Today's gun story

[PJMcK]

Dad charged with intentionally shooting toddler son in face with shotgun

A Michigan father intentionally shot his 2-year-old son in the face during a heated argument with the boy’s mother last Tuesday, prosecutors said.

(snip)

Glance allegedly held a pistol to the boy’s temple and pulled the trigger, but it malfunctioned, mlive.com reported.

The mother took the boy to the car and strapped him in a seat, the report said. Glance came out of the house with a shotgun and allegedly fired the weapon, blowing half his son’s face off, according to the report.

Glance fired at the mother as she fled with her son in the car, but the shotgun malfunctioned, Rezmierski said.

The baby boy survived but is in critical condition. Imagine his life going forward! One day he will learn that his father tried to kill him. What a burden.

The father is clearly not a responsible gun owner. His actions speak loudly to that fact. Additionally, it's interesting to me as a non-gun owner that both of his weapons failed. Responsible gun owners tell me that these machines need to be properly maintained to be safe and effective.

I wonder what the argument was about provoking the boy's father to try to kill him. Pure speculation but perhaps the mother told him he wasn't the father. Regardless, his actions are criminal and hard to fathom. Who would shoot a 2-year old?

There's a little more at the link:

https://nypost.com/2019/04/22/dad-charged-with-intentionally-shooting-toddler-son-in-face-with-shotgun/

[Nay]

1. "Who would shoot a two-year-old?" They are called family annihilators -- kill the kid(s) first, so

the mom suffers horribly, then kill mom. They are not uncommon; every few weeks one of these monsters lets loose with this devastating behavior. Sometimes they kill themselves, which leaves me shouting, "Why didn't you start with yourself, you bag of pus??"

[PJMcK]

2. But the Second Amendment says we must be able to have guns

All of this baffles me. Why do people want guns? Do some people really feel that they are in that much in danger?