Christina.Castillo.Dissertation

MA Criminology
Circumstances Surrounding Unintentional
Firearm Deaths Involving Children in the U.S.
Christina Castillo
2013/2014

2 | Unintentional Firearm Deaths of U.S. Children
ABSTRACT
Background. Unintentional firearm injuries are responsible for the deaths of over one hundred
children in the United States annually (WISQAS, 2012). With America becoming an ever-growing
pro-gun culture, more considerations need to be made in regards to actions taken by gun-owning
parents to protect their children. Methods. A study of the circumstances surrounding the deaths of ten
children aged 0-12 was conducted to establish the existence of patterns among them. The cases were
evaluated by conducting a secondary media analysis alongside the use of development theories and
legislation to determine what situations led up to the deaths and what their outcomes were. The cases
were analysed by demographics, numerous firearm storage methods taken by the parents, location of
the parents, and the rulings of death. Results. The findings of this study concluded that the majority of
the cases demonstrated negligence by the parents by means of not safely storing firearms and leaving
them loaded. Patterns also demonstrated the children were not aware of their actions when handling
the firearms. Conclusions. This study underscores the notion that changes to legislation and firearm
education programmes need to be made. In order to achieve this, parents should consistently be held
legally responsible for their children coming into contact with firearms and accidentally discharging
them.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to extend my gratitude to my supervisor, Amy Mitchell, for helping to narrow
my interests to this particular topic, as well as offering her time and encouragement through the
completion of this dissertation. Additionally, I would like to thank my family and friends for granting
me their continuous support during my studies at Kingston University.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract........................................................................................................................................... 2
Acknowledgments .......................................................................................................................... 3
List of Figures................................................................................................................................. 5
List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. 5
Chapter One: Introduction ........................................................................................................... 6
Chapter Two: Literature Review ................................................................................................. 7
Definitions ..........................................................................................................................7
Gun Debate .........................................................................................................................8
Connection of Children to Firearms .................................................................................11
Role of Development...........................................................................................11
Prevalence............................................................................................................14
Storage Methods ..................................................................................................16
Steps towards Improvement.................................................................................17
The Current Study.............................................................................................................20
Chapter Three: Research Design................................................................................................22
Methodology.....................................................................................................................22
Analysis ...............................................................................................................23
Selection Criteria ..............................................................................................................23
Limitations...........................................................................................................24
Ethics ...................................................................................................................24
Strengths ..............................................................................................................25
Chapter Four: Findings............................................................................................................... 26
Victim and Shooter Demographics...................................................................................26
State Legislation ...............................................................................................................28
Child Access Prevention Laws ............................................................................30
Child Death Review Programmes........................................................................31
Firearm Safety Precautions...............................................................................................31
Locked or Stored Firearms...................................................................................33
Loaded Firearms ..................................................................................................34
Manual Safety and Firearm Types.......................................................................35
Location of Firearms............................................................................................38
Parental Whereabouts .......................................................................................................39
Rulings of Deaths and Outcomes......................................................................................40
Chapter Five: Discussion............................................................................................................. 43
Overall Aims of Research.................................................................................................43
Summary of Findings........................................................................................................43
Recommendations for Future Studies............................................................................... 47
Chapter Six: Conclusion.............................................................................................................. 48
References..................................................................................................................................... 49
Appendices.................................................................................................................................... 59
A: Firearm Types..............................................................................................................59
B: Devices for Potential Reduction of Unintended Handgun Injuries..............................60
C: CDR Case Report Sample Related to Firearms ...........................................................61

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Genders of Victims and Shooters................................................................................... 27
Figure 2: Firearm Safety Precautions............................................................................................. 33
Figure 3: Types of Firearms........................................................................................................... 36
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Firearm Legislation by State............................................................................................ 26
Table 2: Number of Firearm Deaths in the U.S. of Children 0-12, 2011....................................... 29

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
The Second Amendment of the United States (U.S.) Constitution dictates that U.S. citizens
have the right to keep and bear arms (U.S. Const. amend. II). However, hundreds of children suffer
both fatally and non-fatally as a result of unintentional firearm injuries each year (Glatt, 2005).
Unintentional or accidental firearm deaths can be defined as:
[A result] from a penetrating injury or gunshot wound from a weapon that uses
powder charge to fire a projectile when there was a preponderance of evidence that
the shooting was not intentionally directed at the victim (CDC, 2008, p. 8).
Studies have shown that accidental firearm injuries to children are more likely to occur in homes
where firearms are loaded and unlocked (Miller et al., 2005; Okoro et al., 2005). These incidents are
also more likely to happen in the U.S. than in other countries, due to differing gun control regulations
and societal views (Glatt, 2005). Statistics demonstrate the frequency of the shootings, but there is
little research behind the detailed circumstances involved.
The opening chapter of this dissertation begins with a brief discussion on types of firearms,
which will lead into the gun debate occurring at the present time in America. A connection will then
be made with children to understand the associations that exist between them and firearms, such as
their cognitive abilities and the prevalence of firearm deaths and steps towards reducing them. This
section will also testify to the importance of firearm storage practices. The succeeding chapter entails
the design of the present study, which reviewed ten case studies of child-to-child unintentional
firearms deaths of those aged 0-12 in the U.S. through use of secondary media sources. Next, the
findings will be presented, followed by a discussion and conclusion to offer a summary of the findings
and review aims of the research.
This study widely aims to elicit a deeper understanding of the causes of these shootings. The
analysis of and predicted patterns found from the cases will help shape an argument for future
literature and changes to be made in current social work and firearm legislation, such as new policies
regarding firearm safety education and firearm storage requirements.

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
Definitions
Using the terms gun and firearm throughout this work includes long guns (rifles and
shotguns) and handguns (semi-automatics and revolvers), as exhibited in Appendix A. These four
types of firearms are mentioned in the findings, but in order to gain an understanding, as well as a
visual, of each case’s shooter and the firearm used, it is essential to explain the typical characteristics
of and differences among these weapons. A firearm is defined under Title 18, Chapter 44, Section 921
of the U.S. Code as “any weapon... which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a
projectile by the action of an explosive,” (United States Code, 1948, p. 202).
A shotgun is a type of firearm which is:
Intended to be fired from the shoulder... and uses [sic] the energy of an explosive to
fire through a smooth bore either a number of ball shot or a single projectile for each
single pull of the trigger, (United States Code, 1948, p. 202).
The differentiation made between a shotgun and rifle is that a rifle is only able to “fire a single
projectile through a rifled, rather than smooth, bore, for each single pull of the trigger,” (United States
Code, 1948, pp. 202-203). The rifled bore, or interior barrel, spins a bullet, causing this firearm to
have more accuracy than a shotgun. The bore diameter of a shotgun is indirectly measured by gauge,
where a 20-gauge shotgun has a bore diameter where 20 lead balls would equal one pound. In the case
of rifles, the barrel diameter is directly measured by caliber, where a .22-caliber rifle has a bore
diameter of 22/100 inch (IHEA, 2002a; IHEA, 2002b). Both of these weapons can be manufactured
using a semi-automatic action, meaning the gun will fire once each time the trigger is pulled and
contains a magazine, which holds multiple rounds of ammunition (IHEA, 2002d; NRA-ILA, 2014h).
While a long gun is intended to be fired using both hands, a handgun is so named because it is
designed to be fired by the use of a single hand. A semi-automatic handgun is a type of pistol which
uses a removable magazine to contain its bullets. The magazine is contained within the hollow hand
grip. Conversely, a revolver features a revolving cylinder which typically holds six bullets (PBS,
2014; Reedy & Koper, 2003). Revolvers differ from pistols in that they cannot be semi-automatic and
typically the only safety mechanism is a drop safety device, meaning there is no added safety which

locks the trigger (Milne et al., 2003; NRA-ILA, 2013c). Additional examples of the safety devices
which handguns may possess are indicated in Appendix B.
Gun Debate
There has recently been a transition regarding attitudes towards firearms in the U.S.,
instigating the current gun debate. In 2009, the number of firearms manufactured in the U.S. was over
five million, the highest it has been in over 23 years; the most sold firearm was rifles at over two
million (U.S. Department of Justice, 2011). Presently 30 states across the nation do not require a
permit for their residents to open carry, or openly carry their firearms in public (Open Carry).
Americans are taking their stances for or against gun control based on the culture they have been a
part of, sparking controversy. Gun advocates view firearms as being a necessity in deterring crime as
well as a source of self-defence. Conversely, those who promote gun control believe firearms are
damaging to society, especially in the hands of criminals (U.S. Department of Justice, 1997). The
following paragraphs bring to light some instances which have come about in recent years due to the
state of legislation found throughout the U.S.
In Aurora, Colorado, a mass shooting occurred in a movie theatre during the midnight
premiere of ‘The Dark Knight Rises’ in July 2012. The man responsible for the shooting, 24-year-old
James Holmes, used two .40-caliber Glock pistols, a 12-gauge shotgun, and an AR-15 assault rifle to
kill 12 people and additionally injure 70 others (CBC News, 2012; Horwitz & Wilgoren, 2012). In the
two months prior to the event, Holmes had made legal purchases of over 6,000 rounds of ammunition
for his weapons. The Chief of Police involved with the case, Don Oates, asserted that Holmes would
have been able to fire 50-60 rounds per minute with the rifle, but it is assumed to have malfunctioned.
Gun advocates claimed if a law-abiding citizen had been carrying their firearm in the theatre,
the death told would have been significantly less. Gun control supporters shared the resemblance of
this event to the Columbine school shooting which took place nearby in 1999, and were angered that
gun laws were still not strict enough for the country, especially for those with unstable mental health
(Frosch & Johnson, 2012; CBS News, 2012). Holmes was known to have seen three mental health
professionals in the months leading up to the event, but had slipped through the cracks and was able to
purchase firearms and ammunition, despite having shown signs of violent thoughts. After the

shooting, Colorado legislators began work to improve their laws regarding mental health (CBC News,
2012; CBS News, 2012; Moreno, 2013)
After the December 2012 shooting in Newtown, Connecticut at Sandy Hook Elementary
School, a number of individuals pushed for stricter gun laws. The shooting, which resulted in the
deaths of 20 children and six adults, provoked conversation in the gun debate to fight to prevent
further violence caused by firearms. A poll conducted by Associated Press-GfK in December 2013
found that 52% of Americans advocate for a change towards stricter gun control, however half of the
surveyed population also believe that legislation limiting gun ownership infringes on the public’s
constitutional right to bear arms (Peoples, 2013; AP-GfK Poll, 2013). This contradiction found
between these statistics simply illustrates the controversy of firearm regulation, where approximately
half of Americans believe laws should impose harsher regulations and half posit that these regulations
are against the Second Amendment.
My Parents Open Carry, an illustrated children’s book published in 2014, aims to offer a
basic explanation of the Second Amendment as well as the expanding practice of open carrying
firearms in America. In an interview with authors Brian Jeffs and Nathan Nephew, they expressed
their book’s attempt to make a point that most children are not afraid of guns (Armed American
Radio, 2011). On the book’s website, Jeffs and Nephews assert that prior to their book they were
unable to find any pro-gun literature for children. The two believe the book “reflects the views of the
majority of the American people,” (My Parents Open Carry). In summation, the story is of a young
girl and her parents who spend a day running errands while exercising their ability to open carry
firearms. The family interacts with individuals who are both pro- and anti-gun while promoting the
use of open carry (My Parents Open Carry). The creation of this book is one example of the alteration
of some Americans’ views on firearms.
While My Parents Open Carry offers one view of Americans, Channel 4 aired a documentary
entitled, Kids ‘n’ Guns (2014), illustrating how children in America relate differently to firearms:
from one nine-year-old child who signed up for competitions to a four-year-old being encouraged by
her parents to learn about them to another nine-year-old who suffered fatally when an accident
occurred. The film also shows other clips of pro-gun families, one in which a child was opening a
Christmas present, a gun. The six-year-old expressed that he felt both he and his three-year-old

brother were too young for guns, but their parents disagreed (Kids ‘n’ Guns, 2014). In all examples
within the film the families were pro-gun, teaching their children from young ages to handle firearms.
In recent months, businesses have become a central focus of the open carry debate. Stores and
restaurants such as Chipotle, Target, Starbucks, Sonic, Chili’s, and Kroger have requested customers
leave their firearms at home after demonstration groups such as ‘Open Carry Texas’ very publicly
express their right to open carry assault rifles, the same weapon used by Aurora shooter James
Holmes. These changes have been supported by gun control group ‘Moms Demand Action for Gun
Sense in America’ (Horwitz & Wilgoren, 2012; Hallman, 2014; Pitts & Jesko, 2014; Waldman,
2014). Target approached the issue in a fashion similar to Chipotle and Starbucks, by stating that
firearms within the store negate the company’s goal to create a family-friendly shopping and work
experience (Waldman, 2014). ‘Open Carry Texas’ aims to raise awareness of and expand existing
open carry rights of firearms to include handguns, a practice which is prohibited in Texas and five
other states (Guardian U.S. Interactive Team, 2013). The leader of the group, CJ Grisham, claimed
anyone scared by the demonstrations has an irrational fear of guns (Pitts & Jesko, 2014).
Sam Scarmardo, manager of the Arizona ‘Bullets and Burgers’ gun range where a nine-year-
old girl fatally shot her safety instructor with an Uzi gun in August 2014, has considered increasing
the age limit as well as requiring children to be of a certain height and weight to discharge firearms at
his range (Gambino, 2014; Warren & Nye, 2014). The shooting occurred after the Uzi was altered
from ‘single-shot’ to ‘fully-automatic,’ and when the girl fired the weapon the recoil sent the gun
upward, fatally injuring instructor Charles Vacca. Incidentally, the child stated immediately
afterwards that the gun hurt her and it was too powerful, leaving various sources wondering why she
was permitted to handle the gun in the first place (Billeaud, 2014; Berman, 2014). Pro-gun areas, such
as Arizona, have some weapon ranges which sponsor events for families and even offer them the
ability to fire weapons which are typically illegal, like the Uzi (Associated Press, 2014c).
With these examples of outcomes from the change in mentality in regards to firearms, a
divide between Americans is apparent as to whether firearms should be more or less regulated. These
changes are affecting sales of firearms, legislation, business operations, families, and individuals. Due
to these recent developments, it is crucial to evaluate the possible effects which arise for children who
are raised in an ever-growing pro-gun culture. Yet, even after the Sandy Hook shooting which cost a
number of children and adults their lives, adults are creating books to demonstrate to children they

should not be afraid of guns. The circumstances which unfolded at the Arizona gun range
appropriately exhibited the misplaced trust adults have that children are both physically and mentally
able to handle firearms. This is a critical factor which contributes to the prevalence of unintentional
firearm deaths with children, and will be discussed further in the following section.
Connection of Children to Firearms
Now that an assessment has been offered regarding the existing impact firearms has made on
American citizens, both adults and children, it is necessary to analyse children’s connections with gun
crimes. This section includes discussions surrounding: child development and their cognitive abilities
in conjunction with their understanding of firearms; the prevalence of deaths caused by firearms
within the U.S., which will then be narrowed down to the specific crime of unintentional firearm
deaths of children; the common storage methods of firearms employed within homes; and various
approaches being utilized to attempt to reduce unintentional firearm deaths.
Role of Development
Most children can be categorised into cognitive groups which suggest various intellectual
behaviours they are expected to display at a particular age. The ages at which children develop
through the groups are not fixed, meaning they may transition at an earlier or later age than what is
given (Wadsworth, 1971). Jean Piaget, a child development theorist, explained that physical
experience is important for a child, for them to engage the objects and stimuli in their environment.
This is not a matter of just reaction to their environment, but children must seek out action and
manipulate objects to progress cognitively. The root of a child’s development is during what Piaget
refers to as sensori-motor behaviour. The following information demonstrates key developments
made by children in the sensori-motor (ages 0-2), preoperational (ages 2-7) and concrete operational
(ages 7-11) stages as they may relate to behaviour with firearms (Wadsworth, 1971).
At a young age, a child’s behaviour lacks purpose and is focussed towards objects,
particularly manipulating all objects within reach which creates a correlation between tactile and
visual senses for them. Just prior to age one, the child develops object permanence. This means they
form an understanding that an object exists when it is out of sight (Wadsworth, 1971). At just over a
year, children begin trial-and-error experimenting with objects. They are focussed on understanding

how objects perform in new situations. By age 2, children are not only able to understand object
permanence, but they possess object concept, where they can seek out and find the hidden object
(Wadsworth, 1971). This demonstrates the curiosity children feel towards unfamiliar items, thus
granting an understanding as to why children who find firearms feel the urge to handle and
experiment with them.
During the preoperational stage, socialisation is an important aspect children learn. Playing
games is an approach through which children socially develop, although their behaviour and thinking
is described as egocentric. The concept of play is a pivotal function of development, but it was also
precisely the behaviour which caused 75% of the unintentional firearm deaths in a study conducted by
Wintemute and colleagues (1987). Children’s moral reasoning consists of judging their behaviours by
their consequences; they aim to avoid punishment by altering their behaviour. Children find their
moral reasoning to be on a level of self-interest, by behaving in ways which they particularly believe
to be in their best interest (Kohlberg & Hersh, 1977).
By age 11 or 12, a child reaches their maximum cognitive potential, where they develop
logical thoughts concerning concrete objects and no longer display egocentrism. However, the
thoughts of a concrete operational child are still inferior to those of an older individual (Wadsworth,
1971). After this age, the child starts a new stage of adolescence which carries into adulthood (Piaget
& Inhelder, 1969; Campbell, 1976). In offering the previous examples of behaviours exhibited during
these stages of development, it can be noted how a child might behave when presented with a firearm.
The following studies exert these notions.
Twenty-eight percent of adult firearm owners exhibited difficulty understanding whether a
firearm was loaded; with this finding, researchers were led to suggest this phenomenon occurs with
children as well (Vernick et al., 1999; Miller et al., 2005). Despite this statistic, parents put trust in
their children to be able to differentiate between toy guns and real guns and that they will act
appropriately if they come across a real gun by not handling the firearm, leaving the area, or telling an
adult (Connor & Wesolowski, 2003). In previous studies, 74% of gun-owning parents and 52% of
non-gun-owning parents believed their children, ages 4-12, could tell the difference between a toy gun
and a real gun (Farah et al., 1999). However, when tested, children were more likely to make false
negative errors, where they believed the real guns were toys, rather than false positive errors, where
they believed the toy guns were real. Even if the children identified a firearm as real, they were no

