Sunday, September 30, 2012

Accidental Shooting Death of MA 17-Year -old by His Older Brother - No Charges

Local news reports

A 17-year-old high school senior died Saturday after he was allegedly shot in the chest by his brother. The grieving family said the shooting was accidental.

Police said several family members were home at the time of the shooting. They said the weapon belonged to the family and that the 21-year-old brother was newly licensed to have a gun. But, investigators are still trying to figure out what happened before the 17-year-old was shot in the chest.

What does "licensed to have a gun" actually mean in Massachusetts? Is that a concealed carry permit or just a permission to own a gun?

Gun negligence is a family disease.  This story shows that more than most. In cases like this where parental supervision was lacking and older children were involved I believe there's only one safe way to go.  One strike you're out applies to the entire family.

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment.


  1. What does "licensed to have a gun" actually mean in Massachusetts? Is that a concealed carry permit or just a permission to own a gun?

    Massachusetts is your gun control paradise. AWB, magazine limited to 10 rounds. License required to purchase a firearm. License is required to possess ammunition or firearm. Firearms safety class required to get Firearm License. May issue licensing system, etc. The only thing not required, that you would like, is psychological testing.

    To answer your question, it's likely that the license mentioned is the license to purchase and possess, which is may issue, which didn't prevent a shooting death, but oh, well, at least he had his license.

  2. Mikeb, why can't you trouble yourself to look things up? Massachusetts requires a license just to own a firearm. It also requires a license to have pepper spray, as I told you a while ago. Why don't you pay attention to these basic facts?

    Massachusetts is a control-freak paradise. This isn't a case of a straw purchaser handing out guns across the street from an elementary school. The owner was licensed by the state. Gun control failed here. Your answer will be to call for more laws, just like the addict who needs a stronger dose to get high.

  3. We see here also that Mikeb wants to take rights away from everyone available. The whole family should lose their rights? Is there anything where you do believe in the person who does the act is the one person responsible?

    1. Well, Greg, what can we do with a family of irresponsible gun owners. We remove the guns. If one family member is unfairly treated, that's a shame. For the overall good it has to be this way.

    2. Are you noticing that Americans aren't interested in your view of the overall good?

  4. This illustrates the fundamental problem with licencing mere civilians to own and possess firearms. No government can do so in the interests of the safety and general welfare of society, as licencing (in the form of a FID- Firearms Identification card) simply allows potential killers access (in one form or another) to deadly small arms, and by doing so degrades the authority of the state, when such arms are inevitably used for nefarious deeds.

    The State of Massachusetts must (shall) issue a FID (the authorization for a civilian to possess a rifle or shotgun, without a magazine with a capacity exceeding ten cartridges)

    To anyone not disqualified under Federal Law

    Anyone over 15 years of age

    Anyone who has not been committed to a mental institution

    Anyone who has not been convicted of a Felony

    ***Anyone who has completed hunter safety education (a total joke)

    Again, anyone who fits these basic qualifications and goes trough hunter safety (reportedly very easy to pass) and has $100 dollars to their name, will be given permission by the government charged with the safety and welfare of it's subjects, the ability to posses deadly small arms.

    Small arms should be viewed in a similar manner to schedule 1 narcotics, having a high public risk and no accepted social function (excepting State actors). It is a cruel and tragic waste of time to regulate the use of arms. The State must protect the public's right to exist, by ensuring that State actors (as well as other persons who have a compelling public interest to possess small arms appropriate to their condition in life) have a monopoly on the use of small arms.

    1. E.N., you have no accepted social function, and yet here you are. Let me simplify your fears for you. The state has no business authorizing what is a fundamental right. Massachusetts should get out of licensing altogether and recognize the right of its citizens to own and carry firearms without having to ask permission first.

    2. Well, E.N. is expressing a view that many around the world hold. I'm glad to see it discussed here so we can expose its dangers.