Wis. man's rifle fires, killing his 8-year-old son, injuring boy's grandmother with same bullet.

[onehandle]

MILWAUKEE -- Police say a rifle went off as a Milwaukee man removed it from its case, causing a bullet to hit and kill his 8-year-old son, and then continue and injure the man's mother.

Police say the shooting occurred in a home Friday about 8 p.m.

They say the 26-year-old man was taking out the rifle when it fired. The bullet pierced his son's torso, then exited to hit the boy's arm and the woman's arm.

Both victims were rushed to the hospital. The boy died within a few hours. The 64-year-old grandmother suffered injuries not believed to be life-threatening.

http://www.kare11.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=857142

[tularetom]

1. Arlen Specter says it happened this way

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Cry2hN-xUQM/SafykwagvXI/AAAAAAAABTg/MBuRZvHHej0/s400/magic+bullet.jpg

[T Wolf]

3. And then showed up in the hospital with nary a mark on it. Guns (and bullets) don't kill people -

idiots kill people.

[KansasVoter]

14. Wow, I guess this is funny to you?

[tularetom]

18. The guy shooting his son and grandmother is a tragedy

Specter's magic bullet theory is hilarious.

[dmallind]

2. Doubt it.

Guns made in the last century or so are extremely unlikely to "go off". Three or four separate design failsafes would have to fail at the same time - and metal fatigue ain't that consistent even with a poorly maintained gun.

Dollars to donuts this was yet another negligent discharge due to poor gun safety. My money's on the suspicion he kept something else in the case that caught in teh trigger guard. We already KNOW he was negligent because even forgetting safety factors he obviously kept a gun in a condition where it could fire in a case. NO excuse for not making sure it cannot fire by handling alone when putting it away.

If there is more than one true accidental (not negligent) discharge of a gun a year I would be surprised.

[GreenStormCloud]

4. The man violated several gun safety rules.

He did not watch where he had the gun pointed.

He put a gun away loaded. When you put a rifle into a case, you are supposed to unload the rifle first. Instead, he put it away with a round in the chamber.

[jaxx]

5. I hope the man goes to jail for his stupidity.

His son's life snuffed out at age 8...owning a gun isn't worth it.

[GreenStormCloud]

6. There are many dangerous items that we have in our lives.

Many of them kill more kids annually than guns do. One example would be bicycles. Everything has safety rules.

Remember: Stupidity kills.

[jaxx]

8. None more dangerous than a gun in the hands of an idiot.

Guns kill, it's why they're made.

[GreenStormCloud]

9. I would consider a car in the hands of an idiot as more dangerous. N/T

[Statistical]

11. Cars, pools, stairs, household poisons.

They all kill a magnitude more kids each year than guns.

[jaxx]

12. None of that means anything.

It is simply trying to ignore the fact that none of them are made expressly for killing. Guns are.

[dmallind]

15. household poisons are. And what difference does intent make to a dead kid? NT

[Statistical]

19. Guns aren't made for killing

They are made for propelling a projectile at high velocity.

Guns can be used for sport shooting, they can also be used for deterrent or to stop a threat. The number of people killed with guns is a tiny fraction of the number of times guns are used each year. If I fire at an armed intruder it isn't my intent to kill him; it is my intent to stop the threat. If he flees, that is fine, if he gets hit, and lives that if fine. If he is killed by defensive force that is fine too. The goal is simply to stop the threat. Firearm is designed to project force, sometimes that force is lethal but not always (actually rarely it is).

Security guard at a bank may not ever draw his gun in his lifetime however the fact that he is there deters a criminal especially a low skilled one (smash & grab). Even among those shot most do survive.

If guns are MADE for killing well they aren't very well made are they?

[cognoscere]

50. I would add to your definition "with a reasonable expectation of accuracy,

reliability, and safety for the shooter."

[rrneck]

24. Made for killing who? nt

[jaxx]

26. I don't know why people get all fired up about the comment

that guns are made to kill. But they do. All I get is but but but....

[rrneck]

27. Of course they were made to kill.

Who were they made to kill?

edited for clarity

[X_Digger]

30. Special Pleading

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading

aka "It doesn't matter cause it was gunz!"

[Pavulon]

85. Here is a test. Convince your friend to hit you with his car at 75

while you drink a beer. The stuff on the ground will be the same color as if someone fired a pistol point blank into your head.

Dead is dead. This person violated at least 2 of 4 gun laws to get to this point.

[russ1943]

86. Bullshit alert.

Re; summary statement of fact, that “bicycles kill more kids annually than guns”. From Post #6

The number of people killed with firearms far exceeds the number who are killed annually on bicycles (about ten times as many kids, over 40 times as many that are 18 & over). Everything has safety rules. Too bad the gungeon doesn’t have accuracy checks.

http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html WISQARS

[cognoscere]

54. Generally, the only time I chamber a round

is just before I pull the trigger, the theory being that without a cartridge in the chamber, no bullet will be coming out the end of the barrel.

[Callisto32]

7. "Wisconson man fires rifle...."

Fixed it for you.

[jeepnstein]

23. That's more like it.

The yahoo had a loaded rifle, complete with one in the chamber, in a case? I wonder what his logic in storing it that way was? Most likely "I didn't know it was loaded?" What he did was unsafe by any standard and I'm sure he'll pay the price. He owns that bullet now.

We have public safety announcements on condoms, sunscreen, texting while driving, but nothing on the proper and safe storage of firearms? There is a right way and a wrong way to do it and our father in Wisconsin was definitely doing it wrong. There are ways to safely store and handle a firearm that is even intended to be ready for immediate action for defense.

[Statistical]

34. I didn't know it was loaded? - "Unloaded" guns kill more people accidentally than any other type.

4 laws would have come in hand.

1. All guns are always loaded.
2. Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy.
3. Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target.
4. Be sure of your target and what is beyond it.

—Jeff Cooper

He violated all 4.

[Statistical]

10. What does this have to do with gun legsilation.

What Constitutional gun legislation would have prevented this?

[KansasVoter]

16. And why don't you say the same thing when a pro-gun story is posted?

[dmallind]

17. Perhaps because "pro-gun stories" actually speak to the topic of the forum?

In that they generally demonstrate legal self-defense.

After all it's not "a forum for discussion of....idiots who have negligent discharges".

Laws are already in place to punish such behavior, and rightly so.

[KansasVoter]

28. You are wrong......

First off, none of them are being moved so I guess the admin is fine with them.

Here is the definition of this forum.....
"Discussion of gun-related public policy issues or the use of firearms for self-defense belong in the Guns Forum"

Part of gun related public policy I am sure are gun accidents. That falls into this category.

Also, I bet many of the people who shoot themselves or their friends or family accidentally have the guns for self-defense and thus it opens the topic to gun accidents.

[Statistical]

29. So what policy (legislation) would solve this problem? n/t

[KansasVoter]

31. Gun lock laws, Safety Training Laws, Severe Penalty's, Etc.

[Statistical]

32. Severe penalties? More severe than the death of your own child? Really?

Negligence is rarely prevented by the negligent due to severe penalties. It is caused because the person thinks nothing bad will ever happen. If the guy thought his son would be dead he would be safer. If that didn't motivate him you really think a steep fine or jail time would? Still the guy is (state depending) likely looking at homicide charges. That didn't deter the accident though.

Think he was sitting at home going "You know that rifle may go off and kill my son but if it would kill my son AND cost me money well then I might be safer".

Trigger lock laws were found to be Unconstitutional in DC v Heller. It deprives the owner of a lawful use of firearms = self defense. Also not sure a trigger lock would have done anything (usually they prevent accidental firing my UNAUTHORIZED USER). The man was removing the rifle from gun case, if it had a trigger lock likely the next step would have been to remove the lock. Trigger locks, and safes are good for preventing misuse by someone other than the authorized user.

I do agree on more training though.

[KansasVoter]

35. Well....

Yes it is tragic. But so are accidents where people are street racing or drinking or being extremely negligent. And many states will charge you with man slaughter if you are driving crazy and kill someone in your own car. Just the same.

