Teen Shot in the Head While Playing With Gun

[jpak]

http://www.newschannel9.com/news/police-1003680-peckenpaugh-gun.html

Matthew Peckenpaugh, 15, has been hospitalized after police say he was shot in the head early Sunday morning.

Red Bank Police Sergeant Dan Knight says the teen was outside his Lyndon Avenue home with several other underage kids playing a game with a revolver. Police aren't sure if the kids knew the gun was real. One of the kids pulled the trigger and shot Peckenpaugh on the right side of his face.

Peckenpaugh's grandfather, Darwin Henderson, was inside the home when his grandson was shot. The teen was conscious and stumbled inside the home, laying down on the couch while waiting for an ambulance."I thought he was kidding at first, because a lot of the times he's playing jokes. But when I'd seen the blood, it was no joke. I got weak. I didn't know what to do," Henderson explains, "His neck was bleeding all over and I cleaned up the blood off the floor."

Henderson says Peckenpaugh is in stable condition, about to undergo surgery. There's no denying he suffered serious injuries from a gunshot wound but there are conflicting stories about where that gun came from. The boys told Henderson the gun came from a nearby ditch and that the weapon was not loaded but Sgt. Knight says one of the teens brough the gun to the Lyndon Avenue house.

<more>

[LAGC]

1. Meanwhile, 5 times as many teens die from accidental poisoning each year...

Including alcohol poisoning from binge drinking parties.

Rank Cause of Death Total Deaths No of Deaths Percent
All Deaths 13812 13812 100.00%
1 Unintentional Injury 7137 51.67%
* Motor Vehicle Traffic 5522 39.98%
* Poisoning 486 3.52%
* Drowning 320 2.32%
* Firearm 107 0.77%
* Other Land Transport 100 0.72%
* Fire/burn 86 0.62%
* Fall 83 0.60%
* Unspecified 79 0.57%
* Other Transport 69 0.50%
* Pedestrian, Other 68 0.49%
* Suffocation 68 0.49%
* Other Spec., classifiable 56 0.41%
* Natural/ Environment 30 0.22%
* Struck by or Against 30 0.22%
* Machinery 11 0.08%
* Other Spec., NEC 11 0.08%
* Pedal cyclist, Other 7 0.05%
* Cut/pierce 4 0.03%

http://www.statisticstop10.com/Causes_of_Death_Older_Teens.html

But yeah, I guess we really need to be concerned with that 0.77% of accidental deaths that happen to be due to firearms... :eyes:

[jpak]

2. An acceptable Death Toll for gun insanity

yup

[LAGC]

3. Why focus on the guns?

Why aren't you just as passionate about accidental car deaths or poisoning or drowning?

Your priorities are all out of whack.

[The Doctor.]

4. Yep. If people were actually more concerned about safety, then

they'd focus more on regulating cars, swimming pools, and household cleaners.

But it's not about safety for many people, it's about scary guns. I don't take seriously anyone who wants greater regulation on guns but not on any of the above.

[A Simple Game]

6. You mean like

requiring seat belts, air bags, side impact panels, etc. in cars? Requiring helmets on skateboards, bicycles, four wheelers and motorcycles?

Like requiring fencing and a gate around swimming pools, and lifeguards at public pools and beaches?

Warning labels on poisonous products and child proof caps?

You do gun owners no service by this kind of argument.

It's true, some people are just scared of guns but all or nothing thinking will end up costing me my guns! Sensible regulation will allow me to keep them.

[LAGC]

8. What sensible regulations did you have in mind?

There's already a shit-load of gun laws on the books. How many more do we need?

[A Simple Game]

15. Here's a couple that would not bother me at all.

Outlaw large clips, I have no need for a clip over 5 shots, three would probably be the most I really need. Of course I use guns for hunting, you probably have a very good reason to own a 30 shot clip.

Private individuals must sell their guns through a dealer with a set percentage going to the dealer for doing the background checks and paperwork.

Just these two ideas would please a lot of people with minimum harm to gun owners. There are not that many people that want to take all guns away from us, most would be happy with, like you say, sensible regulations.

In an all or nothing fight, we gun owners will eventually lose. We need to start compromising, especially on things that don't really matter.

[ileus]

17. Let's say we move back to a 10 round limit...what is the next step?

Would 10 rounds and a no private sale rule be enough to stop at? Or would that be the building block for more common sense gun control?

If the feds did make the 10 round rule, how would they collect all the 10+'s out there?

When spree killers learn to change magazines will we seek a revolver and bolt actions only rule?

[A Simple Game]

19. I hadn't really thought about it. What do you think?

I do know that back when I was learning to hunt it was not necessary but common, and common sense, for the beginner to only have a single shot for the first couple of years. I would not have a problem with that. I think it was a good idea back then and still is. Do you see a problem with that?

[SteveM]

33. Please note that hunters make up less than 20% of gun owners...

and the Second Amendment says nothing about hunting.

[ileus]

37. Nope...my son has three single shots. For hunting...

7mm-08, 22 and 410....but those are hunting firearms. you have to be 21 in most states to carry for SD.

[Atypical Liberal]

45. I don't think it's necessary.

My first rifle was a Ruger 10/22. It is a semi-automatic .22 rifle that holds 10 rounds.

If a person, child or otherwise, is unsafe with a firearm, then they should not be handling any kind of firearm. You can die from one shot as easily as 10.

[SteveM]

32. "change magazines:" the Cho method. nt

[SteveM]

31. Laws effecting a societal good should be linked to that good...

Frankly, I'm not interested in the politics where "most would be happy with, like you say, sensible regulations." The purpose of legislation is to show how such laws will benefit society, not make someone happy. Passing a law against "large clips" is not shown to be of any benefit to society. I use a revolver chambered for 6 rounds. ALREADY this exceeds your proposed capacity by one, assuming this common, hoary revolver's capacity is equivalent to a "clip." But this is what really disturbs me:

"In an all or nothing fight, we gun owners will eventually lose. We need to start compromising, especially on things that don't really matter."

I am not disturbed by any prospect of "eventually losing." What I am disturbed about is the need to compromise on this or that regulation when such regulation has no real benefit to anyone -- except to the politics of gun-control. Do you have any doubt that the controller/banner, given his/her track record, won't come back for more and more? The intent of most gun banners is to severely restrict who can use guns (only the elite); eliminate whole categories (semi-auto pistols, semi-auto carbines); eliminate caliber ranges; render firearms useless even when possessed (the D.C. laws), government registration and control.

Areas where some regulation might be of benefit is the extension of the NICS bg test to all sales. There would be constitutional issues (Federal powers vs. state powers), and the need for safeguards about permanent lists. But at least many 2A defenders see a "universal NICS" requirement as plausible. Yet, even here, some controller/banners are hammering for the NICS test results to be made permanent and open to government scrutiny. This is similar to some controller/banner/MSM demanding that the list of concealed-carry licensees be open to public (i.e., MSM's) scrutiny. For what purpose? They really don't say, other than some specious argument that public information is open to the public (like the address of a battered woman, so the batterer can come back for some more). I rather suspect this will result in:

(1) Holding up to ridicule those with CCW licenses, like "outing;" and
(2) Render CCW license holders vulnerable to home invasion, for obvious reasons.

Many gun-controller/banners, like some of their cohorts in the GOP, are not interested in compromise. They are interested in culture war.

[TPaine7]

38. There are a lot of gun control supporters for whom gun control is a ratchet.

Their logic runs along the "what level of innocent deaths is acceptable" lines. The answer is zero.

The aim of gun control, then, is to obtain an acceptable level of innocent deaths. Change 1 will be tried and the results checked. It will not meet the goal. Neither will change 2 or 3 or 4 or 5.

Eventually there will be no "tougher" sanction remaining but a total ban on all civilian ownership.

Even if it were possible to diearm criminals, that wouldn't work either. Police will still kill innocent people (accidentally and otherwise) as will soldiers and other government agents. But the controllers won't care about "just one life" then. After all, using deadly force is wrong--so wrong that we hire our best and bravest heroes to do it for us. If you disarm them, they won't be able to protect us.

The "if it can save just one life" brand of gun control "thinking" may be more popular than you believe.

