Chard wrote on May 4
th, 2013 at 2:08am:
Demotivational Posters: For when you can't actually refute an argument, post a decade old meme!
Ok, lets look at the facts here. The mother of the children left a five-year old to "play" with an unsecured rifle while she cleaned the house. She also either failed to clear the rifle beforehand or she left unsecured ammunition where he son could find it. So right off the bat she commited the following errors,
1. She left an unsecured firearm where children could get access to it.
2. She knowingly allowed a five year old to "play" with an actual firearm.
3. She failed to either teach proper gun safety to that child despite living in a household with firearms in it.
4. She failed to properly clear the weapon and/or had unsecured ammo around the home.
Not a single bit of that is the fault of Cricket, the rifle's manufacturer. Now keep in mind that in the US there at tens of thousands of "youth" rifles purchased by parents to teach there children to shoot. If this is so dangerous then why am Iam not seeing more stories like the OP?
Oh, right, because Stephanie Sparks is an idiot who let a five year old "play" with a loaded firearm unsupervised while she was busy cleaning, her two year old died because of it, and you goulish f*ckwits are to busy screaming "guns are bad" to understand that had Stephanie Sparks not left a five year old alone with a gun that this incident wouldn't have happened.
Ok, Chard, let's see if I can get through to you. Unlikely, but there is always hope.
A gun is a weapon, not a toy. It has no place in the hands of a child barely out of nappies.
The parents were crazy to give a lethal weapon to a five-year-old. But some parents do stupid things. They could be prevented doing this stupid thing if the gun wasn't built, advertised and sold as suitable for children.
I guess the difference between us is that you think it is acceptable for a 5yo to have a gun as long as there is parental supervision. I don't.