No doubt the anti-gunners will seize on the tragedy in Arizona to further their civilian disarmament agenda. They’ll conflate fully automatic firearms with semi-automatic firearms to “prove” that guns are dangerous (which they are). Too dangerous for civilians (which they aren’t). The antis will also use this as ammo against anyone who suggests – as I do – that the ban on fully-automatic firearms is unconstitutional and unnecessary. If it saves one life . . . At the same time, I wonder if the AZ homicide will reignite the furore that surrounded the Uzi submachine gun back when Don Johnson was The Man. I hope not. The Uzi is a battle-tested beauty; the world’s most prolific sub. There’s no reason Americans shouldn’t be able to buy a full-auto Uzi. Yes?
I personally think it’s always smart to start girls off with fully auto UZI’s at 9 years old…face palm.
If all you had was a full-auto Uzi, you probably wouldn’t want anyone to be able to say you couldn’t start your kids in on guns with it.
No one here is saying “there should be a law” as far as I can tell, but some things are smart and some things aren’t. Maybe my future children will be competent enough to handle an Uzi at 9 years old, but if I had the least bit of doubt, I would simply hold off until I was sure they could. If that means they don’t get to shoot until they are 15-20 years old, so be it. That’s better than handing someone a firearm they aren’t prepared for.
I would have loved to shoot an UZI at 9. Pretty sure my dad would not have let me just yet though. I also wasn’t 45lbs and had some previous shooting practice. No, there should not be a law. The law would obviously not apply to just 9 and younger, it would be for “children up to age 26” as they’re apparently now known.
No one is saying the shooting incident wasn’t a very terrible episode, and that the events leading to it (in the immediate) were not borderline negligent.
But stuff-happens, and will continue to until God comes back, bubble wrap your head and put a helmet on, but move-on, press-on.
If you need a pause, take a knee, I’m pushing back now.
You shouldn’t start teaching kids to drive cars with a 5 ton truck, and you shouldn’t start teaching them to shoot guns with a full-auto firearm, period.
Two hundred years ago you couldn’t find a pair of kids in the same town that could drive a donkey-cart down the center of a wooded country path. Now kids can text while driving (mostly successfully) in traffic at highway speeds. If all you have is a 5-ton truck, additional care might be necessary, but kids in Africa can AK spray-n-pray you before they graduate diapers, let’s not start a movement that’ll put us behind that curve.
@Joe R.
“Now kids can text while driving (mostly successfully) in traffic at highway speeds.” – Joe R.
Lol! No, they doooon’t. There are tons of accidents that happen because drivers were texturing. First you say it’s OK for kids to shoot full-auto weapons, then you say it’s safe to text & drive, and the next thing you will probably say is that it also safe to ride a bike without a helmet or using your hands – You’re obviously not the person anyone should listen to when it comes to safety. BTW. you might want to take one of those online driver courses, responsible drivers shouldn’t need to get into accidents because of people like you.
“kids in Africa can AK spray-n-pray you before they graduate diapers, let’s not start a movement that’ll put us behind that curve.” – Joe R.
That’s because they are Child Soldiers and no one cares about them! It doesn’t matter if they are safe! If they die, the people using them will just find another child. IGNORANT! We are also not running a competition with Africa for who get their kids shooting first, shooting is not something a child needs to learn to live here in the US.
Kids text and drive. Some don’t make it. Some airline pilots talk to the tower or their co-pilot on final approach in bad weather, some don’t make it. The problem is not the activity, or the actor, it is not the pairing. It is (overall) more harmful to ‘kids’ to not be careful starting them on guns, then to not start them on guns, should the kids from some-other-country decide to / or be sent to play guns over here. Unlikely? You keep-on hoping.
@ JoeR “Some airline pilots talk to the tower or their co-pilot on final approach in bad weather, some don’t make it.”
As an airline pilot, that’s gotta be one of the silliest analogies I’ve ever heard. Firstly, in 25 years of professional commercial aviation, I have never heard of an airline accident caused by the pilot talking to tower or his copilot on final approach or in bad weather. Why?
1. The pilot talking to the tower is not the one flying the plane (basic airline operating procedure is that one pilot flies, the other does the talking – ALWAYS).
2. Talking to the copilot does not require either taking your eyes off the road or a significant diversion of attention, as such interchanges consist ONLY of standard calls and responses which are practiced over and over in the simulator and discussion of other things is forbidden (it’s called the “sterile cockpit” concept).
