August 25, 2014 8:51 pm -

A 9-year-old girl accidentally shot a gun instructor in the head Monday morning at a shooting a range in Dolan Springs, Arizona. The shooting happened about 10 a.m. at an outdoor range, according to the the Mohave County Sheriff’s Office.

[su_center_ad]Deputies said the girl was at the range with her parents when a gun she had fired. The 39-year-old instructor was shot in the head.

The instructor was airlifted to a Las Vegas-area hospital for treatment, according to CBS.

Neither his identity nor the girl’s was released.  His condition is not known at this time.

Deputies said this case is under investigation.

H/T: The incomparable @CarlaAkins with thanks.

D.B. Hirsch
D.B. Hirsch is a political activist, news junkie, and retired ad copy writer and spin doctor. He lives in Brooklyn, New York.

114 responses to 9-Year-Old Girl Accidentally Shoots Shooting Instructor In The Head

  1. liberalMD August 25th, 2014 at 9:02 pm

    Isn’t it odd that you have to be16 years old to drive a car but you can kill another person with a gun at any age?

    • not_buying_it August 25th, 2014 at 9:41 pm

      Don’t you know we have a god given right to own guns. It was the 11th commandment, but the bottom of the slab broke off. Ten is a nicer number anyway.

      • mdram August 25th, 2014 at 9:56 pm

        Did it fall off or was it shot off later during target practice?

      • Tommy6860 August 25th, 2014 at 10:05 pm

        LMAO! And God, with whom all things are possible, left Moses to carry those stones down the mountain all by himself.

        Still though, this is tragic and I can imagine that little girl is having feelings too much for such a such a young mind to take in.

    • Michael August 26th, 2014 at 2:26 pm

      Do the magic driver’s licensing laws prevent a 7 year old from climbing into his dad’s Ford Ranger (with its manual transmission in neutral) and releasing the parking brake?

      The driver’s licensing age doesn’t prevent a kid from doing something with a car. Can we please stop acting like having a law magically prevents people from violating it?

      • liberalMD August 28th, 2014 at 2:26 am

        That is true. So maybe we should allow 7 year old children to drive automobiles. Would you be in favor of that? While restrictions or laws preventing certain members of society won’t eliminate accidents such as you describe, it will make accidents much less likely.

        Have you given any thought about the psychological burden this 9-year-old girl will carry with her for the rest of her life?

  2. garry lafferty August 25th, 2014 at 9:02 pm

    Kids should not shoot guns before age 12.

    • edmeyer_able August 25th, 2014 at 10:00 pm

      I grew up hunting w/my Dad, used to follow him afield poking sticks in brush piles. Not sure when I got my 1st BB gun, must have been around 8. I think I had my 12 gauge when I was 14.

    • Michael August 26th, 2014 at 2:32 pm

      Why 12? Don’t you think that it should be based on each child’s maturity, responsibility, and ability? I know 12 year olds that shouldn’t leave the house unsupervised, and I know some 9 year olds that would absolutely be responsible with a firearm.

  3. edmeyer_able August 25th, 2014 at 9:55 pm

    If he survives I wonder if he have to re-certify to keep his instructor license?

    • LorieO August 26th, 2014 at 11:23 am

      He didn’t! He died last night. He had a loving wife, children, and was a respectable Army reserves officer. This has been tragic for my whole family! I can assure you that whatever happened was a fluke accident. He owned several firearms and was very safety conscious. Please pray for his wife, mother and children!

      • edmeyer_able August 26th, 2014 at 7:25 pm

        A 9 yo should be no where near a 9mm. No mater the training of this instructor the incident is entirely his fault. I have compassion for victims of accidental shootings but responsibility needs to be taken. People are killing loved ones every day thinking that their child/wife/brother is an intruder. Guns are carelessly handled, left loaded where a child can access it and do great damage. Only when laws are passed to address these issues will the carnage end.

        • LorieO August 26th, 2014 at 10:29 pm

          I agree to a point. That little girl should have never been handling such a powerful weapon! He was standing behind her and when the gun climbed (because she didn’t have the strength to hold the kick) he bent over her to point it down again. The parents should be ashamed! The father fired it before her and he still allowed it. Now a father, husband, son, brother and friend is gone…and that child will be traumatized for life. Accidents do happen though…and BTW there are thousands of gun owners that didn’t shoot anyone today. Perspective is a good thing! If you’re willing to trust your government and PD to take care of you or your family in an emergency you’re a fool!