[Atypical Liberal]

46. If this is what loosing looks like...

Outlaw large clips, I have no need for a clip over 5 shots, three would probably be the most I really need. Of course I use guns for hunting, you probably have a very good reason to own a 30 shot clip.

A firearm is only useful when it holds ammunition. To this end, the more ammunition a firearm holds, the longer it will remain useful when in actual use. There is a reason why police carry pistols that hold 15 or more rounds of ammunition, and why soldiers carry rifles that hold 20 or more rounds of ammunition. When your life depends on the tool, you want it to be useful for as long as possible while you are using it.

Some of the firearms I own I own specifically as life-saving devices. To that end, I want them to hold as much ammunition as practical, as this makes them more useful than if they held less ammunition.

Private individuals must sell their guns through a dealer with a set percentage going to the dealer for doing the background checks and paperwork.

The problem with this is it eliminates anonymous firearm ownership, which is unacceptable.

A better approach would be to automatically issue Firearm Owner ID cards, after background check, to all applicants for driver's licenses or state-issued IDs, unless they choose to opt out. Then make it a law, like in Illinois, that sellers must see buyer's FOID prior to a sale, and they must keep a record of the sale for some period of time.

Just these two ideas would please a lot of people with minimum harm to gun owners. There are not that many people that want to take all guns away from us, most would be happy with, like you say, sensible regulations.

If you hang around this forum, you will see there are many posters here for home any firearm homicide, suicide, or accidental death is sufficient to warrant complete banning of firearms.

In an all or nothing fight, we gun owners will eventually lose. We need to start compromising, especially on things that don't really matter.

Well, if this is what loosing looks like, I'll take some more, please! :) Firearm laws continue to be advancing the cause of firearm rights.

[The Doctor.]

10. Oh please.

The point is that even with all those rules children still die more from pools than from guns.

If pools are such a menace, should they not be outlawed? More heavily regulated?

I have made no 'argument' at all. It's just an observation that people are so terrified of guns, yet ignore much greater threats to children while pursuing stricter gun laws. I have no problem with sensible regulation. My problem is with those who treat guns as a supreme menace while ignoring greater threats.

That clear things up?

[iverglas]

12. no, that's not a point

The point is that even with all those rules children still die more from pools than from guns.

How many kids die of measles every year? Hmm, in 2008 in the US: none.

So hey, let's argue that measles vaccinations should not be mandated. Allow kids unsupervised access to the rubella virus. Or at least leave their access to the rubella virus to chance and parents' goodwill and good sense.

Exposure to bodies of water is a fact of life for anyone, including children. So is exposure to household cleaning products, so is exposure to motor vehicles. Unless they're, like, living in a primitive compound in the desert.

Exposure to firearms is not a fact of life for any child unless someone makes it one.

Exposure to all the other things you refer to is in fact essential to almost all children's lives. Children need to travel (if only by foot along vehicle roadways). Children need to have their homes and bodies clean. Children need to have experience with bodies of water so they don't drown if they come in accidental contact, since in any event there are bodies of water all around most kids.

Children do not need to be in contact with either the rubella virus or firearms.

But since either is possible, rules are needed. Like vaccination against rubella. And laws to provide for oversight of people who have guns.


It's just an observation that people are so terrified of guns, yet ignore much greater threats to children while pursuing stricter gun laws.

No, that's not an observation, it's an allegation. One that you have no basis for making.

[The Doctor.]

41. I got your 'basis' right here;

Two Questions;

1) Have you ever, on this site, advocated for more/stricter/better laws regulating the distribution, manufacture, or ownership of guns?

2) Have you ever, on this site, advocated for the same regarding swimming pools?


I think we know what 'alleged' category you're in.

Or just try telling me that children can't be raised without swimming pools. :eyes:

[Atypical Liberal]

42. In fact, measles vaccinations are not mandated.

So hey, let's argue that measles vaccinations should not be mandated. Allow kids unsupervised access to the rubella virus. Or at least leave their access to the rubella virus to chance and parents' goodwill and good sense.

In fact, measles, nor any other kinds of vaccinations, are mandated in the United States. Anyone can opt out of immunizations. All they have to do is claim a religious belief.

[The Doctor.]

47. Again, the reason you can't be taken seriously;

"So hey, let's argue that measles vaccinations should not be mandated. Allow kids unsupervised access to the rubella virus."

Why the hell would anyone want that?

This is your problem. Someone points out that swimming pools kill more kids than guns by far, and the first thing you do is ascribe asinine ideals to them.

When you can be rational, then maybe it'll be worth someone else's time to talk to you.

[A Simple Game]

13. You still don't get it.

The point is that with all those rules less children die in pools and car accidents than they did before the regulations, do you deny that? No one thinks all accidents can be eliminated, the goal is reduction and less serious injury. But I can't tell if you are arguing for more regulations on everything other than guns, or less, your posts seem to contradict each other. It appears you are just trying to change the subject instead of addressing it.

You have made no argument at all? Please reread your posts. You have no problem with sensible regulation as long as it is for something other than guns is how I read your posts. You argue that other problems need attention instead of and before guns. I stated that those problems were and are being addressed. Your failure to acknowledge that tells me a lot.

If you want to clear things up, you will have to try again.

[The Doctor.]

40. Oh, I get it just fine.

And you still think I'm "arguing".

I'm not.

My point was astoundingly simple; 'Anyone who wants more regulation of guns, but ignores the greater threats that could also bear regulation is a hypocrite or simply hates guns'. Where's the 'argument'? Do you disagree?

Don't suggest I re-read my posts until you do.

[Blown330]

21. You seem to be a little confused...

...as to what is actually required by law. Helmets are not required universally as I see many skaters at public areas without them. Do ALL swimming pools require fencing and a gate? My neighbor's certainly doesn't. Public pools and beaches require lifeguards? I see plenty with signs posted warning lifeguards are not on duty and to swim at your own risk. Jug of Muriatic acid under my sink certainly doesn't have a child-proof cap. You're not doing much good with this argument at all.

[A Simple Game]

26. Why do you think I'm confused?

No doubt many of those laws are state or local laws. Many such as seat belts are Federal.

I certainly hope you don't have small children in your house, having unprotected Muriatic acid in your house would be irresponsible of you even if it was legal. Myself, I wouldn't brag about it.

[SteveM]

29. Please be advised child-hood deaths due to firearms are on a decline...

and have been for over 15 years, according to the National Safety Council.

Why are "gun deaths" declining faster than the other main categories the Council uses? Probably due to:

(1) Better training of kids with regards guns (the now nation-wide requirements for hunter-safety ed. help in this regard);
(2) When hunting (where accidental death rates due to guns has also fallen dramatically), "blaze" orange is usually required;
(3) Due to campaigns by firearms organizations, foundations, widely-read magazines dealing with arms, to promote safety; and
(4) Now widespread use of lock boxes and gun safes.

See? Firearm users have been paying attention, too.

[iverglas]

9. ha, here's what I don't take seriously

That would be anyone who suggests that there is the slightest similarity between "kids and cars", "kids and household products" or "kids and swimming pools" and "KIDS AND GUNS".

See how they don't look alike?

The other things are all normal, expected elements in a kid's environment. Kids' access to and contact with all of them should be limited and supervised and regulated where necessary.

A kid's life in our societies without contact with cars, household products and swimming pools would be a strange and vacant life. A modern society without any of them would be a pretty odd one too.

Compare and contrast: kids and guns.


I don't take seriously anyone who wants greater regulation on guns but not on any of the above.

Huh. Where you are, there are no rules about childproof containers on hazardous products. No rules about seatbelts and giving your kid the car keys. No supervision of public swimming pools and no bylaws about fencing private ones.

What proportion of contacts between kids and cars results in death? Think of all the cars a kid is potentially at risk from as it walks down the street or sits in the back seat. How about kids and bodies of water? Kids and household products? Kids and staircases, kids and bathtubs, kids and monkey bars.

All of these things are normal if not necessary parts of kids' lives.

When did it become normal for kids to have unsupervised access to firearms?



typo fixed

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

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

[The Doctor.]

