10-year-old accidentally shot by father

[onehandle]

Law enforcement says a Delafield father accidentally shot his 10-year-old son. Those detectives would not speak with the media, which is common in an ongoing investigation. It's all part of an accident, that some call preventable.

The incident happened around 5:30 p.m. Sunday. Officials say it appears the boy was accidentally shot by his father after cleaning a handgun. The boy was struck in the abdomen.

Officials on the scene say moments later, the father of the boy called 911. The child was flown by Flight for Life to Children's Hospital of Wisconsin in Wauwatosa. The boy underwent surgery the night of March 28th. His condition at this hour is unknown.

http://www.fox6now.com/news/witi-20110328-boy-shooting-folo,0,1849990.story?track=rss

[MineralMan]

1. Father Stupidly Shoots 10-Year Old Son

There, I fixed the headline.

[cleanhippie]

3. Agreed

[rl6214]

5. Agree

with the stupid

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pnwmom]

6. Ordinary people -- not "criminal types" -- can mis-use guns.

Even shoot their own children with guns.

That's one point.

[cleanhippie]

8. Sure, people do stupid things everyday, with ALL KINDS of objects...

like cars. Car "accidents" kill lots of people every day, more than guns do.


So your point is that ordinary people can mis-use things? On that , I agree.

[damntexdem]

18. But guns are especially dangerous.

And they are meant to shoot -- things or people. Cars are meant to transport, not to hurt people. So special care must be taken with guns; and parents need to make decisions on whether they will have guns around children, or at least handle guns while children are in the house.

[cleanhippie]

21. They are not any more "especially dangerous" than a car.

And given you logic, an item that has a specific use of "transport" yet kills MORE people than an item "meant to shoot" would mean that the car is "especially dangerous".

[MineralMan]

27. Yabbut you have to get a license to drive a car, demonstrate

driving abilities, and pass a written test. Very different. None of those things seems popular with most RKBA organizations.

[cleanhippie]

31. That is because driving a car on a public road is a privilege, not a right.

One does NOT need a license to BUY a car, or to drive it on private property.

[MineralMan]

34. Yes, I know. I know and understand all the arguments.

[cleanhippie]

35. So then what was the point of posting that then?

And my response was not an argument or my opinion, it was a statement of fact.

[MineralMan]

44. You brought the car into the discussion, not me.

[cleanhippie]

47. Right, in order to prove a point.

You brought up the licensing requirements.


I think we have already kind of sorted this out below. Should we let this go?

[MineralMan]

48. Seems like a good idea.

[Riftaxe]

123. Incorrect, anyone can buy a car without

doing any of the things you described, there are no laws proscribing automobile ownership.

What you described is what you need to do if you want to operate it on public properties.

[YllwFvr]

64. special care should always be taken

I can agree 100%. This guy obviously didnt follow the rules for safe gun handling. Hope the kid gets better. Im sure the father is a wreck

[Starboard Tack]

84. Please! Not the silly car analogy again. You know better

[Straw Man]

91. Silly? Please explain: "You know better" carries no weight.

[Starboard Tack]

96. OK one more time

Lots of things can kill. Some things, like GUNS, are designed SPECIFICALLY to kill. So it is a completely bogus analogy. I've read your posts. You can make a decent argument without resorting to nonsense. You demean yourself.

[Straw Man]

97. No, that didn't work.

We're talking about safe handling of a mechanical device that has tremendous destructive power. The original intention of the design is completely irrelevant. The fact that you fail to see the aptness of the analogy doesn't make it "nonsense."

Try again.

[Starboard Tack]

98. That's what you're talking about

I'm talking about the difference not the similarity. You can find similarities between any mechanical devices. Cigarettes are designed to give pleasure but they kill more people.

GUNS ARE DESIGNED SPECIFICALLY TO KILL (THE KEY WORD HERE IS SPECIFICALLY)

[Straw Man]

101. What you're talking about isn't relevant.

There's nothing about the difference you describe that is applicable to the situation. It simply isn't relevant. The relevant fact is that both are dangerous devices that can be handled safely or carelessly, with correspondingly different outcomes.

