Wednesday, May 30, 2012

Accidental Shooting of Ohio 3-Year-old by Himself - No Charges

The Port Clinton News Herald reports

A three-year-old boy died Tuesday morning at Akron Children’s Hospital following an accidental shooting at his home Monday evening.

According to Knox County Sheriff David Barber, a 911 call was received at the sheriff’s office at 6:04 p.m. Monday reporting that a three-year-old boy had shot himself in the head with a handgun.

Barber called his death an unfortunate accident.

Capt. David Shaffer stated in a news release that a 45-caliber handgun was involved in the shooting. It was recovered at the residence. Shaffer said the investigation is continuing as detectives have yet to interview the child’s parents.
What's your opinion? Do you think it's accurate to call something like this "an unfortunate accident?" Doesn't that imply that bad luck had something to do with it? Doesn't that downplay the negligence of the gun owner who left the gun within reach of the kid?

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment.

16 comments:

  1. The police have yet to interview the parents. You say no charges, but that's no charges yet. We'll see.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ah, c'mon, it was just an unfortunate accident. It could happen to any of you guys.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And you could slip on ice and break your head. Shall we then ban sidewalks? How about winter?

      Delete
    2. Greg, we looked into it, but trying to ban sidewalks isn't as profitable for us as getting rid of guns is.

      Delete
    3. Profitable how? You guys are the dupes of the gun manufacturers and the NRA, who are motivated by profit.

      Delete
    4. Mikeb, you're taking a joke seriously. But no, we're not dupes. Gun manufacturers participate in the market system of this country, as do I. The NRA advocates for our rights. We all understand this.

      Delete
  3. Profitable how? Why from the Joyce Foundation, of course. Josh is getting his check. Ladd's getting his. We're all getting nearly free money. Wait, you're not doing this for free are you?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Darwin strikes again. Gun in the house - dead kids. Can't happen soon enough for me. The Darwin dads buy the guns, and then they expect sympathy when their kid offs themselves. Not from me. You buy a gun, too bad loser - your kid is dead, but the NRA is happy, and that is all that matters for gun wacks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. POed Lib, there are at least a hundred million gun owners in America and some 300,000,000 guns, and yet, these incidents are rare. If you read an article about a black man who robbed a store and concluded that all black people are bad, that would be racism. But you make the same kind of hasty generalization about gun owners and have no qualms about what you've done.

      By the way, since I have no children, you have no problem with my owning guns, right?

      Delete
    2. I have a big problem with your owning guns, Greg. And that has to do with your attitude about "defending" yourself even before lethal threat has been ascertained. You're one of the dangerous ones, you're part of the problem.

      Delete
    3. 1. Fortunately, you don't get to make that decision. That's part of the reason that I oppose may-issue systems. It allows the government to take away rights because the bureaucrats just don't like someone.

      2. If someone breaks into my home, that person has committed a violent act. You want me to endanger myself more by waiting for the person to commit another violent act? That's foolish.

      3. In public, the rules are different. People have the right to be in a public space, so an act that justifies the use of a firearm has to be something that puts me or another innocent person in immediate danger. (Breaking into my home puts me in immediate danger.)

      So what's your problem?

      Delete
    4. Wow, so in your famous 10% (or rather, I think it is up to 50% now), are you saying Greg is one of the people who should be disarmed?

      Delete
    5. Greg it's not because they "just don't like someone." You sound like a little baby. They deny permits because they think someone is unfit. If I were the one deciding about you, I'd consider you're ideas about when it's legit to kill someone a disqualifier.

      When someone breaks into a home, they are NOT always a serious threat. As a gun owner it's your moral, if not legal, responsibility to determine that with the utmost care. Your blustering bravado about blowing people away is inappropriate.

      TS, we're talking about the carry permit not about disarming people.

      Delete
    6. MikeB: "I have a big problem with your owning guns, Greg."

      Delete
    7. If I don't have a carry license, I'm legally disarmed in public, so yes, we're talking about disarming people. But Mikeb, you feel free to regard someone who breaks into your home as a person who is there for friendly purposes. In fact, why don't you invite criminals over to break in for tea or a cup of sugar?

      This isn't blustering. You don't live in the real world. Anyone who breaks in--with the exception of an obvious emergency like rescuing a child from a burning building or the like--has committed an act of violence. Why can't you see that?

      Delete
    8. Why can't you admit that there's a big difference between a home invader intent on rape and murder and one who comes there for "friendly purposes?"

      We've seen several stories of drunken people who are simply lost.

      You want everything to be black and white. It ain't like that, man.

      Delete