Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Those kids and their father are responsible. If you're somewhere where you shouldn't be you deserve to get shot.
The fact is, the kids were not trespassing. They were on public property that according to the article was frequently used for four-wheeling.
Attitudes like this are the reason that many people are screaming for tighter gun controls. The fact that a child is the victim multiplies the volume geometrically.
The law will inject reason where the individual cannot or will not.
I'd love to see the perps locked away for life and turned loose in the general pop.
Attitudes like this are the reason that many people are screaming for tighter gun controls. The fact that a child is the victim multiplies the volume geometrically.
Why is worse if its a kid? By that logic (geometrically worse as the age decreases) , abortion must be the worst crime against man possible, as they are the youngest victims. Care to explain that? Liberals want enhanced punishment for "hate crimes" and crimes against "kids" but have no issue with killing a 20 week old unborn child. Go figure.
For the record, it is a terrible tragedy, and the two perps should be pitched into a cold, dark prison cell for the next 50 years or so. All I can think is they were drug users or manufacturers.
You lost me on "logic" after the question. Unless you also believe that "even" a seven year old should be looked upon as a potential threat to life and property, while not being anywhere close to either.
Get over your fascination with partisan politics, this piece needs a reality check that, apparently, many are lacking around here.
You lost me on "logic" after the question. Unless you also believe that "even" a seven year old should be looked upon as a potential threat to life and property, while not being anywhere close to either.
Get over your fascination with partisan politics, this piece needs a reality check that, apparently, many are lacking around here.
I have to disagree. A 5 year old can "be a potential threat to life and property" just as well as a 7,9 or 11 year old. They all can pull a trigger, steer a car, break windows, light fuses light fires etc.
As for the OP, if in fact what the paper reported was factual then those that shot the kid need never see daylight or freedom again.
There is a big difference with anyone "tearing it up" and being a threat to life and limb.
Why is worse if its a kid? By that logic (geometrically worse as the age decreases) , abortion must be the worst crime against man possible, as they are the youngest victims. Care to explain that? Liberals want enhanced punishment for "hate crimes" and crimes against "kids" but have no issue with killing a 20 week old unborn child. Go figure.
For the record, it is a terrible tragedy, and the two perps should be pitched into a cold, dark prison cell for the next 50 years or so. All I can think is they were drug users or manufacturers.
I love herring.
May I have some more, sir? The red ones look especially inviting.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
