My point was regarding Lillith's earlier statements that full autos and hard to control semi-autos be restricted to 16 or 17 and older. While the girl is over 12, she is definitely not 16 or 17 and handling those weapons with ease. It also follows that it wasn't the first time she had used those weapons so she must have been using them from an even younger age. The point being two incidents, while tragic and preventable, do not convince me that there is a need to legislate control over access to certain kinds of firearms to such a high age.
9-year old accidentally shoots instructor with Uzi
- Thread starter firedrake
- Start date
My point was regarding Lillith's earlier statements that full autos and hard to control semi-autos be restricted to 16 or 17 and older. While the girl is over 12, she is definitely not 16 or 17 and handling those weapons with ease. It also follows that it wasn't the first time she had used those weapons so she must have been using them from an even younger age. The point being two incidents, while tragic and preventable, do not convince me that there is a need to legislate control over access to certain kinds of firearms to such a high age.
They aren't, unless you go through a massive amount of red tape, have a special license, and also pay a fee that's upwards of $20K.
But, as was pointed out earlier in the thread, the "register it" loophole apparently makes all of that moot. Once the range registered their weapons, they were legal in the state.
When the zombies attack, you won't question why the average citizen needs to wipe out dozens of them per minute. And we'll need every one of those nine-year-old trained soldiers.
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2005
- Messages
- 2,719
- Reaction score
- 551
- Location
- Bellevue, WA
- Website
- www.CascadeWriters.com
I will note that insurance companies for homeowners/apartments/housing developments, etc. DO raise rates on people who have a pool, while they do NOT even ask if you have a gun.
Wow, Lillith -- you live in a pretty restrictive city re: ages kids can be left alone. I'm pretty sure it's age 10 for any time of the day around here. I don't know when the law came into effect, but I'm over 60 and I was routinely left to care for my siblings and babysit for other families from the time I was 9. I have mentioned this elsewhere in AW, but there is a story in our family about my aunt being bitten by a poisonous snake at age 5 and my father, who was 3 at the time, running miles through the mountains (barefoot) to go home and get someone to help her -- but first, he used his pen knife to cut open the bite wound and he made her go stand in the creek.
My father was raised in the Ozark mountains on a farm miles from the nearest neighbor. He lived there until he was 13. There were no other men in the family, so he was the one who hunted for food -- but they did shoot their own livestock for food too. They also used guns for protection (because as much as I hate to invoke stereotypes, there was a certain amount of feuding going on in the area). I seem to remember he started shooting regularly when he was 3 -- the same year he started smoking.
As an adult, I lived on the same farm to take care of my great grandmother. I carried a rifle almost all the time -- to hunt for food (we ate squirrel and rabbit the whole time I lived there -- she wouldn't allow me to kill any of her remaining 4 head of cattle), but also to protect us. I won't go into the details, but there was a recurring threat to our lives and I felt that having a loaded gun around at all times was essential to our survival. It did come in handy in that way more than once. This was in 1976.
I know a lot of people who live in both urban and rural places who genuinely feel afraid for their lives if they do not have a loaded gun either nearby or on their person. Upthread I listed a few of the situations I've been in - and though none of them would have been prevented if I'd had a gun (or a cell phone), they are the kind of thing people here are afraid of. I really get that. Carrying a gun gives you swagger and swagger does help keep assailants away, no kidding (I'll go look for a citation for that, too).
But in school (I went to school on a military base, so everyone owned guns) there were kids killed or seriously injured by guns, mostly where they'd snuck into their dad's gun locker and the gun went off while showing it to their friends. At our house, we knew where the loaded guns were and we were not allowed to touch them unless we thought someone was threatening us. But we were more afraid of getting in trouble than some other kids, so we never did.
I taught my kids to shoot black powder rifles and handguns when they were 12 and 16, at a gun range, with hearing protection. We did it for a family activity for a few years, at historical reinactment events called mountain men rendezvous. My daughter loved to shoot -- she joined the army and served for over 10 years.
None of us own guns any longer. But even though I am not against guns in general, I do think some stiffer purchase guidelines would be good. But I can also see how they might take guns away from people who do use them for hunting and protection (Alaska is for real a place where you'd be better off armed -- the threat of being attacked by a bear is real).
