Teen playing with gun accidentally shoots boy

Another family made safer by guns - Wayne

* * * * * * * * * *

Teen playing with gun accidentally shoots boy

A 12-year-old boy was shot once in the abdomen Tuesday morning in Northeast Portland by a friend who was playing with a .25-caliber semiautomatic handgun.

The boy was taken to Legacy Emanuel Hospital & Health Center, where he was listed in serious condition Tuesday evening, according to Portland Police Sgt. Brian Schmautz. Police declined to release the boy's name or the name of the shooter.

<more>

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1060776506290580.xml

Take every teenager out of every household and hand them over to the government! I am so pro-teen-control. :P

nt

Child Access Protection - I think any jury would find that the owner was negligent in storing the gun loaded, not locked up, and not under adult supervision.

Slack your placing responsibility on a person.
It was the guns fault right?;-)

shooting. If they lived in England I doubt if the shooting would have taken place, but in America gosh golly gee, one can find guns in gutters and dumpsters and dresser drawers and closets and any number of places. Insanity by any other name is still insanity!

blaming the gun!!

What about the parents?
Should they have left it anywhere accessible?
It’s so much easier to blame inanimate objects, but the real problems never gets solved.

Seriously, I'm not massively anti gun.

Obviously guns don't kill people, people kill people. If the gun owner had stored his weapon securely/properly, this would never have happened. BUT, it also wouldn't have happened if there hadn't been a gun there at all.

The thing is, EVERY SINGLE TIME there is an accidental shooting like this the "pro Gun" people (for want of a better phrase) immediately go "The owner should have taken more responsibility". Owners (no, not all owners, but enough to cause many fatalities) have repeated shown that they are not responsible enough to enjoy the privilege (NOT RIGHT) of owning a gun. Too many people are killed or injured in these accidents.

Work backwards from that - so stricter gun control and training is needed, prior to licensing?

By all means give it a try, but I guarantee that the only way to ensure that guns don't cause injuries and death in accidents is to remove the guns.

I'm not saying you should do it, but merely pointing out the hole in the pro-gun logic.

You can't repeatedly clear the gun and blame the owner without eventually conceding that there are enough irresponsible owners out there to tar the rest of you.

IMHO of course

P.

Are killed in America in gun accidents?

600. Less than car accidents. Less then drowning deaths.

By creating tight gun controls and turning it into a privilege, like you want to, you will likely increase the amount of murders (not necessarily with guns). Not worth the trade-off IMHO.

Now sponsoring safety education...

Seems like "more people are killed by XXXX than guns so therefore we shouldn't regulate guns"

In how many ways are cars designed to avoid harm to the passenger and maximum driving safety? Oh yeah! I forgot. You're in the U.S where the car lobby allows you to drive about in roll over catch fire and burn mobiles. Even so, there are a basic set of safety requirements for motor vehicles in an attempt to minimise accidental death. Should the same not apply to guns?

"you will likely increase the amount of murders" Er? Says who? If that really is your HO surely it's based on some facts? Or is it just a faith thing? You really believe that if all guns were removed that the murder rate would increase?

Under a thousand people in the US are killed accidentally with guns each year. We know that there are a LOT of "defensive guns uses" in the US, although we don't have an exact number that isn't open to debate. Estimates range from 70,000 a year on the low end to over 2,500,000 a year on the high end. I'd rather not get into an argument over how many there are (that's a whole 'nother issue), but would, in this one case and to advance the argument, agree to go with the low end figure.

If there are 70,000 DGUs in the country where people defend themselves with a firearm (and DGUs involve a threat to the life of the victim, otherwise it's not a DGU, it's a crime), fewer than a thousand accidental deaths, and we're going on a utility model, doesn't it seem that that the needs and safety of the 70,000 outweigh the needs and safety of the less than a thousand?

Nearly. Depends whether the DGU was "necessary".

Remember, I live in the U.K and we are largely unarmed. Despite reports to the contrary we're not overun with criminals slaying innocent civilians.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm???

You would most likely remove all LEGAL guns. That's different.

If the gun is to be used as a defensive weapon then it MUST be accesisble? Otherwise we could have trigger locks etc. But the gunners won't have that either.

because of various reasons.

A person observing all four gun safety rules all the time will never accidentally shoot another person.

I can't imagine going though life having killed my friend.

I hope he lives too, but that did pop into my head.

Bet they're all laughing...