FWIS3

I have no idea.
Teach how to shoot with a small single shot rifle.
An air rifle is ideal. Makes you also get exercise if you get the single pump versions.
Then go to a .22LR, single shot or feed one round at a time.
Keep working up till you get to high recoil firearms.
Then start small calibre (.22LR) again for fully auto's.
And do the same thing.

If you can get a 9 year old to do all that proficiently then go up to higher calibres, but short of lying or a freak of nature, it's not going to happen.
At least not safely.

What he said ^

It's also worth mentioning that the instructor broke several range safety rules.

I found some of the commentary in the NYTimes article interesting. Mainly the part that everyone was referring to this incident as a "terrible tragedy."

I mean on the one hand yes, someone's life was lost, and that is tragic. On the other hand, c'mon, this wasn't some unpreventable thing- this was negligence. (I mean I am not a lawyer, but pretty sure that's the definition of it.)

Negligent and tragic and are not mutually exclusive terms, so I don't have a problem with people referring to it as a tragedy.

I do have a problem with letting a 9 yo girl shoot an automatic weapon, exactly because of what happened. Many of us here are familiar with firearms. How many times have you seen a newbie fail to keep the muzzle pointed downrange because he or she got excited when the gun fired? And that's with a single-shot or semi-auto. Now add into the equation a fully automatic weapon with a short barrel.

This was an accident waiting to happen and I blame the owners of the gun range. And the instructor, of course, but he's already paid for his negligence. What if the girl had shot someone else too?

SciFiFisher wrote:What he said ^

It's also worth mentioning that the instructor broke several range safety rules.

I'm curious as to whether this comes under the juristriction of OHSA?

Swift wrote:

SciFiFisher wrote:What he said ^

It's also worth mentioning that the instructor broke several range safety rules.

I'm curious as to whether this comes under the juristriction of OHSA?

Probably not. IIRC OSHA rules don't apply to companies with fewer than 50 employees. But, you can bet his insurance just went through the roof.

geonuc wrote:Negligent and tragic and are not mutually exclusive terms, so I don't have a problem with people referring to it as a tragedy.

I do have a problem with letting a 9 yo girl shoot an automatic weapon, exactly because of what happened. Many of us here are familiar with firearms. How many times have you seen a newbie fail to keep the muzzle pointed downrange because he or she got excited when the gun fired? And that's with a single-shot or semi-auto. Now add into the equation a fully automatic weapon with a short barrel.

This was an accident waiting to happen and I blame the owners of the gun range. And the instructor, of course, but he's already paid for his negligence. What if the girl had shot someone else too?

I think the parents have some responsibility in this too. I don't have a problem with teaching a child how to use weapons safely. But, automatic weapons? really?

geonuc wrote:
I do have a problem with letting a 9 yo girl shoot an automatic weapon, exactly because of what happened. Many of us here are familiar with firearms. How many times have you seen a newbie fail to keep the muzzle pointed downrange because he or she got excited when the gun fired? And that's with a single-shot or semi-auto. Now add into the equation a fully automatic weapon with a short barrel.

This was an accident waiting to happen and I blame the owners of the gun range. And the instructor, of course, but he's already paid for his negligence. What if the girl had shot someone else too?

Even if she didn't, she now has a fucked up life knowing she killed a someone.
All because her parents thought it would be cool to push her to do something so dangerous.
I also doubt a 9 year old can make the logical leap that it wasn't actually her fault so she's going to be pretty messed up.
And, according to the golden rule, the 9 year old girl was at fault and there will be people telling her that deliberately or incidentally.
Just another reason why I don't agree with the way firearms safety/rules are taught in this country.
Almost all the blame is placed on the shooter like it's mandatory.
Then because it makes no logical sense they have to put things down to tragic accident so we get people doing stupid shit and it's called an accident.
The result it's really hard to see the underlying problem when a person is that indoctrinated with such stupid rules and mentality of a drone.

IMHO for what it's worth, the owners of the range, the instructor and the parents are all completely irresponsible to allow this.
That's my opinion as a long time shooter, from a different country.
The general shooting community in the USA however is going to call it a tragic accident.

Rommie wrote:I found some of the commentary in the NYTimes article interesting. Mainly the part that everyone was referring to this incident as a "terrible tragedy."

I mean on the one hand yes, someone's life was lost, and that is tragic. On the other hand, c'mon, this wasn't some unpreventable thing- this was negligence. (I mean I am not a lawyer, but pretty sure that's the definition of it.)

English pet peeve time. This is the very definition of tragic. What's not tragic is when a bunch of people die in a tsunami or some other natural disaster.

Tragic is a result of a character flaw in which a human does something that is easily preventable due to hubris. This situation is highly tragic. Just probably not in the way the people you're referring to are incorrectly using the word.

SciFi Chick wrote:

Rommie wrote:I found some of the commentary in the NYTimes article interesting. Mainly the part that everyone was referring to this incident as a "terrible tragedy."

I mean on the one hand yes, someone's life was lost, and that is tragic. On the other hand, c'mon, this wasn't some unpreventable thing- this was negligence. (I mean I am not a lawyer, but pretty sure that's the definition of it.)

