11-year old shoots Father's girlfriend

[Atavarius]

A small update on this since it happened close to me. The kid was moved from the county jail to a juvenile detention center. He is also going to be charged with 2 counts of homocide.

Edit:

Found a source on the local news website:

Pregnant Shooting Victim Laid To Rest
NEW CASTLE (KDKA) ―

[Click to zoom.] Click to enlarge
Family, friends and community members lined up outside of a Lawrence County funeral home to say goodbye to Kenzie Houk and her unborn son.

The pregnant woman, who was shot and killed last week in her Lawrence County farm house, will be buried this morning with her unborn son.

Hundreds of mourners gathered to say a final goodbye Tuesday to 26-year-old Kenzie Houk. Funeral services were held after a wake for Houk and her son, Christopher.

Today, the two will be buried in one grave in the Parkside Cemetery in Shenango Township.

A family spokesman said the Houks were touched by the outpouring of support and sympathy.

"The hardest part was, we got to view the baby and Kenzie," said Williard Houk. "It was really hard on my brother, his daughter and my sister-in-law, but that once we got over that with all these people, it's just wonderful to see the people support, to come out… friends, neighbors, it's just overwhelming."

Houk leaves behind a 7-year-old daughter and a 4-year-old daughter.

Meanwhile, the boy accused in the shooting, 11-year-old Jordan Brown, has been moved to a juvenile facility in Beaver County.

Brown, the son of Houk's fiancé, was being held in the Lawrence County Jail.

Officials were concerned about him being in an adult facility. Brown is facing charges of criminal homicide and homicide of an unborn child.

http://kdka.com/local/funeral.burial.Ke ... 43311.html

[Zixinus]

I really wonder what happens to the kid. I mean, how does one live with knowing the fact that he willingly shot a pregnant woman?

[Kanastrous]

I wouldn't worry about that too much. People seem to have positively astonishing coping mechanisms for continuing to think highly of themselves and regard themselves as basically good guys, no matter what they've done to others.

[Alyeska]

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.

So a child should never handle anything that is potentially dangerous? I had my first knife when I was 8 years old. That is a dangerous tool. I was downhill skiing when I was 4 years old. That is a dangerous sport. I lived in semi-rural Alaska where it was common to see Black Bears in the summer. Those are Dangerous Animals.

You write it off as dangerous without qualifying what exactly makes it dangerous. Under a controlled environment there is nothing wrong with a child firing a gun. You have to provide justification that its bad to let a child shoot a gun when closely supervised by an adult.

[K. A. Pital]

That's the essence of a go kart, after all. Do you think go kart drivers need to be age 16?

Actually, if a cart accident can be as deadly as a real car accident, yes. If it's safer, due to lower mass and speed of the vehicle, you can lower the limit because the machine is less dangerous than a real car.

You write it off as dangerous without qualifying what exactly makes it dangerous.

Severity of damage it can deal. Like an industrial drill or a car, the damage a real weapon can deal is deadly. Note that it's markedly different from a BB gun or a toy car. Those too can deal some damage, but it's far less severe.

[Akkleptos]

You write it off as dangerous without qualifying what exactly makes it dangerous. Under a controlled environment there is nothing wrong with a child firing a gun. You have to provide justification that its bad to let a child shoot a gun when closely supervised by an adult.

The same reason it's illegal to drive a car without a license that -at least supposedly- credits your hability to handle the vehicle in a relatively safe way without endangering your life or others' any more than reasonably expected. So, just as a teenager learning how to drive, a child learning to use a gun requires close supervision.

But then there's a reason why they don't let children marry, drive cars, operate heavy machinery, etc. Hmmm...

A gun, unlike a knife, makes it extremely easy to kill someone by accident, or on a whim, by simply moving one finger. As Stas put it so succintly, it's a professional tool for professional use, by highly trained professionals. Of course, childen should be educated about what guns can do and how they work, but having the kids actually shoot them is IMHO what is in a really dire need for justification.

