Follow Barack Obama prior and during his tenure as the 44th President of the United States. Read about my personal observations along with every day facts as they happen. This blog will only submit factual information about the first black President, now in his 2nd term of office.


Send E-mail to the Editor at:

Search This Blog

Children Killed by Other Children Using Guns - Who should be blamed for this?

Wednesday, May 1, 2013

A story that was highlighted on many news outlets is one that noone either supporting gun control or NOT supporting gun control wants to hear.
As quoted from a CNN news story today, "A Kentucky mother stepped outside of her home just for a few minutes, but it was long enough for her 5-year-old son to accidentally shoot and kill his 2-year-old sister with the .22-caliber rifle he got for his birthday, state officials said."

Boy, 5, Fatally Shoots 2-Year-Old Sister | Video - ABC News

What can you say when you hear of such a sad thing. A 5-year old kills his 2-year old sister with a gun. Who in their right mind would buy a real gun for a 5-year-old boy, and then load it with bullets. Did the parents expect the boy not to touch the gun, or better yet not point it until he was of age to actually be able to purposely  aim at a target then shoot, or did they think that even though the gun was real and was loaded with bullets, that the boy had no idea on how to aim the gun and pull the trigger. How ignorant was the mother in this case? Yes, this is very unfortunate for the boy, who will grow up now knowing that he actually killed his younger sister.
Was the boy in the wrong for pointing the gun and actually trying to fire the gun. In my opinion, absolutely not. It was not a premeditated act, but in this killing as in ALL killings, someone needs to be responsible for it.
The parents may not be in the room, therefore you may think that they couldn't be responsible because they were nowhere near the gun. But what they actually did was allow their son to be able to grab a loaded weapon and shoot it. The boy could have just likely aimed the gun at himself, looking down the barrel and pulled the trigger. He just could not seriously realize that he could kill someone with the gun.
There is no question that this is a very sad thing for the family, but to make things worse, the parents or at least one of them, namely the mother who was supposed to be watching her son, and who purchased the gun for their 5 year old boy, need to be accountable for the 5 year-old's actions.
Someone needs to be accountable for the girls death. So this means that it is possible that the 5 year-old boy may have to grow up without one of his parents or maybe even both, besides not growing up with his sister.  The defense for the mother if tried for the death would be that the 'Cricket rifle' was defective, because it was supposed to have a child safety. Even though, did that give the parents the right to load the gun with live bullets and leave the gun within reach of the boy.
I wanted to find out more about this cricket rifle that the CNN article talks about. Here is a picture of the kidscorner page, which can be found at Just checkout the pictures and leave your comments on this blog. Please read on after checking out the pictures of the children highlighted on the webpage. Maybe it's just a thing that I'm totally against personally owning any type of gun. My age is 61. Some of the subjects in the pictures on this website cant even be of age 10.

If I am wrong with my thinking, someone let me know. I do believe that someone of legal age, someone who is competent enough to be able to fire a gun responsibly, someone who is not a prior criminal, be responsible for going through proper background checks. Do the children in these pictures look to be of age to purchase a gun? Absolutely not.

And then there are testimonials....   Check this out, from the testimonial page of the website....

Here's what our customers have to say about our products:
"I recently purchased one of your Davey Crickett rifles (My First Rifle) from my 7 yr. old daughter and I would like to say that i have nothing but positive things to say about it. To put it simply, she loves it and looks forward to going shooting with me at every opportunity. It is obvious that a good deal of time was spent in the development of this product as it is perfectly designed for kids in regards to length and weight. My daughter is rapidly improving her marksmandship and takes the responsibility of a firearm very seriously. She is also looking forward to going squirrel hunting with me this upcoming season. In closing, I will recommend your product to everyone that might be interested in it. This pink polymer stock was an excellent tought, I might add. P.S. I am going to take the liberty of sending a note to Field & Stream magazine recommending your product, as well."
Jessie--From Ohio

Note, that in the first line in the testimonial says "from my 7 yr. old daughter" and clearly the line should read "for my 7 year old daughter." Does the typo make it right to print such a testimonial about a 7 year old. To me, this is absolutely sick. Another typo.... 'marksmandship'.   How professional is this website. This is supposed to be a business.

How about these testimonials....

"Thank you for supporting the next generation of recreational shooters. My 4 1/2 year old daughter thought the "pink one" was far superior to a black synthetic stock,who am i to argue? I never would have thought that a pink rifle would be sitting in the rack in the gun room. I look forward to when my daughter is a bit older and ready to begin her journey in the great sport of shooting."  

'who am i to argue?'  Another mispelling

Is it right for this 4 1/2 old girl should be anywhere near a rifle just because it was of "pink" stock?

And then there is this story....

"I bought this as a first rifle for my 9 year old daughter who's name is Dakota.She is thrilled and so am I as I never thought one of my daughters would take an interest in shooting which is one of my favorite hobbies. I will get to spend a lot more time with her now because of it. Thanks"

How revealing is that statement. The father actually believes that just because a rifle for his 9 year old daughter, that now he's going to be able to spend more time with her. Does this mean that if she decided that she wanted to play with dolls instead of guns, that he would spend less time with her? That seems to be exactly what he is saying.

Anyone reading this article really doesn't have to take my word on this. I invite anyone and anyone that takes the slightest interest in this article go directly to the 'Cricket' website and check it out for yourself at at

The full CNN story can be found right here on their website....


Anonymous May 1, 2013 at 11:40 PM  

I agree, allowing children to be able to have access to guns is a crime in itself. An adult is not allowed to buy a gun for someone else who is not authorized to buy a gun or cannot pass a background check, so why is it that parents are allowed to buy guns for their own pre-teen children? Parents who do this need to be accountable for whatever happens when their child discharges a gun, especially if anyone is killed.

  © Free Blogger Templates Columnus by 2008

Back to TOP