English pet peeve time. This is the very definition of tragic. What's not tragic is when a bunch of people die in a tsunami or some other natural disaster.

Tragic is a result of a character flaw in which a human does something that is easily preventable due to hubris. This situation is highly tragic. Just probably not in the way the people you're referring to are incorrectly using the word.

It is tragic what people have done to the English language.

Blame the Saturday night fever.

Swift wrote:

SciFi Chick wrote:

Rommie wrote:I found some of the commentary in the NYTimes article interesting. Mainly the part that everyone was referring to this incident as a "terrible tragedy."

I mean on the one hand yes, someone's life was lost, and that is tragic. On the other hand, c'mon, this wasn't some unpreventable thing- this was negligence. (I mean I am not a lawyer, but pretty sure that's the definition of it.)

English pet peeve time. This is the very definition of tragic. What's not tragic is when a bunch of people die in a tsunami or some other natural disaster.

Tragic is a result of a character flaw in which a human does something that is easily preventable due to hubris. This situation is highly tragic. Just probably not in the way the people you're referring to are incorrectly using the word.

It is tragic what people have done to the English language.

Fair enough. But what can I say, language evolves.

Apparently the range's solution is now they've raised the age limit from 8 to 12 years. Because we all know there's no way a 12 year old wouldn't be able to handle what happened.

It's tragic that as an English major she refuses to accept that English is a fluid language.
Ok, time for me to run now.

Rommie wrote:Fair enough. But what can I say, language evolves.

I'm sorry Rommie, that comment was not aimed at you, I was making a joke; if it was aimed at anyone, it was SFC (and even that wasn't serious). People die from the tragedy of guns. Except for jokes about commas, no one dies from the "tragedy" of English.

FZR1KG wrote:It's tragic that as an English major she refuses to accept that English is a fluid language.
Ok, time for me to run now.

There is fluid, and there is completely muddling the meaning of a word to the point it becomes meaningless.

And tonight Zee gets to sleep on the couch.......

From tragic to ridiculous in 60 seconds...

Idaho professor shoots himself in foot two months after state legalizes guns on campuses

Sigma_Orionis wrote:From tragic to ridiculous in 60 seconds...

Idaho professor shoots himself in foot two months after state legalizes guns on campuses

Like I keep saying, the golden rules of firearm safety mandate that a weapon is always pointed in a safe direction.
As anyone that has more than two brain cells can figure out, this is impossible to do while carrying a concealed firearm.
So to allow conceal carry permits is basically flying in the face of safety even as the NRA define it.
To allow it, to encourage it on campus therefore is just reckless endangerment IMHO.

One of these days, a kid will be shot "accidentally" while hugging a person with a concealed carry permit.
Or a kid will be shot in a stairwell. Key here is that they be lower than the person with the concealed weapon.
Or a ricochet will get someone.
Then they will all say how tragic it is.
Morons.

Sigma_Orionis wrote:From tragic to ridiculous in 60 seconds...

Idaho professor shoots himself in foot two months after state legalizes guns on campuses

It's only fun until someone puts out an eye (or shoots themselves in the foot). Then it's freaking hilarious.

FZR1KG wrote:

Sigma_Orionis wrote:From tragic to ridiculous in 60 seconds...

Idaho professor shoots himself in foot two months after state legalizes guns on campuses

Like I keep saying, the golden rules of firearm safety mandate that a weapon is always pointed in a safe direction.
As anyone that has more than two brain cells can figure out, this is impossible to do while carrying a concealed firearm.
So to allow conceal carry permits is basically flying in the face of safety even as the NRA define it.
To allow it, to encourage it on campus therefore is just reckless endangerment IMHO.

One of these days, a kid will be shot "accidentally" while hugging a person with a concealed carry permit.
Or a kid will be shot in a stairwell. Key here is that they be lower than the person with the concealed weapon.
Or a ricochet will get someone.
Then they will all say how tragic it is.
Morons.

There is a safe way to conceal carry. There is no way to prevent stupidity. The safe way to conceal carry involves using a holster designed for the purpose, keeping the weapon on safe, and never having "one in the chamber". Yes, this does prevent you from shooting yourself in the nuts (or other personal parts) and prevents you from winning the fast draw contest.

The good news is that if you remain situationly aware and practice a couple of times a year you really can get the weapon out safely and deal with that crazed mouse that just dared you to face him down.

I see that you are posting unsupervised again....

brite wrote:I see that you are posting unsupervised again....

I'm on lunch break.. I am allowed unsupervised lunches.

SciFiFisher wrote:

brite wrote:I see that you are posting unsupervised again....

I'm on lunch break.. I am allowed unsupervised lunches.

Not since they pinned that butter bar on you....

So, no even a golden cluster saves him of that

Sigma_Orionis wrote:So, no even a golden cluster saves him of that

Ah yes, the universal truth. Officers must be supervised at all times lest they get everyone into deep doo doo.

This is why the american military perfected the Non-Commissioned Officer (NCO). The best nannies in the world.