Accident or Stupidity, Man Killed on U.S. Shooting Range

[PhilJ W]

The range was called Bullets & Burgers. I'm a bit lost to adequately remark on that.

 

I don't understand the Lee Rigby analogies here. His killers were extremists advocating and publicising their point of view. I'm also pretty sure, but not positive, that their gun was non-working - it was there simply to guarantee their deaths as martyrs.

The gun used by Lee Rigby's killers was working, if another police officer hadn't shot him one of his colleagues would have been dead or seriously wounded.

[AngryMeerkat]

My point with the Lee Rigby case was not the fact that  it happened as such .Nothing could have stopped that but the fact that for 15 minutes the killers were swanning around ,chatting to the public ,posing for photos and videos,making statements and nothing arrived to stop them for at least 15 minutes .This was outside a barracks in London .If you get into the mind set of a terrorist 15 minutes is a life time .The fact the killers were dipsticks doesnt make it more paletable .WE are not fighting the iRA now .I know how well armed the security forces are and the public doesnt see them all but equally it certainly didnt  work .We think still in terms of the IRA (who were scared to die for the boyos ) and suicide bombers but if I can dream up a dozen simple ways to cause absolute mayhem and death with out getting a quick response I am sure others can .I wont elaborate in case they cant .

The military are not allowed to intervene in a civilian situation in the UK unless the police officer in charge or the Prime Minister or the Current reigning Monarch expressly allow them to. Not by choice, it's law.

 

Mark

[The Stationmaster]

Whilst I can see the logic that a gun is a tool and that it is the person who kills, the comparison falls down as something like a lawnmower, hammer or screw driver has a non lethal economically productive and safe intended use whereas a machine pistol or assault rifle is designed to kill. Given that these guns are designed as killing (or at best wounding) devices I think it disingenuous to call them simple tools that do not kill. I admit I have an interest in guns but on the whole do not advocate loosening our gun laws. Yes it denies law abiding people the chance to indulge in a hobby but there are plenty of other hobbies and the statistics do indicate that society is safer with strict gun control. Something that has always struck me is the number of gun deaths associated with legally held guns owned by people with no previous criminal record which indicates that this is not just an issue of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.

One of my cousins was murdered, (deliberately shot with the intention of killing him sounds rather more stark and accurate) with a legally held shotgun which had been properly and safely stored by its owner but broken out of that storage by the owner's teenage son.  The shooting took place because the killer's girlfriend had ditched him and moved on to my cousin - she was also shot to death before the lovelorn youth (fortunately in my view) turned the gun on himself.  Three young lives wasted just because someone owned weapon that, in reality he had no real use for apart from 'sport' (occasional rough shooting).  And, tragically, a seriously ill uncle many years ago ended his life with a legally held shotgun, albeit in very different times as far as gun ownership was concerned.  So in some respects my views are coloured as far as private gun ownership is concerned.

 

But on the opposite hand I was target shooting with an air rifle before I was 11 years old - under trained supervision.  And in my teens in the CCF I not only graduated to a .22 rifle and, my real favourite, the .303 Lee Enfield but also fired a Bren gun on a couple of occasions.  All of this was on proper ranges with proper range safety controls and, obviously, under supervision.  But we were never allowed near small automatics such as the Sten apart from handling a couple of DP examples  held in our armoury and only then to explain how to use them in the safest possible manner - but no live firing, it was considered safer to let us use Bren guns (but only when we were over 16).

 

So I am not against properly controlled and regulated use of securely held weapons and I can understand that many enjoy the skill and challenge of range shooting - but it must be done safely as I understand is the case in Britain.  The situation in the USA is perhaps best demonstrated by the link posted by Ozexpatriate (Post No. 38) where a seemingly level headed commentator suggests that those under the age of 18 should not be allowed to shoot with automatic weapons; that leaves me wondering why those over the age of 18 might need to own and use such weapons, hardly some sort of skill test on a range or suitable for hunting?