And none of this has anything to do with allowing a 9 year old girl to fire an Uzi on fully automatic. In the airline industry we don’t let 9 year olds do stuff with complex or potentially dangerous equipment which they don’t have the physical/mental capacity to safely do. That’s because we’re not morons and we value our lives and those of our loved ones.
If I had a full – auto UZI. I could afford literally ANY OTHER GUN.
If you were able to possess and feed a full auto Uzi, then I very highly doubt that it is all you have…or could have.
My sons and now my granddaughter (age7) have been able to handle my Uzi since they were 5. Never ever ever had one misfire or accidental discharge. The reason EDUCATION!!!! They were all properly trained and thats the key to having a safe and fun day at the range.
In over 20 years of teaching and allowing my children to handle and fire exotic weapons there has not been ANY kind of accident and we have had many enjoyable days on the range. Today included.
Proper training is the key. I would never allow anyone to handle any of my firearms untill I absolutely knew they were trained and can handle them.
One thing is certain, I raised one son who placed in the top 10 at the U.S. Army National marksman competition 2 years ago and recieved a scholorship for college so teaching him to shoot was a very positive thing.
If all you had was a full-auto Uzi, then you shouldn’t teach your kids, period.
If you are unwilling to buy or rent them something they are capable of handling and is safe for them, then you have no business starting them off on shooting. Starting them on shooting is not the most important thing, their safety and the safety of those around them while handling weapons is. If you can’t be that responsible, then you shouldn’t be a parent.
Yeap, I also like to start (15-16 year old) new drivers on something with at least 800 horsepower to only the rear wheels on a curvy mountain road. I think things will go great.
I think anyone who watched The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift will completely agree!
After all, society has shown us that it is perfectly acceptable to rely on Hollywood expertise for all life situations.(sarcasm)
Load 1. Fire 1. Repeat until comfortable. Then load 2. Fire 2. Repeat.
This. Also, they should have used the shoulder stock. No way would I ever hand a fully automatic firearm to a kid that age with no experience and a full magazine. You need to learn control and the weapon’s rate of fire.
Also why the heck would you stand to the left of an inexperienced, physically small shooter with a fully-loaded Uzi, then stick your face forward of her midline?
It’s one of those tourist places in AZ where out-of-towners go to pay a ton of money to do the things they can’t do do but secretly wish they could do in their home state. I’m sure it went like “Oh William, wouldn’t it be cool if little Muffy got to shoot the Uzi?” “Sure Margo, l agree that would be most delightful”
It’s pretty clear that the girl was uncomfortable with it walking up to the line. I recognize that from my own kids as well as my friend’s kids when we are shooting. What they are comfortable doing, they do with gusto. Plus, the instructor was probably more familiar with that category of weapon being wielded by someone with a bit more strength. Obviously there were a lot of mistakes made, that’s just my thought on the line of thinking that might have gotten the instructor killed.
your username is familiar to me. does janai ring a bell?
My reaction to the tragedy would be no different if he was killed trying to show the little girl how to use a chainsaw. It was a stupid idea, and now he is dead, and this little girl is likely permanently traumatized.
Even an un-nuetered Uzi has a semi-auto setting on the switch, none of them are auto-only… Which, by the way, you can see the girl operate several times (even in the video) just fine.
She handled it on semi, kids in Africa handle AKs on auto all the time. I completely reject that somehow this was a “incorrect” choice of firearm. Maybe you can think of better choices. But seriously, what is a better first gun for a young child then a 9mm with a stock (you can see the stock in the video)?
As the adult there the instructor should have had a handle on this incident. Why was he standing so far forward of her? Why didn’t he anticipate that the gun might recoil in that way? Why didn’t he also have a hand up to catch the gun? Maybe the Auto setting WAS too much for her… But that’s not the Uzi’s fault. That’s the instructors fault. No literally. HE switched it to Auto.
CMMG .22 ar-15 upper and a giggle switch lower.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGvlBFjwAgw
“kids in Africa handle AKs on auto all the time” That’s a bit glib. When African kid soldiers have fatal accidents with AKs, believe me, nobody in the West ever hears about it (and probably nobody in Africa cares much.) For all we know, those kid soldiers may kill more friendlies by accident, than enemy by deliberation. If your point is that many kids can be carefully and thoroughly trained to handle an Uzi or AK, I think that’s probably true. Note “carefully and thoroughly trained,” the exact opposite of the AZ accident.
