6-year-old fatally shot by a 9-year-old, authorities say
6-year-old fatally shot by a 9-year-old, authorities say
How the children obtained guns remains a part of the ongoing investigation, according to the Sheriff's office.
How the children obtained guns remains a part of the ongoing investigation, according to the Sheriff's office.
You're viewing a single thread.
OP, keep your editorializing out of it.
"how the children obtained guns"? The article gives no indication that there were multiple guns. Your editorializing makes it sound like they were playing with guns and shooting at each other.
The story is bad enough as it is without you lying about it.
It's literally the sub-title on the linked article.
Still wrong
Literally follows the rules of the community. It's as right as can be. point your complaints to npcnews.
npcnews.
Yeah, I know that's a typo, but now I want to know what NPC News is like. "Today, several PCs rampages through the streets and caused $10 million in property damage."
See also: Free Guy.
Can do.
Permanently Deleted
You should probably at least click on the article before you start accusing OP of editorializing just because you don't like what it says.
I actually read the article.
If that's true and you expect us to believe that, then you don't know what "editorializing" means.
That's good. I stand corrected.
But if you read it in the article, why were you trying to tell OP off then? This isn't OC.
Edit @Drusas it's petty of you to downvote me when you can see I'm not downvoting you.
And it's childish to downvote me when I haven't downvoted you.
The line you quoted as "editorializing" ("how the children obtained guns") is literally a line pulled directly from the article subheader. In other words, there's no editorialization from OP. Like, you do realize that... right? By your replies, I can't tell if you're just trolling hard or that oblivious.
If you'd kept up with the thread, you would know you're like the third person to point that out. It is editorializing; I just didn't recognize the correct source.
Ok, bud. 😂
/Person acknowledges fault. Continue to act like a jerk to them.
Good job there, buddy.
You came out aggressively swinging from comment one, pal. Not sure what's got you at an 11, but I guess I could have been nicer. That's my bad.
You have misread. I was never at an 11 or even above like a three. Internet problems.
Fair enough. May your future internet interactions trend more positive. Have a good rest of your night, day, or whatever time it is where you're at.
🖖
💀
Tell me you didn't read the article, without telling me you didn't read the article...
OP here. Wow, this is just wrong and nasty.
Is this an example of someone being confidently incorrect?