  4. ddconn August 25th, 2014 at 10:32 pm

    Should have been in school.

    • Michael August 26th, 2014 at 2:31 pm

      A lot of schools haven’t started yet.

  5. M D Reese August 25th, 2014 at 11:16 pm

    “…when a gun she had fired”. Presumably when she or somebody pulled the trigger?

  6. RioBravoHombre August 25th, 2014 at 11:54 pm

    I grew up as a member of a country family that went to the city. We had a house with 7 guns in a gun cabinet, and my Granny’s country farm had 5 guns hanging on the wall that were always loaded. I was given a Daisy BB gun at about age 5. I was taught to handle that Daisy as if it were an actual firearm. I was not allowed to have an actual gun until i had spent 7 or 8 years toting my BB gun, and proving that I knew how to do so safely. By the time I got my own shotgun, I had been thoroughly inculcated into the safe use of ANY gun. Expecting a nine year old with zero training and experience to know what they’re doing is sheer folly.

    • whatthe46 August 26th, 2014 at 12:57 am

      grown men with “training” have “accidently” shot and killed people, let alone themselves as well.

      • Larry Schmitt August 26th, 2014 at 8:25 am

        And trained race car drivers have accidents, and chefs cut themselved with sharp knives. What’s your point? Training can’t eliminate accidents (no quotation marks needed), but it can reduce the chances of an accident. But letting someone with no training at all use a gun increases the likelihood of an accident.

        • Budda August 26th, 2014 at 8:53 am

          You have to start sometime. The point is not all race car accidents or chef cuts kill.

          • Michael August 26th, 2014 at 2:20 pm

            Not all gunshot wounds kill either, genius.

            This is an easy problem to solve. Start teaching gun safety in all public schools.

          • whatthe46 August 26th, 2014 at 7:42 pm

            are you insane?

          • Michael August 27th, 2014 at 12:27 am

            How is my suggestion insane? We teach sex ed, why shouldn’t we teach gun safety? If you actually cared about saving lives, you’d support gun safety classes in schools. Clearly you just want kids to die.

  7. AD August 26th, 2014 at 3:27 am


    • edmeyer_able August 26th, 2014 at 8:43 pm

      Where is the respect for firearms that this instructor ignored. A 9yo has no business handling a 9mm. It is not a toy it is designed to kill humans. You don’t learn gun safety or target shooting w/a fully automatic uzi. This family wasn’t interested in learning gun safety they were out to have fun with guns and unfortunately this man paid the price.

      • AD August 26th, 2014 at 11:37 pm

        Here we go..pointing the finger!! I’m not going to argue with a mule…we will agree to disagree…I have my opinions as you do shouldn’t throw rocks when you live in a glass house..lil food for thought..

  8. AD August 26th, 2014 at 3:45 am


    • causeican August 26th, 2014 at 8:02 am

      You live by the sword you may die by the sword.

  9. causeican August 26th, 2014 at 7:58 am

    The instructor probably appeared as a dark shadow figure.

  10. Hal Donahue August 26th, 2014 at 8:54 am

    Another NRA hero and child abuse

    • Michael August 26th, 2014 at 2:30 pm

      Just…no. Pull your head out…

      • Hal Donahue August 26th, 2014 at 3:18 pm

        No, you are wrong. The NRA sells the idea everyone is ‘safer’ with a gun. The instructor was selling that lie to a young child. It may not be child abuse but it should be. Meanwhile, the NRA ‘hero’ paid a price for embracing the lie

        • Michael August 26th, 2014 at 4:09 pm

          You’re so far beyond rational it’s just funny. Child abuse to help kids learn one method for protecting themselves…that’s comedy gold right there…

          • Hal Donahue August 26th, 2014 at 4:40 pm

            the risks FAR outweigh the benefits Having a gun available to children is/should be abuse. A former cop/retired military here not an anti-gun ‘nut’

          • Michael August 27th, 2014 at 12:25 am

            Being a former cop and retired soldier doesn’t make you an authority on guns, nor does it automatically make you “not an anti-gun ‘nut'”. The risks of accidental injury can be mitigated with training, which is exactly what this girl was receiving. There isn’t much other than a gun that can mitigate the risk of an armed intruder coming into your house. “The risks” and “the rewards” are not for you to weigh. That is a choice for each family to make for themselves.

