Ever wonder if a 9 year old girl could fire a fully auto Uzi?

Which country is this country – Sudan? Somalia?

Just because it is happening doesn’t make it right. — In what manner does this have even a tiny relation with the Sudan or Somalia.
Your narrow minded ignorance is overriding your thought process.

Wonderful. In America that would be a great help to those loner kids, you know, the weird ones who don’t have many friends, who have been bullied for their choice in music or fashion, the ones who are…different. It might mean they get a few more when they go walkabout at school with their daddy’s armoury… — Oh yes the liberal talking point bs about how evil bullying is even though it is no worse now than it was in the past but liberals are quick to start passing laws that will, successfully of course, start forcing mankind to stop being what they are by nature and be what the government considers proper citizens — BRILLIANT!

In the past if confronted by a bully, parents, in the majority, simply told kids to stand up for them selves, but now the parents go whining how there overly protected little brat is special and must be coddled.
Oddly there was a bit on this yesterday on NPR that this action by parents is causing children in schools to be depressed, and feel like failures, when they find out that they now must solve problems, far more important than being bullied, by them selves and there is no one there to coddle them.
(As a side note, if kids do get into a scuffle, in the past they were sent to the principle who called the parents and the parents dealt with each child.
Now it becomes a crime, police are called and every ones life is ruined except the wannabe lenninists running the school with their no discreation, no exception policy.
Of course this is why kids are expelled for pointing fingers like a gun, or having a trinket on a bracelet that resembles a gun.
That is bullying but it is legal because the school government is doing it.)

1984, only it came about a few years later than predicted.

You can’t talk that way about the American constitution. You just can’t.
Although despite them being so generous with the idea that every American can have a fire arm, they do display a little meanness when it comes to nuclear weapons – why are they not happy with the idea of Iran having them, for example? —-

Oh yes the instant jump from firearms to nuclear weapons.
A too commonly spouted analogy that is ludicrous except to those who cannot address the topic in a reasonable manner .

The statement about our Constitution is a most common one by persons who live with a government, that if it says crap, the populace will drop their pants and squat.
That makes them very good citizens I guess but it is still rather sad.

“

Re 25

I wasn’t referring to US schools but, rather our home grown product.

That (maybe) they’d be better served if they were taught how to get on with others, rather than kill them?

That is a myopic statement at best and paranoid at worst.
If you think they teach how to kill people, you live in a very small sad world.
I guess then also, the Olympic trap shooters are just trained killers out practicing how to kill more efficiently, brilliant.
—————————-

John Green

Or, even how to properly read and write.

Unfortunately, that is a problems that actually does infest a growing number of U.S. grade school systems, especially as in most schools one can no longer flunk grades till one gets it done properly, they just herd them out he doors like cattle.
The minorities are the ones herded along most quickly as to hold them back is considered a racist act.

Do automatic weapons really have inaccuracy designed in?

From a recent documentary I saw then apparently yes. They were talking about and demonstrating WW2 machine guns, Sten, Tommy etc. They were looking at the Bren gun and firing it and the shots are closely grouped. This is apparently a disadvantage for this type of weapon where shot needs to spread to make sure ‘they keep their heads down’ when being fired at. For maximum effect the shot needs to spread. They stated that modern automatic weapons are actually designed with a degree of inaccuracy to get the shot to spread.
It was on the telly so it must be definitely, certainly, absolutely true 🙂

Well, you could always go by the results of an IQ test; that should cut the possible ownership pool down considerably.

Yep, the sooner we develop an affordable and reliable method of screening out those who have access to firearms / vehicles / children / dangerous-animals / alcohol / knives / drugs / fireworks / fatty-foods / sugary-drinks / chips (fries) / crisps (chips) / cigarettes (delete as applicable) and who are a danger to themselves and others, the better…

…though I’m not sure a high IQ is any more a measure of responsibility than anything else! 😉

Presumably he is referring to the fact that automatic weapons are designed to have a degree of inaccuracy built in to get a spread of shot on the battlefield whereas a rifle or a weapon on single shot is aimed at a specific target and therefore more likely to score a hit.

Do automatic weapons really have inaccuracy designed in?

Well, you could always go by the results of an IQ test; that should cut the possible ownership pool down considerably.

…should there not be a Minimum age as to when a person can discharge any weapon?

Like age is any measure of responsibility! :rolleyes:

Tens of Thousands of children learn to fire and fire firearms in this country every year.

Which country is this country – Sudan? Somalia?

Just because it is happening doesn’t make it right.

PS:A rapidly growing number of schools are beginning to offer some shooting sports as part of the the schools sport program.

