Town Square

Post a New Topic

Girl, 9, accidentally kills Uzi instructor. Too young for guns?

Original post made by Damon, Foothill Knolls, on Aug 27, 2014

"The accidental shooting death Monday of an Arizona firearms instructor showing a 9-year-old girl how to shoot an Uzi submachine gun reinforced a truth in the debate over kids shooting real guns: The responsibility of handling firearms can be far heavier than the gun itself.

The Bullets and Burgers gun range in Mohave County, near Las Vegas, Ariz., allows kids between 8 and 17 to use the range, as long as they're accompanied by their parents.

The shooting was caught on video by the girl's parents, who filmed as instructor Charlie Vacca instructed the girl on how to handle the gun, first adjusting her grip and stance. The girl, dressed in pink shorts, can be seen firing one round, after which Mr. Vacca adjusts her grip. Then several rounds go off, and the girl loses control of the weapon, which keeps firing as it lifts up and back. Vacca died at a nearby hospital."

Christian Science Monitor article: Girl, 9, accidentally kills Uzi instructor Web Link

...................

Interesting story. The instructor was killed, but it could have been even much worse. The parents, who were videotaping the event, could also have been easily killed by bullets spraying from the out-of-control uzi. Finally, the girl herself could have been killed as well.

The word "gun" has become so loaded that it automatically triggers strong emotions on both sides, so let me invent a more neutral sounding word to describe this situation. Let me define a device of tool used for ejecting small gram-sized bits of metal at high speeds a "deegel". A "deegel" is a tool that can be used for amusement such as target shooting, but can also be used to hunt game such as wild boars and deer by pointing the device at the animal and pulling a little trigger mechanism on the "deegel". Naturally, the "deegel" gives off a little bit of a recoil when it ejects a bit of metal at high speed, so it must be operated with extreme care. The difficulty of controlling a "deegel" is compounded when it is put into "automatic" mode because then the "deegel" rapidly and continuously ejects a series of high-speed bits of metal for as long as its trigger mechanism is pulled in. So here is the question: Is it wise to allow a 9-year old girl to operate a "deegel" in automatic mode if she is supervised by an adult?

Comments (52)

 +   Like this comment
Posted by Damon
a resident of Foothill Knolls
on Aug 27, 2014 at 12:50 pm

Correction: a sentence in the above should have read "...device OR tool used for ejecting small gram-sized bits of metal at ..."


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Right
a resident of Birdland
on Aug 27, 2014 at 2:01 pm

Damon,

Had the young girl been taught at an earlier age, this probably wouldn't have happened. I also question the competence of the instructor.

Sometimes people must die for the sake of our 2nd Amendment rights. I think our Founding Fathers knew this.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Formerly Dan from BC
a resident of Bridle Creek
on Aug 27, 2014 at 3:39 pm

Formerly Dan from BC is a registered user.

I couldn't watch the video.

What a tragic accident.

Nothing more to say...


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Exact Language
a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Aug 27, 2014 at 4:11 pm

Text of the 2nd Amendment

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


 +   1 person likes this
Posted by Cholo
a resident of Livermore
on Aug 27, 2014 at 4:39 pm

May the Instructor Rest In Peace.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Damon
a resident of Foothill Knolls
on Aug 27, 2014 at 4:58 pm

Seems that no one wants to directly answer the question of whether or not a 9-year old should be allowed to fire an automatic weapon.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Ban them all
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Aug 27, 2014 at 5:03 pm

This is why we need much stricter gun control laws. Way too many half-wits like this kid's parents, the instructor, and the proprietor who would allow such idiotic behavior. Are we supposed to feel safer because constitution-citing idiots with loaded weapons mingle in our midst?

The parents ought to be charged with manslaughter; the proprietor should be charged with 2nd degree murder.

Let's get these yahoos off the street.


 +   1 person likes this
Posted by Cholo
a resident of Livermore
on Aug 27, 2014 at 6:32 pm

I think that "Right" and "Exact Language" are quite clear about the use of lethal weapons by a child.

Also, the parents who arranged for her training with a lethal most likely consented.

Hopefully, the child will receive help so that she is able to manage the traumatic event.

