4 Year Old Boy Kills Himself with Father's Police Service Weapon

[RamboLiberal]

Detectives on Friday were trying to learn how the 4-year-old son of a Port Vue police officer got a hold of his father's service weapon and why it fired, killing the boy.

Gavin Thompson, the son of Officer John Thompson, apparently got the .45-caliber handgun from the top shelf of a bedroom closet in their home on F Street in Liberty, police said. The gun discharged just before noon, striking the boy in the upper body.

-----

"John definitely had his weapon secured," Port Vue police Lieutenant Bryan Myers said. "How the child got the weapon, we don't know yet."

-----

In a seemingly similar case last month, the 4-year-old son of a state trooper at the Belle Vernon barracks accidently wounded himself with his father's personal gun at the family home in Donora. Police in that case wouldn't say what steps Trooper Nicholas Petrosky took to secure the weapon or how his son got it. That boy survived.

Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10331/1106455-55.stm#ixzz16YeIu8Qh

I feel for the families, however this kind of incident ticks me off - IMHO neither of these men should be police officers if they cannot take the responsibility to safely store their loaded weapons away from their children. I'd bet a civilian parent might well be facing charges.

[Webster Green]

1. "John definitely had his weapon secured,"

No he didn't! :wtf:

[PavePusher]

2. Exactly. n/t

[_ed_]

5. He should be fired immediately

There's simply no defense for this. It doesn't matter how the kid got the gun.

[SteveM]

13. Correct. Why wan't it locked up?

[mwb970]

3. Little boys always seem to find the guns.

No matter where they are. They find the guns, then they find the ammo, then disaster ensues. How many times have we read this same story?

[Euromutt]

4. "Seem" being the operative word; "toddler fails to find gun, shoot sibling" isn't news

By definition, you read these stories because they are considered newsworthy. They are considered newsworthy because they are comparatively rare. To compare, how many fatal motor vehicle collisions do you read about on an average day? Not enough to account for the 40,000+ people killed every year.

There are an estimated 35-50 million households in the United States that contain firearms. By no means all of them contain children (which I will define for the purpose of this discussion as "persons aged 14 and under"), but given that around 45% of households overall contain children under 18, it's probably a safe bet that a quarter of gun-owning households contain one or more children under 15. So let's assume at least 9 million American households contain both guns and children under 15.

According to the CDC's WISQARS, the number of children under 15 killed by unintentionally inflicted gunshot wounds averages less than 70 a year since 1999. The total in the time period 1999-2007 was 619. Now, I don't want to trivialize the tragedy each represents, but it does mean that for every instance in which the little boy did find the gun at some point during the first 15 years of his life, there are at least 8,500 households in which that never happened.* Once in every 8,500 is a far cry from "always."

But of course, you don't hear about those others in the news, because nothing newsworthy happened.

* - Assuming an average of 70 deaths per year, that's 1,050 deaths over a 15-year period. Assuming 9 million gun-owning households with a child under 15, that's 9 million / 1,050 = ~8,571.4, i.e. for every fatal GSW of an under-15 with a gun kept in the home, there are 8,570 households where this could theoretically have occurred but did not.
Note that this is very much a back-of-an-envelope calculation based on incomplete data, but I think it falls within the parameters of plausibility.

[rhett o rick]

6. I am saddened by your attempt to rationalize this tragic event. nm

[X_Digger]

7. Rationalize? No. Be rational? Absolutely.

Sorry if Euromutt's rational response cuts the legs out of whatever emotional wharrgarbbbl you'd prepared to sling.

[rhett o rick]

9. What makes you suggest that I want to sling anything? He tries to rationalize the death of this

child. Why be sad when so many more die in cars.

[X_Digger]

10. Please quote his rationalizing. Perhaps that word doeesn't mean what you think it means. n/t

[PavePusher]

8. There is no place for irrationality here. None whatsoever. n/t

[Euromutt]

11. I'm not rationalizing anything; I pointed out "always" was a massive overstatement

I literally said "I don't want to trivialize the tragedy each <child who dies from unintentional GSWs> represents."

In fact, if you're going to get bent out of shape about anything, why don't you get bent out of shape at mwb970? You see, one death apparently isn't enough for him; he's the one who feels the need to claim that incidents like this "always seem" to happen, and that the body count is much higher than it actually is.

I don't react well to the kind of argument in which person X claims that some event or behavior results in some number of deaths--a number which is grossly overstated--and then, when person Y points out that that number is, in fact, grossly overstated, person X (or in this case, person Z) responds with something along the lines "how can you nitpick over numbers, you callous individual? Is every death not tragedy enough?"

Well, evidently not for person X. Evidently, person X felt that the actual body count wasn't high enough to elicit a sufficiently strong emotional response, which is why (wittingly or otherwise) he inflated the body count to begin with. You don't get to criticize others for playing the numbers game when you're the one who put the board on the table.

[rhett o rick]

12. When you quoted yourself "literally", you werent quite accurate.

What you actually "literally" said: "Now, I don't want to trivialize the tragedy each represents, but..." Then you proceeded to do just that. You presented statistics to, apparently, trivialize this death.

Maybe I am imagining, but seems there are a number of members here that are gun enthusiasts that just cant wait to pounce on anyone that might suggest that guns are dangerous.

Neither myself, the OP nor the poster you jumped on have espoused any anti-gun rhetoric. Yet you jump in with statistics at hand to rationalize away this tragedy.

It would have been much more appropriate for gun enthusiasts to acknowledge the tragedy here and denounce the obvious neglect of this gun owner. Instead you try to prove with statistics how insignificant this death is.

[SteveM]

16. "...apparently..." Yes. To you and you only. nt

[Atypical Liberal]

17. I think what he meant was...

>What you actually "literally" said: "Now, I don't want to trivialize the
>tragedy each represents, but..." Then you proceeded to do just that. You
>presented statistics to, apparently, trivialize this death.

I think what he meant was that he doesn't want to trivialize the individual tragedy, but that in the grand scope of things, it is a statistically insignificant event.

It's like being struck and killed by lightning. Very tragic to the people involved, but statistically a highly unlikely occurrence.

[Euromutt]

19. A reasonable surmise, but incorrect

As I explain in my post #18, what I took issue with was mwb970's implication that this kind of event is commonplace--it is, in fact, quite rare--and cautioned against taking what the frequency with which a particular type of event is reported in the news media as representative of how often it occurs in general. As I said in the subject line of my first post in this thread "'toddler fails to find gun, shoot sibling' isn't news," meaning that it doesn't get reported in the news media.

[rhett o rick]

20. So this boys death is statistically irrelevant? Is the defense of gun ownership so important that

we trivialize a boys death as statistically irrelevant? This is moving from sad to sick. Sorry, I know that some are married to their big guns and dont give a shit about children getting their heads blown off "literally".

[Straw Man]

22. It might have escaped your notice, but...

...until mwb970's post hijacked the thread with hyperbolic innuendo, all the responses were pointing out the gun owner's negligence. Furthermore, that post was clearly intended to portray gun ownership negatively by suggesting that such events are commonplace. They are not. Tragic, but not commonplace. The misleading characterization was challenged, and rightly so.

Please do not be so disingenous as to suggest that you or the author of that post are in any way neutral on the subject of gun ownership. Your bias is clear, and you seem to feel that hitching your wagon to tragic events gives you a free pass to engage in any amount of emotion-laden rhetoric and attacks on character.

No one is trying to trivialize this boy's death. What is being attacked is the assertion that this "always" happens. That is simply false, but you apparently feel that such falsehoods should be allowed to stand as long as they support your position on the issue.

Moral high ground? Nah. Not even close.

[rhett o rick]

24. My bias is clear? Provide some evidence. I simple say that those that trivialize this boy's death

because they want to defend their gun ownership is sad. I have nothing against gun ownership, but do have a lot against those that are so consumed and paranoid about their guns, that they have to belittle a tragedy such as this.

[Straw Man]

27. Evidence.

Maybe I am imagining, but seems there are a number of members here that are gun enthusiasts that just cant wait to pounce on anyone that might suggest that guns are dangerous.

Sorry, I know that some are married to their big guns and dont give a shit about children getting their heads blown off "literally".

He tries to rationalize the death of this child.

It is not sound thinking to statistically demonstrate that this boys death is trivial. It is sick.

