A man is blaming his dog for his wife's shooting death in San Luis Obispo County.
Twenty-five-year-old John Norris is charged with involuntary manslaughter for shooting his wife in July as she say on a couch in their San Miguel condominium. A sheriff's deputy testified Tuesday at a preliminary hearing that Norris claimed he was standing on the stairs with a handgun when his dog tripped him and caused him to shoot his 24-year-old wife Tasha.
Norris says he had the pistol because he planned to remove the ammunition before fire inspectors arrived to examine new sprinklers. His attorney says Norris, who has no criminal record or history of domestic violence, loved his wife.
Norris has pleaded not guilty to involuntary manslaughter and possessing an illegal weapon.
I know we've talked about it before, but shouldn't that last line be, "illegally possessing a weapon" instead of "possessing an illegal weapon." I dislike those sloppy renderings of the story because the pro-gun folks like to point them out as evidence that the media and the liberals and the gun control crowd don't know what they're talking about. The fact is, we do know what we're talking about and the way it's worded in the article perfectly communicates the idea, which is the main point. Ideas matter. When people derail the entire argument over minor miswordings that does not interrupt the flow of information, I have to wonder why they do that.
What do you think about John Norris? He had a gun in the home that for some reason he shouldn't have had even though he'd had no history of crime or domestic violence. What if he was just exercising his constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms in order to protect himself in the home? That wouldn't make him a bad guy, would it? The way I see it he's mainly guilty of having had a terrible accident.
Some say gun control laws don't work, that this guy is proof. California has strict laws, Norris disobeyed them. What I say is the strict gun control laws are not aimed at guys like Norris, who are willing to disregard them. The laws are aimed at the law abiding. There is a point at which a gun passes from the possession of a lawful owner to that of a criminal. The laws are aimed at the lawful gun owner and they should be made strict enough to better encourage that lawful gun owner to not allow the gun to pass to the criminal.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.