Thread: Is this a sensible shooting range precaution? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=027740
Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :
 
Range instructor fatally shot by 9-year-old

There's a video of events leading up to the shooting.

quote:
In the video, Vacca and the girl are at an outdoor range. The wind blows a target in the distance. Vacca shows the child how to hold the gun then helps her establish her grip and her stance. She fires one round and dirt flies above the target. Vacca adjusts the Uzi, places his right hand on her back and his left under her right arm.

She fires several rounds in rapid succession and the gun kicks to the left as she loses control. The video ends before the fatal head shot. In releasing the video, authorities did not identify who made it.

KLAS reported the girl was a tourist from the Northeast.

The station spoke with Sam Scarmardo, who operates Bullets and Burgers, about the incident.

"We really don't know what happened," he said. "Our guys are trained to basically hover over people when they're shooting. If they're shooting right-handed, we have our right-hand behind them ready to push the weapon out of the way. And if they're left-handed, the same thing."
It seems to me that relying on being able to push a gun out of the way if the person you're working with loses control of it, is a high-risk proposition. But I have never used a gun. So, for those of you familiar with this type of gun, is the safety precaution described by Scarmardo reasonable? (Assuming Scarmardo is quoted correctly.)

And if the article is describing the video correctly, what might Vacca have been doing here? This seems like an awkward position:

quote:
Vacca adjusts the Uzi, places his right hand on her back and his left under her right arm.


[ 27. August 2014, 04:21: Message edited by: Autenrieth Road ]
 
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :
 
There is NOTHING that ever could or would be sensible about giving a 9yr old a gun for fun. That is all.
 
Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :
 
Watching the video, I think the article is wrong on the last bit I quoted, which I said seemed like an awkward position. I would describe it as: Vacca is standing to the left of the girl with his right hand on her back and his left hand on, near or under her *left* arm.

[ 27. August 2014, 05:25: Message edited by: Autenrieth Road ]
 
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
Tragic from all perspectives. [Frown]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Offline I asked Mad Geo about this, and he said,"handing a fully automatic Uzi to a nine year old girl is like handing a firehose to her and turning it on."

Poor kid. She can't unlive that.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
I could only properly reply to this in Hell. The fact that anyone outside the military is allowed to even touch such a weapon is totally beyond comprehension.

A nine year old?

Total insanity on the part of every adult involved, inculding the dead one.

[Mad] [Mad]
 
Posted by bib (# 13074) on :
 
Why are children using guns?
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Not giving a gun to someone who doesn't have the strength to control where they're pointing it would be a sensible precaution, if you ask me. But I am not an expert.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Honestly, the same principle applies as with motor vehicles. We allow kids to participate in motor sport through relatively low-powered karts, and don't start them off on higher-powered vehicles. There are, as I understand it, a very large number of classes that most professional drivers have worked through before they reach the heights of something like Formula 1.

If it's desired to involve children in shooting as a sport, then they need to be started off with the weakest, easiest-to-handle guns possible. Again, while I wouldn't claim any expertise, I suspect that an Uzi doesn't answer that description.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Hey, come on, stop whining, the kid was only exercising her constitutional rights, y'know? And now she's used to the sight of blood she'll be good and ready to defend those rights when the federal government comes to inflict its secret socialist and Islamist agenda on the free folk of Arizona... [Disappointed]

[ 27. August 2014, 09:45: Message edited by: Albertus ]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Just noting, we do in fact have a Hell thread on the same story. With no replies on it yet. Feel free to go there and vent.

Yes yes, I'm drumming up business. So shoot me...
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
A bit of quick googling suggests the minimum age in Australia is 11 in Queensland, 12 in Victoria and New South Wales. I would guess the other States are similar.

It's also clear that there are legal limits on precisely which guns can be used by children, although I haven't done enough investigation to work out the precise definition of the classes of guns allowed.
 
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :
 
I can understand that people who absolutely must have guns need to indoctrinate their kids early. But, for simple survival, appropriate guns might be a good idea.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Where else could this happen in the western world than in the land of the gun-obsessed - sorry, "free" - and the home of the brave, if terminally stupid?

Initially my heart goes out to the nine year old who will have to live with this, but there is comfort (probably) for her, if not us, in that the type of parents who think it appropriate to frequent a place called "bullets and burgers" are likely to (a) have ready a vaccuous rationale they'll wheel out, and (b) have produced a child already de-sensitised to the taking of human life.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
There are actually kids of this age- and younger- in England and Wales who have been granted shotgun certificates on a case-by-case basis: see here. But that does seem to be a rather different kettle of fish.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
The law on this in the UK is complicated.

No one I know would dream of allowing their under 18 year old free access to either a shotgun or a rifle - but as the law stands if the child or teen is being taught clay-pigeon shooting or similar it is illegal to allow them to use a gun if they don't have a licence. Of course the guns in question are kept in locked cabinets to which the child or teen doesn't have the key and the real owner may be a parent but the child needs a licence to learn to shoot.

(hit button too soon)

[ 27. August 2014, 12:07: Message edited by: L'organist ]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Be advised that the substantial amount of Americans who are gun control advocates are using this story to rail against gun culture.

