lifestyle

U.S. gun tourism grows in popularity

93 Comments
By MICHELLE RINDELS and JACQUES BILLEAUD

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2014 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.

93 Comments
Login to comment

America and its never ending love affair with fire arms. Who lets little kids play with guns.

14 ( +19 / -8 )

What the heck. There should be NO REASON WHAT SO EVER for any one in the us to handle an Uzi, let alone a 9 year old. I will get thumbs down but no sympathy.

22 ( +26 / -6 )

The death of a firearms instructor by a 9-year-old girl who was firing a fully automatic Uzi displayed a tragic side of what has become a hot industry in the U.S.: gun tourism.

This is one part of America of which I am not particularly proud, especially since this tragedy happened in the state in which I reside. AK-47's are meant for only one purpose -- to kill people. And the fact that 8 year-old children can shoot them legally is just insane. And please do not use the lame argument that her parents were teaching her about "gun safety". She was shooting at a place called "Bullets and Burgers". Sad the level we have fallen to because of the NRA's refusal to even discuss common-sense gun control issues.

14 ( +18 / -6 )

It'd take at least a few newsworthy incidents before states and gun range owners get the picture.

Think the prosecutors messed up on who to charge. Should have charged the owners/operators of the gun range company but they went after the police chief first and after his acquittal said it was no use going after the operators. Did not charge the dad because he appeared too upset on the firing range videos. Prosecutor said he'd been punished enough, but possible also that that video would make it difficult to get a conviction against the dad.

A former Massachusetts police chief whose company co-sponsored the gun show was later acquitted of involuntary manslaughter.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/father-christopher-bizilj-died-firing-uzi-urged-son/story?id=12565132

The teenager who worked at a gun show where 8-year-old Christopher Bizilj accidentally killed himself while shooting an Uzi testified today he twice suggested the boy's father pick a less powerful weapon for the boy to shoot.

But Christopher's father, Dr. Charles Bizilj, insisted that his son be allowed to fire the automatic weapon, Michael Spano told the court. Spano was 15 at the time of the 2008 Massachusetts gun expo and was put in charge of allowing people to fire the 9 mm Micro Uzi, a submachine gun that fires 20 rounds a second.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Americans teach children how to shoot guns and Al-Qaeda and other Islamic extremists teach children how to shoot guns. Both seem fundamentally same.

14 ( +19 / -8 )

He said he doesn’t know what went wrong

Then he's dumb as a post.

It'd take at least a few newsworthy incidents before states and gun range owners get the picture.

Not likely. Dozens (hundreds?) of shooting incidents have happened in the US, with absolutely no change in laws whatsoever. This isn't likely to be any different. Can't be taking away 9 year old's right to shoot uzis.

10 ( +12 / -3 )

@kwatt

Americans teach children how to shoot guns and Al-Qaeda and other Islamic extremists teach children how to shoot guns. Both seem fundamentally same

Does that make it right ? What is the world coming to if all one can think about is killing other humans ?

5 ( +6 / -2 )

More bang for the buck.The overall experience of shooting guns is part of American society. The biggest safety infraction is people keeping a finger on the trigger.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Strangerland: Not likely. Dozens (hundreds?) of shooting incidents have happened in the US, with absolutely no change in laws whatsoever. This isn't likely to be any different. Can't be taking away 9 year old's right to shoot uzis.

What? Dozens, hundreds of accidental shooting incidents by pre-teens on the firing line with machine guns?

1 ( +5 / -4 )

Firearms are part of both the summer and winter Olympic games.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

What? Dozens, hundreds of accidental shooting incidents by pre-teens on the firing line with machine guns?

I'm not sure what you are referring to - I didn't say that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Powerful lobbyist groups supporting the sale of guns in the USA just to make the almighty buck are behind this idiocy. The only reason the NRA wants to support gun rights is so they can make a buck.

7 ( +10 / -3 )

On a motor trip through southern California years ago, a friend invited me to stay with him. He was proud of his king-sized water bed and suggested my wife and I spend the night on it. Before turning in, I looked over on the night table and saw not one but two loaded handguns, one of which appeared to be a rather large-caliber model. This was in a small city (Santa Maria) where, I assumed, the crime rate was negligible. Why he felt so insecure as to require two lethal weapons at his bedside I could not pretend to fathom. He was not wealthy and there was probably nothing of great value in the house. I suppose he just entertained what one writer described as a "homicidal fantasy" in which he could righteously blow away an intruder. It's also possible he was spooked by the murders committed not long before by Charles Manson and his followers. That said, I can't say I slept any better with two handguns next to my head. I have never had an occasion in the United States when I wished I had been armed.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

Speaking of which I'm going shooting in Hawaii in two weeks. Looking forward to firing some serious fire power. I've grown up around guns in Australia and know how to handle them safely. In order to train a new person to guns...give them a air gun first while they get the hang of it, not an automatic uzi. That was probably the stupidest news I heard....

1 ( +9 / -9 )

As long as you have moronic legislation, cretins will continue to hand kiddies Uzis.

4 ( +8 / -4 )

Don't know what that instructor was thinking but IF he felt she could handle it load it with 3 rounds first and let her work he way up to a full mag. A three shot burst certainly would have been where I would start ANY young, thin, novice with a full auto gun.

Sadly this poor girl will grow up knowing everyday she accidentally killed a man. Terrible outcome.

Guns can be safely used in responsible hands. The anti gun debate offer often silly arguments. The pro-gun side argues an opposite extreme. Accidental gun deaths are really uncommon. The intentional mis-use is another story. And those deviants will continue with other methods.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

'...where newly married couples can fire submachine gun rounds and pose with Uzis and ammo belts.'

If a couple invites you round for dinner and this picture is on the windowsill, the unease you will feel should be enough to convince them you're not feeling well and need to make an early exit.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

It seems that Americans are enjoying shooting all kinds of guns as if they used to play toy guns. Should not teach children how to shoot easily, because guns are just a tool and always have only one purpose to kill though they are playing them for fun. People better learn how to shoot guns after age of 20, not too late, if they want to be police or soldier.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

It's crazy to let someone that small & inexperienced shoot full-auto. Just completely senseless.

6 ( +8 / -3 )

Saw the video on tv last night (they cut the last second out) and was disgusted by it.

I`m so glad to live in a country that has not been saddled with a rule like the 2nd amendment and the absolutely insane gun culture that has formed around it.

10 ( +11 / -1 )

Speaking of which I'm going shooting in Hawaii in two weeks. Looking forward to firing some serious fire power. I've grown up around guns in Australia and know how to handle them safely. In order to train a new person to guns...give them a air gun first while they get the hang of it, not an automatic uzi. That was probably the stupidest news I heard....

I think so. I saw the video, very difficult to watch, but the instructor as to what was going on in his mind to allow that girl to shoot an Uzi and on a full 30 round clip on full auto was insane. There was NO WAY having to hold it the first time she could properly keep it straight. No matter how many times she shoots, with each shot, the gun is going to veer upward, I don't care if you are the Rock. Also, the instructor was standing next to her???? Wrong! He should've stood behind her. He had to pay with his life, tragic as it was, he has to take some responsibility for his death and the girls parents as well. They are idiots for even allowing the girl to use an Uzi. A lot of mistakes were made that could have been avoided. Good for you Cortes. Envy you. I try to go to the shooting range myself whenever I fly back to California or when I go to the desert and fire off a couple of rounds.

-1 ( +4 / -6 )

Sorry MarkG common sense says you DONT give an uzi to a kid!! The instructor & range are a bunch of idiots plain & simple! Add in the parents as well, I hope the kid recovers everyone seems to have forgotten what she has to live with the rest of her life due to a bunch of stupid adults!

Oh pls don't start of ANYBODY with 3 rounds in gun, IF your teaching about guns you start with ZERO BULLETS!!

I am not against guns although I see no need for hand guns & weapons designed for war! My ole man taught my brother & I on a single shot bolt action .22 rifle, something sensible.

The US is nuts for guns & this is one of the MANY tragedies & we will see many more yet sadly

3 ( +4 / -2 )

The very idea of children with any firearm is repulsive and the sight of it should disgust people as much as an Indonesian toddler chain-smoking. Love of guns is a vice like alcohol, drugs or gambling. We rightly put age limits on those things and this should be no different. The almost religious attachment to the outdated second amendment will allow this vice to continue, but it can and should be contained as much as possible.

4 ( +7 / -4 )

GW....I think it was presumed she was at the range already shooting other weapons. I seriously don't think the instructor hander her a full clip in the Uzi and said here you go! Do you want to shoot a gun?

An Uzi is a serious weapon but its a 9mm. A 9mm has minimal recoil in an Uzi weight gun. 9yo and 80 lbs. its more recoil and rapid auto succession bingo! Muzzle rise. The instructor should have proceeded with caution. 3 rounds first, then add 3, add three and so on. Unless he saw she did not have control. He found out fatally.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

This poor child. The parents should sue the pants off the gun range.

As for the instructor, it was clearly a suicide. Handing a 9 year old child a fully loaded, fully automatic weapon and then standing NEXT to her? That's the clearest case of suicide I've ever seen. What is reprehensible is that he chose to get a 9 year old girl to pull the trigger for him.

All we can be grateful for is that the little girl didn't break both her wrists.

3 ( +4 / -2 )

Live the dream, Japanese tourists :-) Just don't bring back any of the craziness.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Jace Zack, chief deputy for the Mohave County Attorney’s Office, said the instructor was probably the most criminally negligent person involved in the accident for having allowed the child to hold the gun without enough training.

But Mr Zack, the gun range company accepted payment for the girl to shoot the gun, the gun range company persuaded the parents to sign away the girls right to compensation in case she was critically injured for life, the gun range company handed the girl to the instructor who is merely paid to execute his employers instructions. How can the gun range avoid responsibility?

4 ( +2 / -0 )

My wife and I did this in Guam. It was a real bang.

-2 ( +6 / -8 )

"“I have regret we let this child shoot, and I have regret that Charlie was killed in the incident,” Scarmardo said. He said he doesn’t know what went wrong..."

What went wrong?? How about the life choices that your service exists, for starters. Next how about the lack of brain power that you must have if you need to ask some questions. Then we let the logic start to sink in, if it can with people who love guns, and you start to get to the very obvious, "YOU LET KIDS FIRE AUTOMATIC WEAPONS" and such. YOU went wrong, for starters, Scarmardo. And as for the parents, I hope they hang their heads in shame for the rest of their lives, but like most gun-nutters they'll probably just get more defensive and hide their heads in the sand a little further.

6 ( +8 / -3 )

There should be NO REASON WHAT SO EVER for any one in the us to handle an Uzi

But there is one, recreational target shooting. :P

It'd take at least a few newsworthy incidents before states and gun range owners get the picture.

I think you are overestimating how frequently gun range accidents such as this one occurs. It is very rare.

I'm not sure what you are referring to - I didn't say that.

He is referring to his original comment. He was saying that it would take a few newsworthy incidents at gun ranges where people where taking their children or an inexperienced person before they get the picture that you shouldn't hand machine guns to teenagers or younger.

He was confused as he interpreted your statement to mean there are dozens if not hundreds of incidents of where machine guns at gun ranges cause this type of incident.

Quite frankly why should a very rare incident such as this change anything? You go 12 years without a single incident at the gun range; I'm not surprised why they wouldn't change anything.

200 people a day die from alcohol in the USA and the only thing that changes is the bac gets slightly lowered once a decade if that.

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

Not sure if I will ever understand the fanatic gun hobby of conservative Americans. It's a primitive tool which only purpose is to kill or harm. A very questionable hobby indeed.

3 ( +6 / -4 )

Not sure if I will ever understand the fanatic gun hobby of conservative Americans.

Simple answer: Fun as hell. Same reason why people engage in casual sex or consume alcohol for recreation.

-4 ( +4 / -8 )

Everything in moderation, please. There is nothing wrong in knowing how to use a rifle, but letting a 9 year old fire an Uzi is asking for trouble; unless one lives in Syria, or Iraq. In that case, knowing how to fire an Uzi might be a good thing.

Still, letting someone who is of an age to be expected to still believe in Santa Clause have access to a fully automatic weapon seems like a questionable parenting choice.