less likely to play with it than if they identified the firearm as a toy. Over 40% of children mistook the
real gun for a toy (Hardy, 2002).
Children raised in a gun-owning family were typically trusted more with firearms than
children whose parents do not own any firearms, even though in some studies these children were
over twice as likely to play with firearms. Other studies revealed children with gun-owning parents
were approximately 20% less likely to both handle firearms and pull the triggers (Hardy, 2002;
Jackman et al., 2001). The median age at which parents trusted their own children with a loaded gun
was 9, but if it were other children the age increased to 21 (Jackman et al., 2001). The reasons given
by parents as to why they think their children would not touch firearms were: their children were too
smart, they were given specific instruction not to, past experience showed they would not, and the
parents just hoped that is what they would do (Connor & Wesolowski, 2003). However, when
children self-reported, 19% of those whose parents own firearms admitted to having played with the
firearms without their parent’s knowledge (Hardy et al., 1996). This statistic sufficiently shows that
parents cannot necessarily predict how their child is going to behave if they encounter a firearm, and
should not leave the child’s safety up to chance by leaving guns where they are accessible.
Between 74-89% of parents predicted their children would behave responsibly, meaning they
would not touch a firearm if they came into contact with one (Connor & Wesolowski, 2003; Jackman
et al., 2001). This high percentage of parents unconsciously held their children responsible for their
own safety, rather than holding themselves responsible. However, when tested, 76% of children
handled the firearm, and 48% of those children pulled the trigger (Connor & Wesolowski, 2003;
Jackman et al., 2001)
Researchers suggested children struggle with firearm safety because, unless in a laboratory
setting, they may have never experienced the situation before, and they cannot hypothesise it
occurring. Previous studies have brought forth the view that children are physically able to reach and
fire a gun before they had the cognitive ability to understand the consequences which arise due to
these actions (Jackman et al., 2001). With a combination of children’s cognitive abilities and parental
naivety, it becomes evident how unintentional firearm injuries can occur. This information provides a
general explanation of the events leading up to a child gaining access to a firearm (a child’s innate
curiosity and a poorly placed firearm), but there are additional factors specific to each shooting
focussed on by the current study.

Prevalence
This section outlines the frequency of firearm deaths. The discussion focuses on general gun
problems within the U.S., which will then be compared to other countries to gain an understanding of
where the U.S. falls within international homicide rates due to firearms. Following this, the
prevalence of firearm deaths specifically pertaining to children will be discussed.
In the U.S., approximately 46% of gun owners purchased their weapons for self-protection
reasons. An additional 5% planned to purchase a firearm within a year for the same reasons (U.S.
Department of Justice, 1997). However, firearms are used in the overwhelming majority of crimes.
Victims of crime were fatally injured by firearms in 69% of all deaths in 2012 (Hickey, 2013; Federal
Bureau of Investigation, 2012). In 2011, there were 10.4 firearm deaths per 100,000 people (CDC,
2011). Bearing these statistics in mind, by 2015 it is expected that firearm fatalities will exceed traffic
fatalities for the first time in five decades at approximately 33,000 to 32,000 (Christoff & Kolet,
2012).
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) separates firearm-related deaths into
four categories: unintentional, intentional suicide, homicide, and undetermined intent. The number of
total homicides by firearms in the U.S. in 2011 was 11,068, intentional suicides was 19,990,
unintentional deaths was 591, and those with an undetermined intent equalled 248 (CDC, 2011). Data
collected for unintentional firearm deaths does not distinguish if the injury was self-inflicted or other-
inflicted. Additionally, a total of 73,505 individuals were estimated to be treated for nonfatal firearm
related injuries in emergency departments across the U.S. in 2010. Over 15,000 of the total were
individuals younger than 20 years. The group with the highest rate of nonfatal firearm injuries were
those aged 15-19 years, at three times as many injuries as the general population (Council on Injury,
Violence, and Poison Prevention Executive Committee, 2012).
In a study which examined other-inflicted unintentional firearm deaths using the National
Violent Death Reporting System (NVDRS), 41% of the victims were between ages 15-24. The next
highest percentage represented victims 0-14 at 31% (Hemenway et al., 2010). This information
reveals that in actuality unintentional firearm deaths are more common for adolescents and adults than
for children. The majority of accidental firearm deaths occurred while hunting, cleaning or loading, or
playing with the weapon (Hemenway et al., 2010).

In comparison to children in other high-income countries, children in the U.S. are 11 times
more likely to receive fatal firearm injuries before they reach adolescence (Brady Campaign, 2014).
In 2007, the U.S. ranked ahead all other countries by owning approximately 88.8 firearms per 100
people. Countries which rank behind America include Canada at 30.8 per 100 people, Australia at 15,
England and Wales at 6.2, and Japan at .6 (Karp, 2007). The U.S. had a rate of 2.97 firearm homicides
per 100,000 people, whereas Canada had .5, Australia .14, England and Wales .07, and Japan .01.
Although high in comparison to the countries listed, this ranking placed the U.S. behind 27 other
countries, with the highest being Honduras at 68.43 firearm deaths per 100,000 even though the total
number of civilian firearms within the country is .18% of that within the U.S. (Karp, 2007). The
differences among the U.S. and countries with smaller rates of firearm homicides are seen within the
legislation. Application processes to obtain firearm licenses in other countries are lengthy and involve
health tests, police authorisation, completion of training courses, and background checks (Hickey,
2013).
Byard and colleagues (2009) determined the differences in characteristics and number of
child fatalities from firearms in two areas deemed similar in cultural and socioeconomic backgrounds,
Australia and the U.S. Data was gathered over an 18-year period (1988-2005) from San Diego County
Medical Examiner’s Office in the U.S. regarding accidental firearm deaths in adolescents and children
under the age of 17 (Byard et al, 2009). The total number of fatalities equalled 185. This data was
compared to similar cases in Adelaide, South Australia, Australia. However, due to the small amount
of deaths by firearms, the time period used was 37 years (1969-2005), with a total of 42 fatalities
(Byard et al, 2009). Adelaide data was granted over double the amount of years as San Diego, and
there were almost four and a half times fewer fatalities. This gross variation in numbers can be
correlated with the differences in firearm availability caused by legislative and cultural practices
(Byard et al, 2009).
Previous research indicated inconsistent statistics when reviewing how prevalent
unintentional firearm deaths were among children (of varying ages) annually. CDC data concluded
that 140 children aged 0-19 died as a result of unintentional firearm injuries in 2011, a number which
has remained fairly steady since the early 2000s (WISQARS, 2012). However, other studies claimed
this number was over four hundred (Glatt, 2005; Jackman, 2001; Pilkington, 2014). While
discrepancies exist in these figures, they demonstrate the notion that a number of children are dying

each year, whether by their own hands or at the hands of relatives or friends, due to accessing and
accidentally discharging unsecured firearms. There are only two causes of death which take more
lives of children 14 and younger, motor vehicle accidents and cancer (Miller et al., 2001).
Additionally, more primary-school-aged children were killed by firearms than police officers killed in
the line of duty in 2007 (Brady Campaign, 2014).
These statistics reveal how widespread of an issue firearm-related injuries are within the U.S.
When discussing both fatal and nonfatal unintentional firearm injuries, more attention needs to be
given as this is a preventable category. However, a distinction needs to be made between adults and
children who handle firearms and subsequently suffer from the accidental discharge. As previously
mentioned, children do not possess the cognitive ability to understand the consequences of their
actions, whereas it is reasonable to infer adults are aware of the possible results which may arise when
handling a firearm. This notion highlights the importance of research to prevent these incidents from
occurring to children.
Storage Methods
Over 11 million households in America with children younger than 18 (approximately 33-
40% of homes) own firearms. Sixty-nine percent of these households have more than one firearm, and
previous research claims a range of 10-43% of all firearms are stored unlocked (Glatt, 2005; Miller et
al., 2005; Schuster et al., 2000; AP-GfK Poll, 2013). A study conducted by Schuster and colleagues
(2000) found that 27.8% of the homes with firearms have a child below the age of one. As the age of
the youngest child increases, so too does the percentage of homes with firearms (Schuster et al.,
2000).
Researchers in this field do not explicitly state the issue of unintentional firearm deaths arises
due to the presence of firearms within homes, but rather it is the ways in which they are stored. A
positive correlation between how firearms are typically stored within homes and the number of
unintentional child fatalities caused by firearms has been established through a number of studies
(Wiebe, 2003; Miller et al., 2001; Miller et al., 2005; Grossman et al., 2005; Glatt, 2005; Schwebel et
al., 2014).
Miller and colleagues (2005) used data gathered from an ongoing telephone survey conducted
in 2002 referred to as the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS). The responses

received formed what was the initial collection of information regarding firearm storage practices in
all U.S. states, with the exception of California due to a varied method of data compilation (Miller et
al., 2005). The researchers found, based on questionnaire responses, that unintentional firearm deaths
due to improper storage practices do not vary significantly across gender or age groups. The results
from this study concluded that an excessively large amount of firearm-related fatalities occurred in the
states where guns were typically stored both unlocked and loaded, which were Georgia, Alabama,
Mississippi, Alaska, South Carolina, and Arkansas (Miller et al., 2005). Conversely, the ten states
which were found to have the smallest percentage of firearms stored loaded also had the lowest
number of unintentional firearm deaths. These states were New Jersey, Massachusetts, Hawaii, Rhode
Island, Connecticut, New York, Illinois, Maine, North Dakota, and Wisconsin (Miller et al., 2005).
Research conducted by Grossman and colleagues (2005) concluded in support of other
researchers that keeping firearms stored unloaded in a locked location while having ammunition
stored in a separate locked location have shown to protect against accidental firearm shootings among
children. Between 48-52% of unintentional firearm deaths occur by use of handguns (Bonnie et al.,
1990; Hemenway et al., 2010). This type of firearm was found more likely to be stored both unlocked
and loaded, at 35%, whereas seven percent of long gun owners reported storing their guns loaded and
unlocked (U.S. Department of Justice, 1997). Twenty percent of unintentional firearm deaths in two
states alone could have been prevented had there been loaded chamber indicators on the weapons,
which is further explained in Appendix B (Vernick et al., 2003).
Steps towards Improvement
Previous research on this topic has led to the creation of educational programmes and
campaigns in order to educate parents on the importance of keeping firearms out of reach of children,
as well as educate children on the effects of firearms. In 1974, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun
Violence was formed to uphold the notion of firearm safety (Glatt, 2005). This campaign is
responsible for the bans of plastic handguns within airports and any armour-piercing ammunition, as
well as the passage of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act which required an individual to
receive a background check and then undergo a five day waiting period when purchasing a firearm up
until 1998 (Glatt, 2005). The Brady Campaign has reached out specifically to educate children and
has promoted the implementation of Child Access Prevention laws (Glatt, 2005).

The National Rifle Association (NRA) has sponsored an education programme geared
towards four to eight-year-old children since 1988 called Eddie Eagle (Glatt, 2005; National Rifle
Association, 2012). The goal of Eddie Eagle is accident prevention by teaching children to ‘Stop! Do
not touch. Leave the area. Tell an adult,’ if they ever come in contact with a firearm. Eddie Eagle is
considered the most successful firearm safety programme for children in the U.S., with over 12
million children having been taught this method of firearm safety; however, Glatt claimed that
children at these young ages were incapable of carrying out these instructions when confronted by
firearms due to possessing lessened cognitive abilities than that of adolescents and adults (National
Rifle Association, 2012; Glatt, 2005; Hardy, 2002).
Other programmes, instead of teaching children to ‘just say no’ when they come in contact
with a firearm, have aimed to teach children using a combination of conditioning methods such as
rewards, feedback, and behavioural rehearsal in order to demonstrate the dangerousness of guns. The
Straight Talk About Risks (STAR) programme developed by the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence
in 1992 is incorporated into school curriculums and offers 11-14 different lessons geared towards
children from prekindergarten to grade 12 (Hardy, 2002).
These programmes are being pushed by state legislators for use within classrooms. In New
York, Wisconsin, and Oregon, bills have failed trying to make Eddie Eagle mandatory in schools
(Moore, 2014). The implementation of firearm education is supported by both those who are pro-gun
and pro-gun control. However, both the Eddie Eagle and STAR programmes have not been formally
assessed, and therefore it is unknown if either method truly works for children (Moore, 2014;
Jackman et al, 2001). Spokespeople for each programme have offered criticisms of the other, but
critics of both are wary that gun education programmes alone are effective in reducing gun-related
injuries. If schools are taking the responsibility to educate children about firearms, it may lead to
complacency among the parents. This is an opinion held by the Department of Education, which
believes education needs to be grouped with parental involvement, school counsellors, and
intervention (Moore, 2014).
A study conducted by Hardy (2002) incorporated four lessons from the STAR programme to
teach to an experimental group of children aged 4-7. Afterwards, children in this group and the
control group who received no intervention regarding firearms were placed in a room with a toy gun
and a real gun. The study concluded that children who did not receive training were actually less

likely to play with the guns in comparison to those who had (45% to 72.2%) (Hardy, 2002). Teaching
children that an object is forbidden may make it more appealing to them, causing them to want to
engage with it upon discovery (Hardy, 2002). This helps illustrate the need for more than just
education and telling a child to simply leave a firearm alone to reduce unintentional firearm injuries.
Not only are there educational programmes directed at children, but there is also physician-
led firearm safety counselling for parents. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommends
parents implement the use of lock boxes, trigger locks, and personalised safety mechanisms to prevent
their children from accessing firearms. The AAP believes the course of action most effective in
reducing unintentional firearm deaths is to remove all firearms from the home (Council on Injury,
Violence, and Poison Prevention Executive Committee, 2012).
The CDC uses a ‘Three E’ approach with firearm injury prevention which refers to education,
enforcement of safety regulations, and engineering (CDC, 2012). Education would involve informing
the parents about the possible risks which may come about if firearms are kept within their homes.
The AAP offers advice detailing the curiosity children have to explore their environments and, as
previously stated, the best way to prevent firearm injuries is to eliminate the presence of firearms
(Jackman et al., 2001; CDC, 2012). The enforcement of safety regulations would include using the
legal system to alter the environment; this could include enforcing a ban on assault weapons and
handguns in order to reduce potential firearm-related injuries. The effectiveness of this ‘E’ means
sufficient enforcement of laws and regulations need to be carried out. Lastly, engineering involves the
use of product design to reduce the exposure of a child to a firearm. In brief, parents who decide to
own firearms should ensure they are stored in a manner which renders them inaccessible to children
(CDC, 2012; Jackman et al., 2001).
While there are a number of approaches organisations have taken to reduce the possibility of
accidental firearm deaths for children, there has not been enough research to determine the
effectiveness of each of them. If there is a better understanding of why these accidents happen,
organisations may be able to alter their programmes to improve their effectiveness.

The Current Study: Unintentional Firearm Deaths Involving Children Aged 0-12
There has been a recent re-emergence of gun violence into literature after a 17-year ban of
CDC funding. This ban, imposed by U.S. Congress due to campaigns run by the NRA, demonstrates a
need for updated literature analysis (Jamieson, 2013). The federal funding for the CDC was removed,
hindering researchers and academics from making progress in regards to either promoting or
advocating gun control. This alteration made to funding, which involved removing the precise amount
used for firearm injury research in the prior year and placing it towards another sector, was later
known as the Dickey amendment, so named after its creator, former U.S. House Representative Jay
Dickey (Lupkin, 2013).
During this ban, many researchers in the field (e.g. Professor David Hemenway and Drs.
Arther Kellermann and Garen Wintemute) expressed their reluctance to continue their work due to a
lack of funding and new literature. At the beginning of 2013, under the Obama administration, the
freeze was lifted in hopes to better understand causes and prevention of gun violence in all 50 states.
However, during the 17 years, a number of academics were required to shift their focus and move to
other areas of research. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) aims to fund three long-term studies
on firearm violence to create new data and bring former researchers back to the field (Jamieson, 2013;
Briggs, 2013; Lupkin, 2013). At the present time, however, researchers acknowledge the discrepancy
found in their statistics due to previously being unable to incorporate questions regarding guns into
surveys (Lupkin, 2013).
By delving into media stories surrounding the conditions which led to the children’s deaths,
this study aims to not only bridge the gap in literature, but also to create a starting point for future
research by offering perspective as to why it is so critical that all firearm owners, especially those
with children, safely store their firearms and ammunition. The goal of this research is to provide
knowledge which has not been available in this particular subject for some time. While previous
studies found that a relationship between firearm ownership and child fatalities exists, this study aims
to further analyse that relationship and how to possibly eradicate it by using case studies. Bringing
this issue back into literature is a beneficial step for academics as well as the general society. While
Americans are participating in the media-spotlighted gun debate, children are suffering, sometimes
fatally, as a result with little focus on the resolution.

The current study hypothesised that patterns emerge among the cases as to how the firearms
were stored. The circumstances surrounding the deaths of these children were expected to be a direct
result of lax storage practices shown by the children’s parents due to the high levels of trust placed
with the children to understand the consequences of their actions.

CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH DESIGN
Methodology
The purpose of this study is to elicit similarities found among the circumstances surrounding
children who have suffered fatal firearm injuries unintentionally within the United States in order to
draw connections as to why there is a frequent occurrence of this type of incident. The methodology
used for this research is qualitative and based on secondary sources. This particular qualitative study
aims to provide an interpretive understanding of the social world which the children (both victims and
shooters) were in by eliciting their experiences and perspectives from secondary sources (Ritchie &
Lewis, 2003). The nature of the methods included an analysis of media documents and text, which
allowed for the content to be interpreted by the researcher (Hsieh, 2005).
Each case’s distinctive facts were respected throughout the analysis as well as the cross-case
comparison made (Ritchie & Lewis, 2003). The study held an inductive and interpretive
epistemological stance, where associations and patterns were determined from observations made by
the researcher but not in a value-free manner (Ritchie & Lewis, 2003). There is a combination of
qualitative and quantitative methods in this study where the researcher found it necessary to help best
answer the research question (Ritchie & Lewis, 2003).
As previously noted, data was gathered through secondary sources using media content
analysis. Media content analysis can be considered a subset of the methodology of content analysis,
which involves gathering and analysing the meanings behind communicated messages, which in this
instance would involve online news sources (Macnamara, 2003; Neuman, 1997). These included a
combination of both local and national online news websites, such as NBC, Huffington Post, Fox,
ABC, BBC, and CBS. These were selected due to being established news sources and well-known to
the public. An exhaustive search for each case was implemented in order to cross-reference sources
and ensure accurate data was gathered.
Previous research has focussed on quantitative methods by using telephone surveys,
questionnaires, medical examiner reports, and death records which have concluded with notions such
as the positive correlation between firearm ownership and number of child fatalities; however, these
studies lack specific focus on the circumstances leading fatal injuries due to firearms (Hemenway et
al., 2010; Beaver et al., 1990; Miller et al., 2005; Farah et al., 1999; Welch & Bonner, 2013; Byard et

