Talk:Shooting of Charles Vacca

Don't delete.

This incident has received a lot of press and is likely to affect future discussions of gun policies. Yeah, the event is of relatively minor significance overall, but it certainly warrants inclusion in an encyclopedia.97.91.54.253 (talk) 22:02, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed; don't delete. It's an exceptional but interesting case in the same way that most airline disasters are: Many things had to go wrong to cause this accident to happen, and all of them are important and are worth discussing. 74.124.100.118 (talk) 22:19, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

DON'T delete! This happened, and it is a sad but important event. One writer likened it to other industrial accidents. But, it is in fact rather unique. It happened. Why should it not be kept? Keep it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.2.176 (talk) 22:50, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

If you want to oppose or support the deletion of this article, you will need to post your comments at the following page: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shooting of Charles Vacca. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Identity of shooter

While the incident may well be notable enough for an article, I would hope we can all agree that on grounds of human decency the nine year old in question should not be named directly, or even indirectly by naming her parents. ϢereSpielChequers 17:55, 24 March 2015 (UTC) Of course not. Otherwise, she is non-notable. Zezen (talk) 16:07, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Non-US perspective

"[authorities decided not to] pursue criminal charges against the girl"

Oh. How kind of them. Has anybody tried to pursue such charges against:

1. The owners of the range, who allowed it.

2. The (dead) instructor, who allowed it.

3. The parents, who allowed it ?

I may have a European perspective here... Zezen (talk) 16:07, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

No charges were filed because no laws were broken. 209.112.210.129 (talk) 13:53, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Should be summarized and moved to new page

We need a page for summaries of these events. We don't need 7 paragraphs for an incident like this even if it was highly publicized at the time just like we don't need an article for each and every indivudal homicide case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:E460:5330:A81A:AABC:FA4B:52DF (talk) 00:25, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Not an accident.

I would suggest substituting 'unintentional' for 'accidental.'

'Accident' implies an 'oopsie!' and deflects responsibility. Something unintended due to some external influence. Such as: Tripping over an unseen seam in the carpet or buried root. Black ice on the roadway causing the car to lose traction and crash. Knocking over a glass because low light caused you to misjudge how far away it was.

With this shooting death the decision to put the gun into the hands of a child was a choice. Her firing the gun on full automatic was a choice. The recoil of the weapon was uncontrollable by a 9 year old child, which is physics combined with lack of experience and a weapon which was not designed to be operated by a 9 year old. So everything up to the point that the trigger was pulled was intentional; the death was clearly unintentional, but everything leading up to it was the result of conscious decision-making. 24.16.228.97 (talk) 01:14, 29 February 2024 (UTC)