4 ( +5 / -2 )

Not sure if I will ever understand the fanatic gun hobby of conservative Americans. It's a primitive tool which only purpose is to kill or harm. A very questionable hobby indeed.

To you perhaps. I grew up around guns and I love them. Having said that, the gun issue is not only regulated and used exclusilvy by conservatives. There are many liberals that carry and use guns. I'm from California and it doesn't get more liberal and out of control than my home state, heavily liberal and heavily armed. I don't know the current stats, but many Californians posses and are licensed gun owners. That's another reason why liberals like Reid (who is a gun owner) cannot pass strict or more gun legislation, it's because there are too many liberals that own and use guns.

-2 ( +8 / -10 )

Not sure if I will ever understand the fanatic gun hobby of conservative Americans. It's a primitive tool which only purpose is to kill or harm. A very questionable hobby indeed.

Well, Uzi tourism is one thing, but guns in general are another. I'm far (faaaaar) from conservative, but I own guns & use them often for hunting as well as for self-defense. Not only can I provide myself & my family with healthy, sustainable, delicious, seasonally varied food, I also provide a substantial amount for older and poorer people in town, and help control destructive invasive species in the process. Used to be that our whole county farm (the place where old people with no money or families went when they couldn't take care of themselves) was fed this way, from hunting, fishing, and people's gardens. Much healthier than the processed slop nursing home residents are fed now in our town--and they're paying $3,000+ a month for the privilege. You may call it a "primitive tool," but some people lack the privilege or the desire to divorce themselves from "primitive" needs like food and physical security.

-2 ( +3 / -6 )

'To you perhaps. I grew up around guns and I love them'

I admire your honesty. Too many gun-lovers like to hide their love of these things behind smokescreens with half-believed appeals to an out of date constitution or self-defence. I wish more people would be this upfront so we could have a more honest debate As I said, I admire your honesty and thumbed you up for it, but are you completely comfortable with saying 'I love guns'?

3 ( +4 / -1 )

@ Jimizo

I am curious why you think self-defense is a smokescreen? Data is mixed on the effectiveness of guns for self-defense, but I know many people who own them sincerely for that reason. It's one of my two main reasons, along with hunting, for owning guns. For my part, I don't "love" guns, they're simply an efficient & effective means to an end. I find the idea of loving a gun a little incomprehensible, like loving a car or any other piece of machinery. I know some people do, but it seems a little silly to me. But to each their own, of course, as long as one is responsible about it.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

I am not against guns although I see no need for hand guns & weapons designed for war! My ole man taught my brother & I on a single shot bolt action .22 rifle, something sensible. The US is nuts for guns & this is one of the MANY tragedies & we will see many more yet sadly

It has been very hard to get .22 (long or short) for 2+ years mostly due to hoarders. =So many young shooters have been forced to move up to the larger calibers or have moved to air rifle .177/.22

Besides children, the greatest gain in gun owners has been women (many concealed/carry). So by not having sufficient training .22lr ammo these new c/c pistol owners are making a jump right to 9mm and maybe even .45 when they should be starting with .22

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

@badsey

Yeah, I just shelled out for .22LR from bulkammo.com and have been weeping over my pocketbook ever since. You can't get any in the stores near me, and it's soooo expensive online compared to what I used to be able to get it for. Is the lack really because of hoarders? Why haven't manufacturers increased supply to meet that demand--is it to keep prices high? Or just lack of capacity?

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

@Jennifer I said too many gun-lovers use these reasons as a smokescreen, not all ( the fact the people see the ownership of these things as necessary itself shows the utter insanity of having a country awash with guns ). This love of guns and their glorification is disturbing and I don't mean idiotic movies with endless shoot-outs. I remember watching a History channel in the US with gravel-voiced narrators describing 'The ( gun name) The gun which won ( some battle or other )' in almost erotic terms describing how this instrument's design made it far more efficient at drilling through flesh and bone. It was stomach-churning. The vice of loving guns is incurable in the US, but perhaps seeing guns as at best a necessary evil is healthier than the beyond idiotic, disturbing crap described in the article.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

@ Jimizo

Ah, sorry, I misunderstood what you were saying. I agree that that documentary sounds disturbing. I find the glorification of guns kind of creepy, too, and whatever would compel parents to gleefully videotape their nine-year-old shooting full-auto is repugnant to me. That kind of thing is obviously performative, too, making a point or almost a joke with the juxtaposition of a little girl and a big, deadly gun. You see it with adult women, too, but often more sexualized--posing with guns like it's sexy or shocking or funny (I guess because guns are still seen as a guy thing, mostly). And of course there's a lot of machismo, too, with men using their love of powerful guns as shorthand for how tough they are. It's contemptible, somewhere between pathetic and disturbing. And these sorts of gun tourist places play on the worst of all that, of course.

Honestly, my feelings about guns for self-defense are pretty much along the lines of, "Well, everybody else here has a gun, so I am not going to be the only one without one." Also, being a woman of average size and lacking any sort of improbable martial arts skills or what-have-you, I have found that guns even the odds when I'm threatened with physical or sexual violence, and so I'm reluctant to give them up for that reason.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

It used to be that tobacco companies would market to teenagers in order to get them hooked on smoking right through adulthood. Now we have the situation where guns are marketed to kids. Is it a coincidence that this no doubt creates support for the gun lobby when these kids become voting adults?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

The U.S. military occupation initially banned ownership of firearms by all Japanese civilians, but then made exceptions for farmers, etc. to deal with animal pests. Handguns, which were openly sold before the war, were banned outright. After the Diet finally got around to considering a revision for the Firearms & Swords Control Law, sometime in the mid-1950s, they basically retained the American-imposed regulations as-is. So the restrictive gun laws in Japan -- which resulted in six homicides by firearms in 2013 I believe -- owe a nod of thanks to the U.S. of A.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I'm surprised that only a few of the comments mention the little girl with compassion. She's old enough to remember for the rest of her life that she killed someone. I sincerely hope she never touches a gun again, and does what a few other young people around the world have done when tragedy befalls them - take a stand and become a beacon for change. God knows, the US needs to change its adoration for killing machines.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Accidental gun deaths are really uncommon

851 unintentional US gun deaths in 2011. That's an ocean of tears.