Full auto AK’s have a slower rate of fire, so I suspect the speed at which they muzzle climb to be slower, wouldn’t know as I’ve not shot a full auto AK.
The Uzi is the only full auto firearm I have ever had the pleasure of shooting. And I would buy one in an instant if they where available on the civilian market in a way in which I didn’t have to jump through do many hoops. There’s also the current cost of registered Uzis that keeps me from owning one more than anything else.
“There’s no reason Americans shouldn’t be able to buy a full-auto Uzi. Yes?”
I agree. And someone’s reason for wanting/having/using one does not matter.
A person can display anything they want on a sign in front of City Hall and they do NOT need anyone’s approval for their reason for standing there with a sign … nor do they need anyone’s approval of what they put on the sign. Likewise, a person has the right to own any firearm they desire for any reason or no reason at all. As long as a person has not used a firearm (whether it fires in full auto or not) to illegally harm someone, there is no reason to infringe on their right.
I don’t blame the Uzi, I blame the Darwin candidate who handed a full auto weapon to a child who had little if any experience with any firearm, much less full auto.
NFA ’34 was a crock and while I have no desire to get a Full Auto anything, I want a Silencer for my 300 blackout, but have been unwilling (so far) to go through all the related delay and ATF BS to get one.
New full auto should be available to any one who can pass a background check, just like any other firearm.. This crap where they choked off the supply of new full auto guns as a trade off to the anti intellectual, anti logic, anti gun crowd needs to be undone, but will never happen.
“I have no desire to get a Full Auto anything”
But if you are buying an AR or AK or such, wouldn’t you still prefer it to have the option even if you had little intent to use it? Without the silly laws it would be the same cost for a select fire.
But it didn’t save one life.
Blame the instructor end of story
Of course. The fact that we have these restrictions on full auto’s, SBR’s, and suppressors, means we have to fight harder for semi-automatic firearms. It’s the principle of the thing, without principle it becomes a numbers game determined by cultural inertia. This is how the game is played. Once the boobs in Washington vote for “universal background checks”, the fight will then go to registration (an example).
It should be allowed. Accident or not, I say this with a knot in my gut: Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.
I first ran across this story this morning on the BBC web site. Their major point was how astonishing it is that children in America are allowed to shoot.
No surprise there. I don’t think English people even know what self-sufficiency or standing up for yourself means (SAS notwithstanding).
Anyone should be able to own/shoot anything. If you injure yourself, well, tough nuggies. If you someone else, then you get prosecuted and pay a penalty. That should be the rule. Full stop.
But if you are looking at messaging which is all the rage today. (see NRA diversity campaign, NSSF crap etc) … then all the gun guy BS like FPS Russia, giggling jiggling girls being led to first time shotgun shooting a 10 gauge magnum, and stupid ricochets off of steel plates etc might want to be given a second thought. Folks watch more of this than Rob Leatham or Doug Koenig. And god help us Camp Perry Nationals is so NOT today. Oh well. I have to go download some crazy app on my iPhone 9K.
“Anyone should be able to own/shoot anything. If you injure yourself, well, tough nuggies. ”
Indeed. +1
You can’t legislate common sense. Letting someone with weak hands shoot a full auto with an extremely fast rate of fire and a full magazine might not be smart, but accidents happen.
I would prefer to see full autos below $2k but that’s only gonna happen when the ban is repealed as unconstitutional.
Without a ban, select fire guns would cost almost the exact same as the current semi’s. There almost no difference in manufacturing cost.
In the case of open bolt firearms, they would be even cheaper than their neutered and bastardized closed-bold semi versions.
I don’t see anything wrong with owning fully automatic weapons. I’m not seeing why owning such is ILLEGAL. (I know about the permit, please spare me the long winded response).
If you pay your taxes, your not a damned felon, creep, thug, or the like, what the hell difference does it make if you have ONE fully automatic weapon in your collection (I prefer “arsenal” over collection… lol).
The author’s right. We must not blame the Uzi. But “WE” won’t be the ones doing it.
Who will, you ask?
Leftist media. Those moms in action. Foreign entities, i.e. The British, et cetera, that think we’re all a bunch of cowboys. One of the groups starts, and the rest all jump on the bandwagon.
I’m hoping to God that Barack doesn’t hold a press conference and talk about the disparities of the Uzi on American Soil.
