4th grader goes to school after being shot!

[Archae]

:wow:

GREEN BAY, Wis. -- A Wisconsin fourth grader went to school Friday with a gunshot wound.

Green Bay police said the 9-year-old girl's fifth grade brother accidentally shot her with a 9 mm handgun Thursday night.

Investigators said the kids were home alone.

The bullet went into the girl's upper chest, hit a vertebrae and came out under her arm.

Lt. Jim Runge of the Green Bay police department said the girl's brother cleaned the wound, bandaged her up and put her to bed.

http://www.wisn.com/news/26754926/detail.html

[Blue-Jay]

1. Had she also been armed, this tragedy could have been averted.

amidoinitright?

[Buzz Clik]

3. LOL!!!!

:rofl:

[okieinpain]

31. thou not funny, I second this LOL!!!

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bluestate10]

13. The point was a bash at a rightwing talking point. Sympathy for the girl was rather explicit. nt.

[slackmaster]

14. I've never heard anyone seriously suggest that children should have guns

It's really a straw man. It's worn out and in very poor taste IMO.

[Blue-Jay]

17. Baaahahaha!

[SteveM]

87. You should really contact the NRA...

...they pay royalties to anti-2A folks, for cartoons, essays and such. Seems to work quite well for them. And when the next kid gets shot, you can make some real money off it. But you gotta be fast! Check out your supporters -- they're fast, too.

[Paladin]

32. And What Measures Do You Propose To Keep Guns From Children?

No need to reply, the answer to that one is well-known around here....

[Blue-Jay]

34. *raises hand like Arnold Horshack* Ooo! Ooo! Ooo!

Lock them up, maybe?

[slackmaster]

52. That would be immoral and probably illegal

The Pronoun-Antecedent Agreement Rule claims another unwitting victim.

[slackmaster]

47. One way would be educate parents about the importance of keeping children locked up at all times

Just as Blue-Jay suggested in his reply, but that might not be a practical solution for everyone.

Shoot, I'm all out of ideas.

:sarcasm:

[walldude]

37. Really? Did you miss the 8 year old who shot himself

with a machine gun at a gun show? With his father and the instructor standing right there watching? While the father insisted the kid use a gun he couldn't handle?

Here:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27399337/ns/us_news-life/

[slackmaster]

49. Did someone suggest that the boy would not have been shot had he only been armed?

I guess I did miss it.

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[slackmaster]

28. Sad but true, and they don't realize they are the only ones who do.

:hi:

[bluestate10]

11. Touche! Lurking Freepers, take note. nt.

[SteveM]

88. More straw from those who made the modern NRA. Take that note.

[RC]

18. Yagotitright!.

[proud2BlibKansan]

23. +1

[pipoman]

24. How original..

[Blue-Jay]

27. .

[pipoman]

38. Flattering yourself?

[Blue-Jay]

40. Yes. Yes I am.

It ain't like anyone else is going to flatter me.

[Chorophyll]

26. No worries, Blue-Jay.

That was my first thought, too. Once you've read a few DU threads like this, you kinda want to jump in before the Gun Crowd does.

[Blue-Jay]

30. It's all good.

I'll endure all sorts of guff to keep a thread kicked that encourages people to KEEP FUCKING FIREARMS OUT OF THE HANDS OF CHILDREN.

[Chorophyll]

35. Amen and Kick! nt

[PavePusher]

54. And when has anyone here encouraged the opposite? n/t

[Blue-Jay]

55. Meh. This thread lost it's mojo.

Go somewhere else for an argument.

[slackmaster]

56. It's hard to have a meaningful argument with a bunch of people who all happen agree with you

:hi:

Only an idiot would think it's OK to give guns to children, or that anyone is automatically safer with a gun than without one.

WE ALL AGREE ABOUT THOSE THINGS!

[PavePusher]

57. You got nutin'. Natch. n/t

[Blue-Jay]

58. Who the fuck are you supposed to be?

[slackmaster]

59. It means exactly what it says. You've got nothing to argue about here.

Everyone agrees with you.

It must be hard for you to find yourself on the same side of a debate as the entire Gungeon.

Welcome!

[SteveM]

90. Didn't notice you had started a true argument...

but if you get out fast, you want be corrected with appropriate cites and data; that way, you can labor on unedumacated.

