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