|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
CA: 10-year-old girl shoots sister with father's service gun
Submitted by:
Bruce W. Krafft
Website: http://www.keepandbeararms.com/
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
"Fresno police say the 10-year-old daughter of a Madera County sheriff's lieutenant shot her younger sister with their father's gun in an apparent accident."
"Fresno Police Lt. Joe Gomez says the 8-year-old girl was shot Friday in the torso and is in stable condition."
"Gomez tells the Fresno Bee ... that the girls' father was getting ready for work and had removed the magazine on his handgun before leaving it on a bed while he got ready for work."
"He says the 10-year-old grabbed the gun and discharged a bullet left in the chamber hitting the younger girl." ... |
| Comment by:
harp1034
(2/17/2015)
|
| There is only one way to stop this from happening again. Police officers should not take their weapons home. Weapons should be turned in at the end of their shift. Most countries already do this. It is time for the United States to join the rest of the world. |
| Comment by:
Sosalty
(2/17/2015)
|
| Police often exercise less safety than the civilian population. Why, why? didn't this father teach the 10 yr daughter the rules and respect for gun safety?? |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