[DDolfelin]

As you will know, Mike, even the Bren would work off line over, say, three shots - even with a bipod and laying prone.

Unless a horde of armed enemies is threatening to overrun a position, I can't visualise a use for continual full automatic which, by definition, will not be sending shots at a defined target after the first one or two.

 

A life taken and a child's life ruined, family and friends bereaved - for what?

[dust_devil]

Given the sheer number shootings in the US, especially the civilian rampage types, it's hard to see exactly what will make them change their gun laws as tragic as this is. Aside from the fact that it is baffling to me why any parent would want to take a nine year old to a shooting range and fire live ammunition and under what circumstance a nine year old would ever need to use a weapon like that?

 

Edit as I just read one of the links. Says the instructor taught his own kids to shoot at 4 years old. Do you really need to add anything to that???

[jjb1970]

 

But on the opposite hand I was target shooting with an air rifle before I was 11 years old - under trained supervision.  And in my teens in the CCF I not only graduated to a .22 rifle and, my real favourite, the .303 Lee Enfield but also fired a Bren gun on a couple of occasions.  All of this was on proper ranges with proper range safety controls and, obviously, under supervision.  But we were never allowed near small automatics such as the Sten apart from handling a couple of DP examples  held in our armoury and only then to explain how to use them in the safest possible manner - but no live firing, it was considered safer to let us use Bren guns (but only when we were over 16).

 

So I am not against properly controlled and regulated use of securely held weapons and I can understand that many enjoy the skill and challenge of range shooting - but it must be done safely as I understand is the case in Britain.  The situation in the USA is perhaps best demonstrated by the link posted by Ozexpatriate (Post No. 38) where a seemingly level headed commentator suggests that those under the age of 18 should not be allowed to shoot with automatic weapons; that leaves me wondering why those over the age of 18 might need to own and use such weapons, hardly some sort of skill test on a range or suitable for hunting?

 

I agree that shooting is a very enjoyable hobby if done under safe conditions. I've never been into shot gun type shooting but used to love range target shooting with air pistols. I think as with most things there is a compromise, I think the current UK laws which permit target shooting subject to controls on the guns allowed and shot guns allow for legitimate sports and pest control shooting whilst banning things like machine pistols, hand guns and assault weapons. I think that is a pretty good compromise. I am not against avenues such as the army cadets allowing civilians to use such weapons as then it is done under tight controls with trained instructors on ranges.

[kevinlms]

The NRA will no doubt find some way of rationalising this incident into:

 

"All children old enough to walk should be trained in the use of automatic firearms. For safety."

 

Agreed.

 

We of course KNOW that no action will take place, because in the mindset of the NRA, this event will trigger a call of 'Look what happens when you leave it to aged 9 before handling such weapons'!

 

A pram or pusher would make a good swivelled gun mount for a full machine gun. That'll stop politicians kissing babies!

[Glorious NSE]

My point with the Lee Rigby case was not the fact that  it happened as such .Nothing could have stopped that but the fact that for 15 minutes the killers were swanning around ,chatting to the public ,posing for photos and videos,making statements and nothing arrived to stop them for at least 15 minutes .This was outside a barracks in London .If you get into the mind set of a terrorist 15 minutes is a life time .The fact the killers were dipsticks doesnt make it more paletable .WE are not fighting the iRA now .I know how well armed the security forces are and the public doesnt see them all but equally it certainly didnt  work .We think still in terms of the IRA (who were scared to die for the boyos ) and suicide bombers but if I can dream up a dozen simple ways to cause absolute mayhem and death with out getting a quick response I am sure others can .I wont elaborate in case they cant .

 

The likely scenario in the US would be that they would not have had just one handgun between them, they would have had more, and larger, weaponry as that would have been easily available to them - and assuming the same tactics, they would have used those against the first police on the scene (or I suspect anyone who stood up to them in the interim).