[SteveM]

89. Yeah, told BJ upstream to be fast...

especially if you want the NRA to pay you royalties for anti-gun essays and cartoons. You realize that the NRA does that, don't you?

[snooper2]

29. armed with his X-box controller as ransom

[Generic Other]

33. fauxpoutraged sarcasm is a dead language mob attacks

You anticipate the gunsters' harpy chant knowing they rarely miss an opportunity to score some points. Even when the target is a child.

Thanks for the laugh.

Hope the little girl is going to be okay. Poor thing. She was obviously trying to keep her brother out of trouble (probably thought she'd get in trouble too). Parents should be fined for stupidity.

[rl6214]

62. You forgot the sarcasm thingy

Stupid

[Euromutt]

83. If by "amidoinitright?" you mean...

...are you wheeling out the same wilted straw man that gun control advocates wheel out with every single news report of an unintentional shooting, in the mistaken belief that mocking an opinion that someone with whom you disagree does not actually hold constitutes biting satire, then yes, you are doing it right.

[xchrom]

2. recommend

[enlightenment]

4. Hard to know where to start with all that's wrong with this story.

A nine-year old who would try to hide an injury of this nature.
A ten-year old who could shoot his sister and then attempt to hide the evidence.
A ten-year old left responsible for a nine-year old, at night.
Parents who are either emotionally or physically unavailable (or both) - to the point that neither child would tell them about this . . . or worse, who knew about it and sent her to school anyway.

gads.



edited to correct grammar

[LiberalEsto]

5. a gun left where a kid could get at it

a parent or parents so irresponsible and stupid as to fail to keep a gun locked up.

[Buzz Clik]

6. Well, if you're going to leaves the kids at home at night, ...

... might as well give them a gun for self defense. :sarcasm:

[SteveM]

91. ...then give them some matches! Uh, BOOZE! No, drugs. How bout...

[May Hamm]

7. Hard to know where to start with all that's wrong

"A nine-year old who would try to hide an injury of this nature."

A 9 year old doesn't know much at all about "Nature of wounds." After the bleeding stopped she wouldn't think it was different from badly skinned knees and her brother said it was alright and he was scared too so he must know and she would get in trouble too if they find out...

"A ten-year old who could shoot his sister and then attempt to hide"

Don't know many 10 year olds, do you? An adult who doesn't know that 10 year olds lie and that hiding their wrong doing is nearly ALWAYS the first line of defense and his sister looked alright, she was talking and walking around...

"Parents who are either emotionally or physically unavailable (or both) - to the point that neither child would tell them about this"

The kids were probably asleep when their parents got home. No matter what you think, these kids would have been scared and looking to each other for what to do, not to their parents. It's what kids do when they get into trouble and she believed herself to be in just as much trouble as he was because:



According to police, the girl and her brother were alone at their home in the 900 block of Elmore Street on Thursday night when they heard their dog barking, he said. The children feared an intruder was outside and the girl went to get the gun from her dad's bedroom. When she tried to hand it to her brother, it accidentally fired and a bullet entered her chest and exited behind her right shoulder...

Police have recovered the weapon and said they don't believe it was loaded when the girl took it.

http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20110205/GPG0101/102050586/Girl-survives-being-accidentally-shot-in-chest-by-brother

[LisaL]

20. Police don't believe the weapon was loaded when

the girl took it? So how did it fire if it were not loaded? That doesn't make any sense to me.

[Enrique]

8. "No one is ever hurt. Hurt is in the mind."

Vince Lombardi. :thumbsup:

[Arkana]

9. That girl has the spirit of Teddy Roosevelt living inside her.

[slackmaster]

12. Poor girl is very, very lucky to be alive

I hope whoever left a gun where children could get it is prosecuted.

[bluestate10]

16. I agree. nt.

[SteveM]

92. Agreed. Now, let's hear it from the controllers: crick.

[4lbs]

21. Can the parents please be arrested and serve some FELONY jail time?

Felony Child Endangerment, 4 counts each.

2 counts of leaving a pre-teen home alone with no adult supervision.

2 counts of endangering a child by leaving a loaded firearm within easy accessible reach and use.