Sigh.
In principle, I believe one had a right to full-auto, in practice, I see it as a double-edged sword.
As a plus, if a shooting happens, and the media starts screaming about full-auto weapons, we can point out to them that these are not full-auto, that those are already banned for the most part.
As a minus, by having outlawed full-auto weapons, now the new goal is to outlaw semiautomatic weapons, or at least semiautomatic weapons with detachable box magazines, because “no one ‘needs’ such a weapon.” The idea is to get over an additional hump, to make it seem like the public having access to a type of weapon is quite normal. Many for example accept it fully that full-auto weapons are only available to the military and law enforcement since they are outlawed now (minus pre-1986 ones that you have to jump through hoops and pay a large amount of $$$ to own). So the goal of the antis is to ban semiautomatics with detachable box magazines, so that it then becomes accepted wisdom amongst the general public that semiautomatics with detachable magazines are also only something for law enforcement and the military. For civilians, weapons with fixed magazines would only be what is acceptable.
Also limits on magazine size to instill this.
“… we can point out to them that these are not full-auto, that those are already banned for the most part. we can point out to them that these are not full-auto, that those are already banned for the most part.”
Although this still never seems to sink in anyways…
I have an issue with the claim that guns are dangerous. Firearms are as safe as the operator. Act in careless manner and they’re dangerous. Follow the rules, and they’re no more dangerous than a hammer.
Absolutely.
You went out and bought yourself a Z06 Vette. Then you crashed it, injuring yourself letting it loose on the highway.
It’s that damned Corvette’s fault, I tell ya. Just too dangerous.
There are plenty of people out there that would love to limit power to weight ratios. “You don’t need a car that powerful! Think of the children!”
I don’t understand why people keep saying: “No more dangerous than a hammer”. That is obviously not true. If a psycho gets hold of a hammer and a fully automatic Uzi in a crowded mall, one of those two weapons is clearly more dangerous. I think what you mean to say is that it does not go off and kill people by itself.
The analogy to cars is better, but still makes the opposite point of what you think. Drivers are licensed, and cars are insured. We require training to operate a car, because of the danger to others. It is only for guns where we have made the decision that the danger to others is less important than our right to own guns. Specifically, unlicensed, uninsured guns that we might not be trained for.
You are correct, of course, that the gun was not at fault. But someone was. Either a parent, or an instructor, (or both) made decisions that led to a accidental shooting. An accidental hammering by a nine-year-old would be much less likely to be fatal. Even if the pre-teen had ben driving an overpowered car, I suspect the chance of fatality on a closed course with a professional instructor would have been much lower.
Let’s stop pretending that America’s obsession with guns is no more dangerous than our common ownership of hammers. It is a silly argument that is obviously not true.
I have never pretended that America’s obsession with guns is no more dangerous than our common ownership of hammers because it is illogical to think obsession alone is automatically dangerous. Obsession with something and ownership of something unrelated is not relevant. What a strange thought process indeed.
People don’t keep saying that either, not even the person you responded to. He stated “Follow the rules, and they’re no more dangerous than a hammer.” Most people that preach the hammer argument that you don’t like are saying they are used to kill more than the guns the idiots want to ban.
If the cops can have it the citizen should have it.
Yes, though the same is also true for military arms.
Tragic, yes. But I think we should all be grateful that dude only killed himself with his own stupidity and not the young child. (I don’t think I have to list all of the mistakes he made on this blog).
As far as the Uzi, we’ve all seen the same thing happen with revolvers before. The Uzi is almost irrelevant to the overall issue. As a ‘Firearms Instructor’, he should have known better.
Incident is what we call a ‘self-resolver’ in the IT industry. Root cause took himself out. I feel sorry for the child, but kids have a way of dealing with things often better than adults.
Homicide? Really? Time to brush up on your legal definitions.
Homicide is the killing of one person by another. It includes accidents, self-defense (justifiable homicide), murder, manslaughter and the whole range of killings, some of which are illegal and some of which are not.
Ralph, what seems most like to me is some form of negligence causing a death, but the negligent party is also the party who died, so in that case, I’m not sure any more if the case is a homicide.
^this. RF why are you calling this a homicide?? You really want to label the Uzi holder? It’s suicide by proxy, maybe — unintentional or negligent. But I wouldn’t call it homicide
Poor little girl. You don’t do a kid any favors giving them more gun than they can handle.