al., 2009). The overarching goal of these studies is to produce statistics and report the frequency of the
occurrence of child firearm fatalities given geographic location and some additional characteristics
such as age, race, gender, and relationship between shooter and victim. With this information alone,
we are unable to gain an understanding of other characteristics which led to the rates of reported
unintentional firearm deaths. In addition to this, research surrounding the shooter is often omitted,
which would offer insight apropos of preventing accidental firearm fatalities (Hemenway et al., 2010).
Analysis
The cases were analysed using the following categories: age, gender, and race of the victim
and shooter, the type of firearm used, how the firearm was stored and if it was found loaded or with a
manual safety engaged, geographical location of the shooting (both the state and particular location),
whereabouts of the parents, and concluding manner of death. All information regarding the cases was
documented in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet to efficiently and concisely display similarities and
differences among them. Information regarding the firearms was placed into categories for analysis.
This included the firearm location within the home, if it was locked away, stored, loaded, and had its
manual safety engaged. Due to the small sample size, particular coding labels were not used as the
data did not need to be run through any software to obtain statistics. The objective of obtaining this
information was to determine where a pattern, if any, existed among the ten cases.
Selection Criteria
Ten cases of child-to-child unintentional firearm deaths were collected, and this selection was
based on the criteria of taking place within the U.S. with the shooter and victim being siblings and
ages 12 or younger. Cases were excluded from the study if there was a lack of information pertaining
to the chosen categories after several sites were explored. Siblings were selected for the study because
it was the most common relation found between the shooter and victim in studies conducted by Welch
and Bonner (2013) and Hemenway et al (2010). Findings by Welch and Bonner (2013) revealed that
the majority of child victims had at least one sibling, with the victims most often being the youngest
sibling. This finding was aimed to be verified by this study.
Including the shooters’ specific ages allowed for particular attention to be paid in regards to
cognitive development. Rather than viewing the children as a larger age range as previous studies

have done using ages 0-14 and 0-16, this study will analyse cognitive development in the stages
prescribed by theorists to assess how different stages may correlate with a child’s understanding of
firearms (Hemenway et al., 2010; Byard et al., 2009). For example, Piaget’s work is comprised of
multiple stages, where three of which are found between ages 0-12. Between the ages 11 and 12,
children reach the maximum potential for their cognitive structures, and begin a new stage which
develops through adolescence and adulthood (Piaget & Inhelder, 1969; Campbell, 1976). The
selection of this method was made available due to the small sample size. Other studies evaluated
factors such as the location of the incident, the type of weapon, how the weapon is stored, the site of
injury, and the relationship of the perpetrator to the victim, but did not evaluate the responsible party
and their understanding of a firearm, which this study aimed to accomplish (Beaver et al., 1990; Glatt,
2005; Byard et al., 2009; Hemenway et al., 2010).
Limitations
In regards to the limitations of this study, there is a lack of external validity due to its small
sample size in comparison to the population available, meaning generalisations cannot be made about
particular states, gender, or race with unintentional firearm deaths. An additional limitation exists due
to the use of online media sources. The information gathered is limited to what is available to the
general public and was initially subjected to the possible interpretation of the journalists. A final
limitation is that this method was not value-free and the data could have been affected by researcher
subjectivity.
Ethics
This study used the real names of the victims and shooters as they were published. When
considering the ethics involved, there were no personal demographics used which were not available
publicly online, such as names, ages, and geographical location. In certain cases, names were not
released online due to the involvement of children, and were subsequently labelled as ‘unnamed boy’
or ‘unnamed girl’. Consent was given by the family when the stories of each case were initially
published. This study was designed to not cause ethical implications as all data is accessible through
the use of an online search engine. Therefore, ethical considerations were fully taken into account
when conducting this study.

Strengths
This study’s methods are practical for an introduction into this topic and will prove useful to
establish an understanding of how children are affected by their parents’ decisions to not properly
store firearms and ammunition. Using a qualitative method of media analysis in conjunction with
statistics allowed the researcher to evaluate each case uniquely and adequately compare them to one
another. This research is unique in that its design was not based off prior literature. The researcher
created a design which is believed to be the most appropriate and concise technique to study this
particular topic.
In regards to meeting alternative criteria for qualitative studies established by Guba and
Lincoln, this study is shown to succeed (Bryman, 2012). These criteria include: credibility, ensuring
the study was conducted in a manner of good practice; transferability, where the research worked to
create detailed accounts of the cases where it could be transferred to other studies; dependability,
based on the ability of the researcher to keep complete records of the information used;
confirmability, which ensures that while complete objectivity is impossible, the researcher worked to
limit personal values from affecting research; and authenticity, where the research aims to create a
better understanding of the social context and help individuals to want to take necessary steps to
engage in action (Bryman, 2012).

CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS
This section includes the data and analyses of the 10 selected case studies. Initially, each case
will be described using names, ages, and location along with the details. At this time, numbers will
also be granted to be used for latter reference. As previously mentioned, each case was selected under
the conditions that both shooter and victim were siblings and no older than twelve years, and that the
incident took place within the U.S. Statistical findings will be given to grant an understanding of what
patterns have emerged, followed by an analysis explaining why they may exist. Half of the cases used
were incidents which occurred during 2014. The other half took place in 2006, 2008, 2011, 2012, and
2013. No two shootings took place within the same state.
Victim and Shooter Demographics
In 2011, a total of 226 children between the ages of 0-12 were killed as a result of firearm
injuries. Of these, 164 died in a violence-related manner, as exhibited below in Table 1. This table
generally grants a representation of the population from which the sample was pulled. Approximately
one-third of the total deaths resulted from accidental firearm injuries. These statistics show how
frequently a child dies due to accidentally discharging a firearm compared to overall deaths by
firearms. Those who most commonly suffered from accidental firearm deaths in the population were
ages 3-5 and 12. The modes of the study sample were aged 2 and 11.
Table 1: Number of Firearm Deaths in the U.S. of children 0-12, 2011
<1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Total
Unintentional
Firearm Deaths 4 0 6 11 8 5 3 3 4 1 2 4 5 56
Violence-Related
Firearm Deaths* 7 13 12 14 9 14 12 9 13 8 14 17 22 164
Undetermined
Intent 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 6
*Includes homicides and legal intervention deaths. (WISQARS, 2012)
The victims’ ages ranged from 18 months to 12 years, with the mean being 5.75 years. The
shooters’ ages ranged from two years to 12 years, with the mean being 6.4 years. As represented in
eight cases, the shooter was older than the victim, and in two cases the party responsible for
discharging the firearm was younger than the victim. These two cases are as follows. Case 1 entails

the unintentional shooting of 12-year-old Natasha Skorczewski which occurred on 28 July 2008 in
Minnesota (MN). Her death was caused by her brother, Joshua, one year her junior (Luo & McIntire,
2013). Case 2 occurred six years later on 5 April, when 11-year-old Jamara Stevens was accidentally
shot by her two-year-old unnamed brother at their home in Pennsylvania (PA) (Lattanzio & Chang,
2014). Findings were consistent with a study conducted by Welch and Bonner (2013) that with
unintentional firearm deaths among siblings, the victims were typically the youngest of them.
Ninety percent of the shooters were male, whereas half of the victims were male, as shown
below in Figure 1. Case 3, involving unnamed siblings in Utah (UT), was the sole event in which a
female was the shooter. On 18 April 2014, the three-year-old sister accidentally discharged a .22-
caliber rifle after it had been left out openly in a room, killing her two-year-old brother (Hoffer,
2014). Previous studies have shown that in cases involving children, males were predominantly the
shooters (Hemenway et al., 2010; Wintemute et al., 1987). Findings regarding victim gender in
research were inconsistent, varying from 58.1-91% of victims being males, thus conclusions cannot
be drawn from previous research (Welch & Bonner, 2013; Hemenway et al., 2010).
Figure 1: The data collected demonstrates an equal representation of males and females as
victims, whereas the gender of the shooters was overwhelmingly male.
Considering other demographic features, seven of the cases offered information or
photographs to determine the race of the victims and shooters. In three cases this was unable to be
determined due to the photographs and names of the children being concealed by request of the
family. There were six known instances which the victims and shooters were both white, Cases 4-9,
and Case 2 was the only instance in which they were both black. The victims and their shooters’ ages,
gender, and race were notable demographics within this study.
55
Gender of Victims
Male
Female
9
1
Gender of Shooters
Male
Female

State Legislation
As previously mentioned, all unintentional shootings occurred within different states
however, some share a particular region. There is at least one case that takes place in each of the four
U.S. regions. There were three unintentional shootings which took place in a southern state, as defined
by the U.S. Census Bureau (2013). These states included Kentucky (KY), Georgia (GA), and North
Carolina (NC). In the southern U.S., 54% of residents reported to have a firearm in their homes. This
region has also consistently owned the largest percentage of guns since 2002, a common behaviour
among rural communities (Saad, 2011; Daily Mail, 2013). Four shootings took place in the Midwest
in South Dakota (SD), Indiana (IN), MN, and Missouri (MO). There were two shootings in the
Western region in UT and Arizona (AZ). Finally, PA represented the only state in the Northeastern
region, which has had the lowest percentage of residents owning firearms since 2002 (U.S. Census
Bureau, 2013; Saad, 2011). Since 2013, firearm ownership in all four regions has increased, with the
most dramatic increase being in the Northeast at a rate of 13% (Saad, 2011).
The U.S. Constitution dictates that states reserve the power, by police force, to protect their
residents, causing the majority of firearm legislation to be found at the state, not federal, level. This
leads to a variation in legislation in regards to sales, permits and licenses, minors, definitions of a
loaded firearm, and concealed and open carry among the states. Laws implemented in one state are
able to serve as a model for others (Guardian U.S. Interactive Team, 2013; Karlson & Hargarten,
1997). Below in table 2, various points of legislation for each of the ten states in the sample for the
study are explained.