34. This is why you can't be taken seriously.

"When did it become normal for kids to have unsupervised access to firearms?"

Really?

This is right in line with your vilification of gun owners/advocates who also apparently (according to you) believe that guns can prevent any attack.

Yeah, you very much http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=441366&mesg_id=441366">insinuated that.


Your inability to be rational on this subject is very well demonstrated by your above 'question'.


Answer this question;

Why do you believe ANYONE thinks it's ok to let kids have "unsupervised access" to firearms?

And if you don't believe it, then why did you suggest it?


You can't be rational on this topic, but you just keep coming back to it.

[Atypical Liberal]

44. Firearms should be normal and necessary parts of kids' lives.

All of these things are normal if not necessary parts of kids' lives.

When did it become normal for kids to have unsupervised access to firearms?

Kids should not have unsupervised access to firearms. But I believe that firearms should be a normal and necessary part of kids' lives. At a bear minimum, kids should be taught about firearms so that they know what to do when they encounter them. But I believe that kids should know how to hunt with firearms. They should understand the concept that freedom goes hand in hand with being armed, and that power usually does ultimately flow from the end of a gun barrel.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

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

[LAGC]

7. What do we have to justify?

The Bill of Rights lays it all out, its those who wish to violate it that have to justify their infringement on those rights. Don't like any particular part of the Bill of Rights? Try to pass a Constitutional amendment to change it. Good luck getting 2/3 of the states to go along with your freedom-banning agenda.

[A Simple Game]

18. That took longer than I thought it would.

So what militia do you belong to?

In this day and age to think every one should have access to guns is not rational. I know a few people that shouldn't touch a gun. some I have hunted with, once! If you don't know anyone that shouldn't have a gun, you don't have a very large circle of friends.

[friendly_iconoclast]

20. The same one *you're* in, assuming you are between the ages of 17 and 45

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/10/A/I/13/311

Search 10 U.S.C. § 311 : US Code - Section 311: Militia: composition and classes
Search by Keyword or Citation
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.

In any event, the point is moot, as the entire Supreme Court (including that well-known reactionary Ruth Bader Ginsburg)
has held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right.

Adjust.

[A Simple Game]

25. No, too late, I'm 60.

Nice that they include females if they actually are in a militia.

Being 60 maybe I should sue someone so I can be included in the militia and have my gun rights guaranteed.

I'll check with my wife and see if she has a problem with it also, she's not in the national guard.

There will also be a lot of younger people mad at you for bringing this up, most probably thought the draft went away in the '70s.

I'm sorry, I'm a gun owner and a hunter, but when I hear 2nd amendment, 2nd amendment, all I hear is "Mommy said I can do it". When I was growing up, you had to earn your rights, nobody, and I mean nobody, guaranteed them. I have seen friends take guns away from friends when they shouldn't be using them. A couple of times for alcohol and once just for incompetence.

[SteveM]

35. Well, I'm 63, but I don't worry about the militia...

The so-called "militia clause" is not the operative clause in the Second. It states the federal government's interest in the individual right "of the people" to keep and bear arms because the feds have the power (stated in the Articles) to call out militia; hence, if the people don't have the RKBA, they cannot exercise their authority. That individual RKBA is not contingent on militia membership, but is a recognized right the feds must rely on if and when it exercises its militia power. Even the noted gun-control advocate Laurence Tribe, long the most visible advocate of the "right-dependent militia clause" view, has since changed his tune, and acknowledges 2A recognizes an individual right.

Rights, like respect, should not be "earned." If rights and respect were both recognized, even in the case of strangers, we would have fewer fights and fewer wars. Of course, if someone is drunk and proven incompetent and is using an arm, they are subject to arrest, punishment, and to some degree revocation of rights. This is not new.

[friendly_iconoclast]

48. You are suffering from Second Amendment Butt.

As in "I own guns, but..." or "I support the Second Amendment, but". Whenever those lines appear, inevitably they are
followed by some variation on the "My guns are fine, it's those people's guns that are the problem." meme.

Or, put more bluntly: "I'm all right, and I'm willing to sell *you* down the river to try and keep what I've got."
IOW, you're a F*dd. Try googling "Jim Zumbo" for another example.