Wonderful. In America that would be a great help to those loner kids, you know, the weird ones who don’t have many friends, who have been bullied for their choice in music or fashion, the ones who are…different. It might mean they get a few more when they go walkabout at school with their daddy’s armoury…

You would think so but I find it amazing that such a great country still clings on to a 200 year old law that was referring to early revolvers and muskets!

You can’t talk that way about the American constitution. You just can’t.
Although despite them being so generous with the idea that every American can have a fire arm, they do display a little meanness when it comes to nuclear weapons – why are they not happy with the idea of Iran having them, for example?;o)

You would think so but I find it amazing that such a great country still clings on to a 200 year old law that was referring to early revolvers and muskets!

When one thinks, and I stand to be corrected, that the minimum age to drink Alcohol over the Pond is 21 yrs of age,as is their right, should there not be a Minimum age as to when a person can discharge any weapon, be it on a Range under instruction or otherwise?.
Jim.
Lincoln .7

[QUOTE=Creaking Door;2164659]How so? I can’t think of any reason that full-auto capability would result in fewer casualties?

Presumably he is referring to the fact that automatic weapons are designed to have a degree of inaccuracy built in to get a spread of shot on the battlefield whereas a rifle or a weapon on single shot is aimed at a specific target and therefore more likely to score a hit.

Or, even how to properly read and write.

Tens of Thousands of children learn to fire and fire firearms in this country every year.
So what is your point.

That (maybe) they’d be better served if they were taught how to get on with others, rather than kill them?

No, what is “vacuous” is failing to acknowledge the crass stupidity of giving a child a gun -any gun- in the first place. But never mind, the instructor got his “just rewards” for his mistake.

Acknowledge what?
Your ignorance?

Tens of Thousands of children learn to fire and fire firearms in this country every year.

So what is your point.

PS:
A rapidly growing number of schools are beginning to offer some shooting sports as part of the the schools sport program.

I remember about the time of Hungerford one of the ‘experts’ suggesting that had Ryan’s AK been capable of firing full auto casualties would have been considerably lower. Whilst he was totally correct, he didn’t get much in the way of kudos for saying so.

How so? I can’t think of any reason that full-auto capability would result in fewer casualties?

Firing fully-automatic would have exhausted his ammunition sooner but only if he selected full-auto or if his weapon could only fire in that mode? Didn’t some of Ryan’s victims also survive being hit?

I’m not sure I’d be too keen to take careful aim with an AK-47 that could only fire on full-auto but is that what this ‘expert’ was suggesting?

Stupidity has just rewards and the dead man got his, that said; whether it was a single shot rifle, shotgun or any other hand held weapon is a vacuous argument.

How many round the firearm can discharge means nothing except to those who have an agenda to shout from there soapbox.
Had the girl mishandled a single-shot weapon that fired, struck and killed an instructor the soap-box people would be spouting the same — Nine year old child, blah,blah,blah, blah.
The fact it was a sub-machine gun just makes them shout their vacuous point more belligerently.

The only point that can forwarded, is that the instructor broke rules of safety and paid the price for ignoring safety.

No, what is “vacuous” is failing to acknowledge the crass stupidity of giving a child a gun -any gun- in the first place. But never mind, the instructor got his “just rewards” for his mistake.

I have better ways of spending my time than getting sucked into this kind of rubbish again, so I’m out.

The only point that can forwarded, is that the instructor broke rules of safety and paid the price for ignoring safety.

One safety rule ignored – were there others?
Had the instructor not been standing there to take the bullet, was the range’s design such that it could have travelled into any spectators behind her and to her left?

Well actually, in this case, whether it is single shot or not is highly relevant. Since it was apparently the switch to full auto that caused the fatality.

I remember about the time of Hungerford one of the ‘experts’ suggesting that had Ryan’s AK been capable of firing full auto casualties would have been considerably lower. Whilst he was totally correct, he didn’t get much in the way of kudos for saying so.

Moggy

I nearly posted something like this, but I was wary of dragging up all the old arguments we used to have here about gun control. I guess the pro-gun lobby will say it was just an accident, accidents happen, etc, etc , but it’s just absolute bloody madness to encourage 9 year old kids to play with Uzi sub-machine guns in the first place.

Stupidity has just rewards and the dead man got his, that said; whether it was a single shot rifle, shotgun or any other hand held weapon is a vacuous argument.

How many round the firearm can discharge means nothing except to those who have an agenda to shout from there soapbox.
Had the girl mishandled a single-shot weapon that fired, struck and killed an instructor the soap-box people would be spouting the same — Nine year old child, blah,blah,blah, blah.
The fact it was a sub-machine gun just makes them shout their vacuous point more belligerently.

The only point that can forwarded, is that the instructor broke rules of safety and paid the price for ignoring safety.