One Child Is Holding Something That’s Been Banned in America to Protect Them: Powerful Gun Control PSAs from Moms Demand Action
I just wanted to share some new public service ads from the organization Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America (an organization formed here in the Indianapolis metro area). For additional information on these ads (including explanations of the things depicted and why and where they have been banned), please see the article Gun Control PSAs By Moms Demand Action Are Striking And Powerful at Huffington Post.
Lest you think that these ads are a little over the top, here is a photo taken at a recent rally in New Hampshire to (apparently) protest the repeal of the state’s “stand your ground law”.
Though it may not be clear, the gun that the boy is holding is apparently an AR-15 — the same sort of gun used in the Sandy Hook massacre. Oh, and the boy? He’s 11 years old. Think about this: He’s apparently old enough to carry an assault rifle, but he isn’t old enough to go to a PG-13 movie on his own or to even play Teen rated video games.
But guns! And freedom!
If you’re a parent of young-ish children, you’ve no doubt encountered all types of safety features on toys and household goods to keep your children safe. Whether it’s warnings about small parts or screws on battery compartments, child-proof pill bottles or latches on cabinet doors, car seats or bike helmets, as a society we’ve placed a premium upon the safety of our children and recognized that because they are children accidents will happen. Yet day after day we read about children getting access to a parent or sibling’s gun and … boom. If I’m not mistaken, I read that last week three toddlers accidentally shot family members. Toddlers. Who somehow managed to get their tiny hands on guns.
Let’s regulate what our kids are allowed to read (we wouldn’t want them to learn about sex or drugs, now would we?).* Let’s regulate the games that they play so that they don’t get hurt. Let’s even regulate their toys so that they don’t hurt themselves. But regulating guns? Tyranny!
Update (May 13, 2013): I've noticed that this post has received quite a few hits from outside the United States. If you're reading this post from outside the United States, please leave a comment telling me how you came upon this post, where you're from, and what you think of the issues that I've been discussing. How does the rest of the world view the gun culture of the United States?
Me he dado cuenta de que este mensaje ha recibido un buen número de éxitos de fuera de los Estados Unidos. Si usted está leyendo este mensaje fuera de los Estados Unidos, por favor deje un comentario diciéndome cómo llegaste a este post, de dónde eres, y lo que piensa de los temas que hemos estado discutiendo. ¿Cómo funciona el resto del mundo ver la cultura de las armas de los Estados Unidos?
J'ai remarqué que ce poste a reçu pas mal de coups venant de l'extérieur des États-Unis. Si vous lisez ce post en dehors des Etats-Unis, laisser un commentaire en me disant comment vous êtes arrivé à ce poste, où vous êtes et ce que vous pensez des questions que j'ai discuté s'il vous plaît. Comment le reste du monde voir la culture des armes à feu des États-Unis?
Ich habe bemerkt, dass dieser Beitrag hat durchaus ein paar Hits von außerhalb der Vereinigten Staaten erhalten. Wenn Sie dies lesen post sind von außerhalb der Vereinigten Staaten, hinterlassen Sie bitte einen Kommentar erzählte mir, wie du auf diesen Beitrag kam, wo Sie sind, und was Sie von den Fragen, die ich besprochen haben. Wie der Rest der Welt sehen die Pistole Kultur der Vereinigten Staaten?
שם לב שהפוסט הזה קיבלה לא מעט להיטים ממחוץ לארצות הברית. אם אתה קורא את הפוסט הזה מחוץ לארצות הברית, בבקשה להשאיר תגובה אומר לי איך אתה נתקל בפוסט הזה, מאיפה אתה, ומה אתה חושב על הנושאים שאני כבר דן. איך שאר העולם רואה את תרבות האקדח של ארצות הברית?
