In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Children, Youth, and Gun Violence - Part 2
Josey1
Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
Children, Youth, and Gun Violence - Part 2
By NICKI FELLENZER
NICKI FELLENZER
It's time to take aim at those irresponsible, feeble excuses for parents who relinquish accountability for their children to anyone and everyone and then feel the necessity to blame anything and anyone but themselves for the tragedy that ensues, while cluttering up our legal system with inanities.
You know the people I'm talking about. You read about them almost daily. They all but ignore their children, leaving them to grow like weeds without proper parental supervision. They surrender the responsibility of teaching their children to public schools without taking any initiative to ensure their children are being taught properly. They allow their kids free television reign - to watch what they want and when they want. And then....when their child gets a hold of a handgun, a knife or drinks a bottle of household chemicals, they proceed to sue the manufacturers of these implements and whine about how these legitimate businesses are victimizing them, their children and our society.
Consider this: between the years 1981 and 1999, over four thousand children were killed in accidental gunfire - 4852, to be exact. In other words during this 19-year period, about 255 children were accidentally killed by firearms per year, with that rate dropping to 158 in the year 2000. These numbers are not huge by any stretch, especially when compared to the number of children in the same 19-year period who were killed by automobiles (113,167) and drowning (9981). The death of any child, regardless of cause, is tragic, so wouldn't it make sense to try and find out if any of these deaths were preventable?
Let's take the recent case of Alexander Breazell Brumfield of Arizona, whose stepson, 5-year-old Stevon, shot himself in the head in June with Breazell Brumfield's unsecured gun. The loaded .45- caliber handgun was left in a closet, where the child had easy access to it. This horrible tragedy could have been prevented by simply storing the weapon where the child couldn't reach it and by the presence of some parental supervision.
But no -- the boy's aunt, Crystal Brumfield, said that as a result of this tragedy the family's children will no longer play with toy guns or watch violent programs, while the father is now urging people to use gun locks.
So let's get this straight, folks. This child's family isn't recommending rational and safe storage. They're not recommending greater supervision of children. They're recommending gun locks and removal of toys. They're touting reliance on devices, rather than safety rules. And while I applaud parental monitoring of television time, this should have been done in the first place, instead of allowing a tragedy to teach you a lesson.
Do these people honestly believe they can replace personal responsibility with mechanical gadgets and prohibition of games such as Cops and Robbers and Cowboys and Indians? Do they actually believe trigger locks make firearms foolproof, or that they're some kind of substitute for safe firearms handling practices?
Instead of appearing at gun lock distribution sites and preaching the virtues of making families defenseless, maybe Breazell Brumfield should be preaching rational, safe storage of firearms and closer parental supervision - something that was obviously missing the fateful night Stevon died!
Let's take another case of three-year-old Jordan Garris, who shot himself with his father's Ruger in June, 1999. Clifton Garris purchased a Ruger P89 semi-automatic pistol in March 1999. Along with his purchase he received an instruction manual, the offer of a free safety course, a safety pamphlet from the ATF, a lockbox in which to store the gun and its magazine, and a padlock for the box. But father of the year ignored virtually all the warnings - including the one on the handle of his handgun that told him to read the safety manual!!!! He put the gun under his mattress and the loaded clip where his three- year-old son could reach it. The little tyke proceeded to shoot himself in the head and died as a result.
But the father's staggering lack of responsibility and good judgment was surpassed only by the mother's appalling lack of common sense. Mommy dearest did what any self-respecting, responsible parent would do (stated with a healthy dose of sarcasm) - she filed suit against Sturm Ruger. According to the suit, the clip was stored separately from the gun, the gun was stored under a mattress, and this toddler found the gun, inserted the clip, racked the slide and shot himself. All of this was done, the suit claims, because the child saw how to do it on television. In other words, blame the gun, blame the TV, but don't ever blame the parent for his inexcusable lack of accountability.
Additionally, as a rational adult, I have some qualms about the specifics of this case. Forgive my skepticism, but I'm the mother of a four-year-old little boy. He's an incredibly bright kid, but tying his shoes is a pretty cumbersome process for him right now. He can do it, but it takes quite a bit of work, and the work isn't always stellar, neat or correct. At his age coordination skills are still developing. If a four year old is still mastering the skill of tying his shoes, I have serious doubts as to the veracity of the claim that a three year old can load the gun and rack the slide so as to fatally shoot himself. So pardon my suspicious nature when I say that perhaps the gun was loaded and readily available to the child, instead of stored separately from the ammo where the toddler couldn't get to it, as this pathetic excuse for a parent claims.
Could this tragic accident have been prevented? Of course it could! Simple proper storage of this firearm could have prevented this heartbreak, and this child could still be alive today. Proper supervision of the child could also have helped. If - and that's a BIG "if" - the child did, in fact, learn how to load and shoot a gun from television programs, perhaps it would have been wise to more carefully monitor what this three-year-old watched.
But his paragon of ignorance mommy opted to sue the gun manufacturer instead, alleging the gun was defective and unreasonably dangerous because its design "failed to incorporate reasonable devices to prevent its use by young children," including a grip safety, heavy trigger-pull, a built-in lock, a trigger lock, or personalized gun technology - all of which would make weapons more expensive to manufacture and ergo, ever more expensive to purchase. In other words, this woman is so incredibly small-minded and foolish that she would rather see firearms be made unaffordable and ergo unavailable to most of us, instead of taking a modicum of personal responsibility for her child.
Luckily the Maryland highest court had some common sense. The court held that the father's carelessness in leaving a handgun and bullets where a child could find them was the cause of this tragic shooting, rejecting Melissa Halliday's wrongful death claim that sought to hold Sturm Ruger liable for the child's death.
In a similar Maryland case, John and Carole Price last year filed suit against Sturm Ruger because a child who was obviously uneducated about handguns and their dangers saw it fit to play with an unsecured firearm he found at his father's house and accidentally shot their son John Joseph Price in the face. According to the suit:
While playing at his father's home, Phillip [Alexander] obtained Mr. [Dennis] Danielczyk's 9 mm handgun ("the gun") and a loaded ammunition magazine from an unlocked dresser in Mr. Danielczyk's bedroom. Soon after, with an empty magazine in the gun but a live round still concealed in the gun's chamber, Phillip pulled the trigger, firing the gun and hitting John in the face, killing him. Neither Phillip nor his friends were aware that the gun was loaded, because there was no visible indication on the gun that the chamber was loaded.
Phillip and his friends were unaware the gun was loaded because they were obviously never taught to properly clear the firearm to ensure there was no round in the chamber. Phillip was also obviously never taught not to point a firearm at anyone unless he intended to shoot them. Phillip was also digging around in an unlocked dresser that didn't belong to him, and the children were alone in the house without any parental supervision whatsoever. However, the parents of John Price saw it fit to bring suit not only against the owner of the house, the shooter and the shooter's father, but also against the store where the gun was purchased and the manufacturer of the weapon:
This tragic shooting resulted from defendant Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc.'s ("Ruger's") and Fallston Pawn and Gun, Inc.'s ("Fallston's") unreasonable and negligent failure to include safety features and adequate warnings with the gun used to kill John Joseph Price.
Pardon me for being callous, but why in the world should two legitimate businesses be responsible for the parent's failure to educate and properly monitor their children? Why should two entities whose only "crime" is production and distribution of a perfectly legal tool be held accountable for a child whose father didn't even see it fit to educate his son about properly clearing his weapon even though he knew there was a firearm in the house? Why should the gun manufacturer and the shop that sold the gun be held responsible for this child's and the parent's reckless behavior?
I've only listed three accidental gun deaths of children in this article. However, I think any rational human being would notice two very important trends in the circumstances of these deaths.
1. The gun was readily accessible to the child in all three cases.
2. In all three cases, responsibility for these deaths was shifted to something or someone other than the person who should have been primarily responsible for the well being of the child -the parent!
How many other deaths could have been prevented had the adult been responsible enough to ensure that the child didn't gain access to the firearm?
Just this week a South Florida man was arrested for leaving an unsecured pistol in his house that was used in an accidental teen shooting last weekend.
In another Florida case in 1999, an 11-year-old boy got angry with his 13-year-old sister, went to a closet at home, took out a gun his parents kept there and killed his sister. The gun was in an unlocked box with the ammunition located next to it. Where were the parents? Why was the gun unsecured? In Cleveland in 1996, a 13-year-old boy took his father's unsecured handgun and killed himself while playing Russian roulette.
Most gun-grabbers will use these tragic cases as an excuse to push their tyrannical agenda:
? mandatory trigger locks, which could not only prevent a gun owner from defending himself or his family against an assailant, but which can be easily removed by picking the lock or slamming them against the table.
? "smart" technology, which is not only prohibitively expensive, but could cost lives by not allowing anyone other than the registered owner to use the weapon. The list of those who would be incapable of using the firearm in an emergency includes the wife, whose husband may be incapacitated by an assailant and the police officer whose partner has been wounded or killed and who has run out of ammo.
? Mandatory gun storage laws, which can't be enforced without significant constitutional violations.
Well, I would use these tragic incidents to teach an entirely different lesson. I'd use them to point out that education, safe storage, parental monitoring and common sense could have saved these children without more laws, regulations and removal of freedoms.
If I sound angry, it's perhaps because I am.
I'm angry that simple measures to prevent tragedies such as the ones I described weren't taken.
I'm angry that people like Sarah Brady are using these senseless, preventable tragedies as ammunition to disarm the general populace.
I'm angry that these children died, and the people primarily responsible for their welfare are taking the opportunity to blame the gun, the gun manufacturer, the shop, television and lack of trigger locks for their deaths when they should be looking in the mirror.
http://www.armedfemalesofamerica.com/index.php?section=TAKING+AIM...
Edited by - Josey1 on 08/03/2002 06:17:01
By NICKI FELLENZER
NICKI FELLENZER
It's time to take aim at those irresponsible, feeble excuses for parents who relinquish accountability for their children to anyone and everyone and then feel the necessity to blame anything and anyone but themselves for the tragedy that ensues, while cluttering up our legal system with inanities.
You know the people I'm talking about. You read about them almost daily. They all but ignore their children, leaving them to grow like weeds without proper parental supervision. They surrender the responsibility of teaching their children to public schools without taking any initiative to ensure their children are being taught properly. They allow their kids free television reign - to watch what they want and when they want. And then....when their child gets a hold of a handgun, a knife or drinks a bottle of household chemicals, they proceed to sue the manufacturers of these implements and whine about how these legitimate businesses are victimizing them, their children and our society.
Consider this: between the years 1981 and 1999, over four thousand children were killed in accidental gunfire - 4852, to be exact. In other words during this 19-year period, about 255 children were accidentally killed by firearms per year, with that rate dropping to 158 in the year 2000. These numbers are not huge by any stretch, especially when compared to the number of children in the same 19-year period who were killed by automobiles (113,167) and drowning (9981). The death of any child, regardless of cause, is tragic, so wouldn't it make sense to try and find out if any of these deaths were preventable?
Let's take the recent case of Alexander Breazell Brumfield of Arizona, whose stepson, 5-year-old Stevon, shot himself in the head in June with Breazell Brumfield's unsecured gun. The loaded .45- caliber handgun was left in a closet, where the child had easy access to it. This horrible tragedy could have been prevented by simply storing the weapon where the child couldn't reach it and by the presence of some parental supervision.
But no -- the boy's aunt, Crystal Brumfield, said that as a result of this tragedy the family's children will no longer play with toy guns or watch violent programs, while the father is now urging people to use gun locks.