Please explain to me how your "designed specifically to kill" description of guns has any bearing on safe handling or lack thereof.

[Starboard Tack]

103. Because gun ownership comes with special responsibility

It is not a universal right, it is a restricted right (no felons, no under 21). How about no idiots who allow their guns to be stolen or have "accidents"?
At the very least, gun losers should not be able to go out and buy another, as they are effectively distributing illegal weapons through their negligence, carelessness or ineptitude.

[Straw Man]

105. I agree. And so does car ownership.

Also restricted--no egregious moving violators, no under 16, etc. I think we may be getting somewhere here!

There is a strong moral and legal responsibility to keep safety foremost when dealing with cars and with guns, as well as chainsaws, lawnmowers, etc. I for one would be in favor of much harsher penalties for traffic offenses. I see people endangering others' lives daily on the road, whereas I see very few examples of careless behavior with guns, and I am active in a number of shooting sports, participating at least once and sometimes two or three times a week.

On the other hand, I am not so comfortable with prosecuting crime victims for "carelessness." One can take every precaution and still have a gun stolen. Safe-storage laws are an attempt to address this issue, but they are fraught with a number of inconsistencies and don't appear to me as the best use of law-enforcement resources.

[Starboard Tack]

108. How about gross negligence instead of carelessness.

My point is that every "illegal" gun out there came from somewhere. Usually stolen. The onus is on the registered owner to keep that gun out of the wrong hands. This onus is much greater than with a vehicle. I agree that law enforcement resources should be concentrating elsewhere, but Gun Shop owners who inadequately protect their premises should not be seen as victims, but rather enablers. It is in their interests to see more guns on the street, legal or not. The more that get stolen, the more he gets to sell. Vicious cycle.

[Straw Man]

109. Fair enough.

I agree that law enforcement resources should be concentrating elsewhere, but Gun Shop owners who inadequately protect their premises should not be seen as victims, but rather enablers.

I have no problem with secure storage being a prerequisite for a commercial FFL--in fact, it already is, but I'm not sure exactly what their requirements are.

It is in their interests to see more guns on the street, legal or not. The more that get stolen, the more he gets to sell.

No, you've lost me there. That's a canard along the lines of funeral directors being happy to see people die. All the gun shop owners that I know recognize that guns in the hands of criminals are a social problem, not to mention fuel for the gun-control fire. They don't like it any better than you do.

[Starboard Tack]

110. Maybe I'm more cynical than you when it comes to selling guns

for profit. Hard not to be cynical when "criminals have guns" is a big part of their sales pitch. They're in business to make a profit and as honorable as an individual seller may be, or seem to be, it is to his advantage to indulge people's fears. They should be held to the highest standards of integrity and be held accountable when they fuck up.

[Straw Man]

112. Your cynicism betrays a decided bias...

...against anyone involved in the gun industry. Obviously the manufacturers' marketing strategy for defensive weapons involves pandering to fear. But again, I have to pose the analogies: Do undertakers delight in death? Do healthcare providers welcome disease? It's all just money in the bank to them, right?

If you start with the presupposition that guns are nothing but evil, then it's easy to reach some pretty unpleasant conclusions about the people who deal in them. Easy, but not accurate and not fair.

[cleanhippie]

113. Quite possibly the best analysis of anti-gun bias ever.

If you start with the presupposition that guns are nothing but evil, then it's easy to reach some pretty unpleasant conclusions about the people who deal in them. Easy, but not accurate and not fair.


