4-Yr.-Old Maryland Boy Finds Gun, Kills Sister

[Maddy McCall]

09/28/03 11:29
By Sarah Brumfield
Associated Press

LANDOVER, Md. (AP) - A 4-year-old boy found a loaded gun in his family's house and fired it through the front door, killing his 5-year-old sister and seriously wounding another boy, authorities said.

An older sister had seen the child pick up the semi-automatic handgun in the house Saturday night and had rushed the other children outside to try to protect them, but the bullet went through the door, hitting them, said Prince George's County police spokeswoman Cpl. Diane Richardson.

The two wounded children stumbled across the street and collapsed in a neighbor's driveway, she said. Kimberly Brice was pronounced dead after arrival at a hospital.

***snip

``We're still trying to determine where the parents were'' during the shooting, Richardson said. The older sister who was with the children was 10 years old. The mother of the three siblings went to one of the hospitals after the shooting, Richardson said. A man lives in the house as well, she said, but it wasn't clear Sunday what his relationship to the woman or the children is.



http://webcenters.compuserve.com/gatewaynet/news/story.jsp?floc=FF-APO-1110&idq=/ff/story/0001/20030928/113082899.htm&sc=1110

[LeftistGorilla]

1. I might be wrong here....

doesn't this kind of stuff happen all the time in The US?

still tragic...but I always thought that these types of shootings happen often in a society where a large portion of the population is armed...

[DODI]

2. Canada is well armed --

it don't happen there. What do they got that we haven't got?

[rook1]

5. Never?

There has never been a reported accidental child shooting in Canada? Never?
The parents, and I use the term loosely, of these children should be brought up on charges for neglect. I have several firearms and both of my son's are well versed in their use and the safety issues that go along with firearms. All of my guns are locked in a safe...at all times.The gene for common sense seems to have been dropped somewhere along the line...will it ever come back?

[HawkerHurricane]

8. What do they got that we haven't got?

Parental supervision, I'd say.

[7th_Sephiroth]

28. People

responsible enough to use trigger locks and actually unload the gun, perhaps.

[NickB79]

Actually, not that often

The US crime rate has been falling for the past decade, since the early 1990's. The crime stats they released this past winter were showing that the US crime rate has fallen to the lowest it's been since the 1970's or so. The same goes for accidental shootings like this one, they have been on the decline. While they are very tragic, (and I feel the parents should be brought up on charges for leaving a loaded weapon in reach of a child), they don't happen THAT frequently.

I believe Michael Moore made some good points about things like this in "Bowling for Columbine." He mentioned how the US and Canada have roughly the same rate of guns-per-person, but the US crime rate is much higher. He suggested it was because of the media hyping fear to the American people, prompting them to (among other things) purchase more guns for self-defense and adopt a shoot first, ask questions later mentality.

[SWPAdem]

3. It's obvious

that the four year old was just exercising his constitutional right to self defense from his older siblings. <sarcasm meter off>

The article I read says that the little perp is in police custody...day care slammers must be the next area for privatization.

[LivingInTheBubble]

22. Its also likely

though maybe not obvious that the kid was used to playing with toy guns and watching them being used in the media. I would say that pro-gun conditioning has to take some responsibility here.

[rook1]

24. Nope

It is not the fault of the gun makers, the media, sunspots,movies,TV shows,Aliens or any one of ten thousand excuses. The parents were negligent, plain and simple. They left a deadly weapon where a child could get a hold of it.
If I give my car keys to a 10 year old child and tell him/her to drive down to the store...who is at fault? The car maker? I don't think so.Responsibility and accountability.

[bleedingheart]

4. I wasn't able to view the article but I feel for the parents

and at the same time I think that it was not a good idea to leave a weapon where a 4 year old can get it.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

6. BREAKING NEWS:

The district attorney immediately went on television and stated they would be tough on crime and are considering trying the 4 year old youth as an adult!

Sorry couldn't resist.

This is tragic...what is even more tragic is how a four year old got a hold of a semi automatic handgun.

[Gimel]

12. Indeed. Far too lax gun laws

This is another example of the need for the gun control law. The article I read said that authorities were considering charging the parents for leaving a gun where children could find it and for leaving the three under age 7 children alone.

