age

[Gerard]

Well isn't there some sort of foot-pound level above which a projectile might be referred to as having 'high power?' I'm only spitballing with this, as I've no exact idea of the FPE involved with a 9mm Uzi... But it's something over 500fpe isn't it? And 100fpe is sort of average for a .22" standard velocity round, with such projectiles being considered dangerous to over half a mile - remember that .22" kills more people every year than any other calibre. So if you're shooting alongside someone using 500fpe+ projectiles, or as in this case putting your stupid face right in the path of an obviously likely muzzle rise incident, wouldn't FredB and others agree that this was a relatively high power round for the purposes of getting killed or seriously injured? Or does it have to have the body splattering potential of a .50" at 4000fps before we call it high power?

[Hemmers]

Well isn't there some sort of foot-pound level above which a projectile might be referred to as having 'high power?'

No, not really.
Whenever some snotrag gets in the papers for shooting cats or swans it is invariably with "a high powered air rifle".

There is of course no definition as to what constitutes a "high powered air rifle". In the UK it could possibly be one over the muzzle-energy limit at which point it stops being unlicensed and requires a Firearms Certificate.
But since most local newspaper staffers wouldn't know the difference between a shotgun and a rifle, I doubt they're able to make that distinction.

In the US I believe the NRA sometimes use the term "High Power" to distinguish fullbore shooting from rimfire, but I'm not sure on that, I have heard the term bandied around in terms of a specific discipline.

"High Power" means nothing. It's a lazy, throw-away phrase to stuff in front of the thing you are describing for the benefit of a shooting-illiterate readership.
A rimfire is high power compared to an air rifle. A shotgun is high powered compared to a rimfire.

Don't be that guy...



In this case the "power" of the gun is utterly irrelevant. If they'd put her behind a Browning .50 Machine Gun there would have been no danger to life - because the tripod/gimble arrangement that it would neccessarily be mounted on would have taken the weight and the long barrel would have limited muzzle flip. And at a shooting range like that, one would fit limiting stops on the gimble to physically prevent the gun from pointing anywhere other than downrange and below the limit of the backstop.

Giving her an Uzi to shoot from the standing position was a severe lapse in judgement by the Instructor and Range Management. Likewise giving her a 12-bore shotgun, of the sort used for Olympic Disciplines would have been a bad idea and probably knocked her off her feet.
The calibre or power of the cartridge is not really relevant, nor even the rate of fire.
The type of gun, the stock, the size, the fact she was shooting from the standing position. Those are relevant.
Shooting that Uzi off a sandbag from prone would probably have been fine.


Some might be wondering why I jump to defend the idea of shooting machine guns or "high powered weapons" (whatever those are, answers on a postcard next to a usable definition of an "assault weapon"). It's not really my thing either. Spending 10 seconds filling a sandbank with lots of .50cal ammunition seems an expensive way to shoot and not terribly fulfilling.

The answer is "because some people like to do it". And on a properly constructed range, noone - not noone - has any right to stop them so long as they're not hurting anyone else. I shoot 3P. I love it (and hate it!), and am honoured to have been capped for my Home Nation. That doesn't mean I don't also enjoy taking a Walther CP99 out in the back garden and knocking over some tin cans, or shooting some timed turning-targets with a Ruger 10/22 during the off-season.

My answer is formed from having seen in the UK how the shooting community comes apart at the first sign of trouble - when everyone runs away from the semi-auto rifle shooters, or distances themselves from the Pistol shooters, the internal politics of "why would someone need that" is not welcome or helpful.

I would contend that legitimate Rally car events encourage people to hoon their cars down public forest roads at irresponsible speeds - certainly near me we have a road known as the Cat and Fiddle, which is very popular with motorcyclists (or as my nurse friend at the local transplant ward calls them, "Organ Donors"). If you need a transplant in Staffordshire, summer weekends are open season because that's when bikers are busy offing themselves on the UK's most lethal road. That's not a glib comment. I wish I were joking, but the transplant team roster in a full surgical team if the weather forecast for the weekend is good, because they know the bikers will be out, and some of them will be pushing their luck. And one or two are guaranteed to run out of luck. At that point you're just crossing your fingers that they carry donor cards.
But do we ban rallying, or sports bikes, despite the bad influence they have on people? No. Even though it's not just them - they stand a reasonable chance of hurting the poor innocent motorist they run into when they're careening around a blind bend on the wrong side of the road. Far more hazardous than shooting!

