• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Self-Defense gun kills 3 year old boy

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,586
11
76
http://www.stltoday.com/stltod...900668E41?OpenDocument

Self-defense gun kills N. County boy, 3
By David Hunn
ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
02/05/2007

A shotgun that an Edmundson woman kept for self-protection killed her younger child Sunday -- and police say that her older child pulled the trigger.

The dead child was identified as 3-year-old Benjamin Gollihur. Police say the shotgun blast caught him in the back at 12:25 p.m. in the family home, in the 4300 block of Heath Street.

Police say the victim's older brother, an 8-year-old boy, fired the weapon -- an 18 1/2-inch, pistol-grip, 12-gauge Mossberg shotgun.

Police say the mother of the boys was in the house with a man at the time but was in a different room. Edmundson Police Chief Donald Kraher said the weapon had been kept beneath a couch.

Police declined to identify the mother. But neighbors say she is Rita Gollihur, a full-time college student. The neightbors say she told them that she was being stalked by a fellow student and kept the weapon for self-protection.

The 8-year-old attends Holy Trinity Catholic School at 10901 St. Henry Lane in St. Ann. This morning, principal Margaret Ahle described the 8-year-old as "just the gentlest, sweetest child." Ahle said the boy had been very protective of his younger brother.

The pastor of Holy Trinity, the Rev. John Leykam, said, "This mother sacrificed anything and everything for her kids." He added, "This is a painful tragedy that we all share in."

The school has about 400 pupils. Through a phone tree set-up, parents of all pupils got the word Sunday night about the shooting. The achdiocese dispatched counselors to the school today.

Leykam said, "People are reaching out, asking what they can do."

Police said today that they had yet to talk to the mother or the 8-year-old.

The shooting was the second within a week in which an area child killed another.

Early on Jan. 29, a young boy in an apartment in Venice picked up a revolver and fired a shot that hit 2-year-old Timberlyn Terrell in the head. She died the next day at Cardinal Glennon Children's Medical Center in St. Louis.

In that case, authorities have charged the revolver's owner -- Anthony Wise, who has a drug-dealing record and is the ex-boyfriend of the victim's mother, Kimberly Terrell.
Very sad. When can we get some common sense gun control in this country? How many children have to die?
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,586
11
76
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
As much as you would like to make it about gun laws, its not. It's responsible parenting at fault.
What purpose could this woman possibly have for owning a pump action assault style automatic shotgun?
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,261
68
86
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
As much as you would like to make it about gun laws, its not. It's responsible parenting at fault.
What purpose could this woman possibly have for owning a pump action assault style automatic shotgun?
What right do you have to tell her she can't have one? She's stupid for not getting a gun lock and putting it away where they couldn't use it. Stupid people make stupid decisions every day, including drunk driving, and driving on the cell phone. Should we remove all possibility of those two also?
 

eits

Lifer
Jun 4, 2005
25,207
2
81
www.integratedssr.com
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
As much as you would like to make it about gun laws, its not. It's responsible parenting at fault.
What purpose could this woman possibly have for owning a pump action assault style automatic shotgun?
... and that's your argument? because by making that argument, you just strengthened pc surgeon's.
 

shiner

Lifer
Jul 18, 2000
17,117
0
0
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
As much as you would like to make it about gun laws, its not. It's responsible parenting at fault.
What purpose could this woman possibly have for owning a pump action assault style automatic shotgun?
I bet she has knives in her kitchen to. Obviously she needs to be locked up.
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Nebor, this would have been fun if it didn't prove one thing, gun rights morons are just that, morons.

Anyone who has posted in this forum in a year or so knows your stance yet these fucked up people are arguing against a stance that you agree with them on in reality.

'twas funny though, i'll give you that. :D
 

BurningDog

Senior member
Oct 10, 2002
234
0
0
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
As much as you would like to make it about gun laws, its not. It's responsible parenting at fault.
What purpose could this woman possibly have for owning a pump action assault style automatic shotgun?
Wow, think you could have loaded that up with any more scary adjectives? How can something be pump action and automatic? The type of weapon had nothing to do with it. If it was a single shot crack barrel shotgun, the outcome would be the same.

The article mentions what her purpose was.

Common sense parenting is what's needed. Kids and guns don't mix.
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Originally posted by: BurningDog
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
As much as you would like to make it about gun laws, its not. It's responsible parenting at fault.
What purpose could this woman possibly have for owning a pump action assault style automatic shotgun?
Wow, think you could have loaded that up with any more scary adjectives? How can something be pump action and automatic? The type of weapon had nothing to do with it. If it was a single shot crack barrel shotgun, the outcome would be the same.

The article mentions what her purpose was.

Common sense parenting is what's needed. Kids and guns don't mix.
Jesus motherfucking christ, not only didn't he argue for gun restrictions but YOU had to take his parody one step further and ACTUALLY MEAN IT.

That makes you kinda extra stupid, doesn't it?

Personally, a guy like you with a gun would make me wish i had a fucking tank to keep my kids in when we're in the US.
 

The Yeti

Member
Jan 26, 2007
39
0
0
:( Dammit, It's always heart wrenching to run across news like this. That mother just paid the ultimate price for her stupidity. May God bless those children.
 
Jun 27, 2005
19,255
1
61
Self-defense gun kills N. County boy
Wow... just wow. The 'gun' didn't do anything. His brother killed him. Inanimate objects have no will. They just sit there until someone manipulates them. Apparently this AP reporter is not aware of this concept.

Still... sad. How does a parent leave a loaded weapon in reach of her kids?
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
29,779
3,306
126
Logically: Bad parent, natural selection, case closed.

Or... we can get emotional over this, and lock away guns so that only assailants have them and the general population is ripe for the kill.
 

pstylesss

Platinum Member
Mar 21, 2007
2,915
0
0
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
As much as you would like to make it about gun laws, its not. It's responsible parenting at fault.
What purpose could this woman possibly have for owning a pump action assault style automatic shotgun?
Oh please, are you trying to say that the kid wouldn't have died had it been a muzzle loader? Poor parenting is the problem, not the gun. More kids die in back yard swimming pools than accidental gun deaths. Do some research before spewing your factless horse shit.

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Nebor, this would have been fun if it didn't prove one thing, gun rights morons are just that, morons.

Anyone who has posted in this forum in a year or so knows your stance yet these fucked up people are arguing against a stance that you agree with them on in reality.

'twas funny though, i'll give you that. :D
damnit, pwned.
 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,834
1
0
She kept it under the couch!?! Loaded!?! <shakes head>

This is why I have/prefer a handgun that is easily hidden for self defense in the home. My kids never even knew I had it.... and still don't for that matter.
 

kylebisme

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2000
9,396
0
0
Originally posted by: Nebor
Very sad. When can we get some common sense gun control in this country? How many children have to die?
If you want to talk comon sense, cars kill far more kids than guns do.
 

fallout man

Golden Member
Nov 20, 2007
1,799
0
0
Criminals and rapists LOVE gun locks. I read this in a magazine, and it was a reputable one--I believe that this statement is 110% correct. It's nice to see that the young'ins are excercising their second amendment rights. Score one more hit for freedom.
 

spittledip

Diamond Member
Apr 23, 2005
4,483
1
81
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
As much as you would like to make it about gun laws, its not. It's responsible parenting at fault.
What purpose could this woman possibly have for owning a pump action assault style automatic shotgun?
lol... read the article!

BTW, I am not sure, but pump action and automatic don't go together, do they? Automatic is when you don't have to load the shells into the chamber, correct? And pumping loads the shells into the chamber?

 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,584
345
126
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Self-defense gun kills N. County boy
Wow... just wow. The 'gun' didn't do anything. His brother killed him. Inanimate objects have no will. They just sit there until someone manipulates them. Apparently this AP reporter is not aware of this concept.
Gun advocates are sure fixated about trying to argue this point.

So, the stories reporting a US soldier is killed by a roadside bomb in Iraq are wrong, and should be re-written; the bomb didn't kill them, the person who placed the bomb did.

And if a guy is walking down the street and a piece of a building falls and kills him, the story should not say he was killed by the debris - objects don't kill anyone, you said.

The story should say 'man killed by construction workers who built building'.

The child was killed by the gun. The gun was shot by his brother. His brother had the gun because the mother left it in reach. The mother had the gun because laws allows it. Etc.

It's propagandistic to try to insist on some certain, unnatural phrasing - 'GUNS DO NOT KILL PEOPLE GUNS DO NOT KILL PEOPLE' mantra that Must Be Enforced for 'right thinking'.

It's not designed for accuracy - no one reads the story and thinks the gun shot itself; it's to try to control people's thinking not to make any connection between guns and violence, as if magically, the rates of violence would not be any different whether guns are present or not, so people don't analyze the issue and determine how to reduce such incidents, since there's no solution on the horizon for the negligence, the crimes of passion, and so on that lead to the abuse of guns for violence by otherwise law-abiding citizens.

It's not trying to win the debate, it's trying to prevent the debate. GUNS DO NOT KILL PEOPLE so it's not even worth talking about the tradeoffs of gun laws.

Still... sad. How does a parent leave a loaded weapon in reach of her kids?
IMO, it's wrong to use libertarian ideology on issues like this, and ignore the effects of policies just to say things have to be a free-for-all. However, society's judgement on this issue is heavily in favor of the right to have that shotgun, despite the casualties like this. This seems like an issue where another solution, such as mandatory safety training to purchase the gun, might be helpful.
 

NoStateofMind

Diamond Member
Oct 14, 2005
9,716
6
76
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Self-defense gun kills N. County boy
Wow... just wow. The 'gun' didn't do anything. His brother killed him. Inanimate objects have no will. They just sit there until someone manipulates them. Apparently this AP reporter is not aware of this concept.
Gun advocates are sure fixated about trying to argue this point.
Because its a good point to argue, its true.

So, the stories reporting a US soldier is killed by a roadside bomb in Iraq are wrong, and should be re-written; the bomb didn't kill them, the person who placed the bomb did.
No, that is called war.

And if a guy is walking down the street and a piece of a building falls and kills him, the story should not say he was killed by the debris - objects don't kill anyone, you said.

The story should say 'man killed by construction workers who built building'.
This is ridiculous. You cannot compare brick falling from a building to someone in control or supposed to be in supervision of a weapon.

The child was killed by the gun. The gun was shot by his brother. His brother had the gun because the mother left it in reach. The mother had the gun because laws allows it. Etc.
No matter what the law says craig, if you want a weapon, you will get it. This has been proven through time of things unlawful to own. Prohibition is an example. The war on drugs is another. How hard do you really have to look to find a drug if you really wanted it? Did the laws make them magically disappear? No. Same with guns, you can outlaw them if you want, but they will still be in the hands of people, just more likely in the hands of criminals.

It's propagandistic to try to insist on some certain, unnatural phrasing - 'GUNS DO NOT KILL PEOPLE GUNS DO NOT KILL PEOPLE' mantra that Must Be Enforced for 'right thinking'.
It's not about "right thinking" craig, It's about personal/parental responsibility.

It's not designed for accuracy - no one reads the story and thinks the gun shot itself; it's to try to control people's thinking not to make any connection between guns and violence, as if magically, the rates of violence would not be any different whether guns are present or not, so people don't analyze the issue and determine how to reduce such incidents, since there's no solution on the horizon for the negligence, the crimes of passion, and so on that lead to the abuse of guns for violence by otherwise law-abiding citizens.
You miss the fact of personal responsibility. It is not a case of the gun, its the case of who is in control of the gun that determines the outcome, not the other way around. The guns do not hypnotically control people into using them. Try going to the judge and saying "The gun made me do it", and see if you don't get laughed at. And again, outlawing guns will not remove them from criminals. Criminals would have free reign on unarmed law abiding citizens.
 

GenHoth

Platinum Member
Jul 5, 2007
2,109
0
0
Originally posted by: Craig234

This seems like an issue where another solution, such as mandatory safety training to purchase the gun, might be helpful.
There is no safety class that will help the 'leave loaded shotgun under the couch and have kids' demographic. Seriously, under the couch? Do you think your kids aren't going to look under the COUCH at some point?
 

OrganizedChaos

Diamond Member
Apr 21, 2002
4,525
0
0
my father made sure i knew and understood not to touch his duty belt (regardless of where he left it) when i was a kid. Why didn't these kids know not to play with a firearm?
 

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,016
308
126
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Nebor, this would have been fun if it didn't prove one thing, gun rights morons are just that, morons.

Anyone who has posted in this forum in a year or so knows your stance yet these fucked up people are arguing against a stance that you agree with them on in reality.

'twas funny though, i'll give you that. :D
Great parody, did you notice that none of the P&N regulars took him seriously?
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Nebor, this would have been fun if it didn't prove one thing, gun rights morons are just that, morons.

Anyone who has posted in this forum in a year or so knows your stance yet these fucked up people are arguing against a stance that you agree with them on in reality.

'twas funny though, i'll give you that. :D
Great parody, did you notice that none of the P&N regulars took him seriously?
Yeah, why do monkies have the right to bear arms when they are too daft to understand the simplest things? Now THAT is a question that needs an answer. :D

I hope you and those of yours are all good.

I am going to get really really drunk now, therapy you see, heh, if i make no sense later on, you know why.

 

ASK THE COMMUNITY