But the fact that we are discussing it means it belongs on this forum.

[Statistical]

39. That is the point you are missing.

It is exactly the same. It already is the law and the law doesn't prevent this any more than it prevents other negligent deaths.

Nobody is saying he should go free he likely will not.

Short of banning, confiscating, and destroying all firearms accidental deaths will occur. Reporting ever single one doesn't change that. It doesn't change the opinion of people who believe you don't ban a right simply because a very small number of people are killed.

[KansasVoter]

40. You said more training would be good.

So maybe people post accidental gun story's to make that discussion.

Or to increase the punishment of people who are careless by leaving loaded guns accessible to kids.

Understand?

[Statistical]

49. No. That isn't the intent. Nice try though.

The punishment for negligent homicide is severe as is the death of child.

You can't legislate responsibility. If you could nobody would have unwanted children or unpaid debts.

Accidental firearm deaths are at a 30 year low. They don't even rank in the top of childhood deaths. That number will never go to 0. The point of the OP is simply "guns = bad".

[KansasVoter]

52. You might be the most illogical person on here.....

Are you saying no person has ever been charged with an accidental gun shooting?

So a parent who leaves a loaded gun on the kitchen table 100% of the time should not be charged with a crime if the kid shoots himself?

What do you think to child proof caps on drugs? If you were in charge you would have said "accidents happen, you can never stop drug accidents" and no cap would have been invented. Wow, you are really desperate on this gun issue.

[Statistical]

57. Where did you get that from? Maybe the fact that you don't read is why everyone is "illogical".

Try again
"The punishment for negligent homicide is severe as is the death of child."

THE PUNISHMENT FOR NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE IS SEVERE.
THE PUNISHMENT FOR NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE IS SEVERE.
THE PUNISHMENT FOR NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE IS SEVERE.
THE PUNISHMENT FOR NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE IS SEVERE.
THE PUNISHMENT FOR NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE IS SEVERE.
THE PUNISHMENT FOR NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE IS SEVERE.
THE PUNISHMENT FOR NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE IS SEVERE.
THE PUNISHMENT FOR NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE IS SEVERE.
THE PUNISHMENT FOR NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE IS SEVERE.

That implies the appropriate crime for a death involving negligence with firearm is NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE which is ALREADY a crime and ALREADY has a severe punishment. Negligent homicide with a firearm shouldn't be a greater or lesser crime than ANY other negligent homicide. It is already a crime and has nothing to do with guns; it has to do with negligence.

If one parent leaves a loaded weapon in the hands of a child and the other leaves a stripped electrical cord they are BOTH negligence in the homicide of their child. It isn't a gun control issue it is a negligence issue.

You aren't advocating "pool control" or "power tools control", or "stair control", or even "electrical wire control" despite the fact that drowning and falling are the primary sources of childhood death and accidental gun deaths aren't even in the top 10.

[KansasVoter]

59. I stopped reading after your first all caps yell. What about the bottle cap example? And....

lawnmowers have safety mechanisms. So do nail guns. LOL....thanks for making my point. Maybe guns should also.

[Statistical]

62. guns do have safety devices.

If the gun is no loaded it absolutely can not fire.
If the persons doesn't pull the trigger the weapon will not fire.
If the weapon is not aimed at anything life threatening nobody will be injured if it does fire.

I thought you said you have shot firearms? How could you use firearms and be unfamiliar with the fact that they have safety devices?

I guess your claim of having used firearms is fraud just like the mail fraud you are/were planning to perpetrate?

Negligence is already a crime. No special "gun negligence" statute is needed. The father would be equally negligence if he killed his kid with a nail gun, lawn mower, handgun, or simple bathtub.

[KansasVoter]

64. There is your famous logic......

Once again, no addressing of the other products that have safety devices.

You would say "duhhhhhh, pill bottle safe, no pills in it, cannot hurt person"

But yet they still put protective caps on them.

You would say "nail gun safe, no nails in it, cannot hurt person"

But they still have safety device on them.

Need I go on?

[Statistical]

65. firearms HAVE safety devices. You are aware of that right? Anyone who has fired a rifle would know

Which leads me to believe your claim to have shot firearms is simply part of your tendency to commit fraud.
You have never shot a firearm have you? If you have then you would be aware that firearms have safety devices.

An example to refresh your "memory". Rotating it to "safe" doesn't make you house safe by auto-killing all the bad guys.

However a safety doesn't force someone to use it; like the father obviously didn't. That is why we call it NEGLIGENCE.

[KansasVoter]

68. So hell, how are kids ever shot? And why do they sell trigger locks then? My.....

answers have to be pissing you off because I always an one step ahead of you!

[Statistical]

69. What is the goal of a trigger lock? What is the goal of a safety?

Once you "remember" (kinda hard to remember when you have never touched a firearm you will have your answer.

Hint:
Google might help your "memory" and nobody will be wiser about the fact that you have shown a complete lack of understanding about how firearms even function.

[KansasVoter]

72. I am done with you today. After constantly countering you I get wore out.....

I am sure we will have something to fight about tomorrow.

It is like my 2 year old saying "why" one million times.

[Statistical]

73. So you don't know.

Just wanted you to admit that first. Everyone knows you haven't ever seen a firearms so you can drop the whole "concerned shooter" fraud.

A safety prevents the ACCIDENTAL use of a firearm while engaged but does nothing to control access.
A lock (either safe, trigger lock, chamber lock, gunbox, etc) prevents the UNAUTHORIZED use of firearm (negligent or otherwise).

Obviously both a safety and trigger lock can be "defeated" by the owner. An owner can unlock the gun, and an owner can turn off the safety. Likewise an owner can fail to lock the gun up to begin with or fail to ever engage the safety.

[KansasVoter]

75. Done today. Come back tomorrow.

[rrneck]

33. How would gun lock laws be enforced? nt

[KansasVoter]

36. If you kid found a gun and shot himself and a friend and there was no gun lock you go to jail!

[rrneck]

37. What if the kid beat the lock? nt

[KansasVoter]

41. Then the parent did their due diligence. No crime!

[rrneck]

44. Can you explain how that law would be implemented? nt

[KansasVoter]

45. I told you already!

[rrneck]

48. How would the state determine due diligence? nt

[KansasVoter]

67. Simplified for you.....

If gun was found by kid, kid shoots self, no trigger lock on gun, parent goes to jail.

Kid does not find gun, kid is not shot, no one goes to jail.

Kid finds gun, gun had trigger lock, key in trigger lock, kids shoots granny, parent goes to jail.

Kid finds gun, gun has trigger lock, no key around, kid jimmy's trigger lock open, kid shoots self, no one goes to jail.

There are things called jury's who can work this out.

[Statistical]

71. You will support equal punishment for all other negligent deaths right?

Parents are charged with negligent homicide for all negligent deaths committed by their children no matter the method.

Yes or no?

[KansasVoter]

74. Done today. Come back tomorrow.

[rrneck]

78. You failed to answer the question.

Try again.

Here's a hint: It's not that simple.

[Statistical]

38. How do you reconcile that with trigger lock requirements are Unconstitutional?

Why limit it to guns. If you kid finds anything dangerous and kills anyone with it then you go to jail.

Given accidental firearm deaths among children are extremely low why single out firearms. If you kid finds a knife, or poison, or car keys, or power tools, or heavy object and kills someone with it you go to jail. How about that?

[KansasVoter]

42. See, we are discussing ir. Thanks for making my point!

[Statistical]

51. Are we going ot discuss it the very next day when the same OP post the same story with differnet

city?

The next day, the next day, the next day, the next day.

[MisterBill45]

81. A few things

First, it's already a crime, and a serious one, to injure or kill someone with negligence.

Any time your negligence results in injury or death, you will already be prosecuted under existing law which has nothing specifically to deal with firearms. Negligent homicide isn't particular about the cause of death. So once again, you're preaching making laws that would be both redundant AND especially target one group SOLELY because of the object used, despite that accidental firearms deaths among children are way, way, WAY down the list in terms of numbers of injuries and fatalities. Once more, these are solutions looking for a problem.