Well said, my man, well said. :applause:

[Starboard Tack]

114. There's a difference between evil and amoral.

Not much difference, but a difference and purveyors of killing tools tend to hover between the two. Very poor analogies, sorry. I doubt that any sane person "delights in death" or "welcomes disease", unless you count fear as a disease, which it really is. A socio-political disease used by the rich and powerful to manipulate the masses. They count on the stupidity of people to buy their garbage in the hope that the garbage they buy will save them from the very misery created by the same garbage.
Sales pitch: Laxer gun laws = less violent crime
Reality: Laxer gun laws = = more guns sold

Oh, but look at our crime figures going down. Right, and a butterfly flaps it's wings in China.
Most gun crime is inner city, gang related, drug related. Those numbers are down because of progressive policing and community outreach in our major cities. I lived in NYC through the 80's and LA through the 90's. I heard guns popping every day from my apartment on the lower east side. And gangs were everywhere in LA. These are different cities today and both have very strict gun laws, thankfully.
Crime rates are not lower because a bunch of people are buying guns.

[X_Digger]

115. "Most gun crime is inner city, gang related, drug related."

So that has what to do with your average gun owner? Why should their ability to freely exercise a right be curtailed or impeded?

[Starboard Tack]

116. Nothing at all and it shouldn't

Did I say something different?
I was making a point about the supposed correlation of increased gun sales and reduction in violent crime

[X_Digger]

117. Your point was rather opaque, then.

It's easy to see that more guns != more crime / more gun crime.

That does not suggest the correlation you're positing.

[Starboard Tack]

120. Clarify please

I didn't get any of that

[X_Digger]

121. You seem to be asserting..

that someone is positing the 'more guns = less crime' meme when they mention that gun ownership is up, gun laws have been slightly relaxed, and crime is down.

Rather, I'd say that such statements are a refutation of the 'more guns = more crime' statement- you can disprove that without claiming the converse as true.

[Starboard Tack]

122. I don't make either claim

I would posit, though, that "more guns" = more potential gun violence

Only the future will reveal the answers.

[X_Digger]

124. "Sales pitch: Laxer gun laws = less violent crime"

Who is making that 'sales pitch'?

[Starboard Tack]

125. Gun dealers and those who endorse campus carry for starters.

Then those who want more CCW permits who believe that proliferation of concealed weapons among the "good guys" will lower overall violent crime stats.

[X_Digger]

126. Perhaps you can point to those here..

Since there are quite a few here who endorse campus carry...

The most I've seen is people asking why those with carry permits are so untrustworthy on-campus as compared to off-campus.

[Straw Man]

118. Actually, you were making a point about the morality of gun dealers.

Or more properly, the lack thereof. Along the way, you tossed up a straw man about gun sales and violent crime. Again, the claim is not that increased gun sales have caused a reduction in violent crime: it is that they have not caused in INCREASE in violent crime. Given the lack of a demonstrable social ill, there is no reason to limit the rights of a law-abiding individual and deny him/her the use of a potentially life-saving tool, etc.

But that's another argument. Let's get back to you telling gun owners that they're the moronic dupes of vicious, amoral gun dealers, the "purveyors of killing tools." Or is that overstating your case?

[RSillsbee]

9. But is that a reason to restrict MY rights? NT

[pnwmom]

11. Depends on what rights you're talking about.

I think there should be criminal penalties if, for example, someone shoots a gun while under the influence of alcohol or drugs -- whether or not they hurt someone as a result.

Cheney, for instance, should have faced criminal penalties for shooting his friend in the face, even though it was an accident. No one should be combining alcohol and shooting.

[RSillsbee]

17. Criminal penalties

I think there should be criminal penalties if, for example, someone shoots a gun while under the influence of alcohol or drugs -- whether or not they hurt someone as a result.

You are aware, are you not that in almost every state mere possesion of a firearm while under the influence is a crime right?

[pnwmom]

52. Most isn't all. And obviously the law is selectively enforced

or Cheney would have gone to prison.

[RSillsbee]

57. I don't disagree w/ you

That said, how does this apply to the topic at hand?

We were discussing some dumb ass who picked up a fire arm w/ out checking the chamber and shot his son.

