IMO, without knowing all the facts, it seems like it was simply an unfortunate accident.

While I do agree children should be exposed to proper firearm use and safety from an early age, one also has to keep in mind they are dangerous and sometimes stuff can happen. It's no different than teaching your kid to swim, teaching them to ride a dirtbike, or anything else like that. Sometimes you think you're doing everything right and still, something bad can happen.

"Again no-one is taking any responsibility for this gun related death. The supervising adults responsible for putting an Uzi machine gun into this childs hands should be charged with manslaughter. They are responsible for the death of this child, not the child, 'Self-inflicted accidental shooting' is just absolutely pathetic."

Could not agree more. Clearly the 'supervision' was nothing of the sort.

While I share your upset, I don't think charging them with manslaughter is going to help anything. They probably, particularly the father, have enough suffering on their hands.

Call me old fashioned, but generally back in the day we started out with BB and pellet air guns, moved up to .22's (bolt action), and then finally larger caliber or semi-automatic rifles when we were teenagers.

Am fear, obviously there is a greatly different culture regarding firearms between the UK and USA.

That said,this isn't the time or place to debate it, and I'll lock this thread if we drag out stale men's room arguments.

The man's son is dead. You want to destroy the rest of his family further? He made a poor decision partly based on the dangerous credential called 'experience.'

My favourite F 1 driver is Graham Hill. He did the same thing flying an airplane after retirement.

From a purely legal perspective, I'd suspect that a good criminal defense attorney could successfully defend the father and the instructor against a negligent homicide charge.

From the news article it appears that the father was physically supporting the boy in handling the weapon, and was doing so under the supervision of a qualified instructor under controlled circumstances. It doesn't appear that this was some gun nut turning the boy loose with an Uzi in the back yard.

Not every tragedy is rooted in negligence, at least not negligence that rises to the high level of criminal culpability. It is possible for a reasonable person to believe that an adult, by holding and guiding an eight year old boy's arms or hands, could prevent the gun from being pointed or fired in an unsafe direction while on a supervised gun range. Indeed, it is a fairly common practice when introducing youngsters to firearms, and not incidentally, to their destructive potential.

While I do agree that criminal negligence should not be excused merely because the victim is someone the perpetrator feels particularly bad about harming, I think criminal prosecution should be reserved for the most reckless kinds of conduct. Rest assured, if you kill your child by choosing to drive while drunk, for example, you will and should be criminally prosecuted, but I don't see that kind of criminal culpability here.

Jeff

I view this incident in the same way I'd view someone letting their toddler go out to play with the neighbor's pit bull. I am not against pit bulls, but would question the wisdom of someone putting an inadequately supervised child in the yard with one. Same thing goes for firearms. I'm not against them. Even a full auto Uzi. But putting an inadequately supervised child in touch with one... ??? !!!

What gets me is the dad is head of some emergency medicine operation. That would indicate to me that he's not a Neanderthal in the brain department. So the fact that this could happen while he was present is really mystifying to me.

Sad, so sad. A single shot .22 might have been a better way to start out...

If so, then this sounding more like simply a tragic accident IMHO. But I thought I read somewhere that the dad was back getting his camera while the child was left with the Uzi. If the dad was actually holding the gun with the childs hands in contact, I would hope that the dad had previously shot the Uzi by himself to know what to expect. I certainly wouldn't know how much muzzle rise to expect myself, I've never shot a full auto weapon. If I ever do, my fist time won't be with a child piggy-backing on me.

"Francis Mitchell, a longtime member and trustee of the club, said he was told the boy's father was supporting his son from behind when the incident happened."

http://www.nypost.com/seven/10282008/news/nationalnews/kid__8__in_uzi_death_horror_135645.htm

I'm making a bit of an assumption that "supporting . . . from behind" means the typical practice of helping the boy hold and control the weapon. I can't imagine what else the father would be doing there, otherwise.

Jeff

Having never shot a true automatic, would I be correct to assume that a longer barrel would have been inately more safe since the business end of the barrel would have moved above his head rather than below it?

Also, are uzi's "supposed" to be fired straight-armed? Kind of like a pistol? If so, would that mean the gun's tip could/should have moved above his head rather than below his head?

Not inferring any negligence ... just wondering.

BTW ... they just discussed this on Fox News.

Very VERY sad indeed.

Ken K.