Father fatally shoots son outside Pennsylvania gun store

Comments (47)
Fr0ntSight wrote:

Very sad accident…My prayers go out to the family.

Dec 08, 2012 9:45pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Fr0ntSight wrote:

Very sad accident…My prayers go out to the family.

Dec 08, 2012 9:45pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Harry079 wrote:

“but police said the evidence pointed to an accident.”

Walking through a parking lot of a gun store with a recently purchase loaded gun?

Most parents I know wait until their sons are 18 or 19 and send then off to far away lands to die in a parking lot in a country with a name that sounds like a dog or rug.

Dec 08, 2012 10:05pm EST  --  Report as abuse
skyhaskins wrote:

It is FAR more likely that a gun will injure those it was hoped to protect than someone intending harm. Owning guns does NOT make us safer. Look at the statistics.

Dec 08, 2012 10:24pm EST  --  Report as abuse
jlat420 wrote:

I agree Harry…Why the hell was the gun loaded in your hand???

Dec 08, 2012 10:24pm EST  --  Report as abuse
mfrost41 wrote:

Poor child. Dad get’s to live with this. Very tragic.
When it comes to firearms,there are no “accidental shootings”. They are called “negligent shootings”.

Dec 08, 2012 11:08pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Hedonikos wrote:

Actually Harry, our sons are facing better odds in those countries than they do in the US.

Dec 08, 2012 11:25pm EST  --  Report as abuse
flashrooster wrote:

Guns don’t kill people; dumb and crazy people with guns kill people.

Dec 08, 2012 11:46pm EST  --  Report as abuse
AZWarrior wrote:

Could have backed over his on with a car. We don’t blame the car or the dealership. Sick to death of those who use every sad accident to try to futher their hated of the Constitution.

Dec 08, 2012 11:49pm EST  --  Report as abuse
assmuncher wrote:

Those wanting to rid of all weapons just remember we cannot rid of weapons our wonderful criminals have.

Be very careful what you wish for.

Dec 08, 2012 11:56pm EST  --  Report as abuse
assmuncher wrote:

Those wanting to rid of all weapons just remember we cannot rid of weapons our wonderful criminals have.

Be very careful what you wish for.

Dec 08, 2012 11:56pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Peetza wrote:

This is so sad…so bad. How does he tell mom? More than one innocent life ruined. God I feel bad for them all.

Dec 09, 2012 12:09am EST  --  Report as abuse
stambo2001 wrote:

More than 10 000 senior citizens will die from properly prescribed yet improperly taken pharmaceuticals. More than 5000 teens this year will die from automobile accidents. 7-12000 die from complications related to over consumption of salt (stroke deaths, ischaemic heart disease).

But lets freak out, get weak kneed and re-write the constitution every time the media says ‘boo!’.

Dec 09, 2012 12:19am EST  --  Report as abuse
Peetza wrote:

Hey AZWarrior…pointing a gun (even if you think it isn’t loaded) at someone and then pulling the trigger can hardly be considered an ACCIDENT!

Dec 09, 2012 12:22am EST  --  Report as abuse
Peetza wrote:

stambo…YOU’RE the only one who brought up re-writing the Constitution.

Dec 09, 2012 12:26am EST  --  Report as abuse
JoeBarton wrote:

small price to pay for his constitutional right.

Dec 09, 2012 12:41am EST  --  Report as abuse
pscreen wrote:

Events like this happen on average every 2 days. This is the price we are Besides, guns don’t kill people, people do. If this dad had not killed his son with a gun, he could have accidentally killed him with a knife, a car, or his bare hands.

Dec 09, 2012 12:48am EST  --  Report as abuse
McBob08 wrote:

Still think privately-owned guns are such a good idea? There’s a new angel now who’s definitely anti-gun. What possessed the father to do something so stupid as to buy a gun; especially when his young child was along with him.

Condolences to the family, but hopefully this tragedy will remind that father, and everyone else who reads this story that guns are not the solution to anything. If the father had bought an alarm system or an electronic screamer for protection, his son would be alive now. Before anyone criticizes me for “politicizing” the issue; this isn’t about politics. It’s about plain old common sense. A gun isn’t going to stop a bullet or a knife already on its way toward you; the idea that they protect you from anything is fraudulent and misleading.