I agree with you on every point. I even agree it is the prerogative of a parent/business owner when and how to introduce their children to weapons. Full auto or otherwise.
However, in response to the complete gross negligence shown by all involved in the incident, there has to be some way to hold those responsible legally liable. I said it in the other discussion, if you need to practically hug someone to keep them under control when shooting a gun then it is too much gun for them. If you proceed at that point you are responsible for any negative consequences that occur. At the very least maybe give them only 2 rounds, one in the pipe and one in the mag, then maybe work up to 3 or 4. Popping a full mag into the gun and then switching the selector to FA after she ahs fired only one shot is asking for exactly what happened to happen. This girl’s life is ruined at this point and the instructor is dead because at no point did it occur to anyone that this was a bad idea. Can you imagine having that memory and carrying that weight with you at the age of 9?
You cant legislate stupid, but you sure as hell can punish it. As a result though, all of us will suffer for the stupidity/negligence of the people involved here.
The negligent party has already been punished to the fullest extent possible.
I can rattle off a list of fifty or more power tools off the top of my head, off the shelf at Home Depot, that a nine year old girl (or boy) should not operate, because such individuals do not have the experience, dexterity, grip strength and overall physical stature to operate them safely. That’s why I don’t provide such tools for children’s use.
That has nothing to do with the inherent danger of the tool, because EVERYTHING is potentially dangerous, but rather it has everything to do with the mismatch between tool and operator.
I blame the firearms instructor and the little girl’s parents for this; legally and morally. A typical nine year old girl is what? About four feet and change tall? About 55-70 lbs.? Anyone else at that range who saw the set up to that shoot and realized it was a full auto firearm with a full magazine, is likewise at least morally culpable, if not legally so, for failing to speak up and try to stop it.
There IS a semi-auto mode on the things too.
Yep…if you can afford it, you should be able to buy it. Full auto, SBR’s, SBS’, suppressors, tanks, anti-aircraft, etc. should all be legal. Without a background check. And no, I did not forget to add “/sarc”.
Regarding this incident, it is a tragedy…but you can’t fix stupid.
A tank? WTF would you want with a tank? Let people own whatever firearms are available, sure, but tanks are not firearms and all one person has to do is Google “runaway tank” to see how hard it is to stop someone in one (unless you’re Daryl Dixon that is).
Didn’t say I wanted a tank. Would be cool to drive around and shoot on a tank training range, though. 🙂
And if you limit what people can buy based on “pre-crime” and “could potentially be used to”, then we’d be limited to having nothing
Yes to the topical question.
As an aside – I’d be more impressed with these “torture tests” if they stuck the weapon and the magazine in the mud separately, and then loaded and fired the weapon. It just works…..HAH!
Back in 1996, 7 years old Jessica Dubroff’s parents thought breaking the record for youngest person to fly across the USA would be a good idea. In aviation there is a syndrome called “Get there-itis” Meaning you take stupid chances trying to complete the flight when you are tired, weather poor, or there is a known problem with the aircraft.
Having a TV media schedule to keep, the instructor co-pilot elected to fly the aircraft loaded close to gross max weight into known icing conditions.
Took off, iced up. Stall, spin, splat.
Handing an eight year old a loaded full-auto uzi?
Play stupid games, win deadly stupid prizes.
The MP5 is far superior to the Uzi in almost every regard. I’ve shot both full auto. That did not stop me from buying a UC-9 Centurion, Uzi clone. While not awesome to shoot, the UC-9 is awesome to hold and see every time I open my safe.
Also, the Hughes amendment is crap and should be overturn immediately.
Word. I enjoyed my limited experience with the MP5, but pistol cartridges just aren’t as boner inducing as i would like.
What Uzi was this exactly? I know there’s a video, but i’m in no mood to see a man shot. If it was the micro, everyone should have seen that coming. The mini is pretty marginal, but something in the micro-uzi, mac11 category, a machine pistol, isn’t even the best idea for an adult
automatic or semi-automatic, it’s just semantics isn’t it?
Yeah, Don.
Heh.
In the early 80’s, before the cut off, you could buy a new in the box uzi at the gun shop I frequented in WV for 350 bucks plus the 200 buck stamp.
I understand they’ve gone up in price a little since then.
Just a ‘lil bit.
Yup, thanks a lot Ronald Reagan.
Kids get killed by dogs more often than guns but the press doesn’t give a damn and thus nobody gives a damn.