Table 2: Firearm Legislation by State
Long
Gun
Purchase
Long gun
possession
Handgun
Purchase
Handgun
Possession
Concealed
Carry
Open
Carry
Long Gun
Open
Carry
Handgun
Arizona -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Georgia -- -- -- -- Permit -- --
Indiana -- -- -- -- Permit -- --
Kentucky -- -- -- -- Permit -- --
Minnesota -- -- Permit Permit Permit Prohibited Prohibited
Missouri -- -- -- -- Permit -- --
North
Carolina
-- --
Permit Permit Permit
-- --
Pennsylvania -- -- -- -- Permit -- --
South Dakota -- -- -- -- Permit -- --
Utah -- -- -- -- Permit -- --
Total: 46 Total: 46 Total: 38 Total: 38 Total: 4 Total: 44 Total: 31
For any state which requires a permit or that practice is prohibited, they are labelled as such. The
totals for each category represent the total number of states which have unregulated legislation or
do not require permits. Using ‘- -‘ denotes the state legislation does not require a permit or is
unregulated for that particular category (Guardian U.S. Interactive Team, 2013; NRA-ILA 2013a,
b, d; NRA-ILA 2014a-g).
None of the ten states require a permit to purchase or possess a long gun, exemplifying a
pattern they share with 46 other states, and only a total of 12 states regulate the possession and
purchase of handguns (Guardian U.S. Interactive Team, 2013). Carrying a concealed weapon requires
a permit in 46 states, whereas in AZ and three other states, permits are not required to carry
concealed. All 50 states allow concealed carry (Guardian U.S. Interactive Team, 2013; Wilson, 2014;
NRA-ILA, 2013a).
The open carry of long guns is currently split into two categories among the U.S.: either it is
unregulated and a permit is not necessary or it is entirely prohibited. Of six states which prohibit the
open carry of long guns, MN is the sole example of those featured in the study. As previously noted,
the open carry of handguns is approved without restriction in 30 states, including six of those within
the study (Open Carry; Guardian U.S. Interactive Team, 2013). In the remaining four states, permits
are required for the open carrying of handguns. Within the states which allow open carry, it is up to
the individual to be aware of any restricted locations, such as schools, hospitals, sports arenas, and
places which serve alcohol. In SD specifically, individuals cannot open carry a firearm in an
establishment which earns over 50% of its profits from alcoholic beverages (NRA-ILA, 2014g;
Guardian U.S. Interactive Team, 2013).

Child Access Prevention Laws
In line with other legislation pertaining to firearms, Child Access Prevention (CAP) laws are
also created at the state level. Twenty-eight states have implemented CAP laws into their legislation
since 2001, which hold adults criminally liable if they negligently leave firearms accessible to minors
or otherwise leave firearms unsecured (Webster et al., 2004). Typically a minor is considered any
person under 18 (Legal Community Against Violence, 2008).
In the 12 states which had CAP laws in effect for at least one year between 1990-1994, there
was a decrease of 23% in unintentional firearm deaths of those younger than 15 (Webster, et al.,
2004). In a more recent study, Florida’s CAP law was found to be the only state which significantly
reduced unintentional firearm deaths, by just over half. This dramatic change was possibly due to it
being the first state to implement the law in 1989 causing wider news coverage, having the harshest
penalties, and also having the highest numbers of unintentional firearm deaths prelaw (Webster &
Starnes, 2000). However, this does not discredit the improvements these laws currently aim to make.
By requiring firearms to be stored safely for minors, there is a possibility that parents may even
continue the practice even after their children are no longer covered by the law (Webster et al., 2004).
Laws regarding CAP are varied across the U.S., thus also varying the degree of accountability an
individual faces when they improperly store their firearms (Glatt, 2005).
Seven states included in the study have some form of CAP laws, including GA, IN, KY, MN,
MO, NC, and UT. These states have imposed laws which take a variety of forms; the weakest types of
CAP law declares a person cannot directly provide a child with a firearm, whereas the strictest laws
hold the person responsible if a child gains access to a firearm negligently stored. Fourteen states,
including MN and NC, have implemented CAP laws based on negligent storage; this notion typically
implies the person is aware or reasonably should be aware that it is likely a child may gain access to
the firearm (Legal Community Against Violence, 2008). Specifically in MN, this condition is met if a
loaded firearm is inadequately stored regardless of a child being able to access to it. GA, IN, KY, MO,
and UT are among the 13 states which prohibit someone from intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly
providing a minor with a firearm. Within GA and KY, this prohibition applies only to handguns.
There are eight states which further their CAP laws to only charge an adult if a child possesses and/or
uses the firearm. NC is the sole state of the ten included in the current study to fall within this
category. NC also holds an adult criminally responsible if a minor uses a firearm in the commission of

a crime, uses it in a threatening manner, or carries it to a public location (Legal Community Against
Violence, 2008).
Stipulations do exist which grant exception of liability, including if a minor gained access to a
firearm which was stored in a locked container or upon obtaining illegal entry to the premises at
which the firearm was stored. An additional exception includes if the minor has completed a firearm
safety course or is using the firearm to hunt (Legal Community Against Violence, 2008).
Child Death Review Programmes
States also have protocols within their legislation which require specific action to be taken in
the event of a child fatality. In the late 1970s, local Child Death Review (CDR) teams appeared in a
few states, and expanded over the next decade. The function of these teams is to gather information,
improve services, and subsequently create policies to protect children from preventable deaths,
including providing possible risk factors for the deaths (National MCH Center, 2005a; 2005b). The
boards are made up of individuals from various agencies, such as social services, law enforcement,
public health, and clinical medicine, to study relevant documents and determine the causes and
circumstances surrounding the child deaths (Webster et al., 2003). A sample of the report pertaining
specifically to firearms required to be completed by the board can be reviewed in Appendix C.
In 1990, MO was the first state which passed legislation requiring reviews of all fatalities for
those aged 0-14 (now up through age 17 with most other states). In this state, the multidisciplinary
review panel in each county must be made up of a coroner or medical examiner, prosecuting attorney,
and a representative from the juvenile office, the public health department, law enforcement, and
emergency medical services (National MCH Center, 2005a; Redden, 2014a; Webster et al., 2003). By
November 2001, 49 states invoked some variation of a review programme for child neglect and abuse
deaths. Nine states had local teams only, and twelve had state teams only; 28 states executed both
local and state teams. CDR for all cases, such as in MO, has become law in 21 other states. Sixty-
eight percent of states which are selective in the deaths they review include unintentional injuries such
as firearms. Those deemed to be strong models include MO, GA, AZ, and NC (Morris, 2003; Webster
et al., 2003).
While CDR is a helpful mechanism to better determine the causes and circumstances of child
deaths, the organisation of the programmes is typically only seen at the local and state levels. Due to a

lack of federal involvement, this means CDR programmes have no national criteria to meet, causing
difficulties when comparing across states. Without criteria, these programmes also cannot be formally
assessed in regards to their effectiveness (Webster et al., 2003).
Firearm Safety Precautions
Each case was analysed and placed into five categories pertaining to the firearm safety
precautions taken, including: the descriptive location where the child found or used it, depending on
the information provided; three categories separated into yes or no answers being if the firearm was
locked away, stored, and loaded; and a final category regarding manual safety.
A firearm being locked away was defined as having a specific storage container which
required a combination or key to gain access to the firearm. A stored firearm was considered to be any
firearm that had a consistent location where it was kept which possessed the possibility of being
locked. A loaded firearm was determined by the information granted in the news articles. It is to be
noted that the condition of a firearm being loaded or not varies among states, meaning a firearm may
be considered unloaded in one state but loaded in another.
For a firearm to have its manual safety on, news articles must have specified. For the
remainder of the cases, the ‘no’ category was forewent and replaced by the categories ‘unknown’ and
‘nonexistent’. Cases where news articles did not mention the type of gun or did not specifically note a
manual safety being on were grouped as unknown. Using the label nonexistent was to group together
the guns for which a manual safety is typically not a part of manufacturing. These categories are
represented below in Figure 2.

Figure 2: This graph depicts the categories selected by the researcher to represent the state of the
firearm prior to being discharged. *The definition of loaded or unloaded varies among states
according to their firearm regulations.
Locked or Stored Firearms
As shown in Figure 2, none of the cases within the sample occurred due to a child removing
the firearm from a locked storage device, and in only three of the ten cases was the gun stored away at
all. The first instance that used a stored gun was Case 1, which involved the victim’s brother, Joshua,
who removed the family’s 20-gauge shotgun from the gun cabinet within which it was stored. Later
that day, Joshua was to attend a gun safety course, and he wanted to practice loading the gun. After
loading a single shell, news stories claimed his finger slipped, discharging the weapon and
accidentally killing his sister (Luo & McIntire, 2013). In Case 4, the parents of three-year-old
Miranda Doerr stated her death resulted from her and her six-year-old brother gaining access to the
usually locked bedroom which stored the firearm at their home in MO. The last instance in which a
child retrieved a stored firearm was Case 5, which detailed the death of two-year-old Wyatt Fasbinder
at the hands of his unnamed five-year-old brother. At the boys’ home in IN, Wyatt’s brother
discovered the .40-caliber handgun in its unlocked container (The Indy Channel, 2011).
With this information it can be understood that the majority of the case studies occurred due
to the firearm not being locked away. It is also evident that placing a firearm in a location which a
parent may not believe their child would happen across it, such as a drawer in a bedroom, is not
enough. If a firearm is in the household, the only safe way to protect against a child’s curiosity is to
store a firearm in a location which requires a key or security code to access.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Locked
Away
Stored Loaded* Manual
Safety On
Firearm Safety Precautions
No
Yes
Unknown
Nonexistent