If one were already determined to kill someone with a knife, one could just as well get it done by pushing the victim off a cliff or using a shovel anyway. But since a gun is tremendously more effective at killing, it's dangerous in that it can cause a death even if you're not completely commited to the act, even if you haven't thought it through, if you're irresponsible, stupid and have access to one.

[Alyeska]

The same reason it's illegal to drive a car without a license that -at least supposedly- credits your hability to handle the vehicle in a relatively safe way without endangering your life or others' any more than reasonably expected.

That only prevents a child from driving on the road. They can still drive on private land, and they do. I was driving a tractor in the field before I had my license. And a tractor is a powerful tool.

A gun, unlike a knife, makes it extremely easy to kill someone by accident, or on a whim, by simply moving one finger. If one were already determined to kill someone with a knife, one could just as well get it done by pushing the victim off a cliff or using a shovel anyway. But since a gun is tremendously more effective at killing, it's dangerous in that it can cause a death even if you're not completely commited to the act, even if you haven't thought it through, if you're irresponsible, stupid and have access to one.

A child determined to kill someone can do so through a variety of means, even potentially a gun if they are clever. When taking standard safety precautions with firearms, it is not easy to kill someone. When dealing with a child the parent and/or instructor takes extra precautions that are also common sense. Its the same precautions one takes with novice first time shooters. You educate them on safety first, then when you introduce them you assume total control of the situation. You position yourself behind the child so that if they do anything remotely unsafe you can take control of their arms and immediately defuse the situation. If they have never fired before at all you typically hold the weapon with them to provide a position of bracing and assuming even more control to prevent any accidents.

Then you have the common rules of not pointing the weapon at anyone, only point the weapon at something you intend to shoot, keep the weapon unloaded at all times except when ready to shoot. Do not touch the weapon until ready to shoot, pay attention to the range instructor at all times, etc. Common sense rules. Combine standard firearms safety rules with the precautions taken for a child and its rather safe. Accidents you hear about with children firing a weapon are examples of poor safety precautions, and these are the same parents I wouldn't trust a bottle of bleach with. Accidents can and will happen even with the safest things when someone is irresponsible. But when you take control of the situation, there is very little to be worried about.

You are simply placing irrational fears on the weapon and refusing to consider the situation and how it would be handled properly.

[Alyeska]

Severity of damage it can deal. Like an industrial drill or a car, the damage a real weapon can deal is deadly. Note that it's markedly different from a BB gun or a toy car. Those too can deal some damage, but it's far less severe.

So my parents were bad parents for having me driving tractors in the field well before I was old enough to get my drivers license. It was a tool of our farm that is also very powerful and capable of damage far in excess of any gun. You would ban a child from anything because of the potential danger in an uncontrolled environment and refuse access in a controlled environment. Let me repeat that. You would ban access in a controlled environment in order to try and stop access in an uncontrolled environment. You aren't trying to address the root of the problem. You are amputating an entire leg to heal a paper cut. You have to look at what the root of the problem is and address that. When it can reasonably be shown that uncontrolled access to firearms is causing accidents, what is the purpose of banning controlled access?

[His Divine Shadow]

That's the essence of a go kart, after all. Do you think go kart drivers need to be age 16?

Actually, if a cart accident can be as deadly as a real car accident, yes. If it's safer, due to lower mass and speed of the vehicle, you can lower the limit because the machine is less dangerous than a real car.

Well alot of go karts I've seen are gasoline driven and quite heavy enough that they can cause damage should they run into someone or the vehicle would have an accident of sorts. However it's made safer by being in an controlled enviroment and not on the roads.

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.

The child might have an interest in target shooting too? If I had a kid and he/she did I would be happy to further his interests. Frankly at age 10/11 I would probably already have moved from bb guns (they are quite limited, usually not accurate beyond 20 yards) to .22lr, ofcourse they would be allowed neither on their own. But I got a gun safe so...

Kids do compete in shooting competitions like skeet shooting, that requires a .22lr rifle, just last week I read about a 15 year old girl who was ski shooter on the local newspaper. Also read about a swedish school and their ski shooting team before that. Trap is another sport, a kid cannot use a 12 gauge fully sized shotgun, if he'd want to get into trap or skeet he'd need a smaller gun, kids don't usually start that until they are 13-15 though, but the same concept still applies and thats also under controlled circumstances with adult supervision in a controlled area.

I've trained my 8 year old nephew on my .22lr rifle (I got this winchester 9422, it's really tiny actually) because he really wanted to go shooting, he said so himself, it wasn't that hard to make it safe, to begin with I just loaded a bullet at a time and always kept talking about safety rules. You know boys just find this whole gun thing really interesting, it's a good way to stop the incorrect and immature ideas they have about guns by taking them to the range and giving them some serious, boring and preachy range time. It'll put guns into a new perspective before they let all these crazy ideas they get from the movies take root.

Ofcourse none of this is equal to saying I'd let a kid at that age handle a gun all by his lonesome.

[Akkleptos]

Oi! I get it that it well-supervised by qualified personnel, activities such as driving and handling firearms might not be too dangerous. However, you did leave this little bit out in your reply:

Of course, childen should be educated about what guns can do and how they work, but having the kids actually shoot them is IMHO what is in a really dire need for justification.

What sensible, practical, real-world justification do you propose to having kids shoot firearms? Not knowing about their capabilities and risks, the mechanics of them, how to safely handle them, taking them seriously; but the "shooting them" part, considering they are devices designed primarily for delivering death with the maximum efficiency possible for their size, weight, make and model.

You are simply placing irrational fears on the weapon and refusing to consider the situation and how it would be handled properly.

Riiiiii-ight. Because highly trained professionals absolutely never mess up with guns and/or use them for wrong, unlawful purposes, and of course it is exceedingly absurd to even suppose children trained to use guns could ever do, either. Oh, and parents are absolutely qualified, responsible and infallible when it comes to teaching kids how to handle guns.

I celebrate your sensibility as a child, and the diligent training you got from your parents. Nevertheless, it is doubtful at best that all the children being given -supervised- access to firearms and taught how to use them all benefit from the same advantages you did back then.

Besides, the question at the top still stands: For what? Why is it so necessary?

[Alyeska]

Riiiiii-ight. Because highly trained professionals absolutely never mess up with guns and/or use them for wrong, unlawful purposes, and of course it is exceedingly absurd to even suppose children trained to use guns could ever do, either. Oh, and parents are absolutely qualified, responsible and infallible when it comes to teaching kids how to handle guns.

I celebrate your sensibility as a child, and the diligent training you got from your parents. Nevertheless, it is doubtful at best that all the children being given -supervised- access to firearms and taught how to use them all benefit from the same advantages you did back then.

Besides, the question at the top still stands: For what? Why is it so necessary?

Your argument is that anything potentially lethal should never occur in the presence of a child. A highly trained professional who never lets children handle guns could still accidentally kill a child. A parent with 20 years driving experience might roll a vehicle and kill their child. Accidents can and will happen. Using the claim that accidents might happen as an excuse to ban something entirely is a copout and you know it.

Why is it necessary? In a free society built on civil liberties, we do not have to provide a justification for what we do. You have to provide a justification to restrict it. To do this you need to prove a problem exists in the first place. Something is free to do until the government actively restricts it. That said, the justification has already been given multiple times. Sportsmanship, entertainment, and hunting. So your asking a question that has already been answered, why?

[Akkleptos]

Your argument is that anything potentially lethal should never occur in the presence of a child. A highly trained professional who never lets children handle guns could still accidentally kill a child. A parent with 20 years driving experience might roll a vehicle and kill their child. Accidents can and will happen. Using the claim that accidents might happen as an excuse to ban something entirely is a copout and you know it.

No, it's not. My argument is against unnecessarily having kids shoot guns, when they're not, say, the last line of defense in an all out war. By your logic, I should let my kids play with high-explosives, provided I carefully instruct them how to properly handle them. "Accidents can and will happen", you say? Certainly. And helping them to ways to make this possibility more likely sure helps matters. Accidents can happen in neurosurgery, but the intervention was more often than not required anyway, or the risks it entailed were carefully weighed against the potential benefits. Teaching children to shoot firearms is in no way a similar case. Oh, and you know it

Why is it necessary? In a free society built on civil liberties, we do not have to provide a justification for what we do. You have to provide a justification to restrict it. To do this you need to prove a problem exists in the first place. Something is free to do until the government actively restricts it. That said, the justification has already been given multiple times. Sportsmanship, entertainment, and hunting. So your asking a question that has already been answered, why?

BB guns and .22 calibre, okay. But a shotgun? Again, cost-benefit balance. One death by shooting kid is one too many, if you ask me. And, again, the high-explosives example applies here as well. It's not specifically forbidden, is it?

[His Divine Shadow]

What sensible, practical, real-world justification do you propose to having kids shoot firearms? Not knowing about their capabilities and risks, the mechanics of them, how to safely handle them, taking them seriously; but the "shooting them" part, considering they are devices designed primarily for delivering death with the maximum efficiency possible for their size, weight, make and model.

It's a fun activity between adult and child that both enjoy. I don't see anything wrong with it, nor is it an extraordinarly dangerous activity either compared to many other activites and sports it's on the safer scale.

Obviously the way you describe guns as "devices meant only to kill etc etc" makes it clear you find the whole thing morally wrong. Well I don't find it morally wrong, nor does it bother me what their original purpose was in the least. But such arguments are totally subjective and irrelevant anyway to the matter at hand. Fact of the matter is it's a fun activity with no extra-ordinary risk involved when under adult supervision, subjective moral value judgements notwithstanding.

[His Divine Shadow]

I am pre-emptively offering some sources, olympic youth shooting both air rifle and .22cal rifle shooting:
http://www.ambridgejrotc.com/learningce ... eratin.doc

View as html via google: http://74.125.77.132/search?q=cache:3Sg ... =clnk&cd=3

Claims no deaths in 104 years of activity.


http://msucares.com/4h_Youth/shooting_sports/faqs.html

How safe is youth shooting sports?

The National Youth Sports Safety Foundation released a study of youth sports deaths for the years 1984-1988. The study identified 276 deaths in 14 different youth sports. Numbers ranged from a high of 69 deaths in baseball and 63 in football down to a low of 1 in volleyball. No deaths were attributed to youth target shooting activities. All statistics support the conclusion that the shooting sports, under the direction of responsible and capable adult leaders, is one of the safest activities available to young people.

This source has less credibility because I cannot find the NYSSF report they are referring to. I have contacted NYSSF asking for it. But nonetheless it doesn't seem particularly dangerous. In finland and sweden accidents in shooting sports are almost unheard of (I do not think we've had a death from sports shooting in many many years) and we do have younger people shooting with shotguns as well as .22lr rifles. Shotguns are mainly used for hunting birds as well as trap and skeet, an activity children do enjoy.

I believe this is also allowed in the UK, certainly there they allow 14 year olds to fire semi automatic .22lr rifles in IPSC competitions.

[[R_H]]

No, it's not. My argument is against unnecessarily having kids shoot guns, when they're not, say, the last line of defense in an all out war. By your logic, I should let my kids play with high-explosives, provided I carefully instruct them how to properly handle them.

What about rocketry or fireworks? Those are hobbies which involve high explosives.

[K. A. Pital]

Your argument is that anything potentially lethal should never occur in the presence of a child. A highly trained professional who never lets children handle guns could still accidentally kill a child. A parent with 20 years driving experience might roll a vehicle and kill their child. Accidents can and will happen.

No, the argument is that decreasing the number of potentially lethal tools in the presence of the child is decreasing the probability of his or others' death. It's not the black and white fallacy, it's about making a lethal accident less probable.

True, even an adult can have a lethal accident, but the CHILD is far, far more likely to have it. Even controlled. Because it's a freaking child for god's sake. It's brain isn't even fully developed, neither are it's muscles at low ages.

Fact of the matter is it's a fun activity with no extra-ordinary risk involved when under adult supervision

No extraordinary risks? And you're brinding up - let me see - professional SPORTS as an example? You know that safety standards of professional sportsmen are far more rigorous than to be found in ANY home environment, right? You know that child sportsmen are specifically trained to handle deadly weapons for the purpose of competition - they aren't having a casual shooting. And you know that the safety of gun keeping in sports is incredibly greater when compared to your average child parent, as seen above with the faulty common gun locks.

And you can't see the erroneous claim? That's bad.

What about rocketry or fireworks?

True, and they are very, extremely dangerous; they can lead to lethal accidents even in a perfectly controlled environment because they have a greater capacity for malfunction. A child should be kept the fuck away from pyro-anything, especially potentially lethal explosives. You're trying to say fireworks, one of the very real and widespread causes of recreational violent deaths here in Russia, is "safe"?

[His Divine Shadow]

No extraordinary risks? And you're brinding up - let me see - professional SPORTS as an example? You know that safety standards of professional sportsmen are far more rigorous than to be found in ANY home environment, right? You know that child sportsmen are specifically trained to handle deadly weapons for the purpose of competition - they aren't having a casual shooting. And you know that the safety of gun keeping in sports is incredibly greater when compared to your average child parent, as seen above with the faulty common gun locks.

And you can't see the erroneous claim? That's bad.

ROFLMAO! Professional sports!

Youth shooting in high-school and such is hardly a "professional sport". Man you are distorting things so badly, are you just speaking out of ignorance here or what? The kids doing this aren't "extra ordinarily trained" or magic super men with elite skills. They are given the same training as most people thats ever had a basic gun safety course.

I should fucking know given that they had shooting at my school. You're making it seem like we where supermen with elite training. Christ we where kids that where given education in basic gun safety and then started the actual shooting.

None of the links I've given are about high level atheltic sports, they are low level recreational activities on the same level as after school soccer.

I know I can compare it to casual shooting, I got the real life experience with both and I can safely say most casual shooting with parental supervision is infact safer because you have an adult focusing on the child and shooting in a safe direction as opposed to many children and one or just some adults, it's a lot less complicated and dangerous that way.

Infact in these sports you're letting kids go with guns on their backs and then they have to ski to a range and deploy their weapons and fire, lots of moments where you do not have control, unlike when you are with your own kid and can focus entierly on him/her. In order to do this sport in school a few days of basic gun safety is required, hardly the lollertastic ultra-atheltic description you're giving it

You obviously have no experience with either I can tell.

[Yogi]

So a child should never handle anything that is potentially dangerous? *Personal Ancedotes snipped*

Personal anecdotes have never been accepted as evidence on this site. You should know that by now! "I never wore seatbelts and I'm perfectly fine" is not an argument against seatbelt laws (I wear seatbelts).

You write it off as dangerous without qualifying what exactly makes it dangerous. Under a controlled environment there is nothing wrong with a child firing a gun. You have to provide justification that its bad to let a child shoot a gun when closely supervised by an adult.

You know that a gun is dangerous, so don't play this game with me. Burden of proof is still on you.

[AMT]

A child determined to kill someone can do so through a variety of means, even potentially a gun if they are clever. When taking standard safety precautions with firearms, it is not easy to kill someone.

Except that prior posts have shown that standard safety precautions are woefully easy to bypass.

[Coyote]

You write it off as dangerous without qualifying what exactly makes it dangerous. Under a controlled environment there is nothing wrong with a child firing a gun. You have to provide justification that its bad to let a child shoot a gun when closely supervised by an adult.

