Slog

News & Arts

The Stranger Suggests

Critics' Best Bets
Music Arts & Food


Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

Wednesday, February 22, 2012

Guns Don't Shoot Little Girls

Posted by on Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 9:43 PM

Guns inside nine-year-old boys' backpacks that accidentally discharge in classrooms shoot little girls.

 

Comments (23) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
1
Was his name Joe?
Posted by kinaidos on February 22, 2012 at 10:00 PM
Knat 2
The student who brought the handgun to school has been booked... for investigation of unlawful awful possession of a firearm, bringing a dangerous weapon onto school grounds and third-degree assault.

Is that "unlawful awful" part a typo, or is that an actual designation?
Posted by Knat on February 22, 2012 at 10:43 PM
Zebes 3
Knat beat me to it. I mean, yeah, it's clearly awful, but is it legally awful?
Posted by Zebes http://www.badrap.org/rescue/index.html on February 22, 2012 at 11:07 PM
NaFun 4
W.T.F.? Investigating a 9yo for a crime? These people are insane.
Posted by NaFun http://www.dancesafe.org on February 22, 2012 at 11:57 PM
5
Gun no doubt kept by parents for "protection". I hope they are prosecuted for assault and child endangerment!
Posted by Spokalou on February 22, 2012 at 11:57 PM
Urgutha Forka 6
Shit, if the law could prosecute people for awful stuff, the prisons would be packed 10x worse than they already are.

Politicians would be the number one culprits.
Posted by Urgutha Forka on February 22, 2012 at 11:59 PM
7
Would any legally-minded types tell us what charges the gun owner can face, if any?

Oh Bremerton, my beleaguered birthplace, be better. You are to Seattle what Newark is to NYC.
Posted by Subdued Excitement on February 23, 2012 at 3:16 AM
8
Of course guns kill people. Weren't there a whole bunch of Remington firearms in the military that were manufactured improperly, accidentally discharged due to the design flaw, and killed soldiers?

http://www.fairwarning.org/2010/10/popul…
Posted by Drew2u on February 23, 2012 at 5:03 AM
billrm 9
Guns make us safer!

Yeah, right. :-(
Posted by billrm on February 23, 2012 at 7:38 AM
10
@8 As far as I know, the only weapons that Remington gives the Army is the M24 sniper rifle, which is a heavily modified version of the Remington 700. Even that is getting phased out; the snipers in my battalion have begun switching over to the M110.

If I remember right, our shotguns are made by Mossberg, but I could be wrong.
Posted by jj41243 on February 23, 2012 at 7:52 AM
Fifty-Two-Eighty 11
@9, well, yes. As a matter of fact, they do.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/20…
Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty http://www.nra.org on February 23, 2012 at 8:02 AM
12
I knew that old murderous scamp 5280 would show up to push his biased and misguided bullshit.
Posted by Cop-Shoot-Cop on February 23, 2012 at 10:04 AM
hans millionaire 13
where do we draw the line on this investigation? will they charge this 9 year old child as an adult? and sentence him to hard labor with other murderers and convicts?
Posted by hans millionaire on February 23, 2012 at 10:36 AM
venomlash 14
@11: Clearly, when you want to prove a point, you should cite an opinion column rather than, say, a compilation of reliable data or a published study.
Posted by venomlash on February 23, 2012 at 10:51 AM
15
@14 He could do like you do and link to a cartoon declaring everybody in the thread should be murdered. Because that's so much better.
Posted by tkc on February 23, 2012 at 11:44 AM
16
This is no time for debate; those of you commenting and using this as your grandstand example for gun regulation, or, for gun rights: You should be ashamed of yourselves.

My heart and prayers go out to the little girl and her family. I will also keep the boy and his family in my prayers, they too, deserve compassion.

Posted by scratchmaster joe on February 23, 2012 at 11:56 AM
17
Dominic, your headline is shameful. To use this little girl's shooting as your political fodder is just disgusting.

You need to be a little more respectful about this situation. Although I'm not your mother, I'm still supremely disappointed in you; I thought you'd have a little more class than using this poor wounded girl to further your political agenda. Give it a week, man.

Seriously, consider your actions here, they are reprehensible.

I feel disgust just thinking about what kind of person would use this to further their own politics. It's just terrible. I hope you are a big enough person to reconsider your angle here: A simple headline about a girl being shot would do, no need for your politics to be injected into this tragedy. Have you no shame?

Posted by scratchmaster joe on February 23, 2012 at 12:05 PM
18
If that gun came from the child's home, the parents should be held responsible for the accident.
Posted by seattlebikeguy on February 23, 2012 at 1:40 PM
Knat 19
@16, 17: Yes, how dare a journalist report a topical story about the accidental shooting of a child by making reference to the inanity of the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" retort. What was he thinking?

While you do your praying, others do something actually productive, and discuss the matter, in the hopes of finding ways to prevent a similar occurrence in the future.
Posted by Knat on February 23, 2012 at 6:11 PM
20
@19 your belief is that the goal of this thread is to prevent these kind of tragedies via the types of "elevated" discussions on SLOG? Really? The goal of this thread is grand an already dull and pointless axe.

It's one thing to use a particular gun tragedy as a spring board for discussion of specific gun policy in order to adress a specific behavior.

It's quite another to constantly inundate a forum with fringe occurrences or freak tragedies in order to simply whip up unfocused emotional outrage.

It's like, if every time some 90 year old lady drove her Buick through a WalMart, I posted a tirade about the danger of cars and how everybody should ride bikes instead with the headline " CARS KILL! AGAIN!".

I could instead post a thread about how maybe we should increase the frequency of mandatory drivers tests for people over 65.
Posted by tkc on February 23, 2012 at 6:24 PM
venomlash 21
@15: One, I wasn't trying to prove a point, but to voice a personal opinion as to the quality of the discussion. Two, it wasn't EVERYONE; I distinctly specified that blah blah blah cthulhu fhtagn blah blah blah was to be spared.
Posted by venomlash on February 23, 2012 at 7:17 PM
Keister Button 22
"Officials with the the Kitsap County Juvenile Department said both the child's mother and father have extensive criminal records." By all means let people with extensive criminal records keep guns, because they are responsible people. "Mommy can I use your .45 today at school?" "Of course dear, you need to protect yourself against those knife-wielding second graders!"
Posted by Keister Button on February 23, 2012 at 8:23 PM
Knat 23
@20: I believe the point of this thread was to inform readers about a local tragedy involving children and a handgun (which was apparently kept loaded, with the safety disengaged, without a trigger guard, and within reach of children). But Dom was also--I think--casually pointing this out as a specific case of why the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" go-to retort is inane. If you've never heard this phrase spoken by someone speaking in complete sincerity, I envy you. I don't think Dom was being disrespectful, but you're welcome to your opinion.

And how exactly does one "inundate" by reporting on "fringe occurrences" or "freak tragedies"? I trust you'll pray for the answer, rather than consulting a dictionary.
Posted by Knat on February 23, 2012 at 8:23 PM

Add a comment

Advertisement
 

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact Info | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy