Boy, 6, dies after being shot by sister, 7

Blisterz · January 4, 2003, 19:19

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MISSISSAUGA, ONT - A six-year-old Toronto-area boy died after being shot by his sister in their home, police said on Saturday.

Peel Regional Police say the boy and his seven-year-old sister were playing in a bedroom in their Mississauga home on Friday afternoon when they found a .45-calibre semi-automatic handgun owned by a 22-year-old brother.

Police were called to this townhouse complex in Mississauga

The girl pointed the gun at her brother and shot him, police said.

The boy was shot in the head and died a short time later.

Peel Region Police Chief Noel Catney said the incident "underscores the danger of firearms and the onus placed on all gun owners to ensure firearms are stored and handled safely."

The 22-year-old brother has been arrested and charged with criminal negligence causing death and various firearm offences. He is scheduled to appear in court on Saturday in Brampton.

Children's Aid has been called to investigate and determine how to deal with the young girl. She can't face any charges.

An 18-year-old sister was looking after the youngsters at the time of the shooting.

Police say the handgun wasn't registered, and they are looking into the weapon's history.

No names will be released.

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/01/04/boy_shot030104

-------------------------------------------------------------

No matter how often I read stuff like this, it always a tear to my eye.

Bloddy hell, if you are going to own a gun, don't ****ing keep it somewhere your 7 year old can get at it. Seems pretty simple to me. That poor girl is going to have to live with the fact she killed her brother her whole life.

MRT144 · January 4, 2003, 19:28

thats so sad

Inverse Icarus · January 4, 2003, 20:43

girls got aim though

DarthVeda · January 4, 2003, 20:46

I'm more worried about the girl...

Dr. Nick · January 4, 2003, 21:18

*agrees with Veda*

Provost Harrison · January 4, 2003, 21:23

That is scary, I wonder what happened or what compelled her to fire the gun, and whether she knew it was loaded...

General Ludd · January 4, 2003, 21:25

Quote:

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
That is scary, I wonder what happened or what compelled her to fire the gun, and whether she knew it was loaded...

Or if she even knew it was real.

Provost Harrison · January 4, 2003, 21:30

Well it is a serious issue of keeping a firearm. What was the person thinking of who left a loaded gun so near to young children

Blisterz · January 4, 2003, 21:51

UPDATE

--------------------------------------------------
Man charged after girl kills boy with handgun

MISSISSAUGA -

A 22-year-old Ontario man appeared in court Saturday on a charge of criminal negligence causing death after a young girl playing with a handgun shot her brother dead, police said.

The boy, 6, died a short time after the bullet went into his head Friday.

Boy shot in Mississauga townhouse

He and his sister, 7, were in their home just west of Toronto when she found a semi-automatic .45-caliber handgun in a bedroom, pointed at him and pulled the trigger, according to investigators.

The unregistered gun was owned by the children's older brother, police said. He has been charged with various firearms offences, as well as criminal negligence causing death.

The man made a brief court appearance in nearby Brampton, Ont. Saturday, and is scheduled to be back before a judge next week. Some family members came to court Saturday, but declined to talk to reporters as they left.

"I can tell you that it's obviously a shocking and traumatic event for the family," said the accused man's lawyer, Enzo Battigaglia. "They've been here showing their support since the morning."

"I am deeply saddened by the tragic death of this child and the trauma this event has visited upon the family," Peel Regional Police Chief Noel Catney said Saturday.

Sgt. Frank McMonagle

The incident "underscores the danger of firearms, and the onus placed on all gun owners to ensure firearms are stored and handled safely," he added.

Children's Aid has been called to investigate and determine how to deal with the young girl. She cannot be prosecuted.

An 18-year-old sister was looking after the youngsters at the time of the shooting. Police said she will not be charged.

"It's tragic for the six-year-old that was shot and killed. It's tragic for the seven-year-old that pulled the trigger. It's tragic for the 18-year-old that had the responsibility of looking after the children. And obviously it's tragic for the family," said Sgt. Frank McMonagle of Peel Regional Police.

Asher · January 4, 2003, 21:52

This sucks

I read an article recently about some new technology in handguns that use palm prints to determine who is holding the gun. If the palm prints don't match that of the owner's (or conceivably in an access list of people allowed to use the gun), the gun won't fire.

They have working prototypes and are expecting it to be widespread in a decade or so, and hopefully it can help prevent tragedies like this.

Inverse Icarus · January 4, 2003, 22:25

Quote:

Originally posted by Asher
This sucks

I read an article recently about some new technology in handguns that use palm prints to determine who is holding the gun. If the palm prints don't match that of the owner's (or conceivably in an access list of people allowed to use the gun), the gun won't fire.

They have working prototypes and are expecting it to be widespread in a decade or so, and hopefully it can help prevent tragedies like this.

but the NRA and it's kin are fighting this technology, for some reason.

Jules · January 5, 2003, 00:01

Quote:

Originally posted by UberKruX
but the NRA and it's kin are fighting this technology, for some reason.

Well, suppose you're held up by a gunman, you manage to wrestle the gun from him, but it won't fire because the gun won't recognize your fingerprints. Bang! You're dead.

Dr Strangelove · January 5, 2003, 01:00

Do you think that there are any circumstances under which public policy should be made based upon the assessment of the probability of risks versus benefits? What is the likelihood of you wrestling a gun from a gunman versus the likelihood of someone who is not supposed to have a particular gun, i.e., a child or a thief, promulgating a tragedy? Be honest.

alva · January 5, 2003, 01:55

Very sad indeed

(A loaded gun + not safely locked away + kids + no good supervison = problems)

Reading back, you could even drop the 'no good supervision' part.

Kingof the Apes · January 5, 2003, 02:00

Where were the parents?

Inverse Icarus · January 5, 2003, 02:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Jules

Well, suppose you're held up by a gunman, you manage to wrestle the gun from him, but it won't fire because the gun won't recognize your fingerprints. Bang! You're dead.

thats why god invented pistol whipping.

alva · January 5, 2003, 02:02

Quote:

Originally posted by UberKruX

thats why god invented pistol whipping.

Yep, and the europeans gun control...

Imran Siddiqui · January 5, 2003, 02:04

Quote:

but the NRA and it's kin are fighting this technology, for some reason.

Most misinformation by the anti-gun lobby? The NRA isn't fighting the technology but fighting making it MANDATORY! There is a BIIIIG difference.

Inverse Icarus · January 5, 2003, 02:04

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

but the NRA and it's kin are fighting this technology, for some reason.

Most misinformation by the anti-gun lobby? The NRA isn't fighting the technology but fighting making it MANDATORY! There is a BIIIIG difference.

point taken.

Dr Strangelove · January 5, 2003, 02:09

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

but the NRA and it's kin are fighting this technology, for some reason.

Most misinformation by the anti-gun lobby? The NRA isn't fighting the technology but fighting making it MANDATORY! There is a BIIIIG difference.

Yes, with this technology one could not report one's gun as stolen and then go out and use it because the police would know that you were the only one who could have fired it anyway!

Jules · January 5, 2003, 03:12

Quote:

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Do you think that there are any circumstances under which public policy should be made based upon the assessment of the probability of risks versus benefits? What is the likelihood of you wrestling a gun from a gunman versus the likelihood of someone who is not supposed to have a particular gun, i.e., a child or a thief, promulgating a tragedy? Be honest.

I didn't say this was a very likely scenario, but it sounds like something the NRA might say.

Dis · January 5, 2003, 03:45

Canada needs gun control!!!!!!! damn 51st state is getting out of control.

Inverse Icarus · January 5, 2003, 03:48

Quote:

Originally posted by Dissident
Canada needs gun control!!!!!!! damn 51st state is getting out of control.

seriously. and they have too many french.

Asher · January 5, 2003, 03:50

We're spending billions of dollars creating a gun registry. That'll stop gun crimes, according to the Liberals.

And yes, too many French.

Inverse Icarus · January 5, 2003, 03:54

Quote:

Originally posted by Asher
We're spending billions of dollars creating a gun registry. That'll stop gun crimes, according to the Liberals.

whats stopping a canuck from hopping on a moose and riding it into the states to buy a gun?

Asher · January 5, 2003, 03:57

Border guards, if they catch you.

Inverse Icarus · January 5, 2003, 04:01

Quote:

Originally posted by Asher
Border guards, if they catch you.

how fast can a moose go these days?

and what if you shoved the gun in the moose?

Asher · January 5, 2003, 04:04

The horses the RCMP use can outrun a moose, sadly.

Inverse Icarus · January 5, 2003, 04:06

Quote:

Originally posted by Asher
The horses the RCMP use can outrun a moose, sadly.

but a moose can use it's antlers on the horse and the RCMP officer if the need be.

if you tried to legally cross the border on a moose, what would they say/do?

Dis · January 5, 2003, 04:08

guns that scan your hands are also good if a criminal takes a gun away from you. Which is likely as criminals have less hesitation than the average law abider.

But technology is not viable yet. Because this technology has to be approved by police forces (because cops get their guns taken away too). But to be approved by police forces it has to be durable and still have 100% accuracy on the fingerprint tech. Durability is a problem still as a gun firing puts a lot of shock through the gun. And you have batteries and such that must resist getting wet. It's a technological nightmare.

gunlocks are available today everwhere. People should use them if they have kids. I don't use a gun lock because I have no kids. Plus I want it to be readily available. A gun is worthless if you are still fumbling around with the lock when the bad guy comes in your room.