Huh, imagine that. Gun belonged to a police officer. Gun nut? I thought he was one of the 'only one's' properly trained to have guns and a shining member of our qualified government overseers.....
Read the whole article, and read it carefully. The last sentence reads:
"The gun involved was Fanning's personal weapon, not his service pistol, she said."
If this guy wasn't "showing his guns to a relative," as the article starts out, the kid wouldn't have picked up a loose one and shot the man's wife.
Guns are not toys. They're dangerous. Accidents will always happen. That's true of anything: cars, planes, trains. The difference is that the intended use for these other things is transportation. The only use for guns is to kill people, or to threaten to kill people, or for training to kill people.
Guns are necessary and they have their place. But not at a cookout where kids can glom onto them.
And yet this government law enforcement officer laid a loaded gun down, probably with the safety off. What are the odds of a toddler accidently unsafing the pistol as well as picking it up and pulling the trigger? It couldn't have been a double-action piece. The guy's an idiot even if he did have the magic fairy dust of government sprinkled on him. OR there's more to this than is being reported, and the thin blue line is once again protecting one of its own. It's cheaper than divorce if you get away with it... Color me suspicious.
I did read it carefully. My comment is not dependent on the gun being his issued weapon, only that HE - the idiot who was colossally unsafe with it - is also an agent of the government that some people around here claim are the only ones who are safe enough, trained enough and empowered enough to have guns.
4 comments:
Huh, imagine that. Gun belonged to a police officer. Gun nut? I thought he was one of the 'only one's' properly trained to have guns and a shining member of our qualified government overseers.....
Gotta be a misprint.
Read the whole article, and read it carefully. The last sentence reads:
"The gun involved was Fanning's personal weapon, not his service pistol, she said."
If this guy wasn't "showing his guns to a relative," as the article starts out, the kid wouldn't have picked up a loose one and shot the man's wife.
Guns are not toys. They're dangerous. Accidents will always happen. That's true of anything: cars, planes, trains. The difference is that the intended use for these other things is transportation. The only use for guns is to kill people, or to threaten to kill people, or for training to kill people.
Guns are necessary and they have their place. But not at a cookout where kids can glom onto them.
And yet this government law enforcement officer laid a loaded gun down, probably with the safety off. What are the odds of a toddler accidently unsafing the pistol as well as picking it up and pulling the trigger? It couldn't have been a double-action piece. The guy's an idiot even if he did have the magic fairy dust of government sprinkled on him. OR there's more to this than is being reported, and the thin blue line is once again protecting one of its own. It's cheaper than divorce if you get away with it... Color me suspicious.
Read the whole article, and read it carefully.
I did read it carefully. My comment is not dependent on the gun being his issued weapon, only that HE - the idiot who was colossally unsafe with it - is also an agent of the government that some people around here claim are the only ones who are safe enough, trained enough and empowered enough to have guns.
Post a Comment