Moderators: carlson1, longtooth, Keith B

Jumping Frog wrote:I wish I knew when this story occurred.
v-rog wrote:I'm glad that the kids are OK and their was a favorable outcome!
On the other side of the argument, this is another example of Parents not locking-up their firearms and/or keeping the weapons from underage children; similiar to what occured in Sandy Hook. Turn the table a little bit and say that this 15 y/o male had ill feelings toward friends & those in authority. He could use that same firearm to inflict trauma and death on others.
IMO, we have to have a uniform voice concerning our argument and when addressing the anti(s). We don't need more gun legisltaion, a weapons ban, or an EO, we need responsible citizens to account for their firearms & use them in a lawful manner.
BigGuy wrote:Title of thread is misleading. It mentions an AR-15 while the anchor lady clearly identifies the weapon as an "Assault Rifle."![]()
Also noticed a few days ago that ABC's George Stephanopoulos identified the weapon used by the lady who shot the intruder with a crow bar as a .36 caliber revolver.[ Image ]
Pietta Model 1851 Navy .36 Caliber Revolver maybe? [ Image ]
Later in the story another reporter did say it was a .38.

v-rog wrote:I'm glad that the kids are OK and their was a favorable outcome!
On the other side of the argument, this is another example of Parents not locking-up their firearms and/or keeping the weapons from underage children; similiar to what occured in Sandy Hook. Turn the table a little bit and say that this 15 y/o male had ill feelings toward friends & those in authority. He could use that same firearm to inflict trauma and death on others.
IMO, we have to have a uniform voice concerning our argument and when addressing the anti(s). We don't need more gun legisltaion, a weapons ban, or an EO, we need responsible citizens to account for their firearms & use them in a lawful manner.
RPB wrote:Jumping Frog wrote:I wish I knew when this story occurred.
IIRC july 2010 on one 15 year old with an AR156
Another AR15 with a 15 year old protecting sister was ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMg0FQS6Fqo
another incident with a 14 year old was about a year earlier or later.
JALLEN wrote:If he were here in California, he would be heading off to the stony lonesome for the kid accessing it, not secured.
PC §46.13. MAKING A FIREARM ACCESSIBLE TO A CHILD.
(a) In this section:
(1) “Child” means a person younger than 17 years of age.
(2) “Readily dischargeable firearm” means a firearm that is loaded with ammunition, whether or not a round is in the chamber.
(3) “Secure” means to take steps that a reasonable person would take to prevent the access to a readily dischargeable firearm by a child, including but not limited to placing a firearm in a locked container or temporarily rendering the firearm inoperable by a trigger lock or other means
(b) A person commits an offense if a child gains access to a readily dischargeable firearm and the person with criminal negligence:
(1) failed to secure the firearm; or
(2) left the firearm in a place to which the person knew or should have known the child would gain access.
(c) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section that the child's access to the firearm:
(1) was supervised by a person older than 18 years of age and was for hunting, sporting, or other lawful purposes;
(2) consisted of lawful defense by the child of people or property;
JALLEN wrote:The father is a deputy constable. What is a constable? If he were here in California, he would be heading off to the stony lonesome for the kid accessing it, not secured.
RoyGBiv wrote:v-rog wrote:I'm glad that the kids are OK and their was a favorable outcome!
On the other side of the argument, this is another example of Parents not locking-up their firearms and/or keeping the weapons from underage children; similiar to what occured in Sandy Hook. Turn the table a little bit and say that this 15 y/o male had ill feelings toward friends & those in authority. He could use that same firearm to inflict trauma and death on others.
IMO, we have to have a uniform voice concerning our argument and when addressing the anti(s). We don't need more gun legisltaion, a weapons ban, or an EO, we need responsible citizens to account for their firearms & use them in a lawful manner.
If the kid didn't have access to the weapon, he and his sister might be dead, or worse.
Liberty is dangerous. Personal responsibility is required.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests