U.S.A. and gun control, is there really a serious problem?

[Johan]

But I think that even if there isn't a huge problem still there is a problem, because I think it's a bit strange that in the U.S.A. you must be 18 to vote, 21 to drink, and 16 to drive, but only 9 to fire a machine gun?  I think the instructor and / or the gun school should not let kids that young learn to use a gun, btw which is the minimum age according to the Law?

While I get what you're saying, I think it should be pointed out that you're sort of comparing apples to oranges a bit here. It true that you must be 18 to vote, no getting around that. But everything else? You need to be 21 to buy alcohol. But different states have different laws on the age you must be in order to consume alcohol and in many cases, those laws only apply to consumption in public places. In the privacy of your own home there is no minimum legal limit on the consumption of alcohol. Indeed I went to school with a few kids who had wine with dinner every night from the age of 12 on because that's what their family did. Same with driving. You have to be 16 to drive on public roads. On your own property? It is not unusual at all for 9 year olds to drive pickups on their farms around here. In fact its not unusual at all to see 12 and 14 year olds driving HUGE farm tractors on the local roads here. Perfectly legal. In some states 13 and 14 year olds can also drive pickup trucks on public roads so long as they're driving in conjunction with doing farm work.

The point is with many things, legal age limits don't apply to all situations. And so it is with guns as well. In many states, there is no age limit for firing a gun. Being the registered owner of the gun is a different story in most cases, but firing a gun has no age limit.

I agree with you that allowing such a young person to handle a weapon capable of fully automatic firing is beyond stupid. But its not something that is regulated by law. Now we could probably stamp our feet and yell that there should be such a law and maybe we'd be right. But at the same time this might well be one of those situations where the realities of liability will end up solving the problem all on its own.

Gun clubs and shooting ranges generally have insurance. Often, the insurance policies dictate as many of the organizations rules and regulations as state and federal laws do. If the law suits start flying, this gun range and most others may quickly find themselves in a position where they have to impose minimum age limits for shooters or find themselves uninsured.

Now I have no idea whether or not that will happen, but I think its at least plausible that it might. And I say that as a gun owner who believes gun should be strongly regulated by law. But I also say that as someone who believes that pointless, ineffective and/or redundant laws are something we need less of.

[Mister Agenda]

Depends on your point of view, I suppose. Violent crime has been in decline for decades and the percentage of households where guns are owned is down by about a third since the 1960s, though there tend to be more guns per household that has them these days. So is it worse than it used to be? Not necessarily. Our war on drugs likely drives much gun violence, but those incidents rarely make national news.

[ParaGoomba Slayer]

I feel like people should have guns in case the government needed to be overthrown. Maybe I'm just being naive, and I understand how powerful modern US weapon systems are, but it would be better than nothing.

[Shiranu]

I feel like people should have guns in case the government needed to be overthrown. Maybe I'm just being naive, and I understand how powerful modern US weapon systems are, but it would be better than nothing.

Yes, because we have seen how well historically violent revolutions have worked out for the normal people...

Oh, wait, they haven't. Arguably the two best examples of the U.S. and France... France got a dictatorship (like 90+% of violent revolution countries do) and the U.S. had a broken government for years and years that was only fixed through peaceful means.

Revolution does not have a very stellar track level. In most cases the situation stays the same, at worse an even more repressive regime takes it place. I'll pass.

[Minimalist]

Yes.




You're being naive.

[SGOS]

It is indeed naïve to think you can trust your government.  However, it also naïve to think that the Michigan Militia is going to protect you from the government with their AK47s.  Justifying gun ownership so you can blow away the Feds with your 16 gauge shotgun when they come for you is naïve.  There are certainly realistic justifications for gun ownership, but that's not one of them.

[MagetheEntertainer]

I'm an American myself, and I do like the fact that I can legally own an assult rifle (because some part of me deep down wants it in case the country becomes a TRUE Police state) but I do not agree with small children shooting guns or people with felonies/mental issues having them.

[Minimalist]

because some part of me deep down wants it in case the country becomes a TRUE Police state

If this bunch of clowns...



Ever saw these guys coming at them...



They would shit their pants, throw down their guns and run like rabbits.

[Hydra009]

And that second image represents the low end of military firepower, there's lots of much nastier hardware.  And I've played enough Total War to guess which side would rout first.

[MagetheEntertainer]

While I get what you're saying, I think it should be pointed out that you're sort of comparing apples to oranges a bit here. It true that you must be 18 to vote, no getting around that. But everything else? You need to be 21 to buy alcohol. But different states have different laws on the age you must be in order to consume alcohol and in many cases, those laws only apply to consumption in public places. In the privacy of your own home there is no minimum legal limit on the consumption of alcohol. Indeed I went to school with a few kids who had wine with dinner every night from the age of 12 on because that's what their family did. Same with driving. You have to be 16 to drive on public roads. On your own property? It is not unusual at all for 9 year olds to drive pickups on their farms around here. In fact its not unusual at all to see 12 and 14 year olds driving HUGE farm tractors on the local roads here. Perfectly legal. In some states 13 and 14 year olds can also drive pickup trucks on public roads so long as they're driving in conjunction with doing farm work.

The point is with many things, legal age limits don't apply to all situations. And so it is with guns as well. In many states, there is no age limit for firing a gun. Being the registered owner of the gun is a different story in most cases, but firing a gun has no age limit.

I agree with you that allowing such a young person to handle a weapon capable of fully automatic firing is beyond stupid. But its not something that is regulated by law. Now we could probably stamp our feet and yell that there should be such a law and maybe we'd be right. But at the same time this might well be one of those situations where the realities of liability will end up solving the problem all on its own.

Gun clubs and shooting ranges generally have insurance. Often, the insurance policies dictate as many of the organizations rules and regulations as state and federal laws do. If the law suits start flying, this gun range and most others may quickly find themselves in a position where they have to impose minimum age limits for shooters or find themselves uninsured.

Now I have no idea whether or not that will happen, but I think its at least plausible that it might. And I say that as a gun owner who believes gun should be strongly regulated by law. But I also say that as someone who believes that pointless, ineffective and/or redundant laws are something we need less of.

Yeah I see what you're saying.  You would think that at this point all of humanity would know that 9 year olds + UZI's don't mix.

[Minimalist]

And I've played enough Total War

Me, too.  Beta testing Europa Barbarorum II right now.

[Johan]

You would think that at this point all of humanity would know that 9 year olds + UZI's don't mix.

I would also think that at this point all of humanity would know that man created god in his image, not the other way around. But alas, humanity continues to disappoint me.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

Everyone is a responsible gun owner until they're not. You might be an expert marksman, but one fuckup, one stray or ricochet landed in your own kid's head disqualies you from being a responsible gun owner. Everyone is a fucking expert until they're not.

[Johan]

Oh for fucks sake. Every driver is a responsible driver until they're not. Every parent is a responsible parent until they're not. Every teacher is a responsible teacher until they're not.  Next.

[PopeyesPappy]

A few thoughts on the incident where the 9 year old shot the gun range employee.

First, I am not fundamentally opposed to someone that young shooting a machine gun. Having said that the way this range went about it was obviously flawed. You don’t give a kid an Uzi, let them fire one round, then flip the switch and let them go full auto on the next shot with a full magazine. You work your way up to that point. Several single rounds followed by automatic fire with limited rounds. Start the automatic fire with two rounds in the magazine. Then increase the number of rounds slowly accessing the shooter’s ability to control the weapon each step along the way before proceeding to the next level. You stop the exercise if it becomes apparent that the shooter is not able to exercise reasonable control over the weapon.

I have also read several comments about the stupidity of the range instructor with regards to his positioning. What many of you probably don’t realize is that the technique he was employing was theoretically designed to stop what happened from happening. Right hand on her back to help support her, and left hand in front of her and above the weapon to help control the weapon itself. Now I don’t know enough about this technique to say if it is fundamentally sound or not, but I would bet that it had been employed by both the range and the instructor successfully on numerous similar occasions prior to this tragic event.

What I suspect is it wasn’t the technique that was flawed rather the instructor’s implementation of the technique. The sequence of events should have started with the child standing with the weapon on safe, pointed down range and finger off the trigger. The instructor should have reached over, selected auto, positioned his left hand correctly then give the ok to shoot. What it looked to me like happened is the girl was allowed to fire one round in semi mode. She was still standing there with her finger on trigger. After the first round the instructor immediately reached over and placed the weapon in auto and told her to shoot in in very rapid succession. He told her to shoot before his left hand was positioned to control the weapon, and she pulled the trigger with tragic results. If so then it was a failure on his part to follow proper procedures that got him killed rather than some fundamental flaw in the design of the technique itself.