11-year old shoots Father's girlfriend

[pj1351]

This case goes way beyond the parent's negligence in letting his 11 year old have access to a firearm and right to the apparent negligence in upbringing which would produce a kid more than willing to snuff out a human life with no more consideration that he'd give to stepping on a bug if this was not accidental. If so, this kid is already a sociopath and you have to wonder how nobody was watching his development along that path in the first place.

A couple of examples. Back when I was in high school (and yes, this actually happened in Melbourne, Australia), one of my classmates was stabbed in the back. While it was "only" with a mini box cutter keyring, it was done with malicious intent and done on school grounds. Let me give everybody one guess as to how many relevant hits I got when I searched for the keywords of my school's name plus either "stabbing" or the victim's name? For those that guessed a big fat ZERO, you would be correct.

Here's something that's not directly related, but... One of my friend was a student of what is considered one of the top high schools in my state. During an conversation a few years back, he brought up the fact that there was a huge mess in his school, as it was discovered that members of the treasury (of that school's student council) had been skimming funds. He knew about a good deal about the details because he was involved with the student council, but both back then and now when I look up to see if there's anything related to the incident, I either find absolutely nothing, or thousands of unrelated links (depending on how much I narrow search definitions).

My point? From my experience and what I've found out from others, if they can get away with it, many schools will cover up any sort of incidents that they think will make them look bad. So I rather suspect that it's not a case of nobody was watching, but rather, a lot of people turning a blind eye (or dismissing as "boys will be boys") to previous incidents.

[Yogi]

This is why children would only use firearms under the supervision of adults. My first encounter with a gun was when I was 9 years old. I got to shoot a .22 pistol at targets. First I had to prove myself with a pellet pistol for two days before they even let me use the .22 pistol. Even then they supervised me and were in direct control if anything were to happen. My father was standing behind me ready to grab my hands in a moments notice.

There is nothing wrong with a child using a firearm in a controlled supervised setting. Or do you think children should be disallowed from driving bumper cars too? Its a moving vehicle. A gun is only as dangerous as the person using it. When an adult provides supervision and takes responsibility for the situation, there is little of consequence. We aren't talking about giving a gun to a child and letting them wander about. We are talking proper education and supervision to ensure safety.

OK, take the above quote and replace all instances of "gun" with "Bulldozer" Should a child operate a fully functional Bulldozer made to accomidate a child, if there is proper parental supervision at all times. Now replace it with "chainsaw" or any other extremely dangrous tool.

I mean, you CAN, but why on earth would you WANT to? With any other dangerous tool, people take the sane route of not having young children mess with them, and only teenagers once they have proven to be resposible. No one makes child-sized fully functional chainsaws, even though chainsaws would be more useful than a gun would be. However, the second someone mensions "guns" people suddenly think that giving them to children IS a good idea.

[Minischoles]

Is a simple plastic toy gun not enough for kids in America? do they really need a resized lethal shotgun to play with?

There is never any reason to give a child a gun, it just gives completely the wrong impression. Why treat something that is designed purely for one thing (to kill things. Don't try and claim a gun is for anything else, especially for a shotgun) as a toy? That'll put completely the wrong idea into that childs head. He probably thought it was a damn game pointing it at his fathers girlfriend.

[Julhelm]

Why does everyone assume this was an accident?

[Big Phil]

According to the District Attorney (I saw an interview with him yesterday on GMA or the Today show - don't remember which), the boy's sister heard the gunshot, then they both went to school. In other words, the boy did it on purpose (thus the murder charge). I'm curious what physical evidence they have that he did it - it wouldn't be unheard of for a DA for charge someone with murder on testimony alone without any physical evidence.

[Hawkwings]

Yeah... I don't get why everyone assumes this was an accident. All this talk of negligence of upbringing and not locking the gun up is great and all, but it remains that this kid most likely meant to kill his father's girlfriend, thus the murder charge.

As for physical evidence, I'm sure they could examine the shot in the woman's body, compare it to the shot in the shells that were loaded in the shotgun.

[AMT]

I actually assumed it was intentional, which made my point regarding lack of gun safety and why kids shouldn't have access to them even more apt.

[Zixinus]

This case is really fucking depressing. To show such hatred as such a young age is unbelievable.

I'm afraid I'm going have to side with the anti-gun crowd here: the kid shouldn't have access to such a weapon in the first place.

We have BB guns and the like for children. That's what they're for. If the kid used a BB gun to fire at his father's girlfriend, there would be less tears here.

Something that fires, live commercial ammunition is not a children's toy and should not be treated as such.

It's fine that some gun users teach their children how to use guns. This eliminates the curiosity and teaches something that could be valuable skill in the child's later life.

However, children are children and thus are not biologically capable of always rationally overlooking their own actions, therefore cannot responsibly use firearms on their own violation. With adult supervision, yes. But that does not mean they can otherwise.

Do you not comprehend the issue at hand? It has nothing to do with a weapon designed for children. It has to do with negligent parents who don't keep the weapon safe.

Actually the issue at hand also begs the question: Why the bloody hell did the parent buy a shotgun for an 11 year old?

If we were talking about a 21 year old, than this would be just another case of domestic violence. But this is not.

The issue here isn't that the parent was irresponsible. The issue here, is that the parent was not only irresponsible but bloody stupid for buying and teaching an 11 year old an operable shotgun and then surprised when the 11 year old does something stupid or in this case, something that ends in tears.

And even for those that do, there are many kids who are capable of bypassing those restrictions, either by finding the key for the gun-safe, or the combination.

What, all children are born safecrackers now?

There are cases when the child learn the combination or was able to lift dad's/mom's key for the gunsafe, but the fact that they can do this is a sign of mayor irresponsibility.

It's not exactly rocket science to tell the child that they should never, ever touch a gun without daddy's permission or even just open the safe. It's not rocket science to put your two keys to the gunsafe in some place that's inaccessible to children (like on your keychain that you always carry with you or in a high, hidden place that kid can't reach). It's not rocket science to tell the kid he should go outside the room when you using your combination.

There is quite a lot of evidence that most commonly used locks are unsafe, or at least there is some. I could find more,

Wow, that's scary. Although, this applies to trigger locks rather than safes, this is indeed a frightening prospect.

I wonder whether this is just USA-only phenomenon or are similar lack of standards apply to European products.

[Coyote]

The boy was probably intent to kill her; I wouldn't be surprised if he saw the woman as a rival for the boy's attention & affection from his father. Or maybe she did something that set the kid off (innocent or malicious). But the kid clearly has problems.

As for the child-sized shotgun, again, under the proper supervision it can be a good way to teach a kid responsibility. Giving a child a puppy to raise is much the same, even though there's the possibility for abuse or neglect of a living creature. Again, it's not like these things are handed over to a kid and he's cut loose out the door and told to be back by supper. It's supposed to be under close adult supervision. The adults in this case certainly failed the test; not just in securing the weapon but in not seeing that this kid has serious issues, and was developing a malevolent attitude towards the girlfriend. But seriously, it's not as if every kid who's ever been allowed to hold a gun has suddenly been turned into a sociopathic killer.

[Zixinus]

The boy was probably intent to kill her; I wouldn't be surprised if he saw the woman as a rival for the boy's attention & affection from his father. Or maybe she did something that set the kid off (innocent or malicious). But the kid clearly has problems.

Obviously.

As for the child-sized shotgun, again, under the proper supervision it can be a good way to teach a kid responsibility. Giving a child a puppy to raise is much the same, even though there's the possibility for abuse or neglect of a living creature. Again, it's not like these things are handed over to a kid and he's cut loose out the door and told to be back by supper. It's supposed to be under close adult supervision.

Like I said, I don't see anything wrong teaching a child how to use a gun responsibly and properly.

However, I simply cannot grasp why in the world would you buy a live gun that's specially modified (even if only by one external feature) to be fired by a child unless you actually want that child to shoot shit at such a young age.

Since you don't obviously want that child to use that gun at such a young age without supervision, you obviously just want to use the gun for target shooting. If that's the case, why not buy the kid a BB gun?

Actually, buying the kid a BB gun makes much more sense if you want to teach your child responsible gun use. The kid can truly "own" the gun, he can be taught how to maintenance it and use it. He can use it whenever he wishes and how he wishes to. It isn't like a real gun, but that's not the point.

And worse case, if he shots someone, it will only result in mild injury.

So why a child a gun that uses "real" ammunition? For the sake of novelty of watching your 11 year old shooting a "real" gun? Yes, that's the only conclusion I can get. Pardon me, but in this case, I see that this resulted in tears. But then, you're doing it for your sake rather than the child's, so I fail to see how it teaches the child responsibility. If you want the teach the child responsibility, you buy a BB gun or something similar.

But seriously, it's not as if every kid who's ever been allowed to hold a gun has suddenly been turned into a sociopathic killer.

I never said that's the case. However, consider that children don't truly grasp the concept that the danger of a firearm poses. Give a child a live gun and even with proper teaching, he does not think of using the gun the same way as an adult because a child has a different view of reality. If the kid gets this gun somehow, that's a liability.

The child clearly shouldn't have had access to the gun in the first place (is that a grammatically correct sentence?).

It is clear that the child is at fault here along the father. But somewhere, the gun is also at fault because it is a very dangerous tool used as a novelty item. I'm sorry, but I can see how we could do without such novelty items.

[Solauren]

Where on earth do your cousins live? The African safari? I spent about half my childhood on a fairly isolated farm and not once have I, or anyone around me that lived on that farm, felt threated enough by wildlife to determine that every child must learn how to use a weapon.

He did say "keep some of the wild life at bay / in line". I'm fairly sure he meant that as in "shooting coyotes trying to sneak in to the henhouse, or wolves, pumas, rabid dogs, and other animals farmers find undesirable", rather than as in "protect their lives from..."

The female cousins in question lived up in Shining Tree, Ontario. Or rather, north of it. You can't miss it, go to Toronto, then head north for 8 hours.

[Jim Raynor]

Why does everyone assume this was an accident?

I don't think people were assuming this was an accident; the discussion just wandered off into gun rights. That's not what I intended when I just expressed my surprise that there were such things as child-sized guns.

This boy is very likely a sick fuck and hopefully they try him as an adult.

[Alyeska]

Like I said, I don't see anything wrong teaching a child how to use a gun responsibly and properly.

However, I simply cannot grasp why in the world would you buy a live gun that's specially modified (even if only by one external feature) to be fired by a child unless you actually want that child to shoot shit at such a young age.

Since you don't obviously want that child to use that gun at such a young age without supervision, you obviously just want to use the gun for target shooting. If that's the case, why not buy the kid a BB gun?

Do you hand a .44 magnum to a first time shooter, or a .22 pistol? For fucks sake man, its a simple concept. A youth sized weapon is for the convenience of the shooter. If you are teaching a child how to use firearms safely you don't start them out with a 12 gauge shotgun. A 20 gauge with a smaller sized stock so that the child can properly aim the weapon is ideal.

[Kanastrous]

BB guns are not substitutes for firearms, anyway. Anyone who has done some shooting with both a .177 or .22 pellet gun and a .22 or .22LR rifle can attest that it's a qualitatively different experience.

[FA Xerrik]

At the risk of echoing everyone else, this is absolutely shocking to hear. Coming at it from a psychological standpoint. 11 years old seems an age difficult to push for trying this kid as an adult. He's clearly a far cry away from being well-developed mentally speaking. That said, it's difficult to rationalize an eleven-year old not knowing any better or whatever. What is that, sixth grade? I think it's somewhat premature to say he's a sick fuck or displaying unbelievable anger, but there's definitely more at stake here than can be defended with an appeal to his young age.

[Dark Flame]

Do you hand a .44 magnum to a first time shooter, or a .22 pistol? For fucks sake man, its a simple concept. A youth sized weapon is for the convenience of the shooter. If you are teaching a child how to use firearms safely you don't start them out with a 12 gauge shotgun. A 20 gauge with a smaller sized stock so that the child can properly aim the weapon is ideal.

Also, youth models of guns are far more apt for some adults. Those with small stature, and new shooters like Alyeska said, would benefit from a better-fitting weapon.

Something that fires, live commercial ammunition is not a children's toy and should not be treated as such.

I'm wondering where this came from. If you're referring specifically to the article, I don't think anybody was treating that gun like a toy. In a broader sense, I completely agree with this, but that doesn't mean that kids shouldn't be allowed to experience using a gun in a responsible environment.

[Coyote]

What really needs to be brought out in this case is whether this kid showed psychologically disturbing behavior before (torturing neighborhood animals, excessive hitting, etc). That would shed a lot of light on this whole thing. Did he act problematic earlier, and the adults still didn't restrict his access to firearms? Or was this totally out of the blue.

Really, we need more information before indulging in too much speculation.

[K. A. Pital]

It's all very true that the child has problems. However, comparing a gun to a puppy? Seriously? A little dog and a deadly metallic weapon? Are they really in the same category of deadliness? You'd have to be more than reckless to get slaughtered, or slaughter someone using a puppy. As for giving children large dogs, that's an apt comparison - that's a bad, very bad practice. And real guns are not toys. They aren't even "responsible toys". Like I said, putting an underage driver in an Audi "under adult supervision" here in Russia would result in said adult being thrown into jail if he's caught by the police. I don't see a difference between a real car and a real gun. Both should be kept the fuck away from children, just like all other real high-danger industrial tools like an electric drill.

