4-year-old Surprise (AZ) boy shot in face while playing with gun

[jpak]

http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/28630471d4ac41faa54c6a94a2dba12b/AZ--Boy-Shot/

A 4-year-old boy from the Phoenix suburb of Surprise was shot in the face in what police believe was an accident.

Surprise police spokesman Sgt. Bert Anzini tells the Arizona Republic (http://bit.ly/s26L6u ) that the boy was reportedly alone in a room with a handgun Saturday morning when the weapon discharged.

Other family members were home but not in the same room as the boy.

Anzini says the extent of the boy's injuries aren't yet known but that they don't appear to be life-threatening.

<more>

more gun fun - weeeeeeee!!!111

:thumbsdown:

[midnight]

1. Those little one's are so curious... This breaks my heart...

[onehandle]

2. Clearly 4-year-old boys should be given extensive assault weapon training.

What could go wrong?

[Hepburn]

4. NRA Poster Boy...

...:puke:

Let's hear it for gun rights...even for the mentally ill! Yay!!!! :sarcasm:

His 2nd Amendment Rights are greater than the safety of you, your family, and anyone he choses to kill.

[aikoaiko]

7. It's not the NRA using that image or event to promote a political agenda.

There was and is a mechanism to prevent the mentally ill from purchasing guns from licensed dealers. It wasn't used in the above case.

[Hepburn]

8. That mechanism sure did work well...

...and he was able to enjoy his 2nd Amendment Rights. :sarcasm:

[hack89]

11. What is the flaw in that mechanism and how would you fix it?

how should the law regarding mental health status and gun ownership read?

[SteveM]

44. I don't think Hepburn is particularly interested in fixing anything...

But does seem bent on getting an animosity "fix."

[SteveM]

43. You said: "...gun rights...even for the mentally ill? Yay!!!!" You support this?

That is not very responsible.

I note your sarcasm tag: Either you are announcing your argument is defeated in advance, or you have a tremendous amount of animosity in your heart, and you choose to blow it out in threads like these. Which is it?

I note you do NOT use your sarcasm tag with this: "His 2nd Amendment Rights are greater than the safety of you, your family, and anyone he choses to kill."

This is a false argument since no one has a right to kill "anyone he choses (sic)." If you meant to use the sarcasm tag, then I will assume that this is also an announcement in advance that your argument is defeated.

[ObamaFTW2012]

13. Maybe you aren't aware, but

Jared Loughner came from (ugh) "our side". He wasn't a rightwinger. He wasn't an NRA guy. He was a Giffords campaign worker.

You should pick better examples. That nutty guy in North Carolina (Rudolph?) who attacked abortion doctors would be a better choice, I think.

[iverglas]

15. why are you posting this right-wing meme here?

Jared Loughner came from (ugh) "our side". He wasn't a rightwinger. He wasn't an NRA guy. He was a Giffords campaign worker.


http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/01/jared-lee-loughner-friend-voicemail-phone-message

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/01/jared-lee-loughner-gabrielle-giffords

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/01/giffords-alleged-shooter-made-video-showing-obsession-currency-tea-party-staple

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_big_idea/2011/01/the_tea_party_and_the_tucson_tragedy.html


Google jared loughner giffords campaign and you'll find lots of stuff calling him a "leftist" and associating him with Giffords, but not on credible websites.

It is not the "left" that calls government in the US illegitimate, and that was the core tenet of Loughner's ideology, which would evidently be more accurately called his delusional structure.

[ObamaFTW2012]

18. So the stuff he supposedly wrote on Daily Kos

is just a fabrication? I'm not assigning blame to either end of the political spectrum here. Loughner was a whacko either way. But the little bit I've read/been told was that he was one of our own and a bit unhinged, and he went nuts after Giffords betrayed him for voting against something he wanted. I don't remember what.

Forgive me for not being informed enough to debate this topic.

[iverglas]

20. you don't remember what

Easily found -- on those right-wing websites I mentioned. Allegedly for voting against Nancy Pelosi as speaker.

Links? I don't know what he wrote on Kos.

If you read the links *I* posted, he doesn't seem to have been "a bit unhinged", he seems to have had a delusional illness and to have focused his delusions on issues that we regard as political, as people with delusional illnesses often do.

If you're "not informed enough" to debate a topic, it's wise not to repeat things that may well not be accurate.

[ObamaFTW2012]

21. Fair enough

I'll take the time to thoroughly read through the links, and maybe use my Google-fu on this topic, and I'll revisit this discussion with you at a later date when I can have a more informed opinion on the matter. It won't be tonight or tomorrow, as I am busy planning for work this week, and tomorrow will be the usual Monday barrage of phone calls, emails, and emergency issues, but I will make some time to read up on Loughner.

[SteveM]

42. Who is advocating this? You? You don't seem very responsible. nt

[Hepburn]

3. Guns don't disfigure and maim 4-years olds...

...4-year olds disfigure and maim themselves. Guess the 4-year-old was planning a home invasion robbery and the gun stopped him and no property was lost. Geeeeeeeeeeee....:puke:

Asshole parents...:grr:

[valerief]

10. +1000

[Hoopla Phil]

34. Hey, how's that research project going?

[SteveM]

45. Actually, your own statement gets to the heart of the problem...

The 4-year old DID "disfigure and maim" himself, probably as a result of irresponsible parenting.

You know, of course, that guns do not kill people. It is the people behind guns (or those enabling incompetent persons behind guns) who have the responsibility.

It is so much easier to try to ban/control things than to deal with the actions of irresponsible people. That is what is so intoxicating to prohibitionists.

[provis99]

57. I agree: it's the 4 year old's fault.

You're a real humanitarian, aren't you?

[SteveM]

58. And no where has anyone said it is the "4 year old's fault"...

The 4 year old did shoot himself, but the parents are responsible.

Would you like further explanation, or do you want to score moral points? If it's the former, I'll refer you to what I wrote again; the latter, you get zero (0).

[SteveM]

59. After 5 minutes of screeching equipment, he left, muttering about the soundman...

nt

[flamin lib]

5. Let us prey . . .

Wayne LaPierre, which art NRA,
Hallowed be thy name.
Thy agenda come, thy will be done,
in D.C. as it is in the states.
Give us this day an extended magazine
and give us our opinions,
as we condemn others who differ.
For thine is the Second, and the lobby
and the influence, forever and ever,
Amen

[Leftist Agitator]

6. Which is why you don't leave firearms around small children.

Ever. Keep them under lock and key if there are young children in the home.

[SteveM]

46. Correct. And hide the car keys if they can reach the pedals. nt

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ileus]

12. another reason to alway keep your EDC on your hip or in a safe when home.

[ObamaFTW2012]

14. The blame in this unfortunate story

does not belong to gun owners, gun manufacturers, the NRA, the mayor of Phoenix, the Marine Corps, Jared Loughner, or anyone other group in society. The blame here belongs to the parents, because they failed to keep their firearm secured and their child supervised.

This is a sad story, but it doesn't demonstrate any failure beyond the parents' failure.

[iverglas]

16. so who cares?

There just ain't nuttin' that nobody can do about irresponsible parents letting their kids get at their guns.

No sirreee. Bob.

[ObamaFTW2012]

19. It isn't that there's nothing that can be done,

it's that there is nothing that should be done beyond handling the negligence of the parents.

[iverglas]

22. "handling the negligence of the parents"

Yup. After the kid is dead.

Kid's own damned fault for having such stupid parents.

I'll bet there are laws saying the parents have to put their kids in carseats / seatbelts when they're in a moving vehicle.

it's that there is nothing that should be done

Like I said: who cares?

Evidently not you.

[ObamaFTW2012]

24. Not wanting more government does not equal not caring

Sorry, but that assumption is a logical failure on your part.

If this kid's parents failed to properly supervise him, AND left dangerous cleaning chemicals out and he poisoned himself, OR they left flammable liquids and a lighter out and he lit the house on fire and died, what would be different about the situation, aside from cause of death? Would the parents be any less negligent? Would Dow Chemical or Bic be partly to blame? Should government step in and enact new laws to make cleaning chemical and lighter ownership more difficult? Perhaps a background check before I can buy a Swiffer, or show ID and leave a fingerprint on a ledger when I buy a bottle of bleach?

[iverglas]

25. yes it does

There are actions that can be taken in the realm of public policy that WILL reduce the risk of children causing harm to themselves or others with firearms. Many and varied actions.

You oppose them on the grounds that they are "more government", whatever the hell that means, and whatever your little personal reasons might be for that.

Whatever those little personal reasons are, they are plainly in your interest, for your benefit, and are contrary to the interests of children who are exposed to firearms. Something might inconvenience you or offend your delicate sensibilities, and your convenience and your delicate sensibilities are more important to you than kids' lives.

I don't see much conclusion being possible than that you don't care. Never have, never will.

[ObamaFTW2012]

26. I have a 2 year old

and I also have numerous firearms in my home. Like many other children in American homes with guns, she is quite safe, because I keep my firearms locked up when not carrying them. My firearm are never out of my control, and never accessible to her.

The parents of this poor child in AZ failed to safely store their firearm, and their child paid the price. While tragic, it isn't justification for yet another gun law, but it certainly justifies trying them for negligent homicide.

[iverglas]

27. "it certainly justifies trying them for negligent homicide"

Point that finger, aim that blame.

Dead kid?

Quick! Look over here!

[ObamaFTW2012]

28. Was there a point to that

or was it just some sarcastic, pointless banter?

[iverglas]

30. quick!

Look over there!

I don't see a point, do you see a point??

[SteveM]

47. ..."sarcastic" and "pointless." nt

[spin]

23. Sure there is ...

Hands on firearm safety should be taught in high school. Included in that course could be instruction on storing a firearm safely so as to prevent access by young children. It's not rocket science. Amazon.com sells an inexpensive lock box that will do the trick for a handgun and yet still allow quick access by an adult.


http://www.amazon.com/First-Alert-3035DF-Digital-Security/dp/B000MPO6OY/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1321232406&sr=8-5

It makes absolutely no sense to not discuss firearm safety in a high school classroom in a nation that has as many firearms as citizens. Every high school student should also be required to take a first aid course and learn how to treat a serious injury, to deal with a broken bone and how to perform artificial respiration. Using the simple Heimlich maneuver I have been able to possibly save two people who were choking on food. (One griped because it took me three tries and he complained that I hurt his ribs.)

Of course it could be argued that we should ban and confiscate firearms but the reality is this is unlikely to occur anytime soon in the United States.

Organizations such as the NRA and the Brady Campaign could produce commercials for TV that would emphasize the importance of securing firearms from children. That would save more lives than spending money on propaganda to slam Obama or propaganda to discourage firearm ownership or to say that allowing "shall issue" concealed carry will lead to a return to the Wild West.

[ileus]

17. Well stated...

[mvccd1000]

29. Lies, lies, lies! (Or: "False headline")

I know you're just quoting the headline, jpak, but I notice you picked the only news "source" I've seen that said the child was "shot in the face."


http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/region_west_valley/surprise/4-year-old-surprise-boy-hurt-while-playing-with-gun

Surprise police Sgt. Bert Anzini said the boy was alert and talking with police before he was taken to the hospital for treatment of non-life-threatening injuries after the weapon discharged. Anzini said the injuries the boy sustained indicate he was hurt as a result of the cycling action of the gun and not by the bullet fired from the weapon.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2011/11/12/20111112surprise-child-shot-accident.html

According to police, the boy reportedly was alone in a room with a pistol when the gun discharged. The weapon's action apparently injured the child.

http://www.kpho.com/story/16025166/child-injured-in-accidential-shooting

Authorities in Surprise say a 4-year-old was hurt when he accidentally shot a handgun near his face. Surprise fire spokesman Captain Renee Hamblin said the boy was taken to Del Webb hospital with injuries that are superficial. The boy's father is a Phoenix police officer, said Anzini. The gun involved was not his service revolver.

While the lack of serious injuries in this case do nothing to excuse the negligence of the parents (especially a cop, who should know better!), your choice of the particular (false) headline quoted in the OP continues to show that you're always ready to engage in some fear-mongering, even if it's not based on reality.

[iverglas]

31. I think you want to watch your mouth

Note the timestamp on the OP: 9:39 a.m. on 13 Nov.

Note the timestamp on the first of your links:

"Last Updated: 8 hours and 56 minutes ago"

That makes it just after 2 p.m. on 13 Nov.

Note that the gun discharged when the four-year-old was playing with it.


your choice of the particular (false) headline quoted in the OP continues to show that you're always ready to engage in some fear-mongering, even if it's not based on reality

Note that you have made a direct allegation that the poster intentionally falsified the event.

Do you know for a certainty that the middle sentence in the paragraph you quote:

According to police, the boy reportedly was alone in a room with a pistol when the gun discharged. The weapon's action apparently injured the child. Other family members were home at the time of injury, but not in the same room as the boy, Anzini said.

was in the online article at 9:39 this morning? Perhaps it was; perhaps everyone in the world should know that "the weapon's action" means something other than a gunshot and therefore the sentence should not have been omitted for brevity if that was the case. I doubt that it was the case; my surmise is that the story was updated sometime after 9:39 this morning.

Unless you have knowledge that the poster was aware of other news reports at the time the thread was started, or even had any reason to be aware of or to look for other news reports, or that there even were other news reports containing the information in question, I strongly suggest that you retract that allegation.

[mvccd1000]

32. Read carefully.

I didn't say jpak falsified anything, nor did I call jpak a liar.

I said the headline is "lies, lies, lies," and I pointed out that of all of the news stories online regarding the event, jpak picked the ONLY one that stated the boy was shot in the face.

Can you deny either of those facts?

[iverglas]

33. speak carefully

Your post said:

your choice of the particular (false) headline

You did exactly what I said you did: alleged that the poster intentionally posted a false thing.

You just admitted that:

out that of all of the news stories online regarding the event, jpak picked the ONLY one that stated the boy was shot in the face.

without presenting an iota of anything to rebut the information that I presented you with, and without even acknowledging it. I checked. Nope, it isn't invisible.

Can you do the decent thing and retract that allegation?

[mvccd1000]

38. Perhaps you read differently in your country.

In American, I wrote that jpak chose a particular headline. The parenthesis indicated that the headline was false. This does not change the fact that I stated that jpak chose "a particular headline."

No wonder you have such trouble understanding the correct reading of the 2nd Amendment to our constitution. :)

[iverglas]

40. exactly

This does not change the fact that I stated that jpak chose "a particular headline."


The allegation that the poster CHOSE:

Pick out or select (someone or something) as being the best or most appropriate of two or more alternatives.

An allegation for which you have no basis.


The allegation that the poster intentionally misled.

An allegation for which you have no basis.


If you have this much difficulty understanding what you write yourself ... well, I can't complete that sentence, because that would obviously be a false premise.

[SteveM]

50. Actually, it's called noodling, there. nt

[iverglas]

53. ?

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

apparently one of those southern US things.

I enjoy shooting fish in a barrel more, really.

Of course, neither seems particularly fair, when the target is actually a fish. When it's just a figurative fish, well, I guess it chose its fate.

[SteveM]

54. "Noodling" is also the persistent strumming, tuning, strutting, picking...

of a rock guitarist for an interminable time, not really getting down to the concert or playing a song straight-up; egotistic, self-absorbed, insufferable. A practice once seen at 70s rock shows; not tolerated at punk rock shows. Not often seen, now.

[iverglas]

56. nah

It's catching big dumb slow fish.

[rl6214]

37. Watch out

the hall monitor is in the house.

[friendly_iconoclast]

39. You dare insult the dignity of an Inner Party member?

That's a trip to Room 101, bucko...

[Hoopla Phil]

36. And another jpak thread goes down in flames.

[SteveM]

49. ..."good enough for gubmint work." yup. nt

[rl6214]

35. Wait, didn't you forget something

it's the NRA/GOP fault.

:sarcasm:

[SteveM]

41. You seem to have enjoyed this little boy's death as per your statement...

"more gun fun - weeeeeeee!!!111"

Can you clarify?

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

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

[SteveM]

51. Really, I enjoy...

...seeing the brevity used in defeating your RW piece-of-shit arguments.

[iverglas]

52. wow, a total non sequitur

But just as dumb and ugly as the first volley.

Hurray.

[SteveM]

55. Here's another: Bar-ROOM! nt