What is there about this story that warrants three sentences in a major metro newspaper that likes to boast of its Pulitzer Prize-level journalism? Two kids, ages 9 and 5, get ahold of their father's BB gun. It was not a .22 or a 40-caliber Glock or an assault weapon. It discharged, whether by childish intent or mishap. The only name used in the thred sentences was David Estrada, a guy who gets paid big bux for sitting around all day finding ways to get the Boston Police Department mentioned in the news media. And Mr. Estrada was apparently smart enough to onvince a Globe correspondent (that means either college student or freelance journalist who does not get paid the Globe big bucks) that a BB gun does not always cause life threatening injuries, as in this case. The only things missing are info on whether some overzealous cop handcuffed the boy and hauled him off for a sharp interrogation or whether the gun's owner came home and committed a minor assault on the part of the boy that is usually placed ona chair. There, enough verbiage?

My brother and I were allowed to use BB guns only in sparsely populated areas like forests and only after we had entered our teens. Our parents drilled into our heads that if we were seen or reported to have even pointed the gun at another person, we would lose our right to use the gun FOREVER. I cannot imagine a parent allowing such young children access (whether intentional or accidental)to BB guns. The parents have to share in the outcome of their nonchalance in supervising their children.