Russell Williams
Well-Known Member
Apparently the family did not teach their son to always check to be sure whether or not the his gun was loaded. Apparently they also did not teach their son to never to aim his gun at something unless he was are planning to shoot what he was aiming at. Of course there is the possibility that their son knew it was loaded and had intended to kill his sister.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/201...old-boy-accidentally-shoots-kills-sister?lite
There are those who argue that you can kill people with baseball bats just as well as you can with guns. The conclusion they often come to is to say "If guns are to be registered then why shouldn't baseball bats also be registered." Of course another corollary would be that if guns and baseball bats can both kill than, if parents feel safe in giving their children baseball bats, they should also feel safe in giving their children guns.
Another argument would be that there's nothing wrong with giving a five-year-old his own gun but you need to be sure he knows how to use it safely.
The coroner did say it was a horrible accident but when a five-year-old has access to loaded gun that is definitely an accident waiting to happen.
There are those bleeding heart liberals who argue that the parents did wrong in allowing their son to have a gun. However if the five-year-old did not have a gun how would he be able to protect his family against intruders or to protect his family and community from the North Koreans when they invade and try to take over the United States?
If people seriously believe that the Japanese military leaders in World War II actually contemplating invading and conquering the United States than such people must consider it a realistic possibility that North Korea will try to invade and conquer the United States
Or we could simply conclude that many of the arguments made by those who want more guns in society are nonsensical arguments and the people making them should be told that they are speaking nonsense.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/201...old-boy-accidentally-shoots-kills-sister?lite
There are those who argue that you can kill people with baseball bats just as well as you can with guns. The conclusion they often come to is to say "If guns are to be registered then why shouldn't baseball bats also be registered." Of course another corollary would be that if guns and baseball bats can both kill than, if parents feel safe in giving their children baseball bats, they should also feel safe in giving their children guns.
Another argument would be that there's nothing wrong with giving a five-year-old his own gun but you need to be sure he knows how to use it safely.
The coroner did say it was a horrible accident but when a five-year-old has access to loaded gun that is definitely an accident waiting to happen.
There are those bleeding heart liberals who argue that the parents did wrong in allowing their son to have a gun. However if the five-year-old did not have a gun how would he be able to protect his family against intruders or to protect his family and community from the North Koreans when they invade and try to take over the United States?
If people seriously believe that the Japanese military leaders in World War II actually contemplating invading and conquering the United States than such people must consider it a realistic possibility that North Korea will try to invade and conquer the United States
Or we could simply conclude that many of the arguments made by those who want more guns in society are nonsensical arguments and the people making them should be told that they are speaking nonsense.