[DoNotRefill]

19. Ummm...sounds like there are already laws in place....

regarding leaving a gun with an unattended child. If there weren't, the parents couldn't be prosecuted for doing that.

What kind of additional gun laws would have prevented this?

[Jack The Tab]

7. Ashcroft to seek death penalty...

His first question "was the boy christian?" second question "was the boy white?"

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

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

[rook1]

25. Maybe he does

but it has nothing to do with what is being discussed here.

[Cush]

9. this an example

of piss poor parenting. They should be charged.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

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

[JackDragna]

21. The data in "More Guns, Less Crime"..

..has been thoroughly debunked. We have the highest rate of gun ownership in the western world, yet we have the worst violent crime rate. If guns made society safer, we'd have the safest society in the world. Guns bought for protection are more likely to be stolen or used in a crime against someone in the household than they ever are to be used against that dirty burglar archetype that's an amalgam of all the bad guys you've seen in the movies. Want real protection? Sell the gun and buy a dog.

[Character Assassin]

23. Quite incorrect....

The data in "More Guns, Less Crime has been thoroughly debunked.

Debated? Certainly. Disputed? You bet. Debunked? Hardly. Depends on how well one understands statistics and which partisan one happens to follow.

Guns bought for protection are more likely to be stolen or used in a crime against someone in the household than they ever are to be used against that dirty burglar archetype that's an amalgam of all the bad guys you've seen in the movies.

Ah, I see the tired old myths still refuse to die. Please support the contention about a gun bought for protection being more likely to be used against someone in the household.

[MrBenchley]

32. Tell it to Mary Rosh...

Lott's study has been totally debunked....and if you want support for that contention, look at the Kellerman study.

[quisp]

49. a gun in the home significantly increase the likelyhood

the gun being used on a family member.

check out the following link. (It was at the top of a google search, there are lots of other sources.)
http://www.prairienet.org/cchcc/gunfacts9.htm

here are snips:
"A 1997 American Journal of Public Health study showed that family members that had a history of buying a handgun from a licensed dealer were twice as likely to die in a suicide or homicide as were persons similarly situated who had no such family history of gun purchase. This increased risk persisted for more than five years after the handgun was purchased."

"One, published in The New England Journal of Medicine, found that having a gun in the home made it nearly three times more likely that someone in the family will be killed. This risk is particularly high for women, who are more likely to be killed by a spouse, intimate acquaintance, or close relative."

[Romulus]

50. those same

websites all cite the same tired sources: the two Kellerman studies that lumped all deaths of a household member (suicide, homicide, car crash, whatever) into deaths "correlated" to firearms ownership by any other household member.

NO distinction whether the same gun killed the householder, if the gun was even legally owned, where it was kept, what got the householder killed (i.e. their own drug deal gone bad), etc. The same studies that found a higher correlation between renting a home and being killed than the "gun=death" correlation.

:boring:

[MrBenchley]

53. Gee rom, the only thing tired about those studies

is the same tired lies about them the RKBA crowd keep spouting..

[jody]

51. ROFLMAO Your quote means that people should not buy handguns

from a licensed dealer if they want to reduce their risk of suicide or homicide. That can only mean "buy handguns from friends or criminals".

You said "A 1997 American Journal of Public Health study showed that family members that had a history of buying a handgun from a licensed dealer were twice as likely to die in a suicide or homicide as were persons similarly situated who had no such family history of gun purchase."

That's your quote, now live with it. :-) :D :7

[CO Liberal]

52. Not Quite, Jody

You said "A 1997 American Journal of Public Health study showed that family members that had a history of buying a handgun from a licensed dealer were twice as likely to die in a suicide or homicide as were persons similarly situated who had no such family history of gun purchase."

I believe this refers to those who did not purchase any handgun at all. In other words, a gun in the home does NOT make you safer - in fact, quite the opposite is true.

[MrBenchley]

54. Yeah, but where would the RKBA crowd be

without distortion and spin?

[jody]

55. CO, are you putting words into the authors mouth? The article did not

cite a source, therefore the sentence stands as written. The interpretation I gave is proper in context and under those circumstances.

