It was the organizer's responsibility to see to it that no children were allowed to fire machine guns. This act in itself is breaking the law. The organizer even had off-duty policeman assists the boy.

This jury trial was a pure joke. Look at the make-up of the jury: 2/3rds were high school dropouts, members of the NRA and licesened to carry fire-arms. The rest were suzy homemakers married to individuals just like them.

The District Attorney should have charged the father as a co-defendent in this case. He is just as responsible as the organizer. I'm all for the right to bear arms, but there has to be a common sense stop-gap measure. These types of weapons should be banned.

I concur with RHJ. They had to sign a waiver to get in. The 15-year-old safety officer testified that he said twice he thought it was a bad idea. After all that, a man smart enough to earn an M.D. thinks he can stand back and say, "You mean to tell me this is dangerous? You never said someone could be killed?"

Only they did say it - right on the waiver you signed.

The father is just trying to save face after making a devastatingly poor judgment.

If the boys had been allowed to fire the weapon without a parent or legal guardian present, then and only then would I say the organizer is liable.

Exactly! The ONLY person responsible for that child's death is his own father. Who, by the way, was able to put aside his concern for his dying child in order to MAKE A VIDEO! What an ass hole. He was thinking "lawsuit" before the kid was even cold.

While I have not seen the video, I suspect it was taken while he was firing the weapon and captured the accident itself, as opposed to being shot after the accident.

this is why we dont take children to gun shows!

it was the father's fault for letting the boy fire the Uzi. Period

While the result was horrific for the family - this falls into the stupid is as stupid category for the father who decidied that his 15 year old kid should be firing 50 caliber machine guns . . . its not cruel - it just is -

So every time a tragedy happens, we think we need a law to address it. What happened is horrible, but it's easy to be judgmental in hindsight. Perhaps we can require the installation of padding on every wall and the rounding off of every table corner to make the world a safer place for children. Let's preserve a little bit of freedom and parental discretion. Before you know it, we'll be required to hand our children over to the government to be raised and not get them back until they turn 18.

Seems like this fits the usual narrative.

No one is responsible for their own actions, but there is always someone else out there to sue.

We've got an entire political party based on the premise that you don't need to take care of yourself, and anything bad in your life is someone else's fault.

Poor kid, his DAD was negligent. He would be the one I would be trying.

So if it is illegal to let a minor do it, why isn't the prosecutor charging the dad?

Who does the prosecutor think "allowed" him to shoot it?

Some third party?

Our "justice" system is so messed up.

An event where machines of lethality are treated as objects of entertainment for children.

And then people are shocked, SHOCKED, that human mistakes were made and someone got killed.

I'm a proponent of responsible gun ownership, but this kind of event is not something I would go to, let alone take my kids to.

This is a really sad story but I think the jury got it right. Was it stupid to have a gun show where minors could shoot uzi's? Probably. But it had gone on for 7 years and there was plenty of blame to go around. Ultimately, the family had signed waivers and the father was told TWICE that it might not be a good idea. He went ahead. I don't think the father is blaming the organizer because he (the father) is being tried for manslauter as well. I think the father has lost enough here. Let's call it a stupid accident and let the boy rest in peace and the father put back together what's left of his life. Let's also not have anymore shows where 11 year olds can shoot uzi's either. As my son likes to say, "Nothing good can come of this."

There is a good lesson here, though too late for the child of a moron. I go to a range where machine guns ares shot and have never seen anyone under the age of 18 with one in their hands. The organizer is not legally culpable here, but he should have used some common sense and limited entry to anyone 18 or 21. So, the organizer is gulity of not using common sense, a frailtyof most humans. The real culpability lies with the father who was no doubt trying to show his kids how macho he is.

RHJ: I agree with you. The father was DEFINITELY responsible. He wanted his sons to be "REAL MEN" and brought the movie camera to show them off to everyone at their proudest moment. The son was probably afraid of the gun and only fired it to please his father.

josephi: There's no reason for your hostility towards the jury. If the jury make-up is as you claim, how would any of those characteristics affect their ability to rule fairly? If I had to select a jury to rule in a case that involved a firearms accident, I’d want ALL OF THEM to be familiar with firearms. Whether or not one has finished high school does not necessarily reflect their ability to judge liability in this case. I'd say the best judges would be those most familiar with firearms; you seem to believe the opposite. A person familiar with guns would have listened when the 15-year-old line assistant said he didn't recommend those kids shoot the machine gun.

The father apparently HAD LITTLE TO NO FAMILIARITY WITH FIREARMS and that's why this accident happened. He, like you, disregarded the advice of the 15-year-old line assistant who did yet finish high school. This 15-year-old told the father TWICE it wasn't a good idea to let his sons shoot that machine gun because it was too powerful, shot very rapidly, and had a strong kickback.

The father ignored his warnings - because, like you, he didn't believe a 15-year-old without a high school education was equipped to tell him, a man with at least 8 years of college education ANYTHING! The best way to keep ANYONE from having gun accidents is EDUCATION - ABOUT GUNS, NOT ACADEMICS! KNOWLEDGE, NOT CENSORSHIP makes for safe gun ownership.

How can you support anyone's right to own firearms when you apparently know little about them?

Blame it on the Chinese... they invented gunpowder... and they have all of our money! Nuff said....

Ni Hao!

8 years olds should not be firing a UZi, under no circumstances. That is wreckless and wanton conduct. The father is responsible but so are the organizers of this event. This is just a very retarded jury.

What's sad is all of the ignorant responses to this tragic story. The guy SHOULD be charged and the father charged for neglect. ANYONE letting a minor fire a sub machine gun is completely negligent. The whole idea of an all ages gun show of this sort is criminal. My heart goes out to this poor child who lost his life because NO ONE of age had the sense to realise this was dangerous and wrong.

The article clearly states that a gun with a barrel under 16' is legal to fire. It is the Father's fault for not being behind the kid holding the gun like when someone shows a pretty girl how to make a golf swing. This is totally the Father's fault.

RHJ

I completely agree with you. If anyone is responsible, it's the kid's father. It is unfortunate that he died.

I completely blame the father. Even the 15 year old who was "monitoring" the situation told the father he did not think that the kid should be shooting that weapon and father ignored him with tragic consequences.

I think the father should be punished somehow for his negligence.

I really wish Americans would take responsibility for their actions. SO MANY PEOPLE TRY AND BLAME SOMEONE ELSE FOR THEIR OWN F-UPS OR BLAME THE WRONG PERSON.

It reminds me of how people were blaming the school or parents of the Tucson shooter. THEY HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH A MENTALLY DERANGED MAN BENT ON A KILLING SPREE.

Discretion people. Use it.

Neil

Apparently the JUDGE AND JURY do not agree with you.

The man was ACQUITTED. That means - he is free to go and did nothing wrong per the jury and judge.

It's the judge and jury's decision to make.

maybe it is all about 'thinning the herd' or 'survival of the fittest' ?? any parent dumb enough to encourage their little children to play with real guns,--- well, maybe they're not the sharpest tool in the shed?

The father should be paying for all of the legal bills that the acquitted event organizerhave accumulated because of the poor judgement in parenting.

You're absolutely correct about gun shows and expositions being adult events.

There is no law prohibiting anyone from bringing their minor children, and no one ever bans children from those events...in fact, children under 12 are usually admitted free or at a reduced rate. However, there is an implicit, unspoken rule it is expected that everyone in attendance just understands, and that is if you bring your child, you are responsible for his or her conduct as that child's legal guardian and if your kid can't behave, you need to leave the premises. That holds true whether it's a gun show, a craft show, the county fair, you name it. If you can't control your child and keep them from running around, touching things they shouldn't be touching, going places they shouldn't be, and especially getting into other peoples' things (like their fair exhibits, merchandise on the tables, etc.), you need to remove your child from that environment.

Anyone who doesn't understand that rubs people the wrong way very quickly and will discover they aren't going to be making too many friends there.

I have been going to gun shows with my father and grandfather since I was about 7 or 8. Our shows have NO live fire, absolutely NO loaded weapons allowed, and every gun brought indoors must have its mechanism locked or zip-tied. That being said, even at the age of 7-8 if I even REACHED to touch something, my dad smacked my hand away. Look, don't touch.

Children should be allowed into gun shows with responsible parents to teach them at an early age about the power of weapons and the immense responsibility that goes along with ownership. Children should NOT be allowed into gun shows with lazy parents who take videos while their child handles a weapon.

You are exactly right. You were raised to respect firearms. So was I and so was my husband...taught by our fathers and grandfathers. We raised our son the same way and he is raising his daughter and son to have the same respect for them. Guns are NOT toys. You don't video someone shooting a weapon just so you can show off to someone. They are weapons made to kill. Your last paragraph states it perfectly!

I didn't even know they had gun shows where you could fire weapons. I've gone to a few gun shows but it was just about selling stuff.

This was not as much of a gun show as it was an awareness raising event. I had a friend in the Mass. State Police at the time and the way he explained (this was years ago) it was as a pay per round expo in order to raise awareness an educate the public. So basically the father went with his children, insisted the child get a full clip and recorded his child firing a fully automatic weapon.

As I agree with your main point, let's not be cruel and call an already grieving father a "worthless man".

No, I would say calling him worthless is quite fitting. Reality sucks sometimes, don't try to sugar coat it like those teachers telling kids "oh yay, everyone wins!".

Okay RHJ "As I agree with your main point, let's not be cruel and call an already grieving father a "worthless man"."

Okay how about IDIOT!

And I agree with RHJ... the death of his own child under his own watch is more than punishment enough... and that has no sugar coat on it...

I disagree Czar. This man shouldn't be allowed to care for any other children, as he obviously had no clue what he was doing with the one he tragically lost due to his own stupidity. I'm an avid gun owner, but I believe all gun owners should be extremely familiar with their weapons and the proper handling of them.

he was an er dr. would you still call him worthless if he saved the life of someone you loved? he's done that for someone already to im sure......

Basically Dad is an idiot, pure and simple, the prosecutor is as usual trying to blame the wrong man for the ignorance of the dipstick dad, I have been around firearms all my life and I respect them, evidently dipstick dad did'nt and his son paid the price.

Yes, if he can't see that his 8 year old holding an Uzi is a bad idea, then I don't want him anywhere near me or my loved ones with a scalpel. Something is lacking if he thinks that irrationally.

This just goes to show that having an MD after your name is no guarantee that you possess common sense...

I wouldn't want this idiot coming near me or my family with a scalpel, either!

The father is at fault PERIOD! god bless the jury who said he was not responsible. The father is just trying to wipe his conscience.

The father made a tragic mistake. We all do stupid things sometimes. He's not worthless, he's not even an idiot. He's human. He chose poorly, his son died. I bet everyone posting has made a dumbass mistake while driving with their kids in the car that could have turned out badly as well. Things happen, we aren't 100% all the time.

That being said, the father should at least own up to his own culpability. He was the biggest contributor to his son's death. He shouldn't be procsecuted, he'll punish himself enough.

He was warned the gun was powerful, he was warned it was deadly, he was warned it was too much for his boy. He was macho, wanted to get a video of his boy firing a manly weapon.... so he didn't listed to reason. Stop trying to find other people to blame. HE should stop trying to convince himself that it was some other person's fault.

"Tell me again.... why does anyone other than military personnel need to get their hands on fully automatic weapons?"

Why not? If I enjoy going to the range and unloading on a target with my legally owned machine gun, whats the harm? Doesn't matter if you let law abiding citizens own them or not, criminals are going to have them regardless. It also serves as a great deterrent to anyone stupid enough to attempt to invade this country, or start a coupe: they have millions of well armed citizens to answer to.

Every time I hear someone start out by stating his qualifications regarding guns, I know they're going to say something about "need". Wrong! It's not about need.

You're a bird hunter. Others of us in the "gun culture" call you "Golfers with guns", or a "Fudd". Think about why those names apply.

Tell me again.... why does anyone other than military personnel need to get their hands on fully automatic weapons?

The answer to that question seems simple. Those people want to get their hands on automoatic weapons because they think it's their right to do so. Other than military personnel, no one NEEDS these weapons. They think they're entitled to them because of our second amendment. They think they're exercising their right to bear arms.

Why would anyone, let someone under the age of 12 (I believe the legal age where one can take and receive a hunters safety certification in numerous states) be handling firearms of any type?

Taking a child to a gun show is certainly not a teachable moment for parent and child. What these kids see there is "way cool!" They are brought up believing that owning a gun is something they're going to do because their father owns a gun. Sure they may someday go hunting with their father, and I see nothing wrong with that as long as the child has gone through a hunter's safety course, and that their gun-toting father follows the rules taught in that class. Once the class is over, dad shouldn't be modifying the rules for his son.

Children have no business at gun shows. Automatic weapons have no place at gun shows. (I'm going short of saying we shouldn't have gun shows, although that's what I personally believe.) No child, even if they've had a hunter's safety course, should be allowed to shoot ANY kind of firearm at a gun show. Until you're 18, and can prove it, you shouldn't even be allowed to handle a gun at a gun show.

This case proves that even parents - this father inparticular - sometimes don't have enough sense to know the difference between right and wrong. This case also proves that people who operate and/or work at gun shows also don't always have enough sense to know the difference between right and wrong.

Laws should be changed. No person under 18 should be allowed into a gun show AND there should be no live-firing of weapons at these shows. PERIOD!

@FLYNAVY1 -

Machineguns are tightly regulated since 1934 and require extensive background checks by the FBI and a long wait. Machineguns are purchased by collectors and are priced $3,000 and up. Easily into the five figures. Look at the FBIs crime statistics. Shootings or deaths caused by legally possessed machinegun are virtually non-existant. Why would you want to outlaw something that's not an issue?

Commom sense says we need gun control, the problem is we give the inch, they want the mile. We are seeing this happen in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming with the wolf. There was an agreement as to when to lift the protection, "x" amount of mating wolfs, it has been meet and exceded by at least three times the amount yet they are still protected. So no we can not give an inch on this issue.

Dachs, I agree with you 100%. I am a retired Air Force veteran who saw the advent of the AR-15 in the military, and fired it on automatic; that thing even with tight control just literally went up, there was no holding it down on the target. I can't understand why these gunshows continue to sell weapons like that, and what the NRA thinks they prove by making it so hard to ban public sell of such weapons. That being said, the father of this boy is just as guilty of his son's death as the gun show organizer.

My understanding is that this was more of an 'exhibition' than a 'gun show'.

At most exhibitions, no one is selling anything, or if there is any selling, it's being done somewhere else. At an exhibition, if you're buying anything when you pay your $5 or whatever to the exhibitor (sometimes its free), what you're buying is the experience of having tried something and the subsequent right to truthfully say, 'been there, done that' afterwards.

Almost always, a machine gun is going to be a former military weapon, usually quite antique. There are a few more out there that were made for sales to governments for their military forces that just weren't successful, or only partly successful. The Thompson submachine gun is perhaps the classic example of that. They were built in response to needs encountered in the trenches of WWI Europe. The war ended as soon as the first guns were ready for shipment to France, then the government wasn't interested. The bulk of them sat in their crates in warehouses for 20 years, while a very small trickle were made available (at the exorbitant rate of $230 each, nearly the price of a new Model T Ford back then!) to wealthy civilian and local government purchasers. Finally someone was interested when WWII broke out and most were bought and shipped to England. Most are long gone; in fact, many are still in their crates in the bottom of the Atlantic as the ships got torpedoed by the Germans before they could even make it to England. The US Government scrapped virtually all it owned for the FBI, Treasury Dept., etc. The very few left in private hands reside in vaults and seldom see the light of day. When they do, often it's at an exposition and members of the public get the chance to pay a few dollars to fire 10 or 15 rounds. For most people, it's the only time in their lives they'll ever have that chance. And if you're a history buff and have been reading about WWII your entire life, or have always had a fascination with gangsters and 'G-men' and the 1920's and 30's, to have a chance to experience handling and firing a real Thompson submachine gun is $5 well spent and one of those things you remember the rest of your life. Just an example.

Most gun shows, though, are sales events where dealers from all over set up tables to try to sell what no one where they're from was interested in buying. There is no firing of guns whatsoever, and the deputy or security guard and the front door checks to make sure no loaded or illegal guns are coming in, too.

In the father's case, I suspect he underestimated his son's maturity, thinking in his mind that his son was a bigger little boy than he really was. I think dads are prone to doing that, its sort of a paternal optimism. And few people indeed are experienced enough to know about the muzzle rise of a 'micro Uzi' firing a burst. Other than the person who actually owned it, almost all of the people at the show would have never seen one, let alone used one or known about how they work. It's just one of those things where if you've 'never been there' you're not likely to know. And the guy who owned the gun outweighed the kid considerably and probably never had any problem with the gun recoiling (it's not bad for an adult, especially a larger one) and wouldn't have likely thought about it being an issue for an eight year old. If he had, he'd have either turned the man and his kid away, or else just loaded two or three cartridges in the magazine so the gun would run empty before the muzzle could climb.

Sometimes, we learn best what we learn the hardest.

I could name lots of reasons, but I'd rather you explain why anyone NEEDS a 400hp car, a computer faster than 2ghz, a microwave capable of killing babies put inside it, or anything else but a simple agricultural society.

Thank you for a reasonable comment. I have long wondered where the rational NRA members were. It seems that the more responsible you are the more difficult it is to remain a member. I wish you would have stayed and tried to reform from within.

CTS

Why not? If I enjoy going to the range and unloading on a target with my legally owned machine gun, whats the harm?

What's the harm if I take some C4 out to the range and start blowing crap up.....what;s the harm if I fly my plane 100 feet off the deck so I can experience the thrill of speed that I don't get at altitude, what's the harm if I have a few drinks and drive myself home while I text message my wife asking if she wants anything from the liquor store.....whats the harm?

Well said Andrew.

"I am a retired Air Force veteran who saw the advent of the AR-15 in the military, and fired it on automatic" I'll assume he means to say the M-16A1. AR-15 is a civilian model of the M-16 (usually based off the A2) and is NOT fully automatic.

@Dachs - if you are aware that a 12 year old can go through firearm safety, and then legally hunt, why would you think that it would make sense to say that no one under the age of 18 should be allowed into a gun show let alone hold guns there? You do realize these 12 year olds are hunting with guns right? You do realize that neither my husband, nor I can hold a gun and know whether my 12 year old son will think it is comfortable to hold right?

As for children being allowed into a gun show, both of my children frequently attend gun shows with my husband and me. They enjoy going and seeing all the different guns, knives and swords, and often times, they pick out old military memorobilia they like to collect.

