Dad accused of killing daughter while cleaning gun

[TheLancinator]

Dad accused of killing daughter while cleaning gun
Associated Press


MARYSVILLE, Wash. – A father arrested after his 6-year-old daughter was fatally shot in their Washington state home allegedly told authorities he had been drinking double shots of vodka while cleaning his guns.

Court papers say Richard Peters told detectives he had asked his daughter, Stormy, to bring him the .45-caliber handgun Sunday. He said he must have pulled the trigger, and the girl fell to the floor. She was pronounced dead Monday.

Bail for Peters, 42, was set Monday at $250,000. He has been arrested for investigation of first-degree manslaughter.

His attorney, Annika Carlsten, requested that Peters be released from jail, The Herald newspaper of Everett reported. She argued that Peters isn't a flight risk, or a danger to himself or the community.

"It's obviously a tragedy for all involved and my primary concern is for my client and his family," Carlsten told The Associated Press on Tuesday night, declining to discuss any specifics.

The Snohomish County sheriff's office said two other children were removed from the home by Child Protective Services.

[Harpoon]

People are so friggin stupid...

[DemonGeminiX]

One of my cousins was accidentally shot by her father, one of Philadelphia's finest. He was drunk at the time. The bullet severed her spinal cord. She's been confined to a wheelchair since she was 5 years old. He got kicked off the force because of it and my aunt divorced him, but no jail time. This was back in the late 70s.

[Meursault]

that bullet would have hit him if there was a god.

[Nemowork]

If there was a god her finger would hagve slipped when she got the gun in the first place.

[marquis]

Three cheers for the Second Amendment

[PorkChopSandwiches]

I hope your not saying that since a drunken redneck killed his kid, nobody should be allowed to own a gun

[marquis]

Originally Posted by PorkChopSandwiches

I hope your not saying that since a drunken redneck killed his kid, nobody should be allowed to own a gun

It just keeps on happening-recently an 8 year old killed his family.Yet so many people persist in the belief that guns offer them some sort of protection.
US gun deaths in 2004 were 30 000
UK gun deaths in 2004 were 59
yet authorities in the UK are concerned about gun crime.

[DemonGeminiX]

Originally Posted by marquis

It just keeps on happening-recently an 8 year old killed his family.Yet so many people persist in the belief that guns offer them some sort of protection.
US gun deaths in 2004 were 30 000
UK gun deaths in 2004 were 59
yet authorities in the UK are concerned about gun crime.

No offense intended, but if you're afraid of getting shot, then don't cross the pond. Simple.

And for the record, it's not just kids killing dumb ass family morons that are too idiotic to practice gun safety, nor is it just drunk assholes shooting their kids, nor is it just kids bringing guns to school and killing kids (lack of gun safety precautions again). Those are very rare occurrences compared to the majority of gun related crimes in the US. If you dug a little deeper, I guarantee you'd find that the majority of gun deaths in the US are probably gang related, and I'm sorry to say this but there's not a damn thing banning gun ownership in this country will do about that. Gangs get their guns illegally in the first place. If you ban private gun ownership, they'll still get guns. The only difference will be that people definitely won't be able to protect themselves in their own homes in the event that they may need to, seeing as how gangs and criminals will be more brazen and dangerous because they know the owner's house they raid won't have guns in it to protect themselves.

With that scenario in mind, I think the existence of the Second Amendment is a pretty damn good idea.

[marquis]

Originally Posted by DemonGeminiX

No offense intended, but if you're afraid of getting shot, then don't cross the pond. Simple.

And for the record, it's not just kids killing dumb ass family morons that are too idiotic to practice gun safety, nor is it just drunk assholes shooting their kids, nor is it just kids bringing guns to school and killing kids (lack of gun safety precautions again). Those are very rare occurrences compared to the majority of gun related crimes in the US. If you dug a little deeper, I guarantee you'd find that the majority of gun deaths in the US are probably gang related, and I'm sorry to say this but there's not a damn thing banning gun ownership in this country will do about that. Gangs get their guns illegally in the first place. If you ban private gun ownership, they'll still get guns. The only difference will be that people definitely won't be able to protect themselves in their own homes in the event that they may need to, seeing as how gangs and criminals will be more brazen and dangerous because they know the owner's house they raid won't have guns in it to protect themselves.

With that scenario in mind, I think the existence of the Second Amendment is a pretty damn good idea.

I once met a policeman who was sent to Dallas on secondment and what he told me was quite eye opening.The police there do not think that gun ownership in the home offers any protection because it is many times more likely that a family member will be shot by mistake than an intruder.
Yes, in the UK the gangs have guns too and that accounts for most of the 59 gunshot deaths.It's still relatively easy to get a gun here but people just don't do it as they see no necessity for having one.
I've covered this area before-in the late 18th century gun ownership was pretty widespread , they were needed as protection against wild animals etc and also as a means of providing food.This was just accepted and wouldn't have been even thought about as anything but reasonable.In other words,without another factor there was no need for an Amendment because it wouldn't alter (or amend) anything.And this other factor was to bear arms as part of the militia.It wasn't about personal use at all.

[DemonGeminiX]

Originally Posted by marquis

I once met a policeman who was sent to Dallas on secondment and what he told me was quite eye opening.The police there do not think that gun ownership in the home offers any protection because it is many times more likely that a family member will be shot by mistake than an intruder.
Yes, in the UK the gangs have guns too and that accounts for most of the 59 gunshot deaths.It's still relatively easy to get a gun here but people just don't do it as they see no necessity for having one.
I've covered this area before-in the late 18th century gun ownership was pretty widespread , they were needed as protection against wild animals etc and also as a means of providing food.This was just accepted and wouldn't have been even thought about as anything but reasonable.In other words,without another factor there was no need for an Amendment because it wouldn't alter (or amend) anything.And this other factor was to bear arms as part of the militia.It wasn't about personal use at all.

I wouldn't listen to the opinion of a police officer, or a group of police officers, when you have a vastly larger group of people that disagree with them... especially when that vastly larger group of people are holding a bunch of guns.

I've always stated that there should be a psychological profile and an intelligence test for gun ownership, but I'm just one person. A group of police officers are a very small subset of the American voting populace. We all might have opinions on the matter, but if we're in the minority, then it's pretty much a moot point.

Good for people in the UK for feeling that they don't need guns (although I think there might be a fellow UK member in this forum that disagrees with you on that point). I really hope it works out for you guys. Here in the USA, we feel differently. Perhaps you should respect that.

I like a guy who knows his history, but the historical argument for gun ownership begins and ends with the Second Amendment, and the vast majority of Americans feel that the Second Amendment should remain undisturbed and intact. You can debate all you want, but in the end, what it really boils down to is that you really don't have a say in the matter, my British friend.

The real reason that Amendment exists is because the British tried to disarm and prevent an uprising of the colonists in the infancy stages of the Revolution, when the British professed earlier the colonists' right to own firearms. The Framers thought it necessary to include the provision that the people not be denied this right so that the people could defend themselves in the event that an overbearing government or a foreign invasion tried to subdue the people and deny them their rights as Americans. Militias may not be needed right now, but in possible future times, they could still be created. With that in mind, it's absolutely right of the people of the USA to own firearms privately if they so choose. I believe this right is necessary today, even though I don't own a gun myself.

[TheLancinator]

Originally Posted by DemonGeminiX

No offense intended, but if you're afraid of getting shot, then don't cross the pond. Simple.

And for the record, it's not just kids killing dumb ass family morons that are too idiotic to practice gun safety, nor is it just drunk assholes shooting their kids, nor is it just kids bringing guns to school and killing kids (lack of gun safety precautions again). Those are very rare occurrences compared to the majority of gun related crimes in the US. If you dug a little deeper, I guarantee you'd find that the majority of gun deaths in the US are probably gang related, and I'm sorry to say this but there's not a damn thing banning gun ownership in this country will do about that. Gangs get their guns illegally in the first place. If you ban private gun ownership, they'll still get guns. The only difference will be that people definitely won't be able to protect themselves in their own homes in the event that they may need to, seeing as how gangs and criminals will be more brazen and dangerous because they know the owner's house they raid won't have guns in it to protect themselves.

With that scenario in mind, I think the existence of the Second Amendment is a pretty damn good idea.

Originally Posted by DemonGeminiX

I wouldn't listen to the opinion of a police officer, or a group of police officers, when you have a vastly larger group of people that disagree with them... especially when that vastly larger group of people are holding a bunch of guns.

I've always stated that there should be a psychological profile and an intelligence test for gun ownership, but I'm just one person. A group of police officers are a very small subset of the American voting populace. We all might have opinions on the matter, but if we're in the minority, then it's pretty much a moot point.

Good for people in the UK for feeling that they don't need guns (although I think there might be a fellow UK member in this forum that disagrees with you on that point). I really hope it works out for you guys. Here in the USA, we feel differently. Perhaps you should respect that.

I like a guy who knows his history, but the historical argument for gun ownership begins and ends with the Second Amendment, and the vast majority of Americans feel that the Second Amendment should remain undisturbed and intact. You can debate all you want, but in the end, what it really boils down to is that you really don't have a say in the matter, my British friend.

The real reason that Amendment exists is because the British tried to disarm and prevent an uprising of the colonists in the infancy stages of the Revolution, when the British professed earlier the colonists' right to own firearms. The Framers thought it necessary to include the provision that the people not be denied this right so that the people could defend themselves in the event that an overbearing government or a foreign invasion tried to subdue the people and deny them their rights as Americans. Militias may not be needed right now, but in possible future times, they could still be created. With that in mind, it's absolutely right of the people of the USA to own firearms privately if they so choose. I believe this right is necessary today, even though I don't own a gun myself.

Let me also just add on the police office front, for every cop against gun ownership, there is an equal amount for it. All you have to do is read the newspaper and find the articles they try to hide about people that defended themselves with guns. Invariably the police that arrive on the scene have had nothing bad to say about law abiding gun owners.

[Ex]

Originally Posted by PorkChopSandwiches

I hope your not saying that since a drunken redneck killed his kid, nobody should be allowed to own a gun

no, just the drunken rednecks..and the stupid ones...which is pretty much most people.

[DemonGeminiX]

I'm tellin' ya guys... intelligence tests and psychological profiles.

Scientologists will never get their hands on guns.

[justhangingout]

I own a number of guns: handguns, rifles, shotguns.
I believe in the right to own and use a gun responsibly, and support the second amendment. However, it seems strange that in most states all that is needed to purchase a gun is a background check. No training or safety course necessary. Yet, to hunt a training course is needed. Why do just hunters need the education?

And, the technology exists to have a ballistic 'fingerprint' on file for everu gun manufactured.

I guess what I am saying is that - gasp - even though I am a member of the NRA, I would be more than willing to go along with some thought out method of registration and control. Control doesn't mean taking the guns away. It simply means common sense and not reactionary methods ...

My .02