Second, where they have trigger lock laws in place, only people who are already cautious about safety or diligent about following firearms laws pay any attention to them. It's a righteous pain in the ass to put a trigger lock on the home defense shotgun when I go to the store for 5 minutes and I DO NOT WANT my primary home defense weapon to be locked up when I'm home. I have no kids, why do I have some clown insisting that "it's for the children" when I have none here?

Finally, trigger locks last about 30 seconds if you aren't particular about scratching the finish of the gun. Any enterprising ten-year-old with a screw-driver can defeat one easily. Cabinets work better, but even so, only if you're talking about little kids. The older ones will swipe the key if they are determined to do so.

You cannot legislate good parenting and you can't ban stupidity with a law. Trying to do so is tilting at windmills.

[Straw Man]

58. Gun locks? Like trigger locks?

Trigger locks are notoriously fallible. Some firearms--lever action rifles, for example--can be fired with a trigger lock in place. An improperly placed or poorly fitting lock will also allow any firearm to be fired.

I can think of few things more dangerous than attempting to put a trigger lock on a loaded firearm, or take one off, for that matter. Yet if gun locks are mandated, certainly some jackasses will try to do just that.

Cable locks that run through the action are much safer. Yet mandating the use of any kind of locking device pretty much rules out any self-defensive use of firearms. Furthermore, unannounced home searches will be required if such laws are to be enforced: "Knock-knock: Gun Lock Police!" And if they are only to be enforced in the case of accidents, they certainly can't be seen to be preventive. No one thinks he/she is going to have an accident, and therefore a penalty is only applied in the case of an accident has no effective deterrent force.

This man is guilty of criminal negligence. Add some years to his sentence if you like, but don't use his stupidity as an excuse for ineffective and intrusive legislation.

[Glassunion]

13. #107 copy paste story with no point.

[KansasVoter]

43. The pro-gun stories do the same thing.

[Glassunion]

80. On the whole, there is usually a comment or topic of discussion

along with the copy and paste from the news stories.

It's a discussion forum. My thinking is that if you are going to copy and paste a news story, how about you include a little something to discuss? I feel that way on both sides of the argument. But that is just me.

Let's take the topic at hand and look at the OP. Is the OP trying to convey that rifles go off by themselves? Is the OP trying to convey a point about gun-control? Is the OP trying to convey that there are stupid people in the world? Is the OP trying to convey the magic bullet theory? Is the OP trying to convey that the man should/should not have been arrested? Is the OP trying to convey that all guns are bad? Is the OP trying to convey that rifles should not be stored loaded?

I cannot say as all of the above would be speculation. I have yet to read from the poster what their feelings are towards gun control. Only that guns are bad without anything but anecdotal evidence.

[rrneck]

82. The OP has given up

trying to say anything of substance because he has nothing to offer.

[AtheistCrusader]

20. Negligent Homicide.

Didn't follow the rules, someone got shot. That's what happens when you don't follow the rules. That's why there are rules.

If he'd at least followed:

2. Never point a gun at anything you aren't willing to destroy.

it could have 'gone off' (meaning, he could have pulled the trigger, as he likely did) and likely no one would have been hurt at all, save their ears.

This one is egregious enough, based on the facts as presented in the article, I hope he is prosecuted.

[slackmaster]

21. Unrec for badly written headline and lack of relevance to the Guns forum

:nuke:

[KansasVoter]

46. Accidental Gun Deaths Are Part Of The Gun Issue!

[MisterBill45]

55. OK, glad to see you care about firearms safety.

Therefore you'll have no problems asking your local school board to allow some certified trainers into classrooms to give age-appropriate classes on safety right? You won't object to a rifle marksmanship program at the local high school where they drill safety into your head so well it becomes automatic behavior right?

[KansasVoter]

56. No, I think parents should do that for their kids if they have guns on the house.......

Since gun accidents are so low, according to this place, then kids should have drug safety, driving safety, etc taught first.