Personally, when discussing this issue, I have to acknowlege that I come with a certain amount of preloaded hippie , liberal, Summer of Love knee jerk responses, which is why I talked to Geo-- a kind, rational, common sense individual who just happens to have more knowedge of and comfort with guns than I do. Basically he says what orfeo has been saying and what the summary of L'organist's last post suggests-- sensible people introduce youngsters to guns in sensible ways. The recoil on a fully automatic weapon makes handing it to an underweight, inexperienced user really, really stupid. ( He said they should have started her on a .22. The basic stupidity of this business establishment was touting machine gun use as a starting place for sexyfun gun play. Stupid. )

I myself have doubts about a nine year old picking up a gun being in any way sensible- the only practical rational I can see is if you have some around the house and you want to add a level of tangible education in gun safety to that locked cabinet-- but if someone I knew did make that choice, I would pray they wound up with someone like Geo.

This topic has ceased to be theoretical with me. One of my teenage nephews has bern expressing a disturbing interest in guns.( to me, anyway-- hippie.) He changed his profile pic to show himself posing with what looked like a sniper rifle. I freaked. Later I ran across an expanded version of the same pic revealing his mom and dad standing behimd him, properly equipped, the location turned out to be a target range, the rifle turned out to be a common hunting rifle. Still squeamish, but I calmed down a lot.

Dad, apparently, had decided not to flame C's adolescent rebellion by simply squelching his interest,and rather put his hands on the steering wheel of C's interest- and get him some place where he could get proper information about gun use.

I've chosen to enter into cautious dialogue with them about it cautious meaning, not talking to them like they were frothing teabagging survivalists-- as indeed, they are not. Mostly I listen.

[ 27. August 2014, 14:05: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 
Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Offline I asked Mad Geo about this, and he said,"handing a fully automatic Uzi to a nine year old girl is like handing a firehose to her and turning it on."

Poor kid. She can't unlive that.
That's about right. Guns recoil. I used an air rifle at that age, which was fine. I knew another boy who, as a teenager, fired a shotgun holding it out from his body rather than nestling the butt in his shoulder and was reduced to tears. It requires a certain amount of physical strength to handle a gun and a nine year old and an Uzi are not going to be a good fit. As you say, poor kid.

Say 'hi' to Mad Geo by the way.
 
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
According to the owner, Uzis are fine from eight years upwards. .22s are for five year olds.

(Yeah, say hi to madGeo from me too).
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Be advised that the substantial amount of Americans who are gun control advocates are using this story to rail against gun culture.

Possibly because this is exactly the sort of thing that is going to happen where you do have a gun culture.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
In my amateur opinion, Scarmardo is out of his mind.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Be advised that the substantial amount of Americans who are gun control advocates are using this story to rail against gun culture.

Possibly because this is exactly the sort of thing that is going to happen where you do have a gun culture.
I don't have a gun culture. A gun culture exist that
I have to address.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Where one does have a gun culture, then; where a gun culture exists.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
According to the owner, Uzis are fine from eight years upwards. .22s are for five year olds.

(Yeah, say hi to madGeo from me too).
A pistol of any calibre is not a suitable training weapon for anyone.
9mm is too much for most 9 year old children.
Reliance on one's reactions in response to actions already occurring as a safety measure is stupid.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Where one does have a gun culture, then; where a gun culture exists.
I'm not sure what you mean about my comment about gun control advocates, then-- should we not rail against the effects of gun culture, because the effects " should be expected"?

I think the people who have gun culture shoved right in their faces have the right - duty!- to scream loudest about it. The question is how to go about it.
 
Posted by Avila (# 15541) on :
 
Apologies that this link will not work for everyone - recently in the UK Channel 4 ran a documentary on families in US who are pushing and wanting their kids to be trained with guns. A 4 (or 6 ??) yr old girl getting a junior rifle for Christmas and her father wanting to be able to be proud of her first kill in hunting. He sought advice because she didn't want to do shooting, wasn't interested - but being pushed towards it. Another family was dealing with death of 10 (???) yr old son who died because he tripped with his junior rifle and it went off, the safety provision not being enough. Whilst a teenage girl was taking part in shooting competitions and after long cross state journey didn't win and was really upset.

Ch4 Kids with guns documentary
 
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
According to the owner, Uzis are fine from eight years upwards. .22s are for five year olds.

(Yeah, say hi to madGeo from me too).
A pistol of any calibre is not a suitable training weapon for anyone.
9mm is too much for most 9 year old children.
Reliance on one's reactions in response to actions already occurring as a safety measure is stupid.
I'm simply reporting what he said. My own views on the matter are probably unprintable.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Where one does have a gun culture, then; where a gun culture exists.
I'm not sure what you mean about my comment about gun control advocates, then-- should we not rail against the effects of gun culture, because the effects " should be expected"?

No, I misunderstood your comment- I didn't read the rest of your post carefully enough. My bad. I now see that what you are saying is 'there are a lot of us over here, too, who are cross about this'.

[ 27. August 2014, 17:06: Message edited by: Albertus ]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Baffled. Frightened. Frustrated. I sure as hell hope the men in my nephew's life are telling him there is much more to being a man than shooting stuff. But you have to listen before people will hear, and I'm trying.

And thank you.

[ 27. August 2014, 17:40: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Where else could this happen in the western world than in the land of the gun-obsessed - sorry, "free" - and the home of the brave, if terminally stupid?
Got any more anti-American bigotry to spew, or are you done?
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
According to the owner, Uzis are fine from eight years upwards. .22s are for five year olds.

(Yeah, say hi to madGeo from me too).
A pistol of any calibre is not a suitable training weapon for anyone.
9mm is too much for most 9 year old children.
Reliance on one's reactions in response to actions already occurring as a safety measure is stupid.
I'm simply reporting what he said. My own views on the matter are probably unprintable.
Join us in Hell.

