Nathan Beaver, Babysitter, Shot By Boy For Stepping On His Foot

JACKSON, Ohio — Police say an angry 4-year-old Ohio boy grabbed a gun from a closet and shot his baby sitter. Nathan Beavers, 18, was hospitalized Sunday with minor wounds to his arm and side after the shotgun attack. Police say another teen was also injured.

Witnesses told police the child was angry because Beavers accidentally stepped on his foot. Beavers was watching the child at a mobile home in Jackson with several other teenagers and several other children.

Jackson County Sheriff John Shashteen says authorities are investigating. The child has not been charged.

Comments

[Hoelder]

Weapons in the hand of children - No Problem, but fireworks that's to go.

[harriettubman]

All these guns and too many violent shows for kids. In the last year alone how many stories have been reported where kids have killed their parents or shot someone? I'm talking all over 15 yrs old too.

[Petey131]

Wow he could be the "poster child" for the NRA....

[Susej]

All of a sudden, it costs $50/hour to baby sit. Nationwide.

[markusmarkus]

...along with an allowance for body armour.

[BartLA]

The babysitter was lucky. The kid wasn't even trying to aim. He just wanted to show him who's boss.

[DontselltheUS]

Why do I imagine that the parents are secretly saying: Way to go, kid! That's our boy!

[greymom]

I hope Obama does not try to take away guns, that would galvanize the NRA, but a better law to enact is a mandatory 1 year prison sentence for the owner of a gun that is accessible to minors. The parents, or the owner of the trailer should have to serve a prison sentence, no way to plea down, just a mandatory sentence.
See what the Nra will do.

[Eric-in-the-Red]

This shooting happened in an Appalachian backwater where "dueling banjos" is the number one musical hit. What is most amazing is that the kid knew how to shoot a gun and hit a target at the age of 4, meaning he had training from Mom or Dad or both. Although I support gun regulations limiting or prohibiting entirely the use of some types of firearms, I don't see this incident as an argument for gun control. Instead it shows two parents who were clearly negligent in their responsibilities and should be held liable for the injury.

[Kassandra]

Thank gawd a friend of mine's kid doesn't have access to a damned gun. He's 3 and already violent enuff. I fear what he will become as he grows older without parental supervision. Parents without discipline produce children without discipline and only a disciplined person can produce anything of value in their lives.
I'm not talking about physical punishment here either.

Look at George Bush, perfect example...­.......

[inluvwkeitholbermann]

the kid was just teaching the babysitter a Iesson....­....don't accidentally step on people's feet

[Telemachus]

An armed society is a polite society. Especially in the living room.

[blackspeak]

Kids, mobile homes (trailer parks), and guns. A dangerous mix.

[gliderflyer]

I take it this 4 year old boy was part of a "well regulated militia"??
why does the NRA abandon the concept of responsibility?
they sure raise enough money to pay for the doctor bills of all the 'accidental' shootings.­..
how many children die each year??

[RedneckDem]

Forgive me for saying this, but I sure wish that the 4 year old who was dropped off at a rest stop last week by some S O B who killed his mother, would have been packin'.

Which brings me to a confusing point. Whats is the good of a gun for in-home protection if it is locked up and seperate from the bullets? Defeats every purpose of owning one for home protection­...

Then the next question is, how can you sue someone for having an accessible gun in their own home (regardless of the stupididty of other people or their own family)?

We either have guns and accept the occassional tragedy (knowing that 99.9% of guns in a non-criminal household are safe, but accessible) or we don't have guns. Personally, I choose the second amendment.

[TheyAllSuck]

"Whats is the good of a gun for in-home protection if it is locked up and seperate from the bullets? Defeats every purpose of owning one for home protection­..."

No, it helps prevent accidental deaths (with kids). Sure you trade off the 20 seconds for your security. Because we all know burglars have ninja training and those seconds are crucial. Especially for the mentally impaired people like you, who would use an M-16 for burglar defense. (I am not a supporter of the notion one needs to keep the bullets in a separate room.)

[RedneckDem]

Dude, I was putting up some points for discussion. And YES, those seconds are crucial for your security. Burglers dont usually break into occupied homes. Murderers, rapists, et al... do. In these cases your home has been watched and laid out for quick takedown. All while you wake from a deep sleep, stumble to your safe, spin the dial and open the safe, hopnig the bad guys take their time.... Bwahahahha­hahahhahah­ahhaa

Why not come to my house in the dead of night and break in if you want to find out what kind of weapon I use...

[rubberstamp]

somebody needs time out

[BartLA]

ya think?

[kellygrrrl]

and the parents will be charged when?

[RedneckDem]

According to the NRA, if the babysitter would have been "packing", he could have prevented this senseless tragedy by pre-emptively shooting the 4 year older after stepping on his foot.

[isis]

You're right. Guns save live(sic)

[cobobs]

4 year old was only acting in self defense to what he viewed as unwarranted assault by a giant with the strength to kill him.

[MathIsTruth]

The real problem here was that the poor 4-year-old had to go all the way to the closet to get his gun. Holy cow, the next time the baby sitter might get a chance to run away before getting gunned down.

The Framers of the Constitution clearly gave little children (not to mention embryos from the moment of conception) the right, perhaps even the *obligation*, to carry a gun.