Thursday, January 20, 2011

South Carolina Tragedy

He was a good boy.  He received a rifle for his 14th birthday.

A South Carolina boy told police he killed his father with the rifle he received for his birthday in September, investigators said Tuesday.

The 14-year-old allegedly killed his great-aunt and critically wounded his grandmother Monday night, CNN reported. Police in Spartanburg said the teen reported the shootings to a 911 dispatcher.
I find it hard to believe that he was such a good boy that there was no indication whatever of instability. Too bad the dad thought giving his son a birthday present like that was a good idea.

What's your opinion? First allow me. What gun control law could have prevented this? Well, for starters, how about the one that says 14-year-olds may not have access to guns?  Or the other one that says guns must be kept under lock and key unless under the direct control of an adult?

I know, in South Carolina they don't have laws like that. All the worse for them, don't you think?

Please leave a comment.

Alice Cooper said, "You're something that never should have happened. You even make your grandma sick."


  1. Brings to mind Kip Kinkel and the Thurston school shootings, here in my area. His parents thought he was a good boy, too (except for his rages, which therapy didn't help much with) and bought him guns, too.

    Just goes to show that children and guns don't mix. Children are naturally impulsive, still trying to grasp their emotions, and curious. A bad combination when mixed with deadly weapons. Child Access Prevention (CAP) laws, gun locks, and just plain common sense have been shown to help, but the best answer is not to have a firearm in the house with children.

  2. COULD this tragedy have been prevented with a law? Perhaps, but there really isn't enough information at this point to know, is there?

    The outcome certainly could have changed. Since we're playing what if, let's suppose the kid absolutely positively couldn't have access to a firearm, that he couldn't get one from a friend, or that he didn't know where the key to the gun safe was. He was apparently determined to kill his father and other relatives, so if he couldn't get his hands on a firearm, what law would have stopped him from bludgeoning them to death with a bat? Or stabbing them with a knife? Or chopping them up with an Axe? Or running them over with the family car?

    Oh, I guess the carnage may have been less, and it's even possible that without a firearm, nobody would have died in that family.

    The problem with laws like "Child Access Prevention" laws is the unintended consequences. Is it worth preventing an instance like the tragedy in South Carolina, if the law forces THIS to happen?:

    We allow older, responsible children to stay home by themselves, amidst chemicals and tools that can cause bodily injury to themselves and others if they chose to (and a few do). We allow 16 year olds to drive 2-Ton juggernauts with tanks filled with explosive gasoline amongst other drivers and pedestrians where a momentary distraction, mistake, or uncontrolled emotion can kill themselves or others (and a few do), yet nobody suggests "safe storage" laws to prevent anyone under 18 from having access to gasoline, chemicals, tools, and cars. Somehow, though, it's considered appropriate for the state to override a parent's judgement of their children's responsibility and training to keep firearms locked away.

    All this shows is an illogical bias against firearms.

  3. Orygunner says, "All this shows is an illogical bias against firearms."

    I don't think so. If by "all this," you mean that lengthy comment of yours, I'd say all it shows is how desperate you are to justify that which cannot be justified.

    Allowing an unstable kid access to a gun with which he murders his grandma is a preventable tragedy which merits more than your wishy-washy "Oh, I guess the carnage may have been less."