@ FlyNavy... I have an answer for part of your question. First, let me say that I am a 21 year retired Navy AT and Ec-130 flight crew (3,600 hours) and used to run the Aircrew weapons quals for my last squadron (VR-22)

I am also a living history enthusiast and - among other time periods - a WW2 reenactor. If you say there is bever a reason for owning a firable full auto machine gun, well... come to our events and see a valid, legal, and safe example. I own a British 9mm Sten, and a .303 beltfed, water cooled Vickers MMG. Each had the proper fingerprints and background checks at the county, state and federal law enforcement levels. I paid my tax stamp and agreed to the inspection requirements of the BATF. I have to file papers month in advace to simply take my weapons across state lines to just attend my events.

If you have sense of historical accuracy, then you can understand that the REAL soldiers had machine guns. How can we provide a true-to-history display without them? Especially, as they are legal, we have worked out blank adapters to get the noise and visual effect safely, and the old boys are chuffed to show them to their grandkids.

We may not be as big a community as bird hunters, but we do exist, have existed, and cause no trouble for the spectators or law enforcement.

So why the hell shouldn't our reason count when people stand up and say"there is no sporting purpose" for owning a military style weapon?

ANd that doesn't even begin to add the other points that the others are making here.

There is nothing wrong with children learning about firearms as long as they are learning the correct things. I often take my two boys aged 8 and 11 out shooting. They have both shot an AK47 and an AR15 with supervision. (They are not fully auto) They also know the four main rules about gun safety. Treat every gun as if it is loaded, never point the gun at something that you're not willing to kill or destroy, always know what is beyond your target and keep your finger off of the trigger until you are ready to shoot. If children are taught properly, supervised and safety rules are always followed then it is a safe sport. I also feel that if a child understands guns and are taught to respect them it takes the curiosity factor out of it and they are less likely to play with guns. The father in this case didn't know the safety rules and was told by various people at the event that it was safe for his son to shoot the Uzi. Had proper safety standards been followed this tragedy would have never happened. I'm not holding the father blameless because he should have had more common sense and known how much recoil an Uzi had even for an adult who is experienced at shooting. The father should have been standing behind his son holding him and preventing the gun from recoiling back or his son should have been laying down with the weapon which would have prevented the kick back instead of trying to record the moment. I believe that there are a lot of people at that event that should be held accountable for what happened. A fifteen year old should have never been allowed to be a safety person on the line. Only adults should have been supervising the shooting of the weapons. Yes the kid did advise against the child shooting the gun but what adult really takes a teenager serious and doesn't think that they know more because they are an adult. It is an incident that should have never happened and it is something that the father and his family will have to live with for the rest of their lives. To call him worthless is cruel and uncalled for. As far as the gun issue everyone has an opinion and it doesn't make one person right over the other person. It is our second amendment right to bear arms and if a person chooses to own a gun, then that is their right. Even if guns are banned people will still find a way to get their hands on them. Criminals get them illegally all the time.

If we're down to splitting fine hairs, here, let me straighten the record on the AR-15, M-16, and variants.

The AR-15 was select fire, and developed by Eugene Stoner on behalf of a division of Fairchild Aircraft for government military sales. The date was circa 1957. In 1961, the Air Force needed service rifles for the Air Police guarding USAF installations. The WWII M2 carbines they'd been using were about worn out. General Curtiss LeMay encountered the AR-15 and liked it, and saw to it the Air Force acquired some. It was soon standardized as the U.S. Rifle, M16, and about 9,000 were ordered. The Army looked at it, too, but wanted some modifications the Air Force didn't seem to need, like the forward bolt assist. The 'improved' version was adopted by the Army as the M16A1 in 1967. Also select fire.

Real AR-15's, select fire, are rare. The US Secret Service was an early adopter. Colt bought the rights in the early 60's, and started to produce a autoloading only version for non-NFA civilian sales. These were always different from, yet similar to, whatever version of the M16 was being produced. A few AR-15 autoloading rifles have no forward assist and are from the 60's. A good many AR-15's are based on the M16A1 with the teardrop shaped forward assist button, and were generally what was available in the 70's and 80's. The M16A2 was adopted by the Marines in '82 and the Army in '84. The National Guard was just starting to get them in 1990, and it was the mid-90's before the so-called AR-15 rifles from Colt and others were being sold in quantity to more or less replicate the M16A2.

No real reason in sharing that, just something to give to those curious people who like to argue fine points in things. After all, nothing spoils a good argument like someone who knows what they're talking about...

A hard lesson learned is a lesson well learned.... The guy organizing the event isn't remotely responsible. Parents are responsible for their kids, period, end of discussion... obviously earning a medical degree does not ensure you have the common sense required to be a parent.

Brokenarrow, Obviously you have NO F'ing idea of what the 2nd ammendment is all about! It has absolutely NOTHING to do with "bird hunting" or any other kind of hunting you retarded @!$%#! It allows the civilian population the ability to defend against the power hungry idiots running this country. I have no doubt that, if ordered to do so, you would open fire on US civilians. "Just following orders" exactly like the SS were back in the 1940s. Moron!

I just want to clarify for everyone out there that this event was NOT a gun show, it is called the Machine Gun Shoot. The sole purpose of this event is for people who are interested in automatic weapons to have the opportunity to shoot them in a legal setting, considering it is very difficult for someone to own one in MA. There is a section of the range opened up to the public, which is monitored by police and safety officers from the range, and there is a section of the range separate from the public for private owners to shoot their guns (which, by the way, is the only time of the year this particular range allows private owners to shoot their machine guns). There are NO guns for sale at this event. I attended the Machine Gun Shoot for 4 out of the 7 years while I was a college student in town and, as a gun owner myself who is very familiar with gun handling and safety, I never once felt that they weren't adhering to the strictest safety standards at this event. Unfortunately, their only mistake was leaving it up to the parents to decide if children can shoot the guns. What they should have done is set a minimum age limit and enforced it, regardless of what the parents said. This is a tragic accident that would have been avoided if the father had enough common sense to realize his son was just to young for it. It is just too bad that due to this father's mistake, the rest of us are no longer able to enjoy what used to be a really fun event that we all looked forward to every year!

As long as government gunmen have these weapons, then the members of the unorganized militia, you and me, must have them as well so that when it comes time to shed the blood of tyrants, the patriots will be on an equal footing with the enforcers of tyranny. The Second Amendment isn't about sporting goods, it is about Revolution. As George Mason said, "All of the terrible implements of war must be available to free men."

Isn't The right to bear arms meant to protect the citizens, as a body, from military takeover, wether from foreign OR domestic??? If all the masses have are pea shooters, they would not stand a chance!!!

While I fully agree that small children should definitely not be firing ANY weapon that they aren't capable of handling, I completely disagree with you on every other count.

The 2nd Amendment of course was written before the machine gun was a common weapon for the military. The 1st amendment was written before the Internet was even dreamed of. Does that mean that free speech doesn't apply to the internet?

The 2nd Amendment was meant to insure that ALL citizens had the right to own firearms for their own defense, period. The police cannot be at your door instantaneously when someone is trying to break in for god knows what purpose. For many robbers, the site of a gun and the sound of it loading will be enough to send them running.

Certainly, You are an IDIOT! You need to read some history books!

Who are you referring to there Rob?

I hate people who claim they know the 2nd amendment stands for without historically researching the information. The language is one thing and nowhere does is state a single shot muzzleloader. They were smart enough to not specify weapon as to technological advances. The idea behind the 2nd amendment was to afford the citizens of this new nation protection of their home AND person from the type of monarchy they had fled from. Please do not spew information to the masses that are smart enough to believe you unless you know whet the hell you are talking about. The 2nd amendment is second most important single law that is guaranteed to every citizen per our for-fathers. The first amendment affords us our freedoms, and the second allows the first to be enforced.....remember that all of you who are against the right to bear arms..

There is good evidence that the 2nd Amendment was crafted to ensure that militias in the slave states could continue to exist for the purpose of guarding against insurrection

“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

There is nothing in there about individuals defending their property. "...the right of the people..." not the right of the individual. "...security of a free state..." not the security of an individual's home.

Everybody involved in this was idiotic. A former police chief (!*!) A fifteen year-old kid supervising (!*!) An ER doctor permitting and filming an 8 year-old (!*!) An urban myth couldn't be this absurd. Nobody needs to go to jail. They all need to go to a psychiatric hospital.

Sad. Sigh.

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms, " keyword PEOPLE, not the right of the militia. Militia's are made up of people, therefore citizens in this country have the right to keep and bear arms.

Historically, people started shooting at a very young age. Daniel Boone at 12, Annie Oakley at 6, and James Bowie at about 13. This does not mean that they were shooting the "modern" weapons, but it does show that historically we HAVE let guns be in the hands of some very young people.( Of course the girl was the youngest, because we all know women are better. ;) While I'm not saying in this day and age it is a good idea to arm our youths, it has happened in the past and may again in the future. It is prudent for our children to learn about the weapons in a safe & protected environment, which was supposed to be the situation above, but there was a fail... in the father's decision, in the child who was responsible, in many different areas. It is always a good idea to have some education to the children, but parents need to be educated in it as well.

Oh, and guns scare the poo out of me, so I'm not an NRA activist, I'm the one cowering in the corner.

Nick, how can a free state, or nation , exist if the right of the individual does not exist? The right of the people was created by a group of individuals who read the 2nd Amendment and realized the importance of security of home, state, and nation. "not the right of the individual"...= not the right of the people.

Why people need to have guns -- when you are seconds from danger, the police are only minutes away...

First and foremost, my heart goes out to the father, mother, brother, who lost more than most of us will ever know.

Now to reply to Big Black Dog.

The Militia referred to in the Second Amendment refers to all law-abiding citizens, Not State militias.

As stated in the Federalist paper, No. 29 Hamilton, "but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens.

An armed citizenry is the best defense against Tyranny, and oppressive governments.

Like I said, my heart goes out. I will defend my "rights" to the utmost. But have a hard time understanding letting an 8 year old handle that kind of weapon. I'm sure the doctor will never be able to live it down. He lost his son. And deserves our prayers.

I was brought out to shoot weapons, and I'm curious what you think is sick about it. Firing at a target helps increase reflexes, steady your pulse (I had a rapid heartbeat as a child that medication wasn't helping, shooting was a recommendation from a doctor to control it), and improves hand/eye coordination. As I grew up, I continued to shoot to help steady my hand and balance while rock climbing, as well as help slow my heartbeart during jiujitsu tournaments I participated in while in high school. So what is sick about a training tool to help reflexes, pulse, and hand/eye coordination? Just because a tool is capable of being used maliciously doesn't mean there's no beneficial uses, people who go on the offensive against a tool are focusing in the wrong direction. Look at why this happened and who was actually responsible, it was blatant misuse of a tool, not something that signifies society is sick and "gun-crazy." For me, guns have played a significantly positive role in my life that I continue to take advantage of. It's a training tool, an assist for other activities, and a means with which to improve myself. So does that make me gun-crazy and sick or were you maybe speaking out a bit too much?

We're not all sick.. Just some of us.. This made the news because it was an automatic weapon.. Lots of kids shoot themselves in the face every year or shoot their sibling or friend. With all the guns and lack of adult supervision it has become all too common...This kid was supervised by a 15 year old and an idiot father.

to Beckermand... there are other things not as deadly you could have practiced on for your "steadiness" "heartbeat", etc., It's called a low power BB gun. Not a 457 Magnum, UZI, etc. and i would be interested in you providing statistics whereby your doctor said this was good medication to shoot a gun. As you may be the exception, i would suggest reading what was in the news the past two years and how many instances there were were "children"... ... killing so many and this does not inlcude gangs. As children are not allowed in bars, they should not have been allowed to attend gun shows where they allow them to shoot. an 8 year old clearly is not mature enough to handle...

DKF, if you honestly think shooting a BB gun is anywhere NEAR the same as shooting a real gun, I can safely say you have never shot an actual rifle. Two VERY different experiences. And there is NOTHING wrong with going out to the range to do some shooting, not even for children so long as they are properly supervised and are able to handle the weapons they are firing, which was obviously NOT the case here.

I am sick of guns but more sick of knives! We are obsessed with stocking drawers full of them just begging our children to stab themselves and others. Guns have done nothing in this society but put themselves in the hands of others and then shoot them.

I will opine that in a culture that can commit a 15 year old to death for his actions against others should also understand that a 15 year old should be culpable for his own actions in this case. If they can be deemed able to make judgements in one case, so to should they regard other cases in the same light. Be it known that I think it is heinous to bring our children down to such a level and then treat them for what we have created by past actions.

No, it's always someone elses fault. This is why we have more lawyers than any other country in the world.

May want to outlaw swimming pools too because one child drowns in a pool each day of the year.

While we're at it, better make knives and razor blades illegal too, plenty of kids get killed with those these days.

Your right JobSeeker

But dont forget those "dangerous 5 gallon buckets" that a small child could fall into and drown!

BUT WAIT there are toilets in many "NEWER HOUSES" where a child could also drown!

WAKE up people "WATCH YOUR OWN KID!" Dont make EVERYONE else suffer because you "YUPPY" idiots dont want to watch you "OWN" kid!

Yeah, 8 is a little young.... maybe a child's 22 rifle or something, but that would be about it, and only AFTER they've insured that their kid understands that it isn't a toy.

Well, since it's the topic of the moment, let's talk about age for a bit.

Kids are naturally curious. They also mimic behaviors, the old 'Monkey see, Monkey do' phenomenon.

If you raise your kid in any other kind of world than some sort of a bubble or a cave, they are going to be exposed to the concept of firearms and weapons. Thanks to entertainment being what it is today, your kid may not be anywhere near a real firearm, but they know what guns are and that generally 'good guys' and 'bad guys' shoot at each other with them. They're less likely to be aware that people involved in such combat actually get permanently wounded and killed with firearms, or the horrific extent of the injuries and disability that can result. No one ever seems to put THAT on TV for some reason...

Kids will start to take interest around age 5 or 6. That is probably the best time to start them out on the right track, if you can do it. Most of us can't because we aren't and don't have relationships with the right people who are, the best person to do it. Everyone should have a father, grandfather, uncle, aunt, second cousin, family friend, or somebody who is a professional or at least a professionalistic user of firearms who can demonstrate how guns are supposed to be used in real life, which is the opposite of what always seems to be shown on television. We're no longer a rural society, so most people just don't have anyone to call on to be a role model.

This wouldn't necessarily be a case of letting a kid shoot a gun. It would be an opportunity for a kid to watch adults engaged in informal or formal target shooting and other recreational pastimes instead of actors on TV pointing guns at each other. The kid needs to see that TV is not real and what he or she does see on the screen is usually garbage. Nothing wrong with letting a kid maybe fire a shot or two under carefully controlled conditions (.22 rifle, sandbagged on a rest, with mentor actually holding the rifle, kid and mentor have eye and hearing protection like they're supposed to). The objective is for the kid to have their curiosity satisfied enough that guns are no longer such a big deal of 'forbidden fruit' that fascinates them yet they can't experience.

Truthfully, shooting sports are a bit dull in the grand scheme of things. They're not spectator sports. They're a lot of fun for the participants, but it's a mature kind of fun...not unlike woodworking or yacht sailing, or other things you're not going to be seeing on television. Someday, your kid, knowing what it's really about, might get involved after they've grown up and settled down a bit. The goal is to keep them from getting involved on their own at a young age in a negative way...like joining gangs and robbing banks.

One last thing. DO NOT, under any circumstances, buy your kid a toy gun. These do an incredible amount of psychological damage to a person, reinforcing the concept of being able to shoot people with no harm done. Don't let your kid experience a false reality of pointing guns at other people without consequence. Far too often, it ends badly when your offspring eventually gets their hands on a real gun. You want them to believe the idea of pointing a gun at another person is unthinkable, not 'fun'. Ideally, you want your youth to understand that guns are okay, misusing them is not, and that you will be extremely disappointed in them if they ever misuse one.

Sparty, agree with you on the father. However, the 15 yr. old wasn't the only supervisor present. He may be young but it seems he was trained, experienced, and had the gumption to advise the father properly. I taught my son and daughter both how to handle firearms and the common sense and safety measures that need to go with it. You're right that this was a tragedy, but it could of been avoided.

Sparty in KC We are dealing with a "Yuppy Parent" the ones who CRY the loudest, when THEY SCREW UP, then want to BLAME everyone else for their STUPIDITY! and only GOD knows how many LAWYERS will jump on this case to prove their point, no matter what the cost is (to their client)

Michael Spano's father, Domenico Spano of New Milford, Conn., and Carl Giuffre of Hartford, Conn., were also charged with involuntary manslaughter and await trial after pleading not guilty.

The father IS on trial

No, Redwizardoo, Michael Spano is the 15 yr old safety officer, and Domenico Spano is HIS father. The father of the dead boy is Dr. Bizilji.

A terrible incident. I do not see criminal liability of the people involved. I see incredible stupidity for all involved, starting with the father.

Michael Spano was the 15 year old who supervised him, It's his father on trial.

The father of the dead child is not on trial. Michael Spano was the 15 year old supervisor who advised the dead childs father that the 8 year old should not fire that weapon.

No the father of the dead child is NOT on trial. The "father" mentioned is the father of the 15 year old who supervised (and advised against) the kid shooting.

edbreyer It just goes to show you, that a 15 year old kid is SMARTER than an E.R. DOCTOR!

That's not the child's father, it's one of the supervisors' fathers, who actually provided the gun.

The child's father is Dr. Charles Bizilj and he will have to live with this poor decision for the rest of his life.

PENTIMENTO

WE DONT need major changes in gun law, BUT DO NEED MAJOR changes in PARENTING!

You said it Matt. This whole story has more to do with the lack of judgement on the parents part than it ever did with the event organizers. Gun shows are for adults. This father's guilt will haunt him to his grave.

"He should have been found guilty for allowing someone this young to have the weapon."

So you find him guilty for that and then wave bye as he leaves the courthouse, seeing as how someone that young handling the gun is legal during these events. With no punishment for that action, I'm not sure what you mean for him to be found guilty of.

"These type of shows should be outlawed. No one needs a gun like this!" Ok fine, outlaw automatic firearms. Then only criminals will have them. Meanwhile, I can't go have some perfectly reasonable fun at the shooting range because you pushed your ideology onto me.

Sorry Brokinarrow These types of shows MUST NOT be outlawed!

They should be ENCOURAGED! BUT NOT FOR STUPID PEOPLE!

Parents need to be parents first. What kind of parents allows their 8 year old to participate in an event such as this. Let's get real, the old man signed a waiver and stood 5 feet away. What a tragedy that this boys father made the ultimate error in judgement that cost him his life.