So let's get this straight, folks. This child's family isn't recommending rational and safe storage. They're not recommending greater supervision of children. They're recommending gun locks and removal of toys. They're touting reliance on devices, rather than safety rules. And while I applaud parental monitoring of television time, this should have been done in the first place, instead of allowing a tragedy to teach you a lesson.
Do these people honestly believe they can replace personal responsibility with mechanical gadgets and prohibition of games such as Cops and Robbers and Cowboys and Indians? Do they actually believe trigger locks make firearms foolproof, or that they're some kind of substitute for safe firearms handling practices?
Instead of appearing at gun lock distribution sites and preaching the virtues of making families defenseless, maybe Breazell Brumfield should be preaching rational, safe storage of firearms and closer parental supervision - something that was obviously missing the fateful night Stevon died!
Let's take another case of three-year-old Jordan Garris, who shot himself with his father's Ruger in June, 1999. Clifton Garris purchased a Ruger P89 semi-automatic pistol in March 1999. Along with his purchase he received an instruction manual, the offer of a free safety course, a safety pamphlet from the ATF, a lockbox in which to store the gun and its magazine, and a padlock for the box. But father of the year ignored virtually all the warnings - including the one on the handle of his handgun that told him to read the safety manual!!!! He put the gun under his mattress and the loaded clip where his three- year-old son could reach it. The little tyke proceeded to shoot himself in the head and died as a result.
But the father's staggering lack of responsibility and good judgment was surpassed only by the mother's appalling lack of common sense. Mommy dearest did what any self-respecting, responsible parent would do (stated with a healthy dose of sarcasm) - she filed suit against Sturm Ruger. According to the suit, the clip was stored separately from the gun, the gun was stored under a mattress, and this toddler found the gun, inserted the clip, racked the slide and shot himself. All of this was done, the suit claims, because the child saw how to do it on television. In other words, blame the gun, blame the TV, but don't ever blame the parent for his inexcusable lack of accountability.
Additionally, as a rational adult, I have some qualms about the specifics of this case. Forgive my skepticism, but I'm the mother of a four-year-old little boy. He's an incredibly bright kid, but tying his shoes is a pretty cumbersome process for him right now. He can do it, but it takes quite a bit of work, and the work isn't always stellar, neat or correct. At his age coordination skills are still developing. If a four year old is still mastering the skill of tying his shoes, I have serious doubts as to the veracity of the claim that a three year old can load the gun and rack the slide so as to fatally shoot himself. So pardon my suspicious nature when I say that perhaps the gun was loaded and readily available to the child, instead of stored separately from the ammo where the toddler couldn't get to it, as this pathetic excuse for a parent claims.
Could this tragic accident have been prevented? Of course it could! Simple proper storage of this firearm could have prevented this heartbreak, and this child could still be alive today. Proper supervision of the child could also have helped. If - and that's a BIG "if" - the child did, in fact, learn how to load and shoot a gun from television programs, perhaps it would have been wise to more carefully monitor what this three-year-old watched.
But his paragon of ignorance mommy opted to sue the gun manufacturer instead, alleging the gun was defective and unreasonably dangerous because its design "failed to incorporate reasonable devices to prevent its use by young children," including a grip safety, heavy trigger-pull, a built-in lock, a trigger lock, or personalized gun technology - all of which would make weapons more expensive to manufacture and ergo, ever more expensive to purchase. In other words, this woman is so incredibly small-minded and foolish that she would rather see firearms be made unaffordable and ergo unavailable to most of us, instead of taking a modicum of personal responsibility for her child.
Luckily the Maryland highest court had some common sense. The court held that the father's carelessness in leaving a handgun and bullets where a child could find them was the cause of this tragic shooting, rejecting Melissa Halliday's wrongful death claim that sought to hold Sturm Ruger liable for the child's death.
In a similar Maryland case, John and Carole Price last year filed suit against Sturm Ruger because a child who was obviously uneducated about handguns and their dangers saw it fit to play with an unsecured firearm he found at his father's house and accidentally shot their son John Joseph Price in the face. According to the suit:
While playing at his father's home, Phillip [Alexander] obtained Mr. [Dennis] Danielczyk's 9 mm handgun ("the gun") and a loaded ammunition magazine from an unlocked dresser in Mr. Danielczyk's bedroom. Soon after, with an empty magazine in the gun but a live round still concealed in the gun's chamber, Phillip pulled the trigger, firing the gun and hitting John in the face, killing him. Neither Phillip nor his friends were aware that the gun was loaded, because there was no visible indication on the gun that the chamber was loaded.
Phillip and his friends were unaware the gun was loaded because they were obviously never taught to properly clear the firearm to ensure there was no round in the chamber. Phillip was also obviously never taught not to point a firearm at anyone unless he intended to shoot them. Phillip was also digging around in an unlocked dresser that didn't belong to him, and the children were alone in the house without any parental supervision whatsoever. However, the parents of John Price saw it fit to bring suit not only against the owner of the house, the shooter and the shooter's father, but also against the store where the gun was purchased and the manufacturer of the weapon:
This tragic shooting resulted from defendant Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc.'s ("Ruger's") and Fallston Pawn and Gun, Inc.'s ("Fallston's") unreasonable and negligent failure to include safety features and adequate warnings with the gun used to kill John Joseph Price.
Pardon me for being callous, but why in the world should two legitimate businesses be responsible for the parent's failure to educate and properly monitor their children? Why should two entities whose only "crime" is production and distribution of a perfectly legal tool be held accountable for a child whose father didn't even see it fit to educate his son about properly clearing his weapon even though he knew there was a firearm in the house? Why should the gun manufacturer and the shop that sold the gun be held responsible for this child's and the parent's reckless behavior?
I've only listed three accidental gun deaths of children in this article. However, I think any rational human being would notice two very important trends in the circumstances of these deaths.
1. The gun was readily accessible to the child in all three cases.
2. In all three cases, responsibility for these deaths was shifted to something or someone other than the person who should have been primarily responsible for the well being of the child -the parent!
How many other deaths could have been prevented had the adult been responsible enough to ensure that the child didn't gain access to the firearm?
Just this week a South Florida man was arrested for leaving an unsecured pistol in his house that was used in an accidental teen shooting last weekend.
In another Florida case in 1999, an 11-year-old boy got angry with his 13-year-old sister, went to a closet at home, took out a gun his parents kept there and killed his sister. The gun was in an unlocked box with the ammunition located next to it. Where were the parents? Why was the gun unsecured? In Cleveland in 1996, a 13-year-old boy took his father's unsecured handgun and killed himself while playing Russian roulette.
Most gun-grabbers will use these tragic cases as an excuse to push their tyrannical agenda:
? mandatory trigger locks, which could not only prevent a gun owner from defending himself or his family against an assailant, but which can be easily removed by picking the lock or slamming them against the table.
? "smart" technology, which is not only prohibitively expensive, but could cost lives by not allowing anyone other than the registered owner to use the weapon. The list of those who would be incapable of using the firearm in an emergency includes the wife, whose husband may be incapacitated by an assailant and the police officer whose partner has been wounded or killed and who has run out of ammo.
? Mandatory gun storage laws, which can't be enforced without significant constitutional violations.
Well, I would use these tragic incidents to teach an entirely different lesson. I'd use them to point out that education, safe storage, parental monitoring and common sense could have saved these children without more laws, regulations and removal of freedoms.
If I sound angry, it's perhaps because I am.
I'm angry that simple measures to prevent tragedies such as the ones I described weren't taken.
I'm angry that people like Sarah Brady are using these senseless, preventable tragedies as ammunition to disarm the general populace.
I'm angry that these children died, and the people primarily responsible for their welfare are taking the opportunity to blame the gun, the gun manufacturer, the shop, television and lack of trigger locks for their deaths when they should be looking in the mirror.
http://www.armedfemalesofamerica.com/index.php?section=TAKING+AIM...
Edited by - Josey1 on 08/03/2002 06:17:01