So fundamentally, why should people who enjoy shooting big guns on organised ranges be deprived of their hobby?
They shouldn't be. This isn't a matter for legislation, but one for ranges and instructors to apply a modicum of common sense in how they instruct people. Age limits aren't helpful. I know 8 year olds I'd give a gun to (under supervision), and 15 year olds I wouldn't. I know 12 year olds I'd let shoot a 12-bore, because they're an early developer and well built, along with 16 year olds who are so tiny I'd be afraid of it breaking them in half.

And 100fpe is sort of average for a .22" standard velocity round, with such projectiles being considered dangerous to over half a mile - remember that .22" kills more people every year than any other calibre. So if you're shooting alongside someone using 500fpe+ projectiles, or as in this case putting your stupid face right in the path of an obviously likely muzzle rise incident, wouldn't FredB and others agree that this was a relatively high power round for the purposes of getting killed or seriously injured? Or does it have to have the body splattering potential of a .50" at 4000fps before we call it high power?

Why does it matter? As you say, .22 is lethal at over half a mile (Eley put a warning of a mile or 1.5miles on their boxes). Some of the High-Velocity .22 brands carry as much as 200fpe - double the going rate for the standard subsonic target loads. Air rifles are lethal if you hit a soft spot.
Okay, a .50cal will kill you much further away than a shotgun. That's completely and utterly irrelevant if you're concerned about instructors or other shooters on the range being hurt, seeing as none of them are liable to be more than 20 yards away. At a range of two feet a 9mm will make a bigger hole in you than a .22, but less of a mess than a shotgun or a .44. In all cases of head or chest shots you will probably be equally dead however. It doesn't really make much difference unless the undertakers charge more for having to patch up bigger holes to make you presentable for your funeral...
Worrying about calibre or "power" is exactly the sort of wrong-end-of-the-stick idea I would expect politicians to grab onto, not informed shooters. Like I say, she could have been shooting that uzi prone, or a .50cal off a tripod, and whilst you can debate how appropriate it would be, it would have been safe.

The calibre has no relevance, in much the same way engine size has little to do with how a car is driven. On some of the country lanes I drive along I see far more 60-120hp hatchbacks and beginner's cars in the hedge than I do 300hp SUVs or mid-range executive cars. Because the ones in a hedge were driven by someone who ran out of luck/skill. 50hp is more than enough to get into trouble. One guy at school came from money. His first car was a £50k AMG Mercedes, rear wheel drive with 400+hp (yeah, I know). Didn't put a scratch on it, too terrified of what his Dad would do if he stuffed it in a ditch or worse yet wrote it off (he also had to drive his sister to school with him, so (a), she'd tell if he acted the fool, and (b) He was responsible for her wellbeing as well as his own). Stands in stark contrast to the boy racers in pimped Corsas using all 50hp the engine can offer, going faster than the skinny tyres can take.

[Muffo]

The thing that really gets me over this whole thing is why would anyone want to use a high powered weapon anyway?

That is not your decision to force on anyone else. If you don't want to, that is fine, but don't tell anyone else what they can, or can not do. Using or not using a "high powered weapon" is a personal choice.

John

In that case why does it matter if someone was shot. You cant tell someone whether they can or can not shoot someone

[FrankD]

Also, all semi-automatic rifles are "automatic weapons", everything else is an "assault rifle" and machine guns can be bought easily at gun shows (if you're a Democrat).

If it comes to our quality press here in Germany we 'nasty' small bore shooters use almost always 22mm projectiles.


Hemmers, well spoken.

A normal Uzi in 9x19 is not that monster weapon. It is sometimes a little dangerous because of its not always working safety mechanism but from a shooting point it is not so hard to shoot. You don't need much physical strength to hold it in auto, but you have to know and to learn the reaction of that weapon. It was the fatal instructors fault not to show and teach it the right way but it was an sad accident that could also happen with an be frightened and wrong reacting adult. And an good instructor should know that.


Regards from Germany

Frank

[FredB]

Well isn't there some sort of foot-pound level above which a projectile might be referred to as having 'high power?' I'm only spitballing with this, as I've no exact idea of the FPE involved with a 9mm Uzi... But it's something over 500fpe isn't it? And 100fpe is sort of average for a .22" standard velocity round, with such projectiles being considered dangerous to over half a mile - remember that .22" kills more people every year than any other calibre. So if you're shooting alongside someone using 500fpe+ projectiles, or as in this case putting your stupid face right in the path of an obviously likely muzzle rise incident, wouldn't FredB and others agree that this was a relatively high power round for the purposes of getting killed or seriously injured? Or does it have to have the body splattering potential of a .50" at 4000fps before we call it high power?

Some facts to eyeball instead of "spitballing" (whatever that is):
.22LR standard velocity, 40gr - 100fpe
9mm Parabellum (9x19), 124gr - 382fpe
.223 Remington (AR15 round), 55gr - 1282fpe
.30-06 Springfield (typical deer hunting round), 180gr - 2913fpe
.416 Rigby (typical big game round), 400gr - 5619fpe
.50 BMG (machine gun and long range), 700gr - 13971fpe.

So what exactly would you call "relatively high power"?

[william]

"because some people like to do it"

That is commonly called poor impulse control. We spend our lives helping our children outgrow it. If they don't it often turns out badly.

[Gerard]

Some facts to eyeball instead of "spitballing" (whatever that is):
.22LR standard velocity, 40gr - 100fpe
9mm Parabellum (9x19), 124gr - 382fpe
.223 Remington (AR15 round), 55gr - 1282fpe
.30-06 Springfield (typical deer hunting round), 180gr - 2913fpe
.416 Rigby (typical big game round), 400gr - 5619fpe
.50 BMG (machine gun and long range), 700gr - 13971fpe.

So what exactly would you call "relatively high power"?

My most humble apologies. I was trying to do as the Romans do, as it were, using an American colloquialism. Seems I must stand corrected by the linguist amongst us. According to Oxford it is thus: "Throw out (a suggestion) for discussion." Woops, my bad. Oh no, there I go again with another USianism... terrible, terrible things those be.

As for the FPE numbers, yeah, I have access to innumerable online calculators and even to the simple formula to do it myself, but I wasn't taking the time. IE: spitballing. You rude little man.

And I'd call 382fpe 'relatively high power' as compared to 100fpe, for .22"LR, which is as I understand from sensible shooting ranges all over the place the de facto load and weapon type one places in the hands of small children, with careful supervision, if a firearm is to be given a child at all rather than an air powered weapon. I've seen grown men (in videos, admittedly) firing Uzis in full-auto mode and having a considerable difficulty maintaining anything close to focus on the actual target, spraying lead well above and often to the sides of the intended area of delivery. It is not an appropriate thing to hand to a 9 year old who, from the pictures and video released by the sheriff's office, rather thin and light of build. My 8 year old son is about that girl's size. I wouldn't hand him anything more powerful nor difficult to control than a .22"LR rifle, perhaps a similar pistol, but I'd be sure there was only a single round loaded in either case and would manage his arm positions at least initially to ensure he and anyone around was safe. So far I've not felt the need to put anything more powerful than a rather weak air pistol in his hands. Neither has he. In fact he finds those moderately intimidating, but looks forward to having one of his own in a few years "when I'm big enough" as he's several times put it.

Pushing something like this Uzi in full-auto mode into a tiny kid's hands is hubris of a low sort. The sort in which her parents and the weapons 'instructor' seem comfortable engaging, and which the club's owner feels comfortable defending when interviewed. Am I wrong somehow to find myself just shaking my head slowly in dumbstruck wonderment at the colossal stupidity involved? Every adult on the scene needs to examine their motives. 'Fun' and the unleashing of massive deadly force do not seem to me a sane combination for a 9 year old. Maybe it's different in 'Merica.

[Erud]

Hemmers,
Great post, thanks for taking the time to write it.

Erik

[corning]

The thing that really gets me over this whole thing is why would anyone want to use a high powered weapon anyway?

That is not your decision to force on anyone else. If you don't want to, that is fine, but don't tell anyone else what they can, or can not do. Using or not using a "high powered weapon" is a personal choice.

John

In that case why does it matter if someone was shot. You cant tell someone whether they can or can not shoot someone

In civilized countries, an intentional shooting is prohibited by law. On the other hand, in some civilized countries, the citizens have surrendered the rights and privileges of firearm ownership and use. In some other civilized countries, they have not.

John

[Erud]

Maybe it's different in 'Merica.

There it is. I have to admit I'm a little surprised it took you so long to come out and say it. Funny how that one little apostrophe can reduce our whole country to a bunch of drunken hillbillies with machine guns. I say you can keep your gun laws, and we'll keep ours for as long and we can.

[Gerard]

Maybe it's different in 'Merica.

There it is. I have to admit I'm a little surprised it took you so long to come out and say it. Funny how that one little apostrophe can reduce our whole country to a bunch of drunken hillbillies with machine guns. I say you can keep your gun laws, and we'll keep ours for as long and we can.

But isn't that exactly what one sees in the edited video clip? A compact demonstration of the 'America - F**K YEAH!' attitude? There's nothing at all wrong with pride; that's a point (among a great many) where the bible and I disagree profoundly. Pride is a huge part of what keeps us going, makes us strong in the face of horrific odds. But pride and hubris straddle a fine line, and all too often that line gets crossed with a donkey-like braying and scarcely if any pause to consider consequences.

An example this week in the news; your president is taking huge flack for daring to take his time and consider whether and how to act in the face of a violent ongoing crisis in a far away country. He's being chastised openly in all sorts of media for having the temerity to actually pause and reflect. America ACTS, dammit! Let's grab the big guns and GO! Right? Well, if you're tough enough, have deep enough pockets and a populace who will fork over trillions of dollars in tax money to feed the war machine, sure, why not? But which path makes more sense?

This "active duty soldier" slash gun instructor at Guns & Burgers said AMERICA - F**K YEAH! in the form of handing a small child a machine gun, on what was plainly her first time shooting, as she displayed no skills whatsoever. That attitude and the decision it engendered cost him his life, and could have cost her hers. Time to reflect? Or time to shout louder about that second amendment and your freedoms?

Canada does have rather tighter gun control laws than most US states, though contrary to a lot of popular opinions, we actually have a lot of guns up here. A visit to my local gun shop any day but Sunday (they're closed for some strange reason) will find at least a dozen men and the odd woman eagerly looking over hunting weapons of many descriptions. I was over there one day last month looking for a spring to use in slightly modifying a sporting airgun, and was pleased to find a Glock 17 firing pin spring filled the bill nicely. The man beside me at the counter was practically drooling as he fondled three very nasty looking 12 gauge shotguns and considered his options, while the man next to him was checking out some more military looking hardware, and the man on the other side of me had a row of .45" semi-auto pistols laid out before him and was thinking about his budget and weighing it against some nice furnishings and plating. A fellow about 15 feet away was buying a couple of cases of .308". Guns and ammo flowing like wine. Hardly a draconian state clamping down on its citizens. My sense is that while Canadian gun control laws may be stricter than those of the US on average, they're not all that strict, and it's more a matter of attitude than access. While we aren't allowed full-auto weaponry up here, much of what can be bought gets pretty darn close in terms of lethal potential. Yet shooting sprees are relatively rare, and one rarely hears of shooting range incidents such as this tragic event at Guns & Burgers. Seems perhaps we take guns slightly more seriously. Things like trigger locks and safe storage, ya know?

When I was a little kid of 7 and my father drove us across the USA from San Francisco to New York before we went to Europe to drive through a bunch of countries and visit his homeland, we stopped at my stepmother's folk's place in Baton Rouge. Before we could go inside to the wonderful air conditioning, my father made us wait in the car while he went in for about 10 minutes. At the time I couldn't have understood, and no one tried to explain anyway. I didn't learn until adulthood what that delay was about. Seems he had an inkling his father in law had a thing for guns. Sure enough, there was at least 1 pistol in every room of the house. Each one loaded, each one laying on a table ready-to-hand. 7 guns, all easily accessed by anyone in the house, including small visiting children. My father took a box and dumped all the ammo out of each gun and put the guns in after, then hid that box in the highest, most remote corner he could find, and demanded that his father in law lock the door on that room. Only with that done would he allow us all inside. My father had been through WWII as a child in Yugoslavia you see, and had seen hundreds of dead bodies, saw many dozens being killed before him, both family members and invading Italians then Germans. His brothers and sisters were older and were partisans, and they killed many invaders. By the time he was 10 years old he'd had a belly full of death and guns, never wanted to see another gun. I understand his feeling, though I don't share it, as it seems responsible fun can be had with guns. But guns everywhere, for everyone, of any age? That just doesn't seem sane. Guns aren't a ride at Disneyland.

[conradin]

I just hope that the instructor was not forced to teach the girl using the Uzi because his boss told him to do so. I wonder if this is the first kid he taught using a machine gun. IIRC he was an employee and he might have to do the teaching despite he feels that it is inappropriate. Money talks. The range IIRC specializes on machine guns shooting, including kids.

[Erud]

Maybe it's different in 'Merica.

There it is. I have to admit I'm a little surprised it took you so long to come out and say it. Funny how that one little apostrophe can reduce our whole country to a bunch of drunken hillbillies with machine guns. I say you can keep your gun laws, and we'll keep ours for as long and we can.

But isn't that exactly what one sees in the edited video clip? A compact demonstration of the 'America - F**K YEAH!' attitude? There's nothing at all wrong with pride; that's a point (among a great many) where the bible and I disagree profoundly. Pride is a huge part of what keeps us going, makes us strong in the face of horrific odds. But pride and hubris straddle a fine line, and all too often that line gets crossed with a donkey-like braying and scarcely if any pause to consider consequences.

An example this week in the news; your president is taking huge flack for daring to take his time and consider whether and how to act in the face of a violent ongoing crisis in a far away country. He's being chastised openly in all sorts of media for having the temerity to actually pause and reflect. America ACTS, dammit! Let's grab the big guns and GO! Right? Well, if you're tough enough, have deep enough pockets and a populace who will fork over trillions of dollars in tax money to feed the war machine, sure, why not? But which path makes more sense?

This "active duty soldier" slash gun instructor at Guns & Burgers said AMERICA - F**K YEAH! in the form of handing a small child a machine gun, on what was plainly her first time shooting, as she displayed no skills whatsoever. That attitude and the decision it engendered cost him his life, and could have cost her hers. Time to reflect? Or time to shout louder about that second amendment and your freedoms?

Canada does have rather tighter gun control laws than most US states, though contrary to a lot of popular opinions, we actually have a lot of guns up here. A visit to my local gun shop any day but Sunday (they're closed for some strange reason) will find at least a dozen men and the odd woman eagerly looking over hunting weapons of many descriptions. I was over there one day last month looking for a spring to use in slightly modifying a sporting airgun, and was pleased to find a Glock 17 firing pin spring filled the bill nicely. The man beside me at the counter was practically drooling as he fondled three very nasty looking 12 gauge shotguns and considered his options, while the man next to him was checking out some more military looking hardware, and the man on the other side of me had a row of .45" semi-auto pistols laid out before him and was thinking about his budget and weighing it against some nice furnishings and plating. A fellow about 15 feet away was buying a couple of cases of .308". Guns and ammo flowing like wine. Hardly a draconian state clamping down on its citizens. My sense is that while Canadian gun control laws may be stricter than those of the US on average, they're not all that strict, and it's more a matter of attitude than access. While we aren't allowed full-auto weaponry up here, much of what can be bought gets pretty darn close in terms of lethal potential. Yet shooting sprees are relatively rare, and one rarely hears of shooting range incidents such as this tragic event at Guns & Burgers. Seems perhaps we take guns slightly more seriously. Things like trigger locks and safe storage, ya know?

When I was a little kid of 7 and my father drove us across the USA from San Francisco to New York before we went to Europe to drive through a bunch of countries and visit his homeland, we stopped at my stepmother's folk's place in Baton Rouge. Before we could go inside to the wonderful air conditioning, my father made us wait in the car while he went in for about 10 minutes. At the time I couldn't have understood, and no one tried to explain anyway. I didn't learn until adulthood what that delay was about. Seems he had an inkling his father in law had a thing for guns. Sure enough, there was at least 1 pistol in every room of the house. Each one loaded, each one laying on a table ready-to-hand. 7 guns, all easily accessed by anyone in the house, including small visiting children. My father took a box and dumped all the ammo out of each gun and put the guns in after, then hid that box in the highest, most remote corner he could find, and demanded that his father in law lock the door on that room. Only with that done would he allow us all inside. My father had been through WWII as a child in Yugoslavia you see, and had seen hundreds of dead bodies, saw many dozens being killed before him, both family members and invading Italians then Germans. His brothers and sisters were older and were partisans, and they killed many invaders. By the time he was 10 years old he'd had a belly full of death and guns, never wanted to see another gun. I understand his feeling, though I don't share it, as it seems responsible fun can be had with guns. But guns everywhere, for everyone, of any age? That just doesn't seem sane. Guns aren't a ride at Disneyland.

I think the problem is that you have seen this video clip and heard the story and have used it as further proof of your pre-conceived stereotype of 'Merican gun owners. Couple this with with your (only?) firsthand exposure to an actual US gun owner at 7-years old, explained to you many years later by your admittedly anti-gun father, and you have yourself a bias. The US media is very much anti-gun, as is the rest of the world's, and they are very pleased that you think this way. I can assure you that handing Uzi's to 9-year olds is not nearly as common here as you might believe.

What happened with this girl was a tragedy. It was also insanely stupid, and never should have happened at all. I don't think you'll find many 'Mericans who would disagree with you there. Where many of us would disagree is with the idea that there should be a new law put into place to prevent 9-year olds from accidentally killing people with Uzi's. Speaking only for myself and gun owners I personally know, we generally do not look to the government for solutions to our problems, particularly problems of common sense. Our freedoms are diminished with every new law passed - sometimes a little, sometimes a lot.

[Rover]

No use abusing Gerard, he drinks the Obama Kool-Ade.

[Gerard]

No I don't Rover. I just think the Obama administration is a couple of percentage points less cynical and corrupt than the Bush administrations were, especially around issues of social justice. But that's not saying much. All governments are corrupt, just some more blatantly and/or massively so than others. I'm an anarchist and atheist, who happens to appreciate that the majority are either too unintelligent to make dangerous decisions (such as electing their figureheads) or too ignorant, so a few regulations aren't a bad idea. Of course they should be carefully considered regulations, unlike the law mandating a $200 tax stamp on weapons suppressors for instance, for which there was not a single minute of debate, it just passed because some big ranchers said poor folks were poaching their livestock during the depression. But to me it seems reasonable to consider a minimum age for shooting certain classes of weapons, along with a safety course of some sort, similar to driver training.

[edited; just corrected 'bit' to 'but' - darn my big thumbs... I hate phone typing]

[william]

Gerard,
No use debating with Rover. Absolutists are captives of the absolutes that exist only in their mind.

[sparky]

I think it was a fatal error on the part of the instructor.

I shot my first full-auto gun (an Uzi) when I was about 9 years old. However, I was a bit bigger than the girl. Also, I shot it semi-auto first, then full-auto with only 3 rounds in the mag, then with a full mag.

I think trying to legislate common sense is a fruitless effort.

[Gerard]

Perhaps so. In which case a tacit acceptance of the Darwin Awards wins out and we semi-randomly lose those or more or less needed culling anyway, along with those foolish enough to stand nearby now and then. Oh well, I guess that's how humanity has always functioned, like it or not.

[Hemmers]

I've seen grown men (in videos, admittedly) firing Uzis in full-auto mode and having a considerable difficulty maintaining anything close to focus on the actual target, spraying lead well above and often to the sides of the intended area of delivery.

Yeah but is that because they're actually difficult to shoot or because those grown men are out on a stag party and not all that concerned about hitting the middle so long as they make something go bang?

I know an 11 year old with Junior caps for her Nation in Air Pistol. I've also seen supposedly grown up individuals spray pellets halfway across the range backstop because they just weren't actually trying that hard - they were there for an experience hour and treated it as a bit of a joke.

Without having actually fired an Uzi myself, I'm not in a position to say how hard or otherwise it is, but there needs to be context to "videos on the internet". If it's a group of lads out on a stag weekend treating it as a joke then that's not a terribly solid base of reference to say how difficult (or not) it is.

[6string]

I assume that the range and the now-deceased range officer had a good safety record up the the point of this tragedy? Nonetheless, all concerned parties exercised exceedingly poor judgement. Combine that with a moment of bad luck and the outcome was a disaster.
Introducing restrictive new laws as a response shows a failure to recognize the nature of risk (including acts of stupidity) in daily life. The difference is, there are no widespread calls in the media to ban motor vehicles, power tools, swimming pools, bicycles, etc.
2011 stats for the US:
Accidental injury deaths: 187,464 (approx. half are household related)
Accidental deaths by poisoning: 46,047
Motor vehicle traffic deaths: 33,783 (not including deaths to pedestrians, cyclists, and motorcyclists, which increases the number to almost 50,000)
(SUVs are more than twice as likely to kill a pedestrian than a sedan, and large pickups are even worse…. Anyone heard calls to ban "assault trucks"?)
Firearms related deaths (including accidents, homicides and those related to the commission of a crime!!): 32,351

Too many people who would use this tragic event to justify further restrictive firearms laws are blatant opportunists looking to forward their political agenda.
Add to that, too many firearm owners who would do so are either naive or self-serving, acting to elevate themselves above other firearms owners and protect their chosen sport, be it hunting, target shooting, etc.