[CO Liberal]

56. No - YOU'RE Putting Words In The Author's Mouths

By having "no such family history of gun purchase", that implies NO PURCHASE AT ALL - whether from a licensed or unlicensed seller.

[jody]

57. Please parse the quote again.

QUOTE
"A 1997 American Journal of Public Health study showed that family members that had a history of buying a handgun from a licensed dealer were twice as likely to die in a suicide or homicide as were persons similarly situated who had no such family history of gun purchase."
UNQUOTE

The phrase "no such family history of gun purchase" is the complement to "family members that had a history of buying a handgun from a licensed dealer".

Please tell me how that assertion is not true. :shrug:

[CO Liberal]

58. Please Show Me Where The Authors Reference "Friends or Criminals"

That was YOUR addition, Jody.

As a technical writer for more than 20 years, I believe in presenting the facts.

[jody]

59. I added nothing to the authors sentence, I repeate the quote. Please

tell me how the author did not define one subset of a population, i.e. those who had purchased handguns from a licensed dealer, and then talked about the remaining part of the population, the complement of the subset. "friends and criminals" are part of the complement.

If the author intended to compare one subset of a population with another subset of a poppulation, the author is obligated to define both subsets. In this instance, the author did not do that and I'm not at fault, the author is if his/her written words did not convey his/her message. :shrug:

[CO Liberal]

60. You're Assuming "Friends and Criminals" Is The True Complement

I'm assuming the true complement is those who did NOT purchase handguns.

[CO Liberal]

61. Let's Go Back to the Original Article

Here's the quote in its original context. The original quote is in italics. Underlining emphasis is mine.

Studies by public health professionals have repeatedly found that having a gun around for any reason increases the likelihood that a family member - as opposed to a criminal - will be inured or killed with a gun. A 1997 American Journal of Public Health study showed that family members that had a history of buying a handgun from a licensed dealer were twice as likely to die in a suicide or homicide as were persons similarly situated who had no such family history of gun purchase. This increased risk persisted for more than five years after the handgun was purchased.

So when you read the quote in its original context, it's obvious that the complement is families without handguns.

ON EDIT: Let's do the same thing with the second quote:

Other studies have looked specifically at the narrow question of keeping guns in the home for self-defense. One, published in The New England Journal of Medicine, found that having a gun in the home made it nearly three times more likely that someone in the family will be killed. This risk is particularly high for women, who are more likely to be killed by a spouse, intimate acquaintance, or close relative. An Archives of Internal Medicine study found that, with one or more guns in the home, the risk of suicide among women increased nearly five times and the risk of homicide increased more than three times.

The mitigating factor does not appear to be how the gun was purchases, but rather the fact that the gun was purchased at all.

[MrBenchley]

62. But yank it out of context

and it becomes another arrow in the RKBA crowd's quiver-full of hooey.

[Romulus]

63. <butting in here>

I see your point, CO.

I guess Jody is looking at the words used because they must be there for a reason.

I question whether the methodology used in the study used is valid to asses "firearms ownership." If the only way the researchers determined if a household had a firearm was if the firearm was purchased by a licensed dealer, that could miss a lot of homes where the shotgun, etc., was bought through a private sale. That could throw things off a bit.

A 1997 American Journal of Public Health study showed that family members that had a history of buying a handgun from a licensed dealer were twice as likely to die in a suicide or homicide as were persons similarly situated who had no such family history of gun purchase. This increased risk persisted for more than five years after the handgun was purchased.

This doesn't seem to distinguish whether that same firearm was used for the suicide or homicide. If the "1997 AMJPH study" is the Kellerman paper (which it probably is), we know the answer to that one.

[CO Liberal]

64. Another Snipet From The Original Article

This refers to a quote from Shooting Sports Retailer, which I assume would have a natural pro-gun bias:

These and other studies have documented repeatedly the enhanced risk that comes from bringing a gun into the home. Even the gun press admits the risk in unguarded moments. Describing the demise of so-called "lintel guns," firearms hung over the door ready for immediate action in frontier times, Shooting Sports Retailer noted:

Today, guns in a home used for self protection are not hung over the door but are more likely in a desk drawer or beside the bed in a night stand. When a child is hurt in a firearm accident it is often the self-defense gun that was found, played with, and ultimately fired by the youngster.

