Quote:
Originally Posted by ratbastid
A car's not built for killing things.
Do you really think this 11-year-old was sufficiently trained in firearms safety? And if you do, do you think he really had the maturity to have ready access to his own firearms? And if so... how do you explain what happened? Sheer psychosis? Whose job is it to keep guns out of his psycho children's hands (he asked, helpfully embedding the answer in the question)?
I think we'd do really well (ALL of us) to resist blanket pontification either for or against gun control based on this case. This case is a major exception--which is why it's news.
In this case, I think dad's to blame.
|
So are you assuming that if he was trained that that would have solved anything? I'm not anti-gun or pro-gun either, but the father cannot be held criminally liable in this case because we do not for one know the mental state of this *child* and two as I've said over and over again, the 11 year old does not know the extent of what he was doing. So we can blame the parents all we want, and I would have no problem in joining that blame, but the father had nothing to do with the crime when it happened. While it is up to the father to make sure the guns are safe, there is no such thing as childproof. A child is going to get what they want if they want it bad enough. The father is more than liable in civil court, but not in a criminal court.