Yes, I believe she could undertand right from wrong and that firearms are deadly weapons. From a very young age, I taught her about the safety rules, and the danger of firearms (that they can kill). We discussed why people own firearms, such as, like me, for target shooting, and others uses such as hunting.
As she got older, I explained their use in self-defense; for me, as a last resort only, when there is a threat of death, to protect her and her mother. I also explained that they could not be used otherwise, such as if someone hit me. Yes, I know, and she does now, that there are other instances where a firearm can legally be used, but when she was young, I was just keeping it simple.
She decided to learn to shoot at 8 years old. She knew all the safety rules, how my handguns operated, how to make them safe, and how to break them down. I would not have taught her how to shoot if I did not believe she was responsible enough to handle a firearm. However, as my handguns are either in the safe or on my person, she never had the opportunity to handle my firearms without me present. We also discussed what to do if she found one elsewhere.
How many of her friends, at 10 years old, do you believe fully understood all that to the point of being capable of committing murder against somebody attacking their mother?
I have not taken a poll. This thread is about a specific girl, not mine, and not my daughterâs friends.
Yes, it is. If a child murders someone, leniency is provided, whether or not it is deserved. I seriously doubt this child will become a well-adjusted, law-abiding citizen. I donât know about you, but her statement is chilling, worse coming from a child. It takes a sick mind (not mentally ill, morally corrupt, probably a better fit) to have thoughts like that.
Right, which is why I am speaking more generally about what would be a reasonable expectation of a 10 year old girl, and not your 10 year old daughter who clearly has far more education and training and experience on this topic than most.
It takes a sick mind for a child to say somebody should not have hit the childâs mother?
IâŠdonât see it that way.
Maybe we are each reading differently into that text on paper, I donât see how that is automatically and necessarily a morally corrupt, sick mind, for a 10 year old to say someone should not have hit her mother
Context is important. She just killed a person and said that while still holding the firearm. The meaning is clear to me, that she intentionally killed the person for striking her mother. That attitude is stereotypically identified with thugs and/or gang members, not children, and not with good, moral people.
I didnât get that much detail, I may not have read it as carefully or read it a different time and it was edited, I didnât picture her still holding the firearm (not sure how much that matters though), and I donât see that statement as meaning she intentionally killed them, either.
This is why itâs so important not to say anything until talking to an attorney. I can 1000% see âshe should not have hit my motherâ as not meaning âI intentionally killed her and feel no remorseâ, but, that seems to be the conclusion you have drawn, from reading a one sentence quote in text.
Well, I donât know either, but if you shot someone and told the witness that that person should not have hit my mother, would not the shooting have been intentional?
We all know the answer to that first question. I will presume you mean an intentional shooting that results in death. However to answer the question you asked, no, as not all shootings lead to death, and even those that do, not all would be murder, most would be homicides (the exception being suicides). I do not believe I need to go through the list of all the legalities defining justified homicide, etc., as you are an educated man.
As to the second question, I, as usual, posted the links to the stories I quoted.
I sense you missed my sarcasm. Watch the video. This family lives, everyday, in the kind environment you are all afraid you might âfind yourself inâ. She pulled a handgun, aimed, and shot with the purpose of ending the threat. Unfortunately, for her, it was not a deadly threat. If it was then that little girl would probably be considered a hero. Right?
In this case, physical age does not matter. Those are the acts of someone who knows exactly what their intended actions will produce, and in my opinion, would do it again.
What are the acts of someone who knows what their actions will produce and what are th actions of someone âwould do it againâ?
Iâm just not seeing how a mainstream news article with a one sentence quote is enoufh to declare this 10 year defending her mother is a morally corrupt cold blooded murderer
Youâre right. Read it however you want. She wonât get the help, resources, or support she obviously needs. She is a blip on the news for 2A to debate - when there is no debate.