Tuesday, October 25, 2011

Child accidentally brings gun to NY school

This one wins the prize for the most ridiculous headline as well as the most ridiculous outcome.

The child of a retired New York City police officer accidentally brought a loaded gun to school in her backpack after her mother put it there and forgot about it.

Police were called to the Transfiguration School in Chinatown on Tuesday morning. The little girl had a .25-caliber pistol in her backpack, but did not realize it was there. Police say the mother, a retired officer, doesn't know why she put the gun inside the backpack, but had forgotten about it when she sent her daughter off to school.

The NYPD is doing an internal investigation. No one was injured. No arrests were made.
Isn't the stupidity of the act exactly the same when no one is injured as when someone gets killed? Shouldn't the response be the same? One strike you're out.

Allowing a kid access to a gun is a big "strike." The only "accident" here was that no one was shot.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.


  1. Yes. She should have her gun right removed for endangering her child and any child that comes in contact with her. That means a desk job for this cop. Anything less is lip-service to concern for children. If this person makes this level of mistake, what other mistakes has she made with her firearm?

  2. Police officers, even retired police officers, are special citizens under New York law. They are exempt from most gun laws as well as have other special perks not enjoyed by the lower forms of citizenry.

  3. According to the news story, the mom is retired, so she can't be fired. The "I forgot it was in there" excuse sounds more like cover for the little girl. A .25 semi-auto pistol can be quite small and might easily fit into a little girls hand.

    I doubt that we will ever know the truth.

  4. "The only "accident" here was that no one was shot. "

    Really so you are saying someone SHOULD have been injured because of this mistake. Are you really that petty.

  5. DAG, the comment means that it is an accident no one WAS shot is an observation that there was a big risk here, and it is fortunate random chance that someone was NOT shot in these circumstances rather than as a result of deliberate decisions.

    There is nothing petty about that, whatsoever.

  6. dog gone if that was the intent of the writer then they chose their words poorly. "The only "accident" here was that no one was shot. " Accident denotes an unintended actions, A mistake, or an outcome that was out of the ordinary. Shooting a kid who brings a gun to school is not the default Standard operating procedure for anyone, especially if the kid is cooperative.

    so if the author of the article intended to say that it was luck that the situation did not turn out worse than it did, they did not chose their wording well.

  7. DAG, it seemed very clearly the intent of the writer to me, but I can see how you could read it differently.

    I will leave it to MikeB to clarify if I correctly understood him or not, but I think my reading of it is more reasonable.

  8. Nah, I don't want to clarify anything. DAG knows perfectly well what I said and what it means. He's just doing what he does to disrupt and divert the discussion away from the fact that the retired ex-cop was in the wrong. DAG wants it to be about whether or not I WANTED a kid to be killed.

    Pretty silly, no?