With an instructor watching, an 8-year-old boy at a gun fair aimed an Uzi submachine gun at a pumpkin and pulled the trigger as his dad reached for a camera.This article focuses on the "why was this child allowed to shoot a machine gun? Why wasn't he adequately monitored by responsible, trained adults?"
It was his first time shooting a fully automatic gun, and the recoil of the weapon was too much for him. He lost control and fatally shot himself in the head.
Now gun safety experts — and some gun enthusiasts at the club where the shooting happened — are wondering why such a young child was allowed to fire a weapon used in war. Local, state and federal authorities are also investigating whether everyone involved had proper licenses or if anyone committed a criminal act.
I have to admit, I have the same questions.
The responsible parent (father) was reported to be several yards away, "reaching for a camera", when his son began shooting the subgun.
The responsible, trained instructor was not in a position to monitor and correct errors when the child began to shoot the subgun.
The child was not experienced in gun-handling, the father knew it (the older sibling had fired several firearms)
In the actual event, the full-auto machine-gun was too much for the boy to handle; and the subgun was so short that the muzzle tracked up, predictably, and the still-firing 9mm subgun worked its way up until it fired the fatal bullet into the brainpan of an innocent 8-year old boy.
It wasn't his fault. He had no idea what to expect, but he had been assured (presumably) by the innate authority of his father and the demonstrable experience of the instructor that he could handle it.l
Where do we go from here? What can we learn from this? What do we do about it? Who is responsible? What do we do to apportion responsibility and assign penalties ... if at all?
The Father:
According to the report, the Father was some distance away "reaching for a camera" when his son began shooting the Uzi.
I recognize that he wanted to capture the "Kodak Moment", and that he may not have realized that his son was going to begin shooting the gun before he was ready.
No excuse. He knew that his son was inexperienced, and presumably he was counting on the experience of The Instructor to prevent any unsafe actions.
Still, the responsibility of the father is to ensure the continued existence of his progeny. It may not be a Darwinistic result, and to typify it as such is both petty and disrespectful. In the final analysis the Father is responsible for the protection of his child, and this father failed miserably.
The Instructor:
It's difficult not to focus on the Instructor as the author of this tragedy, and I'm not even going to try to absolve him.
He had presented himself as an authority figure, he was responsible for the safe conduct of all persons and firearms on his venue, and he failed miserably. I'm sure he feels just terrible about that, but that means exactly nothing.
He allowed an undersized, inexperienced, confused child to kill himself through accident and misadventure. See the quotes around the words "accident" and "Misadventure" ... I didn't put them there. Quote marks are an excuse, and there is no excuse for the inattention and underappreciation of the potential for disaster which was not recognized here.
This ... person ... and words fail me, represented himself as an authority in the care and usage of full-automatic firearms. Yet he failed to present himself in a sufficiently close proximity to this obviosly inadequate childe to prevent what should have been the predictable consequent of handing a full-auto short subgun to a physically small and inexperienced person.
He should have KNOWN that a full-auto weapon would rise uncontrollably, and he should have started with his hand hovering over the weapon to prevent its rise past the vertical.
I picture him with a silly grin on his face, and his hands stuffed into his hip-pockets, assumig that the boy would be startled but that no permanently bad consequences would arise from the situation.
The sin of complacency.
For this sin, I can only prescribe civil suits which will forever deprive him of the means to make a living for the rest of his life.
For this sin, I coan only prescribe criminal penalties which will keep him in a small, grey, dank cell for the rest of his life.
Too punitive?
Not at all. A child who could have been anything, done anything, a Golden Child ... suffered the effects of a .358 inch, 125-grain object trepanned a child under his putative control control and protection. He had presented himself as The Instructor, accepeting all responsibilities and authoritiy. He fucked up. He deserves everything he gets, and I hope it hurts at least as much as the child's mother hurts tonight.
The Host Club:
Not without responsibility here. They accepted the credentials of The Instructor, They allowed this drama to be presented, without on-the-scene oversight. They are just as guilty of bad judgement and inattention. This is one club which should not be permitted to continue.
_________________________________
Again, I anticipate that readers may consider my criticism to be intemperate. I am reminded of my own home club, which hosts Full-Auto exravaganzas on an annual basis.
Would I be as condemnatory if a similar tragedy occurred at my home range?
Damn right!
If the club is not willing to staff a technically difficult stage with sufficent trained personell to prevent this sort of 'accident', it should be subject to the same penalties as I have described.
I teach an "Introduction to USPSA" class from time to time (although, not lately) and I have observed that New Shooters are often dangerously ill-equipped to demonstrate the gun-handling skills which this challenging competitifve venue presents.
I do the best I can to curb the untrained instincts of my students, and I am often uncomfortably aware that their skills are insufficient for immediate exercise of the kind of challenging stuff which USPSA/IPSC requires.
When I see that, I stop the student and require him or her to correct unsafe actions.
Under that basic level of ineptitude, I hover over my students so that I can stop them physically, if they are unresponsive of verbal warnings (or if their actions threaten to turn the muzzle of the gun in an unsafe direction.)
Still, I am uncomfortable dealing with new shooters who have'nt yet, or who are unable to, demonstrate an acceptable level of Gun-Handling Skills.
Toward that end I have encouraged the club to provide at least one secondary instructiong ... an experienced shooter whom I can rely upon to sot and handle the errs which I may miss because of inadvertantly inoptimal positioning.
I digress.
There are things an Instructor can do to prevent this kind of firearms tragedy. They were not recognized ... at least, they were not observed here.
He who presents himself as an Instuctor, and who does not provide the minimal amount of Safety to his students; he who allows an untested Instructor to represent his organization ... in the moment of Tragedy, both parties are subject to censure.
x
x
x
x
x
No comments:
Post a Comment