CAA: Christian Anime Alliance

Well this is a doozy of a news item for a lot of reasons.

http://www.wsmv.com/news/22770717/detail.html

Cheyenne's stepfather, Douglas Robert Cronberger, said he believed someone was trespassing on their property, so he stepped outside with his semi-automatic gun. When he returned inside, he placed the gun on a living room table.

Cronberger said Cheyenne mistook the weapon for a Wii video game controller and fatally shot herself in the abdomen.

Cheyenne was rushed to University Medical Center in Lebanon where she was pronounced dead.

As for the reason the girl mistook the weapon for a Wii controller (allegedly)? Yeah, apparently it's a Chinese knockoff.

However, a lot of this doesn't add up. And I mean a LOT. In the WSMV article (which I linked, and quoted) the stepfather is the one saying she mistook the weapon for a Wii controller. However, in the News Channel 5 story, the mother is the one quoted as saying that.

But it gets worse.

[Sheriff] Ashe said the stepfather said he was asleep at the time of the shooting, and the child's mother was in the room with the Cheyenne and the couple's 3-month-old infant.

So the stepfather comes in from looking for a prowler, lays a gun (with safety off) on the table in a room containing two children, and then goes to sleep? And the MOTHER is in the room with them, with the gun on the table, not doing anything about it?

First of all, I'm sure anyone here with younger siblings or children of their own knows that a 3 year old is at the age where they're going to grab anything they can get their hands on. She didn't have to mistake the weapon for anything. She just wanted to grab it.

But what's more interesting is, as another opinion article put it, how wonderfully mentioning a video game controller completely takes the focus off how the stepfather was criminally negligent in leaving a live loaded firearm within easy reach of a young child.

And I know I have no right to be accusatory, but isn't it just a LITTLE strange that she would be pointing the weapon at her own chest/abdomen instead of maybe at the ground or something? I don't know much about weapons, but the News Channel 5 article says it was a .380 caliber, semi-automatic handgun (but they didn't mention the brand)...would a three year old be capable of pulling the trigger with the gun pointed at her own body like that?

It seems a bit off...part of me suspects foul play involved but obviously I don't have any evidence. What say you?

Nate (post: 1379583) wrote:And I know I have no right to be accusatory, but isn't it just a LITTLE strange that she would be pointing the weapon at her own chest/abdomen instead of maybe at the ground or something? I don't know much about weapons, but the News Channel 5 article says it was a .380 caliber, semi-automatic handgun (but they didn't mention the brand)...would a three year old be capable of pulling the trigger with the gun pointed at her own body like that?

It seems a bit off...part of me suspects foul play involved but obviously I don't have any evidence. What say you?

From what little details are available, this does indeed seem fishy. I would have to see gun to really make any hypothesis, but I have my doubts that a 3 year old could shoot themselves in the abdomen unless the gun had a modified trigger pull (unlikely in the case of a self defense gun) or the father left it with the hammer cocked back. Leaving a loaded gun sitting around children is already utterly inexcusable breech of gun safety and etiquette, so I guess it is possible he could be so stupid as to leave it cocked as well. If neither of the previous were the case, it would have to be a crazy freak accident for someone with such small hands and weak muscles to shoot themselves.

Who leaves a loaded gun on the living room table and goes to take a nap when they suspect a prowler?

Nate (post: 1379583) wrote:Well this is a doozy of a news item for a lot of reasons.

http://www.wsmv.com/news/22770717/detail.html

As for the reason the girl mistook the weapon for a Wii controller (allegedly)? Yeah, apparently it's a Chinese knockoff.

However, a lot of this doesn't add up. And I mean a LOT. In the WSMV article (which I linked, and quoted) the stepfather is the one saying she mistook the weapon for a Wii controller. However, in the News Channel 5 story, the mother is the one quoted as saying that.

But it gets worse.

So the stepfather comes in from looking for a prowler, lays a gun (with safety off) on the table in a room containing two children, and then goes to sleep? And the MOTHER is in the room with them, with the gun on the table, not doing anything about it?

First of all, I'm sure anyone here with younger siblings or children of their own knows that a 3 year old is at the age where they're going to grab anything they can get their hands on. She didn't have to mistake the weapon for anything. She just wanted to grab it.

But what's more interesting is, as another opinion article put it, how wonderfully mentioning a video game controller completely takes the focus off how the stepfather was criminally negligent in leaving a live loaded firearm within easy reach of a young child.

And I know I have no right to be accusatory, but isn't it just a LITTLE strange that she would be pointing the weapon at her own chest/abdomen instead of maybe at the ground or something? I don't know much about weapons, but the News Channel 5 article says it was a .380 caliber, semi-automatic handgun (but they didn't mention the brand)...would a three year old be capable of pulling the trigger with the gun pointed at her own body like that?

It seems a bit off...part of me suspects foul play involved but obviously I don't have any evidence. What say you?

Yowza...first of all this is a sad incident. Very Sad....but I agree it does seem very strange, and suspicious that this little girl was able to shoot herself. And the stories that don't line up also seem very strange.

First of all, if there' s a burglar outside, or you think there is one...would you go to sleep? I would stay awake a little longer just to be safe.

Second of all, put the freaking safety back on! That father was indeed negligent, and now his daughter is dead. The mom should have seen it too.

But it does reek of fowl play. Pretty scary.

According to the article, she mistook the gun for some Wii product knock-off (see comparison photograph). She could have just shot herself accidentally playing with dad's gun not knowing what it was, but that she apparently "Recognized" it suggests she'd have some idea how to use it; at least enough to point it towards the television and not herself.

Whether this is clean cut or not, still some pretty negligent parenting going on.

Being a semi automatic, it does take some effort to pull the trigger. Then again, a .380 is a smaller bullet. Still though, for a three year old to not only pick up a gun, but pick it up and THEN pull the trigger? That's hard for me to believe. I don't think there's any semi auto that uses a hammer where you can pull it back before you shoot. That's a revolver. At least, comparing all revolvers/semis I've come in contact with, you don't need to pull back the hammer on a semi auto. All you need to do is have a bullet in the barrel and the safety off, and nothing blocking the hammer, and you're good to go. I think some guns actually need the person to tightly squeeze the grip in order to shoot. And there are tons of safetly features on a...I think Beretta Cheetah .380, the kind I've seen. It's a small gun, but it's still got a nice weight and would, as far as I know, be more than a three year old could manage. Other interesting things about semi autos is that the force of a slide could break, if not tear off, fingers/thumbs that get in the way. If the gun was pointed at the abdomen, it seems like the thumbs would have been used to pull the trigger. It would have also been in a very awkward grip, where it would have been hard to hold on to for a person with small hands. (I'm really rambling, aren't I?)
Anyways, when I look at everything I know about guns, I would conclude that this makes no sense. The only way I could see it happening is if the kid was standing on a chair, lifted the gun, dropped it, and it went off (It can happen.). It may be possible, but in any case the guy was an idiot.


Edit: I looked at the comparison. Yeah, that's pretty lifelike. It's even got sightings on it! I could see how it could be mistaken for a gun by a three year old.

... Another article said he was shooting at dogs to keep them away.

Wat.

This whole thing smells bad to me. Poor little girl.

Ante Bellum (post: 1379596) wrote:Being a semi automatic, it does take some effort to pull the trigger. Then again, a .380 is a smaller bullet. Still though, for a three year old to not only pick up a gun, but pick it up and THEN pull the trigger? That's hard for me to believe. I don't think there's any semi auto that uses a hammer where you can pull it back before you shoot. That's a revolver. At least, comparing all revolvers/semis I've come in contact with, you don't need to pull back the hammer on a semi auto. All you need to do is have a bullet in the barrel and the safety off, and nothing blocking the hammer, and you're good to go.

It does take quite an effort to pull a trigger, and self defense pistols often have an extra stiff trigger to prevent accidental discharges during tense situations (people with adrenaline rushes may shoot when they think they are just resting their finger on the trigger).

The caliber of the bullet has nothing to do with the trigger stiffness.

Virtually all modern pistols have a hammer that needs to be cocked before firing. Even with double action guns (most sold today are double action), you need to pull back the hammer before firing the first time. The recoil of the shot then pulls the hammer back for you and you can keep firing. Many guns incorporate this first hammer pull with the sliding of the bolt so that it is cocked when you "rack in" the first round. Many semi-autos also have these hammers hidden internally, so it is easy to see how one can forget about needing to pull them back for the first shot. It is a little easier to notice with pistols that have external hammers, such as the model 1911.

In the case of the negligent father, he probably inserted a clip into the gun, racked in a round (which pulled back the hammer) then when he didn't find an intruder, left his gun on the table ready to fire. If one isn't planning on firing after racking in a round, the safe thing to do (aside from unloading it, locking it up, keeping it on one's person, etc.) is to disengage the hammer, rendering it incapable of firing unless one engages the hammer again, either through pulling back an external hammer or "racking in" another round. Both would have made accidental discharges much more difficult.

As for safeties, many small self defense pistols don't have them, at least in the general sense of the term. Glocks, for instance, have the safety right on the trigger. They figure if someone is going to be putting their finger on the trigger, they intend to shoot. The purpose of the safety is to keep the carrier from shooting accidentally, not to keep kids from using it. That is what gun safes and locks are for.

To play diet devil's advocate, many gun enthusiasts like to customize their equipment, and one of the most common customizations is easing up the trigger to make it easier to fire. Using weaker springs, oiling the hinges, etc. STILL. The gun was on safety, and that can be a pain to remove. AND, the mother didn't notice the little girl doing this?

Wow, what a tragic story. No comment on whether or not something has gone on behind the scenes that the reporters don't know, but either way, someone should take a look at the way her parents were treating her/keeping up with her. That just seems really negligent to me, and it's so sad that it cost them their little girl's life.

This is very awful. I have have nothing new to say on the topic. I do sense something a bit fishy going on, and I can't believe the parents were that ignorant. Who in their right mind would leave a gun lying around on a counter-top or table or whatever, NEARBY WHERE HIS KIDS HAPPEN TO BE!!!!!!!! That ain't right I tell you! This both disgusts and saddens me. T-T....

It sounds a bit fishy to me. The only way the girl could have shot herself like she did is if she pulled the trigger with her thumbs. Then again the safty would have to of been off as well. No comment as to any foulplay or anything as I do not know the whole story.

Just so everyone knows, after doing a bit more research, the model of handgun involved in this incident has NO external safety. So the statements about "She'd have to turn off the safety" or "The safety should have been on" don't apply, as there is none, the "safety" is basically "Do not have a round chambered."

Handguns are light enough for young children to lift, the trigger tends to be light enough to be pulled without much of a problem, but, I don't suspect they would have pointed at themselves first if they mistook it for a wiimote. Child negligence and endangerment are at least two of the charges that should face the stepfather. There simply is no excuse for leaving an armed weapon at the table near children, regardless if the safety is on or off.

As far foul play is concerned, it is fully possible as what occurred would be foul play, but unless that comes from the stepfathers own statement, then he will never have that added to a list of charges.

Nate (post: 1379691) wrote:Just so everyone knows, after doing a bit more research, the model of handgun involved in this incident has NO external safety. So the statements about "She'd have to turn off the safety" or "The safety should have been on" don't apply, as there is none, the "safety" is basically "Do not have a round chambered."

So what you're saying is, that the parents should be charged with negligence at best?

Etoh*the*Greato (post: 1379718) wrote:So what you're saying is, that the parents should be charged with negligence at best?

Or manslaughter. Due to the age of the kid, there really is no way to dodge some pretty harsh penalties or blame it on someone else.

Strange. My dad has a 1911 but I don't remember him having to pull back the hammer. I just asked my brother and he confirmed that one pulls back the slide and I would believe that that would prepare the hammer for the first bullet. I worded it wrong. I might have been thinking revolver, when you said "with the hammer pulled back." My mistake.
I wasn't exactly sure if a bullet size would affect the stiffness of the trigger, I've never noticed any difference. Either way though, I'm sure it's too much for a three year old.

Nate (post: 1379583) wrote:First of all, I'm sure anyone here with younger siblings or children of their own knows that a 3 year old is at the age where they're going to grab anything they can get their hands on. She didn't have to mistake the weapon for anything. She just wanted to grab it.

But what's more interesting is, as another opinion article put it, how wonderfully mentioning a video game controller completely takes the focus off how the stepfather was criminally negligent in leaving a live loaded firearm within easy reach of a young child.

Yeaaaaaah. That's just horrifically irresponsible, and it ended in tragedy. Also, the video game comparison/inclusion is irrelevant - I agree with the grabbing interpretation. She was 3 years old!

Etoh*the*Greato wrote:So what you're saying is, that the parents should be charged with negligence at best?

Pretty much. Maybe not the mother (even if she WAS in the room with the child and gun, she's not at fault because she had nothing to do with the gun). But the father placing a live loaded weapon within easy reach of a child, and then going into another room and going to sleep? Yeah, he needs some jail time. Except replace "some" with "a lot."

I agree with the criminal negligence, but as some people have pointed out, many people like to customize their guns, and it's actually really common to have hair triggers. And if he bought it from somebody else, than that's the most likely scenario.

I just hope that the gun haters won't pounce on this like they do many other gun accidents. Guns are tools, just like hammers, knives and many other things.

The funny thing is the fact that so many people decry guns as evil and try to limit them, when vehicular homicides almost double the amount of gun related homicides.

(Oh and mods if this is to political or you think that what I said will cause to much debate go ahead and clip it.)

I oppose banning guns, however

so many people decry guns as evil and try to limit them, when vehicular homicides almost double the amount of gun related homicides.

is not a good comparison; the ONLY purpose of guns is to harm/kill things, whereas that is not the primary purpose of cars.

So again, I do not wish to ban guns, I am just saying that this logic isn't really applicable.

[quote="Nate (post: 1382092)"]I oppose banning guns, however

is not a good comparison]


You're right, that was some shoddy logic I displayed there.

Anyway, I'm saying that people who think that banning guns lowers gun violence are don't know what they are talking about.

That Dude (post: 1382105) wrote:You're right, that was some shoddy logic I displayed there.

Anyway, I'm saying that people who think that banning guns lowers gun violence are stupid.

You know, Nate is a smart guy, and I know of plenty of other intelligent CAAers that hold this view.

That's about all that I have to say about this, because I'm actually hoping to head off anyone who would actually be offended by this sweeping generalization. Let's keep this civil, and hopefully prevent the thread from being locked.

EDIT: I hope this doesn't come across as mean or angry, it wasn't meant to. Edited for tone.

I also edited my post, sorry about that. I just get kinda frustrated about that sometimes.

And I actually agree with Nate, who was just saying that he agreed with me but he just thought the way I said it sucked.

I'm going to go ahead and close this one right here. While I appreciate your self-policing, the current trend of the topic pretty much goes exactly where we don't want them going, from a political standpoint.