Transcript for Facebook Find: Should a 9-Year-Old Handle an Uzi?
Now the debut of our brand-new partnership with Facebook. Our Facebook find of the week. We're excited to team up to track the biggest political stories that you're talking about online. Each week, we'll spotlight one of the top topics starting to trend on Facebook pages. This week, it's a shocking video reigniting the sharp debate over gun control. Trending right now. Our Facebook "Find of the week." What's burning up news feeds? The firestorm over kids and guns. A debate tonight. Prompted by a video of a 9-year-old girl at a gun range in Arizona learning to shoot a powerful at mattic weapon. Reporter: A tragedy captured on video. All right. Go ahead and give me one shot. Reporter: This girl, firing an uzi at a shooting range. She loses control of the gun accidentally killing her instructor. No federal law prohibits kids on gun ranges. But now, new calls for restrictions on the weapons they should be handling. Is a 9-year-old too young to fire an uzi? Let's take on our Facebook "Find of the week." And the "Roundtable" is ready to weigh in. I want to start with you, Matt dowd. Should a 9-year-old be able to handle an uzi or touch one or any gun? The obvious answer is, no to the uzi. I have shot one on fully automatic. I had a hard time holding it steady. And it's the recoil? It automatly pulls up and over. But I have also shot a gatling gun, and that's a whole different story. I wouldn't recommend a gatling gun to a 9-year-old either. I have boys. I trained them on bb guns. And then on .22s. There's no purpose in an uzi. No hunting or target purpose in an uzi. This place called bullets and burgers. Which is an amazing thing. It's on the side of the road. It's like a fireworks -- they said they were going to give gun safety and gun education on that. It's like going to a fireworks stand on the side of the road and expecting safety regulations. I think this is a tragedy for her and the guy killed. Everyone agrees. It's a terrible, terrible trage tragedy. Will I be viewed as an accident that will never happen again? This gun control debate is not happening in the country. It's just not. We have New Mexico, Oklahoma here, they can tell you, it's not happening this their states. And, I think it's outrageous. For a 9-year-old child to have an uzi in her hands. At the same time -- Governor? I think there are a lot of questions. I'm a westerner. Nra-endorsed when I was running for office. It's reached the point where it's not just common sense. You're not going to deal with this issue nationally. The congress isn't going to touch it. So it has to be states. Now, Arizona won't do a thing, I can tell you. Connecticut has a limit on kids using firearms. But I think there's some more basic questions. Number one, where were the parents in all this? Secondly, this entrepreneur. Apparently they were right there. They were right there. My point is, where were the parents? Why would they permit this? Should a child at 9 have access to an uzi? It's a free market. You can't get on a ferris wheel in a lot of places. A tragedy. I agree with the governor. This is probably dealt with at the state level, local level. I think you'll see people doing best practices at gun ranges. And probably stopping this sort of thing. I don't think this is an opening for some big, sweeping, national, federal gun control. I want to move on. President Obama, it looks like, may be putting the brakes on on using executive power, changing immigration laws in any big way until after the midterms. And bill Richardson, this may the why. Look at the quotes in the post from democrats. In tight senate races. To me, securing our borders has to be the priority. And that should be the president's focus. Senator Hagan, I think this should be addressed legislatively and now through executive order. Is this what's behind the potential delay? I think so. I want to see all those democrats re-elected. But I also, not just because I'm hispanic, I feel the president should move with the executive order to halt deportations or at least reduce them. I think he kind of made this commitment. I think it will also, policy-wise, it makes sense. The congress has been unable to pass comprehensive immigration. Not just pass it but not even consider it. Some elements -- But politically -- politically it also makes sense. The people who are going to vote against democrats on the basis of liberal immigration are already going to vote against democrats. You're not going to change a vote on this. What you might do is get voters out who are disillusioned with the president on the issue of immigration. That, to me is the smarter thing to do. This is a long-term political problem for the republicans. They may win the small battle of nothing happening this year. The long battle of this country and the growth of the Latino population presents itself in a very bad we for republicans in the midst of this. What I think will happen, I think it will happen for many voters on a lot of things. I think it will be like kids excited around Christmas. They wake up on Christmas morning after election day and realize they didn't get what they wanted. The damage to republicans is 2016. The hispanic voters will remember this. They're growing. The president's never going to get immigration legislation when he acts unilaterally. First of all, he's undercutting congressional authority. He's breeding distrust on the other side. Thinking if you make a deal with him, he won't keep it. So I think the president is wise to pull back here. He's clearly doing it for short-term tactical reasons. If he wants a bill before the end of his presidency, he won't act unilaterally. And some final thoughts on senator Gillibrand's new book. She has a new book. A "People" magazine excerpt includes this -- while I was on the elliptical machine, many of my older male colleagues felt compelled to offer advice such as this gem, good thing you're working out because you wouldn't want to get porky. I'm starting with you, cokie Roberts. Could that happen on the hill? This just in, men are sexist op capitol hill. Wow, a brand-new revelation. I'm surprised they would say anything about her weight. But -- Does that surprise you? Astonished. I mean, really? These guys are so lucky. She could have ended about half a dozen political careers, and probably should have. If that's going to be the attitude and the rhetoric. Should she name them? No. I think so. I think so because it impugns when she doesn't name them -- I think it shines a great lens on the institutions of the country. We think we've grown so much. We're past all this. We're not past all this. Some of the worst criticism. It's women on women. You sit in a room and watch how they talk about other women. Come on. Come on. That's not true. Come on, sister. She should have named names.
This transcript has been automatically generated and may not be 100% accurate.