 

And they would now likely be being hailed as martyrs to their twisted cause in some quarters as they would then have had to come under fire from the first police on the scene, who would have had to respond with "overkill" rather than precision for their own protection.

 

As it was, they were dealt with by specialists who, despite an extreme sitiuation managed to take them both alive.

 

(Which, by the by, to my mind says a huge amount for their professionalism...)

[Arthur]

A pram or pusher would make a good swivelled gun mount for a full machine gun. That'll stop politicians kissing babies!

 

 

Good God man, see what you've started!!

 

The Tactical Baby Stroller

 

 

Ideal for the quick skirmish at the supermarket checkout,

 

However, for more sustained firepower I give you

 

The Gatling Buggy

 

 

Take that sucker!

[Karhedron]

In the UK our gun laws are draconian, we can't legally own a handgun because somebody who legally owned a handgun did a bad thing. He didn't do this because he had guns, he did this because the licensing officer failed in his duty and didn't do the proper background checks before renewing the license. Friendship caused a tragedy, not the weapon. Now because handguns are totally illegal they have become the 'must have' accessory for criminals, illegality makes them cool. Our strict gun laws haven't prevented people being killed by guns, they've just stopped normal people enjoying a hobby while those who wish to commit gun crime are unaffected because they would use an illegally obtained gun for their crimes anyway. And the British Olympic pistol shooting team can't train in the UK.

 

Sorry, gonna have to disagree with this one. Our "draconian" laws do in fact prevent people from being shot. As indicated by the statistics above, the per-capita rate of death-by-shooting is 40 times higher in the US than in the UK. Simply put, a US resident is 40 times more likely to be shot than a UK resident.

 

Strict gun control is the key reason for this. Yes nutters and criminals will usually find a way to hurt people but the simple fact that it is so hard to get high ROF weapons in this country means that we have not had a school massacre in almost 20 years. America has been averaging around 4 school massacres per year in this decade (I have defined a massacre as any shooting attack which kills 2 or more victims, if you count single killings or woundings then you can increase that by a factor of 25).

 

Simply put, guns really do kill people.

[Guest]

Oh look it's a toy real gun

[kevinlms]

 

In the UK our gun laws are draconian, we can't legally own a handgun because somebody who legally owned a handgun did a bad thing. He didn't do this because he had guns, he did this because the licensing officer failed in his duty and didn't do the proper background checks before renewing the license. Friendship caused a tragedy, not the weapon. Now because handguns are totally illegal they have become the 'must have' accessory for criminals, illegality makes them cool. Our strict gun laws haven't prevented people being killed by guns, they've just stopped normal people enjoying a hobby while those who wish to commit gun crime are unaffected because they would use an illegally obtained gun for their crimes anyway. And the British Olympic pistol shooting team can't train in the UK.

 

Find a balance between the 2 countries and that is the happy medium. A gun is just a tool, nothing more. The person is the real weapon, and if they are intent on killing another human they will do it with whatever tool they can get. A gun is no more or less dangerous than a knife or a hammer - it is an inanimate object.

 

Mark

A gun isn't just a tool, its a specialised weapon that requires proper training - if its to be handled safely. No one can guarantee that some one can't pass a test, then later get a mental illness, then potentially all bets are off. Besides, many US states have no interest in checking peoples background, before they can purchase a gun. Its SIMPLY their RIGHT to be able to do so.

[Ceptic]

Good God man, see what you've started!!

 

The Tactical Baby Stroller

 

image.jpg

 

Ideal for the quick skirmish at the supermarket checkout,

 

However, for more sustained firepower I give you

 

The Gatling Buggy

 

image.jpg

 

Take that sucker!

 

'Kinn 'Ell

 

Wha' are we breedin' 'ere??

[The Nth Degree]

The gun used by Lee Rigby's killers was working, if another police officer hadn't shot him one of his colleagues would have been dead or seriously wounded.