But I agree gun safety is a part of this forum.

[Statistical]

60. Kids do have drug safety and driving safety tought.

Also no gun in the home doesn't prevent negligent gun deaths unless your child never leaves the home.

Why do you want kids killed by guns because they lack the necessary education to make safe decisions?
Why should parents be negligently allowed to deny their children from life saving education?

[KansasVoter]

61. My school does not do drivers training......

Except as an optional after school paid activity. Guns should be the same thing.

I am in favor of gun safety training. Just not mandatory by the school. Optional is fine.

[Statistical]

63. So you want negligent parents to be able to endager their children?

Sounds good.

[MisterBill45]

66. There is a program like I described

It's called the Eddie Eagle program and it's done for free. It's especially aimed at youngsters 8 and under. The instructor comes in, sometimes with the Eddie Eagle in costume, sometimes not, and gives a talk on guns and gun safety. It's completely non-political and makes no mention about any right to keep and bear arms or anything else. It's specifically designed to be uncontroversial and non-partisan.

Most schools won't allow it at all. Even though it's free, even though it's only a brief interruption to one school day, even though it's been demonstrated to work at imparting a safety message to kids.

Three guesses and two don't count as to why this isn't allowed in these schools...the NRA sponsors it. -Can't have that can we. But it's perfectly ok to bombard the kids with anti-gun propaganda, which happens every day.

[KansasVoter]

70. Do they hold them outside of school also? Sounds like a good program.

[MisterBill45]

76. Personally I'm not certified to teach Eddie Eagle

So I can't give you chapter and verse on when and where. The NRA's website should have info on it though. I know the literature, which I believe is comic book-based, is available.

Personally I teach any kid between the ages of 8 and 13 for free and encourage parents to bring their kids to home firearm safety courses so they can learn about safety too. I know other instructors who do the same thing, not to mention volunteering at various marksmanship events as range safety officers etc.

You will find that most of us real gun-nuts are safety zealots. I've rarely raised my voice to another person in anger, but I bark like a Drill Sergeant when I see someone being unsafe at with a firearm, no matter who it is. But, like driver safety training, all the knowledge in the world won't help if you don't bother to apply it.

[KansasVoter]

77. Thanks for the information. And it is nice....

of you to teach kids for free. I appreciate the information. I found the link on the NRA site.

[slackmaster]

79. So, have you found any posts in which I said that more people owning guns would reduce murder rates?

Or have you given up on that one?

[ixion]

22. Yet another tragedy because some idiot doesn't know how to handle a gun

If he had bothered to take a gun safety course, his child might still be alive today.

The barrel of a gun NEVER -- but NEVER -- points at anyone. EVER.

It's that simple.

[rrneck]

25. Unrec for pointless propaganda.

Add a comment, contribute to the discussion, or it's just spam.

[KansasVoter]

47. Even the NRA tracks laws concerning issues related to Accidental shootings....

Massachusetts: State Supreme Court upholds trigger-lock law

http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/InTheNews.aspx?ID=13545

This topic is definitely related to guns. People here who are pro-gun just do not want to admit it.

[MisterBill45]

53. for all you hysterics

This is simply a case of someone being stupidly irresponsible with a tool that if not used properly can hurt others. He violated every single basic safety rule, any ONE of which would have prevented this tragedy.

1. Always keep guns unloaded until ready to shoot or conceal carry
2. Always keep the muzzle pointed in a safe direction
3. Keep your finger off the trigger until ready to fire.

He absolutely violated rules 1 and 2. Three is probable but it's impossible to tell from the story.

Accidental discharges of firearms are virtually non-existent they are so rare. There are only negligent discharges.

This is gun safety 101 stuff than any 8-year-old can grasp easily. I hope they charge him with murder.

[proteus_lives]

83. Ban men from Milwaukee. It's the only way we'll be safe.

[Statistical]

84. Ban cases. It happened when he took it out of the case.

I blame the cases. They are a menace to society. I mean who knows what is inside a case until you open it. If you got nothing to hide then why have the case?

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.