Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
PHOENIX (AP) — A 9-year-old boy shot in the head by his 2-year-old brother with their mother's handgun died Tuesday, and their mother told police she had previously let the toddler handle the gun when it wasn't loaded, authorities said.
The mother, Wendy Lavarnia, 28, told police she had put her loaded gun on a bed within reach of her 2-year-old and 4-year-old sons while she turned to get a holster, according to court records. That's when the 2-year-old grabbed the gun and shot her 9-year-old son, who was playing video games a few feet away, police said.
An she's going to burn for this. Are you suggesting there's something more in terms of laws and regulations that needs doing that would have prevented this? There are already such laws and regulations in place (all of which she totally flaunted) and now she knows just why those laws and rules are there. She sure can't claim ignorance as a defense, as if it would fly in any regard.
Yes, obviously she was an irresponsible gun owner. They are out there. They do exist. So I'm just curious, is there a discussion point here?
A moment of inattention, with tragic consequences.
The teaching of gun handling was not irresponsible. Not continuing the teaching was. The child should have been allowed to actually fire the gun (in a safe environment), so he would know more than the fact that nothing happens when the gun is dry fired. He was not taught about loaded guns! THAT, IMO, was the failure!
As a gun owner and parent this makes my blood boil. Why would you EVER feel the need to let a two-year-old handle a gun? And as for loaded/unloaded; a gun is ALWAYS loaded, dumb *****.
(To clarify, even when the gun technically isn't loaded you always treat it as if it were. It's one of the most basic rules of gun safety.)
A moment of inattention, with tragic consequences.
The teaching of gun handling was not irresponsible. Not continuing the teaching was. The child should have been allowed to actually fire the gun (in a safe environment), so he would know more than the fact that nothing happens when the gun is dry fired. He was not taught about loaded guns! THAT, IMO, was the failure!
I know some people aren't going to like this but IMO I don't think kids under the age of 10 or so have the maturity to safely handle a firearm, and even 10 is pushing it. I think high school age (13/14) minimum would be more appropriate.
Way too young. My personal opinion is that kids shouldn't handle guns until they understand that guns can kill, and that dead means forever. That said, I made my kids take a safety course when they were 5, 7, and 8. They weren't allowed to actually shoot until they were older.
I don't understand why parents are not held responsible for this. In my area, I can't tell you how many times this has happened and they always drop the charges against the parents "because they've suffered enough".
I know some people aren't going to like this but IMO I don't think kids under the age of 10 or so have the maturity to safely handle a firearm, and even 10 is pushing it. I think high school age (13/14) minimum would be more appropriate.
Who's to say ? Some 10 year olds are more mature then a 17 year old. It is a tough call for sure.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
