9 Year Old Accidently Kills Gun Instructor

[s_stabeler]

I think it really depends on the age of the kid.I learned how to shot an air rifle when I was about 14. Never had a problem. On the other hand, a 9-year old is really too young for full-auto. for single-shot, possibly semi-auto? perhaps. ( frankly, I'd suggest if you are hoping their kid will hunt when they are older, I'd suggest showing them how to track whatever the local game is, and firearms safety. then when they are a bit older, teach them how to shoot.)

the issue is that a 9-year old can't really control the recoil. Hence, it's more-or-less inevitable that something will happen.

[anakhouri]

I don't really have a problem with teaching kids to shoot. Unfortunately this instructor was a idiot. I, a grown woman, have no great confidence that I could control an Uzi on full auto. Who on earth would think handing a fully automatic weapon to a little girl is a good idea?

I'm grateful she only killed the instructor and not herself, though surely she'll be traumatized for some time to come because of this man's poor judgement.

[wolfie]

On the issue of "one shot on semi, then set it to full auto", in a range situation like this ANYONE new to guns should be put on a stepped "try and observe" program before going full "rock and roll". First, start them out on a .22 (low recoil) on semiauto. Can they handle the recoil? Next, go to the full bore cartridge, again on semiauto. Are they still able to keep it under control. Next is burst mode (gun fires a predetermined number of shots, usually 3 or 5 depending on model, for each pull of the trigger). Doesn't have burst mode? Load a magazine with a small number of cartridges. This will provide a long enough "string" that the instructor can see whether they'll be able to keep the muzzle pointing in a safe direction on automatic fire, but deliver few enough shots that if it gets out of control it'll stop shooting before it swings around to point in a dangerous direction. Finally, if all goes well, they go to full auto.

It's true, I don't understand why gun usage is so ingrained in American culture but not in Canadian culture.

I've heard it has to do with the circumstances in which the 2 countries were born, and the opening of the West. The U.S. got its start on the battlefield, Canada with people sitting negotiating at a table. In the U.S., the first Europeans in the West were ranchers (i.e. dealing with highly portable valuables), and as settlement developed the law moved in. In Canada, the Northwest Mounted Police (forerunners to the RCMP) set up posts across the prairies, and settlements grew up around them. In short, the U.S. developed in an environment where it was normal for people to have to carry guns to protect themselves in the absence of an organized legal system, while in Canada the framework of the legal system was there before the settlers.

[patiokitty]

I've heard it has to do with the circumstances in which the 2 countries were born, and the opening of the West. The U.S. got its start on the battlefield, Canada with people sitting negotiating at a table. In the U.S., the first Europeans in the West were ranchers (i.e. dealing with highly portable valuables), and as settlement developed the law moved in. In Canada, the Northwest Mounted Police (forerunners to the RCMP) set up posts across the prairies, and settlements grew up around them. In short, the U.S. developed in an environment where it was normal for people to have to carry guns to protect themselves in the absence of an organized legal system, while in Canada the framework of the legal system was there before the settlers.

Thank you so much for this! I have studied a lot more of the origins of Canada than I have of the US, and now it makes so much more sense to me.

[Gravekeeper]

This might help shed some light on it. >.>

In short, the U.S. developed in an environment where it was normal for people to have to carry guns to protect themselves in the absence of an organized legal system, while in Canada the framework of the legal system was there before the settlers.

That's part of the reason. Western expansion in both countries was equally fraught with peril. But for the US they also had to contend with foreign armies and with, well, lets be honest: Picking a fight with every Indian tribe they came across.

So service in a citizen's militia was mandatory for all males of age and you had to provide your own weapons and ammunition. If you were 16 and had a penis, you were legally required to own a gun and fend off the British, the Apaches and whomever else you weren't on speaking terms with this week.

When the US expanded westward it did so in an imperialistic fashion ( Manifest Destiny ). Essentially spending 300 years fighting Native Americans off and on. And when they weren't fighting them, they were using them to help fight European armies.

Conversely, when Canada expanded westward it first sent negotiators to contact native tribes and form treaties. Along with sending the North West Mounted Police ahead to establish law and order. Both were done prior to the arrival of any settlers. One of the things that prompted the swift deployment of the NWMP was the fear that Americans would start moving north bringing the same conflict and lawlessness into Canada that they had expanding westward in the US.

Basically, Canada had a plan. The US had an imagination ( Manifest Destiny ).

In both countries the use of firearms in terms of hunting and protection in the frontier was equal. But in the US the pressure to expand and Manifest Destiny lead to numerous conflicts with the Native people's ( You were still fighting them as recently as the 1920s. ). Which in turn lead to mandatory militia service and thus gun ownership for the purpose of military conflict. Which is reflected in the 2nd Amendment.

When you stir in Manifest Destiny and the ideology of American Exceptionalism both of which became very popular in the 1800s the idea on the gun toting brave frontiersmen destined to conquer the west became completely romanticized. Leading to the whole Wild West idea which exaggerated the history of the west until it basically became American mythology. Which eventually lead to an entire genre of books, movies, etc. In which guns were heavily entwined and romanticized as the tool of the hero. Remember, the entire genre of Westerns is completely an American concept.

[Hyena Dandy]

This might help shed some light on it. >.>

Unfortunately, that light is as untrue as the romanticized Wild West. The fact that the Rebellions of 1837 don't lead to an independent country doesn't mean that Canada got independence by "Asking nicely." They had armed rebellions, that Durham concluded would be best dealt with by unifying the Canadas and giving them a legislature. It's not a case of "Please can I be my own nation?" "Fine."

[Gravekeeper]

Unfortunately, that light is as untrue as the romanticized Wild West. The fact that the Rebellions of 1837 don't lead to an independent country doesn't mean that Canada got independence by "Asking nicely." They had armed rebellions, that Durham concluded would be best dealt with by unifying the Canadas and giving them a legislature. It's not a case of "Please can I be my own nation?" "Fine."

1) You must be unfamiliar with Hetalia.

2) The 1837 rebellions were not directed at Britain and not for independence from Britain. They were directed at the local governments and inflamed by election corruption. The status quo at the time was cliques and maintained by a few self serving powers such as the Catholic Church. Sprinkle with a bit of English vs French tension and viola. The rebellion "armies" barely numbered in the hundreds and were crushed resoundingly by Upper Canada, British AND the US armies.

While it is true Durham's reports put into motion the unification of Upper and Lower Canada. That did not grant independence from the Crown nor was it intended too. There were also a host of other concerns such as economics and absorbing the French since France gave up its Canadian colonies to Britain.

3) Full independence from Britain was not completely official until the mid 80s when, yes, we asked nicely of the British parliament.

So no, sorry, you cannot compare the 1837 rebellions to the War of Independence. It wasn't the point of the rebellions and the 1837 rebellions were 2 tiny skirmishes and over and done with in a year or so. Compared to the War of Independence which lasted almost 8 years and involved 100s of thousands of combatants from several different countries as well as several Indian tribes.

[Gravekeeper]

Update: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/03/us...-say.html?_r=1

The couple, visiting a recreational shooting range on a family vacation, rushed over to comfort their daughter as she complained that “the gun was too much for her and it hurt her shoulder

But more importantly:

The police said that it had asked the shooting range staff for copies of the release waivers the family had signed, but that staff members said the papers had been blown away by the wind and could not be recovered.

How convenient.

[s_stabeler]

the release waivers are actually irrelevant- they don't cover negiligence by the staff of the range.

[Gravekeeper]

the release waivers are actually irrelevant- they don't cover negiligence by the staff of the range.

If they were completely irrelevant I don't think they would have mysteriously blown away after the incident. >.>

This is a place that will cheerfully allow you to fire a Barret .50 cal rifle with no previous experience as you enjoy your platinum extreme sniper adventure package.

[s_stabeler]

what I mean is in this case. How liability waivers work is they basically say " you understand this is dangerous, and agree not to sue us unless we are negiligent in trying to protect you from those dangers"

basically, it means that if the incident is due to your stupidity, the range sin't liable. If the incident is due to the stupidity of someone working for the range, the range is still liable.

[Gravekeeper]

what I mean is in this case. How liability waivers work is they basically say " you understand this is dangerous, and agree not to sue us unless we are negiligent in trying to protect you from those dangers"

Yes, I know how the standard waiver goes. But the police wanted to see them and they straight up "Sorry, dog ate my homework"'. Which seems peculiar and makes me wonder if there isn't something in the language of their waivers that's inconvenient in this particular case. Or if they just thought there was at the time before they knew exactly what happened. Given the tone deaf owner I am left to wonder. ( The owner said that firing a machine gun was on the little girl's "bucket list" and she was really mature so it was totally okay. Right-o. )

Given the company's policies ( their minimum age is 8 ) and assortment of armament its kind of miracle it took this long for a tragedy to occur. The mini-uzi is pretty much the smallest and least powerful thing they have aside from glock 17's. The uzi didn't just kick up it actually flies right out of her hands after the video cuts off according to the police report. Mini uzi's have a lot of recoil even for an adult. SMGs were not designed with the use of children in mind.

Couple that with the instructor's negligence and viola. Bullet in the head. Recoil shootings aren't exactly super rare and obviously tend to result from handing someone a gun they've never used before or don't have the strength to handle. Youtube practically has an entire sub-genre devoted to handing cute girls powerful weapons and laughing as they loose control of them.

I mean their website and business model borders on parody. I would honestly thought it was satire if not for this news story. I mean they pick you up in a humvee and have free rides in a monster truck. While handing you military grade hardware up to and including belt fed machine guns and anti-material rifles.

[s_stabeler]

I'm guessing there ISN'T a signed waiver, actually.

[Gravekeeper]

I'm guessing there ISN'T a signed waiver, actually.

....Or that, yes.

There's very little information about their waivers and what they entail on their website aside from they're suppose to indicate that the customer "Agrees that they understand the rules of the range".

[wolfie]

IThis is a place that will cheerfully allow you to fire a Barret .50 cal rifle with no previous experience as you enjoy your platinum extreme sniper adventure package.

WTF? I haven't handled high-powered rifles, but if I were to go there and fire a rifle chambered .50 BMG, I'd first want to put a few rounds of .30-06 through a M1903 Springfield, then some "big game" rounds (I won't call them intermediate - in firearms, an "intermediate powered round" falls somewhere between a pistol cartridge and a full-powered rifle cartridge - 5.56 mm NATO as used in the M-16 and 7.62 mm Russian as used in the AK-47 fall into this category) before I chambered my first .50 round. I believe that military hardware doesn't have much between .30-06 and .50 BMG - that's why I called it "big game", since there are a number of hunting calibers in that range.

I wonder - does this range (or a similar one) offer an "American History" package, where you shoot a smoothbore musket (revolution and war of 1812), a muzzleloading rifle (civil war), a single-shot .45-70 Government breechloader (opening of the West), a Krag Jorgensen, a M1903 Springfield (WW1), an M1 Garand (WW2 and Korea), an M14 (early Vietnam) and an M16 (late Vietnam to present)?