Wednesday, February 25, 2015

No Serious Violations at Gun Range in the Killing of Charles Joseph Vacca by 9-Year-old Girl

Local news reports

Arizona's workplace safety agency has issued several recommendations that it says could help prevent accidental shootings like the one last year involving a 9-year-old girl with a mini Uzi.

Charles Joseph Vacca died in August after he stepped back to let the New Jersey girl hold the Uzi by herself. The gun's recoil wrenched it upward, killing him.

An investigation by the Arizona Division of Occupational Safety and Health found no serious violations. But the agency recommended having a range safety officer on site, limiting weapons selections for certain shooters and ensuring shooters are comfortable with weapons before they are placed on automatic.

The agency says a safety officer isn't required, but that person could have pointed out that Vacca was out of position when instructing the girl.

17 comments:

  1. What it comes down to is that Mr. Vaca made a mistake and paid for it with his life.

    "Some of the recommendations already are in place at the private shooting range, about 60 miles south of Las Vegas. Children now must be at least 12 years old or five feet tall to handle a variety of semi-automatic rifles and machines guns, but the range coaches have discretion based on the shooter's experience, the state agency's report noted.
    Sam Scarmardo, who operates the outdoor range in the desert, declined to comment Tuesday. He previously has said the girl's parents had signed waivers saying they understood the rules and were standing nearby, video-recording their daughter, when the accident happened.
    Prosecutors declined to file charges, saying Vacca was the most culpable."

    http://news.yahoo.com/agency-issues-recommendations-girl-kills-man-uzi-003950697.html;_ylt=AwrBJR56a.1Uh2AAOvXQtDMD

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What mistake did he make SS?

      Delete
    2. Failure to control the weapon. When my youngest shoots, I'm prepared to physically keep the muzzle from straying from a safe direction.
      That is more difficult with a short weapon like what was used here.

      Delete
    3. So you keep your arm on the barrel when he is firing the weapon?

      Delete
    4. "So you keep your arm on the barrel when he is firing the weapon? "

      Not on the barrel, but close enough to control if it strays. With a long arm, I can stand to the side and behind the muzzle so I physically block movement. No one is allowed on the other side, which has a berm.
      Also at her age and size, she only shoots a Cricket .22 single shot with a stock shortened to fit her, so there is no risk of a next shot being affected by recoil.
      Older kids are practiced enough to not need such close supervision.

      Delete
    5. How old is she SS? This girl was 9 and shooting an Uzi. Seems a little big for a 9 year old. Anyways, he's dead because of his mistake, and who knows what kind of mental problems she will have besides the nightmares.

      Delete
    6. Look at his avatar, Peter. She's probably three or four years older than that by now.

      But yeah. Better a Cricket than an automatic Uzi. That's just the stupidest thing in the world.

      Delete
    7. Younger Peter. And him being dead due to his own errors in judgement was exactly my original point.

      Delete
    8. FJ, that is middle daughter who is now eleven.

      Delete
    9. 9 is young for an Uzi (IMO) and I have to believe the parents knew and I question their decision.

      Delete
    10. "9 is young for an Uzi (IMO) and I have to believe the parents knew and I question their decision. "

      I agree Peter, 9 is young for someone to fire a weapon known for its recoil to shoot with no training. Which was essentially the case here. In my opinion, Mr. Vacca should have made the tough call that her parents weren't apparently willing to make and said no.
      It is quite possible for someone to learn to shoot such a piece, but in reality, that wasn't the intent here.

      Delete
    11. But he didn't, which only shows there is no line a gun loon thinks can be crossed. This is a professional and highly trained person in guns making a basic error. So he is dead. What about the other professional, highly trained gun experts who find what he did acceptable and would do the same thing? And please don't tell me they are not out there and this guy is the only one who would agree to teach a 9 year old girl how to shoot an Uzi. I won't believe that for a second.

      Delete
    12. Again Peter, he wasn't teaching her anything. It was a thrilling experience type of event. Akin to getting an airplane ride and the pilot letting you "fly it". It is quite possible and safe to teach someone that age dependent on the 9 year old. In fact, I believe Mike has posted some videos of such people.
      As for the other professionals finding it acceptable, are you referring to them being ok with the concept of supervised weapon firing? He did make a basic error, which resulted in his death. Other professionals make similar errors in their particular professions that result in death and injury, and for the most part, everyone recognizes that it was an individual error.

      Delete
    13. Obviously then there should be rule changes if so many so called professionals are making dangerous and deadly mistakes.

      Delete
    14. How many mistakes like this have you observed Peter? This one was notable because of its relative rarity. And he certainly won't do it again. And others will learn from the mistake.

      Delete
    15. Will they? Lets not forget the headline, no serious violations. When someone dies, it's serious. Whose learning what if they call it not serious?

      Delete
  2. Excuse me. But I don't think an investigation by a bunch of Zonies is going to be very thorough, even if they do claim the OSHA mantle. Amounts to a tsk, tsk, tsk! The political establishment and government agencies of this entire state have gone off-the-charts right-wing. Clearly the owner of this fine establishment is culpable for allowing this type of dangerous shenanigans in his range. I think it would be appropriate for both the families of the victim and the little girl to sue the pants off of this idiot and put him out of business permanently.

    If these crazy dumbshits really think that it's the high point of the entire vacation to let their youngsters experience the thrill of automatic weapon fire, why in the name of all that is holy, can't the proprietor just bolt the devilish implement into a swivel stand with a rocker to a solid mount?

    ReplyDelete