I question their fitness as parents

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So back to op's original question about "parents" justifying the sale of military style rifles (modern sporting rifles) and high capacity clips, I've. Been following the coverage of gun appreciation day and listening to the arguments people are quoted as saying in the articles. The only justification appears to be the slippery slope argument - after assault rifles and high capacity ammo, they'll come after all our guns. WE DON'T WANT ALL YOUR GUNS. We want to limit the possibility that somebody can take down more than ten people in under 1 minute, as was the case in Tuscon, or riddle an innocent 6 year gold's body with bullets and then kill 19 of his claßmates, his teachers in only a couple of.minutes. This is not the hypothetical. The hypothetical is that the government will come after more once they ban assault weapons and high capacity clips. Given how difficult it is to get any gun safety legislation passed, how can you argue that?

Some people collect. Some people enjoy shooting different guns. You live in a suburban/city area. Nationwide gun control will control those that also live in very rural areas, and have ample safe space to enjoy their hobby. Furthermore, if you live near the borders and are dealing with illegals and drug cartels, why on earth do you feel it's ok to reduce the firepower of those individuals? Might I suggest you live on their ranches/in their homes and deal with what they do?

[Anonymous]

So is your argument that civilians need to have access to modern sporting rifles and high capacity ammunition clips because -
1 people like to.collect guns
2 people enjoy shooting different guns
3 peolple need to deal with illegals and drug cartels
4 because people live on ranches
Is this your argument?

Do.you realize that across the country parents in PTA meetings are seriously considering.things like lining classroom walls with bullet proof materials in a vein attempt to
1 protect their children from being riddled with bullets in a gun massacre and avoid the possibility of needing a closed casket funeral for their child

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So is your argument that civilians need to have access to modern sporting rifles and high capacity ammunition clips because -
1 people like to.collect guns
2 people enjoy shooting different guns
3 peolple need to deal with illegals and drug cartels
4 because people live on ranches
Is this your argument?

Do.you realize that across the country parents in PTA meetings are seriously considering.things like lining classroom walls with bullet proof materials in a vein attempt to
1 protect their children from being riddled with bullets in a gun massacre and avoid the possibility of needing a closed casket funeral for their child

And because not every person is irresponsible. You can put that as number 1.

3 and 4 are linked. Are you as incensed about the rancher found shot to death on his own property be illegals crossing through?

Given the stats on school shootings and the odds of their child being involved, I'd say they were being alarmist. I'm not requesting this at my son's school. BTW, how on EARTH will lining classroom walls with bullet proof materials be of any benefit? Shows the silliness.

[Anonymous]

I'm sorry but you still haven't articulated a reason why modern sporting rifles and high capacity ammunition should be available to civilians. Because
1 not every person is irresponsible.

Does that add merit to your argument? Civilians should have access to modern sporting rifles and high capacity ammunition because not every person is irresponsible. Civilians should have access to modern sporting rifles and high capacity ammunition because a rancher was shot dead by illegal aliens. Is this your rationale?

Yes, it is silly to line walls with bullet proof material. Why are PTA's considering such measures?

I do not consider the concerned over the increasing frequency of mass shootings alarmist.

[Anonymous]

I forgot your last point:

Civilians should have access to modern sporting rifles and high capacity ammunition because the liklihood of it actually being your child who is riddled with bullets in the next mass shooting is relatively small, statistically speaking.

Well, I care about other people's children, too. And as for the rancher, choose another type of firearm for protection.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm sorry but you still haven't articulated a reason why modern sporting rifles and high capacity ammunition should be available to civilians. Because
1 not every person is irresponsible.

Does that add merit to your argument? Civilians should have access to modern sporting rifles and high capacity ammunition because not every person is irresponsible. Civilians should have access to modern sporting rifles and high capacity ammunition because a rancher was shot dead by illegal aliens. Is this your rationale?

Yes, it is silly to line walls with bullet proof material. Why are PTA's considering such measures?

I do not consider the concerned over the increasing frequency of mass shootings alarmist.

Why shouldn't they? By taking them all away you are saying that every single person that owns them are irresponsible and/or criminal. That makes no sense to me, who feels people need to be judged on their individual merit.

I'm asking you if you have empathy for the rancher killed on his own ranch by illegals who didn't want the possibility of being turned in. You have empathy for all other innocents killed by guns. In addition the illegal had a gun. I-L-L-E-G-A-L.

Concern is one thing. Spending money on stupid things to alleviate that concern is quite another.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I question anyone who refers to "parents" as "mommies and daddies."

I do not own a gun but we've given up too many freedoms since 9/11 and I'm not willing to give up any more. Obviously, no gun law is going to stop anyone from killing if this is their intent. Instead of more gun laws, how about we spend more time and money on mental and emoional health.

So the loss of privacy and other civil liberties was just too bad, but taking our guns, that's a step too far? Well, those are some... priorities. Gun laws have been proven around the world to sharply reduce violent death. Sure, there are knives and blades (as in that attack in China), and someone can always beat a person, but guns are the only viable option for some moron to try to take out a bunch of people for maximum attention. Just because the number can't be reduced to zero doesn't mean it's meaningless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
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.

I have been burglarized and first off, almost all of these take place when you aren't home. The actual number of times when a person is able to safeguard their family after a burglary is very small. I get that this is what you have been lead to believe will make you and your loved ones safer, but it just isn't so.

If you really want to minimize your chances of being burglarized, invest in a home security system and a dog. Seriously. Burglars hate dogs.

[Anonymous]

A friend of mine's parents were being robbed and the dad ran and got his camera and started taking pictures of the robber. He ran off. Didn't want to be identified. And this was in rural Michigan Just sayin'

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I question anyone who refers to "parents" as "mommies and daddies."

I do not own a gun but we've given up too many freedoms since 9/11 and I'm not willing to give up any more. Obviously, no gun law is going to stop anyone from killing if this is their intent. Instead of more gun laws, how about we spend more time and money on mental and emoional health.

So what other freedoms have we given up since 9/11 other than the freedom to travel in the air without the annoyance of goign through security? Can you actually name any other "freedoms"?

And just for the record, the fact that you think everyday Americans should be "free" to own and keep at their house assault rifles and guns with high magazine cartridges is crazy. Guns are dangerous. Period. Some guns - the ones that can fire 40+ rounds/minute - are VERY dangerous when in the wrong hands. There is absolutely no legitimate purpose for a person to own these guns. None. People want them for sport or ego or hobby - but that just isn't a good enough reason and it doesn't mean a "freedom" is being taking away.

It is just plain old common sense.

[Anonymous]

Bathrooms apparently are more dangerous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ah, so that particular one was defective, or maybe that brand isn't so good. That's what research is for. After all, you get what you pay for. There are also all sorts of other safes that can keep kids out. And BTW? you can keep a magazine or clip loaded in one place and your gun somewhere else and have it loaded and ready to go in under 15 seconds. I don't know many intruders who move at warp-speed or have invisibility cloaks. In most situations, people have time to get their weapons. This has been shown time and again.

Yes. But when I ask if your house is safe for kids, and you give me that "ever heard of a biometric safe?" then I have to ask you whether it is a good one, whether you have bolted it down, whether your kids know where the backup key is, whether ALL of the guns are in there, whether you do routine inspections, whether you carry and if so where is the gun when you are out of the house, how do you secure your gun in the car. Do you ever forget to secure your weapon when you get home and shower. Do you have a backup weapon in a second location that is just hidden, not secured. it goes on and on.

My in-laws are a perfect example. Great gun safe. But the guns aren't always in there. FIL knows where they are, but MIL doesn't. When I ask she says "I'm sure they are locked up". Then I go ask him when he gets home and we go around and put everything back in the safe before the grandkids find them. They aren't dumb people. They aren't used to having kids around.

Yes, it can all be done well. But the fact is that more than half don't even get the basics right, and most of the rest make mistakes.

You should ask. That's your job. And if you don't like the answers, your kid doesn't go to that person's house. That's also your job. Don't assume, though, that everyone is irresponsible.

THe problem is that I can't prove that anyone is reliable, unless I know them well. How do I separate the mom who says "yes, hubby has a gun safe" from the mom who really knows all the guns are in the safe"? I can't.

How would I know that you are responsible? Your answer was "biometric safe". That's like a company saying they are safe from hackers because they have a firewall.

So what would convince me that your home is safe for my children to visit?

I don't have to convince you. If I told you that things were secure, showed you, and you kept pushing and pushing, I would tell you that it's not a good idea for your child to come to my home, because clearly you are uncomfortable.

You have choices. Exercise them. Take responsibility.

You JUST TOLD ME TO ASK, that it's MY JOB. So as practice, I ask you, an avowed "responsible gun owner", with an open ended question. I gave you an opportunity to answer it in the best way you could, so that I could learn from you about what to look for in other people..

So what did you do? Totally folded. Because of one open-ended question.

[Anonymous]

You ask. I answer. But you still want convincing. i can't convince, only tell the truth and show you the truth. Which tells me if your kid so much as bumps his knee in my home, you are a lawsuit risk.

[Anonymous]

As I understand it, those who oppose restrictions on military assault weapons and high capacity magazines fall into two camps.

The first is those who just enjoy shooting the most powerful weapons they can get their hands on, hopefully only at a shooting range. They may view this as a "cool" hobby, which is understandable on some level. But others may view possessing and shooting off certain high explosives as cool also, but government regulates and even prohibits such substances because of the dangers of misuse and that the materials will fall into the wrong hands.

The second argument is one advanced by extreme gun rights advocates. They claim that the Second Amendment effectively gives the citizenry the same right of access to weapons that the government may possess. The concept is sthat the citizenry should be sufficiently armed to resist the government by all forcible means if necessary. So if the military has assault weapons and high capacity magazines so should Joe Public. Where this breaks down is that the federal government also has lethal drones and even nuclear weapons, but does anyone think that the Second Amendment confers a right of access to those? Oh, and the notion that the Second Amendment is basically immune to regulation and restriction conveniently overlooks the "well regulated" language in the text itself (and Supreme Court cases).

The latter argument is championed basically by the same folks who are obsessed with black helicopters and believe that FEMA has secretly bought thousands of railcars from China and modern guillotines with the plan of rounding up and killing Christian patriots in federal extermination camps. (I am not making this up -- Google it.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You ask. I answer. But you still want convincing. i can't convince, only tell the truth and show you the truth. Which tells me if your kid so much as bumps his knee in my home, you are a lawsuit risk.

No. All you said so far was "biometric gun safe". What else did you say that I missed?