As his father raised his camera, an 8-year-old boy aimed an Uzi at a pumpkin set up at a shooting event. Before his father could focus, the third-grader from Connecticut squeezed the trigger, and the high-powered weapon recoiled and fatally shot the boy in the head. The death of Christopher Bizilj at the Westfield Sportsman's Club Sunday has raised questions about how someone so young could be allowed to shoot an automatic weapon, which can fire hundreds of rounds in a minute. The Hampden District Attorney's Office and officials from the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives are investigating. They did not return calls seeking comment. State Representative Michael Costello, the Newburyport Democrat who co-chairs the Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security, said yesterday that he plans to draft a bill that would ban anyone younger than age 21 from firing an automatic weapon. "This isn't a knee-jerk reaction; it's a common sense reaction," he said. "We should take swift action to provide some reasonable restrictions on this type of unreasonable practice. It's almost indescribable that within a year of leaving a booster seat, an 8-year-old can be holding a submachine gun." In a telephone interview yesterday, the boy's father, Dr. Charles Bizilj, said he stood 10 feet behind his son as a professional trained in using the 9-mm Micro Uzi machine gun stood beside the boy on Sunday afternoon. He said he doesn't think the shooting instructor was holding the weapon as his son pressed the trigger, as guides did with other children firing the weapon. "This accident was truly a mystery to me," he said. "This is a horrible event, a horrible travesty, and I really don't know why it happened. I don't think it's relevant that [the instructor] wasn't holding the weapon." He said his son, who loved to hike and bike near his home in Ashford, had fired handguns and rifles for three years. But he said this was the first time he had fired an automatic weapon. "I gave permission for him to fire the Uzi," Bizilj said. "I watched several other children and adults use it. It's a small weapon, and Christopher was comfortable with guns. There were larger machine guns with much more recoil, and we avoided those." Bizilj, the medical director of the emergency department at Johnson Memorial Hospital in Stafford Springs, Conn., said his son was "very cautious, very well trained, and very much enjoyed firing." The Uzi was the first gun the boy had fired all day. "It was something he was looking forward to for months," Bizilj said. The annual Machine Gun Shoot and Firearms Expo is a two-day event. Police are investigating whether the Sportsman's Club and the group running the event were licensed. "We haven't confirmed whether either have been licensed," said Westfield Police Lieutenant Hipolito Nuñez, who added that no charges had been filed as of yesterday. The outdoor event was organized by COP Firearms & Training, an Amherst company run by Pelham Police Chief Ed Fleury that organizes machine-gun shoots regionwide. Neither officials at the Sportsman's Club nor Fleury returned calls yesterday. The club boasted in an advertisement for the event posted on its Website that the $5 entry fee was waived for children under age 16 and there was "no age limit or licenses required to shoot machine guns." "It's all legal & fun," the advertisement says. "You will be accompanied to the firing line with a Certified Instructor to guide you. But You Are In Control - "FULL AUTO ROCK & ROLL." Shooting targets for the event included vehicles, pumpkins, and "other fun stuff we can't print here," according to the advertisement. The boy was firing the weapon at an outside firing range and was wounded once in the head when the recoil forced the gun to rotate upward and backward, Nuñez said. The boy was pronounced dead at Baystate Medical Center in Springfield. No one else was injured. State law requires anyone under age 18 to have parental consent and a licensed instructor to fire an automatic weapon. Otherwise, there is no minimum age to fire such a gun, Nuñez said. "We do not know at this time the full facts of this incident, and it's being investigated," said Nuñez, who said it was unclear how many bullets were fired. Outside the gates of the club yesterday, Fran Mitchell, a member since 1956, said, "Everybody is shaken up." He said the bullet struck the boy's lower jaw. He did not see the shooting but said he watched as the boy was taken away. "He was crying, he was still awake. "It was just one of those things," he said. "We've got a tremendous safety record." Asked if the club will now restrict children from firing weapons, he said, "I don't know, the club is going to have to sit down and make some serious decisions. We will be a long time getting over this." Bob Greenleaf, a former executive board member and member for 44 years of the Sportsman's Club, said either the boy's father or the range officer should be held responsible for the boy's death. "To allow the boy to hold the gun and shoot it without anyone holding it was not only stupid but criminal negligence - and it should be considered involuntary manslaughter," Greenleaf said. "If it was really important for the child to hold the gun, the adult should have been holding the weapon. The child should have only been able to press the trigger." The Uzi is a 50-year-old weapon once used by the Israeli infantry and later adapted for use by commandos and secret service agencies around the world because it can be used in close quarters to fire rapidly. The Micro-Uzi, a smaller version of the original weapon, weighs 4.5 pounds and can fire 20 rounds per second. An Uzi has more recoil than a handgun but less than an assault rifle such as an M-16. Recoil -- the backward motion of a weapon after it's fired -- is greater for guns that fire rapidly and use larger caliber shells. "It's very difficult to control," said Greenleaf, who did not attend the gun expo and said it was the club's first death. "We're lucky the gun went up instead of sideways. If it went sideways, we might have had 10 dead people." Matt Tencati of Orange attended the event but left shortly before the accident. He said he watched as instructors held similar weapons' magazines to keep them steady as youngsters fired. "That way, there was no way for the children to lose control of the gun," he said. "This is a tragedy, but a tragedy can happen anywhere at any time. You can't legislate away tragedy." He and other gun enthusiasts yesterday questioned the rush to revise the law. State Senator Stephen M. Brewer, a Barre Democrat who is also on the public safety committee, described the boy's death as a "very rare and freaky incident." "Before we take any action, we need to look at all the details," Brewer said. But Wayne Sampson, executive director of the Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association, said Christopher Bizilj's death exposes a "deficiency in the current law." He said the law should reflect the differences between a 15-year-old and an 8-year-old handling such a powerful weapon. "The problem is there isn't any restriction on the age of a person who can use a weapon," he said. "I would not allow my 8-year-old to handle a weapon like this. I believe it's beyond their capacity, because of the velocity and recoil of the weapon." The death stunned friends and family of the boy. "He was the kid you would clone if you could," said Maureen Connolly, a teacher who had Christopher as a student in the first grade in Ashford. "He was about as perfect as they come." * You know when I first heard about this, I though "Oh man, Some kid was messing around with a gun and shot himself, Stupid kid" But then I actually found the article, and once I read it.. Stupid Dad, You would rather pick up a camera than make sure your 8 year old kid DOESN'T shoot himself in the head with an uzi!! Stupid ****er.*
What kind of grown man thinks it is acceptable to put a gun into an 8 year old child's hands? **** the law man, what about common sense?
I totally agree with you man, Common sense says that an 8 year old kid should not be firing, nonetheless holding an automatic weapon. Father's an idiot if you ask me.
I've been firing rifles since I was 6. Had my own when I was 8. Common sense doesn't mean keep them out of their hands completely. Common sense means making sure they have proper training as well as UNDERSTANDING the training and making sure they can handle the weapon and if not, then someone assist them while firing. Both the dad and the "certified trainer" should be held accountable. The Dad for not making sure the trainer and his son knew what they were doing. The trainer for not making sure the safety was on before letting the kid hold the weapon and then holding the gun securely before allowing the kid to fire. My bet is though the kid went to fire before either of the adults were ready for him to do so and the trainer forgot to flick the safty on.
Wow, you guys are pathetic... Being mad at the father is understandable, seeing as how he put the gun in his son's hands. Also, the child had been firing guns since he was little, that means he has a experience. He said handguns and rifles. I fired handguns and rifles when I was six and up. This accident was an accident though. The dad was being a cool father, letting his son use guns. It was a great feeling when my dad let me shoot his guns, I felt like I gained a lot of respect from him, it's heartwarming. Truly, all you are doing is making the father look bad. He probably feels like **** already having his son die 10 ft. away from him, but it would hurt him more to hear people talking **** about him. Waylander, your post is reasonable as well. =)
Dude firing a handgun and a rifle in no way compares to firing an automatic weapon, Way more recoil, and way more dangerous even for an 8 year old.. I don't care how long he's been firing a gun. Also why wasn't the instructor holding the gun while the kid shot like other instructors had done during the day? Negligence in my eyes lies on the father and the instructor.. My opinion though. Oh and calling us pathetic for having an opinion about something is just uncalled for sir.
I think its more of the type of gun not the mode of the gun. I think it is the Uzi's design because if you look at it its more of a big hand gun. It probably had no stock either making recoil more. If it had been like an MP5, AK-47, P90 or something like that that had a stock and has to be two handed has a larger recoil but is less likely to slip out of you hands.
My question is.. how the hell did the kid shoot himself in the face with recoil? It just doesn't make sense... The gun would point up, but once it is vertical, it should not have kept on going back, in which case the gun was either tilted enough to shoot sideways into the kids head, and it was under his chin. Someone with experience (even little) could not do that to themselves. Maybe I am missing something though.
The kid is not at fault. he didn't know any better. the father should have taken better care. the kid is dead and the father is to blame
No your to blame. And since this is General chat. jeshhhh. It was bad that he let him fire the gun. blah blah Fathers fault, kid was too small blah blah but i must ask. How the hell did the gun recoil a full 180 degrees and the kid still had his finger on the trigger? i shoot golden Mini Uzis all the time and i barely feel a vibration, i also shoot the M40A3 and the MP5 in COD
I'm sick of this. Accidents happen. Car crashes happen what, every 13 minutes or something? But we can't just outlaw cars because things happen. Guns are for protection. We need them.
Kid might have been holding it straight out in front of him with shoulders squared up. When the gun fired he might have bent his elbows a bit to absorb some of the recoil bringing the gun closer to him and as he panicked and held the gun tighter (trigger included) it kept recoiling more and more tilting up farther and pushing his hands closer to his body. All this would have happened in a second or two.
Exactly. That explanation states and proves the point I was trying to make when raising that question. Completely, accidental. I may never have shot a gun before, only paintball, airsoft, and some bb guns, but I have a good idea about physics. I have recreated various movements with my arm, and short of the arm breaking, there are very, very few instances where the arm would bend in such a way that it was possible to shoot one self. In a matter of seconds (the time of panic) however, only 1 movement really made sense. The elbow gave into the pressure, causing it to bend, and that force jerked the arm at an angle, causing the gun to fly inward, toward his chest, resulting in a bullet hitting the side of the face. It is hard to demonstrate the exact movement through words, but it would not be hard to swing your arm, with the thought of possessing an uzi in your hand, and figure it out. You then realize that such an istance is highly unlikely, even for a person with no previous firearm experiance. It is then I conclude that (as stated before) this was an accident, and nothing neither the father, nor son, could have done to prevent such an instance. The son lost control of the weapon, and there was no way for a father to teach a child how to react during such an istance, and even if that was so, I highly doubt there is anything you can do besides not letting it happen to begin with. Who is at fault? Chance. The kid obviously had no fault, I don't think anyone can disagree with this. The father, had no fault. Sure, he could have kept his son from firing a gun in the first place, but from what I've read, it appears as if he trained his son properly, and considering 10 year old children are shooting at our soldiers in Iraq (just an example, but such instances are not unheard of), I think a kid who has had proper training, shooting at targets, is no ill responsibility on the fathers part. You can argue this, but most counters would not stand, should I delve into detail. Lastly, it is not the freedom of bearing arms that is at fault. This is ludacris. A person once said to me "should we give up even the slightest ammount of freedom for 'security' what will stop us from giving up more?" This applies. The right to bear arms is our right, in America, and we already have restrictions to it. In the original text, it had no restrictions that I can think of, but we added. Sure, some of them are necessary, but there is a line that is crossed when trepasing off onto the other side of what is now blatant losts of our freedom. Guns are restricted. You must have a permit to carry a gun on your person. Automatic firearms are not allowed to anyone but those with a special license. There is, however, no restriction to the age of a child. That is (and rightfully so) determined by the guardian(s). Children should learn how to handle guns, in my opinon, and if anyone requests, I will venture upon why that is so, but I will stray from the topic. My point is, no, the "laxity" of gun handling laws is not to blame. No, there is no fit blame but chance. The father was in no case , in the wrong for allowing his son shoot targets under his surpervision. The child (it would seem) could not regain control of the weapon as soon as he lost it. It was an accident, and should remain such. As someone pointed out earlier, car accidents result in many deaths, but banning the right to drive or own them would not be a good solution. Further limiting firearms, in such a way that they propse, is no different.
I don't really think anyone is to blame for this, I mean, if I had a kid, I wouldn't be letting him fire guns at that age, but it is the fathers choice and he can't be blamed for the accident. Either way, I still think it is a bit stupid.
I wouldn't say that it was compleatly either the fathers or the instructors fault. It was a little of everyones. They should have been watching closer and making sure that something like this didn't happen. I also wonder how a gun like an uzi 9mm (I think) could recoil all the way around which if you act out with your hands is kinda tricky because your arms don't really bend that way. I think that there was somthing else wrong because it doesn't make sence. But my sympathy goes out to the father.