Hell, even a whistle that you can buy for a couple of bucks at any hardware store or dollar store will do a better job of protecting you from mugging or home invasion than a gun. That’s just plain, simple facts.

A life ends 7 years after it begins; and his death cannot be called anything other than senseless.

Dec 09, 2012 1:23am EST  --  Report as abuse
McBob08 wrote:

False comparison, AZ Warrior. Cars aren’t made to kill people; guns are. So yes, we do blame the gun. We blame the guy who sold him the gun. We blame the gun manufacturer, because but for any of them, that seven-year-old boy would be alive now. Guns make killing easy, convenient and even possible when it wouldn’t be otherwise. That reason alone is reason enough to hate them. They are death machines, and nothing more. There is absolutely no constructive use for a gun other than melting it down for scrap metal.

Dec 09, 2012 1:26am EST  --  Report as abuse
McBob08 wrote:

@Stambo2001: None of those things are designed to kill. You aren’t freaking out enough about guns.

Dec 09, 2012 1:27am EST  --  Report as abuse
sjfella wrote:

Tragic accidents sure do bring out the nutjobs.
May he rest in peace.

Dec 09, 2012 1:31am EST  --  Report as abuse
randburg100 wrote:

Sitting here reading everyone arguing about your gun laws – few seem to consider the agony that kid’s parents must be going through – and perhaps his siblings!

It all seems to be about petty arguing over US gun laws & fiddling with your ‘constitution’ – which seems to get over-ridden by your courts anyway.

Just stop bickering and spare a few thoughts for the parents….is that too much? Or has the US become so wrapped up in itself along party political lines, that the human touch has been erased?

Dec 09, 2012 1:37am EST  --  Report as abuse
Abulafiah wrote:

In 2009, the USA had 9,146 people killed by guns. Canada had 173. How do the gun-nuts make that fact fit their nonsensical idea that armed criminals take over if you control gun ownership?

Actual research shows that those who buy guns for self defence are *more* likely to killed by intruders. (Guns in the Home and Risk of a Violent Death in the Home: Findings from a National Study). That kills the idea of ‘home defence’.

More actual research shows that a gun is 12 times more likely to kill or injure another family member than to kill or injure an intruder. (Guns in homes can increase risk of death and firearm-related violence). That kills the idea that guns make your family safer.

Gun-deaths in the USA are 19.5 times higher than in other than the average for high-income societies, which kills the idea that more guns reduces crime.

Researched facts prove the gun-nuts wrong. Facts show that guns do not reduce the risk of being attacked in your home, do not protect your family, and do not reduce your chances of being killed by an armed attacker.

Dec 09, 2012 2:08am EST  --  Report as abuse
Reuters1945 wrote:

Every tragedy like this should be a learning experience that leads to some definite positive action or new law being passed so this type of tragedy cannot easily be repeated.

I am against gun ownership personally as there are so many senseless deaths like this every year. And in my State if you are caught with a gun you go straight to the slammer for one or two years- no plea bargaining allowed.

But let me suggest a new law be written that no gun shop can sell any type of hand gun or rifle along with ammunition on the same day.
That means you do not walk out of the store with both at the same time.

Sure, this would be considered a big inconvenience by some people but at least it would guarantee that no child will ever again be shot outside a gun shop because his Father could not wait to “load up”.

And any gun shop that is ever caught breaking this Law would have their License to sell guns permanently revoked. It would be easy to guarantee compliance by having officers in plain clothes make frequent visits to local gun shops and test them to see if the sales people will sell them both a gun and ammo at the same time. The gun shops will get wise fast after a couple are shut down permanently.

Would this suggestion cost a little, or even a lot of money, to put into practice ?

Ask the Mother of the seven year old who just died if you can put a price on a human life and in particular the life of an innocent child. I hope they name this Law after her Son.

No need to charge the Father with unintentional manslaughter and put him in jail. He is already there- and will remain there for the remainder of his natural born days till he someday meets his Lord.

And may God give his comfort to this family.

Dec 09, 2012 2:20am EST  --  Report as abuse
jaroca wrote:

You gun nuts can look in the mirror and think you are macho? Seriously?

You scream constitution at any given discussion on the subject.
Who’s really paranoid here? You all are.