Nope, no hyperbole, bias, or character assassination there...

dis·in·gen·u·ous
/ˌdɪsɪnˈdʒɛnyuəs/
–adjective
lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; falsely or hypocritically ingenuous; insincere: Her excuse was rather disingenuous.

[rhett o rick]

29. The death of this child is a tragedy. Rationalize all you like. nm

[Straw Man]

32. Rationalize?

The death of this child is a tragedy.

No one is denying that. No one.

Rationalize all you like.

Clearly you are using "rationalize" in the pejorative sense, meaning "to excuse or justify." No one is doing that. No one.

[Atypical Liberal]

35. No one disputes that it is a tragedy.

As many people have said, the death of any person is a tragedy. What is debated is how common an occurrence this sort of death is. And as it turns out, thankfully, it's not very common. This is not rationalization, it is simply a statement of fact.

[cleanhippie]

36. You are now officially in denial.

How plain can it be made that you willfully ignore it? Disingenuous, indeed.

[Atypical Liberal]

34. Defense of gun ownership has nothing to do with it.

It's called "operating on facts instead of emotion".

And the fact is, this boy's death, tragic as it is individually, is statistically irrelevant.

What this means is that there is no need for any sweeping action on his behalf.

[rhett o rick]

38. Dont panic. This boy's tragic death wont endanger you and your big gun. nm

[Atypical Liberal]

42. Good.

>Dont panic. This boy's tragic death wont endanger you and your big gun.

As long as people like me are vigilant and keep people focused on the facts and not emotions, hopefully you are right.

[Euromutt]

18. "Apparently," once again, being the key word

That's how it may appear to you, but that appearance is not based on what I actually said. I merely pointed out that it is not actually the case that "little boys always find the guns" even if it may seem to be the case that they do, and I presented statistics, and some rough calculations based on those statistics, to support my argument.

Similarly, I hauled in the statistic about the annual number of motor vehicle traffic deaths to illustrate that the fact that you don't read about something in the papers or hear about it on the news doesn't mean these things don't happen. The events that the news media choose to devote time and space to are neither an accurate representation of everything that happens (and does not happen), nor are they a representative sample.

What I took issue with about mwb970's post was not this death was a tragedy (though it bears noting that this was not an incident involving a privately owned firearm, but a law enforcement officer's government-issued service weapon), but that it is a commonplace occurrence. It is not, and I reject any assertion that I am somehow morally deficient for pointing out that any claim to that effect is false.

Furthermore, I would advise you, rhett, to attempt to get your head around the idea that an argument can be composed of multiple sentences, and that focusing on a single sentence in such an argument to the exclusion of the others is a form of quoting out of context.

[rhett o rick]

21. Wiggle all you like but you chose, instead of showing compassion or empathy, to launch an attack to

defend your gun ownership. In this case a gun owner was negligent. You should acknowledge such. But you instead, try to rationalize and or trivialize the boys death by showing statistically how trivial this event was.

Your response, although possibly accurate (i am assuming) was inappropriate.

[Euromutt]

28. Excuse me?

You jump down my throat on the basis of a willful misinterpretation of my words, and you presume to lecture me on what is or is not "appropriate"? I note you didn't bother to show compassion or empathy; you only used those terms to hit me over the with.

Don't bother me with your filthy hypocrisy. You don't give a flying fuck about that dead boy except as a political pawn.

[PavePusher]

30. Please quote the "attack". We'll wait..... n/t

[rhett o rick]

39. I noticed you said "we'll wait". Yes, you seem more comfortable in your packs. nm

[PavePusher]

40. ?? Sorry, I don't know what you're trying to say.

But it certainly seems that you are avoiding the subject. Good luck with that.

[Euromutt]

43. Consider the following possibility

Maybe the fact that you're outnumbered is not because you're a heroic loner single-handedly facing down a entire gang, but rather, because the people you were hoping would back you up instead backed out when they realized how much twaddle you were talking.

[friendly_iconoclast]

44. And I noticed you *still* haven't shown any "attack" on Euromutt's part.

Just admit your moralizing has failed. You'll be a better person for it....

[cleanhippie]

37. Laughable. Utterly laughable.

Its always funny to watch people who refuse to accept when they have had their metaphorical asses handed to them.

[SteveM]

15. I am dismayed by your trivialization of sound thinking and good data...

so long a hallmark of liberal thought. Now, it seems that everyone is into culture war politics.

[rhett o rick]

25. My trivialization of what? sound thinking? It is not sound thinking to statistically demonstrate

that this boys death is trivial. It is sick.

[X_Digger]

26. Wharrrgarble!!

You are the one who read Euromutt's objection to mwb970's 'always' claim as 'trivializing'. I know, actually dealing with a quite rare (and thankfully getting rarer) problem in a rational manner just kills the lovejoy.

[PavePusher]

31. No-one has said what you are claiming they have. n/t

[DeadEyeDyck]

50. three year old drowns in family pool

tragic but we don't outlaw pools.

Sad but life goes on.

[SteveM]

14. Fortunately, these incidents are becoming fewer...

The National Safety Council reports that home, childhood accidental deaths-by-firearms have declined far faster than the other categorized accidental deaths surveyed; a child is more likely to be electrocuted or drowned than killed by a firearm. This is the result of parents safely securing firearms, something this adult did not do.

I keep my handgun unloaded and locked up when not at home. The ammo is stored separately under lock & key. The keys are not available, either.

[russ1943]

45. Not becoming FEWER, they are INCREASING.

Two stories mentioned in the OP, one unintentional death and the other an unintentional injury. To state as you do, that these incidents (unintentional/accidental firearms shootings) are becoming fewer, is at least a distortion.
The most recent (reputable) statistics available at WISQARS
demonstrate they are INCREASING, after declining for many years.
There were more of these “incidents” in 2009 than there were in 2001. Each & every year since 2006 both the number and rate of unintentional firearms victims has increased.

http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/nfirates2001.html
http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html

[Euromutt]

46. WISQARS fatal injury reports currently go to 2007, don't they?

Each & every year since 2006 both the number and rate of unintentional firearms victims has increased.

Or, in other words, you've got one year of increases in fatal GSWs, and three years of non-fatal GSWs. When you're asserting that a data trend is going the opposite direction from what others claim, it helps your credibility no end if you can present a data series that is at least as long as that of the people you're contradicting.

Because when you're trying to determine a long-term trend, you have to work your way around temporary blips, upward or downward. We don't know that the upward mini-trend of 2006-2009 is a permanent reversal, or merely a temporary one.

I've debated with people who pointed to the upswing in violent crime figures from 2004 to 2005 and claimed "that's because of the lapsing of the 1994 AWB." Then the next year, the figures dropped, and continued to drop, but do you think those same people ever came back and said "gee, I guess I was wrong"?

The long and short of it is that there has been a long-term trend of reduction in the rate of unintentional GSWs going back soemthing like a century, and it simply cannot be honestly asserted that the increase in the most recent statistics is a long-term, rather than a short-term one, simply because that will require several more years' worth of data to determine. And to claim that it is a long-term one is plain dishonest bullshit.

[russ1943]

48. Becoming?

In response to post#14’s statement: “Fortunately, these incidents are becoming fewer..”, I pointed out with links to reputable sources that “these incidents” are not becoming fewer but actually (according to the most recent statistics available) are, AFTER DECLINING FOR MANY YEARS, increasing. What are we talking about by the term “these incidents”?
As I noted, the OP made reference to both unintentional firearms deaths and injuries. If you combine those deaths and injuries for 2007 the combined total is 16,311 persons unintentionally shot, which is more than the 15,320 total for the prior year in 2006. The number injured in 2008 was 17,215 and for 2009 the number of persons unintentionally shot rose again to 18,610. While the number of people unintentionally shot in both 2008 and 2009 are without any fatalities, the simple fact is the numbers aren’t going to diminish when the fatalities are determined and provided. I predict the total number of unintentional firearms victims injured plus those killed in 2008 & 2009 will be even larger than just those injured. Care to wager?
SUMMATION
2006~15,320 VICTIMS OF UNINTENTIONAL SHOOTINGS
2007~16,311 “
2008~17,215 “
2009~18,610 “
I’m clearly saying and the numbers demonstrate, that these incidents are not as # 14 states “becoming fewer” but increasing.
My “data series” is identified as to source and time and doesn’t claim to be any more than what it is. Your lamenting that “it simply cannot be honestly asserted that the increase in the most recent statistics is a long-term, rather than a short-term one” , is a BULLSHIT straw man argument claiming I’ve stated something I haven’t. Just when or where have I asserted honestly or in any other way, that the increases from the most recent statistics is a long term rather than a short term one.