*Query the likelihood that the parents most likely to ask a school to ban a book are also the parents most likely to be opposed to gun control or other “infringements” on parental rights (like the requirement to use a car seat or keep cigarette smoke away from children). My guess is that the correlation would be really, really high (especially if the book to be banned was attacked because of depictions of sex, alcohol or drugs, foul language, or on religious grounds; oh, wait … I think I’ve just described a large portion of attempting book banning incidents). So, yeah, infringe upon what my kid can be taught and read in school, but how dare I try to keep my kid safe by limiting your kid’s access to a gun because, after all, clearly your Second Amendment right outweighs my right to keep my child safe, right?
Labels: Gun Control, Laws, Politics
posted by MSWallack @ 1:10 PM
42 Comments
42 Comments:
Typical libtard bullcrap. Giving a child a gun to hold and not even teaching them proper trigger discipline. You can all go choke on a dick, asswipes.
Ah, yes. Another fine, shining example of what passes for political discourse among the gun-toting, knuckle-dragging class. Thanks so much for sharing the views of the anti-gun control community. Should you be interested, I wrote about your comment: One Child Is Holding Something That’s Been Banned in America to Protect Them: Commenting on a Comment
I just showed this to a coworker in Japan and he asked "Are they (Americans) not ashamed?"
I'm not sure I understand. If what you're asking is whether Americans are ashamed that our elected leaders can't seem to recognize either the will of the voters or need for common sense gun reform, then I'd say probably yes, though I'm not sure "ashamed" is the right word. Angry might be better. If you're asking if we're ashamed at the amount of violence, in particular gun violence, in our society, then it may be a more complicated answer. I for one would answer yes.
But there are far too many that ignore facts and evidence and insted seem to believe that most all of the gun violence is just among criminals (or maybe the urban poor about whom they don't really care); thus, those sorts of people would probably say that they're not at all ashamed about one criminal shooting another.
If the question is whether we're ashamed that we've banned books (yes! always yes!) or dodgeball or candy, then I'd have to say that it's a case-by-case analysis (but I'll admit that sometimes we do stupid things and don't do smart things that we should).
But if the question is whether we're ashamed to use the sorts of images that I've depicted above to try to shape and move the gun control debate, then I'd have to say absolutely not. The NRA and gun rights supporters have been willing to lie and demonize and create all sorts of unsubstantiated risks and conspiracies. So if those of us who support additional gun control need to tug a few heartstrings, I'm not going to lose any sleep over having done so.
Ask your coworker to explain more precisely what he meant and I'll do my best to answer (at least from my viewpont).
I can't understand why parents buy rifles for their children.
Sad America
this is a terrible awful and moronic excuse. if he kids where to put the gun down and tell it to shoot, the guns wouldnt do ANYTHGIN! statistics show that of all the ways people are getting killed, its people with basball bats that are doing most of the killing. that is proven by reports from the FBI and the CIA why not ban THOSE?! "baseball bats" this whole crappy thing about guns killing people is just all bull-crap! guns dont kill people PEOPLE kill people WITH guns!
This comment has been removed by the author.
Leon:
Thanks so much for taking the time to regurgitate bogus right-wing, pro-gun talking points. Before repeating your statistic, did you even, you know, stop a think? Baseball bats "are doing most of the killing"? Does that even sound plausible? Of course not. Because it's simply not true.
Here's what Snopes has to say about this meme that has been in use by pro-gun advocates:
In any debate about gun control in the U.S., someone will inevitably make the argument that "[X] kills more people than guns do" (where [X] is anything from automobiles to scissors to sharks), with the implication that gun control advocates are too narrowly focused on one issue while ignoring other, greater threats to public safety.
One common form of this argument which is often invoked after a prominent incident brings the subject of gun control to the forefront of public discussion (such as the December 2012 shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut) is the claim that more people are killed by baseball bats than by firearms, an assertion typically cited as a truism which is borne out by FBI statistics.
