Your views on Raheem Sterling's gun tattoo?

[Participant]

Sorry if there's already a discussion on this, I couldn't see one.

Raheem Sterling has gotten a tattoo of an automatic weapon on his lower leg.

Interesting twitter discussion going on with Piers Morgan (for the prosecution) and Gary Lineker (for the defence).

Raheem has published an explanation, which is basically that his dad was shot.

Is this tattoo completely inappropriate going into a tournament where it could be seen by billions as glorifying guns (if he doesn't pull his socks up!), or is it perfectly ok and is this just another example of Sterling / England players being targeted by the media ahead of a major tournament?

Personally I'm in what appears to be the minority in saying that he should be a role model and the tattoo is inappropriate.

The explanation aims to tug at the heart strings, but doesn't really make any sense to me. If his dad was killed by a Ford Mondeo would he tattoo that on his leg too? The explanation doesn't appear to be any kind of anti-gun commentary, just saying that he'll personally never touch a gun (just tattoo one to his leg ) and he shoots at goal with that leg.

Lots of footballers are a bit thick, so I didn't expect a deep poetic explanation of the tattoo, but I'm not sure it's a well advised thing to do. I actually think he's done it for the coolness factor then panicked and made something up / linked it retrospectively to his dad.

But then he doesn't owe anyone, least of all me, an explanation I suppose!

And the explanation:

 

[Participant]

Whatever the reason for the tattoo, it's irresponsible for someone in his position.

And to the 'it's none of our business' posters, we all form opinions on things that are none of our business every single day. Nothing wrong with voicing opinions on things that are nothing to do with us, even though I maintain it is public business.