Again, the source of the gun appears immaterial - the physical presense of the gun is the main factor.

[jody]

66. If the source is immaterial, then why did the author single out

those who had purchased handguns from a licensed dealer?

[jody]

67. Romulus, I'm not sure what the original article which the author is

quoting said. But given the shoddy nature of other anti-gun articles published by the cited journal, I'll give odds that the research methods of the appropriate article is seriously flawed.

It's a shame that a very prestigeous journal should lend its name to flawed research.

[jody]

65. By what process of logic do you take "no such family history of gun

purchase" to mean "families without handguns"?

The author used "such family history" to mean precisely " family members that had a history of buying a handgun from a licensed dealer".

You then say "The mitigating factor does not appear to be how the gun was purchases, but rather the fact that the gun was purchased at all."

How can that be when the author used a specific sub population, namely people who had a "history of buying a handgun from a licensed dealer"?

I guess we disagree on what the author said.

[Withergyld]

68. Since when

did gun grabbers use logic?
Their strong suit is rhetoric, appeals to emotion and smear tactics.
:shrug:

[CO Liberal]

69. Because Reference Was Made to Whether or Not a Handgun Was Present

Using your logic, the article would have stated one set of conditions for when a handgun was purchased from a licensed dealer, and another set for when it was obtained from a "friend or criminal". Since it only compares the stats when a handgun is present to when a handgun is not present, you can assume that those are the two groups - families with handguns and families without.

[jody]

70. First of all, I did not limit my definition of the complement set to

handguns not purchased from a licensed dealer. I merely used the fact that the complement set included handguns purchased from friends and criminals to draw a humerous conclusion.

Second, you say "compares the stats when a handgun is present to when a handgun is not present" but where is that comparison made? The cited article "Self-Defense: The Great Myth of America's Gun Industry" says
QUOTE
A 1997 American Journal of Public Health study showed that family members that had a history of buying a handgun from a licensed dealer were twice as likely to die in a suicide or homicide as were persons similarly situated who had no such family history of gun purchase. This increased risk persisted for more than five years after the handgun was purchased.
UNQUOTE

Third, the author said "persons similarly situated who had no such family history of gun purchase". The only history of gun purchase used in the article was from licensed dealers. That leaves the complement set as every family that did not purchase handguns from a licensed dealer which includes families with handguns purchased from friends and criminals.

Of course the 1997 article, whatever that is, may say something quite different, but I don't know what that article is.

I see nothing in the cited article from "Guns & Self Defense" that would rebut the conclusion that I made.

[jody]

26. Large cities have lowest gun ownership but highest murder rate.

Crime Index Tabulations - Table 16, “Rate: Number of Crimes per 100,000 Inhabitants1 by Population Group, 2001”
MURDER RATES PER 100,000
GROUP I; 69 cities;, 250,000 and over; Rate 13.5
GROUP II; 157 cities; 100,000 to 249,999; Rate 7.8
GROUP III; 353 cities; 50,000 to 99,999; Rate 4.3
GROUP IV; 636 cities; 25,000 to 49,999; Rate 3.2
GROUP V; 1,448 cities; 10,000 to 24,999; Rate 2.8
GROUP VI; 5,227 cities; under 10,000; Rate 2.9
SUBURBAN COUNTIES 1,121 agencies; Rate 3.8
RURAL COUNTIES; 2,117 agencies; Rate 3.6
SUBURBAN AREA; 5,407 agencies; Rate 3.1

Table 9, “1999 National Gun Policy Survey”
67% of rural households own guns and 29% of large city households own guns

Then why are the murders occurring in these areas that ban or severely limit guns?
-- GROUP I; 69 cities;, 250,000 and over; Rate 13.5
-- GROUP II; 157 cities; 100,000 to 249,999; Rate 7.8
-- GROUP III; 353 cities; 50,000 to 99,999; Rate 4.3

[rook1]

27. Oh sure

respond with facts....HEHEHEHEHE!

[CO Liberal]

30. Because Other Factors Come Into Play, Jody.....

...other than gun ownership. Things like unemployment rates, ethnic tensions, drug usage, gang activity, etc, etc, etc.

I remember when I was taking Macroeconomics at my local community college. Evey time they stated a principle, it took the following form (italics mine):

If X happens, Y results if all other factors remain equal.

Since all other factors don't remain the same from city to city, your gun ownership stats can't be equally applied to all cities. It just won't work.

[jody]

33. OK, so many factors contribute to violent crime. What per cent

contribution do firearms make to violent crime?

[CO Liberal]

34. I Don't Know

But firearms contribute substantially to 100 percent of all shootings....

[jody]

35. Ceteris paribus aside, I don't believe gun-grabbers have

any reputable research proving that ownership of firearms by law abiding citizens increases violent crime. If such research existed, it would be the centerpiece report on their web sites, and none exists. That's nothing to show for three decades of intense effort by gun-grabbers to prove that firearms cause crime.

My guess is AWOL will find WMD in Iraq before the gun-grabbers prove that guns cause violent crime.

[CO Liberal]

36. Guns May Not CAUSE Violent Crime......

....but they sure are USED in many violent crimes. So wouldn't it make sense to control their distribution and keep them out of the hands of the criminals?

[jody]

37. We always come back to cause and effect. Most criminals wear clothes

when they commit a violent crime, so should we control the distribution of clothes and keep them out of the hands of criminals? Of course that's silly because experience suggests that clothes are not a contributing factor to violent crime.

We already have federal laws that prohibit a number of special groups from possessing firearms. Perhaps we need to add more groups or redefine existing groups, but the results are questionable. I say that because existing laws are not preventing people in those groups from obtaining firearms.

Aggressive enforcement may be the only answer but recent efforts to do that have encountered strong resistance.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

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

[CO Liberal]

40. And Those Pants Are LOADED!!!!!!

Isn't that how Ted Nugent got out of the draft?

:-)

[MrBenchley]

41. LOL!!

The RKBA wouldn't have their pants any other way, it seems...

[MrBenchley]

42. Too funny...

I guess now pointing out there is anything in the least bit ludicrous about Jody trrying to pretend a shirt is as dangerous as a gun is a "personal attack."

[CO Liberal]

39. From Pro-Gunners

They're afraid someone's gonna take away their "pwecious widdle guns".....

[jody]

43. CO, what provoked your childish reply about "pwecious widdle guns"? That

usually is an indication that the respondent is unable to present facts to counter a point made by their opponent.

As to being afraid that someone will take away firearms from law abiding citizens, you're right. I see how easy it's been for AWOL, Asscroft, Rumfilled and cronies to ignore the freedoms of many Americans and I'm worried. Just like Hitler and his crew, work on one special interest group at a time and before long you have established complete control over a country. That can be done with presidential executive orders, a do-nothing congress, and a passive supreme court that doesn't want to get involved in disputes between congress and the president.

Anyone who doesn't see that danger is an accomplice to AWOL and his band of crooks.

In my case, I'll fight for the "civil rights" of gun-grabbers even though they're fighting to take away an individual's RKBA. The US would be much safer if all citizens fought to protect all "civil rights".

[CO Liberal]

44. I Disagree

The US would be much safer if people recognized that there are some people in our society who should NEVER be anywhere NEAR a gun, and we can agree on the steps necessary to accomplish this.

But as long as we have so many pro-gunners who have dug into their trenches and look on everyone else as enemies out to take their guns, we won't accomplish anything.

[jody]

45. I asked a question and I assume your response is that RKBA is the only

"civil right" that you would not restore to a person who has paid their debt to society. Is my assumption your position?

[CO Liberal]

46. Yes

I believe that fits in with the phrase in the Preamble of the Constitution that calls for protecting the general welfare.

[jody]

47. See my question re "child molestors" at

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=13160#13315

[CO Liberal]

48. And See My Answer

[CO Liberal]

29. We've Already Discussed "More Guns Less Crime" Here, Quack

And many of us see it as the bogus pile of crap that it is, written by a crooked individual, John "Cook The Books" Lott, the darling of Faux News.

[CO Liberal]

31. Oh, Quack, We Hardly Knew Ye

It only took 8 posts for him/her to earn one of these: