|
Post by featherduster on Aug 29, 2014 5:08:59 GMT -5
What difference does age make after all how old were the parents and the firearms instructor.
|
|
|
Post by stevein on Aug 29, 2014 8:58:30 GMT -5
I do not want the government placing an age on when a kid can shoot what gun. They have a long history of screwing things up. Were the parents wrong? We cannot really say as we don't know their experience with firearms. If their only experience is what they see on movies they probably did not think the 9MM was that bad of a round since the Uzi was small. This Range is in the business to allow folks to fire autos and the dreaded sniper rifles. I would guess that insurance companies will be a greater influence on ages and how the customers are allowed to handle firearms. The News media will not compare other activities 9 yo's are involved in that have a far greater injury and even death rate than participating in shooting sports. When Kekionga Longrifles was operating in Ft Wayne about the only restriction the insurance company placed on us was no playground equipment. Here is a link to the Arizona range... bulletsandburgers.com/packages/the-bullets-and-burgers-experience
Bad move by the instructor, maybe by at least one parent.
In my opinion there is not much safer place to take your family than a well run range like Roush Lake or to a well run private club.
|
|
|
Post by jackryan on Aug 29, 2014 11:02:46 GMT -5
I believe I'd gladly let it slide if they put an age limit on shooting a fully automatic weapon. If you can't drive a car, you probably shouldn't be shooting an Uzi. Just a thought. No. No, I'm not WILLING to give another inch. Not even a fraction of an inch of freedom to placate the simple minded and frightened pansies of this country. Including the frightened crybabies of the hunting and shooting community with their hunter orange and hunter education laws and regulations and programs "for your own good".
|
|
|
Post by jackryan on Aug 29, 2014 11:09:09 GMT -5
Some of this plain comes down to science. While the human body develops at very different paces from child to child due to many variables, both environmental and genetic, the human brain develops at a fairly predictable rate across the board, under normal conditions. That's why I think age limits make a lot of sense. I totally get how giving an inch can cost you a mile when it comes to gun control, but I see age restrictions as a separate issue. Every gun grabber and gun law on the books was put there by people who see "this one as different issue". They are NOT. There is ONE issue. That issue is FREEDOM. One person is afraid. They are willing to sacrifice a little bit of everyone's freedom to coddle their own fear. This in particular is hideous as all that is required to ensure your own safety is a sliver or self discipline. If it looks unsafe to you THEN LEAVE. If you own the land where it is occurring OPEN YOUR MOUTH AND SAY NO.
|
|
|
Post by jackryan on Aug 29, 2014 11:12:12 GMT -5
So what's the age? And what weapons limitations? I'm not gun expert enough to speak intelligently on this. I'd say that after one is old enough to be trusted with a motor vehicle, any age restrictions should be dropped, however. You've said it all right there. The problem in this country is there are millions of people of the same mind. They don't know enough to know what they don't know, but they don't let that stop them from having and voicing an opinion AND VOTING THAT OPINION. "Oh for the children. I don't know what to do but WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING!"
|
|
|
Post by jjas on Aug 29, 2014 11:14:21 GMT -5
Stevein .... Ultimately, I think the insurance companies that underwrite the liability insurance for ranges such as these will have the biggest say in all of this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2014 13:08:14 GMT -5
Ok. I trust you guys. If you are comfortable allowing your 8 and 9 year olds to fire fully automatic weapons, I know you will never let an accident happen. I won't be doing that with my daughter, but that's my choice.
|
|
|
Post by oldhoyt on Aug 29, 2014 13:17:15 GMT -5
There you have it. Simply because something is legal, does not make it a good idea. Parents need to parent their kids. Fewer and fewer seem to be willing to these days.
|
|
|
Post by stevein on Aug 29, 2014 13:30:11 GMT -5
Ok. I trust you guys. If you are comfortable allowing your 8?and 9 year olds to fire fully automatic weapons, I know you will never let an accident happen. I won't be doing that with my daughter, but that's my choice. I personally would not let my 13 YO daughter fire a full auto. I am 61 and I have never fired a full auto and I sure would not pay what this range charges to do so. How many accidents like this happen? It probably is not enough to even make statistics, but when it does it sure makes the news. I am not making light of this event but even if you throw in gun related hunting accidents it would still be a small number. Compare it to the number of kids that drown in home pools every year and it will still not be a significant number but pool accidents do not make news stories.
|
|
|
Post by MuzzleLoader on Aug 29, 2014 14:58:00 GMT -5
BB gun for my 9 yr daughter, just not ready to fire a 22 or anything else. She will shoot my crossbow but just doesn't like the noise of a gun. Full auto? No way, stupid of instructor and parents to even try.
|
|
|
Post by jackryan on Aug 29, 2014 22:19:04 GMT -5
There you have it. Simply because something is legal, does not make it a good idea. Parents need to parent their kids. Fewer and fewer seem to be willing to these days. Their kids are their business. The difference I see here and I disagree with is one person is not so much concerned with their own kids as they've stated they will not allow the action. What they wanted to do is parent EVERY ONE ELSE'S KID BY PASSING LAW ON THE TOPIC. My position is I don't care what he does with his kids, it is none of my business. My kids are none of his business or how I raise them.
|
|
|
Post by Sasquatch on Aug 30, 2014 8:28:14 GMT -5
Number 1: The instructors hands should be on the weapon as well as the kids.
Number 2: It's debatable that such a young kid needs to shoot anything full auto.
Number 3: If it has to be full auto, it should be a LONGER gun. A longer weapon could not have spun around so far and would have sprayed the ceiling or the wall.
|
|
|
Post by jackryan on Aug 30, 2014 18:53:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Sept 1, 2014 6:56:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Sept 1, 2014 6:57:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jjas on Sept 29, 2014 10:31:23 GMT -5
I wonder what impact this may have on shooting ranges throughout the country? This was posted on the theoutdoorwire.com/ in the features section on September 29th. "Word from a source over the weekend that the State of Oklahoma's workman comp provider is going to drop all business having to do with guns. We're told A.M. Trust of North America, the current provider is making that decision following the incident in Arizona where a range instructor was shot and killed by a 9-year old girl the instructor had allowed to shoot a fully-automatic rifle. We're also told the State of Oklahoma will be looking for another provider for gun-related businesses, but range operators are nervously wondering what that will mean-first to their coverages and ultimately, their insurance rates."
|
|