[Euromutt]

49. You implied it with your vehemence

I’m clearly saying and the numbers demonstrate, that these incidents are not as # 14 states “becoming fewer” but increasing.

What you are not saying is that the current reversal of the trend may only be temporary, as has happened multiple times in the past. To illustrate, according National Safety Council statistics, the number of unintentional fatal GSWs in the age range 0-14 increased 1974-1975, 1979-1980, 1984-1985 and 1987-1989, in addition to which, three of those increases were followed by periods during which the number was decreasing, but still higher than before the increase (e.g. it took until 1993 before the number was back down to what it had been in 1987). Nevertheless, the number of fatal unintentional GSWs with victims aged 0-14 dropped from over 500 in 1970 to under 100 from 1999 onwards; overall, the trend from 1970 to the present day has been a downward one.

The problem is that you are posing a false dichotomy by asserting that the trend is either up or down, and that SteveM is committing a falsehood ("at least a distortion") by stating the trend is downward. The fact is that it's possible for both of you to be correct, namely in that, while the current trend may indeed be upwards, is is entirely possible that this is merely short-term, and that in the longer term, unintentional GSWs will continue to decline.

I predict the total number of unintentional firearms victims injured plus those killed in 2008 & 2009 will be even larger than just those injured. Care to wager?

I don't fully understand what it is you're predicting. If you're predicting that the number of victims of both fatal and nonfatal unintentional GSWs will be higher than the number of victims of nonfatal unintentional GSWs, that's not a prediction, just like it isn't a prediction that, where x and y are both numbers higher than 0, x + y > y.

What would be a more pertinent prediction, and more impressive if you got it right, is if you predicted that the total number of (fatal and nonfatal) unintentional GSW victims will be higher in 2010 than it was in 2009. That, after all, would actually support your assertion that unintentional GSWs are increasing right now.

Your lamenting that “it simply cannot be honestly asserted that the increase in the most recent statistics is a long-term, rather than a short-term one” , is a BULLSHIT straw man argument claiming I’ve stated something I haven’t.

Two can play at that game: Where did I claim that you'd stated that the current increase is a long-term one?
Did it occur to you that perhaps I was merely cautioning you against making such a claim, be it explicitly or implicitly, and not accusing you of actually making it? Frankly, the fact that you're so touchy about it indicates to me that my point my have struck a little too close to home for comfort.

[russ1943]

53. Most recent statistics available............

I did not intend nor in my opinion did any of my posts exhibit
any vehemence. That you attribute same to what are objective
linked reputable facts is one of your problems. You vehemently
and repeatedly have attempted to present unsourced information
re (ancient) history while I’ve clearly offered most recent
statistics available and provided accessible links to
reputable sources. Where are your (irrelevant) links? 

You post “What you are not saying is that the current reversal
of the trend may only be temporary”

I’ve not said a lot of things, I’m only commenting on what
I’ve quoted.
You then introduce a subset of GSW in a specific age range.
While that may be interesting, so what? Your post is in
response to mine and I’ve not referenced any specific age
group. Why not 0 – 4 yr olds? Or; Just 4 yr olds?

You post “The problem is that you are posing a false dichotomy
by asserting that the trend is either up or down”.

Yes it is. It is,,,,,, either up or down. Not what it was, nor
what it will be, nor any prediction about whether or not it
will continue or be short lived. I repeatedly have made
specific reference to the most recent statistics available. I
also clearly stated in my #48 “AFTER DECLINING FOR MANY
YEARS”. Our knowledge of the best known objective FACTS in
this regard are restricted in so far as we can only know what
is available and much of that information is not available
until some time after the data is gathered, disseminated,
correlated and published by reputable sources. eg: 2008 and
2009 unintentional accidental gunshot fatalities are not yet
available on WISQARS.
The original statement I posted about (#14) used the
terminology “are becoming” that isn’t a reference to your
hundred year history nor any of the time frames you’ve
referenced. “Are becoming” as best we can determine could only
be appropriately compared to the most recent reputable
statistics available.