I don’t give a rats patoot about the ‘other guy’. If someone wishes you harm they can usually find a way to inflict it. Not nice but a fact. The simple truth is you are all a bunch of cowards, gun advocates and bad guys alike, that feel you need a weapon any time you move.

No easy answers. The whole world is poisoned with weapons. We are no safer for having them available.

This man will go through a hell none of us can imagine and nothing will undo the stupidity and the tragedy to which it led.

Nothing !!!

Dec 09, 2012 3:06am EST  --  Report as abuse
JackVigdor wrote:

The father belongs in jailed for negligent homocide. It is actually hard to fire a good quality gun. You have to first load it, then put a bullet in the chamber and then point it at the intended target and then pull the trigger which requires 3 to 5 pounds of pressure (unless the gun is modified). To have killed his son, he had to have had the gun out (not in a case and not in a holster) and it had to have been pointing at his son. Maybe he did not intend to pull the trigger, but he was careless, did not practice good caution in handling a gun. This is no different than if he had left his child alone with loads of sharp knives and left the room.
Now, about the US Constitution, read it.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Most gun rights advocates in the US only read the second part of that. “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The problem is that the logic of the whole sentence is that the right to bear arms is contingent on the first clause of that logical statement, is that the right to bear arms is contingent on having a well regulated Militia. Since the US no longer has a citizen army made up regular men who come running when the army calls them and have to supply their own weapons, there really is no need for citizens to own their own guns. I still believe that in private gun ownership, but not for the reason that is in the Bill of Rights.

In any event, the dad screwed up, was irresponsible and is responsible for killing his son. Just because he will suffer for the loss of his son emotionally, doesn’t mean that he should not be prosecuted. If it was someone else’s child he killed, he would be prosecuted. Gun ownership demands safety and responsibility.

Dec 09, 2012 3:34am EST  --  Report as abuse
JackVigdor wrote:

Oh! And to Abulafiah: The research data actually shows that when a state adopts a concealed carry law, violent crimes rates go down. The research actually shows that crime goes down in US states and cities where gun ownership is made easy and legal.

Legal gun owners are not committing the crimes.

Dec 09, 2012 3:37am EST  --  Report as abuse
DavidinWY wrote:

I bought a handgun, the store would not allow me to load the gun in the store. The gun also came inside a case with the clips, holster, different grip sizes, loading tool, tools, cleaning kit, one spent cartridge and all the instructions. They allowed me to buy rounds, but warned me not to open the sealed boxes on their property. This may not be the policy of all gun stores, but it seems like some pretty common sense to me. What this guy was told or not told may have left him with a different impression, but he had his kid with him and still made the decision to walk around with a loaded firearm in his hands while opening a door. While I feel heartbroken for his family, I hope the lesson we all learn is that they need to be properly stowed while in the car. Law is that you can have a loaded clip in it, but no round chambered in my state but some states make you stow it with a wire lock through the receiver and some states say it has to be in the trunk or locked glovebox with the bullets kept separately. I get the impression this guy was showing off to his kid, what a horrible lesson he was taught!

Dec 09, 2012 3:38am EST  --  Report as abuse
Burns0011 wrote:

… Rule one, always assume a gun is loaded.
Rule 2, never point a gun at anything you do not intend to shoot.
Rule 3, ALWAYS assume a gun is loaded.

Dec 09, 2012 3:50am EST  --  Report as abuse
DavidinWY wrote:

I bought mine because I live almost half an hour from a police station, I bought mine because 3 guys broke into my home while I was in my bed, I bought mine because there are things around my home that could eat me. I KNOW it may not really protect me, but it gives me just enough comfort to be able to sleep in peace. Yet before I bought it, I had lived for 46 years with none just fine. Most guns are bought with far less of an excuse than my reasoning, but there are too many senseless deaths not related to any crimes and far too many guns out there. This can only mean that there will be far too many senseless deaths right around the corner.

Dec 09, 2012 3:58am EST  --  Report as abuse
randburg100 wrote:

Why do so many North Americans have such a need to carry around a gun? In the UK we don’t – the only ones who kill are those who will do so regardless of the law & what implement they use & of course the mentally retarded gang members who seem, in the majority, to be black. They seem to get really insulted if another ‘gang’ member walks into their post/zip code….which smacks of paranoid delusions….

So, in summary…WHY the need – it’s not as if Canada , or Mexico, or the UK, or the USSR is going to invade next week?!

Dec 09, 2012 4:27am EST  --  Report as abuse
susette wrote:

I am sorry for the loss of this young man. While I am an advocate of the right to bear arms, perhaps the buyer/father should not have had a loaded gun and the child all in one package. He clearly was not adept at handling weapons. Too bad more couldn’t be done on the part of owners to prevent safety accidents, but this is how we learn. And I pray for peace, so that people don’t feel the need to walk out of a gun shop with a loaded weapon in their hands.

Dec 09, 2012 6:43am EST  --  Report as abuse
susette wrote:

I am sorry for the loss of this young man. While I am an advocate of the right to bear arms, perhaps the buyer/father should not have had a loaded gun and the child all in one package. He clearly was not adept at handling weapons. Too bad more couldn’t be done on the part of owners to prevent safety accidents, but this is how we learn. And I pray for peace, so that people don’t feel the need to walk out of a gun shop with a loaded weapon in their hands.

Dec 09, 2012 6:45am EST  --  Report as abuse
pscreen wrote:

Constitutionally speaking, this guy is not part of a well regulated militia. If they were well regulated, he would not have been cavorting around trying to sell a loaded gun with a child in tow.

Dec 09, 2012 7:54am EST  --  Report as abuse
JamVee wrote:

With guns come awesome responsibilities. You must learn how to be around them safely. By the age of 10 all children should be taught how to handle them, carry them, shoot them, clean them, even store them, without ever placing anyone in danger. Somehow this poor father missed one of those vital lessons, and will now pay for it forever. My heart goes out to him, although his mistake seems almost unforgivable.

I cannot even begin to count how many times I’ve racked a slide on a weapon I already knew was empty, but just to double and triple check. And, even then, I will always point the muzzle at a safe backstop before pulling the trigger.

Dec 09, 2012 8:02am EST  --  Report as abuse
Abulafiah wrote:

JackVigdor wrote:
“Oh! And to Abulafiah: The research data actually shows that when a state adopts a concealed carry law, violent crimes rates go down.”

No it doesn’t. You John Lott hero was a fraudster who conveniently ‘lost’ all his data so that nobody could check his figures.

In Missouri and Michigan, concealed-gun permits had no effect at all on crime rates, and in Massachusetts restrictive gun laws were followed by reduced crime rates.

JackVigdor wrote:
“Legal gun owners are not committing the crimes.”

Congratulations on producing a self-serving statement of the obvious. Criminals are not legal gun-owners by definition…

Tell me; how many people do you know who were born criminals? None? Then everybody can be a legal gun-owner right up to point where they commit their first crime.

Dec 09, 2012 8:39am EST  --  Report as abuse
Abulafiah wrote:

randburg100 wrote:
“Why do so many North Americans have such a need to carry around a gun?”

It makes them feel tough and important…

Personally, I think a person who says he likes guns is the last person who should be trusted with one.

What I find more surprising is that all the nuts who label them selves as ‘responsible, law-abiding gun-owners’ are so scared of having to prove it. In the UK, a wannabe gun owner has to prove that he is responsible. He has to talk to a psychologist. he has to have other people confirm he is responsible. He has to talk to the police. He has to have a safe place to lock it up in.

In the US, they don’t, and they freak out whenever anybody suggests that they should. I think their fear of proving they are responsible pretty much tells us all we need to know, as do the posts in forums like this.

Dec 09, 2012 8:50am EST  --  Report as abuse
Yacoub wrote:

these fatal weapons must be banned, why civilian people carry those fatal handguns? why legislators authorize carrying them? is it the influence of the gun cartel? the souls of innocent people is more valued than to be wasted cheaply in this way. the U.S people must push their legislators in this trend

Dec 09, 2012 10:46am EST  --  Report as abuse
KaosHiker wrote:

I grew up with five brothers and sisters. We kept Loaded guns in the corners of practically every room in our house. LOADED.
You see We were taught about guns at an early age.
We did not have any accidents ever.
I raised My children the same way. No accidents Ever. My youngest Son who is in the U.S. Military shoots 40/40 on the gun range.
Ignorance is the real killer, Not the Gun.
Rules.
1 … There is No such thing as an Unloaded gun. Always assume a Gun is loaded. Even if someone tells You it is not.
2 … Never point at Gun at anything that You are not going to shoot. Thats how accidents happen.
3 … Never handle a weapon or play with it for any reason.
You only pick up a Weapon if You plan to use it.

