She did of course kill him . But it is interesting moral dilemma. In a country were guns are legal and everyone as them , are you handicapping your child by not teaching them to use one ?

I have no idea what DQ said. However, why does a nine year old need to learn how to use a sub machine gun. Surely a pistol would be sufficient to provide some self defence?

I take it that this is the news piece that's being referred to?
www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/gun-instructor-accidentally-shot-dead-by-nineyearold-girl-with-uzi-gun-9692843.html

I can't see the child being prosecuted - the instructor was most definitely at fault!
And as DQ has pointed out, it is a very interesting moral dilemma. To not have your child taught to properly handle firearms in a country where the bearing of arms is a constitutional right could be construed as being wilfully negligent.

It's certainly sad for all those involved!
I wouldn't go as far as describing it as sick, but it was an avoidable incident, and the instructor was negligent in his supervisory duties.

Dear Gordon . To paraphrase the f.t. no DQ no comment.

Who is saying what you say they are saying?

As far as I understand it, the right to bear arms in the USA is a right to bear them in defence of the country.  If that is the case, then there's rather too much 'defending' going on in my opinion.  
And I speak as someone who owned and used firearms for most of my life.

Regardless of the ethical and moral issues two things spring to mind. One - a properly qualified instructor should have had at least one hand on the weapon as a child of that age is NOT capable of controlling the kick of an UZI on full auto, as was proved. Two - If the 'proud' mom and dad hadn't been filming their little treasure firing an UZI would the instructor have done this instead of trying to keep 'out of shot' so to speak?

Apparently the local Sheriff has now announced that "no one would be charged with a crime because the gun range was fully licensed. "  Source = Daily Telegraph

Of course you are correct with regard to the current interpretation. However, I'm not convinced that when the amendment was made, the intention would have been to allow a nine year old access to a machine gun (supervised or not). I'd imagine that if they had foreseen such a situation then they would have chosen a rather different form of words. Don't you?