. I really don't get it.

What? You've never brought down a deer with a swimming pool, Rolyo85?

The Remington R-25 auto-fill pool can accurately drown a deer at 100 yards, no problem. So easy a child could do it!

 

[bankside]

By that "reasoning", kids should never be allowed in swimming pools, rivers, or bathtubs.

Stupidity is its own reward. That death was not the fault of the Cricket.

Guns don't shoot children so they die alone in a ditch!

Stupid children shoot children so they die alone in a ditch. Got it.

Kulindahr, I really would send the government troops in to take your guns. Maybe even just yours, a month or two before everyone else's.

 

[Kulindahr]

I don't know how you make these depressingly flawed leaps in logic. I really don't get it.

Only because you refuse to apply logic.

The claim was that a Cricket is unsafe for kids to have. Well, more kids drown every year than are killed by firearms, especially by their own firearms, so we shouldn't allow children access to bodies of water, either. Frak, many years, more high school students are killed playing sports than by firearms -- so we'd better end high school sports.

 

[Kulindahr]

Guns don't shoot children so they die alone in a ditch!

Stupid children shoot children so they die alone in a ditch. Got it.

Kulindahr, I really would send the government troops in to take your guns. Maybe even just yours, a month or two before everyone else's.

That shows you don't deserve any say at all in government -- that you want to take away the firearms of someone who has defended kids from criminals with one.

[Text: Removed] -- you continue to refer that criminals be able to d as they please, and let women be raped and children be molested, just because you have an irrational fear of law-abiding citizens.

 

[mightbe]

^If the laws were stringent enough one should have no fear of "law abiding citizens". The problem is, they're not. Firearm laws in the US are dangerously lax, and therefore being a "law abiding citizen" is not necessarily something to be proud of (in regards to firearms). You keep holding up the notion of "law abiding citizens", but you rarely offer critique of the laws themselves. You instead prefer to tout the 2nd amendment as if it's self-explanatory statute of God. It's simply appalling that you can, in good conscience, refer to "law abiding citizens" as champions of gun safety. The laws must be written before they can be abided by; currently the law is completely ignorant.

I think firearms ought to be restricted in a way similar to how Australia has done it (if anyone reading this thinks it's illegal to own a firearm in Australia, you've been misinformed).

 

[mightbe]

That shows you don't deserve any say at all in government -- that you want to take away the firearms of someone who has defended kids from criminals with one.

Well, so much for the libertarian moniker... that's practically fascism.--"I don't like what you say so you can't say anything anymore."

And then you go for thoroughly-exhausted emotional baiting. The gun-crowd has beat this horse into a foamy heap. It doesn't work. It's an empty and incomplete appeal.

 

[Kulindahr]

^If the laws were stringent enough one should have no fear of "law abiding citizens". The problem is, they're not. Firearm laws in the US are dangerously lax, and therefore being a "law abiding citizen" is not necessarily something to be proud of (in regards to firearms). You keep holding up the notion of "law abiding citizens", but you rarely offer critique of the laws themselves. You instead prefer to tout the 2nd amendment as if it's self-explanatory statute of God. It's simply appalling that you can, in good conscience, refer to "law abiding citizens" as champions of gun safety. The laws must be written before they can be abided by; currently the law is completely ignorant.

I think firearms ought to be restricted in a way similar to how Australia has done it (if anyone reading this thinks it's illegal to own a firearm in Australia, you've been misinformed).

Firearms owners are statistically more law-abiding than the rest of the population. New York Times data on South Carolina showed that if concealed carry licensees committed crimes as often as the rest of the population, there would by not just a few hundred murders annually but millions. Similar figures apply to every state with a concealed carry law that says any law-abiding citizen can have a concealed carry license.

That liberals have a fear of law-abiding citizens demonstrates a certain degree of insanity. It's also a betrayal of classical liberalism, which defends the individual against the power of the state.

The current law is based on the understanding that people own themselves, that rights are given not to states but to the people. That is the opposite of ignorant -- it is the foundation of liberty.

 

[Kulindahr]

Well, so much for the libertarian moniker... that's practically fascism.--"I don't like what you say so you can't say anything anymore."

And then you go for thoroughly-exhausted emotional baiting. The gun-crowd has beat this horse into a foamy heap. It doesn't work. It's an empty and incomplete appeal.

It's hardly "empty and incomplete" to those whose lives have been protected by firearms. There is no legitimate authority for government to deny that self-protection to its citizens.

BTW, I didn't say anything about something I didn't like -- I made an objective observation. The fascism involved is from the one who wants to treat the country's most law-abiding citizens as criminals merely because they own tools that a tiny, tiny minority misuse.

 

[mightbe]

You entirely missed the point. Gun laws are completely and utterly inadequate; that gun owners are often able and willing to follow them is a direct result of them being so slack. I never once mentioned the number of laws being broken relevant; in fact, it's not, because they're not breaking any laws. The laws are so loose they don't need to, and forgive me for my concern about this!

It's absolutely insane that civilians be allowed to carry firearms around in public. It's absolutely terrifying that we allow this (it's also terrifying that they're fucking wearing a goddamn gun on their hip! Third world country, much?). Nothing about that makes anyone feel safe or comfortable. Brandishing of firearms in public should be a criminal offense, on par with shouting "fire" in a theater. It's an unnecessary and dangerous extension of the right to "own and bare arms". They have no place for civilians in public life.

Shooting at a range, fine. Keeping a collection of antiques in your basement, fine. Hunting, fine. Creating anxiety and distress in public, absolutely not.

You just give a pass to gun owners who, in 21 states, need no license to carry a loaded gun in plain sight (by the way, SC is not one of those states, open carry is prohibited). Over 40 states issue concealed carry without discretion, so long as the criterion are met (the criterion are painfully permissive). That either of these is true is absolutely unthinkable.

That laws don't stand to scrutiny, and yet you uphold the false notion that be a "law abiding citizen" is something to stride for in gun ownership. Maybe if the laws were respectably strict that would be the case. But right now, that is definitely not the case and I certainly do not trust "law abiding citizens" blindly.

*****************

The right to participation in government is more important than the right to own firearms. Actually, I really don't think it's a right at all, more of a tradition that's been kept alive by misreadings of the 2nd Amendment.

 

[mightbe]

"This shows you don't deserve any say in government."

Please explain how this fits into your "classical liberal" bubble.

*********************

"tools that a tiny, tiny minority misuse."

Hmm. Considering that one of the basic purposes of a firearm is to grant the user greater power, I'd say they're being used quite correctly.

Misuse of a firearm would entail accidently shooting your own foot.