Teen shot with new pistol

[paramedic70002]

http://www.vagazette.com/news/va-new...y?coll=va-news

Teen shot with new pistol

By Amanda Kerr
The Virginia Gazette

Published January 3, 2007

JAMES CITY — A Toano man faces several weapons charges after his newly purchased gun discharged and shot a 16-year-old friend in the leg.

The shooting happened New Year's night in the 3900 block of Bournemouth Bend in the Wellington subdivision off Rochambeau Drive. The neighborhood is a mile from Stonehouse Elementary and abuts Mirror Lake Estates.

According to Mike Spearman of the James City Police, the unidentified teenager was shot in his upper left leg around 9:15 p.m. Monday. Police have provided few details about the shooting, even whether it was accidental, nor were there any details about the pistol itself.

Robert Glazer, 21, was charged with malicious wounding, reckless handling of a firearm and discharging a firearm within 300 feet of an occupied dwelling. The wounding charge is a felony, while the others are misdemeanors. Spearman would only say that Glazer may have been having difficulty with the gun when it fired.

Spearman said Glazer had just purchased the handgun for his 21st birthday, which was on Christmas Day.

According to the 1991 Review of Public Health, handguns make up one-third of all firearms owned in America but generate two-thirds of all firearm-related deaths annually. A gun kept in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in a homicide, suicide or unintentional shooting than to be used in self-defense.

The teen was treated at Sentara Williamsburg Regional Medical Center and released.


My reply to the editor:

Editor,

Amanda Kerr's article of Jan 3, "Teen shot with new pistol," http://www.vagazette.com/news/va-new...y?coll=va-news contains the following 'facts'.

"According to the 1991 Review of Public Health, handguns make up one-third of all firearms owned in America but generate two-thirds of all firearm-related deaths annually. A gun kept in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in a homicide, suicide or unintentional shooting than to be used in self-defense."

I found the 1991 RPH at http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/pag...geindex=1#page . At no place in the article is there mentioned a 22 fold increase, as Ms. Kerr states. There is, however, a 2.2 (2 POINT 2) Adjusted Relative Risk, which has nothing to do with percentages. Further, the authors use the terms "occasional", "average", and "appears" to describe their results. Far from scientific proof, and contradicted by other studies.

Further, I find Ms. Kerr's use of a study involving firearms deaths to be irrelevant to the story, which did not involve a death. Ms. Kerr's use of a lone study done 15 years ago smacks of a blatant journalistic bias against firearms, and has no place in an objective reporting of the facts.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[SIGguy229]

Good luck on getting a response, provided they haven't circular filed it.

[P95Carry]

Hopefully someone will pause and think from your letter - even if you get no response.

I almost wish when I hear of these events, that folks who are first time gun owners, are made to learn and recite the rules of gun safety before leaving the store. I am convinced so many just do not think safety much at all - until too late.

[QKShooter]

GREAT Reply! Thank You for setting that record straight. I wonder if they will publish a CORRECTION. I doubt it!


My reply to the editor:

Editor,

Amanda Kerr's article of Jan 3, "Teen shot with new pistol," http://www.vagazette.com/news/va-new...y?coll=va-news contains the following 'facts'.

"According to the 1991 Review of Public Health, handguns make up one-third of all firearms owned in America but generate two-thirds of all firearm-related deaths annually. A gun kept in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in a homicide, suicide or unintentional shooting than to be used in self-defense."

I found the 1991 RPH at http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/pag...geindex=1#page . At no place in the article is there mentioned a 22 fold increase, as Ms. Kerr states. There is, however, a 2.2 (2 POINT 2) Adjusted Relative Risk, which has nothing to do with percentages. Further, the authors use the terms "occasional", "average", and "appears" to describe their results. Far from scientific proof, and contradicted by other studies.

Further, I find Ms. Kerr's use of a study involving firearms deaths to be irrelevant to the story, which did not involve a death. Ms. Kerr's use of a lone study done 15 years ago smacks of a blatant journalistic bias against firearms, and has no place in an objective reporting of the facts.

[peacefuljeffrey]

Well, I'm glad you sent back such a reasoned and articulate reply to the bias in the article. Mention of another Kellerman-esque bull*#&@ "study" had no business being in that article except to expose that the author does not think highly of the decision to keep a handgun in the home.

However, her citation does mention "unintentional shootings," so while the article's events did not involve a death, they did involve what appears to be (although the article said details were scant) an "unintentional shooting." That would be the only tenuous thread that would legitimately link mention of the study to the article. But even that should not have caused it to be included, because by the author's own admission, the police haven't even said whether the shooting was intentional or not!

[Dan M.]

Hopefully someone will pause and think from your letter - even if you get no response.

I almost wish when I hear of these events, that folks who are first time gun owners, are made to learn and recite the rules of gun safety before leaving the store. I am convinced so many just do not think safety much at all - until too late.

That would be like...like...like what we have to do in California when we buy a handgun. I wonder if we have a lower rate of unintentional shootings?

[P95Carry]

like what we have to do in California when we buy a handgun

Really??!! I did not know that.

I hate to feel that anything in the land of the free should be mandated but - in this instance I reckon with a few folks new to the game, they just might be safer - both to themselves and others.

I would add too - tho it seems obvious - the need for a noob to know enough of the manual of arms of any gun they are starting with. Couple that with a knowledge of ''the rules'' and they are off to a better and safer beginning.

[Tom G]

Was alcohol involved? Thats something that don't mix We had a case of that here. There were two police officers at a party. when one of them went to show the other his new gun which was supposed to be empty it discharged killing one of the officers. It just goes to show that this tragedy can happen to anyone if safety rules are ignored.