Again I ask why should my rights be restricted because of his stupidity?

[pnwmom]

63. How do we know this "dumb ass" wasn't imbibing?

That could explain how this happened, couldn't it?

And your rights would only be restricted if you thought it was okay to have alcohol in your system while cleaning your guns.

[rl6214]

66. You keep posting this over and over

Have you seen a report on this?

If not it's just speculation.

He could also be stoned yet many on this board think marijuana should be legalized.

[pnwmom]

67. Yes, as I said, I think there should be criminal penalties

in ALL states for handling guns while under the influence, whether on alcohol or on drugs.

And I brought this issue up in the context of restrictions on gun use that I would support.

[RSillsbee]

68. How do you know this dumb ass didn't have a slam fire?

And your rights would only be restricted if you thought it was okay to have alcohol in your system while cleaning your guns.

What I'm hearing you say is you can't come up w/ a good reason to restrict my rights becuase of this guy's actions. Fair enough

[pnwmom]

70. I only think your rights should be restricted if you think

your rights include drinking alcohol or using incapacitating drugs before or while you are using your gun.

[rl6214]

71. You keep posting about alcohol being involved

are you going to provide a link where you saw this or is this pure speculation?

[pnwmom]

75. As I said, I have no knowledge and you have no knowledge

about the exact circumstances here -- but I do know that tragic accidents are more likely to happen in some situations than others, and being under the influence is one of them.

And you asked what gun restrictions I would support and I've tried to answer you.

[RSillsbee]

76. I think it's a troll tactic

pick some little inane point that has zip to do w/ the topic and hammer it into the ground. Instead of addressing legitimate responses we waste time playing Whack-A-Troll

[Starboard Tack]

85. Do you endorse the "dumb ass" his right to have a gun?

Or should there be some sort of "dumb ass" test?

[YllwFvr]

65. not here

in pa.

[one-eyed fat man]

24. Moms and reverse

http://www.gwinnettdailypost.com/home/headlines/100817504.html

http://www.ajc.com/news/gwinnett/toddler-wanders-behind-suv-593335.html

http://www.fox5sandiego.com/news/kswb-vehicle-strikes-child,0,6473239.story

http://www.wftv.com/news/18961213/detail.html

http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2010/07/12/14689066.html

http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/Toddler-Run-Over-by-Mother-in-Critical-Condition-.html

http://www.wtsp.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=112740

http://www.myfoxboston.com/dpp/news/local/20_month_old_girl_hit_by_car_in_waltham_071609

http://www.imperfectparent.com/topics/2010/10/07/grandmother-accidentally-runs-over-toddler-grandson/

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0415gr-baby0415-ON.html

http://hamptonroads.com/2010/08/no-charges-mother-who-backed-over-killed-girl-surry

http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2011/03/wisconsin_mom_baby_killed_stillwater.php

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nb/conroe/news/5869127.html

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/05/21/Mother-runs-over-child-in-driveway/UPI-42261211385547/

[pnwmom]

54. You could have done the same thing with dads.

But what's the point?

We do have criminal penalties for drunk driving, in every state of the union.

[one-eyed fat man]

61. Those moms were sober!

No drunk driving involved.

One was shopping; set the kid in the car seat down; put the groceries in the car and promptly backed over the kid.

Half a dozen were backing in or out of the garage when they ran over the kid. A couple, like this Mom, put the kid and the car seat on the roof of the car and simply drove off.

Driver Forgot the Baby on the Roof

[pnwmom]

62. Yes, tragedies happen. But the probability can be reduced.

One of the ways of reducing the chances of a tragedy is not to combine alcohol/drugs with the use of cars, guns, etc.

[rl6214]

40. None of those things happened in this case

so you can't use that as an arguement. The owner was negligent.

[pnwmom]

53. Are you aware of details of the case that aren't in the media yet?

Alcohol is always a possibility.

[rl6214]

56. As I saw in another post

Objection your honor

requires speculation.

[RSillsbee]

58. Alcohol is always a possibility.

So is a slam fire

[damntexdem]

19. Which rights? The rights to shoot your children?

The individual right is itself a real stretch on the Constitution, despite what the RW SCOTUS majority has said. But even if it exists, it does not extend to endangering children.

[cleanhippie]

20. Nice strawman, have fun knocking that down.

[RSillsbee]

32. Yes I demand the right to shoot my children

That's what the NRA is all about and surely you can find at least one more post here where a pro rights advocate has ever demanded the right to shoot their kids* Just one , we'll wait.



* I do have to admit I have been tempted but contrary to what the Prohis would have you believe my gun doesn't have a magic mind control ray on it to make me do something I wouldn't otherwise do against my will. Guess it's defective

[Name removed]

92. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MineralMan]

7. Stupid, careless people should not own firearms.

That seems to be the point.

[cleanhippie]

10. On that we can agree.

What is your solution for keeping guns out of the hands of stupid, careless people without infringing on the rights of smart, careful people?

[MineralMan]

23. I don't know the answer to that question. It's something that

needs looking into, though. What are your ideas for a solution?

[cleanhippie]

25. Not sure either, but there are some ideas floating around.

Ensuring that the NICS is open for the use of private sellers for a start.

Keeping that database current is also key.


The main obstacle lies in following due-process for those that would be disqualified. Its a tricky thing, and a slippery slope.



I am all for keeping guns out of the hands of criminals (by strictly enforcing the current 17,000 gun laws we already have) as well as developing a method of due-process to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally unstable (like Jared Laughner).

Do you have any ideas?

[MineralMan]

26. Not any that would appeal to most.

A free written test on firearms safety as a requirement to buy any firearm. You'd only have to pass it once, but it wouldn't be an easy test.

That's one idea that would weed out the really stupid.

Mandatory firearms training, with range requirements, as a purchase requirement. Again, you'd only have to qualify once. It could be free and offered by local law enforcement range staff.

There are other possibilities, but they'd never pass muster with some.

[cleanhippie]

29. While those are good ideas...

We ARE talking about a Constitutional Right here.


By the same token, should we also create a free written test on civics as a requirement to register to vote? To exercise free speech? To own land or property?

I am not dismissing your ideas out of hand, they ARE good ideas, but its the implementation of those ideas as a requirement to exercise one of our basic Rights that concerns me, and others.

[MineralMan]

33. I understand the objection. I really do.

We have many rights, and most of them are entailed with restrictions of some sort. Our RKBA is also restricted in many ways already. Are all of those restrictions constitutional "infringements?" I don't think so. Some of them make little sense, but others are sensible.

Perhaps some form of competency requirement would also be sensible, I think.

[cleanhippie]

36. I do not disagree with you.

I am all for competency, just not sure how to implement it without infringing on our rights. Its a tough one, for sure.

[MineralMan]

37. I'm not sure, either.

[rl6214]

46. Passing a test once wouldn't ensure that

you would never make a stupid mistake and not follow the 4 rules of safe firearm handling. All it takes is one mistake.

[MineralMan]

49. That's true, but it would demonstrate that you knew the rules.

Then, when you did some moronic thing and shot your own kid...oh, well...

[Euromutt]

111. In principle, I could support those ideas...

In practice, the objection I have to them is the same one gun rights organizations like the NRA have, namely that all too often in the past, training and licensing requirements have been (mis)used to impose de facto gun bans by making it all but impossible to get the training or take the test (unless you're a major contributor to the sheriff/mayor/alderman's re-election campaign fund, of course).

[Hoyt]

13. But yet they do, by the millions. And many carry them into public.

[cleanhippie]

22. How would you propose to keep them out of the hands of "stupid, careless people", while not

infringing on a Constitutionally protected right? I'm all for that idea, just don't see a way to do it.


And just how did you come up with "millions of stupid careless people do it every day?" Can you source that or did you fabricate it?