And I'm no expert, but along with lilbuddha, I question the logic of handing ANY newbie a weapon with massive recoil, even if that newbie were Arnold Schwarzenegger. Large motor strength does not equal fine motor control.
 
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
sensible people introduce youngsters to guns in sensible ways. The recoil on a fully automatic weapon makes handing it to an underweight, inexperienced user really, really stupid. ( He said they should have started her on a .22. The basic stupidity of this business establishment was touting machine gun use as a starting place for sexyfun gun play. Stupid. )
Absolutely. A .22 is an appropriate firearm to train beginners with, especially youngsters. A submachine gun is not. End of.

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Dad, apparently, had decided not to flame C's adolescent rebellion by simply squelching his interest,and rather put his hands on the steering wheel of C's interest- and get him some place where he could get proper information about gun use.

I've chosen to enter into cautious dialogue with them about it cautious meaning, not talking to them like they were frothing teabagging survivalists-- as indeed, they are not. Mostly I listen.
Good on them, and on you. Open, honest dialogue is key.

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
A pistol of any calibre is not a suitable training weapon for anyone.
9mm is too much for most 9 year old children.
Reliance on one's reactions in response to actions already occurring as a safety measure is stupid.
Not sure I agree with your first premise; a single-action .22 revolver served me pretty well in my youth. (And still does - a gift from my grandfather.)

The rest is spot on. Especially the last - it is insane to think that human reaction times could be anywhere near fast enough in that situation.

Scarmardo is an idiot.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
The law on this in the UK is complicated.

No one I know would dream of allowing their under 18 year old free access to either a shotgun or a rifle
As a child in the UK, not much older than this girl, at school, I shot .22 rifles. Single shot, bolt-action .22 rifles. Also air pistols, and bows and arrows.

All of those are single-shot weapons, all were fired under the supervision of some competant adult, and being single-shot weapons, none have the potential for the loss of control seen here.

I'm a fully-grown adult man, and would be a bit nervous about firing an Uzi on full auto. Expecting a small child to control the recoil is crazy.

I'm sure you can rig up some kind of constrained support, that would keep the barrel pointed downrange whilst allowing you to feel the recoil (say it allows the gun to rotate 30 degrees, but no further), but that would be rather easier with a long gun than with an itty-bitty thing like the Uzi.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
I've checking out with Purg and HellHosts whether we need both the Purg and Hell threads on this topic. Looks like the best solution is rant thread in Hell to contain the full range of discussion and pissed-off ness.

Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

I'm a fully-grown adult man, and would be a bit nervous about firing an Uzi on full auto. Expecting a small child to control the recoil is crazy.

Exactly! Thanks for confirming that an Uzi is a handful for an adult.
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

I'm a fully-grown adult man, and would be a bit nervous about firing an Uzi on full auto. Expecting a small child to control the recoil is crazy.

Exactly! Thanks for confirming that an Uzi is a handful for an adult.
It appears to only be a semi-auto because she is firing only one shell at a time.
 
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

I'm a fully-grown adult man, and would be a bit nervous about firing an Uzi on full auto. Expecting a small child to control the recoil is crazy.

Exactly! Thanks for confirming that an Uzi is a handful for an adult.
I concur - I've shot 9mm full-auto (though not this specific model of firearm), and it's controllable, but requires a fair bit of concentration and upper body strength. Expecting a 9 year old to do it is insanity.
 
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

I'm a fully-grown adult man, and would be a bit nervous about firing an Uzi on full auto. Expecting a small child to control the recoil is crazy.

Exactly! Thanks for confirming that an Uzi is a handful for an adult.
It appears to only be a semi-auto because she is firing only one shell at a time.
In the video I saw, it appears she fires one round in semi-auto mode, and then the instructor appears to move the selector switch. The video did not show the full-auto firing that apparently killed the instructor, however.
 
Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :
 
[cross-posted with everybody]

Leaving aside that this was a 9-year-old, the careless "OK that's your one practice round here goes full automatic," and most of the other things wrong in this situation, I have been curious about the owner's comment about how to safely supervise someone shooting a gun, of any age.

Reading around, it appears that the instructor was standing in the second worst possible position, where if she lost control of the gun it was almost guaranteed to flip so as to shoot him in the face. (The worst possible position would be to be standing in front of her, and some observers pointed out that he did in fact break the plane of fire.)

She was shooting right-handed, so apparently instead of standing beside her on her left, he should have been standing behind her on her right. Some said that he should have been holding her in a bear hug stance with his hands on the gun.

Some described that, even leaving aside what size of gun you first learn to shoot with, that the way you learn to fire multi-round guns is by first loading just one bullet, and firing that. Repeat. A lot of times. When you can control the gun for one bullet, load two bullets. Fire them both. From the previous, you've learned to control the gun for the first bullet, and if while you're learning two bullets you lose control after firing the second bullet, there is no third bullet to cause damage. When you can control two bullets, load three bullets. And so on. One person describing this method said that, despite all his experience with guns, he would probably never be able to go to more than four bullets.

There are sane gun owners in this country who look at the kinds of reckless behavior that happened here as abhorrent. I don't think gun ownership is going away in my country, so I would like to learn more about the ways to handle guns responsibly instead of the batshit crazy insane stuff that happened here.