Our Constituition says We have the right to bear arms.
It also states that this right can NOT be Abridged.
That Means … It can not be Amended,Deleted,Changed,or re interpreted to mean something else.
Dont try to take away My guns, just because You cant teach Your children to respect them.

Dec 09, 2012 11:40am EST  --  Report as abuse
USAPragmatist wrote:

@KaosHiker, while I respect and applaud your family’s responsible ownership, using one situation to show that people are safer with guns is just conjecture, the stats show, without a doubt, that you are more likely to die to gun violence, intentional or not, if you own a gun then if you do not.

Dec 09, 2012 1:30pm EST  --  Report as abuse
USAPragmatist wrote:

Others have said this, but it needs to be repeated as it is a VERY important point…

Some gun advocates have used the argument that, well people die from accidents in cars (or object A) so lets ban cars too. Guns are designed with one purpose, to shoot and kill things, either human or animal. Cars, or object A, are not.

I am a firm believer in Constitution, I think it was one of the best documents ever written. And one of the best things about it is it was written in a way to allow changes to it as times changed, one of the most forward looking things are founders did. And, with respect to guns, times have surely changed, from musket loaders and single shot ‘pistols’ that you be lucky to hit someone 10 feet in front of you with, to assault rifles where anyone with a brain can learn to accurately shoot >100 yards with a day of training, and semi-automatic ACCURATE hand guns with 9-15 round, or even greater, clips. We are long beyond the time to ‘update’ the 2nd amendment to still preserve the spirit of it, right to form a militia, yet adjust it for the death potential of modern-day firearms.

Dec 09, 2012 1:38pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ConstFundie wrote:

I loath the thought of this tragedy and the suffering it will cause but I ardently support the Constitutional right to bear arms. Although, i also believe we need to make gun ownership, and especially safety training a priority and requisite.

Remember we also tragically had several children and babies hurt or slowly baked to death this summer by being left in cars, yet who here is for outlawing cars or outlawing driving them in the summer because of it?

Dec 09, 2012 4:08pm EST  --  Report as abuse
JackVigdor wrote:

Abulafiah, banning guns will not get them out of the hands of criminals.

The data still stands, those states in the US which have concealed carry laws experience a reduction in criminal gun activity. Criminals know that when citizens have guns they will use them to protect themselves.

Dec 09, 2012 6:55pm EST  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:

@USAPragmatist

What good is your militia with billy clubs and knives? You will not get all of the guns. You will not get half the guns. They will still circulate. Crime rates will increase as has been shown in Britain and Australia.

In Britain the use of handguns in crime rose by 40% in the two years after the weapons were banned. In 2002 — five years after enacting its gun ban — the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime. In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent), says the D.C. Examiner. Even Australia’s Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:

In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
Sexual assault — Australia’s equivalent term for rape — increased 29.9 percent. Overall, Australia’s violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.

Dec 09, 2012 10:51pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Abulafiah wrote:

TheNewWorld wrote:
“In Britain the use of handguns in crime rose by 40% in the two years after the weapons were banned.”

So… you are still using the ten year old, discredited nonsense put out by the NRA.

First of all: “there were 11.5 homicides per million population in 2010/11″ Compare that with 48 per million in the USA. Clearly, more guns does not, in the real world, reduce homicides.

Second…. “firearms were involved in 11,227 recorded offences in England and Wales,
the seventh consecutive annual fall and a decrease of 13 per cent compared with the
previous year”. Read that again: “the seventh consecutive annual fall”.

Amazing – the NRA stop looking at the figures just as they began to fall. Who would have imagined that? So, in the real world, instead of the cherry-picked figures of the NRA world, the UK banned hand guns and the homicide rate went into decline.

Figures are from the UK Home Office.

TheNewWorld wrote:
“the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime.”

First, you are using NRA figures (again) and those guys are flat out liars.

Try using Google: “The NRA video claims that following the country’s ban, assaults
involving guns rose 28 percent, gun murders increased 19 percent and
home invasions rose 21 percent [...] Australian Federal Attorney General Daryl Williams
accused the NRA of falsifying government statistics and urged the
gun-rights organization to “remove any reference to Australia” from its
website.”

Second, the Australian Bureau of Criminology said nothing of the sort. Check your facts – it says “the number of victims of homicide has been in decline since 1996. In 1996,
there were 354 victims of homicide in Australia compared with 260 in 2010. This is
a decrease of 27 percent.” (Australian crime:Facts & figures 2011)

It also says “Over the past 18 years (1 July 1989 to 30 June 2007), the rate* of homicide incidents decreased from 1.9 in 1990-91 and 1992-93 to the second-lowest recorded rate, of 1.3, in 2006-07. *rate per 100,000 population.”

Compare that rate to the 48 per million in the USA – more proof that guns do not reduce violent crime.

Thirdly, you are factually wrong: “In the 18 years before the gun law reforms, there were 13 mass shootings in Australia, and none in the 10.5 years afterwards. Declines in firearm‐related deaths before the law reforms accelerated after the reforms for total firearm deaths (p=0.04), firearm suicides (p=0.007) and firearm homicides (p=0.15)” (Australia’s 1996 gun law reforms: faster falls in firearm deaths, firearm suicides, and a decade without mass shootings)

and

“We find that the buyback led to a drop in the firearm suicide rates of almost 80%, with no significant effect on non-firearm death rates. The effect on firearm homicides is of similar magnitude but is less precise.” (Do Gun Buybacks Save Lives? Evidence from Panel Data)

* * * * *

Finally, virtually all of your ‘post’ is copied and pasted from the Republican ‘think-tank’, NCPA – “AUSTRALIA: MORE VIOLENT CRIME DESPITE GUN BAN” April 13, 2009.

It seems to be a right-wing habit to copy and paste from some right-wing website or other.

Dec 10, 2012 3:33am EST  --  Report as abuse
ChrisinOhio wrote:

Let me start by offering my condolences to the family of the little boy who died.

This father will have to live the remainder of his life knowing that he killed his own child. I cannot begin to imagine the pain this must be causing him.

That being said, this tragedy was completely preventable.

The father didn’t violate one of the laws of gun safety. He didn’t even violate two of the laws of gun safety.

In fact, unless he managed to somehow pull the trigger with an object rather than his finger it appears that he violated all three of the most important rules of firearms safety.

If he had only violated any one of the three his son would be alive today.

1) Always keep the gun pointed in a safe direction.

This is the primary rule of gun safety. “Safe direction” means that the gun is pointed so that even if it were to go off it would not cause injury or damage.

2. Always keep your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot.

When holding a gun your finger should rest on the frame above the trigger. You should never, ever touch the trigger until you are on target and ready to shoot.

3. Always keep the gun unloaded until ready to use.

Any time you handle a weapon (that’s not being used or carried for self defense) you not only unload it yourself but you request that anyone you hand it to also verify its unloaded status. Even so, all guns should be treated as if they were loaded.

If he had violated rules #1 and #2 but followed #3 his son would be alive.

If he had violated rules #2 and #3 but followed #1 his son would be alive.

If he had violated rules #1 and #3 but followed #2 his son would be alive.

It is very hard to correct bad habits when it comes to firearms safety. It is very easy to teach good habits to beginners.

In closing, the three biggest concerns to any firearms owner should be safety, safety and safety.

I would encourage all gun owners and anyone contemplating purchasing a firearm to take a firearms safety course of at least 4 hours in length. These are offered by multiple organizations and agencies.

It might just save someone’s life.

Chris in Ohio
Firearms Instructor since 1992

Dec 11, 2012 7:30pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ConstFundie wrote:

I strongly agree with ChrisinOhio.

@USAPragmatist and Abulafiah,

It is, so far, an immutable historical fact that societies eventually degenerate, and often to a rule by tyrants. The right to bear arms is not primarily about personal safety, it is about the people maintaining the means to resist, and dissuade cold-war-style, a tyrannical authority. I have read a reasoning for the right to bear arms was once summed by T. Jefferson as, my paraphrase from memory, ‘invariably Liberty must be refreshed with the blood of tyrants and patriots’.

Dec 12, 2012 3:10am EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.