However, information gathered by the FBI does not support this claim. The Uniform Crime Reports made available on the Crime in the U.S. section of the FBI's web site includes homicide data that breaks down killings by the types of weapons used. In 2011, the percentages for weapon types used in homicides throughout the U.S. were as follows:
Firearms: 67.8%
Knives or other cutting instruments: 13.4%
Personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.): 5.7%
Blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc.): 3.9%
Other dangerous weapons: 9.2%
The FBI doesn't offer data showing the latter categories broken down into more detail, so it isn't possible to determine from this source exactly what percentage of homicides in 2011 involved the use of baseball bats. But even if one were to assume that every single homicide in the "blunt objects" category was committed with a baseball bat (almost certainly a very large overestimate), firearm-related homicides would still outnumber bat-related homicides by a ratio of more than sixteen to one.
Next time, Leon, try doing a little reseach first.
Hi, I am based in Austria, which is a small country in Europe ;-)
I found your blog via Google when I searched for these "One Child is holding something ..." posters. Why did I search for it? Because this American gun-insanity is in our newspapers as well. That 5 year old boy who shot dead his 2 year old sister WITH HIS OWN GUN, that he received on his 4th birthday.
As we see it here, it is simply insane and totally paranoid, if a society feels the need to have guns to protect themselves from themselves. Paranoia seems to be a driving force in your country and artificially generated fear among your own people is being abused to rectify attacking other nations. All of that for the only reason of profit for a few.
Why do children in the US have guns? Because they are the future customers of the rifle industry.
In the US, its all about profit.
Anonymous:
Trust me, I know where Austria is! I don't want to try to defend American "gun culture" (as you can probably guess, I'm not exactly a pro-gun guy), but a little explanation may be helpful with regard to the story of the 5-year-old. Unless I'm mistaken, the incident took place in one of the most rural (and poor) portions of America (Appalachia) where people often need to add game to their diet. Thus, I suspect, that the boy's rifle was one that was given to him to hunt squirrels and rabbits and other small animals. But the fact that the gun was just laying around and could be used to "accidentally" shoot another child is appalling.
As to your comment about paranoia, you are unfortunately correct. The political right in the US is terrified of "tyranny" by the government. They want guns to protect themselves from a government that they fear will try to take their guns. And yes, I realize how circular that logic is. I disagree, however, about our own paranoia being used to attack others, but I guess that's a discussion for another day.
I'm not sure how hard it is to do a little research. The table that I included in my comment was copied verbatim from the Snopes article that I linked to. But if that isn't good enough, you can look at that link for homicide data from the FBI (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8). If you look in the top row of the far right column (I'm trying to make this easy for you...), you will see that there were 12,664 homicides in 2011. In the row just below that, you'll see that of those homicides, 8,583 were committed with a firearm (the rows below that break down the type of firearm). If you divide 8,583 by 12,664, you'll get 67.8% which just happens to be the number that Snopes used. If you then look down a few rows, you'll see a row labeled "Blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc.)". I presume that baseball bats are included in this row as "clubs". Anyway, if you once again look across that row to the last column, you'll see that in 2011, there were 496 homicides committed with blunt objects. Dividing 496 by 12,664 gives us 3.9%, once again the same number quoted by Snopes.
Now, I recognize that you probably don't want to accept the FBI crime data as authoritative. So let's try this: Provide me with concrete empirical evidence from a legitimate data source that shows "of all the ways people are getting killed, its people with basball bats that are doing most of the killing" (those were your words on May 17). You also alleged that your claim "is proven by reports from the FBI and the CIA". So please provide me the links to those reports proving that "people with baseball bats ... are doing most of the killing". Take your time. I'll wait.
I reached your article from Australia - a link was tweeted by Australian journalist Annabel Crabb - https://twitter.com/annabelcrabb
Most Australians I know share your perspective on gun control issues in the US. I have to say the current state of affairs regarding guns in the US looks like madness from down here. Sadly, while I think this advert is clear and makes a the right point, from what I have experienced (online) of the right-wing (US) perspective on the issue, it will not change any of their minds. They don't want to have their minds changed. -Lucy
Lucy is right. This ad while powerful is preaching to the converted. You cannot use logic to win what is an emotional argument to gun owners.
Hi, also from Australia.
I'm not sure it's trying to convert the right wing gun lovers, it's getting gun control advocates to keep talking about it, and fence-sitters to think about it. You don't need to convince everybody, just a majority.
As I understand, many of these Americans consider Australian Gun Control to be "Noone touches a gun, ever." but this is just not true. Australians can have guns, assuming they are not a danger to society for having them. I have both air rifles, and rimfire type guns, and there is a thriving sports shooting community. But the difference is, those guns are NOT left lying around, nor in a place where kids could EVER get their hands on them. When not in use, they are securely stored in a locked gunsafe, when in transport a hardened shell case... I still have the right to own and use Guns, I'm just expected to use them safely. I also need to be an adult to own them, but children can still use them - heck, our club has many youth, some who are quite talented - but the children are doing it under supervision of an adult, and are expected to show proper gun safety and care.
Draconian? Well, the paperwork can be a little tiresome and if America invades, we're not as well armed, but I can remember the last time a gun was used to attempt to kill someone in this state - over 5 years ago, a bikie used his own gun - not a stolen one - to shoot someone who had beaten up his son. This was major news. How often is Gun violence major news in America? When an entire school is shot down?
The problem is, this isn't a logical issue. The very concept of "rights" isn't logical. For example, is it logical to give people the freedom of expression, especially when you're trying to create a stable society? No, it's not. So the issue isn't really "is it logical" it is "what are our rights?"
But it also depends on your perspective. To those who live in secure areas, owning a gun isn't logical, but to the Wyoming rancher who has to protect himself against wild animals, it IS logical.
What is happening here is the same, tired and true, Rural vs. City debate that has been raging in this country for the better part of 160 years. It's not going to change. City dwellers have their opinions, rural dwellers do as well. That's why we have a Constitution. So that neither side can exert their definition of "logic" on the other.
Let it go.
Mark:
Thanks for your comments. I'm not sure that I understand your point about rights not being logical. Now, I do agree that the view that people have of certain rights may depend on perspective. Certainly, to members of minority religious communities the Establishment Clause has a very different meaning that it may to members of majority religious communities. So I can see how the Second Amendment might be viewed differently by the Wyoming rancher as compared to an urban dweller.
But let me ask you this: Are there any limitations on the Second Amendment? Can that Wyoming rancher point to the Second Amendment as the basis for a right to own an automatic assault rifle with a high capacity magazine and armor piercing bullets? What about even larger weaponry? RPGs? Artillery? A tank? How about chemical or biological weapons? Those are, after all, "arms" and the Second Amendment says (if you ignore the "militia clause") that the right to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed".
And while I can understand the need of the Wyoming rancher to keep arms to protect himself against wild animals, I don't understand why a background check before buying the weapon is a problem. Or why other sorts of reasonable restrictions are problematic. Or why armor piercing bullets are available at all (I haven't seen many wolves wearing armor). It seems that we've reached a point where the NRA has convinced gun owners that there are virtually no reasonable or acceptable restrictions on gun ownership. Thus, while some people are simply exercising their right to keep and bear arms, the rest of us live in a world where guns are all to readily available and mass shootings (not to mention other gun-related violence) has become the norm rather than the exception.
Also, to the Australians who commented above, I apologize for not replying. First, somehow notification of your comments was lost in the flood of spam that I've been getting. Then, I wrote a lengthy response ... only to have Chrome crash and lost the response that I'd written. Sigh.
This makes no sence, I'm against it all, my kids should be able to eat chocolate, read little red riding hood, and play dodge ball. Where the hell did freedom go, oh wait you whiny bitching librals take it away more and more every day.... and now your turning on my right to own and carry my guns. I hope my kid destroys and your kid on the Dodge ball court one day lol, maybe it'll teach them the truth, that everybody isn't equal and that some people are better then them and deserve more if they earn it, but your kid will probably still get a trophy because you fucks don't want any body's feelings to get hurt.
And yet another anonymous comment by someone who would rather hurl insults than engage in a productive, reasoned, good faith debate. You know, Anonymous, I also think that kids should be able to each chocolate, read virtually anything that they want, and play dodge ball. But I think that they should be able to do those things safely. They should have to duck for cover while reading because some idiot decides to bring an assault rifle to the library. The chocolate that they eat should be safe and we shouldn't worry that it might contain harmful chemicals because we didn't do enough oversight and inspection (but I'll agree that banning chocolate eggs because of a toy is probably overboard). And I think that my kids should be able to play dodge ball; certainly I enjoyed playing it as a kid. But none of that is really the point, is it? The point is guns ... or, rather, the lack of reasonable laws and regulations to keep our children safe.
Turning on your "right to own and carry [your] guns"? Really? Have I said that you shouldn't be able to own or carry a gun? Has anyone proposed legislation to that effect? Or has the legislation that's been proposed been to enhance background checks and limit certain types of weaponry? Tell me, Anonymous, why do you need an assault rifle? Why do you need an assault rifle with a high capacity magazine loaded with armor piercing bullets? And why aren't you willing to undergo a background check before you purchase that gun? Something to hide? I'm also curious to know if you think that the Second Amendment is subject to any limitations at all. Does it give you the right to own an RPG or a missile or chemical weapons? Does the Second Amendment give you the right to take your gun into a school, government facility or airplane? And do you really think that your gun will be of much value if the "tyrannical" government those on the right fear really does come to take your guns away?
There is more that I could (and probably should) say about your comment, but I'm a bit short on time. I will, however, suggest that saying "I hope my kid destroys your kid" is not exactly a sign of rationality. You want your kid to win in a game of dodge ball? Fine. I get that. But the fact that you want your kid to "destroy" my kid demonstrates that all that many in the gun rights camp seem to understand is violence or the threat of violence. Does owning and carrying that gun make you "better" and more "deserving" (to borrow your language)? Or is it about hard work? You seem to ascribe to me all sorts of things that aren't positions that I've taken (for example, I've argued that keeping a child that was "too good" from playing baseball was wrong: Banning Good Player Sends Wrong Message to Kids). But you're too busy swearing at me to read what I've read.
In general, I think you totally misunderstand what we liberals are talking about with notions like income inequality and fairness. And I'd be happy to discuss those issues with you if I thought that you were open to a good faith dialogue. But your need to use insults in lieu of making substantive points suggests that good faith dialogue is not your goal. Of course, I recognize that it's hard to wave a gun in someone's face over the Internet.
So run along and play with your guns. I won't ask if you need a big rifle to compensate for some other deficiencies.
Growl. Typos. In the first sentence of my previous comment, it should read "They should not have to duck for cover ...". Grr.
Why won't Blogger let me edit my own comments?
Good for you! UK citizen here, and America's gun culture is really a confusing fact in this 'modern world'. I feel safe in my home town, I walk home alone, I drive around alone, no-one ever breaks in, if they did I wouldn't assume they had a gun, so even if I got burgled, I don't think anyone would die! The statistics show how many people die from gun crime in America compared to the UK, what are the influencers or decision makers there waiting for? Excellent marketing ad too, in my opinion.
Anonymous: I think that there are two explanations for what our "influencers or decision makers" are waiting for. Money and fear. First, groups like the NRA (National Rifle Association) funnel so much money into campaigns that it is often an enormous uphill battle to try to challenge that sort of influence. It's blood money, pure and simple, but it's blood money that has bought many politicians and secured their votes. Second, far too many politicians are, I think, afraid to take stands that are reasonble, worried that they will be challenged from the ever-more-crazy far right of the political spectrum. We have a serious problem with people who really view the government as the enemy; these people want guns to protect themselves from the government when it comes to take their guns (or something like that). And polticians who care more about staying in office pander to these views.