"Hunting" and "sporting" appear nowhere in the Second Amendment, so your "deadly sniper...", err, "traditional bolt-action deer rifles" will be in just as much danger if the 2A gets abrogated as those eebul ARs with 30-round magazines.
Try and keep that in mind.

[LAGC]

22. No, you're absolutely right. Some people really shouldn't have guns.

The only problem is, the government isn't very good at figuring out who those people are.

I know ex-felons who have gone completely straight and mentally ill folks who can manage their symptoms on medications that I would completely trust with a firearm. And I also know a few folks with no criminal backgrounds or history of mental illness that simply don't have the right temperament to own guns, as they lose their cool too quick and are prone to getting into fights.

Yet, I haven't seen any gun law proposed that would fairly deal with any of those types of people.

[A Simple Game]

23. I hadn't even thought that far.

I was just thinking of people that for what ever reason are just clumsy with guns. They just can't focus. People of good temperament, smart, functional in all other aspects of their lives, they just are not gun people. The problem is some want to be. They are just careless with guns and shouldn't be around other people when they are carrying one.

Your right there is a problem figuring out who is capable and who isn't.

[X_Digger]

27. And that's also assuming..

That should a system with that much discretion involved come to pass, it won't be subverted based on a political, racial, gender, or sexual identity basis.

[Atypical Liberal]

43. On militias.

So what militia do you belong to?

Aside from the fact that all able-bodied men aged 17-45 are in the unorganized militia, it doesn't matter if you are in a militia or not.

All the second amendment says is that militias are necessary to the security of free states. But the right to keep and bear arms belongs to the people. Yes, the people are to be armed so that they can participate in militias, but not for that reason exclusively.

Moreover, it is now settled Constitutional law that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right irrespective of membership in any organization. This is per the US Supreme Court.

In this day and age to think every one should have access to guns is not rational. I know a few people that shouldn't touch a gun. some I have hunted with, once! If you don't know anyone that shouldn't have a gun, you don't have a very large circle of friends.

And in fact many people don't have access to guns, by law.

[SteveM]

28. Maybe it's the only style of death he is inflamed over? nt

[DWC]

50. Because if they focus on the real culprit

which is the action of irresponsible and / or criminal people, someone's feelings might be hurt. This blaming an inanimate object is political correctness gone amuck.

Semper Fi,

[A Simple Game]

30. You know what else?

It's been 5 hours and not one person has shown any sympathy for the child.

Some wish he had instead drown, been poisoned, or died in a car accident. Many see cause to worry about their ability to own guns. Most I think are just sorry the kid brought up the subject.

Very few seem to want to do anything about it.

[DWC]

49. See post #39 - Trying to do something about it. n/t

[ileus]

16. does that number include suicides?

[LAGC]

24. No, suicides are categorized separately per that link.

They account for about 11% of all older teen (15- to 19-year-old) deaths, but aren't broken down into sub-categories, so I'm not sure what percentage of suicides are done by firearm, as opposed to just over-dosing on pills or drugs, which I presume is the prevailing method.

[ileus]

14. Guns aren't toys....my 6 yo knows this.

[SteveM]

36. As Johnny Cash, a gun owner/user, said: "Don't ever play with guns..."

Folsom Prison Blues.

[DWC]

39. A primary source for guns

by teenagers is burglary or covert theft from family, family friends, and neighbors.

It is more than reasonable to consider that anyone who keeps guns in their home for defense, or any other purpose, and does not have a viable electronic alarm system seriously needs to reconsider their priorities.

Historically, the conflict between the need to have immediate, unrestricted access to a defensive firearm by authorized individuals while highly restricting covert access to unauthorized individuals has been irreconcilable.

I have just entered my 5th decade in the electronic alarm industry and have been committed in a full time effort to resolving or at least mitigating this conflict since February, 2009.

No, I do not have all of the answers but I do have some of them.

No, I do not know all of the questions but I do know most of them.

Over 80% of all firearms used in violent crime have been stolen, at some point since manufacturer, from an honest person.

My life's work is to dramatically reduce that number.

Semper Fi,