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Yeah, I just shelled out for .22LR from bulkammo.com and have been weeping over my pocketbook ever since. You can't get any in the stores near me, and it's soooo expensive online compared to what I used to be able to get it for. Is the lack really because of hoarders? Why haven't manufacturers increased supply to meet that demand--is it to keep prices high? Or just lack of capacity?

.22 takes more time to make (4-5 days for the primer to dry) and is the least profitable for ammo companies. Having said that they are running 24/7 at max capacity to meet demand. =it really is the hoarders. Some new .22 guns sales come with a free .22 ammo coupon direct from the manufacturer.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=.22+hoarding

Air rifles are probably the way get around the ammo shortage. Easy 1000fps now on one pump. And these people that want to shoot outrageously expensive full-autos at these clubs could always just buy a full-auto bb gun and take it home with them.

http://air-ordnance.com/ (note this is a .22 pellet and not the cheaper/common bb type, also this product looks like a Tippman 98 and the guys last name is Tippman)

0 ( +1 / -1 )

As a gunowner and advocate of gun owner's rights I find this incident unbelievable. We who support gun ownership advocate "responsible" gun ownership and use. The range, the instructor (who incidentally was not NRA certified), the parent's, and the State of Nevada all contributed to this incident though sheer stupidity, negligence and disregard for common sense.

-2 ( +7 / -10 )

The argument is alway "guns were made to kill", "Thats what a gun does, kill". I would like to add the challenge of shooting. Not people, and not animals for most owners, just the challenge to beat the conditions and steady she the target and hit it.

Bow and arrows, swords, knives over 10cm, poisons and slingshots fill the bill as "Made To Kill". Where will we stop? More deaths are attributed to cars, but they are fine. It was just an accident. Well, same goes for most poisonings. And those pesky cigarette fires that kill. Those darn swimming pools, beaches, rivers, and lakes. Lets not forget the buildings over 3 stories. Most accidents of course.

Personal responsibility is eroding at an alarming rate. All for the good of the people. I prefer freedom and risks With that active thought instead of a mindless existence.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

851 unintentional US gun deaths in 2011. That's an ocean of tears

Sensenotsocommon - I think the comment you are quoting was about the per capita rate. At 851 deaths that comes out to a per capita rate of 0.2745 per 100,000k, basically the same as Japan's homicide rate; then you also have to factor in that over 100,000 people dies from accidents in the US each year and guns make up less than 1% of all accidental deaths. So if we look at it from that point of view it is really uncommon.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

You ought to find it very believable - even more than I do.

Wipeout and Jimizo - This article/opinion article might give you some insight:

http://time.com/3211885/guns-children-firing-range-uzi/

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

They are legal, they are expensive and excluding this incident how many machine gun deaths are attributed to private ownership?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

It should be obvious that mass gun ownership and use does actually result in people getting bullets lodged in their skulls. You can't be so selectively blind that this has never occurred to you.

What you state is a true statement, but it is a rare event. Need a low power bullet -etc. Most bullets will easily go thru the skull if FMJ and it lead expect the fragmentation. =You still see fewer bullets in NRA member skulls than in the "gun-free" streets of Chicago.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

It's interesting to see so many people think that the girl's parents aren't to blame for this incident. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if they hadn't taken their 9 year old child to shoot firearms, the instructor wouldn't have been shot. The instructor is just as much to blame for assuming a little girl can handle the recoil on an automatic weapon. The company is also just as much to blame for not imposing age restrictions, and what have you. The government too is also equally guilty for being too lax on gun control laws and gun safety. Trying to place blame solely on one party when all are guilty is wrong. Trying to apportion more blame to one guilty party when all are equally responsible for this tragedy is also wrong. It's sad to say that this girl is probably never going to live a normal life. It'll take years of counselling just to stop the nightmares. Even if she somehow represses the memory, it's still likely to come back again in later life. She's been permanently scarred, and there's so many people responsible for that, who won't be punished for it. I have no strong feelings one way or the other regarding possession of firearms and the use of firearms, but I do expect people to possess common sense. Asking a lot I know, but that's just me. If you're going to allow people to own and fire actual weapons, you need to have no end of regulations and restrictions and safety measures in place to prevent incidents like this from occurring.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Fox Sora WintersSep. 01, 2014 - 03:47AM JST It's interesting to see so many people think that the girl's parents aren't to blame for this incident. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if they hadn't taken their 9 year old child to shoot firearms, the instructor wouldn't have been shot.

You asked for it, so here it is, "You're mistaken".

There's nothing wrong with taking a child down to a shooting range to fire off a gun. I fired off my first shotgun when I was younger than her (with my dad crouched behind me to make sure the stock was well into my shoulder, and my grandfather well behind as well).

Exposing a child to guns in a controlled and safe environment with an expert instructor is not a bad idea if the parents want to do it.

But here's where things went badly wrong. The parents did EVERYTHING right. They went to a gun range. They had an expert instructor. They believed the expert instructor when he said the girl could fire the gun safely.

... but they were lied to. The expert instructor also did not take basic precautions like standing BEHIND the person firing the gun (seriously, this is an absolutely basic thing, up there with not sticking a loaded and cocked gun into your pants like you see them doing in the movies all the time).

There is no way the parents can be held accountable for this. They went to the right place to introduce their daughter to guns. They trusted an expert. The expert messed up badly.

Now maybe a little common sense would have suggested that an Uzi may have been a bad choice for a 9 year old, but that's assuming you know first-hand about guns and aren't going off what you've seen in Hollywood movies where people fire off an entire clip one-handed without any noticeable recoil.

The "expert" instructor messed up. End of story.

0 ( +3 / -4 )

NV instructor was supposed to stand BEHIND the firing line, and didn't.

According to this article about laws in neighboring Arizona, state law is in effect, but does not regulate firing lines : http://tinyurl.com/n6pg7tw

Arizona statutes do address firing ranges, but the laws primarily deal with noise levels. No laws govern any training protocols for firearms instructors, safety guidelines or age restrictions. But even if there were, there is no regulatory authority to enforce them. ... There are no federal laws that ­regulate or oversee range operations, he said.