          • Hal Donahue August 27th, 2014 at 6:14 am

            The very real risks may be ‘mitigated’. However, the 9 yr old brain is far from fully developed and consequences are not always able to be adequately considered. There are many things that may address an armed intruder entering your home from live in a better place to locks and alarms to baseball bats and knives. Unless you are a mafia don or gang leader, the risks are low of armed invaders but far higher for accidents or anger to kill/harm. The risk/rewards ARE for communities to determine and establish. Must I remind you that many old western towns required guns be checked before entering. If you truly fear a home invasion perhaps you need either counseling or better/more police?

          • Michael August 27th, 2014 at 11:52 am

            Yeah, a 9 year old is going to be able to defend themselves against a grown man with something that requires physical strength to be even remotely effective.

            You have no right to tell me what is right for my family to protect ourselves with. If you think more police is the answer, then I call bullshit on you being a former cop, because you clearly misunderstand the usefulness of police in a situation such as a home invasion. Unless there are so many police that there’s one on every corner, police take reports and investigate (not prevent) things like home invasions. As the saying goes, when seconds count, police are minutes away.

          • Hal Donahue August 27th, 2014 at 12:33 pm

            Not what I said but it is just as likely she cannot do an effective job with an UZI. Don’t know where you live but it sounds like your police are too few or incompetent. We just a home invasion in the region, alarm sounded police caught them fleeing. I have called the cops several times and the average is less than 3 minutes. Then there is the question why is a 9 yr old home alone. Best thing she can do is flee for help.

          • Michael August 27th, 2014 at 12:54 pm

            9 might indeed be a bit young to be capable with a weapon. You didn’t say 9-year-old though. You said “the risks FAR outweigh the benefits Having a gun available to ***children*** is/should be abuse.” So your statement would apply to a 16 year old as well, who would most definitely be able to employ a firearm to protect himself.

            3 minute response time? First of all, that’s incredible, and well below the national average. Second of all, 3 minutes is plenty of time to murder a family.

          • Hal Donahue August 27th, 2014 at 1:00 pm

            nice pirouette but the article is about this shooting as was my comment Who let’s a 9 yr old shoot an UZI much less teach them I had my first NRA ghunter safety course at 12

          • Michael August 27th, 2014 at 1:06 pm

            Yes, I know what the article was about. I was responding to what YOU said. If you’d like to clarify that you think weapons are too risky to allow 9-year-olds to use, then I’d be happy to have that conversation. When you make generalizations like you did, you get the responses you got.

          • mea_mark August 27th, 2014 at 1:23 pm

            It was an UZI. There is video of the event right before the fatality you can see here … Personaly, it is one of the dumbest things I have ever seen. I have taught people how to shoot before and there is no way I would of done what this idiot did.

          • Michael August 27th, 2014 at 1:53 pm

            Thanks for providing that video. That instructor is a moron. You don’t have a 9 year old shoot something full-auto, because they won’t be able to control the recoil. Also, he should have been standing behind the shooter. He put himself in an unsafe position and paid the price. This guy didn’t get shot for any reason other than he was incompetent.

          • Hal Donahue August 27th, 2014 at 2:57 pm

            some AZ news station said UZI and it was a combination burger auto weapon place

          • Hal Donahue August 27th, 2014 at 1:02 pm

            If you are being stalked for killing only luck, preparedness and watchfulness can save you. Our PD is very good

  11. Snake Plissken August 26th, 2014 at 10:19 am

    Meet the youngest member of the NRA Hall of Fame

    Nice job of traumatizing your daughter for life.

    • Michael August 26th, 2014 at 2:30 pm

      Yeah, the NRA loves it when people shoot other people by accident! Seriously, where do you come up with this crap?

      • Snake Plissken August 26th, 2014 at 2:38 pm

        The NRA not only enables it, they fight tooth and nail to allow it to occur

        • Michael August 26th, 2014 at 2:43 pm

          The fight tooth and nail to protect the liberties that the constitution already safeguards, but that many people try to erode. To act like NRA policies had anything to do with this 9 year old shooting this instructor is patently ridiculous. Hell, the NRA’s Eddie Eagle program is one of the only gun safety programs available for kids.

          If you ask me, the way to prevent things like this is to teach gun safety in school in the same way that we teach sex ed. Pretty sure you’d oppose that though, so it sounds to me like YOU enable this kind of thing to a greater extent than the NRA that you demonize. Way to go, murderer.

          • Snake Plissken August 26th, 2014 at 2:44 pm

            Like I said … Who in their right mind would fight legislation that would prevent nine year old children from being given loaded firearms?

          • Michael August 26th, 2014 at 2:46 pm

            To what legislation are you referring?

          • Snake Plissken August 26th, 2014 at 2:50 pm

            You are actually defending this manufacturer’s lobby and have no idea that they are vigorously fighting age limit bans on fire arms … seriously?

            Why don’t you look up what you precious manufacturer’s lobby is spending it’s money on before you blindly defend them.

            I’m sure you can Google …

            ‘NRA Asks Supreme Court To Strike Down Gun Limits For Minors”

          • Guest August 26th, 2014 at 2:51 pm

            So you aren’t going to tell me what law the NRA opposed that would have kept a gun out of this girl’s hands?

          • Michael August 26th, 2014 at 2:53 pm

            “Minors” is a misnomer. The NRA wanted to make it legal for 18 year olds to purchase handguns and handgun ammunition, whereas the current age limit is 21.

            So that would NOT have had anything to do with a 9 year old.

            Try again. What law has been proposed, and opposed by the NRA that would “prevent nine year old children from being given loaded firearms?”

          • Snake Plissken August 26th, 2014 at 3:08 pm

            You have to be kidding me, the NRA is funding the fight to repeal this law



          • Michael August 26th, 2014 at 4:05 pm

            Okay, so now you’re bringing up a completely different law – a state law in a state that ISN’T where this happened.

            I will also point out that the law didn’t prevent the 8-year-old in your Iowa story from shooting the handgun. So it doesn’t sound to me like the law actually prevents what it prohibits.

            Furthermore, the Iowa law only covers handguns, and not rifles or shotguns, so a 9-year-old could still legally fire one of those (unless there’s a law not mentioned in the story that prohibits it, of course).

            Finally, I see nothing in either of those stories that shows that the NRA is funding opposition to the law.

            Keep trying. This is amusing.

          • Snake Plissken August 26th, 2014 at 4:09 pm

            My argument has never changed, the manufacturer’s lobby you blindly support fights tooth and nail to facilitate incidents like the one this article is about to continue occurring.

          • Michael August 26th, 2014 at 4:30 pm

            I didn’t say your argument changed. I pointed out how you changed which law you were talking about after being shown how the first law you discussed was completely irrelevant (it only affected people age 18-20).

            Your argument hasn’t changed, and you still haven’t backed it up with anything factual. You have yet to show me a law that would have kept the gun out of this girl’s hands, and you have yet to show me evidence of the NRA actively opposing such a law.

            Speaking of being blind, you keep calling the NRA a manufacturer’s lobby. You clearly haven’t looked up the NRA’s financials. According to its public tax returns (, the group raked in $228 million worth of revenue in 2010. That included about $106 million from membership dues and fees alone, along with about $18 million from educational services. It made another $20.9 million by selling advertising in its publications. Yes, manufacturers do provide a lot of money too, but you’re pretending that the NRA speaks only for them.

            Hell, even if the NRA DID only speak for gun manufacturers, that’s no different than the oil lobby advocating for oil companies, the UAW lobbying for better labor laws, or the NEA advocating for whatever they think teachers want. That’s what lobbyists DO. Unless you’d like to start taking people’s first amendment rights too, I’m not sure what your point is, exactly. Gun manufacturers want people to buy more of what they sell? Duh. Next?

          • Snake Plissken August 26th, 2014 at 4:39 pm

            The manufacturer’s don’t even try to hide the purpose of their lobby


          • Michael August 27th, 2014 at 12:19 am

            What? A company wants to sell more of what they sell?! Scandalous!!

            You still haven’t shown any evidence that the NRA has actively opposed a law that would prevent a 9 year old from firing a weapon at a shooting range. Just more deflecting.

          • Chinese Democracy August 26th, 2014 at 3:06 pm

            “NRA’s Eddie Eagle program is one of the only gun safety programs available for kids”

            Bull chit .. its only a way to get kids to want to buy a gun later. Whats next a safety program so kids wont burn themselves trying to light a cigarette ?

            Its been proven over and over and over and over that kids and guns are not a good idea.

            you keep living in your NRA delusion.. meanwhile sane people will try to protect the kids from people like you

          • Michael August 26th, 2014 at 4:07 pm

            You are clearly unfamiliar with the Eddie Eagle program. Its whole thing is “If you see a gun, don’t touch it, and tell an adult.”

            Not sure how this is a way to get kids to buy guns any more than sex ed is a vehicle for enticing kids to go have sex.

          • Chinese Democracy August 26th, 2014 at 7:53 pm

            true clearly unfamiliar with that program.. but familiar with the NRA

            Eddie Eagle… dont touch that gun! (up to 3rd grade)

            And then this

            NRA pushes guns on kids as young as Newtown victims in sick ‘Youth Day’

            NRA caps annual convention by enticing children as as young as 3 to fire weapons — and even offers them free six-month memberships.


          • Michael August 27th, 2014 at 12:31 am

            The NRA did not entice a 3 year old to fire a gun. You’re mixing two separate things here: 1) the NRA had a youth day. 2) a grandfather bought an NRA life membership for his 3 year old grandchild. You’ve falsely connected the two, and assumed that the NRA had that 3 year old fire a gun. The youngest person I see in the article that fired anything was a 5 year old shooting an AIRSOFT rifle. (not a real gun)

            You’ve got to get your facts straight if you want to have a rational conversation.

          • Chinese Democracy August 27th, 2014 at 12:02 pm

            lol … I didnt mix anything .. I didnt write the article. You are naive if you think the NRA doesnt want more guns in more hands and does not work for the gun industry

          • Michael August 27th, 2014 at 12:11 pm

            You can’t cite an article as supportive of your position, then wash your hands of it, saying “I didn’t write it”

            Furthermore, you wrote “NRA caps annual convention by enticing children as as young as 3 to fire weapons” while the article says “The National Rifle Association capped its annual convention Sunday by hosting a “Youth Day” — enticing youngsters to attend by offering free six-month memberships.”

            So while the article says they were enticing “youngsters” to ATTEND by offering 6 month memberships, YOU wrote that they were enticing “children as young as 3” to FIRE WEAPONS. You misrepresented what the article said to try to make a point. All you’ve done, however, is demonstrate how dishonest you are.

            More than half of the NRA’s budget comes from individual donors. It’s a simple fact that you can look up. Am I supposed to be surprised or outraged that a gun advocacy group would like more guns to be sold? EVERY group wants to grow in numbers and influence, so saying the NRA wants more guns is kind of a “yeah, duh”. It’s meaningless unless you take the next step of detailing why that’s BAD, which you haven’t done.

          • Chinese Democracy August 27th, 2014 at 1:13 pm

            Furthermore I didnt write.. but if you want me to list a 1000 more pro guns for kids NRA articles .. I can, like this one

            NRA Floats Idea Of Kids Needing To Show Gun Proficiency …

            New NRA Commentary: “What If Instead Of Gun-Free Zones We Had Gun-Required Zones?”

          • Chinese Democracy August 27th, 2014 at 1:16 pm

            Why thats BAD? You are kidding right?

          • Michael August 27th, 2014 at 1:50 pm

            Yes, it’s bad when 9 year olds shoot people and when kids are killed or injured. What you haven’t established is how wanting to sell more guns is bad. Hell, you haven’t even established that selling more guns results in more injuries. You’re missing key pieces of the train of logic that you need in order to support your position.

            While misuse of guns does harm people, proper use of guns also protects them. The LOW estimate is 55,000-80,000 defensive uses of firearms each year.

            The story you posted in your other comment is a comment piece, illustrating the idiocy of our current policies. Those kids who get injured by guns every year? A lot of them wouldn’t happen if we taught kids gun safety in school like we teach them about safe sex. If you wanted to save lives, you’d get behind that, but you won’t. Why not?

          • Chinese Democracy August 27th, 2014 at 1:57 pm

            there is nothing I can copy produce type say repeat that will make you change your mindset. The proof is already there . More guns does not mean more safety . So Im not going to bother

          • Michael August 27th, 2014 at 1:59 pm

            nothing you’ve provided shows that more guns means LESS safety, which is what you’re arguing. I’m not asking you to convince me of anything. I’m asking you to provide the evidence to support your argument. And you’re failing miserably.

          • Chinese Democracy August 27th, 2014 at 6:31 pm

            Guns don’t kill people, people kill people, and monkeys do too (if they have a gun)

          • elizapar August 28th, 2014 at 11:57 pm

            How come in a lot of countries that have strict gun laws, there are less murders? Gun laws do work if they are used. Wake up and face reality.

          • Sounder August 29th, 2014 at 12:38 am

            In fairness, other countries are also much better at assimilating different ethnic groups into a cohesive culture. For example, you won’t hear anyone refer to themselves as African-British. In the US different groups insist on setting themselves apart, which has the tendency of making us adversarial.

            Also, the US is worse than a lot of countries in income inequality and education. If you look at crime statistics in the US, you’ll find there’s a far better correlation between crime and socioeconomic factors, than there is between crime and gun laws. If you really want to address gun violence, you have to address VIOLENCE, and that means addressing education and poverty.

          • MsMisty August 27th, 2014 at 1:08 pm

            I feel it was the parents fault because what 9 year old belongs on a shooting range and what 9 year old needs to be handling a gun? What purpose does that serve? That is crazy. And as tar as schools teaching the NRA program or any other program that parents should be teaching their kids about including sex education is ridiculous too. There are some things that parents have to take responsibility for. Why does a school have to teach things other than reading, writing and arithmetic? They are not the parents. I do believe the school needs to teach them about bullying because it goes on in the school itself. But other sensitive issues should be taught by the parents. Nobody seems to want to take responsibility. They send kids to school and expect teachers to “fix the problem”, or “make him/her happy”. He/she isn’t having fun. Fun? Who said school was suppose to be fun?

          • Anomaly 100 August 26th, 2014 at 5:21 pm

            Chill out. Don’t call our readers ‘murderers’.


          • Michael August 27th, 2014 at 12:26 am

            But it’s okay for your readers to insinuate that the NRA are? A little biased, aren’t you?

          • Anomaly 100 August 27th, 2014 at 8:20 am

            Yes, i am very biased when it comes to our readers.

            By the way, the NRA has blood all over their hands, so it’s appropriate to equate them with murderous thugs.

          • Michael August 27th, 2014 at 11:54 am

            Ban me if you want. You’re a double-standard-toting asshat. If you’re going to have one set of rules for people you agree with and a different set for people you disagree with, you can go fuck yourself.

          • Chinese Democracy August 27th, 2014 at 6:24 pm

            “a double standard toting ass hat ” lol love that.. now add waving a Gadsden flag and you will have nailed it .

          • JP August 27th, 2014 at 9:57 pm

            The Constitution of the United States gives the right to bear arms to a “well regulated militia”. The Supreme Court later ruled that the Second Amendment could be used to allow individuals to bear arms. So you’re wrong. The Constitution does not “safeguard” that “liberty” because it never gave you that “liberty”. Our Founding Fathers never meant for common folks to “keep and bear arms”. A wise decision indeed. It’s so sad that later generations have messed with it.

          • Sounder August 27th, 2014 at 10:58 pm

            Your understanding of the second amendment is off. “well-regulated” didn’t mean in those days what it means today. At the time the 2A was written, “well-regulated” meant properly functioning. The militia was (and still is, if you look at 10 U.S.C. Section 311) the people. Also, the first half is the declarative phrase, and the second half is the operative phrase. In modern vernacular, the amendment would read “A properly trained and equipped armed citizenry (the militia) is necessary to the security of a free state, therefore the right of that citizenry to keep and bear arms shall not be undermined, limited, or encroached upon”

            The militia is the people. The people are the militia. The people who fought for our independence didn’t do it with government issues guns. They grabbed the guns **they already owned** and marched off to war. They recognized that we might need to do so again at some point in the future, and wisely prohibited the government from infringing on that right.

            I agree that the Constitution doesn’t give us that liberty. It’s something with which we are endowed by our creator. The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties, that is, it doesn’t say what rights people have, but rather what rights the government may not usurp.

          • JP August 28th, 2014 at 11:12 pm

            Thank you for your misunderstanding of the Second Amendment. It was very well worded and very well thought out. You can fight tooth and nail with all of the educated prose you can dream of, but it will never change the fact that you were never given this right by the Constitution or our Founding Fathers. It was given to you by corrupt politicians and judges afterwards to convince the people to support their parties and keep them in office. It’s the same reason why politicians today continue to support these destructive devices.

          • Sounder August 29th, 2014 at 12:34 am

            “it will never change the fact that you were never given this right by the Constitution or our Founding Fathers”

            You’re absolutely right. My right to protect my life isn’t “given” to me by ANYONE. It is a right I was born with by virtue of my humanity.

            Look at the language of the 2A. “the right of the people…shall not be infringed.” It doesn’t say “the people have the right”, as if the document grants it, because the founding fathers recognized that the right was inalienable. The document is worded such that it acknowledges the preexistence of the right. They knew that any right granted by men can be revoked by men, and they asserted and I agree that the right to self defense (and the means to ensure it) is endowed to each by virtue of our humanity.

          • Guest August 28th, 2014 at 11:52 pm

            Don’t use common sense with people like Michael, it will confuse them.

