Woman Shot Over Dress Sense

There are very few justifiable reasons for killing someone. Some would argue that there are none*.

What I am sure of, as sure as I can be of anything in life, is that the way someone is dressed is typically not worth killing them over.

I sincerely hope that when the article states that "the women fought", it means the argument moved on from the way Danielle was dressed to more important things, like whether or not Danielle was secretly a serial killer**. That would help me try to pretend that this event isn't the meaningless tragedy that it is.

Ms Burgess claims she didn't mean to kill Danielle Pickens, which I say is at the very least a stretch of the truth given she shot Pickens in the head.

If it is the case that Ms Burgess didn't mean to shoot, then this incident should be a reminder to all gun owners, actual or aspiring, that with ownership comes responsibility, never mind the responsibilities when you actually use one. One of the first rules anyone who's been trained in gun-handling would know is that you don't aim your gun or put your finger on the trigger unless you intend to shoot.***

I hope that at the very least Danielle's death can help remind people of the care they must take when using guns, otherwise I'm left with only the absurdity that someone's life can be ended for something as trivial as the outfit they wear.

Yours,
Charles

* Successfully or not.
** Even then, if the TV show Dexter has shown us anything, it's that being a serial killer doesn't mean you're necessarily pure evil and should be killed.
*** I myself have never used a gun (there aren't any models made for monkeys) and I still know basic gun safety.