There many readers and posters on this blog who support the training/use of deadly weapons by children.

I have no objection to adults using a gun/rifle to protect themselves.




 +   1 person likes this
Posted by Cholo
a resident of Livermore
on Aug 27, 2014 at 6:34 pm

Correction: There are readers/posters on this blog that support the training of children in the use of deadly weapons.


 +   1 person likes this
Posted by Cholo
a resident of Livermore
on Aug 27, 2014 at 6:49 pm

Photo of killed instructor: Web Link (Mr. Charles Vaca)


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Banned is correct
a resident of Country Fair
on Aug 27, 2014 at 7:38 pm

We need to remove guns from the streets. We need to demythologize the idea that they are meant to protect. If you have a gun in your home, you are far more likely to have a gun accident where someone is shot, or a suicide, than to experience an incident where you have to chase away a criminal. Too many loonies, too many zealots, too many dumb-ass cowboy wannabees.

You want to protect your kids? Rid your home of guns. All of them.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by 2nd Amendment
a resident of Amador Estates
on Aug 27, 2014 at 9:04 pm

Dear Banned Is Correct,
I would absolutely jump at the chance to put a big neon sign on your front lawn saying "MY HOME IS A GUN-FREE ZONE." In fact, I will buy it for you and place it there. Just simply let everyone on this board know your address.

Deal?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Banned is correct
a resident of Country Fair
on Aug 27, 2014 at 9:33 pm

I wouldn't get within 100 feet of you, even with a plastic device. If someone in the neighborhood commits suicide, or if there is a tragic gun accident, I'll assume it comes from your neck of the woods. Til then, beware of all those boogiemen in your backyard. Boo!

Oh, and that arcane 2nd amendment you wrap yourself in is about as relevant as the 3/5 of a citizen clause. You should consider joining humanity in the 21st century.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Damon
a resident of Foothill Knolls
on Aug 27, 2014 at 9:37 pm

@2nd Amendment

Why don't you start things off? Please tell everyone here your real name and your real address and put a big sign in your yard saying "My Home is NOT a Gun-Free Zone. I have lots of guns". I'll be happy to pay for your sign. I'm sure that there are some criminals out there who would like to know where they can break in a and steal a gun that cannot be traced back to them.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Banned is correct
a resident of Country Fair
on Aug 27, 2014 at 9:49 pm

This is too precious. A mere couple of days after the tragic uzi killing, and the NRA (aka KKK) sends out message to women about how much fun kids can have on a firing range. These gun zealots are sick, of course, constitutive of a culture of sickness. All the more reason to strip them of the lethal phallic symbol that compensates for their feelings of sexual inadequacy.

Web Link


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Jim
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Aug 28, 2014 at 8:29 am

It is simply a mistake.... No action needs to be taken. It was an accident and hopefully something will be learned from it.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Damon
a resident of Foothill Knolls
on Aug 28, 2014 at 9:40 am

@Jim

Jim, tripping over an unseen tree root, dropping your gun, and having it go off is an "accident". Placing an Uzi into the hands of a small 9-year old girl and getting killed as a result is not an "accident". Look up the definition of the word "negligence".


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Formerly Dan from BC
a resident of Bridle Creek
on Aug 28, 2014 at 11:44 am

Formerly Dan from BC is a registered user.

I'm unclear on the whole "negligence" claim.

Who's negligent?

The instructor that put the weapon in the childs hand?
The parents that let the child fire the weapon?
The business owner that employs the instructor, who put the weapon in the childs hand?
The child?
The manufacturer of the Uzi?
The 2nd amendment?

I guess there's no such thing as an accident anymore.



 +   Like this comment
Posted by Damon
a resident of Foothill Knolls
on Aug 28, 2014 at 12:29 pm

@ Dan: "I'm unclear on the whole "negligence" claim."

I don't think that your "But the boundary lines here are so blurry" argument works here, Dan. It appears that even the vast majority of gun owners agree that the instructor at least was negligent in not better supervising the situation where a small 9-year old girl lost control of an automatic weapon. You're bringing up a series of questions which you think are thought-provoking and illustrate gray areas, but they're not and they don't. By the way, you're the first person on any forum I've seen who has brought up the idea that the 9-year old girl could be negligent.

As bad as the result was, it could easily have been even worse. The 9-year old girl could have also easily killed herself, as an 8-year old boy did several years ago when firing an uzi at a Massachusetts gun show. The girl's parents, who were apparently videotaping the scene, would have also been in the line of fire if the uzi twisted around and continued firing, and could have been killed as well. The Israeli uzi submachine gun was not designed to be used for entertainment by little 9-year old girls with no previous gun experience at roadside tourist shops. It was designed to be used by Israeli commandos to kill people, and kill rapidly by spurting out large bursts of bullets (up to about 10 bullets per second or around 600 per minute). It works very well at its intended task, and if the girl had lost complete control of the weapon, you would now be reading in the papers about the death of not just one instructor, but the deaths of a gun instructor, a little 9-year old girl, and her parents - all dead in a second or less.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Hmmm
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Aug 28, 2014 at 12:45 pm

Could have been a nail gun, result would have been the same.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Quickdraw M.
a resident of Downtown
on Aug 28, 2014 at 9:49 pm

9 yr old being trained how to properly handle a firearm; good idea. 9 yr old being allowed to fire an Uzi; bad idea.

I've been handling firearms since I was 7. Ted Kennedy has killed more people than have I.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by 2nd Amendment
a resident of Amador Estates
on Aug 29, 2014 at 8:08 am

Good post, Quickdraw.

Anyone reading this thread might be interested to also read the following article from (surprisingly) the left-leaning Time Magazine, entitled "Why Letting Kids Shoot Guns Can Actually Be Good For Them."

I echo the author.

Web Link




 +   Like this comment
Posted by Damon
a resident of Foothill Knolls
on Aug 29, 2014 at 9:52 am

@Quickdraw : "I've been handling firearms since I was 7. Ted Kennedy has killed more people than have I."

Ted Kennedy and this little 9-year old girl have something in common, then.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Formerly Dan from BC
a resident of Bridle Creek
on Aug 29, 2014 at 10:18 am

Formerly Dan from BC is a registered user.

Damon,

You said ---> "Look up the definition of the word "negligence"."

I was questioning YOUR USE of the word "negligence", smart guy, not indicating that the girl was negligent. Of course, that's what (?) are used for but hey, you'll get the hang of it.

And I'm glad you seem to agree that the instructor was "negligent". It only took about 5 posts to come to that obvious conclusion.

Now you and the other children go back to your screeeeching about the 2nd amendment.

Have a great long weekend, pal!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Cholo
a resident of Livermore
on Aug 29, 2014 at 11:44 am

I sure hope that the 9 year old is finding the support that she will most likely need. Take care of the child.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Ban them all
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Aug 29, 2014 at 1:54 pm


The kid's parents need to be thrown into jail, as does the proprietor. Both parents and proprietor are negligent and should pay the price.

Wouldn't you know this would occur in some rural backwater locale in Arizona. No accident that so many of the local yokels here in Pleasanton would defend the parents and proprietor. All the more reason to take guns away from the idiot citizens who own them.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Paul
a resident of Downtown
on Aug 29, 2014 at 3:08 pm

Ban them all,

So how do you propose that the guns be taken away? As for them to be voluntarily turned in? For how much? Who will pay for the weapons? would you go house to house and search the premises? with or without a warrant? If you read the second amendment and understand it then you will realize that the right to keep and bear arms is not only about protecting ones family members against bad bad guys but more importantly against our own government. How by giving our weapons to the government are we helping ourselves. Most guns used in criminal acts are unregistered and ill gotten. Just in terms of registered weapons there are over 325,000,000 in the US and it is estimated that there are over twice that many unregistered


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Formerly Dan from BC
a resident of Bridle Creek
on Aug 29, 2014 at 4:06 pm

Formerly Dan from BC is a registered user.

Ban them all,

Throw them in jail for what, showing complete stupidity? There is NO LAW which bans this activity, it is perfectly legal and there is nothing you or the other screeeeechers can do except complain and whine.