          • elizapar August 28th, 2014 at 11:53 pm

            Don’t use common sense with Michael, it will confuse him.

  12. crc3 August 26th, 2014 at 10:36 am

    Charge the parents for bad parenting!

  13. Charles Edward Pardue August 26th, 2014 at 11:19 am

    There may have been some firearms made specifically for children 50 years ago, when I was growing up, but there was not this wholesale move to train children in their use or market firearms aggressively for them. The standard practice was to start a child out on a BB gun, move up to a pellet rifle or 22, and a high powered firearm, like a shotgun or deer rifle, after that.

    A nine year old child lacks the motor control and discretion to responsibly handle a firearm. I’ve had few courses in developmental psychology as part of my teacher training, plus I’ve also worked with younger children. There may be a few children who could handle a firearm at this age, but the majority should not be handling firearms until they get to at least middle school age.

    Plus, much as it pains me to say it, America is becoming a more irresponsible society on a daily basis. I see very little that leads me to believe responsible behavior forms a major part of our national ethos anymore, especially on the part of our leadership. As the old Russian saying goes, “a fish rots from the head down”.

  14. FredC1968 August 26th, 2014 at 4:12 pm

    I want to see the police and coroner’s reports. Something went horribly wrong.

    • whatthe46 August 26th, 2014 at 7:41 pm

      you think.

    • William August 27th, 2014 at 2:13 pm

      Something went horribly wrong.
      You mean OTHER than handing a 9 year a gun?

  15. linkeditin August 26th, 2014 at 5:09 pm


    • Bear72 August 26th, 2014 at 8:22 pm

      YOU are the moron! Not the entire state of Arizona. Prejudice obviously still prevails where you live.

  16. Bear72 August 26th, 2014 at 8:20 pm

    linkeditin….YOU ARE THE MORON……If this happened in Utah, New Mexico or Texas would you have said the same thing? This could have happened anytime, anywhere, any place. Just because it happened in Arizona doesn’t mean the entire state is full of people like YOU!

  17. AD August 26th, 2014 at 9:52 pm

    I’m getting a lot of negative nasty comments regarding my good friend, Mr. Vacca. At the end of the day, two families are devastated right now!! A man, an Army veteran, a husband and father lost his life! A girl is forever traumatized..I shouldn’t care what you guys are posting because half of you are talking out you’re asses and the other half are just dumbasses. You don’t have all the facts, by assuming you know everything makes an ass out of you and everyone agreeing with you! And please stop with the blame games…have some class and show some damn respect!

    • whatthe46 August 26th, 2014 at 9:58 pm

      she shouldn’t have been handling a gun. just my opinion. a man should not have lost his life. and he’d be alive today but for…

    • Chinese Democracy August 27th, 2014 at 1:18 pm

      even a dumb ass can figure out handing that little girl a loaded high powered weapon was a bad bad idea

      calling everyone dumbasses shows some real class pal

      • AD August 27th, 2014 at 3:27 pm

        Calling a man who lost his life and other horrible nasty names is just as bad!..

        • Chinese Democracy August 27th, 2014 at 6:21 pm

          no I was calling you out on your ridiculous hypocrisy

          ok for you to call others a dumbass but not ok for others to comment back

          • AD August 27th, 2014 at 6:23 pm

            You are correct..anger got the best of me. I apologize..emotionality and mentally I am devastated for all involved and esp for the Vacca family. The attacks against this man are not fair..

          • Chinese Democracy August 27th, 2014 at 6:30 pm

            Dont hand 40 lb little girls loaded guns. Its not an attack on that man. Its an attack on the gun culture .. the mindset of even thinking that would be ok .

      • AD August 27th, 2014 at 3:29 pm

        It was a horrific accident, plain in simple. The shoulda wouldas is past tense. I do not personally believe the girl should of been holding a gun of that stature, that’s my own belief.

    • elizapar August 28th, 2014 at 11:50 pm

      Boo hoo, stop whining. Most accidents like this one CAN be avoided by using common sense.

      • AD August 29th, 2014 at 12:42 am

        Yep you’re right! Like not bringing you’re fkin kid to a GUN range! There’s alil common sense for ya..

  18. Michael August 27th, 2014 at 12:49 pm

    I will show you and your readers as much respect as they show others. If you want to insinuate (or allow others to do so) that the NRA are murders, then I’m happy to use the same crap logic to imply the same of your readers. If you don’t like it, too bad – go on and censor me, so you can have your little echo chamber and pretend that everyone agrees with you.

