I question their fitness as parents

[Anonymous]

OK, here's a point that could probably fall in one of several fora on this site, and I recognize it is sensitive. Seeing all of the vehement, strident, angry views against restrictions on military-style assault weapons and high capacity magazine clips really surprises me. I am especially surprised by those that liken these proposals (which are hardly new or restricting, as there was an assault weapons law for about 10 years) to fascism, etc.

I assume that most writers on this site are mommies or daddies. I get that there are parents who grew up with guns for sport, hunting and personal protection and those who have them now. I choose not to, partly because I would always have doubts about child safety in the home, but I recognize that ohthers make different decisions and that's OK. What I don't understand, though, is how any parent -- after seeing what happened at Sandy Hook school -- could so aggressively oppose restrictions on NEW assault weapons and large ammo clips.

Perhaps the professional flacks at the NRA are spewing their angry propaganda on this site, as they do on others, and so these views don't represent those of parents. But if these are real parents espousing such positions in favor of assault guns well, -- and I don't say this lightly -- but I question your fitness to be a parent. There, I said it.

[Anonymous]

OP, you have asked the ten million dollar question that no one seems to be able to answer: Why does any normal, law abiding citizen need access to high powered, military style weapons. The simple answer is, they don't. No more than any normal, law abiding citizen needs to keep his own personal stash of nuclear weapons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, you have asked the ten million dollar question that no one seems to be able to answer: Why does any normal, law abiding citizen need access to high powered, military style weapons. The simple answer is, they don't. No more than any normal, law abiding citizen needs to keep his own personal stash of nuclear weapons.

Agreed. They don't. But they want to, because they can't stand the thought of someone 'limiting their freedoms'.

[Anonymous]

And those who say they need guns, any guns, for personal protection against intruders? I question them as well. Because anyone I know with guns (and I only know a few) has them all locked up in their home, especially with young children around. So, the armed boogie man who breaks into their home in the middle of the night would have the jump on them. By the time they woke up, got the combination lock box off the high shelf, opened, retrieved gun and loaded...they could have called 911 and had the cops arrive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And those who say they need guns, any guns, for personal protection against intruders? I question them as well. Because anyone I know with guns (and I only know a few) has them all locked up in their home, especially with young children around. So, the armed boogie man who breaks into their home in the middle of the night would have the jump on them. By the time they woke up, got the combination lock box off the high shelf, opened, retrieved gun and loaded...they could have called 911 and had the cops arrive.

You don't sound like someone who's ever been robbed. We've never owned a gun and doubt we'll purchase one, but after a family member was recently burglarized, I can see why many people feel the need for that protection. There can be quite a gap of time between that 911 call and the arrival of help. Since burglars are often "young men" who aren't kind, thoughtful, and easily persuaded to leave peacefully, it's scary to think about how best to make sure your family is safe when they enter your home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And those who say they need guns, any guns, for personal protection against intruders? I question them as well. Because anyone I know with guns (and I only know a few) has them all locked up in their home, especially with young children around. So, the armed boogie man who breaks into their home in the middle of the night would have the jump on them. By the time they woke up, got the combination lock box off the high shelf, opened, retrieved gun and loaded...they could have called 911 and had the cops arrive.

Damned irresponsible parents allowed this kid to have access to a loaded weapon and looked what happened (filed under liberals are idiots)

http://www.federaljack.com/?p=178564

14-year-old Phoenix boy shoots armed intruder while babysitting siblings
December 19, 2012 by POPEYE

According to reports, the knocking turned into banging, and the boy rushed his siblings upstairs and grabbed his father’s handgun.
While at the top of the stairs, he saw an armed man break into the house through the front door.
Without hesitating, he fired at the intruder, wounding him. According to authorities, the intruder never fired a shot.

[ Edited to comply with copyright laws. ]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OK, here's a point that could probably fall in one of several fora on this site, and I recognize it is sensitive. Seeing all of the vehement, strident, angry views against restrictions on military-style assault weapons and high capacity magazine clips really surprises me. I am especially surprised by those that liken these proposals (which are hardly new or restricting, as there was an assault weapons law for about 10 years) to fascism, etc.

I assume that most writers on this site are mommies or daddies. I get that there are parents who grew up with guns for sport, hunting and personal protection and those who have them now. I choose not to, partly because I would always have doubts about child safety in the home, but I recognize that ohthers make different decisions and that's OK. What I don't understand, though, is how any parent -- after seeing what happened at Sandy Hook school -- could so aggressively oppose restrictions on NEW assault weapons and large ammo clips.

Perhaps the professional flacks at the NRA are spewing their angry propaganda on this site, as they do on others, and so these views don't represent those of parents. But if these are real parents espousing such positions in favor of assault guns well, -- and I don't say this lightly -- but I question your fitness to be a parent. There, I said it.

So here's a thought OP. Let's say that you libs act on your thoughts. Do you take these kids away from their parents and put them into the foster care system?

[Anonymous]

Problem with that story is that you know that it's more likely, statistically, that the 14yo would have used the unsecured gun to commit suicide, or that an accidental or purposeful shooting would have harmed someone in the family.

[Anonymous]

Because you are short sighted and not that bright. That is why you don't understand the bigger issue. Now go watch some reality TV and drink your wine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Problem with that story is that you know that it's more likely, statistically, that the 14yo would have used the unsecured gun to commit suicide, or that an accidental or purposeful shooting would have harmed someone in the family.

But he didn't. He saved his siblings. And there have been countless other cases like this. Are these kids' lives worth less than those at Sandy Hook?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Problem with that story is that you know that it's more likely, statistically, that the 14yo would have used the unsecured gun to commit suicide, or that an accidental or purposeful shooting would have harmed someone in the family.

But he didn't. He saved his siblings. And there have been countless other cases like this. Are these kids' lives worth less than those at Sandy Hook?

Is the point that the cases aren't countless? Hence we can have informed policy discussions about the risk vs. reward of the guns being present in the homes. Of course, if we ban guns in homes, we should also ban pools. The statistics point to the pools being just as deadly to children.

[Anonymous]

PP here. I meant to type "Isn't the point.."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Because you are short sighted and not that bright. That is why you don't understand the bigger issue. Now go watch some reality TV and drink your wine.

I fully understand the bigger issue. Think Chicago if you like stats...

What I don't understand is why you would use speculation to make your point and then claim that I'm the one that doesn't understand the bigger issue. Y'all claim that 'guns are only used for killing'. They are also used for self-defense. When that point is brought up, conservatives are called paranoid. But we are not the ones wanting guns banned or strictly controlled because we feel every school is going to be shot up. You like stats? Chance of being involved in a school shooting is 1 in 3 million.

Never let a crisis go to waste.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Problem with that story is that you know that it's more likely, statistically, that the 14yo would have used the unsecured gun to commit suicide, or that an accidental or purposeful shooting would have harmed someone in the family.

But he didn't. He saved his siblings. And there have been countless other cases like this. Are these kids' lives worth less than those at Sandy Hook?

Is the point that the cases aren't countless? Hence we can have informed policy discussions about the risk vs. reward of the guns being present in the homes. Of course, if we ban guns in homes, we should also ban pools. The statistics point to the pools being just as deadly to children.

Informed policy discussions are very different then the knee-jerk idiocy that I'm reading on this site. NRA members want to see kids die. Republicans want the Obama kids to die. Guns are only good for murder. Good LORD

[Anonymous]

I assume that most writers on this site are mommies or daddies.

Jeff will probably weigh in on this shortly, but this forum was invaded by a number of pro-gun freakazoids shortly after Sandy Hook. I think some of them are still hanging around and might not be "mommies or daddies."