What about the instructors responsibility? Reading the description of the accident, it seemed to me he was standing to her left when she shot him. I'm no expert so somebody can correct me, but wouldn't it be safer to stand in back of her?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Michael Austin
a resident of Pleasanton Meadows
on Aug 29, 2014 at 4:12 pm

Michael Austin is a registered user.

I did not watch the entire video.
I watched the local news outlet video, which was the first single round fired up to the point where the instructor puts it on full auto.

Based on that, I believe the instructor was negligent.

When firing the first round the child was not set in proper stance for recoil. The instructor should have taken her through several single shot training sequences so as to properly prepare her for recoil and control during recoil.

The instructor should have positioned himself immediately behind the child prior to her discharging the weapon.

Before advancing to full auto the child was not trained well enough to put the weapon on full auto herself. The instructor did it for her.

If the child could not advance the weapon to full auto without the instructor, I surmise she was not properly trained with the weapon and the instructor was negligent.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Damon
a resident of Foothill Knolls
on Aug 29, 2014 at 4:37 pm

@ Dan: "You said ---> "Look up the definition of the word "negligence"." I was questioning YOUR USE of the word "negligence", smart guy, not indicating that the girl was negligent. "

Not making a lot of sense there, old buddy.

"Throw them in jail for what, showing complete stupidity? There is NO LAW which bans this activity, it is perfectly legal and there is nothing you or the other screeeeechers can do except complain and whine."

Well, actually there is something that we can all do if the outrage over things like this becomes big enough: We can change the laws so that such activity is flatly illegal.



 +   Like this comment
Posted by Damon
a resident of Foothill Knolls
on Aug 29, 2014 at 4:46 pm

@Michael Austin: "The instructor should have positioned himself immediately behind the child prior to her discharging the weapon. "

I read a comment by someone who claimed to be a trained gun instructor who said that the proper thing for the instructor to have done would be to be standing to the side but to have his hands on the gun as well so that it didn't go out of control. That makes sense. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't feel all that safe even standing behind a 9-year old girl firing an uzi on full auto for the very first time. If the weapon went out of control, it wouldn't be all that difficult for bullets to start flying in every direction, including backwards.

If gun shop like this really want to cater to tourists with no gun experience who want the thrill of firing an automatic weapon, the weapon could be securely mounted and fastened to some fixed gimbal mount with a limited firing angle. The tourists could then have the thrill of firing an automatic weapon in a perfectly safe manner. Tourists happy. Gun store owner happy. Nobody dead.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Paul
a resident of Downtown
on Aug 29, 2014 at 6:29 pm

Damon,

The proper location would be behind the shooter not to the side. You can better control the shooter from this position. If you stood the the side empty shell casings would be flying into your face from the ejection port.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Damon
a resident of Foothill Knolls
on Aug 29, 2014 at 6:51 pm

@Paul

I know next to little about Uzis and automatic weapons, but from my gun expertise gained from watching action movies don't the empty shell casings only eject from one side of the weapon (usually the right side)?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Paul
a resident of Downtown
on Aug 29, 2014 at 7:22 pm

Damon,

Left handed shooter right side ejection port and vice versa. That is why you want to be behind the shooter to control dominant elbow of shooter and shoulders if necessary.

When you teach a first time shooter you want to teach gun safety first and then start out with low caliber like a 22 until they demonstrate good safety and capability.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Paul
a resident of Downtown
on Aug 29, 2014 at 7:25 pm

Browning semi automatic ejection port is on bottom which I do not like. Nothing like a smokin hit shell casing going down your long sleeved shirt to get your day going. :)


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Ban them all
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Aug 29, 2014 at 8:05 pm

So, this discussion boils down to whether the instructor was properly situated as he instructed a young child on how to fire an uzi....

This is why we need to ban all gun ownership. Most people who own a gun (see above comments) are too stupid to treat them safely. Beyond the idiot factor, chances are far greater that someone will die of their own weapon than be shot by a home invader. Moreover, as Damon notes, gun ownership simply makes one a target of home invaders whose object is to steal a gun.

We abolished slavery; we have sent humans to the moon. But we can't rid ourselves of obsolete weapons of human destruction?