And CDC articles, for one, seem only interested in lead exposure and possibility of fire: <http://tinyurl.com/k8p2c7x

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention : Indoor firing ranges

NoLiving : TS : It'd take at least a few newsworthy incidents before states and gun range owners get the picture. , NL : I think you are overestimating how frequently gun range accidents such as this one occurs. It is very rare. , Strangerland : I'm not sure what you are referring to - I didn't say that. , NL : He is referring to his original comment. He was saying that it would take a few newsworthy incidents ...

Yes except I wasn't confused about Strangerland's comment, or rarity of such incidents, and I probably should have explained better about "at least a few". These two incidents are very newsworthy because of the young kids with guns angle, and maybe these incidents will have enough energy in the political space to propel action on what should have be done already: OSHA standards for gun range procedures (or if standards already there, tougher enforcement). Same does not apply so much to home accidents because they are more common, and less newsworthy (parent shooting kid in dark is above most accidents but a level below the kids-on-firing-range, less unusual).

Would note that in California some gun ranges have policies something like first-time customers to the range have to bring a buddy, to show they are not paranoid loner losers that might shoot up the gun range if unaccompanied. I don't know what incident(s) provided the impetus for that. But would expect firing ranges to put some kinds of procedures in place to avoid what happened on firing line in MA and NV. And also for that to only reduce incidents not stop them, because people don't follow procedures all the time, do they?

Maybe require young shooters to fire under a brace that prevents their muzzle going up.

Fox Sora Winters : It's interesting to see so many people think that the girl's parents aren't to blame for this incident. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if they hadn't taken their 9 year old child to shoot firearms, the instructor wouldn't have been shot.

It's because you already think it's bad. If airplane accident kills kids we don't say "Parents' fault for putting their kids on plane!" because accidents so rare, same like these are. We say airline should have trained pilots better, A/P mechanics better, not cut corners, etc.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Would note that in California some gun ranges have policies something like first-time customers to the range have to bring a buddy, to show they are not paranoid loner losers that might shoot up the gun range if unaccompanied. I don't know what incident(s) provided the impetus for that.

The reason for that policy turbotsat is they are afraid the person is going to commit suicide, not because they are going to shoot up the place.

But would expect firing ranges to put some kinds of procedures in place to avoid what happened on firing line in MA and NV.

That begs the question is such rules or procedures a fair balance, if such an incident occurs once every six years where hundreds of thousands if not millions of people fire such firearms and they fire millions of bullets and you only save one life possibly two during those six years at thousands of gun ranges is that really a fair rule/procedure/law? Lets say you go to legally enforce such rules at the hundreds if not thousands of gun ranges, is it even cost effective?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Noliving,

OK, you are right on both counts. It's gun rentals they have the have-a-buddy-or-already-have-a-firearm policy for.

http://www.reedsindoorrange.com/range.html

Please note that firearms rentals are for two or more people, or a single person already in possession of a firearm.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

wipeoutAug. 31, 2014 - 11:41PM JST "As a gunowner and advocate of gun owner's rights I find this incident unbelievable. "

You ought to find it very believable - even more than I do. You must have had a fair amount of exposure to NRA >propaganda, gun magazines, gun shows, and gun people. It should be obvious that mass gun ownership and use >does actually result in people getting bullets lodged in their skulls. You can't be so selectively blind that this has never >occurred to you.

I have been shooting for 41 years. No one I know would find this "believable". Most of us were shooting when the NRA ran shooting lessons. Maybe that's why we have some common sense.

"We who support gun ownership advocate "responsible" gun ownership and use."

Not even close. Some do, but that's hardly the same thing.

You are very much mistaken. If what you seem to believe were true the numbers of firearm accidents and incidents of this sort would be astronomically greater. I'm sure you can tell is how many guns are in the hands of the American populace.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

Noliving,

Sensenotsocommon - I think the comment you are quoting was about the per capita rate.

Statistically, 9 year-old girls who kill gun instructors with Uzis make up only 0.000315 per 100,000 population. Why is this even news, Noliving? It makes no sense!

Heck, let's dissect, dice and diminish every single family's tragedy while we're at it!

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

"We who support gun ownership advocate "responsible" gun ownership and use."

Gun ownership by the public is by definition irresponsible. So advocating "responsible gun ownership" for the public, is an oxymoron, and impossible.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

Common things aren't newsworthy, much. UNCOMMON things are. Especially dissonant things.

Little kids dying or killing on firing lines? Very uncommon, very dissonant, very big national news.

Construction deaths? Relatively common, newsworthy at local news level only.

http://weeklytoll.blogspot.com/

The Weekly Toll: Death in the American Workplace

http://weeklytoll.blogspot.com/2014/08/the-weekly-toll-death-in-american_27.html

week of Aug. 27, 2014

0 ( +2 / -2 )

@ Strangerland

Gun ownership by the public is by definition irresponsible

I'm curious about your thoughts on this. Since you specify "by the public," do you then believe that it's responsible/acceptable for people such as, say, cops or soldiers to own guns, or are you against guns qua guns no matter in whose hands? If not, why them and not private citizens? Have cops or the military proven themselves particularly worthy or accountable in your eyes, that it seems like a good idea to further concentrate power and deadly force in their hands? Would your feelings change if private citizens underwent equal training to what a cop or soldier undergoes before they were allowed to own guns?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Very tragic situation and very unusual. That is what made it national news.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Little kids dying or killing on firing lines? Very uncommon, very dissonant, very big national news.

851 unintentional gun deaths of a total 32,163 gun deaths in 2011. More common. More resonant. Therefore not newsworthy?

These aren't the canaries in the mine, they're the miners, who are too often minors. Wake up, America!

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Tourists from Japan flock to ranges in Waikiki, Hawaii,

I was actually suckered into going to a gun range in Waikiki and our group was the only ones in there and we are talking about high season for Japanese tourists. Also the guns there were connected to a holder like an arcade game not like the little girl who had the full uzi in her hand.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

There's nothing wrong with taking a child down to a shooting range to fire off a gun

I'm sure the girl will disagree with that for the rest of her life, since she knows first hand just how wrong it really is. Children should never be taught to handle firearms until they can completely comprehend just how dangerous they can be. The parents did nothing wrong? They took their child to a shooting range and let her fire guns. That's recklessly irresponsible. Controlled environment? If that was the case, this would never have happened. Yes, the instructor is at fault, but so are the parents, the owners of the shooting range, and the US government, as I stated in my original comment.

