Advertisement

Archive for Friday, January 4, 2013

4-year-old Ottawa boy injured in shooting

January 4, 2013

Advertisement

A 4-year-old Ottawa boy was injured in an accidental shooting Friday afternoon and transported to a Kansas City-area hospital.

Ottawa police and deputies from the Franklin County Sheriff's Department responded to the shooting in the 1100 block of North Oak Street about 12:30 p.m., where they found a the boy suffering from a single gunshot wound to one of his legs. The boy was treated by the Ottawa Fire Department and Franklin County Ambulance Service at the scene and he was transported by ambulance to Children's Mercy Hospital.

Capt. Adam Weingartner, a spokesman for the Ottawa Police Department, said the boy's injuries appeared to be non-life threatening.

Police recovered a handgun and arrested a 39-year-old Ottawa man on suspicion of aggravated endangerment of a child, and criminal discharge of a firearm. Brian Keith Bruno is currently in custody at the Franklin County Adult Detention Center in Ottawa.

Weingartner said Bruno was not one of the boy's parents, but did live in the same home. The boy's mother was aware of the accident, Weingartner said. In addition to Bruno and the injured boy, two adults and two children also were in the residence when the gun was fired. No one else was injured.

Comments

Currahee 1 year, 7 months ago

Why can't people lock up firearms properly?

5

B0B 1 year, 7 months ago

clearly if more 4-year-olds were packing, this thug wouldn't have been so brave.

21

JayCat_67 1 year, 7 months ago

Reminds me of being the "go-fer" with my dad when he worked in HVAC. I managed to avoid injury, but the risk was probably about the same as with you and your grandfather.

0

grammaddy 1 year, 7 months ago

You are 8 times more likely to lose a child or be seriously injured when there is a gun in the home.The NRA won't give you that statistic.

13

ksrover 1 year, 7 months ago

Probably the same source that says 96% of statistics are made up...

2

midwestmom 1 year, 7 months ago

Sorry! My computer did something weird and it posted twice....

0

Currahee 1 year, 7 months ago

That data is from 1998. If you're going to give statistics maybe you should aim for something more recent?

0

voevoda 1 year, 7 months ago

Linda L. Dahlberg, et al., "Guns in the Home and Risk of a Violent Death in the Home: Findings from a National Study," American Journal of Epidemiology volume 160, number 10, November 15, 2004, pp. 929-936. Authoritative enough for you, KRichards?

7

In_God_we_trust 1 year, 7 months ago

Here is a fact sheet about firearms stats. It is quite good. http://www.gunowners.org/fs0404.htm

0

KSManimal 1 year, 7 months ago

If you have a gun AND a backyard swimming pool, your kid is over 50 times more likely to drown than to die from accidental shooting.

Source: http://www.m1-garand-rifle.com/firearms-versus-swimming-pools.php

4

beatrice 1 year, 7 months ago

This is why many states and cities require fences and locked gates around swimming pools, even those in private back yards. And, you can swim in a pool, which makes it far more enjoyable for the entire family on a hot summer day than any cold metal gun.

0

RaynRavyn 1 year, 7 months ago

Actually, growing up, we, as a family, did rather a lot of target shooting and hunting. GREAT family time. And learned responsibility for one's actions, firearm, and natural resources. In a pool, you just swim in circles, not nearly as fun. (Opinions are like... Elbows.)

0

newtongirl 1 year, 7 months ago

If it wasn't a case of improper storage, then it's a case of improper handling. The story is implying the child was shot in the home, and there's no reason a firearm should have been going off in the home (barring an intruder). If the gun were being cleaned, there's no reason it would've been loaded. So someone (maybe a teen sibling, babysitter, or other visitor?) was handling a loaded weapon stupidly enough for it to go off and most (most) gun owners know how to operate their own gun enough to not accidentally discharge it indoors. Which brings us back to a likely improper storage incident that gave an unauthorized person access to the gun.

If it was the gun owner who discharged it, it's still improper storage - the gun should still be in the store.

3

Jean Robart 1 year, 7 months ago

did you read the article?The guy who shot the kid is 25, and is not father to the child, but lives in the home.

0

newtongirl 1 year, 7 months ago

When I commented, the article did not include that information. The LJW has an awesome habit of updating the same article multiple times during the day, especially in articles where "unnamed" persons show up. Hence my first guess of a teen sibling or a babysitter or "other visitor". But I never mentioned father. So it turns out I was right, and you're asking me if I read the article. Nice.

0

newtongirl 1 year, 7 months ago

Notice our 7.5 hour difference in post time, by the way.

0

Ian_Cummings 1 year, 7 months ago

Actually, Ottawa Police now advise the suspect is 39, not 25 as they originally told us. I've made that update, too.