[ 27. August 2014, 17:59: Message edited by: Autenrieth Road ]
 
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :
 
Back in the olden days, when I was young. My father had about 20 handguns of varying calibre from .22 to .455, as well as that many rifles and shotguns. Rural, western Canada. My elementary school had pellet guns, spring powered. We learned basic gun safety with them. We had to shoot from prone, meaning lying on your tummy. Single shot pellet guns.

I joined the Police Boys' Rifle Club, where we took the bus into the downtown and shot various rifles and handguns at the range in the police station. We started with single shot .22s where you had to both load a shell with a pull-bolt (i.e. doesn't fold down) and then pull the firing pin back. Again from prone.

For handguns both at the police range and at the local fish and game outdoor range, handguns were shot in separate areas. Sitting with a table that has a u-shaped cut-out so arms are supported, and vertical dividers about 12-15" wide in which the handgun was placed and must remain, with strict instructions on when to pick it up, load it, point it, and shoot. We did shoot repeating .22 pistols, max about 18 shells, but we were never allowed to fire more than 3 or 4 in a row (I forget).

Very strict handling. Very strict qualifying to approach the weapons. Exams both practical and written.

The same held true at 2 summer camps I attended which had single shot 22s. All of the above happened about grade 7 level, age 12 and up. I didn't maintain any interest really after about age 13 or 14, at which time I was sent off to boarding school.
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

I'm a fully-grown adult man, and would be a bit nervous about firing an Uzi on full auto. Expecting a small child to control the recoil is crazy.

Exactly! Thanks for confirming that an Uzi is a handful for an adult.
It appears to only be a semi-auto because she is firing only one shell at a time.
In the video I saw, it appears she fires one round in semi-auto mode, and then the instructor appears to move the selector switch. The video did not show the full-auto firing that apparently killed the instructor, however.
Oh, ok. I was wondering about that because I was wondering how it could kick back around on the instructor and then she would pull the trigger again. I expected to see it full auto and her not taking her finger off the trigger because she would be trying to hold on to the gun as she tried to regain control.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
In the video I saw the gun carries her whole arm up and to the left. And yeah, she did some test shots in semi mode.
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
Some described that, even leaving aside what size of gun you first learn to shoot with, that the way you learn to fire multi-round guns is by first loading just one bullet, and firing that. Repeat. A lot of times. When you can control the gun for one bullet, load two bullets. Fire them both. From the previous, you've learned to control the gun for the first bullet, and if while you're learning two bullets you lose control after firing the second bullet, there is no third bullet to cause damage. When you can control two bullets, load three bullets. And so on. One person describing this method said that, despite all his experience with guns, he would probably never be able to go to more than four bullets.

There are sane gun owners in this country who look at the kinds of reckless behavior that happened here as abhorrent. I don't think gun ownership is going away in my country, so I would like to learn more about the ways to handle guns responsibly instead of the batshit crazy insane stuff that happened here.
I suspect what we have here is a tragic culture clash.

The owner of the gun range runs a bunch of package deals, the primary purpose being to let adults who are sucked in by the whole Rambo-glamor thing to act out their fantasies. They also have a policy allowing children as young as eight to fire a weapon on their range.

The instructor has military experience and may very well be good at teaching firearms and firearm safety to adults, particularly adult men. He does not, however, have a lot of experience teaching children, particularly not girls. He was probably wary of putting his hands on her too much lest he receive accusations of inappropriate touching.

The parents want to let their daughter experiment with non-rigid gender roles. Which includes allowing her to learn to shoot a gun if she so desires. They purchase one of the package deals. But they don't know about guns and don't know to warn the instructor that there's no way that a girl her size and fitness level can control a gun like that.

And tragedy ensues.

(I fired my first rifle at six or seven - and didn't particularly like it because the kick physically hurt).
 
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :
 
I've never fired an Uzi, but I have fired a Sten gun, which must be approximately the same size, weight, and rate of fire, on automatic, and it kicked like a bastard. Looking at the video in the link, the instructor's hand is under the girl's arm when she shoots, and as the gun is pretty much guaranteed to jump up, not down, that would seem to be absolutely no use at all in helping her to control it.

I've no problem with kids learning to shoot as such, or learning to shoot automatic weapons, but they have to be introduced sensibly. Start small calibre, single shot, and in a properly supported prone position, as other posters here have said.

(Both my kids have fired air rifles, the youngest when she was six. I kept a firmer grip on the air rifle when they were shooting than this instructor is doing with a fucking Uzi. No, that isn't a sensible range precaution.)
 
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
I've never fired an Uzi, but I have fired a Sten gun, which must be approximately the same size, weight, and rate of fire, on automatic, and it kicked like a bastard. Looking at the video in the link, the instructor's hand is under the girl's arm when she shoots, and as the gun is pretty much guaranteed to jump up, not down, that would seem to be absolutely no use at all in helping her to control it.
It looks to me as if he's helping her hold it up. Wikipedia says it's 7.72 pounds, which seems like a lot for a 9 year old to hold up at arm's length. Compared to the Sten, the Uzi is 10% heavier, has a 10% higher muzzle velocity, and a ~20% higher rate of fire. (Those last two put together suggest that on full automatic, the kick could be ~30% stronger with the Uzi than with the Sten.)

A similar story involving an Uzi was reported back in 2008: Boy, 8, accidentally kills self at gun show.
 
Posted by Highfive (# 12937) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
[cross-posted with everybody]
There are sane gun owners in this country who look at the kinds of reckless behavior that happened here as abhorrent. I don't think gun ownership is going away in my country, so I would like to learn more about the ways to handle guns responsibly instead of the batshit crazy insane stuff that happened here.
In this case, the difference between sensible gun handling and batshit crazy insane stuff is based on how many customers the gun range wants to have.
 
Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on :
 
As a rural kid, I learned to shoot at around age 9 using a .22. Very useful for getting rid of possums.

But I can't imagine trying to shoot anything the weight and power of an Uzi, even as an adult and certainly not as a child.

We were very heavily supervised, either by parents or much older cousins, and we were reminded of the rules every time we went out with a gun - in particular, the rules about knowing who is around you, and before you shoot, what is behind the target.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Highfive:
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
[cross-posted with everybody]
There are sane gun owners in this country who look at the kinds of reckless behavior that happened here as abhorrent. I don't think gun ownership is going away in my country, so I would like to learn more about the ways to handle guns responsibly instead of the batshit crazy insane stuff that happened here.
In this case, the difference between sensible gun handling and batshit crazy insane stuff is based on how many customers the gun range wants to have.
Consider that this also happened in the city of Las Vegas, which has built a financial empire on catering to people's every batshit whim.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
Not sure I agree with your first premise; a single-action .22 revolver served me pretty well in my youth. (And still does - a gift from my grandfather.)
It is, IMO, the size that makes a pistol much more dangerous for a beginner. It is much easier to accidentally move the barrel from a safe direction to a not safe one.
In this particular case the calibre compounded the problem.
 
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
Not sure I agree with your first premise; a single-action .22 revolver served me pretty well in my youth. (And still does - a gift from my grandfather.)
It is, IMO, the size that makes a pistol much more dangerous for a beginner. It is much easier to accidentally move the barrel from a safe direction to a not safe one.
In this particular case the calibre compounded the problem.
That's a fair consideration. Speaking only for myself, muzzle control was taught early - even with rubber dart guns. But I can see your point, definitely.

In this case, though, we're not talking about a pistol, in the strict sense of the word; a submachine gun is in it's own class, neither a full long gun, i.e., a rifle or shotgun, nor a pistol per se. And wholly inappropriate for a 9-year old - I think we both agree on that...

[ 28. August 2014, 12:57: Message edited by: jbohn ]
 
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :
 
I was in the army cadets from age 11, and we regularly used .22 calibre - rifles, which are far harder to turn round and point at anyone else, even accidentally, pistols only after 16yo. Even back then I knew that one reason we were restricted to rifles was exactly the issue of how much effort it would take to physically turn one round to point at another person, and how easy it would be for any bystander to prevent that - not because I wanted to turn the gun round, but rather was thinking about this firstly from my own safety point of view.

On summer camp we went to an army training ground, and were allowed to fire real 303s & 762 combat rifles and also occasionally .762 machine "Gimpy") guns (similar to a Bren) - with live rounds. Once I saw a 13yo try to fire a live round 762 with the butt rested on his breastbone instead of his shoulder, and its the only time I've ever seen an adult soldier kick a child - he kicked both the gun and the boy so that they were separated, before a round was fired. We all agreed at the time this was probably the right thing to do. The recoil is ferocious and unless the gun is held with some strength, it takes in a life of its own.

And those anecdotes are really about me feeling that there is something just a bit too lackadaisical, careless, over-familiar, complacent, NUMB on a firing range that allows a 9yo to hold a short machine gun.
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
The only weapon I ever handled was a bolt-action WWI rifle used by the local militia regiment's cadet training corps (which for historical reasons was then compulsory at my public school) and the recoil was significant for a 15-year old boy. Given my almost-total ignorance of the topic, I conferred with an elegant redhead Lt-Cdr RCN who had undergone specialized weapons training in preparation for her term on HMCS Dromedary in Afghanistan a few years ago, on top of that which she had received in basic training. She was vigorous and colourful in her language with a barely-concealed suggestion that keel-hauling should be required in some circumstances. A former gymnast, triathlon competitor, and masters-level swimmer, she could barely handle an Uzi and had actually done exercises to help her with the recoil. She could not imagine what mind would entrust a non-adult with such a powerful weapon, although she allowed that a smaller weapon with blank rounds could be a useful training tool for a child.

I find that most of my military acquaintances are strong proponents of strict controls on firearms, generally on grounds of safety to anyone within range rather than any concern over popular insurrections.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Given the almost universal horror I have heard expressed by gun users over this, pretty much echoing what everyone is saying on this thread, I am astonished at the utter silence if the NRA on the subject. This is their chance to look reasonable, given how united both pro and anti gun control folk seem to be over this.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
If the universal horror of the Sandy hook primary school killings wasn't sufficient for the American public to get behind Obama in his quest to tighten gun laws, I don't see this incident doing it.
I would like to be proved wrong , as most people surely would .

Maybe a relatively minor but unusual incident such as this *could* just generate a wave of feeling that actually culminates in a law change ? Afraid I don't see too many holding their breath on that one.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Given the almost universal horror I have heard expressed by gun users over this, pretty much echoing what everyone is saying on this thread, I am astonished at the utter silence if the NRA on the subject. This is their chance to look reasonable, given how united both pro and anti gun control folk seem to be over this.
That would require the NRA to not just look reasonable, but to actually be reasonable.

