I'm sure when the judge stops laughing he'll calmly dismiss the case pointing out that its merit would depend upon there being no .22 caliber guns between the man's front yard and the shooting range in question, over a mile away.
A Dallas-area man with a bullet in his back is suing a mile-away shooting range.
Michael Domin of Rowlett lives 1.2 miles from the Garland Public Shooting Range. Domin on Thursday sued for damages, alleging a stray .22 caliber bullet struck him June 12 while he was in his yard.
What's your opinion? Is that going to be a hard case to win? Is this just one of the disadvantages of living in a gun-friendly environment? And it's a small price to pay for all that freedom, isn't it. It doesn't happen all that often that one is hit by a stray bullet.
What's your opinion? Couldn't it be argued that living like that, however slight the chances are, is the opposite of freedom? Couldn't it be said that not knowing if the gun owner next to you is qualified and responsible enough to ensure your safety is anything but freedom?
All the pro-freedom talk we keep hearing from the gun advocates, it's quite the opposite isn't it?
Please leave a comment.