After 2-year-old girl shoots self, man becomes first person charged under Michigan's gun storage law
apnews.com
A Michigan man whose 2-year-old daughter shot herself in the head with his revolver last week pleaded not guilty after becoming the first person charged under the state’s new law requiring safe storage of guns.
Michael Tolbert, 44, of Flint, was arraigned Monday on nine felony charges including single counts of first-degree child abuse and violation of Michigan’s gun storage law, said John Potbury, Genesee County’s deputy chief assistant prosecuting attorney.
Tolbert’s daughter remained hospitalized Wednesday in critical condition from the Feb. 14 shooting, Potbury said. The youngster shot herself the day after Michigan’s new safe storage gun law took effect.
You are viewing a single comment
Target practice. Inherited heirlooms. Defense while camping. People find them cool. People keep guns for the same reason people keep swords. I understand that it is a tool designed for killing but at the end of the day it is still a tool. Don't get me wrong I'm still all for gun control but I do understand why people would want to keep a gun in their home. You don't have to agree with it but you shouldn't punish people who responsibly own firearms.
That's the problem. I don't think it's possible to be responsible and own a firearm.
I wouldn't keep a tiger in my house. I don't care if dad bequeathed it to me, or I totally have a lock on the door, or it's ok, I've done a tiger training course. Why invite the risk? Because I really fucking like tigers? Fuck everyone else, I like tigers.
Okay that's interesting thought. See the difference in your example is that a tiger is a sentient being but you have no control over. If I got bequeathed a tiger I probably surrender that too. A gun is a tool which is easily contained. What's the difference between keeping a firearm and a sword or a bow and arrow when there are also tools initially designed to kill/maime?
The control in both these examples comes from the human. Who should be smart enough not to keep weapons or tigers in a house. That decision is available to everyone. Unless your intention is to maim or kill. Then it makes sense.
I see your mind is made up on this topic. You also haven't addressed anything I have said. Good talk.
You giving up your guns?
No. Good luck on your crusade.
This is just flat out dumb, none of my firearms have ever been used for violence. They're in a safe, and not loaded, and all my ammo is in another part of the house. Just because you can't fathom how it's possible to be safe with something that's dangerous, doesn't mean they're automatically dangerous by themselves. Do you lock up your kitchen knives? Or make sure your matches are separate from the box they come in?
Why do you have firearms?
Whole bunch of reasons.
I own a farm for one, I hunt, I carry daily, it's a right that should be exercised, I shoot competitively because it's fun, I collect them as well, and I love mechanical things.
And way more of us on the left are armed than you think, and more of us daily are becoming armed. I personally have gotten 4 of my left leaning friends to become firearm owners.
Do you drive a car?
A car can be used to maim and kill. But its main use is transport. Try again.
So, no disinfectants (chemicals intended to kill, just really small things) either?
How about pets? A cat's teeth and claws were designed to kill, as are a dog's fangs ...err canines
I mean you can be as obtuse as you like. If that comforts you.
As with you and your intransigency
It's irrefutable what guns are for. I can't change my mind on a fact.