You challenged my comment and failed to prove me wrong. You are the one who is wrong, but you will never admit it because in your eyes there is nothing wrong with teaching children to use firearms. People like you are the reason why this tragedy occurred. So many Americans have a love affair with firearms, but nothing is being done to protect citizens, adult and children alike, from incidents such as this. No wonder you get figures like this:

851 unintentional gun deaths of a total 32,163 gun deaths in 2011

851 unintentional gun deaths in a single year? The writing's on the wall, so the NRA and other gun lovers decide to paint over it. They'll blame everyone but themselves. Just like any addict really. Whether the addiction is drugs, porn, or guns, everyone is at fault other than the addict, in their eyes. They just can't see the wood for the trees, and I highly doubt they ever will.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Firearms are part of both the summer and winter Olympic games.

There are no 9 year olds taking part.

There are also no Uzis being used. Especially by aforesaid 9 year olds who wouldn't have a clue*. Not that I blame the girl in the story, I blame every single adult involved, including any politicians who let this madness happen.

*Please don't anybody bore me with any "I could shoot before I could walk" stories.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

That's 851 deaths in US population of 318,656,000 (2014 est.), and unintended, so someone somewhere was violating firearms safety rules.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Since you specify "by the public," do you then believe that it's responsible/acceptable for people such as, say, cops or soldiers to own guns, or are you against guns qua guns no matter in whose hands? If not, why them and not private citizens?

I do believe it is acceptable for police and military to have guns, because their job is to protect and serve. They have strict rules around the usage of their firearms, and firearms are necessary for their line of work. None of these are true for private citizens, and allowing themselves to arm themselves is irresponsible.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

their job is to protect and serve. They have strict rules around the usage of their firearms, and firearms are necessary for their line of work. None of these are true for private citizens

But usually in a violent situation, it's not like a cop can get there till after the fact. I've had to defend myself twice with a gun, and it is my belief (of course no way to verify) that I would have been seriously harmed, maybe killed, in both cases if I'd not had a weapon. All a cop could have done is maybe investigate afterward and possibly apprehend whoever did it. So I can't really agree that a cop has more of a mandate to protect him/herself or others than a private citizen does. I'd also say that a cop's job is not so much to protect and serve as to control & enforce, but that's another story.

Strict rules for using firearms--true in principle, but how often are cops held accountable? The cop who pointed a rifle in Ferguson & declared, "I'll ***ing kill you"--an outright death threat with a deadly weapon--was threatening journalists & was caught on tape* and has he been charged with a crime? I'm surprised he was even suspended, honestly--probably only because of all the hoopla & publicity the department already had going on.

I'm a rancher & use firearms regularly in managing my property--without them, I'd likely be out of business due to destructive invasive species, so I'd say they're necessary to my job. Would you be okay with people like me having them?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

StrangerlandSep. 01, 2014 - 09:54AM JST "We who support gun ownership advocate "responsible" gun ownership and use." Gun ownership by the public is by definition irresponsible. So advocating "responsible gun ownership" for the public, is >an oxymoron, and impossible.

You're playing your usual semantic games. That I have been shooting for 41 years and have never witnessed much less experienced a firearm accident and the number of such accidents relative to the number of guns owned by Americans clearly establishes that "Responsible Gun Ownership" is the norm, and that Irresponsible gun ownership is the exception.

StrangerlandSep. 01, 2014 - 01:14PM JST I do believe it is acceptable for police and military to have guns, because their job is to protect and serve. They have >strict rules around the usage of their firearms, and firearms are necessary for their line of work. None of these are true >for private citizens, and allowing themselves to arm themselves is irresponsible.

You obviously are not aware of American history, under what circumstances this country was founded and why such a "gun culture" exists.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

People come from overseas to experience the thrill of doing what are widely considered to be stupid things. But hey! If you are not free to do stupid things, you are not truly free. Doing and saying stupid things are fundamental rights of an individual.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

You can't teach stupidity to stupid guns don't kill people do just like knives don't kill people do no matter what the choice of weapon it is stupidity is root of the action!

0 ( +2 / -2 )

The real tragedy and victim here is the 9 year old girl who will now have a life much tougher than it otherwise needed to be because of very ignorant parents and a very incompetent instructor.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Fox Sora WintersSep. 01, 2014 - 11:51AM JST I'm sure the girl will disagree with that for the rest of her life, since she knows first hand just how wrong it really is. Children should never be taught to handle firearms until they can completely comprehend just how dangerous they can be.

By your logic children shouldn't be taught to do anything that could potentially involve any risk. These are normally safe activities with supervision, but accidents do happen. That doesn't mean that shooting ranges are a bad idea.

The parents did nothing wrong? They took their child to a shooting range and let her fire guns. That's recklessly irresponsible. Controlled environment? If that was the case, this would never have happened. Yes, the instructor is at fault, but so are the parents, the owners of the shooting range, and the US government, as I stated in my original comment.

Again, by your logic the parents of any child who goes to a swimming school are "recklessly irresponsible". After all, swimming is inherently dangerous. More children die every year in swimming schools than are killed at shooting ranges, but I don't see anyone shouting for the US government to ban swimming schools.

Your argument is clearly ridiculous.

You challenged my comment and failed to prove me wrong. You are the one who is wrong, but you will never admit it because in your eyes there is nothing wrong with teaching children to use firearms.

Actually I've proved you incorrect twice now. You're just failing to see that you're wrong. There is a difference.

People like you are the reason why this tragedy occurred. So many Americans have a love affair with firearms, but nothing is being done to protect citizens, adult and children alike, from incidents such as this.

Ah, personal attacks, as if I'm personally responsible for this idiotic instructor who should have known better. Well done, you're descended from stubborn to just plain illogical.