Besides, the goal of the NRA is not to appeal to voters or even to their membership. The goal of the NRA is to serve the gun manufacturers who fund their organization. It really is just an industry lobbying agency, just like tobacco and Big Pharma and everybody else. They just found a very profitable way to masquerade as a voluntary organization.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
American gun control advocates have exhaustively gone over hiw hard it is to get law reform past the powerful gun lobby, so I am neither going to go over that again, nor am I going to dignify the generalization about the reaction with a huge rebuttal-- except to say in order to make that statement, you would have had to be completely ignorant of or willfully ignoring massive amounts of public commentary made by actual Americans to make it.

But making a statement about the lack of wisdom of handing a kid an automatic would require no law reform at all-- just a statement. And it would give the NRA a chance to prove that most gun owners are not one step away from forming a street militia. You'd think they would capitalize on the moment.

My suspicion is there might be traceable evidence that the range owner cleared his policies with the NRA.
 
Posted by BessHiggs (# 15176) on :
 
To me, the NRA is to normal gun owners as Fred Phelps was to Christians.

I'm a gun-owner, a hunter and a shooting enthusiast as are most of the folks I hang out with. Not one single person, even the most hard-core, "pry it out of my cold dead hands" person I know is anything but horrified and baffled by this tragedy.
 
Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BessHiggs:
To me, the NRA is to normal gun owners as Fred Phelps was to Christians.

I'm a gun-owner, a hunter and a shooting enthusiast as are most of the folks I hang out with. Not one single person, even the most hard-core, "pry it out of my cold dead hands" person I know is anything but horrified and baffled by this tragedy.
That's the problem with this country.

There's a lot of us who just want our hunting rifles and shotguns for game hunting and would be satisfied with bolt-action, pump-action, single-action, falling block, or break-action style firearms in our gun safes; and there's a lot of us who don't own guns, but would be fine if our neighbors owned such firearms as listed above.

The problem is that the most vocal people, the minority, either want the destruction of all firearms or they think citizens ought to be able to own full-auto assault rifles with attached grenade launchers.

These lobbyists aren't human, and neither side is reacting with compassion or humanity.
 
Posted by DangerousDeacon (# 10582) on :
 
One of the more interesting jobs I have ever had was as a Sergeant in the Army training recruits. This included weapons training. We only let the recruits fire rifles and sub machine guns after very extensive training (think days rather than minutes) including very strict safety training. Even then it occasionally goes awry, usually with short arms (pistols, sub-machine guns) which are very easily and inadvertently swung around. In particular, some of the weapons have a bit of recoil which smaller inexperienced firers find difficult to control.

Long arms (rifles) are a bit safer in that respect (bigger recoil, but if on single shot not too hard to control), but as any farmer will tell you, don't walk around the bush with a bullet in the chamber unless you are expecting to shoot something in the very near future.

So in summary - what lunatic would give a 9 year old child a sub-machine gun to fire?
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BessHiggs:
To me, the NRA is to normal gun owners as Fred Phelps was to Christians.
Except very very few Christians belong to the Phelps' church. Very very many gun owners belong to the NRA, and support them with their dues.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by BessHiggs:
To me, the NRA is to normal gun owners as Fred Phelps was to Christians.
Except very very few Christians belong to the Phelps' church. Very very many gun owners belong to the NRA, and support them with their dues.
Yeah, I don't get that. IIRC, most NRA members support some form of gun regulation. Why then do they continue to fund the extremist views? Vote with your membership.
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Given the almost universal horror I have heard expressed by gun users over this, pretty much echoing what everyone is saying on this thread, I am astonished at the utter silence if the NRA on the subject. This is their chance to look reasonable, given how united both pro and anti gun control folk seem to be over this.
Well, not exactly silent. They sent a link to their Women's mailing list on how Children Can Have fun on the shooting range. They did later take the link away.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Given the almost universal horror I have heard expressed by gun users over this, pretty much echoing what everyone is saying on this thread, I am astonished at the utter silence if the NRA on the subject. This is their chance to look reasonable, given how united both pro and anti gun control folk seem to be over this.
"Chance to look reasonable"? You do remember what they said and did after Sandy Hook? They are incapable of looking reasonable, or, apparently, of WANTING to look reasonable.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Their finger- wagging about open carry in restaurants gave hope.
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
... The problem is that the most vocal people, the minority, either want the destruction of all firearms or they think citizens ought to be able to own full-auto assault rifles with attached grenade launchers . ....
No, the problem is that so many people fall for the gun lobby's bullshit that any restriction on the latter makes the former inevitable. The slippery slope argument wins every time.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
One of the cultural values makes even valiant gun control advocates hesitate with certain arguments is the idea if tampering with the Constitution. I had to have a French person explain to me what an impressive document the Constitution is -- flexible enough to accommodate changes in the nation's needs, but with core values solid enough to stand up to such changes. By contrast, she pointed out how many times the French constitution has been rewritten.

Thus, people are squeamish about tampering with the fundamental structure of the constitution.

The problem is, the first ten Amendments are considered fundamental statements of those core values-- and " the right to bear arms" is one of them. So the argument gun control advocates have to address is something like,"'if you can alter the 2nd amendment to your comfort level, why can't we draft a law requiring Christian prayer in schools?"

The constitution has certain safeguards to make sure public consensus does not become mob rule-- which is for the most part a good thing, but can be a pain in the ass sometimes, and which is why it must seem to outsiders like it must take a million years to get anything accomplished. We have had various hate crime bills in legislative limbo for decades, because Amendment 1. The thing that would be generous if outsiders to consider is, if it is really frustrating to watch, think how frustrating it must be to be up to your neck in it.

