Boy uses Dad's AR-15 to Shoot Invader- Thank God For The 2nd

Reports of actual crimes and investigations, not hypothetical situations.

Moderators: carlson1, Keith B


texanjoker

Re: Boy uses Dad's AR-15 to Shoot Invader- Thank God For The

#16

Post by texanjoker »

Great story. I also noted the boy is a deputy constables son... Good job teaching your son how to protect your home sir!

SRH78
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 513
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2011 8:53 pm

Re: Boy uses Dad's AR-15 to Shoot Invader- Thank God For The

#17

Post by SRH78 »

v-rog wrote:
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.
My point is the same in both situations. If the (Sandy Hook) shooter didn't have access to his mom's weapons, we probably wouldn't be looking at potential bans & EOs. Yes the young boy did the right thing and fought off the burglers, but are you going to apply firearms "personal responsiblity" to young kids? No, it's the parent's responsibility to lock-up guns and the father should have known better as he is a law enforcement officer!

IMO, to be consistent, we have to keep the firearms argument to enforcing current laws and not creating new laws, bans, etc...
Adam Lanza wasn't a kid. He was 20 years old. Are you suggesting a 20 year old shouldnt legally have access to a firearm? He, as an individual, shouldn't have but it isn't because of his age.

Every person is different. Plenty of 15 year olds are responsible and some adults aren't. Should a 17 year old high school graduate who stays out of trouble and has been around firearms all his life be denied the ability to defend himself at home? There are lots of news stories out there of minors successfully defending themselves and their siblings with firearms. Be careful of painting with too broad a brush.
Post Reply

Return to “The Crime Blotter”