Kids have fired fully-automatic weapons without any ensuing deaths more often than the opposite, just like most kids who interacted with dogs didn’t die and most kids don’t fall into swimming pools and drown.
There’s a way of teaching a kid how to shoot a Uzi and then there’s this. You can’t fix stupid nor outlaw it. Stupid dogs and stupid swimming pools still murder far more kids than guns ever will.
Correct and thank you.
Diane Sawyer was all over this on the ABC evening news. It might be better to start the kids off with a CZ bolt action .22lr rifle. If you can find the ammo…
The firs rifle I ever fired was a .22 Savage-Stevens Favorite.
Maybe if citizens could own full auto weapons, training in their use would be more pervasive and less accidents like this would occur because more people would know better what they were doing. I love this ridiculous idea that some how if a thing is dangerous we want people to know as little about it as possible. That way when they do come in contact with it we can be sure the results will be bad. Hence, perpetuating our believe that the bad thing needs to be isolated.
Another example, bombs are bad. So, we took the chapters out of all the chemistry books that show kids in school that most bombs are made from stuff under the kitchen sink. Great idea right? Now kids won’t learn in school how to make bombs. Congratz, now kids in the rest of the world, even ones who don’t go to school know chemistry that American kids don’t. That makes us competitive in the world economy right? I’m not advocating bombs. I am attempting to illustrate when you ban things (and knowledge) because they are “Dangerous” all you do is limit yourself.
Co-worker today commented on this tragedy.”The only reason for any machine gun is to create mass casualties.”
I replied ,”Bullshit! The purpose of a machine gun is to provide covering fire, while the marksman creates mass casualties, ”
Besides, if they gottum, inwantum.
I am against any legislation coming from this. However, this incident shows what can happen when a person exhibits a lack of common sense. I would not hand a fully automatic centerfire pistol to ANY nine-year old. Even an experienced shooter would lack the necessary upper body strength to safely control a fully automatic pistol. There is a reason you start a child out with a smallbore, rimfire, rifle – the recoil is virtually nonexistent and the gun is long enough to make it more difficult to “sweep” the muzzle in an unsafe direction. This story is one of those situations where everyone loses – the girl, the instructor, and the shooting community as a whole. All because of a poor decision on the part of the instructor.
Sub-machine guns are incredibly fun to shoot, and should not be vilified. Nonetheless, the difficulty of controlling full auto fire makes them something that I would only trust to an older, more experienced shooter.
I don’t know if it’s worth mentioning but the uzi’s that killed the instructor and the boy Christopher Bizilj looked like mini uzi’s with their traditional stocks. The full size uzi might of been a little harder to turn on them. God rest their souls….
The boy in Mass actually had the micro uzi.
“The Uzi is a battle-tested beauty; the world’s most prolific sub.”
You spelled MP-5 wrong.
Don’t blame the gun! I put my 9mm gun on the table and said go ahead kill somebody I dare you to.
It did not move an inch. I even yelled at it and threatened to beat it if it did not shoot somebody.
The gun is innocent.
I have seen older girls fire Uzis, and full auto Glocks, but they were given much more instruction than 1 shot of semi auto, before going full auto. Also, the instructor instructed the (college age) girls to keep their finger off of the trigger, and reached over their shoulder to keep his hand above the weapon, in case they couldn’t keep the muzzle down when firing on full auto. They were also warned that the weapon has a tendency to rise in full auto mode. We don’t know what instruction did or did not occur in this case, but unfortunately it looks like it was inadequate. Based on the video, it sounds like the shots occurred right after he said “full auto.” Perhaps the girl shot before he was ready, but he did not tell her to keep her finger off the trigger. I do not fault the girl here. If the parents wanted her to shoot something full auto, then a select-fire AR15 variant or M4 would have been a much better choice (lower recoil, easier to handle, etc.) I wonder if the Uzi was chosen because it is “little?”
Facts of the matter: the girl shot her instructor because she was incapable of handling the recoil.
Her irresponsible parents should have never let her shoot it, and the instructor shouldn’t have let her shoot it either. If you are going to teach a kid to shoot, it should be on a semi-automatic weapon. Furthermore, note the words “WEAPON.” These are weapons, not toys, and kids don’t need to learn how to use weapons, they can learn that eventually… for example, maybe: when they are responsible enough to take responsibility for taking another person’s life.
Comments are closed.