Wow, Lillith -- you live in a pretty restrictive city re: ages kids can be left alone. I'm pretty sure it's age 10 for any time of the day around here. I don't know when the law came into effect, but I'm over 60 and I was routinely left to care for my siblings and babysit for other families from the time I was 9. I have mentioned this elsewhere in AW, but there is a story in our family about my aunt being bitten by a poisonous snake at age 5 and my father, who was 3 at the time, running miles through the mountains (barefoot) to go home and get someone to help her -- but first, he used his pen knife to cut open the bite wound and he made her go stand in the creek.
My father was raised in the Ozark mountains on a farm miles from the nearest neighbor. He lived there until he was 13. There were no other men in the family, so he was the one who hunted for food -- but they did shoot their own livestock for food too. They also used guns for protection (because as much as I hate to invoke stereotypes, there was a certain amount of feuding going on in the area). I seem to remember he started shooting regularly when he was 3 -- the same year he started smoking.
As an adult, I lived on the same farm to take care of my great grandmother. I carried a rifle almost all the time -- to hunt for food (we ate squirrel and rabbit the whole time I lived there -- she wouldn't allow me to kill any of her remaining 4 head of cattle), but also to protect us. I won't go into the details, but there was a recurring threat to our lives and I felt that having a loaded gun around at all times was essential to our survival. It did come in handy in that way more than once. This was in 1976.
I know a lot of people who live in both urban and rural places who genuinely feel afraid for their lives if they do not have a loaded gun either nearby or on their person. Upthread I listed a few of the situations I've been in - and though none of them would have been prevented if I'd had a gun (or a cell phone), they are the kind of thing people here are afraid of. I really get that. Carrying a gun gives you swagger and swagger does help keep assailants away, no kidding (I'll go look for a citation for that, too).
But in school (I went to school on a military base, so everyone owned guns) there were kids killed or seriously injured by guns, mostly where they'd snuck into their dad's gun locker and the gun went off while showing it to their friends. At our house, we knew where the loaded guns were and we were not allowed to touch them unless we thought someone was threatening us. But we were more afraid of getting in trouble than some other kids, so we never did.
I taught my kids to shoot black powder rifles and handguns when they were 12 and 16, at a gun range, with hearing protection. We did it for a family activity for a few years, at historical reinactment events called mountain men rendezvous. My daughter loved to shoot -- she joined the army and served for over 10 years.
None of us own guns any longer. But even though I am not against guns in general, I do think some stiffer purchase guidelines would be good. But I can also see how they might take guns away from people who do use them for hunting and protection (Alaska is for real a place where you'd be better off armed -- the threat of being attacked by a bear is real).
Amadan
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2010
- Messages
- 8,649
- Reaction score
- 1,623
Relying on guns against zombies is futile in the first place.
Against zombies you want a weapon that can't run out of ammo like a sword or a trusty bokken.
- Joined
- May 11, 2007
- Messages
- 20,569
- Reaction score
- 4,814
- Location
- youtu.be/QRruBVFXjnY
- Website
- www.ifoundaknife.com
Hmmm. Then I guess I don't really see why your average citizen needs one.
*signs up 9-year-old niece for bokken lessons*
*purchases swimming pool; fills it with sharks with laser beams*
ETA:
*erects fence with self-latching gate, with latch 54 inches from ground*
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2014
- Messages
- 5,313
- Reaction score
- 569
- Location
- MA
- Website
- eclecticlittledork.wordpress.com
Have there been any new developments in this? I've been avoiding coverage of it because the lack of common sense just pisses me off.
https://gma.yahoo.com/uzi-too-much-girl-said-fatal-gun-range-201920146--abc-news-topstories.html
Here's an update. It seems that the kidlet didn't even realize anything had happened to her instructor at first. She hurt her shoulder, and was focused there.
Poor baby had a shock coming.
Even her parents didn't notice the man had been killed at the time.
I hadn't realized this was a family on vacation. How is someone who isn't a regular at the range "suitable" to handle any weapon? Safety lessons should be a bare minimum before they're allowed to touch one - even adults.