You know that a gun is dangerous, so don't play this game with me. Burden of proof is still on you.

Actually, the way it works is like this-- owning guns is currently legal, and despite some crimes and accidents that gather a lot of media attention, the majority of people involved in shooting events are doing so in safe and responsible manners. The firearms industry promotes safety by issuing rules with each weapon about safe handling, instructions for use, and so forth; various clubs and organizations offer safety courses and provide instruction for shooters. Mechanisms are in place to allow this activity to be carried out in a safe manner.

If you want to ban this, based on the idea that it is wrong/dangerous/immoral/unethical, then it is up to you to provide reasons why. You also need to provide proof that various murders or suicides were carried out only because a gun was available, and that there would have been no other means to carry out these deaths if a gun had been unavailable. You need to weigh the social costs and benefits of restricting guns from the generally safe masses because of the irresponsibility of a relative handful of people, and so on.

You need to keep in perspective that for every murder or crime story you hear about involving a gun, there are hundreds of others out there that have guns that are not engaging in murder or crime.

[K. A. Pital]

ROFLMAO! Professional sports!

Youth shooting in high-school and such is hardly a "professional sport". Man you are distorting things so badly, are you just speaking out of ignorance here or what? The kids doing this aren't "extra ordinarily trained" or magic super men with elite skills. They are given the same training as most people thats ever had a basic gun safety course.

Wait, you're talking about university (high school is university, right) students training to shoot at practice ranges, acting in sports like biathlon and such? How the fuck is that comparable to 10-year old children? Shove that strawman back where it belongs - adults aren't children.

Christ we where kids that where given education in basic gun safety and then started the actual shooting.

10 year old?

You obviously have no experience with either I can tell.

Yup, I obviously never played biathlon... but wait, I did. Except it's generally either a sports school, or starts from age 16 upwards in normal schools. Here, at least. If you let 10 year old kiddos play biathlon in ordinary schools (not sports schools which teach kids, um... to become professional sportsmen, and little else), I do have a problem with that.

[Darth Wong]

So a child should never handle anything that is potentially dangerous?

Ummm, isn't that why we don't let kids get their hands on cars or powerful medications?

I agree that a gun is only dangerous in the hands of an irresponsible individual. The problem is that children are irresponsible individuals. That's the whole point of giving them restricted rights in general. That's why we treat them differently than adults when they commit crimes. We do not consider children fully responsible. So what you're saying is that guns should be put in the hands of irresponsible individuals.

[Ryan Thunder]

Why is it necessary? In a free society built on civil liberties, we do not have to provide a justification for what we do.

Bzzt. Wrong answer.
Handle high-explosives and you need a permit, which requires justification.

Why should guns be any different?

[Alyeska]

Why is it necessary? In a free society built on civil liberties, we do not have to provide a justification for what we do.

Bzzt. Wrong answer.
Handle high-explosives and you need a permit, which requires justification.

Why should guns be any different?

You have to prove a justification to restrict them in the first place numbnuts.

[Alyeska]

So a child should never handle anything that is potentially dangerous?

Ummm, isn't that why we don't let kids get their hands on cars or powerful medications?

I agree that a gun is only dangerous in the hands of an irresponsible individual. The problem is that children are irresponsible individuals. That's the whole point of giving them restricted rights in general. That's why we treat them differently than adults when they commit crimes. We do not consider children fully responsible. So what you're saying is that guns should be put in the hands of irresponsible individuals.

Only under controlled settings with proper supervision. Children are already allowed to do other adult things under supervision. I see nothing wrong with applying that to firearms. If there is evidence of a problem, then things can change. But as it stands, that does not appear to be the case. You hear about rare singular events. Most incidents of children with weapons are illegal scenarios that are, well, already illegal. Or incidents of irresponsible parents. In that case the problem is dealing with stupid parents. The kid already shouldn't have had the weapon unrestricted.