Oh, and I'm not an American. I'm European, from a place with less gun deaths per year than Taiwan. And there you're introduced to guns at a young age, taught that they're sore to fire, that they're not exciting, and that they're a real pain to clean and maintain, so if you fire one you have about an hour of cleaning and maintenance to look forward to.

Nothing takes the excitement out of shooting a gun like an hour of stripping, cleaning, oiling and reassembling a gun. I learnt at an early age that guns are tools, and if shooting at a rabbit in the fields seemed like a fun idea then I had best consider carefully if that 0.2 seconds of excitement was worth 60 minutes of cleaning. 99.9% of the time it didn't seem worth it unless the rabbit was really doing some serious damage.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

wipeoutSep. 01, 2014 - 09:18PM JST @ossan "You are very much mistaken. If what you seem to believe were true the numbers of firearm accidents and incidents of this sort would be astronomically greater."

If you read what I said with a little more care, I don't imply an actual rate of accidents. Nor did I intend to confine what I >said to accidents alone: for a start I'd also include "shoot first, ask questions later" cockup killings, which are what you >get when any clown in the neighbourhood can have guns.

I read what you wrote very carefully and you said none of the above. Your point was simply that "responsible" gun owners don't exist and that they should "believe" (ie; expect) accidents of the kind described in the article to happen. Which of course is nonsense. So now you say you aren't taking about accidents alone but including all gun incidents and killings of every kind as evidence that "responsible" gun ownership doesn't exist? And not every "clown" in the neighborhood can purchase or possess a firearm. Unless you are talking about illegal weapon procured through illegal and undocumented means which are an entirely different issue.

But even if we do consider just accidents, in 2010, there were 606 deaths in the United States resulting >from "unintentional firearms injuries". That matches the entire homicide rate for the UK that year (of which, purely as a >matter of mild interest, 60 were killed with firearms). For a nation in which gun advocates, in your opinion, are firm >supporters of responsible use, that's not a very good record, and those are only the deaths. The actual number of >accidental shootings is of course much higher.

Comparing the number of firearm accidents and incidents in the U.S. to figures from other countries where possession is prohibited, restricted or otherwise limited to start with makes no sense at all. Not to mention that you are comparing U.S. accident rates to UK homicide rates.

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

I went to the USA not so long ago, and I was having a chat with the resterant staff, they were gob smacked when i told them that all rifles/shotguns/pistols in the UK are to locked in steel cabinets, and they are checked by the police on a regular basis, and restrictions on the amount of ammo that you could posses at any given time, I told them that if you was to walk around town with a rifle on show that you would have the armed response team barring down on you with loaded rifles and then you would be strait of to jail, also the length of time and paper work that you have to go through just to own any firearms IE medical record, background checked (police) equipment checked, and so on. they found it staggering that the restriction are so tight. mind you we don't have high school shooting or instructor being shot either, so there is something in it having tight regulations!!

3 ( +4 / -1 )

If current trends continue, gun deaths will surpass car accident deaths among young people. Guns kill a lot of young people in the U.S. Not just in school shootings or horrific “accidents,” but in every day shootings in communities around the country that result in the deaths of thousands of children and teenagers. In young people between the ages of 15 and 24 died by gunfire were a close to the second leading cause of death among this age group, car accidents, which took the lives of over 7K young people. But, while car accident deaths among young people have been steadily declining over the past decade, gun deaths have remained relatively unchanged.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@Brian Wheway

Yep.... sounds about right for the UK..... that's why they were given the boot from the US a couple of hundred years ago.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

But even if we do consider just accidents, in 2010, there were 606 deaths in the United States resulting from "unintentional firearms injuries". That matches the entire homicide rate for the UK that year (of which, purely as a matter of mild interest, 60 were killed with firearms). For a nation in which gun advocates, in your opinion, are firm supporters of responsible use, that's not a very good record, and those are only the deaths. The actual number of accidental shootings is of course much higher.

Actually it is a phenomenal good record when you put it into context. There are nearly 300 million+ firearms in circulation in the USA, you factor in that there is no federal laws that requires gun training before purchasing a firearm. You then also factor in the argument that guns are designed to kill people and kill people as fast as possible You also factor in there are over 100,000 accidental deaths in the USA each year, in fact 25,000 people die each year in the USA from accidental falls alone.

601 accidental gun deaths in a country that has over 300 million guns is pretty low.

So advocating "responsible gun ownership" for the public, is an oxymoron, and impossible.

Actually Stranger it is not an oxymoron.

I'm a rancher & use firearms regularly in managing my property--without them, I'd likely be out of business due to destructive invasive species, so I'd say they're necessary to my job. Would you be okay with people like me having them?

Jennifer you need to understand that Stranger believes that gun ownership is just wrong, he is against gun ownership by civilians as a principle. Ask him if he is OK with civilians drinking alcohol, which kills over 88,000 Americans every year, and whether or not he thinks the Please Drink Responsibly messages during the ads are an oxymoron. Ask him who he would rather own something that is designed to kill:

Someone who has no intention of using it for what it was designed for(Sportshooter) or someone who is train to use it for what it is designed for(law enforcement and military).

But, while car accident deaths among young people have been steadily declining over the past decade, gun deaths have remained relatively unchanged.

It depends on what the deaths are, are they homicides, suicides or accidents. Gun homicides among the youth have been steadily declining since 2006 while gun suicides have been increasing since 2006. Those are going to be much more difficult to stop as they are deliberate deaths where as car accident deaths are not deliberate and it is lot easier to prevent a death that was not done on purpose than one that is.

http://www.childtrends.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/70_fig1.jpg

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Ask him if he is OK with civilians drinking alcohol, which kills over 88,000 Americans every year, and whether or not he thinks the Please Drink Responsibly messages during the ads are an oxymoron.

Every time a cretinous gun incident initiates a thread, the precious lives of gun victims and their families, friends, lovers, colleagues, classmates, neighbors (and everybody who is forced to sleep a little less easy because their nightmares are the homicidal fantasies of social inadequates) are diminished by the brush of a gun nut's keyboard.

No longer flesh and blood, they are statistics who would have slipped in the bath or put their fingers in an electric socket anyway.