Here's an update. It seems that the kidlet didn't even realize anything had happened to her instructor at first. She hurt her shoulder, and was focused there.
Poor baby had a shock coming. Even her parents didn't notice the man had been killed at the time.
I hadn't realized this was a family on vacation. How is someone who isn't a regular at the range "suitable" to handle any weapon? Safety lessons should be a bare minimum before they're allowed to touch one - even adults.
I think we can probably all agree on this much...
that poor little girl. It truly sucks that she's going to have to live with this for the rest of her life.
that poor little girl. It truly sucks that she's going to have to live with this for the rest of her life.
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2011
- Messages
- 6,543
- Reaction score
- 511
Well... one does not have to be a regular visitor to be found competent and able. If the girl passed a screening of some sort, say a one hour safety lesson and a tricep curl of some amount... Maybe?
That said, if this is true, it doesn't sound good at all. Too many rumors flying too fast to be sure what did and did not happen.
That's why I, personally, wouldn't want a gun in my house for self-defense. The chances of someone getting hurt accidentally seem higher to me than actually successfully defending myself against an intruder. Not only do kids get into guns, but people have accidentally shot family members while mistaking them for intruders. In a possible emergency, it's hard to make accurate snap judgments.
But if you follow all the safety guidelines and keep your gun unloaded in a locked gun safe, it's not easily accessible if you do need it in an emergency. So what's the point? I'm not saying that no one should have a gun if they want one. But personally, I just don't see the benefit for myself.
I know. I feel terrible for her.
Haha, I want my own assault rifle now. And a tank.
Insufficient sample size. Important experiment: Select a few school districts, hand Uzis out and replace the "gold star" reward system with ammunition, and study the results.
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2005
- Messages
- 16,339
- Reaction score
- 4,110
- Location
- East O' The Sun & West O' The Moon
- Website
- www.jlevitt.com
It not only seems that way, it is that way. We've had numerous threads about this, with plenty of cites to back it up. There is no doubt that a gun will sometimes save your life if an intruder breaks in to harm you. There are many documented cases of exactly that.
It is also factually true, not just a matter of opinion, that guns in households result in far more deaths of people in those households than are saved by having as gun in the household.
Of course, people are not statistics. Many people will look at the statistics and say, "But this doesn't apply to me. I am a responsible and safe gun owner and handler." Or, "I live in a high crime neighborhood where the possibility of someone breaking in to murder me and my family is a very real and present danger."
I am one of those first types. I fully understand that guns do not make one safer; yet I have a gun in my house. However, I live alone. If I had kids I would certainly not have a gun in the house. If I lived with another person or people, I doubt very much I would have one either.
I do believe people have the right to make stupid choices. That's why I am not in favor of banning guns. But I certainly am in favor of banning certain types of guns, of requiring background checks, and of strict registration, safety, and training requirements to own one.
Your concern is spot-on. http://nyagv.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Accidental-Shootings-NYAGV.pdf
link said:
DancingMaenid said:
The statistics don't seem to change much when people safely store their guns. http://www.minnpost.com/second-opinion/2012/12/health-risk-having-gun-home
2nd link said:
Bolding mine.
DancingMaenid said:
As far as guns in the home, I do understand guns that are very unlikely to be used by children being kept by people who have legitimate and increased reason to believe someone may come attack them in their home. For instance, if an ex with a mental disorder has threatened to come to the house and blow everyone away, it makes sense, IMO, to keep a gun that the kids are unable to operate. I imagine if you only included cases such as those, the statistics would paint a different picture than they do for ordinary gun owners.
But for the average person without exceptional reason to believe that they are already in imminent danger of gun violence, it is probably safer to pay attention to what we know about the risks of keeping a gun in the home. If you have an average family and no one is making credible threats of coming to shoot you, you are making you and your family less safe if you keep guns.
Would I suggest legislation based on that? No. It's a personal judgement call, IMO. That doesn't mean there is nothing I would like to see regulated about guns in the home - for instance, a high-powered self-defense weapon kept in an apartment complex has a very high probability of shooting right through a wall if fired, accidentally or not, and given the statistics we have, I believe that would constitute an unacceptable risk to the neighbors without serious benefit to the gun owners.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2011
- Messages
- 6,543
- Reaction score
- 511
That was a monumentally classy and compassionate move by those children. I feel for them as well as for the 9-year-old girl.