Loaded Firearms
Four of the states, GA, NC, MO, and AZ, offer no definition within their legislation as to
what is considered a loaded firearm (NRA-ILA, 2013a; NRA-ILA 2014a; 2014d; 2014e). This may
lead to a misunderstanding in cases involving children because it would be unknown whether the
firearm was loaded or not prior to the incident. The remaining six offer varying explanations of what a
loaded firearm is considered. This information demonstrates the differences among states, which
would therefore lead to variations in how firearm deaths are treated. In some instances, the weapon
would be considered unloaded, but if a similar case occurred in another state, it may be determined to
be loaded, affecting the ruling of death and possible charges against the responsible party and parents.
KY legislation acknowledges a firearm is loaded if there is ammunition in the chamber,
cylinder, or magazine (if the magazine is loaded into the gun) (Kentucky Revised Statute, 2010). The
law in SD similarly states a firearm is loaded if it contains and is able to discharge projectiles,
cartridges, or shells within its chamber, clip, or magazine (South Dakota Codified Laws, 2012).
Alternatively, IN legislation has a more general description which includes ammunition being in close
enough proximity to the firearm so it can readily be inserted into the weapon, as well as if there is
ammunition directly within the chamber or cylinder (Indiana Code, 1996). MN law is comparable to
the prior three states, where having ammunition in the chamber or magazine (if the magazine is
loaded into the gun) constitutes a firearm as being loaded. There is, however, an additional stipulation
which states that this definition holds true only if a child is unlikely to gain access to the firearm and
subsequently fire it (Minnesota Statutes, 2013). The conditions of a loaded firearm in UT are met if an
unexpended shell, projectile, or cartridge is left within the firing position (Utah State Legislature,
1990). The outstanding state, PA, offers the most detailed definition in order to cover possible
technicalities. In brief, a revolver is deemed loaded if there is ammunition in any of the chambers, and
any firearm containing a removable magazine is deemed loaded if the magazine contains ammunition
and is inserted into the firearm (Pennsylvania Code, 2011).
As shown in Figure 2, there were two instances, Cases 1 and 3, where a firearm was found
unloaded. News sources assert the .22-caliber rifle used in Case 3 was unloaded, albeit live rounds
were in the magazine (Hoffer, 2014; King, 2014; Manson & Dalrymple, 2014). According to
legislation in KY, SD, MN, IN, and PA, this particular firearm would be considered loaded (Kentucky

Revised Statute, 2010; South Dakota Codified Laws, 2012; Indiana Code, 1996; Minnesota Statutes,
2013; Pennsylvania Code, 2011). The three-year-old girl was believed to have manipulated the
firearm in a manner which caused a live round to be chambered prior to the trigger being pulled
(Hoffer, 2014; King, 2014). This exhibits the notion that although a firearm can legally be considered
unloaded, a child as young as three was still able to utilize it in such a way which produced lethal
results. In Case 1, the shooter was reported to have loaded the firearm himself to practice for a course
later in the day (Luo & McIntire, 2013).
For the remaining cases, the firearms were all deemed loaded within the specific states. Media
stories allowed the researcher to further investigate whether within these cases, the shooters were
aware of the firearm being loaded. This information is useful to assess as it would be included in
police reports which contribute to the determination of the manner of death. As previously mentioned,
the shooter in Case 1 loaded the firearm himself; this was the solitary instance in which the shooter
was aware that the firearm was loaded. In the other nine occurrences, the shooters were deemed by
police to be unaware that the firearms were loaded due to having found them in that state (Daily Mail,
2013; Associated Press, 2012; Luo & McIntire, 2013; Associated Press, 2014b; Miller, 2014;
Dockendorf, 2014; King, 2014; The Indy Channel, 2011; Benson & Reiser, 2014).
With the vast majority of the cases being comprised of firearms which were already loaded
upon discovery, a pattern emerges whereby the parents of these children were either also unaware of
the firearms being loaded or felt the firearms were unable to be handled by the children. This notion is
in line with previous literature concerning some adults being unable to discern a loaded firearm from
an unloaded firearm, as well as storage methods of firearms being correlated with higher numbers of
unintentional firearm deaths (Vernick et al., 1999; Miller et al., 2005).
Manual Safety and Firearm Types
In addition to the final category featured in Figure 2 describing firearm safety precautions, the
types of firearms will also be described due to the variation in manual safeties found among guns. The
cases involved a combination of the use of long guns and handguns, as shown below in Figure 3.

Figure 3: This chart represents the usage of the four types of firearms in the ten cases, in which
seven cases the child used a handgun, three of which were revolvers and four were pistols. There
were three cases in which a long gun was used, two were rifles and one was a shotgun.
The chart details that handguns, specifically pistols, were the most used firearm of the ten
cases, followed by revolvers, rifles, and then shotguns. As previously mentioned, a slight majority of
accidental firearm deaths occurred using handguns, possibly due to a larger percentage of them being
stored loaded and unlocked in comparison to long guns (Bonnie et al., 1990; Hemenway et al., 2010;
U.S. Department of Justice, 1997). The rationale for assessing the firearm types with the cases is to
exhibit children’s capability to manipulate multiple types of firearms, even without having prior
knowledge of their features.
The manual safety of a firearm is defined as:
A safety device that blocks the movement of the... trigger... to prevent firing that can
be engaged or disengaged at will. Most firearms, though many do not, have one of
these manual safeties (Muramatsu, 2014, p. 208).
Although safeties are meant to block the trigger, there is a possibility that a hard blow to the firearm
will discharge the weapon, as illustrated in the documentary, Kids ‘n’ Guns (2014), when a child died
due to an unintentional firearm injury after he slipped and his rifle discharged after hitting the ground
(IHEA, 2002c).
The news stories covering Case 6, the death of two-year-old Caroline Sparks of KY, were the
only to acknowledge the use of a manual safety being engaged on the firearm prior to its use. The gun
used was a .22-caliber rifle (Ortiz, 2013). This case is the only example in the data set in which the
0
1
2
3
4
5
Types of Firearms
Long guns
Handguns

firearm belonged not to an adult, but a child. The ‘Crickett’ rifle, a gun produced especially for
children by Keystone Sporting Arms, was given as a gift to her brother, Kristian, the prior year on his
fourth birthday (Ortiz, 2013; The Huffington Post, 2013). Kristian was playing with the loaded
firearm, though believed to be empty, when he fired it and shot his sister on 30 April 2013. As
evidenced in this case, a manual safety was not adequate in preventing this child from discharging a
weapon. In this instance, with the firearm belonging to the shooter, it is reasonable to infer that he
understood how to disengage the manual safety. All models of Cricketts include manual safeties, and
some styles require a key to unlock and fire the gun (Ortiz, 2013). After the shooting, Keystone
Sporting Arms temporarily removed the ‘Kids Corner’ section of their website which featured the
colourful Crickett rifles. The company’s slogan for the firearms is ‘My First Rifle’ (Daily Mail,
2013).
There are three cases involving specific handguns, namely modern models of revolvers,
which typically do not possess the feature of a manual safety (Milne et al., 2003). For reference as to
the appearance of a revolver, please refer to Appendix A. The first instance, Case 7, occurred in GA
on the evening of 2 June 2012. Twelve-year-old Nick Culpepper sneaked his family’s .38-caliber
revolver into his parents’ pickup truck, where he, his sister, and some other children sat in the back.
Nick, unaware the firearm was loaded, pointed it at his sister’s face in an attempt to scare her and
pulled the trigger. Upon the parents’ discovery of what happened, they drove home and called for
help. Eleven-year-old Cassie died before authorities arrived (Hardy, 2012; Millican, 2012). The
second instance, Case 8, was the SD case concerning the Hofer boys. Nine-year-old Dakota found a
revolver, specific caliber unmentioned, and he and his brother Sean, aged eight, were playing with it
when it accidentally discharged, killing Sean in late March of 2014 (Dockendorf, 2014; Freeman
Courier, 2014). A .357-caliber magnum revolver was the firearm used in Case 2 (Jackson, 2014). All
three of these cases’ circumstances were similar: the firearms involved lacked a manual safety feature,
were found loaded, and not stored locked away. This exhibits carelessness for how the guns were kept
within the households.
In the six remaining cases, there was no discussion as to whether a manual safety was
engaged prior to the children obtaining access to the firearms. However, explaining the types of
firearms which possess this feature is helpful. Of these cases, the firearms used were four pistols (in
Cases 4, 5, 9, and 10), one shotgun (in Case 1), and one rifle (in Case 3). Each of these types of

firearms incorporates at least one manual safety feature to prevent against accidental discharge. If a
firearm has a manual safety, it is typically engaged when carrying on one’s person to protect them
from accidental discharge; however, this is a feature which should be used at all times when a firearm
is not prepared to be fired, especially if not adequately stored.
Location of Firearm
Since the majority of instances involved firearms that were not stored or locked, it is
necessary to evaluate from which locations the children were able to gain access to the firearms. This
is helpful in later determining responsibility of the shootings. Eight of the ten cases took place within
the home of the victim and shooter. The firearms used in Cases 1 and 5 were kept in containers, but
unlocked as detailed in a previous section (The Indy Channel, 2011; Luo & McIntire, 2013). The
firearm used in Case 6 was kept in the corner of the family’s mobile home (Ortiz, 2013). Case 9 took
place in NC when Taylor Dwyer, age eight, found a .25-caliber handgun placed next to his parents’
bed before shooting his five-year-old brother, Matthew, in the bathroom down the hall (Luo &
McIntire, 2013). The children of Case 4 obtained the firearm from a bedroom which was intended to
be locked (Aubey, 2014).
The mother of the children in Case 2 came across her boyfriend’s .357-caliber handgun on top
of their refrigerator. Not wanting to leave it out, she requested her 14-year-old son to store it in a safer
location. The boy placed the firearm under a bed, which was then found by the two-year-old when a
toy rolled near it. He discharged the already loaded and cocked gun, killing his sister (Landau, 2014;
Lattanzio & Chang, 2014; Miller, 2014). In Case 8, news articles did not explicitly state where the
gun was found, but rather explained the boys were playing with the firearm preceding the weapon
being discharged (Dockendorf, 2014; Freeman Courier, 2014). As mentioned earlier, the firearm
involved with Case 3 was left out in an open room after the children’s father had used it earlier in the
day (Hoffer, 2014).
The two cases which took place outside of the shooter and victim’s home were Case 7 and an
unnamed boy from AZ, referred to as Case 10. The shooter of Case 7 obtained the firearm from the
family’s residence, and the shooting took place shortly after in a vehicle (Dalton Daily Citizen, 2012).
In regards to Case 10, which took place on 27 May 2014, two boys, aged 18 months and three years,
went with their mother to a family friend’s home. Approximately ten minutes into the visit, the boys