Trying desperately not to labour an irrelevant point, but this is the pistol they used. It was reported by Met firearms professionals not to be in a working condition.

http://img.thesun.co.uk/aidemitlum/archive/01876/gun_1876532a.jpg

[PhilJ W]

Good God man, see what you've started!!

 

The Tactical Baby Stroller

 

image.jpg

 

Ideal for the quick skirmish at the supermarket checkout,

 

However, for more sustained firepower I give you

 

The Gatling Buggy

 

image.jpg

 

Take that sucker!

I was considering clicking the 'funny' button but this is far to serious to be treated as a laughing matter.

[PhilJ W]

Trying desperately not to labour an irrelevant point, but this is the pistol they used. It was reported by Met firearms professionals not to be in a working condition.

http://img.thesun.co.uk/aidemitlum/archive/01876/gun_1876532a.jpg

He still did point it at a police officer as if he was going to shoot her, the officer who shot him had no way of knowing the gun wasn't working.

[The Nth Degree]

...which was precisely their plan.

[kevinlms]

He still did point it at a police officer as if he was going to shoot her, the officer who shot him had no way of knowing the gun wasn't working.

No laughing matter, but the old joke of 'Wait, that gun's not going to fire, because the safety switch is on'... comes to mind.

[Ozexpatriate]

I prefer to let data, or others, speak for me on this topic.

 

In the wake of the Newtown shootings and a failed bill in the Senate to address gun control, John Oliver (a Brit, and formerly of the Daily Show who now has his own show on HBO) compiled a three-part story on gun control in Australia.

 

It's a look at a serious subject with a light touch which is entertaining and informative.

 

Part 1: Gun Control Whoop-de-doo.

Part 2: Gun Control and Political Suicide

Part 3: YouTube version of part 3

 

I wasn't living in Australia at the time of the Port Arthur tragedy or the legislation that followed, but it was a watershed moment for the country.

[Ian Abel]

Whilst I may offend some folks, frankly I have to question the sanity of ANY individuals such as those below, who, in support of the so-called "open carry laws", recently chose to "demonstrate" in Texas (I think it was) and several other states/locations, as shown in a departemnt store for christ sake!

Fact of life is that ANY gun has only one designed purpose (unlike knives/hammers etc., etc.) as a tool, and that it to kill or maim!

 

 

Seeing individuals such as this in grocery/clothing stores with AR-15s, AK-47 lookalikes and other semi-automatic rifles does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to bolster my confidence that there is a  "...well armed militia...", it's rather an armed-to-the-teeth mob of weekend-warrior nut jobs who can't simply see the overt threat that walking around with loaded semi-automatics poses. If I EVER see this sort of demonstration I leave, as I don't have enough trust in those folks to want to be near them...

You require LESS training to get a gun than a car license here, and look how many eeejuts manage to kill folks with cars!

 

In fact to be licensed to CUT HAIR in Minnesota requires schooling/training and a certification (also nuts IMHO!!). Owning a gun, a 24-hour wait period and a cursory background check, that has been PROVEN to miss even listed felons!!!

 

The following are ads for a local box-store chain called Fleet Farm, that sells everything INCLUDING the kitchen sink, sorta like a B&Q + Aldi + Waitrose + sporting goods all rolled into one enormous store, locations spread all over the state.

Here are the ads for guns, walk in and 24-hours later get your gun, some less than the price of a high-end sounds equipped loco!!! Oh and since this weekend is the end-of-summer holiday weekedn they WILL have many of these on sale...

 

They break them down into three categories...

Handguns - http://www.fleetfarm.com/category/hunting/firearms/handguns

 

Hunting Rifles - http://www.fleetfarm.com/category/hunting/firearms/rifles?q=&howMany=48&sortOrder=ascending

 

Tacticals - http://www.fleetfarm.com/category/hunting/firearms/tactical?q=&howMany=24&sortOrder=ascending

 

If ANYONE can explain to me why the tactical section is even sensibly an option I'd love to hear it!  Hunting bambi with these isn't "sport"???

 

The "well defended" second amendment IMHO probably should stand, BUT, with the obvious and original purpose/intent OF THE TIMES, and anyone who wants to open-carry a muzzle-loading musket has my full support, THAT is what the founding father envisioned...

 

NOTE: I have fired many weapons, and used to own a target-competition .357 S&W revolver. I sold it when I had kids, as the safest gun in the wolrd is one NOT in easy access to my friends and family. That includes not on my property, ever, period.

[ZiderHead]

Well-armed? definitely. Well-regulated? Hmm …

 

 

btw whens the next series of Curb Your Enthusiasm coming out?

[Ozexpatriate]

The topic of this thread is an sad accident whose proximate cause was quite simply lax firing range safety procedures.

 

The systemic context however is one where politicisation of the second amendment has led to widespread promotion of the idea that firearms are simply inanimate tools that only cause harm when used with evil intent or, worse, are playthings. The existence of a business called "Bullets and Burgers" whose purpose is to let customers use fully automatic weapons in a 'Desert Storm' setting amply demonstrates this mindset.

 

The "well defended" second amendment IMHO probably should stand, BUT, with the obvious and original purpose/intent OF THE TIMES, and anyone who wants to open-carry a muzzle-loading musket has my full support, THAT is what the founding father envisioned...

On June 8, 1789, James Madison (the de-facto leader of the house in the first Congress) introduced the US Bill of Rights to the Congress. It included the following.

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I think it's interesting to compare this with George Mason's Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776). Madison collaborated with Mason, particularly helping him with Section 16 - the religious rights clause. It was source material for Madison and you can see the echos in what became part of the Constitution:

Section 13. That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

I'll let readers judge for themselves what these mean in an historical context that goes back almost 400 years and how the emphasis has shifted in time to the last two clauses of the amendment.

 

The concept of militias being more effective to the defence of liberty than a standing army entirely collapsed during the War of 1812, notably 200 years ago last Sunday at the Battle of Bladensburg (which led to the burning of Washington on August 24, 1814.) The United States has essentially had a standing army ever since.

[lakeview770]

I agree with my original statement and having lived here in the US for a while now I still don’t understand the love of guns. How as a country allow minors even supervised to use a weapon never mind an automatic one at that, why does a child need to use a gun? So at 9 years old she can use a gun yet she has to be 15 to get a drivers permit and 21 to drink what passes for beer here? 

 

Andy

[froobyone]

Regardless of my personal views on whether Joe Public should have access to automatic weapons, which will remain personal, the fact that a nine year old girl was handed an Uzi is nothing more than astounding.It beggers my belief that a responsible person and responsible parents would allow that to happen. 

Having fired an assortment of automatic weapons with the kind permission of the British Army and RAF. I can only say that firing any short barrelled gun on automatic is verging on lunacy.

The first time I fired a Sterling Submachine gun, the range officer went to great lengths to explain, "Every war movie you've ever seen is wrong! When they leap over the wall blasting away with their Stens. Total c**p." (He didn't say c**p)

He said that no one could hold a Sterling down on full auto. We thought as a man "Until now..."

He wasn't wrong.

Not one of us could even get the second round out of the magazine anywhere near the target. I suspect a lot of birds had a flew close shaves though.

Totally impractical. Spray and pray.

Compared to an Uzi, the Sterling is practically a sniper rifle!

I'm saddened by the untimely death of any human being, but I have to confess, I feel ever-so-slightly less sympathy for people who run into lion enclosures, play chicken with trains, hang off tall buildings or give nine year old girls Uzis. 

My main sympathies lie with the girl and how she must feel. I hope that she never wants to hold a gun again and then maybe something good will come out of this. 



 

[Ceptic]

Quote snip......

 

 

"My main sympathies lie with the girl and how she must feel. I hope that she never wants to hold a gun again and then maybe something good will come out of this". 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 I agree, but,..... with Parents like her's, .... I wouldn't bet on it.