Shame on you and your casual dismissal of so many sweet, sacrosanct lives.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Shame on you and your casual dismissal of so many sweet, sacrosanct lives.

You, Strangerland, SmithinJapan have made repeated calls for restrictions to be put on firearms use as well as been highly condescending to owners of firearms. You justify your malicious attitude by attempting to wrap it in some faux "caring about saving people's lives" nonsense, while purposefully ignoring any number of behaviors that many (and nearly definitely you) participate in throughout society that kill just as many people if not more people than firearms. Such as Alcohol for instance.

Get over yourself. You do not care about their lives. You hate firearms, you hate the recreational ownership and usage of firearms.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

wipeoutSep. 02, 2014 - 09:19PM JST "I read what you wrote very carefully and you said none of the above. That's right. I added some detail consistent with what I said in the first comment. I don't simply repeat, because, well >that would be pointless. But it doesn't contradict what I said in any way. You still haven't understood the first comment, even after explanation, but it was expressed unambiguously. "Your point was simply that "responsible" gun owners don't exist My exact words were: "Some do". Clear enough, I think. and that they should "believe" (ie; expect) accidents of the kind described in the article to happen. Certainly not. I didn't say "of the kind described in the article", or intend it, or express it in a way that could be >understood to say that. 3 gross errors. You see why I suggested reading more carefully!

Your posts are a complete waste of time. You haven't clarified anything you've said.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

You justify your malicious attitude by attempting to wrap it in some faux "caring about saving people's lives" nonsense, while purposefully ignoring any number of behaviors that many (and nearly definitely you) participate in throughout society that kill just as many people if not more people than firearms.

I enjoy cycling, which involves the risk of being wiped out by a car, or breaking my neck going downhill. Unlike cars and bikes, though, guns are designed for the express purpose of very suddenly and efficiently depriving someone of life.

And I do care about people's lives. What do you say to my friend whose father was shot dead when he was still a small child? Or the other who was paralyzed by gunfire in his 20s and never able to work again? Answer that, please.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

BURGERS &BULLETS! Ah! That name SAYS IT ALL! What kind of idiots say, "Gee honey, are you hungry for some really nice OILY BURGERS out in the desert and hey, remember that UZI we bought for the kids before they was born?? Yes, I do remember you saving yo $$ and putting on LAY AWAY for the last 5 years" Well honey, our kid is already close to 4years of age, and you know what the means back in Virgina?? HEE HAW!! If you old enough to stumble around the trailer park, you old enough to hold a gun, etc..and shoot em up!" Arizona etc..need to THINK! THINK! Get their heads out of where the SUN DONT SHINE!! Who in their right mind would ever even THINK of giving a little girl, not only a gun, but an UZI!!! Any ISRAELIS here?? They make them, right??

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The Japanese have been going to gun ranges in Hawaii for 20 some years. No big deal. But a 9 y/o trying to control an Uzi in full auto? That's bad judgment.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I enjoy cycling, which involves the risk of being wiped out by a car, or breaking my neck going downhill. Unlike cars and bikes, though, guns are designed for the express purpose of very suddenly and efficiently depriving someone of life.

Thank you for confirming everything that I just said. You purposely ignore bicycle deaths and as I stated correctly you also participate in the activity that causes those deaths.

You honestly think it helps your argument that something that is not designed to kill is killing people? So what if a gun is designed to kill? What matters is what person plans to use the gun for not what it is designed for. For example there are estimated 100,000 people that are both killed(suicide and homicides and accidental deaths) and wounded(assaults, accidental deaths and failed suicide and homicide attempts) by firearms. There are an estimated 70-100 million gun owners in the USA, at the low end of gun ownership that means that 99.86% of gun owners on an annual basis don't harm anyone with their guns. When 99.86% of owners of a product that is designed to kill but don't kill much less wound someone why should I care if the product is designed to kill?

Let me put it to you this way, lets say 99.86% of car owners purchased a car so that they could purposely crash the car into another car or to run people over and the government wants to ban cars and you say sorry you can't ban them because they are not designed to kill do you honestly think that argument works when 99.86% of the owners are using it to kill or harm people? Lets say a person goes to a car-salesman asking for a vehicle and then lets it slip to the salesman that he is buying the car so he can run his wife down, man runs his wife down killing her, the police go to the car-salesman and says he was OK with selling the car to guy because as we all know cars aren't designed to kill people. Lets say a person is buying a steak knife and lets it slip to the cashier that they plan on committing a mass stabbing and the cashier lets the sale go through and tells police she let the sale go through because steak knives are not designed to kill people much less stab people, they are designed to cut steak. Would you consider those to be acceptable answers/excuses for letting the sales go through?

What matters is not what the product is designed for what matters is what the person intends on using the product for. If you have a product that is designed to kill but over 99% of its owners don't use them to harm people that overrules the argument of "they are designed to harm people". Take for example Viagra. Viagra is not designed to treat ED, it was designed to treat Pulmonary hypertension but when 99% of the users of Viagra are using it to treat ED should I care at that point about what it was designed for? Should I care that it was designed to treat Pulmonary hypertension? Nope.

Besides the argument about whether a product is designed to harm someone or not is irrelevant to your point, if you truly cared about people's lives as you claimed you do and if they are as sacrosanct as you claim than the point about what a product is designed to do harm or not would be irrelevant to you because a lot of products that are not designed to kill can be wield as deadly weapons as easily as a firearm nor does a product not being designed to kill make those deaths more necessary to society, nor are they any less preventable or premature death than a gun death. Please do tell me why society needs bicycle deaths more so than gun deaths. Seeing as their deaths are just as unnecessary, just as preventable as gun deaths why should the fact that the product isn't designed to kill get in the way of stopping you from preventing those deaths or injuries?

Again I'm just going to have to repeat myself here:

You justify your malicious attitude by attempting to wrap it in some faux "caring about saving people's lives" nonsense, while purposefully ignoring any number of behaviors that many (and nearly definitely you) participate in throughout society that kill just as many people if not more people than firearms. Such as Alcohol for instance.

Get over yourself. You do not care about their lives, heck you don't even car about deaths caused by bicycles. You hate firearms, you hate the recreational ownership and usage of firearms.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites