Seventeen months after an 8-year-old Connecticut boy fatally shot himself with a machine gun provided at a Massachusetts gun range, the Westfield Sportsman's Club pleaded no contest today to a manslaughter charge and to furnishing a machine gun to a child.Besides Christopher's father who brought him to this sick event and was too far removed from the action to be of help, it came out later that the one responsible for supervising the boy was just a kid himself.
As part of a settlement in Springfield Superior Court, the club agreed to pay a $1,000 fine for the manslaughter charge and to pay $10,000 to two charities that work with children.
Christopher Bizilj of Ashford, Conn., died on Oct. 26, 2008, after losing control of a high-powered Uzi machine gun, which recoiled and fatally shot him in the head. The boy's father had brought him to a gun shooting event at the club.
The mother asked how it could have happened that it was an unlicensed 15-year-old boy, the son of one of the gun dealers sponsoring the event, who was in charge of supervising her son.So, just so no one can say the gun club and all the dads involved got off light, there was another legal consequence.
"How could [the gun dealer] think his 15-year-old son could possibly be mature enough and skilled enough to put a powerful automatic weapon in the hands of an 8-year-old boy? How could gun club range officers allow non-certified instructors to be in control?" she asked, adding, "It is hard to comprehend the extent of negligence that went on that afternoon."
"There will be no more automatic weapons at the Sportsman's Club. That's the condition I accept this plea," the judge said. "We cannot endure another case like this. This has shaken the conscience of the whole community."
To me this sounds almost like a cover-up, something you'd expect in Alabama or Indiana. What's the point of all those strict gun laws in the North East if they let people and gun clubs get away with stuff like this with a slap on the wrist?
What's your opinion? You know what I think. The dads involved in this case, and all the other gun-dads, should be ashamed of themselves. But, I'd like to hear what you think.
Please leave a comment.
Mikeb says:
ReplyDeleteWhen we talked about this before the gun lovers basically said these events are just good clean fun and it rarely happens that something goes wrong anyway.
I don't know any "gun lovers," but as a gun rights advocate who appreciates firearms, I wouldn't say that "it rarely happens that something goes wrong anyway," so much as I'd say that anything approaching this tragedy is, to my knowledge, unprecedented--and entirely avoidable, with a bit of care.
Besides Christopher's father who brought him to this sick event . . .
"Sick event"? It was, obviously, very irresponsibly conducted, and I don't dispute that criminal charges for the egregious negligence are warranted. I'll even go so far as to agree that those responsible got off more lightly than they should have.
What I will not agree with is the bizarre idea that young kids firing machine guns--with proper safeguards in place--is "sick." My eldest fired a machine gun at age 5--not a submachine gun, and certainly not a machine pistol like the Micro-Uzi in this case--much too hard to control for someone that young. The gun he fired was tripod-mounted, and he was basically sitting on my lap while he fired--that gun wasn't going to point anywhere I didn't want it pointing.
The closest he came to injury was overuse of the facial muscles that are responsible for smiling. Almost a year later, he still talks about that constantly, and his little brother is consumed with desire to join in the full-auto fun.
Soon enough (well, he wouldn't agree with the "soon enough" part), he will.
Mikeb says:
ReplyDeleteThe dads involved in this case, and all the other gun-dads . . .
What, pray tell, is a "gun-dad"--a father who encourages his children in the safe (and enjoyable) use of firearms? Nah--that can't be it, since there's very obviously nothing "shameful" about it.
So, my question about the definition of "gun-dads" still stands.
Zorro, Please don't take offense but I think shooting animals with guns is sick, shooting humans is sicker. Shooting skeet for example, is simulated bird shooting. Shooting targets is a substitute of sorts for either shooting animals or humans. I know some shooters deny this, but I don't buy their denials. Some targets are in the shape of a human silhouette for crying out loud.
ReplyDeleteOnce before you told us you would use faces of certain politicians to make targets for your boys to shoot at. To me that's sick, but it's your life, their your boys, so don't get me wrong, I don't really care what you do.
Having said all that, the image you gave of sitting your boy on your lap and letting him fire the machine gun, very similar to the way I put my boy on my lap and let him park the car in the garage, sounds perfectly safe and no danger to anyone.
The problem with all these situations is that not everyone is as responsible as you are. You've got all those folks covered by my 10% theory, starting with Mr. Bizilj, to give you all a bad name.
Mikeb says:
ReplyDeleteZorro, Please don't take offense but I think shooting animals with guns is sick . . .
Beats the hell out of eating them alive, doesn't it?
. . . shooting humans is sicker.
Shooting humans for fun, or to take their property, or because you don't like their skin color, religion, or sexual preference is indeed quite sick. Shooting humans because they'll kill or oppress you if you don't, is not.
Shooting targets is a substitute of sorts for either shooting animals or humans.
How can one practice marksmanship, thus increasing proficiency, without a target? Just randomly sending shots down range for the sake of the "bang" is kinda pointless.
Once before you told us you would use faces of certain politicians to make targets for your boys to shoot at.
Well, I used their faces because the face tends to be the most recognizable part of any given person. Granted, center torso would make a more logical target, but sometimes, you have to make some adjustments.
You've got all those folks covered by my 10% theory, starting with Mr. Bizilj, to give you all a bad name.
Mr. Bizilj's mistake, as best I can tell, was his trusting assumption that the people running the event knew what they were doing. He was tragically very wrong about that. But he didn't give me "a bad name."
Zorro says, "But he didn't give me "a bad name.""
ReplyDeleteIf you say so, but I think lots of people on both sides of the debate disagree. Misuse of guns by anyone reflects badly on lawful gun owners. I don't know why you would resist such an idea. Does it rub your "individualistic" feelings the wrong way? Is it contrary to the atlas-shrugged mentality which pretends to be impervious to the actions of others?
Mikeb says:
ReplyDeleteIf you say so, but I think lots of people on both sides of the debate disagree. Misuse of guns by anyone reflects badly on lawful gun owners. I don't know why you would resist such an idea. Does it rub your "individualistic" feelings the wrong way? Is it contrary to the atlas-shrugged mentality which pretends to be impervious to the actions of others?
I misstated my position a bit. I don't doubt that there are some misguided souls out there who would tar all parents who encourage their children to enjoy shooting, with the brush of irresponsibility that any reasonable person would confine to those parents who act irresponsibly.
The correct response to people who blame an entire large group for the actions of a few in that group's midst is, of course, contempt and derision.
I've never "pretend[ed] to be impervious to the actions of others." If someone hits me with a battle axe, for example, I'm going to have some serious problems--probably for the rest of my life (which will, at least, not likely be long). What I am "impervious" to, obviously, is responsibility for the actions of others.