[His Divine Shadow]

It would be perfectly legal here to put a child in a car to drive on private property or a track as far as I know. But mostly they couldn't physically drive such a car anyway. Thats why cars for children are built (go-carts, cross-carts, various buggys) so they can race on tracks. I wonder what kinda message that sends to young minds about driving though.

[K. A. Pital]

It would be perfectly legal here to put a child in a car to drive on private property or a track as far as I know.

We accept driving in private property, but not as something legal - we do it simply because no one can observe it, and it generally endangers no one but the parent and the child.

However, the fact that a machine is always dangerous, regardless of supervision, remains true; it's also true that the parent cannot be alert at all times, neither is he infallible when it comes to supervision. A small failure with a deadly machine like a car or a gun means, well, death. Children lack the capacity to think logically and clearly, and the younger you are, the less you're fit to use any kind of deadly tools.

Thats why cars for children are built (go-carts, cross-carts, various buggys) so they can race on tracks

A child car isn't even half as deadly as a real car; if it's an electric go-car it will just bump on impact, and be incapable of injuring anyone - including the driver. A child gun, if it's not a BB gun, is at the same level of deadliness as a usual gun. That's the point I was bringing across.

[Coyote]

I wasn't comparing lethality, Stas, I was comparing the responsibility for living things.

Teaching a child responsibility with a toy gun seems, to me, like teaching a teenager to drive by giving him a remote-control car.

A toy gun or BB gun, as pointed out, has little real-world consequence for misuse. By 11 years old, a kid who has shown sufficient responsibility can be using a gun under close adult supervision that has been described. We have no idea what sort of training this kid had before getting the 'youth model' shotgun; for all we know he got it the day before this incident.

Of course I wouldn't give a kid younger then 10 a real weapon to familiarize with, but that's my lower limit to consider. But deciding when to introduce a child to anything requiring responsibility (gun, puppy, car, chainsaw, etc) is a judgment call made by a responsible parent who closely observes their child's development, physical ability, maturity level, etc. We're shooting in the dark (ha) here, not knowing what this kid's maturity level here was like before this incident.

[Zixinus]

Do you hand a .44 magnum to a first time shooter, or a .22 pistol? For fucks sake man, its a simple concept. A youth sized weapon is for the convenience of the shooter. If you are teaching a child how to use firearms safely you don't start them out with a 12 gauge shotgun. A 20 gauge with a smaller sized stock so that the child can properly aim the weapon is ideal.

Or in the case of a 11 year old a BB gun or airsoft gun or whatever and then move up to "real" firearms, once the principles of proper gun use is established and the kid is of adequate age.

11 is too young. If the kid needs a modified stock to fire the thing in the first place, then it might be too early for him to use the thing. I admit that the dangers are minimal under proper oversight, but there is the issue that you are teaching a waaaay under-age kid how to use a deadly weapon.

BB guns are not substitutes for firearms, anyway. Anyone who has done some shooting with both a .177 or .22 pellet gun and a .22 or .22LR rifle can attest that it's a qualitatively different experience.

I have shot (and own, two in fact) a BB pistol and a .22LR handgun. The differences are obvious, but in the direct handling of the thing (aim and shoot part) is pretty much the same. For a kid target-shooting, the differences are negligible.

[Yogi]

Do you hand a .44 magnum to a first time shooter, or a .22 pistol? For fucks sake man, its a simple concept. A youth sized weapon is for the convenience of the shooter. If you are teaching a child how to use firearms safely you don't start them out with a 12 gauge shotgun. A 20 gauge with a smaller sized stock so that the child can properly aim the weapon is ideal.

You're missing the point. Why does a young child need to handle any type of dangerous tool at all. If you think it's a good idea, you provide the evidence for it.

And don't say "to learn safety" either, that's what models and props are for. The same way a child learns about safe sex.

[Vendetta]

But deciding when to introduce a child to anything requiring responsibility (gun, puppy, car, chainsaw, etc) is a judgment call made by a responsible parent who closely observes their child's development, physical ability, maturity level, etc.

However, society has to act to protect it's members from the consequences of those unable or unwilling to make responsible judgement calls.

In the case of firearms, because the consequences of their misuse can be so severe, it's not unreasonable that there should be a minimum legal age for being able to access or use them, just as there is with other potentially lethal tools like cars.

[Beowulf]

In the case of firearms, because the consequences of their misuse can be so severe, it's not unreasonable that there should be a minimum legal age for being able to access or use them, just as there is with other potentially lethal tools like cars.

In the United States, drivers licenses are only required for public roads. If you make your own private road or track, you can have your kid drive at age 10. Or 8, or however old they need to be to reach the controls. That's the essence of a go kart, after all. Do you think go kart drivers need to be age 16?