0

Bill Lee 1 year, 7 months ago

Handguns are designed for one purpose...shooting people. Target practice is only means of getting better at it.

7

newtongirl 1 year, 7 months ago

No, they're fun for target practice, too. I've never shot anyone and I own 9. Only 1 is not in the safe, but our house is inhabited by two veterans and zero children or visitors.

0

beatrice 1 year, 7 months ago

They are fun for target practice, no doubt, but that isn't for what they were designed.

0

Katara 1 year, 7 months ago

Thank goodness the 4 year old will be okay.

3

Haiku_Cuckoo 1 year, 7 months ago

One of these items is banned in the US due to its dangerous nature. Can you guess which?

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-sc_7FoZgdHE/UNEXbp13TEI/AAAAAAAAJVU/gjrSvzXhJ0Y/s1600/jarts.jpg

0

voevoda 1 year, 7 months ago

But mine does, biggunz:

Linda L. Dahlberg, et al., "Guns in the Home and Risk of a Violent Death in the Home: Findings from a National Study," American Journal of Epidemiology volume 160, number 10, November 15, 2004, pp. 929-936.

You are entitled to your own opinion, biggunz, but not your own facts.

2

In_God_we_trust 1 year, 7 months ago

This fact sheet puts all of these reports in proper perspective. http://www.gunowners.org/fs0404.htm

0

AlexFenton2 1 year, 7 months ago

I'm glad:

That the boy was not badly hurt.

and

That the NRA will not be calling for an armed police officer in every house to help prevent similar situations.

5

Armstrong 1 year, 7 months ago

Deaths when police need to respond to a mass shooting 18.2

Deaths when a liscenced conceal and carry responds at a mass shooting 2.4

You do the math

Noticed LJW has yet to run the story of the OFF DUTY officer who shot and killed an armed gunman in a movie theater last week. No dead except for the gunman

1

beatrice 1 year, 7 months ago

What? A trained police officer (not officially on the clock) shot someone???? Oh my, what a scandal that this one isn't everywhere on the news.

1

Celeste Plitz 1 year, 7 months ago

Yeah, that one was in the national news. Huff Post covered it. Good try though.

2

FlintlockRifle 1 year, 7 months ago

""You are 8 times more likely to lose a child or be seriously injured when there is a gun in the home.The NRA won't give you that statistic"""----, because it is not true there granny. Me thinks it's something like------ just inter any number you like like granny did.

1

voevoda 1 year, 7 months ago

Sorry, Flintlock, but grammaddy's figure is proven. Homicide risk is 8 times higher; suicide risk is 30 times higher. Check the article in the American Journal of Epidemiology I cited above.

If you like, Flintlock, you can argue that there are extenuating circumstances that figure into the statistical finding. But the statistical finding itself is factual.

2

verity 1 year, 7 months ago

Not acceptable unless the statistics are from 2013---and are collected by the NRA. The NRA is the only organization which knows about guns and can collect reliable statistics.

0

notaubermime 1 year, 7 months ago

"Are you serious?"

No. That is sarcasm.

1

In_God_we_trust 1 year, 7 months ago

Firearm safety is important. If you clean a gun, always make sure it is unloaded and that the chamber is unloaded too. Then, never point a gun at anyone, unless you intend to use it for self defense. Teach your kids how to safely use a gun and care for one and how to respect the power of a gun, by storing it safely. ( When the young adult is responsible enough to learn). Four years old is far too young. Electricity is similar to a gun. If you don't learn to respect the power of it, it can hurt you. Or it can light a room or cook your food if respected and properly used.

1

newtongirl 1 year, 7 months ago

Stats like this mean nothing to your household. I'm sure a lot of these households with guns in them that are 8x more likely to lose children also have health insurance, live in low crime neighborhoods, and use proper seat belts...or do we now know that? Is it causation or correlation?

0

voevoda 1 year, 7 months ago

The American Journal of Epidemology study is based on evidence from 49 out of 50 states (one state has laws prohibiting use of death certificates for research), with the sample drawn on the basis of protocols approved by the Center for Disease Control to ascertain representativeness. There was no bias in the selection of the sample for households with children, that have health insurance, that live in low crime neighborhoods, or that use seat belts.

So while it is true that the statistical odds cannot say anything definitive about what will happen in any particular single household, it is also true that if people assume that acquiring a gun will make them safer in their homes, the statistical evidence indicates otherwise.

1

In_God_we_trust 1 year, 7 months ago

More guns, less crime. In the decade of the 1990s, the number of guns in this country increased by roughly 40 million—even while the murder rate decreased by almost 40% percent.7 Accidental gun deaths in the home decreased by almost 40 percent as well.

Dr. Gary Kleck. A criminologist at Florida State University, Kleck began his research as a firm believer in gun control. But in a speech delivered to the National Research Council, he said while he was once "a believer in the ‘anti-gun’ thesis," he has now moved "beyond even the skeptic position." Dr. Kleck now says the evidence "indicates that general gun availability does not measurably increase rates of homicide, suicide, robbery, assault, rape, or burglary in the U.S."(53)

  • James Wright. Formerly a gun control advocate, Wright received a grant from President Carter's Justice Department to study the effectiveness of gun control laws. To his surprise, he found that waiting periods, background checks, and all other gun control laws were not effective in reducing violent crime.(54)

A. Myth #1: If one has a gun in the home, one is three times more likely to be killed than if there is no gun present.

  1. Fact: Guns are used more often to save life. Dr. Edgar Suter has pointed out that studies which make the claim that guns are more likely to kill the owner are flawed because they fail to consider the number of lives saved by guns.(146) That is, such claims ignore the vast number of non-lethal defensive uses with firearms. Criminologists have found that citizens use firearms as often as 2.5 million times every year in self-defense. In over 90% of these defensive uses, citizens merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off the attacker.(147)

  2. Fact: A study claiming "guns more likely to kill you than help you" is a total fraud. Not surprisingly, the figure claiming one is three times more likely to be killed by one’s own gun is a total lie. The author of this study, Dr. Arthur Kellerman, refused to release the data behind his conclusions for years.(148) Subsequently available evidence shows why Kellerman stonewalled for so long:

  3. Researcher Don Kates reveals that all available data now indicates that the "home gun homicide victims [in Kellerman’s study] were killed using guns not kept in the victim’s home." In other words, the victims were NOT murdered with their own guns! They were killed "by intruders who brought their own guns to the victim’s household."(149)

  4. In retrospect, Kates found, it was not the ownership of firearms that put these victims at high risk. Rather, it was the victim’s "high-risk life-styles [such as criminal associations] that caused them to own guns at higher rates than the members of the supposedly comparable control group."(150) Source: http://www.gunowners.org/fs0404.htm

0

In_God_we_trust 1 year, 7 months ago

People have accidents in cars too.

0

In_God_we_trust 1 year, 7 months ago

Why would you need stats for that? Do you expect to find a correlation that College educations or High School Diplomas will make "educated people" handle guns better than less educated people and that since the NRA has gun owners, they must be therefore less intelligent? The NRA members probably have better firearm training and experience overall, than most College educated people, because College educated people typically are trained by liberal professors that have an agenda against the 2nd amendment (gun ownership) , and teach students to be fearful of people with firearms (consider them to be of lesser intelligence, and potentially violent people prone to crime just because they have the mentality to own a gun). Many liberal Colleges also teach students to put down people that posses guns (consider them less intelligent, second class citizens that need corrected by the "elite educated class" that are so much better at making decisions for everyone). They typically emphasize that students should not hold in high esteem those that abide by the 2nd amendment, (especially non-liberals).

0

Rae Hudspeth 1 year, 7 months ago

KU has a marksmanship club that meets in order to ... get this.. fire weapons of any caliber and type. Safely, sanely, and responsibly., I am very sorry to hear about this child and what could have been an even worse accident. My thoughts are with all.

0

uncleandyt 1 year, 7 months ago

In college, a person has the chance to meet thousands of people and make hundreds or thousands of friends. Good and bad ideas get sorted out. A smaller circle of friends and acquaintences limits exposure to ideas, good and bad. Some small circles of friends hate strangers, start meth labs, or vote yes on NDAA. Pappy's got guns. His Pappy had guns. Guns can ease your fears. College is a funner way of easing some of those fears. Education equals smarts.

1

kawrivercrow 1 year, 7 months ago

Re swagg: "how many NRA Members have College educations or even High School Diplomas"

NRA members are not the people you need to be afraid of. It is the idiocracy that also owns firearms (often outside the law) that you should fear. The NRA sponsors multiple, successful gun safety and marksmanship programs. You maligning the NRA is like if I maligned martial arts clubs for barfights or the AAA for car wrecks or drunk driving. Yes, I may agree that LaPierre's untimely and weak public response was inflammatory and insensitive, but those people are not the enemy...criminals are.

1

kawrivercrow 1 year, 7 months ago

Other news sources are saying the boyfriend was showing a handgun to a visitor. He thought it was unloaded. He was wrong.

IF he deliberately dry-fired a gun inside a house (with or without children present), I support a mandatory, short prison sentence. I've been handling firearms since I was around 9 yrs old. I learned early on a number of principles this man failed to adhere to**. Stupidity has a price that needs to paid, if only as cautionary tale to other stupid people.

If he didn't dry-fire it, I would consider reassessing the penalty in a more forgiving light.

** treat all guns as loaded, never dry fire, never let barrel end up pointing at another human being, etc.

2

Commenting has been disabled for this item.