HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Video & Multimedia (Forum) » Father Shoots 7-Year-Old ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 09:02 AM

Father Shoots 7-Year-Old Son to Death Accidentally



From: www.davidpakman.com

8 replies, 1183 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 8 replies Author Time Post
Reply Father Shoots 7-Year-Old Son to Death Accidentally (Original post)
celtics23 Dec 2012 OP
Arkansas Granny Dec 2012 #1
Atypical Liberal Dec 2012 #2
RC Dec 2012 #3
jollyreaper2112 Dec 2012 #4
rocktivity Dec 2012 #5
JohnnyRingo Dec 2012 #8
JohnnyRingo Dec 2012 #6
ejbr Dec 2012 #7

Response to celtics23 (Original post)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 09:06 AM

1. Stories like this make me literally sick to my stomach.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to celtics23 (Original post)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 09:37 AM

2. The video is rather pointless.

 

Where to begin?

The picture shown is Colt Series 80 in .45 ACP, yet the firearm under discussion was a 9mm of some kind. One of the hosts speculates on how the gun may not have been kept in a holster, but their stock photo shows a holster.

The kicker is when one of the hosts begins the usual anti-gun sarcastic suggestion that "If only the 7-year-old had a gun he could have protected himself from his father!" Which fortunately is pointed out as absurd by the other hosts since 1) No one is suggesting that 7-year-old autistic children should carry firearms for protection and 2) This was not a self-defense situation.

All in all, this just highlights the importance of firearm safety and the consequences of not obeying the cardinal rules.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to celtics23 (Original post)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 10:20 AM

3. Why wasn't the gun locked up in the gun safe at home?

 

If he thought he needed a gun for protection, why did he have his son with him?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RC (Reply #3)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 10:49 AM

4. He was selling the guns

Unloaded the clip, forgot about the bullet in the chamber. Always clear the chamber.

I don't know how much of a yahoo the father was, whether he was a gun fondler and the only surprise is something tragic hadn't happened years ago or if he's a responsible person who made one mistake in years of responsible ownership and paid for it with his son's life.

The thing about accidental discharges, they don't make the news unless someone is wounded, especially if they die. Makes me wonder how many close calls we don't hear about.

Mistakes with dangerous tools are often fatal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to celtics23 (Original post)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 11:38 AM

5. More

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/12/08/boy-shot-to-death-pa-gun-store/1755809/

That was criminally negligent, and at the very least should lose his gun license for a quite a while. If his intent was to sell the weapon, that's all the MORE reason why he should have made sure the gun wasn't loaded first.

The answer isn't more gun control. It's more gun SELF-control.


rocktivity

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rocktivity (Reply #5)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 01:13 PM

8. I don't think this is a case of "criminal negligence".

Such a charge would require proving an intent to perform a criminal act that went awry.

I firmly believe a proficiency class and an exam would be a good idea for prospective gun owners, much like the one most states require before operating a motorcycle. Both are potentially dangerous in the hands of the uninitiated, amd I don't think mandatory education abridges the 2nd amendment. It'd be a hard argument to make that we have a right to use something so dangerous without a basic understanding of the weapon and the ramifications of misuse.

Such a class could also teach owners when it's legal to shoot someone, as too many believe simple trespass is a good enough cause to kill. Fortunately, most novice owners can't hit something beyond 30 yards, but proper education could prevent unnecessary actions resulting in careless injury or death.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to celtics23 (Original post)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 12:38 PM

6. This is a local story here in NE Ohio.

Mercer PA isn't very far away from where I live. Up front I'll point out I'm not a big 2nd amendment defender, but own handguns myself. My big thing is labor, not gun control laws.

Having said that, there are some points that haven't been fully explained in the clip. The video above was created by people who understand guns the way I understand nuclear reactors. Had they researched the story before they formed an opinion, the clip would be about 10 seconds long.

The father took the gun to a local gun shop with his son to sell it. Once there, the dealer refused to buy the weapon. That tells me it was likely a cheap- probably foreign made- gun that the dealer wanted no part of because resale would be impossible with any profit.

I can back this belief up because the gun discharged when the father "placed the gun on the console" with his son strapped in in the back seat. Obviously his finger was on the trigger and the gun was chambered with the safety off. Any modern handgun worth more than scrap value will have an internal safety that prevents discharge when the magazine is removed. Also, most modern guns I've seen have external safeties that require the gun be held properly in hand before it will fire, like a small lever along the backstrap of the grip that has to be depressed before the hammer will fall.

Most people who buy a handgun without really understanding what they're buying will usually purchase one at the lowest possible cost. This would explain why the man didn't know to check the chamber for a round before taking the gun to the dealer. It would also explain why he had his finger on the trigger when he didn't intend to use it. If the dealer even touched that gun he would have unloaded it immediately, even before looking it over, so the dealer knew on first sight that he wanted nothing to do with it. Working the action to dechamber a hidden round is something people familiar with handguns do as a matter of rote.

The local police here are describing this for what it is: an unfortunate accident, and are giving statements indicating that pressing charges would be pointless considering the cost already incurred by the man's actions. Obviously they feel he doesn't need to be "taught a lesson" beyond the one he and his family already experienced, and he'll never own a gun again.

I believe something should be done to prevent this kind of accident though. I wouldn't mind a revised version of the old "Saturday Night Special law" that seems to have gone the wayside. That would require only well made "safe" guns be sold at a price that would discourage the uninitiated from an impulse buy. If this man had a pricier gun made by a major manufacturer, this whole incident likely wouldn't have happened and the gun would live out it's servicable life in the man's underwear drawer as so many impulse purchases do (hopefully unloaded and dissassembled with ammo stored elsewhere).

Imagine if a lotto winner who fancied a fast car but never owned anything other than a V-6 Buick ran out and bought a Ferrari F-50, one of the most powerful sports cars in the world. It's basically a race car that can be driven on the street. Without proper training, it would just be a (short) matter of time before the driver got in over his head and hit something. It would be difficult proving he was more careless than downright ignorant, and I certainly wouldn't blame the dealer who sold it or demand Ferraris be banished for being dangerous (they are).

I wouldn't object to a proficiency class for anyone who wants to purchase either a firearm or a high powered supercar. It would cost money to take the class, sure, but such a purchase requires a high degree of responsibility that cannot be assumed without education. I don't think that abridges the 2nd amendment for anyone. Indeed, Ferarri does offer driving classes and refuses to sell their F-50s to anyone who doesn't already own a Ferarri and is personally known to the dealer. That's why we don't see exotic supercars piled up along stretches highways, but uneducated gun owners with an extra $200 accidentally shoot people all too often.

Here in Ohio we need a special proficiency test to ride a motorcycle, why not a handgun?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JohnnyRingo (Reply #6)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 01:00 PM

7. Thanks for your insights

I hadn't known all the details and your assessment of how the dealer probably responded upon seeing the gun rings true. Given the number of times we hear about these tragic events, one would think that people would be more paranoid about how they are handling their guns. I know I would be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread