Reporter Hit With BB Gun: Should Kids Be Allowed to Own Them?

by SodaHead News Posted 2011/08/01 19:00:00

Related Topics: Public Opinion, Christmas, Police, Murder, Guns, Live, Movie, Boy, Treatment, Hospital, Weather, Movies, Boys

Read More

1,807 votes
Read all 1,686 opinions
Lightning Report View Results and Demographics + View Demographics

Loading Demographics... Click an icon to see demographic results Display unknown and private
	Yes	1,193 votes	66%
	No	493 votes	27%
	Undecided	121 votes	7%

In "A Christmas Story," when 9-year-old Ralphie Parker begged for a BB gun for Christmas, all the adults objected, saying, "You'll shoot your eye out."

However, as a recent incident in California demonstrates, maybe they should have been more concerned that Ralphie might hurt someone else.

While doing a live weather report in Fontana, Calif., on Saturday, ABC7 Eyewitness News reporter Leanne Suter was struck in the hand by a pellet fired from a BB gun.

Together local police and the San Bernardino Sheriff's Department were able to pinpoint a house that was possibly involved. Police found several BB guns and arrested two boys, ages 16 and 17, for assault with a dangerous weapon, which is a felony.

According to authorities, the boys fired in the direction of the news van from their home's backyard, and hit only Suter and the van itself.

Suter, who was taken to a local hospital for treatment, was not seriously injured and was already back at work on Sunday.

"We are grateful no one was seriously hurt and we are fully cooperating with police in their investigation," said Arnold J. Kleiner, president and general manager of KABC-TV.

The case is now being forwarded to the San Bernardino County District Attorney's Office which will decide whether or not to pursue charges.

What do you think? With the potential to hurt themselves and others, should kids be allowed to own BB guns?

+31

Add a comment above

b man 2011/08/01 19:22:58

Yes

+37
Its really about bad Parenting....... The question should be, "Should idiots be able to have children"?

>> See Replies

More polls by SodaHead News

brandon to Barbara... 2011/08/02 14:11:31

I guess you don't won't kids to run outside since they can trip and scrape a knee? Two examples, one which was most likely an accident, don't prove much. There's always going to be violence in the world, and one person telling kids not to have bb guns won't stop the Al-Qaeda from bombing people.

reply
Barbara... to brandon 2011/08/06 16:00:10

You want to equate a scraped knee with gun violence?????
In the world we live in today kids can't play outside unsupervised so those scraped knees are pretty much a thing of the past. You use a cost benefit approach, just like all manufacturers do. That means that its okay to lose a few lives to mattresses going on fire because of a manufacturering flaw that could be avoided but would cost say a nickel to correct. I say lets make the world as safe as possible for everyone to begin with and accept that there will be accidents but avoid those that can be avoided.

reply
brandon to Barbara... 2011/08/07 06:42:44

I thought we were talking about BB guns? They don't kill. Plus you're yelling at basically America's gun manufacturers, yet a country in Europe made them. Kids get hurt, it's a part of them growing up. You're saying that you never fell or ran into something while learning to ride a bike? Pain through play builds character, an they need it. "Scrapped knees are a thing of the past..." so you're saying it's impossible for a child to fall? I agree with the plan to make the world as safe as possible, but ever since Man has found the stone, He has found a weapon. It's basically impossible to live in a world with no fights or wars, no matter how great it is. We all can't live as one country, not with all the racists, sexists, homophobics, and the people that hate a certain religion. Even if we did, there would still be a black market of self-made weapons. No matter how great a world is without violence and war, and believe me when I say I would love that, it's impossible with Mankind's current time on the world. That's why I plan on joining the U.S. Marine Corp., to atleadt help against terrorists and the Taliban and Al-Qaeda as much as our military can.

reply
Mike 2011/08/02 13:44:29

No

Join the discussion. Share your opinion with millions!

reply
Mike to Mike 2011/08/02 13:46:43

No! Since someone hiot areporter with one, the kid will misfire and hit birds,small animals, siblings, policemen, etc. Kids are never very careful, especially when playing. Give them something less dangerous.

reply
leeaaron 2011/08/02 13:44:23

Yes

Like a lot of other things in life parental supervision is needed..I had a B.B. gun as a child & have bought them for grand kids..

reply
Thor American EXPAT n New G... 2011/08/02 13:44:15

Yes

STUPID ASSED QUESTION.

reply
gbudavid 2011/08/02 13:44:09

Yes

If the parents say it is OK

reply
joe 2011/08/02 13:43:57

Yes

+1
A kid shooting a reporter in the hand or a dog in the butt may be stupid and cruel, but it should not be blown out of proportion. It was not a terrorist attack. Kids doing dumb things is how kids learn about life. Also when the penalty for shooting a reporter with a BB gun is the same as hitting her with a ball bat you lessen the deterent effect for the more serious crime.

reply
Rev_Eric 2011/08/02 13:43:42

Yes

+1
Yes they should be allowed to own them as long as their parents allow it. Their parents should also teach them about responsibility and gun safety as well.

reply
Werewolf 2011/08/02 13:43:25

Yes

+2
But, only if they are taught properly, I expected the boys to be 8 to 10 yrs old. These two need to be disciplined.

I started with a BB gun, just like every other little boy in the area I grew up in, but we were taught to respect the gun and how to properly use it and the damage a gun can cause. We all had to go through gun safety classes each year. They were half day sessions taught at the police range, they were very eye opening. Even at 56, I still remember today what they taught and showed us when I was 9.

Now days they hand it to them and say go have fun thinking they can do no harm. But I still stand by my statement "Yes" with the proper training.

reply
kurtanderson1 2011/08/02 13:43:05

Yes

+1
No more laws legislators. Parents are responsible for kids. Kids'll just replace them with slingshots. Then you'll outlaw slingshots, you busybody pain-in-the-asses.

reply
Osk The Great Guru 2011/08/02 13:42:54

No

They should be banned from regular stores and be put for sale like any other gun or rifle should be. They must be 18+ to buy one

reply
Bill to Osk The... 2011/08/02 14:06:33

Big O, Please update yourself. You already have to be 18 to buy a BB gun.

reply
rushsps250 to Osk The... 2011/08/02 14:35:31

I mean i guess being an oversensative bab about life works too. Just shelter our kids is the easiest way. Jesus christ so many people have not lived a good life.

reply
rdej4168 2011/08/02 13:42:40

Yes

+1
Yes, they should be able to own them, with the understanding that it comes with serious responsibility. Parents should educate them on gun safety such that they treat the BB/pellet gun with the same respect as a firearm. (This must be stressed.) They should be encouraged to participate in an organization that reinforces these skills, and many target practice ranges have clubs you can join.

I've had one at age 15. No one got hurt, and I learned a skill that would pay off in competitive events as I moved on to bigger and better things. I was careful, I read the manuals and I treated it with respect. Now I try to help others when I'm at the range.

reply
Paul 2011/08/02 13:41:44

Yes

+2
A bb gun is the first gun that you give them to teach them gun safety.Once they are very well practiced with the bb gun then you get them a 22 rifle and give them supervised target shooting and teach them gun safety you have to drill it in their head while they are using the bb so that gun safety becomes second nature.

reply
rivaldruid 2011/08/02 13:41:11

Yes

+1
I owned one

reply
ProudVet 2011/08/02 13:40:31

Yes

+2
At the risk of shooting his eye out.......Yes. Seriously folks, I got my first BB gun at age six, along with firm instruction from my Dad. I never did anything with that BB gun that was bad, or illegal. It's all in the training and responsibility instilled by parents that avoids this type of problem.

reply
BeePac 2011/08/02 13:39:40

Undecided

Sure, responsible kids should be allowed to own a BB gun, IF AND ONLY IF they have been raised by RESPONSIBLE, ADULT parents who are involved with their children's upbringing, and who are not children THEMSELVES! Of course that leaves out about half of our present culture who thinks NANNYSTATE should do everything for them, since their victims!

reply
sickoft... to BeePac 2011/08/02 14:04:05

Only problem is that kids under the age of 18 are not responsible for anything. it doesn't matter how you've raised them. And the resin they aren't responsible is that their brains haven't developed far enough to understand cause and effect completely. That is scientific fact. A gun is not a toy a BB gun can be just as deadly as a shot gun. The child that shot the reporter I believe fully intended to harm her.

reply
Bill to BeePac 2011/08/02 14:07:44

BeePac, I agree with you 100%.

reply
lu lu 2011/08/02 13:39:30

Yes

+1
With proper training

reply
John 2011/08/02 13:39:10

Yes

+1
Yes...stop this nonesense....

reply
DARTH TULIRELV 2011/08/02 13:39:04

Yes

As training for the real gun they should be issued at age 18.

reply
Frank 2011/08/02 13:38:38

No

I never allowed my kids to own any kind of gun, fake gun, or bb gun. When ignorant friends gave them guns, they were safely disposed of. My kids never got addicted to fire arms mania. As a child my father kept guns in the home. My father grew up in the wild, wild west. We had access to them and I even owned a 410 gauge shotgun for hunting rabbits in Missouri. I had an overdose of guns and never owned another weapon of any kind. Even in the Army, I only fired for familiarization as per regulations. In Vietnam, I was a Medical Service Corps officer who refused to carry a weapon. Many officers carried a 45 and when captured were killed if they put up a fight. Those who had no weapons fared better. I traveled into hostile territory many times in the year there. I oppose the fearful idea that guns protect people. They do not. You cannot fight fire arms with fire arms. The cross fire is fierce. BTW: Also peace cannot be established by force, but you can defend yourself when necessary. I have a right of self-defense, but I hope I never have to exercise the right.

reply
Aingean to Frank 2011/08/02 13:43:13

You can't fight a fire arm by doing nothing either.

reply
Frank to Aingean 2011/08/15 14:02:45

I use prevention as my main defense against fire, disease, armed attacks, and ignorance. The best prevention against fire arms would be regulation of the 'militia' who use the. The best protection against ignorance is education and experience. I have both.

reply
BeePac to Frank 2011/08/17 23:56:59

Oh so proud of thyself!! I propose you have neither.

reply
ProudVet to Frank 2011/08/02 13:44:03

+1
Huh????

reply
Frank to ProudVet 2011/08/15 14:03:38

If you can't read, forget it.

reply
ProudVet to Frank 2011/08/21 13:43:27

I can certainly read and what I see is total ignorance on your part. A gun is a tool and used properly can save your life, or that of a loved one. The option is to call 911 and wait. Wait for the police to arrive in time to draw a chalk line around your lifeless body. Have a good life. As for me I will hold onto my God and my gun and find comfort in both.

reply
Frank to ProudVet 2011/08/23 02:52:12

The pride of arrogance = stupidity. What is the difference between being dead right and being dead wrong? Right and wrong. Dead either way. If you know right from wrong you should live long.

reply
ProudVet to Frank 2011/08/28 17:03:11

Once again I must ask the question, huh? Your replies are so off target it amazes me. Do you simply type out whatever random thoughts happen to be buzzing around between your ears? Here's a question for your way of thinking. Is a mouse in the house a house mouse, or is the house a mouse house??? Have a great day Frank, God bless you and yours.

reply
Frank to ProudVet 2011/08/29 15:17:24

Both. It also could be a roach house and a silver fish house, as well as an ant house. We all occupy this niche of existence on planet Earth. Bacteria have as much right to kill us as we have to kill them. God has blessed me with my existence and with enough mind to consider the role of mankind and other species. I suggest that you consider a crash course in logic, reason, math, and biology. History would not be out of place, and while you are at it, study English or any other of the rational languages of the world. You might be enlightened, or at least amazed at the simplicity of truth. BTW My house is abode to geckos, ants, and a few spiders. I evict them when they don't behave. There are millions of microbes circulating in the air and water supplies as well as the sewage system. My gut alone houses billions of Escherichia coli, Streptococcus faecalis, and a host of anaerobic species of bacteria as the normal flora necessary for the biotic existence of us all.

reply
ProudVet to Frank 2011/09/04 16:25:28

Yeah Frank, O.K.!!! You're absolutely right about everything. That's why I will no longer continue this senseless banter. In another life we might be friends, but for now I will bow to your superior intellect and only wish that might have been. You are the absolute genius of the universe. May God continue to bless you.

reply
Frank to ProudVet 2011/09/05 13:25:53

Thanks Proud, and kudos to you for your audacity. I am not a genius, relative or absolute, I just lived 83 years in harmony with my world. Now I wish I could live in harmony with the morons of the human race who curse me for the good luck to live so long. However, I intend to keep on living no matter what the consequences. Get used to it. I could pass for 54.

reply
Diplo Bear to Frank 2011/08/02 13:46:52

+2
For your sake, so do I.
For myself, having once been the target of an armed robbery in DC (where only felons carry weapons)
I believe my "packing" keeps the bro's and mo fo's at bay.
Sorry it has to be that way, since the Government won't protect me, I have to.

reply
Frank to Diplo Bear 2011/08/15 14:14:19

And puts you in greater danger than if you just stay away from the thugs. Random stray bullets are less of a danger than those sprayed in a house where a dealer or carrier lives. Users have their own hazards and families of users are at risk. I keep my family out of drugs and firearms, harms way, and other risks to their lives and fortunes. I am over 80 years old, and have had buddies who were lost in war and home invasions, who carried weapons and tried to use them. Police and military arms are necessary, but not the preferred defense. Government protects those who abide by laws intended to regulate. Fire arms are not 'well regulated' by government or by users.

reply
Diplo Bear to Frank 2011/08/16 15:25:48

Frank,
Fundamentally agree; unfortunately, the "government" is more interested in fixing stuff that ain't broke, than to deal with stuff in the "hard to do box". I can only go by statistics, which clearly indicate that folks living in an "armed" community are much less likely to become victims than those living in an "unarmed" community where only thugs and mugs carry.
Washington DC was a PRIME example of the latter, Florida supports my contention about the former. The safest place I've experienced, is Singapore. There are no recidivist gun law offenders. Those that comit gun crimes are either in Prison for Life, or six feet under.
No second chance. You'd be amazed how safe you'd feel in Singapore.
In the US, its far too late and there are not jail cells to make that work. That is the fault of Government, working hard to steal your money, rather than protecting you.

reply