You post “What would be a more pertinent prediction, and more
impressive if you got it right, is if you predicted that the
total number of (fatal and nonfatal) unintentional GSW victims
will be higher in 2010 than it was in 2009. That, after all,
would actually support your assertion that unintentional GSWs
are increasing right now”.

My prediction simply was that the number of unintentional
firearm fatalities for  2008 and 2009 (when published) will
not be zero, which of course will make the numbers I did post,
larger.
Outside of that, I’ve made no assertions, I don’t know what
the numbers for 2010 will be when they are finally determined
and published. As I stated and is well known in a discussion
of this nature, we can only reference the most recent
reputable statistics available, a phrase commonly used when
accuracy is of concern along with an appropriate link of
course.

[DeadEyeDyck]

59. Assuming that you won a pistol for home protection

that weapon is useless. I keep my weapon on my nightstand, loaded and ready to fire. Of course, there are no children in my home. My GF and I are both licensed to carry and marksmen.

[X_Digger]

60. Think you missed the 'when not at home' part. n/t

[Crunchy Frog]

23. The police officer was obviously not adequately trained in gun safety.

[Euromutt]

33. Not for the circumstances in which he would be in possession of the weapon, no

To compare, I underwent basic training (in the Dutch army's infantry training center) shortly after we'd had an NCO with a unit in Germany killed by a negligent discharge (from an infantry fighting vehicle's 25mm main gun which hadn't been cleared properly prior to inspection). As a result, every infantry trainee that year had firearms safety thoroughly drilled into him, to the extent that it sticks with me 17 years later. And for the purposes of the circumstances in which we, as soldiers, would be handling firearms, it was more than adequate.

However, our training did not cover situations like this one, because those didn't apply to us. If we didn't have our weapons out for drill, field exercises, or guard duty, they stayed in the company armory, and even when we had the weapons out, our NCOs issued ammunition on a purely "as needed" basis, and took it back when the need passed. Nobody trained us on keeping firearms secure in the home, because we didn't get to take our weapons home (and if we'd had kids, we wouldn't have been drafted in the first place), and if we needed to leave our weapons unattended in a location outside the armory (either in the barracks or in the field), two guys would be detailed to guard the others' weapons.

What I'm getting at is that the officer in question might have been trained to an impeccable degree in safe handling of firearms, but evidently not in securely storing his weapon outside the station.

[jeepnstein]

41. Most of us aren't.

It's not even discussed in the Academy as part of the formal training. In my case our training officer doing the firearms part told us about his personal experience during a BS session. His Grandfather was a cop and failed to secure his weapon one time, tragedy ensued. The guy actually started to cry when he told about the damage it did to his family. Then of course he also told his famous story about shooting his new Ford Pinto. That was the extent of the off-duty gun safety we were taught.

Putting your duty weapon on a high shelf is not securing it. Running a cable lock through it and then putting it on a shelf is securing it. Putting it in a lock box is securing it.

[ileus]

47. My BIL keeps his duty belt and glock on top of the fridge...

His youngest is 9 now, but I remember thinking when our kids were younger that it wasn't a very good place to store his duty pistol.

Of course he also has over 70 other firearms and no gun safe so I suppose one that's loaded isn't a big deal....


Unless mine is on my side it's locked up.

[Xenotime]

51. "4 Year Old Boy exercises his second amendment rights"... gun fundies would say

[oneshooter]

52. Are you as ignorant as you sound? n/t

[PavePusher]

54. Probably not.

Fortunately for you, your ability to exercise your Right to be an ass in public will not be hindered here on D.U.

[jazzhound]

55. Thank you for undermining the gun "control" "cause".

Nothing quite like infantile and dishonest posts like yours to assist the civil rights cause.

[Xenotime]

56. It was a joke...sort of...from The Onion

http://www.theonion.com/articles/8yearold-accidentally-exercises-second-amendment-r,725/

[SteveM]

57. No, it's what culture-war prohibitionists ARE saying, no? nt

[Euromutt]

58. Well, more accurately...

...it's what certain prohibitionists would like pro-RKBA types to say. But the thing about a straw man is that it's something the other side isn't saying.