10 year-old was shot and killed at Camp Pendleton

[Questioninggeller]

Boy Killed In Accidental Shooting At Camp Pendleton

POSTED: 7:05 pm PDT September 26, 2004
UPDATED: 9:31 am PDT September 27, 2004

CAMP PENDLETON, Calif. -- A 10-year-old boy was shot and killed Sunday by another boy in an accidental shooting at the Marine base in Camp Pendleton, authorities said.

The incident took place about 11 a.m. inside a base home, and the boy used a hunting rifle, said Marine spokeswoman Capt. Juliet Chelkowski.

The boys, who were not related to each other, visited the base with their families, she said.

Chelkowski said adults were inside the home when the incident occurred.


http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/3762308/detail.html

[merphie]

I demand the military have gun locks on all their guns.

Furthermore, I think they should ban all assault weapons. They are instruments of death and have no business on a military base. They could be stored miles away in an armory! The Ammunition and guns must be stored in seperate amories.

We need it for the sake of the kids!

Research has shown that surpluss military goods end up in the hands of criminals. The Military should detroy all guns to prevent it from flooding the streets!

[Questioninggeller]

Originally posted by merphie
I demand the military have gun locks on all their guns.

Furthermore, I think they should ban all assault weapons. They are instruments of death and have no business on a military base. They could be stored miles away in an armory! The Ammunition and guns must be stored in seperate amories.


I disagree. We need to accept the fact that guns kill and children will lose their lives in accidents. So we should do nothing and move on.

Afterall some guns, like ones on military bases, will remain unguarded and that's okay becuase they're needed to train troops as well as defend your house. So we should not require gun locks or tighter restrictions. Sure it'll save lives, but millions will be inconvienced by it.

In conclusion, a few lives don't out weigh the cost of tighter restrictions.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Questioninggeller
In conclusion, a few lives don't out weigh the cost of tighter restrictions.

Except that your agenda isn't the saving of lives but the criminilization (and demonization) of guns.

We need to accept the fact that guns kill and children will lose their lives in accidents. So we should do nothing and move on.

We need to educate people on gun safety. Your idea is akin to outlawing or regulating sex because people get diseases and unwanted pregnancies. You abstinence only fanatics really piss me off.

[merphie]

Originally posted by Questioninggeller
I disagree. We need to accept the fact that guns kill and children will lose their lives in accidents. So we should do nothing and move on.

Afterall some guns, like ones on military bases, will remain unguarded and that's okay becuase they're needed to train troops as well as defend your house. So we should not require gun locks or tighter restrictions. Sure it'll save lives, but millions will be inconvienced by it.

In conclusion, a few lives don't out weigh the cost of tighter restrictions.

I was being sarcastic. I agree with Tony. We need to educate our youth even if they don't own guns. This is a parental responsibility.

The NRA even has a good education program called "Eddie the Eagle".

[Questioninggeller]

Originally posted by merphie
I was being sarcastic.

I know.

[merphie]

Originally posted by Questioninggeller
I know.

Just checking. I wouldn't put it past any people on this board. Next thing I will be accused of wanting to disarm our military or advocating the killing of small children.

Every message is like Christmas around here.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by merphie
Just checking. I wouldn't put it past any people on this board. Next thing I will be accused of wanting to disarm our military or advocating the killing of small children.

Ah, so you're advocating arming the small children, to make shooting them that much more sporting?

Hmm. They do have good hand/eye coordination, what with the video games and all. And they're smaller targets...This idea of yours stinks. In a shootout, small children have the advantage.

[merphie]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
Ah, so you're advocating arming the small children, to make shooting them that much more sporting?

Hmm. They do have good hand/eye coordination, what with the video games and all. And they're smaller targets...This idea of yours stinks. In a shootout, small children have the advantage.


Then we could advocate selling body armor to grown ups. :D

[Zep]

Dumb question first: How did young kids get hold of a gun?

And golly gee - it was a Marine base, so you would expect weapons around, wouldn't you. Yep, no problem there. But are the US Marines are armed with hunting rifles these days? Bows and arrows too? Super-soakers? Probably not. And as far as I know, the Marines aren't usually in the habit of leaving loaded weaponery just laying about the place unattended - officers and NCOs tend to get annoyed at that kind of crap. So the kid didn't get ahold of a Marine weapon, it seems.

So where DID the gun come from?

[crimresearch]

A slim chance that the weapon came from the base's recreational facilities, more likely it was privately owned.

[merphie]

Originally posted by crimresearch
A slim chance that the weapon came from the base's recreational facilities, more likely it was privately owned.

I bet someone loses their ass over it as well. It's tragic that people who are around guns all day don't teach their kids safety.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Guns don't kill children, children kill children.

Or something like that.... :confused:

[Zep]

I think my point is that the location of the incident, i.e. a Marine base, is irrelevant to the incident itself. It could have happened a lot of places in the US, just about.

[merphie]

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer
Guns don't kill children, children kill children.

Or something like that.... :confused:

People kill people. That can be applied to children as well. The gun is only a tool.

[merphie]

Originally posted by Zep
I think my point is that the location of the incident, i.e. a Marine base, is irrelevant to the incident itself. It could have happened a lot of places in the US, just about.

Agreed. It is just strange to happen there. I wouldn't think guns would be unusual to them.

[Zep]

Originally posted by merphie
Agreed. It is just strange to happen there. I wouldn't think guns would be unusual to them. Indeed!

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by merphie
People kill people. That can be applied to children as well. The gun is only a tool.

Do you know what a tool is? A tool is something that allows you to achieve something more efficiently than you would otherwise be able to. A hammer is a tool, beats banging in nails with your hands. You could get maybe one nail in a day with your bare hands, hundreds with a hammer. A saw is a tool, beats breaking bits of wood in half with your hands. You can cut it nice and straight too, and much more of it. A gun is a tool. What is it designed to make easier and more efficient.

[jay gw]

We need it for the sake of the kids!

Here we have someone who's very sincere.

[merphie]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
A gun is a tool. What is it designed to make easier and more efficient.

It depends on the gun.

[Mason]

As already pointed out, the article states that the weapon was a hunting rifle. Marine bases don't generally stock their armories with hunting rifles, so it is a very safe assumption that the weapon is not realated to the military. This means that the location of the residence in which the incident occurred is pretty much irrelavant.

The article says that the children were members of visiting families, but it does not say if the weapon was the property of the visitor or the resident. I would assume for now that it was the property of the resident; had it been the property of the visitor I would guess that the weapon was only there for show and tell and would be in the posession of the adults who were admiring the kewl toy. Adults were mentioned as being on the premises, and I would expect that the weapon would be in the room with them.

Since the child was a visitor, and my guess is that the weapon belonged to the resident, the parents of the visiting child could only do so much to prepare the child for the event. I don't expect that people who don't have guns in their homes and don't use guns will have much occasion to teach their children about detailed firearm safety.

On the other hand, persons who do have firearms in their home should be responsible for those firearms and make them unavailable to casual untrained children who might be visiting their home unsupervised in the same room where they keep their guns.

In other words, it sounds like yet another case of some jackass who wasn't responsible enough to secure dangerous items from the reach of persons who are obviously unable to protect themselves from their own curiosity. Being on a military base probably has nothing to do with it... Being in the home of a (probable) moron does.