2 year old shoots 11 year old

3u40r15m
Well at least the gun was pointed the right way and he didn't blow his little head off....

If you are trying to be funny, then you failed miserably IMHO.

The tragic, avoidable death of a child is not something to make jokes about.

Feltrick
I just got an alert text on my phone that read, "Girl, 11 shot, killed by 2 year old in West Philadelphia." So, I open up the "6ABC" news site and read:

Source

Investigators say a male friend of the victim placed the loaded gun on top of the refrigerator, but at some point it was removed from the kitchen and placed in the master bedroom of the home.

Police say the mother was in the bedroom with the four children but left the room briefly when the children began playing with the gun.

Officials say the 2-year-old boy pointed the loaded, cocked gun in the direction of the 11-year-old when it went off, striking her in the arm. The bullet went through her arm and entered her chest.

I want to know what happened to personal responsibility? This has nothing to do with stricter gun control or background checks, but it has everything to do with personal responsibility. What idiot leaves a loaded firearm within the reach of small children?

This kind of news sickens me because I know it will be used by the anti-gun crowd but it has nothing to do with that! Too many times have I read about these stories in which a kid plays with a loaded firearm and kills someone. Instead of background checks, they need to come up with an IDIOT CHECK that scans the potential buyer for IDIOCY. Should we require training prior to purchase?

No, because I know that all the training in the world, all the background checks, all the restrictive Philadelphia gun laws would not have prevented this tragedy. Personal responsibility....

edit on 5-4-2014 by _BoneZ_ because: Fixed source link.

Lot's of questions. "Cocked gun"? I guess it would have to be in order for a 2yr old to fire it. How does a child that age have the strength to not only pull the trigger but to actually lift the gun and point it? Something odd here. I'm thinking this didn't happen the way they the parent wants us to believe.

Feltrick
reply to post by aboutface

 

I remember having the discussion with my wife when I wanted to buy a gun many, many years ago. The kids at the time were 1 and 5. We came to about the same compromise that you did. As the kids got older, I was able to teach begin the process of teaching them about gun safety and then got them into an NRA course.

we always had guns in the house when i was growing up. they were kept hidden away, to such an extent that i didn't even know they were there until i got older. on top of that the guns were stored in one area of the house, (this is before rules about locking guns up came into play) the ammo was hidden away in another area, and removable bolts hidden in yet another area. so even if we had found one (not that we ever did), we wouldn't have been able to "accidentally" shoot someone without first finding both bolt and gun, and somehow managed to assemble it, then find the ammo and manage to load it. on top of that we were taught at an early age about firearms and not to play with them (without a real gun ever being present), and that we should never play with even a toy gun that was not our without asking first, (a good way to insure that "toy" we found was indeed a toy). this second piece of advice came in handy when i was a bit older (maybe about 8), and up in an attic belonging to somebody without children, and found a cool "cowboy gun" and belt/holster, it even had extra bullets in the bullet holders. of course i wanted to play with it so i asked the adult if i could (as i was taught and disciplined to do) before even touching it, good thing i had been. it turns out it was a real gun and ammo, and was loaded. THAT WAS RESPONSIBLE PARENTING, teaching your child about guns and gun safety, as well as putting strict rules in place about even toy guns, whether you actual have a gun or not. EVERY PARENT SHOULD BE TEACHING THEIR CHILDREN ABOUT GUN SAFETY.

in this case the parents should be held fully responsible for the death. their failures are multitude in this case. first off the gun was loaded and accessible to the children (fairly sure that 2 year old had help getting the gun from a sibling). they failed to teach their children anything about gun safety, especially important with a gun in the house. then they left the children in a room alone with said loaded, accessible gun. idiots like that deserve to get the book thrown at them for their stupid mistakes. i have sympathy for the dead child and her siblings (i hope they figure out who gave the gun to the 2 year old, so they can get proper help for their grief and responsibility for what happened), but i hold NO SYMPATHY for the parents who failed so dismally at their parental responsibilities.

sure a 2 year old would have no clue and really couldn't be safety trained yet, but there were 3 older children present who should have known better. heck one of them was FOURTEEN that is more than old enough to know the danger of the gun, but even the 11 year old and 7 year old should have known better and stopped it before it even started. and unless that gun was on the floor or something one of those other kids likely GAVE the 2 year old the gun, since a gun would be a little heavy for the 2 year old to easily even pull it out of a drawer or something. and we are told not only that all 4 children were in the room but they were all seemingly involved in playing with the gun. what is not so clear in the story is if the mother was in the room when they started playing with it or not. the way it is written it could be either.

Police say the mother was in the bedroom with the four children but left the room briefly when the children began playing with the gun. "We know we had 4 children in the house, one being 14, a 7-year-old, a 2-year-old and an 11-year-old who is now dead.

a case of bad parenting causing tragedy yet again.

Feltrick
reply to post by Phage

 

Well, I always thought the NRA should of come out and stated that they would begin offering more free classes to anyone interested. I think that would have been a better public statement than "we need more good guys with guns."

The NRA does offer classes, but I think they should highlight that more than the need for more guns. Perhaps they need a better Public Affairs Officer.

good idea. but why not go further? they have sex education in school, to teach children about sex, since they feel parents may not properly teach their children. why is there not COMPULSORY gun safety taught in schools, starting at young ages? how many children have even been killed over the years from finding a gun outside? it doesn't matter if someone owns a gun or not, EVERY CHILD needs to be taught gun safety, and to never even touch an unknown gun, toy or not without asking an adult first. in the US i'm sure the NRA would happily help out with that, not sure how active they are in other countries though, so other countries may be without the NRA's help, but it still needs to be done everywhere.

reply to post by generik

they have sex education in school, to teach children about sex, since they feel parents may not properly teach their children. why is there not COMPULSORY gun safety taught in schools, starting at young ages?

Well, for one thing, children come equipped for sex. They don't come equipped with weapons.

Doing as much as possible to assure that those who purchase weapons are competent makes somewhat more sense. Competancy would include not leaving weapons, loaded or otherwise, laying around.

freedomSlave
reply to post by benrl

 

Still there need to be a proof of competency .

I wish there was a registry when purchase of fire arms down there , might help choke up the guns on the black market here , there is good money buying guns and smuggling them up here selling them on the street.

I really don't care if people want to collect guns I do care about the willy nilly laws that do have an affect up here .

We need a license for everything why should fire arms be any different

Canadian guns laws are rather discriminatory, oppressive, and stupidly harsh. they confer the ability to own guns only to the RICH. gun safety courses are WAY overpriced and not easily available, to own a handgun you have to belong to a gun club which is a MASSIVE EXPENSE. the long gun registry was such a complete FAILURE that after spending MILLIONS OF DOLLARS on it they finally had to cancel it. and yet there are still shootings all the time. normally with ineligible people using illegal guns. so how exactly have those oppressive gun laws actually helped?

and no gun registry in the US would have no effect on illegal guns in Canada, the US is far from the only country guns are gotten from. and even those that are from the US, most were never legally obtained there either.

freedomSlave

benrl

I really feel like im beating a dead horse with this concept.

Ya I know the feeling

So you figure it is up to tax payers to pay for your lack of laws in your country and ramp up our border security have you not seen the size of the border .. But then sure I guess you guys can foot half that bill since it is your criminals bringing them over

actually that would be Canadian criminals bringing them over, as well as American, and other criminals from around the world. do you expect the rest of the world to help pay as well? lets face it, it is up to the American government to stop illegal items from entering the US, and the Canadian government to stop illegal items from entering Canada. just as it is with every other country in the world.

reply to post by generik

Canadian guns laws are rather discriminatory, oppressive, and stupidly harsh. they confer the ability to own guns only to the RICH.

Are you sure?

The legislation stipulates that individuals wishing to acquire non-restricted firearms must take the CFSC and pass the tests OR challenge and pass the CFSC tests without taking the course.

www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca...
So you can take the test without taking the course.


Doesn't seem too difficult to find a course:
firearmsafetycanada.com...
www.yrfirearms.com...

to own a handgun you have to belong to a gun club which is a MASSIVE EXPENSE.

No. If a Canadian wants to be authorized to own a handgun for target shooting they must provide proof that they practice or compete at an approved club or range. Gun clubs are not all that expensive. Neither are ranges. Being well practiced in the use of a handgun is probably a good idea.

Buffalo Target Shooters Association Annual Dues: $175.00
Not bad considering what you get.

You can also be a collector. No membership required. Of course, you must demonstrate that you are actually a collector.

There is also this:

In limited circumstances, an individual may be authorized to possess or acquire a restricted firearm for employment purposes or for protection of life.

www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca...