I've got news for the yokels. We don't need to hunt any more. There are now modern grocery stores that carry all kinds of fresh meat.

The idea that gun ownership needs to be preserved because we need to defend ourselves against our own government is about the stupidest thing I've read on these sites. You want to resist the government? That's what ballot boxes are for. You want to resist violently? Well, it's probably too late to mention this to you but you see that drone up in the sky above your house, just out of range of your .22? Ooops, too late. Your house no longer exists. And having a second or third fire arm would not have helped you one iota. Get a brain, you violence worshipping morons.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Formerly Dan from BC
a resident of Bridle Creek
on Aug 29, 2014 at 8:25 pm

Formerly Dan from BC is a registered user.

Damon,

"Not making a lot of sense there, old buddy. "

That's it huh pal? No elaboration?

Ok.

Paul,

Thanks for the info.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by john
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Aug 29, 2014 at 8:57 pm

"Too young for guns?"

Too young for an UZI? Yes. Guns, no.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Paul
a resident of Downtown
on Aug 29, 2014 at 9:52 pm

Ban them all,
Still waiting there fella! What is your solution?
So how do you propose that the guns be taken away? As for them to be voluntarily turned in? For how much? Who will pay for the weapons? would you go house to house and search the premises? with or without a warrant? If you read the second amendment and understand it then you will realize that the right to keep and bear arms is not only about protecting ones family members against bad bad guys but more importantly against our own government. How by giving our weapons to the government are we helping ourselves. Most guns used in criminal acts are unregistered and ill gotten. Just in terms of registered weapons there are over 325,000,000 in the US and it is estimated that there are over twice that many unregistered


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Ban them all
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Aug 29, 2014 at 10:07 pm

@ "Too young for an UZI? Yes. Guns, no."

Why? No argument provided, none needed when you have a pinhead making the point. We can hardly expect more.

@Paul,

We know you're not looking for a solution; all you desire is to raise inane concerns that would be easily resolvable were the public resolved to do the right thing -- to do the moral thing. Were you and some of the other pinheads here of the conviction that guns are a blight upon our humanity, any questions regarding how to rid ourselves of the blight would be miniscule.

You have no moral ground upon which to stand, aside from a centuries-old platitude about musket-bearing farmers shooting squirrels for supper. Take off your coonskin hat and try to exercise some of that small bit of gray matter between your ears.

Door to door? If need be. And yours would be one of the first, as nitwits like yourself owning guns is a menace to all of us.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Paul
a resident of Downtown
on Aug 29, 2014 at 10:44 pm

Nitwits like me?

I am a police officer.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Ban them all
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Aug 29, 2014 at 10:52 pm

The two terms, nitwit and police officer, of course do not necessarily overlap. But I'm afraid in your case, Paul, judging by your comments, they do.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by john
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Aug 29, 2014 at 11:15 pm

"Why? No argument provided"

In cub scouts we do BB guns at that age. It can be done safely with the proper instruction and supervision.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Damon
a resident of Foothill Knolls
on Aug 30, 2014 at 4:20 pm

@john "In cub scouts we do BB guns at that age. It can be done safely with the proper instruction and supervision."

I have no objections to gun ownership and use by responsible people. But stories like this one illustrate the fact that not all gun owners treat guns with the respect that they deserve. And, no, putting an uzi submachine gun into the hands of a small 9-year old girl who has never fired a gun before is not being responsible.

So I urge all gun owners to be responsible, keep guns locked up when not in use, and please, please don't do anything that will make America the laughing stock of the nations of the civilized world like this incident has.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Formerly Dan from BC
a resident of Bridle Creek
on Aug 31, 2014 at 10:37 am

Formerly Dan from BC is a registered user.

"So I urge all gun owners to be responsible, keep guns locked up when not in use, and please, please don't do anything that will make America the laughing stock of the nations of the civilized world like this incident has."

King Damon has so proclaimed...!

Because God forbid we wouldn't want other nations LAUGHING at us. The horror!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Ban them all
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Aug 31, 2014 at 12:35 pm

Question: What kind of parent would allow a nine year-old onto a gun range to fire an uzi?

Answer: The parent would have to be morally bankrupt and very, very stupid. (File under: Bad Parenting)

Question: What kind of proprietor would all nine year-old children onto a gun range in order to fire an uzi?

Answer: The proprietor would have to be morally bankrupt and very, very stupid. (File under: Capitalist greed run amok)

Question: What kinds of people would overlook the parents' and proprietor's culpability in a fatal gun accident involving a nine year-old?

Answer: Morally bankrupt and very, very stupid people. (File under: Moral depravity and stone-blind stupidity)

Question: What kinds of people would attempt to rationalize away the fatal gun accident by referencing nail guns, bb guns, and 2nd amendment musket rights?

Answer: Morally bankrupt and very, very stupid people. (File under: Scrambled eggs for brains)


 +   1 person likes this
Posted by Cholo
a resident of Livermore
on Sep 2, 2014 at 9:02 am

I agree with the above. Especially as it regards the parents and the owners of the shooting gallery.

I sure hope that the child is going to receive the kind of help she will need.
The damaging experience will be with her for the rest of her life.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Matt
a resident of another community
on Sep 2, 2014 at 12:55 pm

A nine-year old has no business touching a fully automatic, short-barrel sub-machine gun. Most adults can't handle one. There's no "training" a nine-year old to handle such a weapon responsibly.

22 rimfire, bolt-action. That's about what a kid can and should handle with supervision.

Places like the one where this event occurred may not be illegal, but they sure are irresponsible.

Firearms are tools, not toys.

-former Army expert marksman

FYI during my deployment to Iraq, we had the selectors on our M-16s locked from engaging 3-round burst. If a rifleman in combat is better served with single-shot, why is it ok to let 9-year olds "play" with full auto?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Damon
a resident of Foothill Knolls
on Sep 2, 2014 at 1:28 pm

@Matt : "FYI during my deployment to Iraq, we had the selectors on our M-16s locked from engaging 3-round burst. If a rifleman in combat is better served with single-shot, why is it ok to let 9-year olds "play" with full auto?"

Good post. I've heard that US soldiers sometimes use 3-round bursts with M-16's, but going to full automatic is rarely done in combat.

As I mentioned earlier, if a gun place owner really wants to cater to tourists hankering to fire on full auto, then a simple solution would be to securely mount the gun in a gimbal mount which allows only a limited amount of rotation. Tourists could get 95% of the thrill of firing an automatic weapon but do it in a relatively safe manner. There is no reason that any tourist - especially a 9-year old girl - needs to handle a free-standing weapon which is completely free of any constraints.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Matt
a resident of another community
on Sep 2, 2014 at 5:56 pm

-Damon

For clarification, the modern variant of the m16 I used during my '03 deployment was the m16a2, which has a three position fire selector switch: safe, single, and 3-round burst. The m16a1 used in the Vietnam era had auto-fire instead of the 3 round burst. It was found that on full-auto you wouldn't hit your target but you would hit everything else, and the Army standard of marksmanship training for rifles is now one-shot, one-kill.

Civilians and law-enforcement do not need automatic weapons for any legitimate purpose.

On the topic of bans, they are counter productive. Weapons manufacturers love them in fact, because every time a ban is even hinted at, they clear out their inventory overnight to make room for ban-complaint weapons.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Darwin
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 3, 2014 at 8:15 am

Hmm will add this one to my examples supporting my theory


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Pleasanton was nice forty years ago
a resident of Del Prado
on Sep 3, 2014 at 7:06 pm

First off it is impossible to ban guns. that whole idea is laughable it would and never can happen. How about we all flap our arms really fast and we can all fly. Second. To all those who wish to "ban guns". Have you or will you ever call the police if so you are in favor of guns. Third I can kill more people with a car than a gun. Ban cars right. Knives. Baseball bats. Large sticks etc. etc. etc. I think we would be better off trying to ban stupidity. We can start with several on this site


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: *

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Vote YES on Measures 45, 46, & 47, NO on 48
By Roz Rogoff | 32 comments | 2,205 views

Prop 47: not perfect, just preferable.
By Tom Cushing | 2 comments | 896 views

The Vranesh situation heads to court
By Tim Hunt | 9 comments | 739 views