What a kind message to give her. I can only imagine how she must feel, and to hear that from them must be a consolation no one else can give.
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2005
- Messages
- 18,984
- Reaction score
- 6,937
- Location
- At some altitude
- Website
- www.jamie-mason.com
There's been enough misinformation in this thread that I wanted to clarify a few things.
I'm a firearms instructor for over 10 years and I'm actually the type of NRA instructor (called a Training Counselor) that trains new NRA instructors.
(To clarify though, the NRA does not certify civilian machine gun instructors, although I believe they do have a program for law enforcement instructors).
I also own a (full-size standard) full-auto UZI. I have experience with similar submachine guns and have experience instructing people who have never fired a machine gun before. This is both with my own gun and as a range officer at a few machine gun shoots. (This is very similar to what the instructor at the range was doing)
The first thing people should realize about this kind of accident is how extraordinary rare it is. Part of the reason it got so much media attention was because it was so unusual. It's not like there's some sort of *crisis* where children are routinely killing themselves or their instructors with machine guns (or even standard firearms) all the time. It's just a little perspective to keep in mind.
Within the last 10 years or so I can think of a handful of similar incidents. One involved a young girl (8 or 9 I think) who accidently shot herself with a "Micro-Uzi" submachine gun. (More on that gun later). That is the closest to this latest incident and was five or six year ago I believe.
The second was about eight years ago when a teenage girl at a big machine gun shoot was killed when the heavy gun fell on her at the firing line. It was on a tripod and wasn't properly weighted down. That one definitely meet the criteria for "freak accident".
The third was a range officer helping run a machine gun shoot who tried to clear a malfunction in a multi-barrel "minigun." This is a Gatling Gun style gun with multiple rotating barrels. He was in front of the muzzle and rotated the barrels to try to fix a problem. He didn't know that rotating the barrels would make the top barrel fire and shot himself and died. Also a very unusual freak accident.
The range in question in the latest incident is the kind of "tourist trap" gun range that caters to more of "have a fun gun experience" type of shooting than "take a serious shooting lesson" range. That plays directly into what happened. I'm sure the range has had thousands of customers, including kids, shoot machine guns before this and they and the instructor got complacent. The false thinking of "Just because nothing bad has happened, means nothing bad will happen," played a role.
The range, and the instructor, made several critical mistakes. It's not so much that she was 9 as it is that they didn't properly evaluate what someone of her size and experience could handle and made poor choices.
The first bad decision was the actual gun she was shooting. Although it's being called an "UZI" it's actually a different gun called a "Mini-Uzi." The difference is significant. An standard UZI is eight pounds and fires at a rate of about 600 rounds per minute. (That is how fast it works in theory, without counting reloading. The mags hold 25 to 32 rounds)
At eight pounds with a relatively slow 600 round rate of fire, a standard full-size UZI is actually pretty controllable. It is firing 9mm rounds and the weight really helps. It's most easily controllable in short bursts of 2 to 5 rounds.
The gun she was shooting, the Mini Uzi, is a different gun entirely. It was designed to be lighter and smaller than the original. It weighs about 6 pounds and fires at about 950 rounds per minute. So, because it is lighter, and fires faster, it is MUCH more difficult to control. It's a huge difference. The Micro Uzi (which was used in the incident where the girl killed herself) is lighter yet and fires about 1200 rounds per minute.
The full size, standard UZI, is actually pretty controllable and I would have no problem considering having a 9 year old shoot the gun. I'd have to evaluate the specific 9 year old though to judge her size and strength and, even if I thought she could handle it, I would have followed different procedures than the instructor at that range.
I would never let a child, or teen, fire a Mini Uzi (the gun in this case) or especially a Mirco Uzi (the gun in the other incident) unless they were already experienced shooters and had previous experience with machine guns. At a tourist trap range? No.
The first thing the instructor did wrong (after the initial bad gun choice) was where he stood. He was next to her, not behind her, and there was no way for him to control the gun once it got away from her. If he stood behind her he could have controlled her arms without placing himself in danger.
He also went from having her fire a single shot on "Semi" to flipping the switch to "Full" with a full mag loaded. I would have limited that first mag to five rounds. She would have fired two on "Semi" and, if she did OK, then flipped the switch to "Auto" and let her fire those last three all at once. That would have prevented the gun rising up like that, even if she couldn't control it. Only then would I consider letting her shoot a full mag.
Again, I'm just describing how this could have been safely. There was a chain of bad decisions here but it's not as simple as "OMG KIDS SHOULDN'T SHOOT MACHINE GUNS" or even worse "OMG KIDS SHOULDN'T SHOOT ANY GUNS" (which is where the discussion has gone in other places).
Ok, this is not accurate. Here's the rundown on legal machine gun ownership in the United States. Note that both Federal and state laws apply.
State laws - Most states allow private citizens to own machine guns as long as they also follow state law. Some states do prohibit machine gun ownership entirely.
Even in the states that prohibit private citizen machine gun ownership ATF licensed machine gun dealers and/or machine gun manufacturers can possess machine guns to sell or demonstrate to the police and military. (Because, if a police department wants to buy machine guns, there has to be a legal way for someone to sell them to the department).
Federal law - The first thing to understand about Federal laws regarding machine gun ownership is that the Federal government will approve a private citizen to own a machine gun ONLY if it is also legal under their state law.
Assuming the state in question allows private citizen machine gun ownership the procedure is relatively straightforward with a few complications.
The buyer has to find a machine gun to buy and pay a deposit to the seller. The buyer then fills the paperwork with the ATF to receive permission to possess the machine gun. As part of this procedure the buyer submits fingerprints, the ATF conducts a background check, and the buyer submits a single $200 payment for the "Transfer tax" to have the machine gun transferred to him. This is called a "Form 4" transfer.
Note that the this "Form 4" transfer includes a one-time tax payment of $200. That's all there is. You do not need a mythical "Class 3 license" or have to pay "thousands of dollars in fees." This $200 tax is on each machine gun you buy.
The one catch in this process is that the buyer also has to get their local "Chief law enforcement officer" (police chief or Sheriff typically) to sign the paperwork saying they no of no reason the applicant can't legally own a machine gun. The problem is the police chief is not required to sign the form and some have a policy of not ever signing such a form.
If the buyer can't get a local "chief LEO" to sign the form they can form a Corporation or a trust to own the machine gun. They still pay the $200 tax for that gun, but don't have to get the "cheif LEO signoff" is that is not required for Corporations or trusts. The cost to set up a trust or Corporation for this reason is typically a couple hundred dollars.
So, you see there really aren't "thousands of dollars" in fees involved in machine gun ownership. The real expense lies in the cost of the guns themselves.
In 1986 Federal law changed so that private citizens can ONLY own those machine guns that were manufactured AND registered with the ATF prior to May 1986. This has limited the supply of legally registered machine guns and driven up prices over time. Currently, a UZI runs about $10,000 to $13,000.
In addition to private ownership of machine guns, there are also ATF licensed machine gun dealers and manufacturers and dealers. These licenses do cost more, about $500 and $1000 yearly, with other paperwork required.
The advantage of being a machine gun dealer or manufacturer is that those enities can own machine guns made after 1986 as "post samples" to demonstrate to law enforcement agencies and/or the military. These guns are less expensive as they can only be owned by dealers, law enforcement or the military. This license is intended for actual business use and not for people to enhance their collection.
I'm a firearms instructor for over 10 years and I'm actually the type of NRA instructor (called a Training Counselor) that trains new NRA instructors.
(To clarify though, the NRA does not certify civilian machine gun instructors, although I believe they do have a program for law enforcement instructors).
I also own a (full-size standard) full-auto UZI. I have experience with similar submachine guns and have experience instructing people who have never fired a machine gun before. This is both with my own gun and as a range officer at a few machine gun shoots. (This is very similar to what the instructor at the range was doing)
The first thing people should realize about this kind of accident is how extraordinary rare it is. Part of the reason it got so much media attention was because it was so unusual. It's not like there's some sort of *crisis* where children are routinely killing themselves or their instructors with machine guns (or even standard firearms) all the time. It's just a little perspective to keep in mind.
Within the last 10 years or so I can think of a handful of similar incidents. One involved a young girl (8 or 9 I think) who accidently shot herself with a "Micro-Uzi" submachine gun. (More on that gun later). That is the closest to this latest incident and was five or six year ago I believe.
The second was about eight years ago when a teenage girl at a big machine gun shoot was killed when the heavy gun fell on her at the firing line. It was on a tripod and wasn't properly weighted down. That one definitely meet the criteria for "freak accident".
The third was a range officer helping run a machine gun shoot who tried to clear a malfunction in a multi-barrel "minigun." This is a Gatling Gun style gun with multiple rotating barrels. He was in front of the muzzle and rotated the barrels to try to fix a problem. He didn't know that rotating the barrels would make the top barrel fire and shot himself and died. Also a very unusual freak accident.
The range in question in the latest incident is the kind of "tourist trap" gun range that caters to more of "have a fun gun experience" type of shooting than "take a serious shooting lesson" range. That plays directly into what happened. I'm sure the range has had thousands of customers, including kids, shoot machine guns before this and they and the instructor got complacent. The false thinking of "Just because nothing bad has happened, means nothing bad will happen," played a role.
The range, and the instructor, made several critical mistakes. It's not so much that she was 9 as it is that they didn't properly evaluate what someone of her size and experience could handle and made poor choices.
The first bad decision was the actual gun she was shooting. Although it's being called an "UZI" it's actually a different gun called a "Mini-Uzi." The difference is significant. An standard UZI is eight pounds and fires at a rate of about 600 rounds per minute. (That is how fast it works in theory, without counting reloading. The mags hold 25 to 32 rounds)
At eight pounds with a relatively slow 600 round rate of fire, a standard full-size UZI is actually pretty controllable. It is firing 9mm rounds and the weight really helps. It's most easily controllable in short bursts of 2 to 5 rounds.
The gun she was shooting, the Mini Uzi, is a different gun entirely. It was designed to be lighter and smaller than the original. It weighs about 6 pounds and fires at about 950 rounds per minute. So, because it is lighter, and fires faster, it is MUCH more difficult to control. It's a huge difference. The Micro Uzi (which was used in the incident where the girl killed herself) is lighter yet and fires about 1200 rounds per minute.
The full size, standard UZI, is actually pretty controllable and I would have no problem considering having a 9 year old shoot the gun. I'd have to evaluate the specific 9 year old though to judge her size and strength and, even if I thought she could handle it, I would have followed different procedures than the instructor at that range.
I would never let a child, or teen, fire a Mini Uzi (the gun in this case) or especially a Mirco Uzi (the gun in the other incident) unless they were already experienced shooters and had previous experience with machine guns. At a tourist trap range? No.
The first thing the instructor did wrong (after the initial bad gun choice) was where he stood. He was next to her, not behind her, and there was no way for him to control the gun once it got away from her. If he stood behind her he could have controlled her arms without placing himself in danger.
He also went from having her fire a single shot on "Semi" to flipping the switch to "Full" with a full mag loaded. I would have limited that first mag to five rounds. She would have fired two on "Semi" and, if she did OK, then flipped the switch to "Auto" and let her fire those last three all at once. That would have prevented the gun rising up like that, even if she couldn't control it. Only then would I consider letting her shoot a full mag.
Again, I'm just describing how this could have been safely. There was a chain of bad decisions here but it's not as simple as "OMG KIDS SHOULDN'T SHOOT MACHINE GUNS" or even worse "OMG KIDS SHOULDN'T SHOOT ANY GUNS" (which is where the discussion has gone in other places).
Ok, this is not accurate. Here's the rundown on legal machine gun ownership in the United States. Note that both Federal and state laws apply.
State laws - Most states allow private citizens to own machine guns as long as they also follow state law. Some states do prohibit machine gun ownership entirely.
Even in the states that prohibit private citizen machine gun ownership ATF licensed machine gun dealers and/or machine gun manufacturers can possess machine guns to sell or demonstrate to the police and military. (Because, if a police department wants to buy machine guns, there has to be a legal way for someone to sell them to the department).