[slackmaster]

25. Yes, Wisconsin has a criminal penalty for allowing a child to access a gun, if someone is injured

http://www.bradycampaign.org/stategunlaws/scorecard/WI/

[Zax2me]

22. She's a real trooper!

Guess I won't complain the next time I get the flu....

[Edweird]

36. That little girl's a badass!

[nadinbrzezinski]

39. That's it, Kevlar and guns for everyone!

:sarcasm:

[Blue-Jay]

41. See? You used the sarcasm smiley.

I should try that sometime.

Or maybe not - The jury is still out.

[nadinbrzezinski]

42. It saves a lot of headaches.

[Blue-Jay]

43. Sure, but it makes for fewer lulz.

[nadinbrzezinski]

44. There is that...

[SteveM]

93. You should use it, then we'll be on notice that you aren't serious.

At least about gun-control issues. Culture war? Now, that's another matter.

[slackmaster]

46. How original!

:nuke:

[shadowrider]

48. I hear that line so much anymore it's actually humerous

As long as it's guns for everyone, why not everything?

[slackmaster]

50. Here's my personal favorite

[lumberjack_jeff]

45. When the zombies attack, I want her on my team.

That's badass.

[slackmaster]

51. Unfortunately it probably means one or two things that aren't very good

A) She's seriously overweight, and the bullet's energy was absorbed by adipose tissue, and

B) Her parents aren't paying any attention to her.

[Euromutt]

82. I'll give you B), but A) I'm not so sure about

Any FMJ bullet going at comparatively high velocity (like a 9x19mm) can punch right through, leaving a pretty narrow wound channel. As long it doesn't hit bone, a vital organ or major artery, there really isn't a whole lot to do other than clean it, bandage it and allow it to heal. If anything, I'd say the girl benefited from the bullet not being slowed down and instead going straight through.

[Euromutt]

81. You don't how well she'll stand up to having her brains munched on

And that's really what you want her to be able to resist. Unless you intend to join the zombies' side at the earliest opportunity, and want her with you on that team, because only then does resistance to gunshot wounds become an advantage.

[HankyDubs]

60. this must have been

one of those defensive gun uses we hear so much about. 30 trillion of them last year, or so the gungeoneers tell me.

[X_Digger]

61. No, it's one of those meelyiuns of accidental shootings that are one the rise..

never mind that damnable national safety council..

[beevul]

63. Thats not nice...

Using nonbiased statistics...and graphs based on them...isn't fair...or something...classical logic...yeah thats what it is.

:eyes:


:rofl:

[HankyDubs]

64. perhaps you think he made a good point?

Accidental shootings have been decreasing since the 1930's. The NFA was passed in 1934. It's almost as if x-digger was trying to say that gun restrictions have positive effects! I would be compelled to remind him that correlation does not equal causation.

Even one of these incidents is totally unacceptable to me. How many does X-digger think are acceptable? Two thousand? One thousand? How many thousands of innocent people should die each year to protect his hobby?

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

65. And how many millions of children will be exploited

so you can wear those sneakers and those clothes in your closet.
How many people will die because you want to own a car to be able to dive to the store and buy thse clothes and sneakers.

The vast majority of firearms or firearms owners will never be involved in crime or defense.

[HankyDubs]

66. many many

Perhaps you are advocating that we should restrict ownership of pickup trucks and SUV's to those who actually have a need for them. Perhaps you are advocating that we should set a goal to eventually phase out the use of cars entirely and move toward a public train system.

Perhaps you are advocating that we should place heavy tariffs on goods that come from countries that employ sweatshop (aka slave) labor.

I heartily agree with you on all of these points...

...but if you don't actually advocate any of these positions and are only mentioning these facts so as to score points...well I would have to condem that sort of dishonesty.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

67. I guess I am condemned.

If it'll clear your consience to pay tariffs, taxes, and registration for these vices... I can help you out.
I accept checks, money orders, and paypal. :)

[HankyDubs]

70. so you admit you're just

using these imporant issues to score some points? That's sad. I don't condemn you, I change my mind. I pity you.

"I accept checks, money orders, and paypal"

You don't understand how these things work, do you? I'll gladly pay into a common fund that can be used to make improvements we all can benefit from...but sending cash to you doesn't achieve anything that benefits other people significantly.

[beevul]

73. *R*O*F*L*

"so you admit you're just using these imporant issues to score some points? That's sad."

