Tishomingo County authorities say a five-year-old died after being accidentally shot by a family member Thursday night.What can I say, except the idea that fewer restrictions on the supposedly god-given, natural-human right to own a gun, which ensures that we'll have more of these incidents than we otherwise would, is wrong.
Sheriff's officials say they were called to the Cotton Gin Trailer Park in Burnsville along with Burnsville Police around 10 p.m.
When officers arrived, they found the child.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
You've yet to tell me how we prevent gun accidents while at the same time refrain from violating the rights of millions of American citizens.
ReplyDeleteThose who are willing to sacrifice liberty upon the altar of social utility are very consistent in their efforts to avoid answering such questions. Typically, they ignore the question, declare it irrelevant, or attack the questioner. Any bets as to which one we'll see this time?
ReplyDeleteEven money on all three, especially if we're including the others who support Mikeb's cause.
DeleteAnd the award goes to (sound of a faint from roll)..ignore the question
DeleteSorry, RM, I didn't realize I needed to answer that question again. Greg's lying when he says it's not been answered. That's one of his shabby tricks to gain unearned points in the argument, claiming I haven't answered that which I've answered over and over again.
DeleteStrict gun control would not violate the rights of millions of American citizens. It would disarm those who are unfit. The one-strike-you're-out rule would prevent many of the repeat offenders from having additional "accidents" as well as encouraging everybody else to be more responsible.
Now, haven't you heard that from be before?
Actually, Mike, what you've done is insist your proposals would violate no one's rights while producing desirable results. What you have not done, is produce real evidence and substantive arguments to support your position. Part of the problem, of course, is based upon your denial of the 2nd Amendment as being relevant or protecting the rights history suggests it does. When you argue from this perspective, it's easy to say you've answered that question. When your perspective is similar to mine or, I suspect, Greg's we have the same view of your arguments. Given the difference in underlying approaches, it's quite possible either of us could give our most insightful arguments only to have the other deny we said anything of merit.
Delete