  19. Michael August 27th, 2014 at 1:42 pm

    Hold your readers to the same standard, and we wouldn’t have this issue. You got all bent out of shape because I said plainly about one of your readers something they insinuated about an organization representing millions of gun owners. You showed up immediately touting a double-standard, and have yet to own that – in fact, you’ve held it up as a good thing. I don’t know what the standards are for moderators here, but in principle, a moderator is supposed to be objective and reasonable. You seem content to allow poor behavior from those you agree with, and only expect those with whom you disagree (and label trolls) to be tactful.

    So when you get after the other commenters here who are insinuating that the NRA is responsible for people dying, and when you recant (or show proof which supports) your own statement that the NRA has blood on its hands, then you will have earned my respect. Until then, you haven’t earned my respect or my compliance.

    In short, when you start enforcing your rules equitably, I’ll be happy to follow them. So…you first.

    • Anomaly 100 August 27th, 2014 at 1:58 pm

      You’re not getting my point at all. I’m not asking you to abide by the rules here. I’m demanding it.

      • Michael August 27th, 2014 at 2:03 pm

        Oh I get your point, I’m just disregarding it. You basically have three options here. 1) You walk away. 2) You drop the double-standard. 3) You ban me, and prove everything I’ve said about you to be correct.

        Your call, buddy.

        • Anomaly 100 August 27th, 2014 at 2:06 pm

          Wrong again. I”ve given you options, and if you don’t comply, you will no longer be welcome here.

          I support having *all* viewpoints but with that comes responsibility. I don’t go to right wing sites and make demands, or give ultimatums.

          You don’t get to do that here, Buddy.

          • Michael August 27th, 2014 at 2:17 pm

            You don’t support having all viewpoints, because you expect different behavior from those with whom you disagree than those with whom you agree. That’s like saying “men and women can both speak, but women must speak only in whispers while men may speak with a megaphone.” If that’s how you want to act, that’s your prerogative (and you’re a coward for hiding behind your moderator status), but don’t pretend you’re equitable and open-minded. The lie is utterly transparent.

            In your warped little world, it’s okay to tell me to not call one of your readers a murderer, but it’s completely acceptable for that reader to insinuate the same thing about the NRA, and by extension the millions of their members, based solely on the fact that you agree with them. You’re a terrible moderator.

          • mea_mark August 27th, 2014 at 2:24 pm

            I am banning you for excessive trolling of the author. Go find another place to go trolling.

  20. John_St_John August 27th, 2014 at 5:25 pm

    Nothing accidental about negligently handing a child a fully automatic weapon. Adults have a hard time controlling the climb and swing of an automatic weapon on full auto, what in the hell possessed them to think a mere 60 (speculation on my part) pound child could do so?

  21. Mike Santos August 28th, 2014 at 1:36 am

    This kind of accident just goes with playing with Guns, PERIOD !

  22. FredC1968 August 28th, 2014 at 1:57 pm

    After seeing the footage, I saw serious issues:

    The most obvious was the child was too small to properly operate that firearm.

    The second was the instructor gave what would be poor instructions for an adult. I’ve shot submachineguns as a civilian. Additionally, I’ve shot general purpose machineguns, heavy machineguns, and actual assault rifles during my time in the Army.

    Since most comments I’ve seen on this page are anti-firearm and really anti-firearm owner, I suspect most people haven’t heard the term “Range Jerk.” A range jerk is someone who encourages and inexperienced shooter a firearm that is too much for them. They are usually young men who get a young woman, without shooting experience, to fire some very powerful revolver designed for dispatching very large predators, like a bear or feral hog. They think it’s funny or cute. This is a dangerous practice. In fact, the only known person killed by a .500 S&W Magnum was due to a range jerk. She couldn’t handle the prodigious recoil, and she shot herself.

    What happened here was a variation of this behavior; it is similar to yelling “fire” in a crowded theater.

    A basic concept in firearms learning is to start with something that is less powerful and as one’s ability improves move to something more powerful.

    A typical firearm to teach basic marksmanship and applied safety is euphemistically called a “kiddie rifle.” A kiddie rifle is typically a single shot small rifle chambered in .22LR. These have very little recoil and no chance for a followup shot. Although a submachinegun firing in semiautomatic mode will typically have less recoil than a pistol chambered for the same cartridge; in automatic mode, the followup shots will create a cumulative recoil effect.

    I blame the facility and the instructor. They should have acted better.

    This whole mess could have been avoided.