I have no,problem with teaching children proper gun safety, yet I voted "no" as the question concerned small children and machine guns.... I don't consider that a properly safe combination.
Last night at a poker game a gentleman who used to be a firearms instructor in the German army was astounded by the actions of the instructor killed. "I guess they've got another 'don't' for the 'Dos and Don'ts of firearm training' video at that range..."
Small children definitely not. I blame the parents for allowing this to happen. This was a poor decision that this girl has now to remember for the rest of her life. In scouting the age to learn to shoot a single shot rifle is typically 12 yrs and older. I believe these are appropriate ages but anything younger than that should not be a consideration. Not trying to offend anyones views on the subject just looking out for safety & maturity.
The trainer in Nevada wasn't NRA certified as an instructor.
CBS news showed another trainer with a small child who was doing it right -- from the right side of the shooter, hand on the shooter's shoulder, other hand up in a ready position to block the gun if necessary.
The unfortunate man who died was on the left side, hand middle of the back and standing forward of the shooter.
(I'm not familiar enough with this weapon's recoil to know if being on the left or right makes much of a difference, but standing forward of the shooter, even slightly, seems obviously unwise.)
It was a preventable accident, child or no child.
Since I'm not an avid shooter, I don't think I can have a fair opinion on this topic. If I had a child, I couldn't imagine putting an Uzi in that child's hand, but I don't think it's right for me to make that judgement for other parents.
I am appalled to see this. First off, I am not an advocate of fully automatic weapons (hand held) merely because it is impractical to effectively fire after the second round. No business having it ESPECIALLY putting it in the hands of anyone, not just a 9 YO, but anyone who has not sat through proper training. There is nothing educational about a child shooting a fully automatic weapon. I feel that weapon safety and respect comes at an early age, but controlled single shot type firing. I dont care what the parents of this girl thought prior to her firing; this was absolutely an oversight by that company. No there does not need to be any law regarding this, there needs to be common damn sense. I won't even get into all the procedural things done wrong by the instructors. Just sad to see.
I voted NO. Personally, I see no useful purpose for such training. Pretty much any pistol/gun/rifle (excepting, possibly, a BB gun) has a recoil. One-shot, or semi-automatic, allows the shooter a split-second to recover the aim (somewhat). But, it's different with a fully-automatic weapon. The gas escaping after each shot tends to raise the barrel, and, with 10-15 rounds per second leaving the barrel, there's litterally no time to recover. I've never fired an Uzi, but I have fired a couple fully-auto rifles, and you need body-mass and arm strength to try to defeat the movement of the barrel. You also need 'cool-headedness' (thereby eliminating the 'surprise' factor). I doubt whether 99% of young children have that strength. I do know that, on full-auto, even a full grown adult will 'walk' their shots up a target. Maybe Uzi's are different - I couldn't say. But, kids are kids. They're used to pointing a Wii at the TV. And, when they kill something, they push reset, and all's better. Not so with real weapons. I see that 132 people voted yes. But, so far, I haven't seen ANY of them explain their rationale behind such a vote. I would love to hear what they have to say. Who knows? You might have valid reasoning behind your Yes vote. I seriously doubt anyone does, but, you never know.
I fully doubt any Yes voters will explain their thinking. Maybe, on a website that doesn't require their real names. But, by NONE of them attempting to explain their thought process, I would suggest that they don't really believe their own reasons.
Howard, the Uzi is normally a 9mm, pistol grip, generally without a retractable shoulder stock and is held similarly like a hand gun.
The magazine slides into the handle behind he trigger. The recoil is equal to a 9mm semi-auto; but because of the rapid fire of the Uzi, it's too much recoil for a young child to be firing.
This instructor's first mistake was thinking this would be okay to put an Uzi into an 8 year olds hands.
The full-auto firing rate of an Uzi can be changed with different adapters. Many of them have folding stocks as there are several different companies manufacturing the Uzi style firearm.
Bad parenting to put a deadly
Bad parenting to put a deadly weapon in the hands of a young child.
I have no,problem with
I have no,problem with teaching children proper gun safety, yet I voted "no" as the question concerned small children and machine guns.... I don't consider that a properly safe combination.
Last night at a poker game a gentleman who used to be a firearms instructor in the German army was astounded by the actions of the instructor killed. "I guess they've got another 'don't' for the 'Dos and Don'ts of firearm training' video at that range..."
I feel sorry for the girl.
Small children definitely
Small children definitely not. I blame the parents for allowing this to happen. This was a poor decision that this girl has now to remember for the rest of her life. In scouting the age to learn to shoot a single shot rifle is typically 12 yrs and older. I believe these are appropriate ages but anything younger than that should not be a consideration. Not trying to offend anyones views on the subject just looking out for safety & maturity.
The trainer in Nevada wasn't
The trainer in Nevada wasn't NRA certified as an instructor.
CBS news showed another trainer with a small child who was doing it right -- from the right side of the shooter, hand on the shooter's shoulder, other hand up in a ready position to block the gun if necessary.
The unfortunate man who died was on the left side, hand middle of the back and standing forward of the shooter.
(I'm not familiar enough with this weapon's recoil to know if being on the left or right makes much of a difference, but standing forward of the shooter, even slightly, seems obviously unwise.)
It was a preventable accident, child or no child.
Since I'm not an avid shooter, I don't think I can have a fair opinion on this topic. If I had a child, I couldn't imagine putting an Uzi in that child's hand, but I don't think it's right for me to make that judgement for other parents.
I am appalled to see this.
I am appalled to see this. First off, I am not an advocate of fully automatic weapons (hand held) merely because it is impractical to effectively fire after the second round. No business having it ESPECIALLY putting it in the hands of anyone, not just a 9 YO, but anyone who has not sat through proper training. There is nothing educational about a child shooting a fully automatic weapon. I feel that weapon safety and respect comes at an early age, but controlled single shot type firing. I dont care what the parents of this girl thought prior to her firing; this was absolutely an oversight by that company. No there does not need to be any law regarding this, there needs to be common damn sense. I won't even get into all the procedural things done wrong by the instructors. Just sad to see.
I voted no, but I do wonder
I voted no, but I do wonder how the ones you voted yes came to that decision?
As a NRA LIFE MEMBER and a
As a NRA LIFE MEMBER and a member of SCOPE, I concur with all the prior posts.
I'd like to read a post from at least one yes voter and the reasons why they think it is a good idea.
I voted NO. Personally, I see
I voted NO. Personally, I see no useful purpose for such training. Pretty much any pistol/gun/rifle (excepting, possibly, a BB gun) has a recoil. One-shot, or semi-automatic, allows the shooter a split-second to recover the aim (somewhat). But, it's different with a fully-automatic weapon. The gas escaping after each shot tends to raise the barrel, and, with 10-15 rounds per second leaving the barrel, there's litterally no time to recover. I've never fired an Uzi, but I have fired a couple fully-auto rifles, and you need body-mass and arm strength to try to defeat the movement of the barrel. You also need 'cool-headedness' (thereby eliminating the 'surprise' factor). I doubt whether 99% of young children have that strength. I do know that, on full-auto, even a full grown adult will 'walk' their shots up a target. Maybe Uzi's are different - I couldn't say. But, kids are kids. They're used to pointing a Wii at the TV. And, when they kill something, they push reset, and all's better. Not so with real weapons. I see that 132 people voted yes. But, so far, I haven't seen ANY of them explain their rationale behind such a vote. I would love to hear what they have to say. Who knows? You might have valid reasoning behind your Yes vote. I seriously doubt anyone does, but, you never know.
I fully doubt any Yes voters will explain their thinking. Maybe, on a website that doesn't require their real names. But, by NONE of them attempting to explain their thought process, I would suggest that they don't really believe their own reasons.
Howard, the Uzi is normally a
Howard, the Uzi is normally a 9mm, pistol grip, generally without a retractable shoulder stock and is held similarly like a hand gun.
The magazine slides into the handle behind he trigger. The recoil is equal to a 9mm semi-auto; but because of the rapid fire of the Uzi, it's too much recoil for a young child to be firing.
This instructor's first mistake was thinking this would be okay to put an Uzi into an 8 year olds hands.
I wouldn't have!
The full-auto firing rate of
The full-auto firing rate of an Uzi can be changed with different adapters. Many of them have folding stocks as there are several different companies manufacturing the Uzi style firearm.