What consequence could the senseless shooting death of a juvenile crow by an air rifle in Beaconsfield (discovered late evening July 28) have on the West Island’s population at large? A Canadian Paediatric Society (CPA) position statement on Youth and Firearms suggests that concern should be the primary response to tragic episodes like this, which have the pressing potential of escalating. The 2005 CPA statement cited stated pellet and airguns resulted in 11 deaths of Canadian youths, age three to 17 years in 2005 as well as noted non-powder firearms as the leading cause of ocular injuries in Ottawa youths aged 18 and under from 1974-1993. This statement did not mention the responsibility non-powder firearms play in the maiming and killing of wildlife across Canada.
This past March, the pellet gun death of 13-year-old Winnipegger Cody Shuya made headlines, when a struggle between an older gang member and himself for the possession of a pellet gun broke out, resulting in a fatal blow to the eye that lodged into his brain.
“In Canada, only firearms whose bullets fire at a velocity of greater than 152 m/s are regulated by federal gun control legislation. Most air guns have a lower projectile velocity than 152 m/s and are therefore not regulated by federal gun control laws,” stated the CPA report.
As for the wounded crow, it was taken to Le Nichoir, a non-profit rehabilitation centre for wild birds in Hudson, without struggle. One of its wings was so badly struck it could hardly move. An X-ray early next morning confirmed the melancholic news, that the crow would not be able to be rehabilitated. The injuries sustained to its ulna and radius were far too severe. The bird experienced a tremendous and unnecessary amount of pain before it was euthanized, according to a news release by Le Nichoir. Since the wound appeared to be a few days old, it is unlikely the anonymous shooter is even aware of the damage they’ve done.
Lynn Miller, the founder of Le Nichoir, sent an e-mail to two of the local large suppliers of air rifles back in 2006, when a Canadian goose was struck. The response was non-committal, and financial compensation was never offered for the hefty rehabilitation costs of wild birds struck by guns circulated by these suppliers. “It's money for them,” Miller said. “It’s up to our communities to say that this is not appropriate, seeing as it is the 21st century.”
“It’s about responsible management of the environment, and our habitat,” Miller added. She attributed the misuse of non-powder firearms to a lack of child supervision, as well as the ease of the laws concerning these guns, often viewed by some as 'harmless toys.'
The Montreal Children’s Hospital has commenced looking into these weapons as a much more serious threat and potential hazard.
“It is very important that parents know that these risks are real and take the necessary precautions,” said Carlo Galli, trauma co-ordinator in the prevention program at the Children’s. If these weapons are kept around the house, they must be used under heavy supervision at all times, never pointing at live objects, and locked away unloaded in a secure place, he added. “Kids don’t have good aim. They’re not going to think not to aim for the face,” Galli added. “With that kind of velocity, without protective eye gear they could cause serious injuries.”
Air rifle proves fatal in fly-by shooting
Air rifle proves fatal in fly-by shooting
-
- Published on August 6th, 2008
- Published on Febuary 6th, 2010
-
Jennifer Helen
Safety concerns raised
- Number of views : 6984
- Rate
- Top of the page
Comments
-
- Cactus Jack
- - February 17th, 2010 at 14:18:14
For crying out loud it's a frigging CROW! Had the person who shot it been allowed by Canada's stupid laws to use a real gun then the crow would've been killed instead of wounded and therefore would'nt have suffered.
-
- Mike in Texas
- - February 17th, 2010 at 14:18:06
The shooting of a crow was described as "senseless" but no evidence is offered to back up this assertion, as the shooter of the crow was neither identified nor interviewed to determine why the crow was shot. Perhaps the crow was a legitimate nuisance? Maybe it was by a farmer protecting his baby chicks? Perhaps the crow was making a mess by cavorting in a trash bin by the curb and the homeowner was tired of cleaning up after it? And maybe crows are considered acceptable targets to practice upon with firearms, considering that they are neither endangered, nor songbirds, nor game birds, but rather treated as flying rats in most parts of North America? Further, asking manufacturers of legal products, legally purchased, to compensate anyone for the illegal use of their products is contrary to all historical tort law. The idea in law is that no liability exists for the manufacturer, unless the product is defective in some way and the maker is negligent(perhaps exploding under conditions of normal use and injuring the user, with the defect known to the maker). So unless you think car manufacturers should compensate hospitals for all costs associated with accidents caused by drunk drivers, or perhaps makers of alcohol should compensate car owners for damage done to their vehicles when the owners drive drunk and wreck, your thinking is exactly 180 degrees wrong on this subject. Individuals are responsible for their illegal actions under the law, and the makers of the tools they use to commit illegal acts are not responsible for the illegal acts. Your feelings on the subject are misplaced, incorrect, misguided, wrong.
-
- Cactus Jack
- - February 10th, 2010 at 12:55:41
For crying out loud it's a frigging CROW! Had the person who shot it been allowed by Canada's stupid laws to use a real gun then the crow would've been killed instead of wounded and therefore would'nt have suffered.
-
- Mike in Texas
- - February 10th, 2010 at 12:55:35
The shooting of a crow was described as "senseless" but no evidence is offered to back up this assertion, as the shooter of the crow was neither identified nor interviewed to determine why the crow was shot. Perhaps the crow was a legitimate nuisance? Maybe it was by a farmer protecting his baby chicks? Perhaps the crow was making a mess by cavorting in a trash bin by the curb and the homeowner was tired of cleaning up after it? And maybe crows are considered acceptable targets to practice upon with firearms, considering that they are neither endangered, nor songbirds, nor game birds, but rather treated as flying rats in most parts of North America? Further, asking manufacturers of legal products, legally purchased, to compensate anyone for the illegal use of their products is contrary to all historical tort law. The idea in law is that no liability exists for the manufacturer, unless the product is defective in some way and the maker is negligent(perhaps exploding under conditions of normal use and injuring the user, with the defect known to the maker). So unless you think car manufacturers should compensate hospitals for all costs associated with accidents caused by drunk drivers, or perhaps makers of alcohol should compensate car owners for damage done to their vehicles when the owners drive drunk and wreck, your thinking is exactly 180 degrees wrong on this subject. Individuals are responsible for their illegal actions under the law, and the makers of the tools they use to commit illegal acts are not responsible for the illegal acts. Your feelings on the subject are misplaced, incorrect, misguided, wrong.