wandered away from the adults into another room and found the family friend’s firearm. The three-
year-old shot his brother while handling the firearm (Benson & Reiser, 2014; ABC15, 2014).
The details of this section reveal specifically how accessible the firearms were to the children
in all ten cases. Not only were the guns stored unlocked, but they were kept within the children’s
reach (e.g. bedside, openly in a room, and under a bed). The parents grossly underestimated their
children’s ability to determine the location of the firearms and pull the triggers. According to CDC
research, the mean height of children in the U.S. at or below age six is no greater than four feet (U.S.
Department of Health & Human Services, 2004). Using the available CDC statistics, the average
height of the shooters equalled one half-inch shorter than four feet. If parents neglect to lock their
firearms, a simple precaution that could be taken would be to store it in a high-up location. The
youngest shooter within this sample was two-years-old, revealing that a child of this age was fully
capable of locating the trigger and pulling it.
Parental Whereabouts
When reading the details of these ten cases, it may cross one’s mind where the parents were
while the children were able to not only access the guns but take the time to handle and discharge
them as well. Cases 3 and 7 represent the only two circumstances where both parents were at the
location of the incident when it took place. In regards to Case 7, the children’s mother was driving the
truck while their father sat in the passenger seat (Hardy, 2012). Both the father and mother were
within the residence at the time of the shooting for Case 3, and the mother called for help immediately
following (Hoffer, 2014).
In six cases, only one parent, specifically the mothers, was noted to be nearby at the time of
the shooting. The mother of Case 6 was claimed to be on the front porch of the residence (The
Huffington Post, 2013). The mother of the boys involved in Case 9 was drying her hair in another
room while her boys were in a bathroom down the hall (Luo & McIntire, 2013). In Case 4, the mother
was home, but also said to be in another part of the residence; this is consistent for Cases 2, 5, and 10
as well (Associated Press, 2014a; Associated Press, 2014b; Lattanzio & Chang, 2014; The Indy
Channel, 2011). Case 1 did not have either parent present, and news stories claimed the mother was at
work and made no assertions as to the whereabouts of the father. Case 8 stories did not mention the
location of either parent.

This information elicits the notion that the parents were comfortable leaving their children
unsupervised in their homes and trusted them in a household with firearms, despite previous literature
demonstrating that children at these ages could not refrain from their natural curiosity to handle
firearms (Jackman et al., 2001; Wadsworth, 1971).
Rulings of Deaths & Outcomes
Information regarding how each case was ruled was also collected. A number of sources
lacked sufficient reports pertaining to the legal aspect due to there being no follow-up articles for the
cases. Using the available information, there were four cases determined to be accidental: two were
homicides, and four were unknown. Even if a case was considered to be accidental, charges could still
be filed against the parents.
Rulings determining the manner of death were at the discretion of the particular medical
examiner (ME) or coroner reviewing that case. An ME typically codes firearm fatalities as accident,
homicide, suicide, or undetermined if there is a lack of information. The manner of death is based on
facts surrounding the circumstances of death, autopsy results, and various laboratory tests; the ME
then determines the outcome based on their subjective conclusions regarding these facts (Schaechter
et al., 2003). This could skew the data causing an underestimation of unintentional deaths in
comparison to homicides and suicides. While data can accurately express the number of gun deaths, it
is unclear how many fall within each manner of death (Azrael et al., 2002).
Intent is a factor which is taken into consideration when establishing manner of death, where
suicide and homicide are deliberate acts and unintentional deaths lack forethought, even if there is
evidence of negligence (Schaechter et al., 2003). Typically, accidental firearm deaths are classified as
homicides simply because the child died at the hands of another, and suicides would be classed
similarly in that they were self-caused, meaning these categories are not mutually exclusive.
However, these incidents must be further reviewed in the matter of their intent, which actually would
make them mutually exclusive (Azrael et al., 2002). In 2011, 1.8% of all firearm deaths in the U.S.
were classified as accidental (CDC, 2011). Since this official percentage is so small, it may lead the
general population to believe unintentional firearm deaths are not a problem that needs researched to
find solutions to reduce.

Cases 3, 4, 6, and 8 were considered accidental in some capacity. In Case 3, authorities
considered the shooting to have happened accidentally, but were sending out a report to determine if
any charges would be filed (Hoffer, 2014). Case 4 was also investigated as an accidental shooting
since authorities believed nothing indicated it could be ruled as anything else (Redden, 2014b). The
Judge Executive of the county in Case 6 claimed that a child owning a gun at a young age was typical,
additionally saying that it was unlikely any homes in the county do not own a firearm. However, a
trooper claimed it was possible that charges would be filed as a result of the shooting (The Huffington
Post, 2013). These three cases all took place in states which have CAP laws (Legal Community
Against Violence, 2008). From news articles pertaining to Case 8, no charges were filed as of the day
after the incident. However, information was limited because juveniles were involved (Dockendorf,
2014; Kirk, 2014).
Cases 2 and 7 were deemed homicides, meaning the deaths were considered to happen at the
hands of another (Schaechter et al., 2003). The circumstances of Case 2 led the mother of the children,
Goldwire, to be charged with involuntary manslaughter, possessing an instrument of crime,
endangering the welfare of a child, and additional offences. Police attempted to gain information
regarding to whom the gun belonged, but Goldwire refused. These charges resulted despite PA not
having any CAP law implemented (Miller, 2014). Case 7 was also ruled as a homicide; however, no
charges were filed as a result. Police believed the shooting to be accidental, but the medical examiner
considered the manner of death to be homicide (Luo & McIntire, 2013).
The remaining cases, 1, 5, 9, and 10, had rulings which were unknown and unable to be
found; however police that investigated Case 5 did not expect any charges to be filed. Although the
shooter was unaware of the gun being loaded, the boy described the handgun to the police and
demonstrated how to load a magazine for firing (The Indy Channel, 2011). The mother in Case 9 also
could have been charged under NC law for negligent storage of the firearm, but was not (Legal
Community Against Violence, 2008).
After reviewing the rulings of deaths and outcomes for each case, it was understandable why
no pattern existed which would explain why an unintentional shooting would be given a particular
manner of death or why charges would or would not be filed. This led the researcher to infer these
justifications were purely situational, and if a similar shooting occurred in two different states, or even
within the same state, the outcomes would be vastly different. It was apparent that states which have

CAP laws were selective as to which cases were considered to have occurred due to negligent
behaviour by the parents. This could be in part due to sympathy given to the parents because one of
their children died as a result of the actions of another one of their children. Some may view the
parents these situations as having suffered enough, or that the incident did not result from their
parenting skills, but rather from mistakes.

CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION
Overall Aims
The overall aim of this research was to aid in bridging the gap in firearms research after the
ban on funding was lifted. Research prior to the ban found the correlation between how firearms are
stored and the frequency of unintentional firearm deaths among children. This study attempted to
further this notion by analysing case studies and finding what patterns existed in cases of
unintentional firearm deaths involving children to verify that children behaved similarly when they
come into contact with a firearm, despite prior experience with firearms or firearm safety training.
The researcher asserts these accidental deaths were a direct result of lax storage methods executed by
parents because of the heightened, although misplaced, levels of trust they had in their children to
behave responsibly around firearms when unsupervised. The results of the study came back as
expected by the researcher and in general, the findings of this study supported previous literature. The
following section will elaborate on both these points.
Summary of Findings
The majority of the findings can be grouped by their relation to two themes: negligence and
effectiveness. The findings determined to have resulted by negligence include how the firearms were
stored and other behaviours committed, or omitted, by parents. Effectiveness relates to the various
programmes and methods carried out both as a result of or to prevent accidental firearm deaths. This
section will open with negligence-related findings.
Forty-six percent of individuals keep firearms within their homes for self-defence purposes.
However, if stored inappropriately in a household with children, the object of self-defence becomes
the object of fear. Studies focusing on child development have consistently proven that despite a
child’s experience with firearms and instructions regarding what to do if they happen upon a firearm,
they cannot help but to handle the weapon whether real or a toy (Hardy, 2002; Jackman et al., 2001;
Connor & Wesolowski, 2003). The majority of parents trusted their child could differentiate between
a real and a toy gun; where in actuality just under half were not able to. Even so, the children
proceeded to play with the gun despite having believed it was real. These findings were consistent
with the current study as well. Ten children between 2-12 years old could not suppress their inner

Christina.Castillo.Dissertation

Christina.Castillo.Dissertation

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

En vedette

En vedette (20)

Christina.Castillo.Dissertation