Posted on 11/11/2009 7:52:11 PM PST by Bodhi1
As a parent of five children, I understand the responsibility I have for each of them. I am responsible for their health and welfare and everything that goes with it. I am responsible for good decision making that keeps them from danger. Which is why I find it repulsive that a father who not only allowed his eight year old son to handle an Uzi, but paid for the child's opportunity to fire it, would sue the gun fair where the child fatally wounded himself:
According to the 32-page lawsuit, on Oct. 28, 2008, Charles Bizilj purchased the opportunity for his son, Christopher, to fire a Micro Uzi 9 mm that was owned by Giuffre and brought to the exposition by Spano. Giuffre and Spano were reportedly designated as "renters" at the expo, hired and solicited by Fleury to provide the weapons used by patrons.
When Christopher reportedly stepped to the line to fire the weapon, the suit alleges that Spano's son, 15-year-old Michael Spano, was the line officer charged with loading the weapon, handing it to the participant and providing instructions on its use. While Christopher was firing, Charles Bizilj was reportedly ordered to stay clear of the area and was required to stand behind restraining ropes.
On the first and second firing attempt, the suit alleges the weapon jammed and that Spano retrieved it, cleared what he believed was a jammed round of ammunition, and handed it back to Christopher. On the third try, when the boy attempted to raise the weapon to his shoulder, the stock slid down his shoulder, causing the barrel to spin upward and discharge as Christopher tried to prevent it from falling, according to the suit.
It is terrible that this boy died, and I truly feel for the father's loss.
However, I have to ask: who brought the boy to the "Great New England Pumpkin Shoot?" Who paid for him to shoot an Uzi? This wasn't a gun show. It was a fair where people came to shoot automatic weapons. Charles Bizilj had to know where he was taking his son.
I know some out there might think it was the responsibility of the organizers to ensure the safety of the participants. The organizers have been charged in the death, however, doesn't some of the responsibility fall on the father as well? Even with my limited experience with firearms, I know that handing a child an automatic weapon isn't safe.
It.
Isn't.
Safe.
I have been trained that there are no accidental shootings, but there are negligent discharges. For a round to go where it isn't meant, there has to be some negligence involved. There are lapses of judgment that could have prevented Christopher's death, starting with the father. From the beginning, he was negligent in his duties as a father.
I guess were I in his position, I would want the blame for my son's death to fall on another as well. It would be easier that way.
But it would be a lie.
No range that I have ever been to will rent to children, accompanied by a parent or not. Many do not even allow children younger than 10 on the premises. I suspect that this parent's grief will be bastardized into an anti-gun crusade.
It really is a question of how much responsibility properly belongs to the seller and how much to the buyer. I’m inclined to think both were at fault. Would the father have let the child use a nail-gun or a circular saw? But I HOPE I’d never hand a fully automatic weapon to a kid who didn’t get that you don’t try to catch a falling knife, much less a falling gun.
An MD no less. Great judgment doctor.
My youngest son had the opportunity to shoot a model 1919 Browning when he was the same age. Both of my sons have been around firearms all of their lives. I brought them up to respect firearms and to handle them safely. I must say that the kid had quite a thrill after making the rapid transition from a Mossberg bolt action .22 that day. The Browning belongs to a close friend of mine.
If he'd shot a nice, long, heavy Tommy gun instead, as my son did at about the same age, this never would have happened.
I think the parents have a good and just case.
(Much as I detest lawsuits)
I have put my finger to the trigger on a full auto weapon, in a private setting. An open to the public shooting range, “enter at your own risk” kind of semi-private setting.
The owner of the gun did not charge me a fee to fire his weapon. He was granting me a special privilege, and he was very aware of my ability and experience with weapons, without which, I would never have been allowed to even come within breathing distance of his “special” weapon.
Had the gun “jammed”, I would have declined a second opportunity to attempt to fire it again.
an entirely different scenario.
A father pays for his 8 year old son to supposedly safely experience shooting a weapon most people will never even comprehend, and because of the negligence of the vendor,in allowing a 15 year old boy to determine how many times the weapon may jam before he calls for assistance....Sorry, no joy here.
We take our boy to the range often. He may be a little goofy and likes to rough-house when playing, but at the range, he is completely focused...and an excellent shot, too!
It's my understanding that the very first time my husband took our son to the range, our son wasn't even allowed to fire a weapon. The very first lesson was about gun safety. Goggles, blast mufflers, sighting, checking the weapon, treating it like it was ALWAYS loaded, where to point when carrying it and not firing, etc.
His first time actually shooting, my husband was right beside him, hands on, guiding him.
SAFETY. SAFETY. SAFETY.
I'm with you, Bodhi1. God gave our children to US. Ultimately, WE are responsible for what happens to them. Willfully putting them in precarious situations involves calculated risk; it is a parent's job to minimize that risk.
Prayers for all involved.
However, I have yet to see any children shooting high powered weapons or automatic military type weapons at the range. They are usually shooting something appropriate for their size and age. Those little pink rifles seem really popular with the little girls.
With that said, I would not allow a child that age to shoot a weapon like that without an adult "spotting" them in some way. That is insane.
Tragic, but nobody was at fault more than the dad who approved his son’s use of the uzi.
As tragic as this set of circumstances are, the owner of the gun has a lawsuit against the dad since the gun was confiscated due to his son’s poor gun handling.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.