[ 29. August 2014, 18:14: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
One of the cultural values makes even valiant gun control advocates hesitate with certain arguments is the idea if tampering with the Constitution. I had to have a French person explain to me what an impressive document the Constitution is -- flexible enough to accommodate changes in the nation's needs, but with core values solid enough to stand up to such changes. By contrast, she pointed out how many times the French constitution has been rewritten.
So you're saying the genius of the US Constitution is it's flexibility, and because of that it can never be altered? (never mind that it has been altered 33 times)


quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:

Thus, people are squeamish about tampering with the fundamental structure of the constitution.

The problem is, the first ten Amendments are considered fundamental statements of those core values-- and " the right to bear arms" is one of them. So the argument gun control advocates have to address is something like,"'if you can alter the 2nd amendment to your comfort level, why can't we draft a law requiring Christian prayer in schools?"
No amendment to the 2nd amendment is necessary to put in place the commonsense restrictions that the vast majority of sane Americans all agree on.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
One of the cultural values makes even valiant gun control advocates hesitate with certain arguments is the idea if tampering with the Constitution. I had to have a French person explain to me what an impressive document the Constitution is -- flexible enough to accommodate changes in the nation's needs, but with core values solid enough to stand up to such changes. By contrast, she pointed out how many times the French constitution has been rewritten.
So you're saying the genius of the US Constitution is it's flexibility, and because of that it can never be altered? (never mind that it has been altered 33 times)


The "she" in the paragraph you quoted was my French history teacher. I just found her perspective interesting, and yeah she subscribed its endurance to the interesting combination of plasticity and consistency in the same document. And it's not that you can't change it, it's what you have to go through to change it. The basic arguments around the 19th amendment started 100 years before it could even be drafted efficiently.

[ 29. August 2014, 19:11: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
No amendment to the 2nd amendment is necessary to put in place the commonsense restrictions that the vast majority of sane Americans all agree on.
You're kind of preaching to the choir, but I thought that was the argument the NRA makes,
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
One of the cultural values makes even valiant gun control advocates hesitate with certain arguments is the idea if tampering with the Constitution. I had to have a French person explain to me what an impressive document the Constitution is -- flexible enough to accommodate changes in the nation's needs, but with core values solid enough to stand up to such changes. By contrast, she pointed out how many times the French constitution has been rewritten.
So you're saying the genius of the US Constitution is it's flexibility, and because of that it can never be altered? (never mind that it has been altered 33 times)


The "she" in the paragraph you quoted was my French history teacher. I just found her perspective interesting, and yeah she subscribed its endurance to the interesting combination of plasticity and consistency in the same document. And it's not that you can't change it, it's what you have to go through to change it. The basic arguments around the 19th amendment started 100 years before it could even be drafted efficiently.
And of course the whole point of flexibility is that it admits of alteration in parts without changing the whole. Mind you, the USA is the product of its constitution in the way that France is not- there was a France and an idea of France long before France had its first written constution, so for the French, rewriting the constitution is much less of a deal than it would be for Americans.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Is it? She made it sound like a tedious ordeal.

But point well taken about the US constitution being integral in forming a national identity.

[ 29. August 2014, 19:43: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
On the subject of national identity, I have noticed this in the more recent explanations by NRA types trying to get over to us Yurpeens why things are seen differently across the pond.

The narrative runs along the lines of "The bearing of arms was integral to our ability to separate ourselves from our colonial overlords, and secure our freedom. That defines us - we continue to assert that right, not only to defend ourselves from external threats but also from internal ones." The latter part is strongly oriented towards hinting at oppressive government, though is rarely articulated explicitly, as I have seen it done in intra-US discussions. All IMHO of course.

But if my humble opinion is anywhere near correct, it seems to me that there are two lessons to be drawn.

1) You are wasting your time in expecting NRA as a lobbying organisation to be separated from ordinary gun owners on an issue basis, as here. Everyone knows awkward exceptional cases will arise - they just won't see any kind of challenge to the identity politics of the thing. As has already been said, suggestions that federal (or state) gun control might be a-comin' will simply be read as evidence of how very much we need to reject any control over our guns.

2) But conversely, it seems as though there exists the possibility of a faultline arising within the lobby if it persists with that narrative of foundational identity. There may be factual truth in the statement, but that precedes the establishment of democratic structures in the new state.

This all from thousands of miles away, so please excuse and correct any misunderstandings. But I guess the point I am driving towards is that I'm not really surprised nobody is getting anywhere on all these disasters, which happen one after another. What may start making headway is chipping away at the foundational identity thing.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Is it? She made it sound like a tedious ordeal.
Well, it's certainly not trivial. But otoh, the fact that it has successfully been amended 30-some times suggests it's not all that onerous. It's do-able. And the fact that the framers built that process into the constitution suggests they did not consider it to be the divinely inspired infallible document the NRA wants us to think it is. (Not, again, that the 2nd amendment is any barrier to reasonable gun registration).
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
I was talking about the numerous re- drafts of the French consitution-- my teacher made it sound like a fundamental game change in the structure of the government was part of each one.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I was talking about the numerous re- drafts of the French consitution-- my teacher made it sound like a fundamental game change in the structure of the government was part of each one.
ah. Got it.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Their finger- wagging about open carry in restaurants gave hope.
Yes, but before the next time they had a chance to go pee, they took it back with extreme apology.
 
Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
... The problem is that the most vocal people, the minority, either want the destruction of all firearms or they think citizens ought to be able to own full-auto assault rifles with attached grenade launchers . ....
No, the problem is that so many people fall for the gun lobby's bullshit that any restriction on the latter makes the former inevitable. The slippery slope argument wins every time.
Well, if there weren't a collective of gun control lobbyists dedicated to the former, then said slippery slope argument would indeed be bullshit; however, it's the expressed intentions of the gun-control lobbyists to circumvent [popular interpretation of] the 2nd Amendment through progressively restrictive legislation until absolute restriction is achieved.

Similar to what they're doing to tobacco.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Not buying that argument. The advocated for
total gun control have traction because the NRA and such go entirely too far.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
Well, if there weren't a collective of gun control lobbyists dedicated to the former, then said slippery slope argument would indeed be bullshit; however, it's the expressed intentions of the gun-control lobbyists to circumvent [popular interpretation of] the 2nd Amendment through progressively restrictive legislation until absolute restriction is achieved.
mmm... who exactly are these "gun control lobbyists"? What organization do they represent?

One can always find whackos and nutcases, just as you can always (apparently) find someone stupid enough to put an assault weapon in the hands of a 9 year old. But I know of no gun control organization operating within the US that is seeking the absolutely restriction of all firearms.

At has been noted already, this myth is entirely the invention of the NRA. Who, again, is not serving the majority of the American public or even the majority of their own membership. They are serving the gun manufacturers who fund their organization.

[ 30. August 2014, 03:36: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Their finger- wagging about open carry in restaurants gave hope.
Yes, but before the next time they had a chance to go pee, they took it back with extreme apology.
Did they? I missed that the last I heard the Walmart Patrol were cutting up their NRA cards in protest of the finger wagging.
 
Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :
 
Op-ed column considering the tragedy for the girl

(It's from the New York Times, so I apologize it may be behind a paywall, and I can't remember if they require registration for their 10 monthly free articles.)
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
Op-ed column considering the tragedy for the girl

(It's from the New York Times, so I apologize it may be behind a paywall, and I can't remember if they require registration for their 10 monthly free articles.)
This is one of the few times that I have pressed the FB button on a NYTimes article. It's worth the read.
 
Posted by Alex Cockell (# 7487) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

I'm a fully-grown adult man, and would be a bit nervous about firing an Uzi on full auto. Expecting a small child to control the recoil is crazy.

Exactly! Thanks for confirming that an Uzi is a handful for an adult.
Especially a Mini-Uzi like the kid was firing. If she'd had a regular Uzi carbine, her left hand would have been on a forearm - from what I saw on the video as well - she didn't have it int he shoulder properly...

Seated position would be better as well to offer more support...

an Uzi PISTOL fired full-auto.. stupid.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Their finger- wagging about open carry in restaurants gave hope.
Yes, but before the next time they had a chance to go pee, they took it back with extreme apology.
Did they? I missed that the last I heard the Walmart Patrol were cutting up their NRA cards in protest of the finger wagging.
Here's one instance.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
What a bunch of sniveling cowards.
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
... it's the expressed intentions of the gun-control lobbyists to circumvent [popular interpretation of] the 2nd Amendment through progressively restrictive legislation until absolute restriction is achieved. ...
Except that it won't be achieved, because an absolute ban on individual ownership is unconstitutional. The parallel example is Federal court says no to shutting down Mississippi's lone abortion clinic. Restrictions on abortion, even to the point of having only one clinic in the state, are acceptable; completely eliminating access to abortion is not. Why would it be any different in the case of gun laws? Either you trust the three branches of your government to work, or you don't. (In which case it doesn't matter which amendment we're talking about because you're assuming the entire system will fall anyway and the survivalists are right.)
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
... it's the expressed intentions of the gun-control lobbyists to circumvent [popular interpretation of] the 2nd Amendment through progressively restrictive legislation until absolute restriction is achieved. ...
Except that it won't be achieved, because an absolute ban on individual ownership is unconstitutional. The parallel example is Federal court says no to shutting down Mississippi's lone abortion clinic. Restrictions on abortion, even to the point of having only one clinic in the state, are acceptable; completely eliminating access to abortion is not. Why would it be any different in the case of gun laws? Either you trust the three branches of your government to work, or you don't. (In which case it doesn't matter which amendment we're talking about because you're assuming the entire system will fall anyway and the survivalists are right.)
It's probably best to stop engaging strawman arguments.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Restrictions on abortion, even to the point of having only one clinic in the state, are acceptable; completely eliminating access to abortion is not.
Pro-choice advocates quite rightly point to the existence of one sole clinic in the state (and similar measures, such as Texas requiring abortion providers to have admitting rights at a hospital) as severe restrictions on a woman's ability to have an abortion, and campaign against them.

It's not hard to imagine that gun rights advocates would find a similar situation as regards firearms to be equally unacceptable.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Constitutions. You've gotta love them. They DO reflect the national identity in the 'newer' countries (newer from a European perspective, of course).

The USA had a revolution, and got a constitution full of ringing, heroic phrases.

Australia was formed by a bunch of bureaucrats negotiating a trading bloc during a recession. [Snigger]
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
It's not hard to imagine that gun rights advocates would find a similar situation as regards firearms to be equally unacceptable.
What's hard, nay impossible, to imagine is it ever ever happening.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0