Maybe you can teach your movement not to do the same thing when theres a tragedy.

In the spirit of compromise though, I'd only ask them to wait until the blood is actully dry.

[HankyDubs]

75. giggle away

You look at it differently than I do. I would say that gun control advocates become especially loud when these tragedies occur because they are each and every one reminders that our nation has gone gun crazy and we need to do something about it.

There are many gun rights people who actually get this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x372985#372998

Now I don't want to expose rambolibrul to the jibes and barbs that you folks regularly toss at me, but I don't think it would be very nice to accuse him of trying to "score points." That would be pretty dickish of you.

[beevul]

77. I will. And I do.

"You look at it differently than I do."

Clearly.

"I would say that gun control advocates become especially loud when these tragedies occur because they are each and every one reminders that our nation has gone gun crazy and we need to do something about it."


Uh huh. I would say that dancing in the blood of others, literally before the blood has had time to dry, is completely and thoroughly disgusting, and opportunist to the core. I'd also say that it is the unquestionably obvious Modus operandi of this movement.

I find any attempt to JUSTIFY it, is equally disgusting, and equally obvious.

"Now I don't want to expose rambolibrul to the jibes and barbs that you folks regularly toss at me, but I don't think it would be very nice to accuse him of trying to "score points." That would be pretty dickish of you."

I'm pretty familiar with that poster, and where that poster stands on this issue. "Even handed" would aptly describe that posters view and methodology in posting it when he or she does. It would also aptly describe the variety of viewpoints the things that poster cites represent.

Do you think "even handed" applies to your movement, the same way it does to him?

Think R E A L L Y hard about it.

[SteveM]

96. Yeah, he's one of these guys who just wants to get under your skin....

doesn't care much about gun-control, violence, and such.

[shadowrider]

97. One of the reasons my iggy list is getting longer and longer

I identify those that have no desire to intelligently discuss the subject and only want to troll, disrupt etc. and on the list they go. If they don't have time to discuss, I don't have time to listen.

[X_Digger]

68. Still trying to put words in my mouth?

You can "it's almost as if x-digger was trying to say" all you want. But unless the words come out of my fingers, it doesn't really mean shit.

I love how you fall back on the 'every one of these incidents is totally unacceptable to me' schtick. Are there any other sources of childhood harm for which 'every one' is unacceptable? I mean, kids are 11x more likely to drown in a pool, tub, or bucket than be injured by a firearm. Are you also advocating for 'water control'? If not, that would be pretty hypocritical to then take the 'every one is totally unacceptable' position, wouldn't it?

[HankyDubs]

69. none of the words coming out of your fingers mean much

"I mean, kids are 11x more likely to drown in a pool, tub, or bucket than be injured by a firearm"

Ah, but pools and tubs and buckets have purposes other than putting holes in living things.

[X_Digger]

71. And that has *what* to do with public safety?

In any listing of causes of death, or accidental injuries, firearms are listed alongside motor vehicles, drownings, falls, or heart disease. There's no asterisk beside firearms with a footnote saying, "Because guns are designed to kill, we ranked them higher."

Feel free to chime in here..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x292384

[HankyDubs]

72. as for water control

"Are you also advocating for 'water control'?"

As for water control, I think it could be plausibly argued that water is essential for all life, whereas all of creation somehow managed to exist for millions (billions) of years without your boom-boom stick.

"There's no asterisk beside firearms with a footnote saying, "Because guns are designed to kill, we ranked them higher."

I'm not arguing that one death is more or less important than another...but I am arguing that since guns have only one real purpose, they should be treated differently than...oh let's say...WATER.

[X_Digger]

74. You didn't actually answer the question.

Why does the 'original intent' of any tool have any bearing on the relative safety of the tool? I would assert that if we're going to talk purpose, it's not the intended purpose of the original designer that is important, rather the purpose to which the tool is actually applied.

I know you're busy trying to spread as much of this as you can, but at least answer the question.

[HankyDubs]

76. hey!

I commend you for changing the subject away from your ridiculously stupid water analogy...you really fell flat on your ass right there. :spank: :rofl:

"Why does the 'original intent' of any tool have any bearing on the relative safety of the tool?"

Well lets see here. If the original intent of the tool is to put holes in living things, then that tool is relatively less safe than tools whose original intent is not to put holes in living things, but which primarily serve another necessary purpose (guns are not necessary for home defense, for hunting, or anything else for that matter). For example, a child with a glass of water is relatively less of a danger to herself and others than a child with a hand cannon is.

I'm afraid that you'll have to take this up with a higher authority than myself, though. As much as I despise Antonin Scalia, I doubt even he would agree with you that putting a child into a bathtub is no different than pointing a gun at that same child.

[beevul]

78. Hahaha

"I doubt even he would agree with you that putting a child into a bathtub is no different than pointing a gun at that same child."

Pointing a gun at a child in a bath tub, would be the equivalent of expressing a threat to drown the kid while in a tub.

Putting a child in the bathtub is like putting a child in the same room with a gun, which probably happens tens of billions of times, if not more, every year.


I know, I know...More of that "classic logic"...

[HankyDubs]

79. i was only kidding around, but...

"Putting a child in the bathtub is like putting a child in the same room with a gun, which probably happens tens of billions of times, if not more, every year."

Yeah I think that the sane community would disagree with you on that one.

[beevul]

80. Ok.

300 million+ guns owned by 80 million+ people in America.

Forgetting about concealed carriers in the stores, where there are surely children, and police in malls where there are surely children...

How many times a year do YOU think a child is in the same room with a gun?

Lets hear your "sane community" answer.

[X_Digger]

85. I'm sorry if you didn't comprehend.. I'll type s.l.o.w.e.r. next time.

When you were presented with the fact that other sources of injury or death were more prevalent to children, you whined that 'but but but, gunz are different!' -- and then you can't actually explain why we should treat risk A different than risk B.

At least you can't do it logically. You just wharrgarbl about 'gunz is ebil!'

[Euromutt]

86. Well, the purpose of "pools and tubs and buckets" is to hold an amount of water...

...sufficient to drown any person who can be submerged therein.
We don't need bath tubs, shower units do a better job of getting us clean with less risk of drowning.
We don't need private swimming pools; municipal and other institutional swimming pools can meet people's swimming needs while having life guards to provide a safeguard against drownings.

Why isn't there a movement afoot to eliminate residential bath tubs and swimming pools?

[SteveM]

95. Kinda left you in an wapiti wallow, out of season.

[Euromutt]

84. No, it must not have, but you knew that. However, it does illustrate one point in the DGU argument

Namely, one of the standard whinges about the Kleck/Gertz study is that, if the respondents who believed they had hit their assailants were correct, we should be seeing much larger numbers of people coming into ERs and other medical facilities with GSWs than we do, and since we don't, a large number of respondents must have been incorrect about that, and therefore how do we know that an equally large percentage wasn't entirely mistaken or lying about experiencing a DGU entirely?

This argument contains a number of flaws. The first is that the number of respondents who reported believing they had inflicted a GSW on the assailant is an extremely small subset of the total respondents reporting a DGU, so that it would take a far smaller number of false responses to throw off the numbers (a point Kleck & Gertz made themselves in the original paper). Moreover, for a response to be counted as a DGU, the respondent had to give internally consistent answers to up to 19 questions, and then repeat the story in a follow-up call; given that the respondents were "cold called" (i.e. without prior notice) and thus had no time to concoct a story, it becomes implausible that many false positives regarding DGUs overall would crop up (or at least, significantly more than false negatives, as the safeguards against false positives were much stronger). By contrast, the questionnaires contained no questions intended to lend verification to claimed outcome of a DGU.

The flaw that is pertinent to this thread, however, is the assumption that GSW victims must necessarily seek professional medical attention. In actual fact, gunshot wounds that are not fatal in the short term tend to be survivable, often requiring little more than the treatment the careless older brother applied in this case: cleaning and bandaging the wound, readily feasible with basic first aid supplies available from any supermarket or drug store.

Not, I hasten to point out, that I'm trying to downplay the severity of this incident. An inch to the left or right and the girl might just as readily have been dead as a doornail, and nobody should leave a loaded firearm where an unsupervised 10 year-old can get his hands on it. But I do find it worth noting that (hand)gunshot wounds are not invariably fatal, even if untreated by medical professionals.

[SteveM]

94. You got any data comparisons, or are you...

just cutting cheese?