Tuesday, June 25, 2013

Indiana 12-Year-old Dead - Another Negligent Discharge

 Local news reports

Authorities say a 12-year-old Modoc boy died late Saturday after he accidentally was shot in the chest.

Kyle Duane Fisher II was wounded shortly before 10 p.m. Saturday in a home, according to a media release issued by the Randolph County Sheriff’s Office.

Emergency personnel arrived and found a 12-year-old male — later identified as Fisher — who had received an injury from “an accidental discharge of a firearm,” the release said.

Efforts were made to resuscitate the victim at the scene. He was pronounced dead at St. Vincent Randolph Hospital in Winchester.

According to the report, Mitchell A. Gilliland, 36, told officers he “was placing a rifle in a gun cabinet when it discharged, striking the victim in the chest.”

A preliminary investigation by the sheriff’s department and the Randolph County coroner’s office “indicates that the event was accidental in nature,” according to the release.

Kyle Fisher would have been a seventh-grader at Modoc Union-Senior High School this fall, according to an obituary.

His survivors include his father and seven siblings.

19 comments:

  1. Every gun in the hands of a child must first pass through the hands of an adult. Another "law abiding gun owner" who made another deadly mistake with his "freedom phallus".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. About 600 a year of those accidents happen. That's out of 100,000,000+ gun owners. You claim to be a statistician. Tell us the percentage.

      Delete
    2. Greg, don't you like my idea that we cannot limit our concern to only those killed? Those gravely affected by the 600 deaths are about twenty times that.

      Delete
    3. I like none of your ideas, Mikeb. Each of them is bad. In this case, you have no evidence to support that "twenty times" claim, while I offer actual data.

      Delete
    4. Regardless of the factor you multiply by, it doesn't change the ratio of gun owners who are being irresponsible, Mike. Yes, you're showing All of the far flung ripples of the event, but that doesn't change the fact that this is a statistically rare occurrence.

      Also, it's only fair and reasonable to apply the same evaluations to various other uses of a gun. After all, in a proper defensive shooting, there are a number of lives affected positively--the family and friends of the would be victim who now have not lost a family member to a violent crime, all the good that survivor can now do in his or her life, etc.

      And I suppose you'll come back with one of two things:

      1: The person who gets shot, and his family, suffer negative repercussions. Those are negative repercussions of the attacker's actions. Whether his family loses him to prison, getting shot for attacking someone, or alienation because he's become a violent person that's intolerable to be around, they're going to suffer from his actions, and it's on him, not the cop that arrests him or the would be victim who shoots him.

      2: You may come back and say: "OK, then let's apply this factor to all gun crime!" Fair enough. And now that everything has been multiplied by 20 times, mathematics tells us that to analyze the data, we can just take that factor of twenty out and have the same analysis.

      So, No. I do not like your idea. It makes sense to use the same factor on any gun use, and so we needlessly increase the size of the numbers we're dealing with, doubling them and adding a zero when our next MO is going to be chopping off zeroes to have more manageable numbers?

      Delete
    5. I don't care if you guys want to divide by all the stars in the galaxy. These incidents are not rare enough and with minor inconvenience to you, or none at all, they could be a lot rarer.

      Why do you want to defend these irresponsible and dangerous gun owners? How does what they do reflect on you so that you get so defensive of them?

      Delete
    6. Mikeb, why can't you stop lying about your ideas offering only a minor inconvenience? I've shown you so many times that they're a lot more than that. Of course, you also should stop psychoanalyzing us, since you repeatedly fail to see the complexities of our responses to incidents like this, but that's probably too much to ask of you.

      Delete
    7. Where did my comment defend them? Nowhere.

      However, I find this hilarious: "How does what they do reflect on you so that you get so defensive of them?"

      That's hilarious since you are usually the one telling us that we bear responsibility for what others do, and we're the ones saying that we don't bear responsibility for what a bunch of numbnuts do, and we shouldn't share the punishment that they bear.

      Delete
    8. Greg, in my opinion the gun control measures I would like would make for inconvenience, nothing more. That's my opinion. I realize you disagree, or at least you claim to disagree.

      How you can call me a liar for my opinion, I'd like to hear. Please explain.

      Delete
    9. My grandpa always said opinions were like assholes. Everyone has them. This is the first time you've called that "it's just an inconvenience" line an opinion. Before, it's been a fact that we couldn't disprove.

      Delete
    10. Yep, prison is inconvenient alright.

      Delete
    11. Because I have repeatedly shown you the draconian nature of your proposals. I've repeatedly shown you the expense, the bureaucracy, the risks of abuse by government powers, and on and on. I have asked you to name another right that you would tolerate that much burden put on the exercise thereof.

      This leads me to the inescapable conclusion that you are:

      1. Lying

      2. Delusional

      Or

      3. Playing games--which is a lot like #1

      Delete
    12. That's not very nice, Greg. This is a case where you and I have a different opinion. I have not been convinced by your passionate attempts to define inconvenience.

      Delete
  2. "He is the wisest of the Æsir, and the fairest-spoken and most gracious; and that quality attends him, that none may gainsay his judgments."

    Yeah . . . Baldr you ain't, Mr. Penis Jokes.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Baldr,

    If you'll look more closely, you'll see that the child never laid hands on the weapon. So the fault lies on the adult who violated at least two safety rules.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, the kid never laid hands on it, but his chest sure acted as the receiving end of a gunshot. Doesn't that count?

      I think we're all in agreement, except Greg of course. The gun owner is culpable.

      Delete
    2. Don't put words into my mouth, Mikeb. I didn't express an opinion about the gun's owner here. I was focusing on Oregonian's inability to handle data.

      Delete
  4. All a gun owner has to say is "Oh, dear, it accidentally discharged" and that seems to be the end of the investigation. If our gas pedal accidentally sticks and we drive over a person, we are held accountable. Why is killing with a gun, an instrument created and purchased for the sole purpose of killing, not scrutinized? The gun owners always get a pass -- unless they are black and the victim is white. What a sad world we live in. This little boy's life has been snuffed out. My heart aches for all those who love him.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They always get a pass? You don't read much, even here, I take it.

      Delete