Phage
Well, for one thing, children come equipped for sex. They don't come equipped with weapons.

they don't? so you are saying kids don't come equipped with hands or brains? that which makes them able to use a weapon, or even be used as weapons themselves?. interesting i never knew that. (note to self to keep a child safe, don't let them have hands capable of using tools)

Doing as much as possible to assure that those who purchase weapons are competent makes somewhat more sense. Competancy would include not leaving weapons, loaded or otherwise, laying around.

there is nothing you can do to insure competency with a gun any more than with everything else. that is why there are laws in place to deal with those who choose to be incompetent with whatever tool they use. just as driver's ed and passing a driving exam, will not automatically make someone drive competently. gun licenses and safety courses can not automatically do the same with a gun owner.

by the way you say "Doing as much as possible to assure that those who purchase weapons are competent makes somewhat more sense." yet are against insuring that actually happens by teaching it to EVERYBODY in school? interesting contradiction. if you teach EVERYBODY then you HAVE done your best to insure that anyone who may own or end up with a gun, is as safe as you can make them. even still some moron will still leave loaded weapons laying around. and that's why there are laws that come with penalties to discipline people when they fail at this task.

reply to post by Bilk22


The more I read into this story the angrier I get. You could be right, one of the "adults" could have been showing off for the kids, letting them see the shiny 357 and boom...mistakes happen. So, instead of taking responsibility, the "adult" pins it on the 2yr old. Hopefully that's not the way this went down, but if it did, I hope that "adult" goes away for a very long time.

reply to post by generik

interesting i never knew that. (note to self to keep a child safe, don't let them have hands capable of using tools)

Better yet, keep tools out of their hands until they are instructed in their safe use.

there is nothing you can do to insure competency with a gun any more than with everything else.

. Of course. But a training program and competency testing goes a long way in that direction.

yet are against insuring that actually happens by teaching it to EVERYBODY in school? interesting contradiction.

No contradiction. Children will encounter sex, no matter what. Children will not necessarily encounter weapons. It is owners of weapons which are of concern. If the actual owners of the weapons are trained and have fulfilled competency requirements, it is more unlikely that those weapons will accidentally arrive in the hands of children.

if you teach EVERYBODY then you HAVE done your best to insure that anyone who may own or end up with a gun, is as safe as you can make them.

This would be called an argument ad absurdum.
www.logicallyfallacious.com...

reply to post by Feltrick


A 2 year old?

I'm having difficulty imagining how a 2 year old could somehow manage to pick up that gun, and with those tiny little hands and fingers somehow fire it.

I agree, something ain't right here.

reply to post by generik


We had shotguns and rifles growing up. I was not allowed to start shooting with my cousins until I could handle my grandfathers old double barrel shotgun...both barrels. After that, it was just a waiting game to become old enough to take the hunters safety course and go hunting.

I believe I got a 20ga Remington Pump on my 11th birthday. Hung on the wall in my bedroom and I was responsible for ensuring it was always locked up and clean; the shells had to be locked up in a separate cabinet. I remember one year during baseball season, my dad noticed some dust on it...we had a rather lengthy discussion about responsibility and how my life could depend on that shotgun. Never forgot that or the words that he, my grandfather and my cousins always said:

Treat every firearm as if it is loaded.

I guess someone should have taught this family that same lesson.

reply to post by ausername


Well, at this point we don't know which 357 Magnum revolver it is. We do not know if the trigger was stock or adjusted to make it lighter. IF, and that's a big IF, the pistol had been cocked and left on the bed, I could see a 2yr old clumsily trying to pick it up and the pistol going off.

This brings up: Why was a loaded pistol cocked in a room full of children. I don't have to go any further with the question; It doesn't matter if someone left it in there because it should have never been in there in the first place. Heck, let's dumb that question down further....

Why in the heck was a loaded pistol in a room full of children!

Feltrick
reply to post by ausername

 

Well, at this point we don't know which 357 Magnum revolver it is. We do not know if the trigger was stock or adjusted to make it lighter. IF, and that's a big IF, the pistol had been cocked and left on the bed, I could see a 2yr old clumsily trying to pick it up and the pistol going off.

For some perspective I used google image search and found this one:



Think of the gun in question, and think of those tiny hands and fingers.

I suppose it is possible, but I wouldn't bet on it.

Phage Are you sure?

The legislation stipulates that individuals wishing to acquire non-restricted firearms must take the CFSC and pass the tests OR challenge and pass the CFSC tests without taking the course.

www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca...
So you can take the test without taking the course.

i had specifically asked about that and was told NO you have to take the course, wonder if it is fairly recent you can take the test without the course.

as for the course availability. YES i did look into it several times. most of the time these courses were offered a fair distance away from where i lived, (with many requiring membership at that range or gun club) with no available transit to get to them if you did not have access to a car. so add the expense of gas or a taxi, figure well over $50 probably closer to $100 each way for a taxi, (it was over $50 over 15-20 years ago to get home from my doctor and that was within the city), and even with a car added gas expense i really couldn't afford. on top of that they tended to run the courses at times and on days i was not available, because i had a job i needed to be at.

i actually HAD an FAC before they changed the rules, at that time i just had to go to the police station fill out paperwork and meet with an officer, and it was under $100 for every 5 years. but when they changed the rules i had to travel a long distance to any available course and the course times were such i couldn't make it due to my job. and like i also said the cost of getting to the courses was also prohibitive, as well as the course fees, since i was barely affording to live paycheck to paycheck, which is why i wanted to hunt to save a bit and get healthier meat. i already have the guns, i just can't actually use them.

No. If a Canadian wants to be authorized to own a handgun for target shooting they must provide proof that they practice or compete at an approved club or range. Gun clubs are not all that expensive. Neither are ranges. Being well practiced in the use of a handgun is probably a good idea.

Buffalo Target Shooters Association Annual Dues: $175.00
Not bad considering what you get.

You can also be a collector. No membership required. Of course, you must demonstrate that you are actually a collector.

and yet again those ranges and gun clubs are not easily accessible, and long distances away, so again the fee (even the really cheap one you found which when living pay check to paycheck IS expensive), you also have to get transport to them which is yet even more expense. these ranges and gun clubs are normally the same place you can get the training, they are OUTSIDE the city and without easy transit to them. so YES you do need to be RICH to be able to avail yourself of their services which you need to be able to own a gun. and the prices i was seeing for these clubs was more like $400-$500 or more per year, (admittedly it's been a few years since i have looked).

and the truly sad thing is the only reason we wanted a handgun was we have one that is an heirloom (war trophy), we didn't want to actually use it, (if you could even find ammo for it). my father looked into bringing it across the boarder and even with all the BS about gun clubs it was almost impossible to legally bring into Canada in the first place.

There is also this:

In limited circumstances, an individual may be authorized to possess or acquire a restricted firearm for employment purposes or for protection of life.

www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca...

yup we all know it is available but good luck with that. i don't know of anybody who was actually able to gain one who was not a cop, armed security (a rare thing) or at least somehow connected to the legal community.

reply to post by Feltrick

Well, I'm hoping the LEOs will be very, very thorough in investigating this one. Besides carefully interviewing the children and adults (all separately), they should also have taken some skin and clothing swab samples from everyone who was in the house at the time to see which person has traces of residue on hands and clothes that would indicate having fired the weapon. And I'm pretty sure they will do that, and a whole lot more.

But even if it turns out that the 2-y-o did pull the trigger (and like you, I'm dubious about that), those "adults" should wear the blame. If they've lied, then that just makes the whole, sad situation even worse.

Phage
But a training program and competency testing goes a long way in that direction.

it does? just because you pass a test doesn't mean you will actually follow what you have learned. but i do suspect the younger you are when you learn it the more likely you are to actually follow it. especially when that early training is backed up with discipline

No contradiction. Children will encounter sex, no matter what. Children will not necessarily encounter weapons. It is owners of weapons which are of concern. If the actual owners of the weapons are trained and have fulfilled competency requirements, it is more unlikely that those weapons will accidentally arrive in the hands of children.

i find that a bit amusing. school WAS where i and i am sure many others first ran into a real handgun, (and they would be of the illegal variety), and that in the hands of fellow students. in fact i also knew that if i really wanted one all i had to do was talk to the right person. oh and just so you know that was in Canada you know the home of strict gun control. i doubt much has changed in that regard over the years, not with the amount of gunfire i heard even the last time i was back a few months ago. probably a good reason to teach gun safety in school. besides what is wrong with teaching gun safety at school anyway? i think it would be a good idea, it's not as if a gun is difficult for someone to use that they would be "learning" to use one. don't even need to have real guns involved in the teaching, (would probably be more effective if they did).

if you teach EVERYBODY then you HAVE done your best to insure that anyone who may own or end up with a gun, is as safe as you can make them.

This would be called an argument ad absurdum.
www.logicallyfallacious.com...

it might be but it would still be better than NOT teaching them.

3u40r15m
Well at least the gun was pointed the right way and he didn't blow his little head off....

Your input makes me feel sick. It lacks understanding of the seriousness of this situation, the psychological damage to all involved who has to live with what happened and compassion for the child who was killed. The imagery of your statement is vile and you have come across as a very low empathy person, in which case maybe you should think and analyse what you are about to say/write before doing so.

reply to post by JustMike


Well, as of right now, the police are still calling it an accidental shooting by the 2yr old. Considering the amount of work the Philly PD has, they may write this one off. Just got another alert that an 11yr old boy was shot while playing outside when he got caught in a crossfire. So much for strict Philly gun laws and their City of Brotherly Love moniker...Can't wait to move.

As some have pointed out, seems it would be pretty dang tough for a 2yr old to pull the trigger. Unfortunately, we do not know the exact model or make of the pistol. All we know is that it is a 357 Magnum w/the hammer cocked. For all we know at this point, the 2yo could have picked it up, another kid could have tried to take it away when it went off.

Hopefully the Philly PD will do a thorough investigation and I can report their findings, IF they ever release them...