Federal law - The first thing to understand about Federal laws regarding machine gun ownership is that the Federal government will approve a private citizen to own a machine gun ONLY if it is also legal under their state law.
Assuming the state in question allows private citizen machine gun ownership the procedure is relatively straightforward with a few complications.
The buyer has to find a machine gun to buy and pay a deposit to the seller. The buyer then fills the paperwork with the ATF to receive permission to possess the machine gun. As part of this procedure the buyer submits fingerprints, the ATF conducts a background check, and the buyer submits a single $200 payment for the "Transfer tax" to have the machine gun transferred to him. This is called a "Form 4" transfer.
Note that the this "Form 4" transfer includes a one-time tax payment of $200. That's all there is. You do not need a mythical "Class 3 license" or have to pay "thousands of dollars in fees." This $200 tax is on each machine gun you buy.
The one catch in this process is that the buyer also has to get their local "Chief law enforcement officer" (police chief or Sheriff typically) to sign the paperwork saying they no of no reason the applicant can't legally own a machine gun. The problem is the police chief is not required to sign the form and some have a policy of not ever signing such a form.
If the buyer can't get a local "chief LEO" to sign the form they can form a Corporation or a trust to own the machine gun. They still pay the $200 tax for that gun, but don't have to get the "cheif LEO signoff" is that is not required for Corporations or trusts. The cost to set up a trust or Corporation for this reason is typically a couple hundred dollars.
So, you see there really aren't "thousands of dollars" in fees involved in machine gun ownership. The real expense lies in the cost of the guns themselves.
In 1986 Federal law changed so that private citizens can ONLY own those machine guns that were manufactured AND registered with the ATF prior to May 1986. This has limited the supply of legally registered machine guns and driven up prices over time. Currently, a UZI runs about $10,000 to $13,000.
In addition to private ownership of machine guns, there are also ATF licensed machine gun dealers and manufacturers and dealers. These licenses do cost more, about $500 and $1000 yearly, with other paperwork required.
The advantage of being a machine gun dealer or manufacturer is that those enities can own machine guns made after 1986 as "post samples" to demonstrate to law enforcement agencies and/or the military. These guns are less expensive as they can only be owned by dealers, law enforcement or the military. This license is intended for actual business use and not for people to enhance their collection.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/04/11/guns-child-deaths-more-than-cancer/2073259/Trebor1415 said:
Kids getting hold of guns and accidentally shooting themselves or others IS actually a pretty damned big deal.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/29/us/children-and-guns-the-hidden-toll.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
(bolding mine)
Last edited:
We are talking about two different things here.
I'm pointing out that the occurrence of kids injuring or killing themselves with firearms during shooting activities at the range is extremely small. The reason I thought that was important to note is that recent media coverage of the "girl with an Uzi" incident makes it sound very common and has been used by some to whip up a "kids should never be allowed to shoot guns" hysteria.
You are arguing a completely different point. I'm talking about the safety of kids being instructed in gun use at the range because that is directly connected to the 9 year old with the Uzi that was being discussed.
I'm not going to get into a larger gun control debate and "kids and guns" here right now. The only thing I will say is that you cite lump everyone up to 19 years old into those figures. Once someone turns 18 they are no longer a child. They can vote and join the military. Any stats that include 18 and 19 year olds as "children" should be looked at very carefully.
I'm pointing out that the occurrence of kids injuring or killing themselves with firearms during shooting activities at the range is extremely small. The reason I thought that was important to note is that recent media coverage of the "girl with an Uzi" incident makes it sound very common and has been used by some to whip up a "kids should never be allowed to shoot guns" hysteria.
You are arguing a completely different point. I'm talking about the safety of kids being instructed in gun use at the range because that is directly connected to the 9 year old with the Uzi that was being discussed.
I'm not going to get into a larger gun control debate and "kids and guns" here right now. The only thing I will say is that you cite lump everyone up to 19 years old into those figures. Once someone turns 18 they are no longer a child. They can vote and join the military. Any stats that include 18 and 19 year olds as "children" should be looked at very carefully.