[RSillsbee]

59. What makes you think

he gives a damn about not infringing on a Constitutionally protected right?

[cleanhippie]

72. Oh, I am under no illusion that he cares in any way, shape, or form about our rights.

It doesn't fit the his talking points.

[spin]

38. The ones who carry legally rarely have accidents with their weapons ...

the ones who carry illegally often misuse their weapons to commit crime and have far more frequent accidents with their firearms.

[Starboard Tack]

86. Rarely? How often is acceptable?

[rrneck]

88. Never.

But it's also unavoidable.

[Starboard Tack]

95. But I thought there were never any accidents, just negligence.

[rrneck]

99. Never acceptable regardless why.

People are human. They make mistakes. Sometimes the mistakes are criminal, sometimes they are negligent, sometimes they are criminally negligent. Stupid isn't illegal but it can have serious consequences.

These niggling semantic distinctions annoy me. They guy screwed up and shot his kid. Maybe he was distracted, maybe he was drunk, maybe he was pissed at the kid and shot him. It's up to the DA and the court to figure it out if they can.

I fail to understand why we have to stampede toward some appeal to authority in in a vain search for a simple answer. Sometimes good people make bad mistakes. Let that be a lesson to us. Welcome to the human condition.

[Starboard Tack]

100. Sometimes good people make bad mistakes. Let that be a lesson to us.

Is that the lesson to be learned from this? What about responsibility?

[rrneck]

106. What about it?

He will be held responsible. Either by the authorities or by his conscience. Or both.

[Yavapai]

119. "Stupid, careless people should not own firearms." Or swimming pools

Where I live we get the phoenix Arizona news as local channels via satellite TV. We hear of accidental child drowning incidents on an almost
daily basis, but accidental shootings very rarely.

I think that gun safety and swimming pool safety should be taught as a priority. I taught my children both at a very young age. My
guns have always been loaded and my swimming pool has always been full of water. Neither one is of much use when empty.

We keep guns for the same reason that we keep fire extinguishers, safety. I hope to never have to use either of the two.

[rl6214]

4. I thought WI had one of the most restrictive gun laws

in the country.

This certainly couldn't have happened there, could it.

Obviously daddy broke the 4 rules of safe gun handling:

1.Always treat all firearms as if they were loaded.
2.Never allow the muzzle of any firearm to point at anything you are not willing to destroy.
3.Never put your finger near the trigger until you are ready to fire. Do not depend on any mechanical device for safety!
4.Always be sure of your target, and what is behind and in front of it.

Hope the son is going to be ok

[Starboard Tack]

87. How about don't handle around children

[Hoyt]

12. These accidents always called stupid by pro-gunners. What's stupid is we act like it doesn't matter.

Accidents happen. Oh well, who cares I ain't giving up my 75 guns and the ones I carry into public everyday. That's an attitude that needs to change.

[rl6214]

39. Who acts like it doesn't matter?

Gun owners are very sympathetic when these sorts of things happen. That's why we don't refer to them as accidents but as negligent. Negligent means there was something that could have and should have been done to prevent it.

You know what would work? Stop all the attempts at anti-gun legislation so the NRA can put its money into safety and education and not into political campaigns. Then maybe you won't hate the NRA so much.

[friendly_iconoclast]

42. Should safe drivers feel responsible for incompetent and/or drugged ones?

And personally, I think negligent shootings like the one in the OP matter very much indeed.

[Starboard Tack]

89. It's a relief to know all you CCW holders never drink and carry

and you never freak out or do drugs of any kind. It makes the rest of us feel very safe.

[friendly_iconoclast]

93. You seem to have trouble grasping the concept.

The people that operate a potentially dangerous object (whether it be a car or a gun) should do so safely, and obtain education in

the means for doing so. If they do not operate it in a safe manner, the law has penalties that obtain. These should be applied

when neccessary.


Those that do operate their potentially dangerous objects in a safe manner are not morally obliged to feel guilty

about those that don't. For example, I don't feel guilty about the people that run phising scams with their computer, and neither

should you. I do recognize that some people will inevitably misuse what most people do not, but the majority should not be punished

or restricted due to the actions of a minority.

[Starboard Tack]

94. Oh, I grasp the "concept" and agree with you 100%

Concepts are one thing, reality is another.

[spin]

45. If some fool has a accident with his car, should I give up my car?

I've owned firearms for 50 years and never had an accident. I admit that an accident is possible and I never forget just how dangerous firearms are. I practice gun safety. Most gun owners have a similar approach and attitude.

There are 300 million firearms in this country and 40 million gun owners. Firearm accidents are preventable, education is the key. Firearm safety should be a mandatory class in every high school. Every young adult should know the basic principles of gun safety and should have had hands on experience with firearms.

That will never happen because so many people in this country have an irrational fear of a tool that has many legitimate uses. But still, the number of firearm accidents over the last century has decreased dramatically.

1. In the past 10 years, firearm-related accidents in the home have dropped by more than 44 percent!

2. Over the past 9 years, the number of unintentional firearm-related fatalities for children 14 and under has decreased by 69 percent!

3. Firearms are involved in fewer than 1.2 percent of accidental fatalities among children 14 and under!

4. The number of unintentional firearm-related deaths has decreased by 40 percent — from 1,225 accidental deaths in 1995 to just 730 in 2005!

5. Accidental fatality rates involving firearms are at the lowest levels in history at 0.2% per 100,000 population!

6. Since 1903, the rate per 100,000 population of accidental fatality rates has declined by 94 percent!

7. Of firearms, fires, flames, smoke, motor vehicles, and ingestion of food or objects, unintentional fatalities in the USA from firearms had the largest rate of decrease in the past decade!
http://www.lewrockwell.com/perry/perry37.html

[Straw Man]

55. So you think they AREN'T stupid?

Accidents happen. Oh well, who cares I ain't giving up my 75 guns and the ones I carry into public everyday. That's an attitude that needs to change.

Please explain how my giving up my guns and the right to carry might have prevented this tragedy. Or would you rather just call me stupid?

[deutsey]

14. Fortunately, the boy seems to be recovering

http://www.620wtmj.com/news/local/118810119.html

Child Accidentally Shot by Father Is Recovering
Story Created: Mar 28, 2011

Story Updated: Mar 29, 2011

DELAFIELD - The ten year-old accidentally shot by his father in the town of Delafield continues to recover.

The Waukesha County Sheriff's Department says the boy had surgery after the bullet hit him in his abdomen.

Investigators say the gun was fired as the father attempted to clean it.

[MineralMan]

30. Ah, a "cleaning accident." Hmph.

Let me see, what's the first step in cleaning a firearm....hmm...I think I remember:

First Step: Make absolutely certain the firearm is completely unloaded by removing the magazine, if removable, or emptying a fixed magazine, cylinder, or other ammunition-holding device, then checking the chamber to make sure it is clear.

Did I get that right?

[deutsey]

51. That always baffles me when I see these stories

I don't own a gun (though I know many who do), but even I know that THE first thing you always assume when handling a gun is that it's loaded until you confirm with absolute certainty otherwise.

Poor kid...I hope he continues to improve.

[RSillsbee]

60. Close but still a miss

THE first thing you always assume when handling a gun is that it's loaded full stop , end of sentence

[deutsey]

77. Which still begs the question

If you've got guns in your home (along with a child, for God's sake), why would you be so damn careless? Complacency? Hubris? I don't get it. It's a lethal weapon. I know people who own guns, as I say, and none of them are complacent when it comes to handling guns and following safety precautions.

[RSillsbee]

81. To be fair

It's possible that the guy cleaned the pistol, loaded it and had a slam fire (slide goes forward w/ the firing pin in the "fire" position)in which case it was a genuine malfunction but he still shouldn't have had the pistol pointed at the kid

[RufusTFirefly]

15. Oops.

"I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed."

[slackmaster]

16. Auto-unrec for drive-by "current events" post with nothing to link it to the forum topics

:nuke:

[MineralMan]

28. Nothing? Not even a bullet hole in the kid? Where did the bullet

come from, unless from a "gun?" Seems linked to the forum.

[slackmaster]

41. "Discussion of gun-related public policy issues or the use of firearms for self-defense...

...belong in the Guns Forum."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x95935

I'll be happy to bring it into compliance:

The father was not properly trained in firearm safety. Basic firearm safety should be taught in public schools.

[MineralMan]

43. I said as much in the thread already.

Public policy is the issue here. An incompetent person not trained in firearms safety shot a child. Perhaps public policy should require some sort of competency training or demonstration before allowing people to purchase firearms.

Even the military doesn't issue ammo until you've completed some basic training. Sensible, that.

[Straw Man]

82. Incompetence or callous indifference?

I'm not sure it's a training issue. People get trained to drive too, and from what I see out on the roads, it often doesn't "take." Some people just don't give a shit. It's also possible that alcohol was involved.

I'm all in favor of training, but it's not going to be a panacea.

[GreenStormCloud]

50. The US population is about 310 million.

With that many people a few people will be stupid with guns. That a few are is not a reason to take my guns away or to take my CHL away. I will continue to own and carry guns.

[Callisto32]

69. THIS PROVES SOMETHING!

[rrneck]

74. It proves

EMOTIONAL VALIDATION FEELS GOOD!

[Callisto32]

78. Indeed.

[petronius]

73. Very sad. Hope the boy is alright... (nt)

[LAGC]

79. Unrec.

Anecdotal current events post with no commentary relating to forum topic.

[Atypical Liberal]

80. What is trying to be shown by this example?

What is this anecdote attempting to disprove?

[spin]

83. The most important thing that this thread shows is just how...

critical it is is to practice firearm safety.

When I clean a firearm, the first thing I do is to unload it. When I have reassembled the firearm, if it is a weapon that I use for home defense or one of my carry weapons I load it and put in back in my lock boxes or safe immediately. If I have an unloaded firearm in my hand and I lay it down, when I pick it up I check to make sure it didn't manage to load itself.

One time a visitor came by just as I was finished cleaning a revolver. He asked some questions about the weapon and shooting and during the conversation we both handled the weapon several times. He commented after the conversation ended that every time I picked the handgun up to pass it to him or to handle it myself, I checked it to make sure it was unloaded. He laughed and said, "You checked that firearm at least five times and you don't even have any ammunition in the room."

Guns are not toys and years of experience are no guarantee that you will never have an accident. Often it's good to remind yourself just how serious gun safety is. Reading about a tragic gun accident accomplishes this.

[Starboard Tack]

90. Just curious. When you say "one of my carry weapons"

do you carry several simultaneously or do you have different ones for different situations?

[spin]

102. Different ones for different situations ...

For warm weather in Florida, I carry a S&W Model 642 snub nosed .38 caliber revolver in a pocket holster in my pants. In the winter, I sometimes carry a S&W Model 60 .38/.357mag revolver with a 3" barrel in an inside the waist band holster under a light jacket.

Some people do carry two firearms, their prime defensive firearm and a BUG (back up gun). In my situation, one is plenty.

[Starboard Tack]

104. The economy must be good in Florida

Does the snub nosed .38 not work well in the winter?

[spin]

107. I acquired my firearm collection over 40 years of shooting ...

I bought the snubbie ten years ago and the Model 60 five years ago.

The model 60 has advantages as it is heavier which reduces recoil and it has better sights and a longer sight radius which helps accurate shooting. Its biggest drawback is that it is harder to conceal in warm weather as a jacket or vest looks out of place when the temperature is above 90 degrees. The Model 60 definitely is not a pocket pistol that I can slip in my front pants pocket.