I am a Canadian and was sent the image of the Kinder eggs through social media. I think this message is overdue and time all nations re-examine how we keep our children safe.
Im from England and I have never in my life felt that owning a gun would make me safer. The only thing I can think of is why dont Americans feel safe? is it because of all the guns?
You folks that believe no guns will save you will be the first to be exterminated by your enemies. IE Gov. included !
A quick response to the two most recent comments:
1) I think that there are two things at play with regard to why some American's don't feel safe. To some, it is because of guns. It's hard not to worry about either standard criminal conduct by someone who is armed, let alone the sociopath or terrorist who just wants to kill and is heavily armed to do just that. But the notion that the way to combat (sorry, poor pun) that fear is by having yet more guns seems beyond ludicrous. I can't even begin to imagine what our society would look like if everyone was armed all the time. Every slight, every perceived insult or strange look could lead one armed person to worry that the other armed person was, in fact, about to do harm and we would soon have a shoot first, ask questions later society with dead bodies everywhere. No thanks. To me, the better approach is find ways to limit the number and types of guns, the type of ammunition, and, most importantly, the ways in which people get those guns and the people who are permitted to have guns.
2) First, I don't recall saying "no guns". I've been fairly consistent talking about reasonable and common sense laws and restrictions on the types of weaponry and who can have that weaponry. What I have a hard time understanding is the view that you're expressing that says that I should be afraid of my enemies exterminating me. Really? Is that the world you live in? One in which you spend your days in fear of being exterminated by enemies? Hmm. Perhaps if we spent more time making efforts not to have so many enemies, you'd be less fearful. Or perhaps we could spend more time being sure that our enemies weren't so well armed. But right now, the people being "exterminated" (way too broad of a term, but I'll borrow your language) are innocent civilians, especially children, being killed by guns (including accidental shootings). Why is it that no other industrialized nation on earth sees the sort of gun violence that we do?
Finally, if by "enemies" you're really talking about our government (as so many in the extreme gun rights community do), then perhaps you need to step back and really stop and think. What is that you fear from the government? Do you worry about being put in a FEMA camp or that Agenda 21 will give civil rights to squirrels? Do you worry that you're going to be forced to have a gay wedding or be forcibly converted to Islam? If so, you really need to seek professional help. And if your worry is that a "tyrannical government" (query: was the government tyrannical before we had a black President), then perhaps you need to really think about how effective your little gun will be against the might of that government. See this post for some thoughts on that: http://blog.wallack.us/2012/12/guns-in-america-part-2.html (sadly with some dead links to photos).
Hello,
I am an English teacher from France and currently I am working on gun control in the USA with my students (17-18 years old). I came across your blog by surfing the net, just gathering information about the topic. I will use one of the posters I found here in class. I think this is a very important issue in the USA and here is France we really see it as worrying issue. People here do not really understand why and how the 2nd amendment is so strong and consequently, why are gun laws so difficult to change. There have been so many negative outcomes due to this all, just thinking about all the shootings in US schools, it's trully devastating. Even after the attacks in Paris, the French are still not for gun laws, at least the majority of us.
Greeting from Nantes,
Admira.
Thanks for visiting my blog. As you'll see if you look at the Gun Control tag (http://blog.wallack.us/search/label/Gun%20Control), this is an issue about which I've written extensively over the last few years. If you or your students would like to engage in a more detailed discussion of these issues, please let me know and we can try to arrange something.
Hello, I am from England and 17 years old. Yes that's right I am 17, and reading some of these comments have made me re-consider what kind of world we actually live in. As many of you are aware, everyone around the world know about the shootings that happen in America, how can we not? and I think its safe to say we are all horrified on how easy it is to own a gun. I completely agree with this article, of course now because of the progression of the guns in America, banning them is no good. But putting more restricting laws down that not only protects ALL the citizens that live in America but also the death rate will slowly go down. Its not just children that are getting hold of weapons. People with critical mental issues are also getting hold of guns and going riot shooting everyone! This needs to stop and I am shocked with the amount of hate comments that I have read. Cant everyone see that action must be taken to protect everyone?
And of course the main question everyone needs to ask themselves (and I know its been brought up) Why do people have the need to protect themselves? everyone will agree with me in saying, if there were more laws on guns, to make sure not everyone could get one, many people would feel safer in their homes.
These posters make a good point, and I agree. Bans on things like Kinder Surprise Eggs and Little Red Riding Hood are completely stupid. That's what we've been trying to tell Libs for decades.
very good post and sharing.
i like it
This type of guns are not suitable fir the child.it is so dangerous.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Check out this blog about spying applications and programs.
nice
nice
Children should never be given anything that may lead them to have information about weapons. Dissertation writing services
Maybe people should maybe teach kids about guns like I have learned and there has never been an accidental shooting in my home or with any of my family members I don't know why you think guns are bad but you should go to a high school in the midwest that is not near a city or even near and city and find that many people don't like the idea of gun control but some people don't look at the people that teach there kids how to handle guns safely and also that the kids that shoot up schools do not have previous experiences with guns
I am 15 and this is a paragraph ever one should read because I have more common sense than half the people that will comment on this post so this is my statement.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. Let me offer a few quick responses:
1) Many people teach their children all sorts of lessons, whether about guns, morality, religion, sex, proper brushing technique, or loyalty to a sports team. But that doesn't necessarily mean that all children (or all people) will understand or act upon those lessons. The problem, as I continue to see it, is the easy availability of guns. Again, just look at other developed countries where video games, mental illness, and all sorts of other problems exist (as they do in America), but mass shootings (or even domestic and criminal actions with guns) are far, far less common because guns are more difficult to obtain.
2) I'm glad that you've never had an accidental shooting in your home. I'm sure the family in which the very young child finds a gun and kills a sibling had also never had an accident ... until they had an accident.
3) I attended a Midwestern high school and my children are presently students at a Midwestern high school. Yes, there are some kids who oppose any kind of gun control, just as there are some kids who favor far stricter gun control. Like most any issue, there are viewpoints all along a spectrum regarding the issue.
4) I think that I'm glad that kids who engage in mass shootings at schools don't have previous experience with guns (though I'm not sure that is necessarily true, but I'll accept it as such for the sake of argument). I worry that if those kids had more experience with guns, they would have been far more deadly in their efforts.
5) I'm troubled by your belief or assumption that you "have more common sense than half the people that will comment". Upon what do you base that belief? Do you have empirical evidence. Confidence in your position does not, by implication or necessity, make you right; it just makes you confident. But I suspect that many who would like to see stricter gun laws would suggest that you are lacking in common sense.
6) Finally, and I hate to get personal, but sometimes tough love is necessary: You need to pay more attention in your English or other writing classes. Your viewpoint is valid and worth considering, but it would carry far more weight if your grammar was better. We have rules of grammar, spelling, punctuation and the like in order to make our communications with one another clearer and more readily understandable. By omitting simple sentence structure, using run-on sentences, and failing to proofread your comment, you've made communication more difficult. I would love for to continue the discussion with you, but I strongly encourage you to take your time to make sure that your comments are both well-constructed and well-articulated.
Finally, even though I disagree with your ultimate points, let me commend you for taking the time to comment and become involved in discussion and dialogue about important issues.
This is just a boat load of crap Kids can use guns if they want! You libtard.
Thanks so much, Anonymous, for your insightful and substantive comment, not to mention your hiding behind the veil of anonymity rather than putting your name behind your thoughts for the purpose of engaging in open dialogue. Anyway, your comment reminded me of the very first comment this blog post received way back in 2013 that caused me to write both a comment in response and a full follow up blog post:
Ah, yes. Another fine, shining example of what passes for political discourse among the gun-toting, knuckle-dragging class. Thanks so much for sharing the views of the anti-gun control community. Should you be interested, I wrote about your comment: One Child Is Holding Something That’s Been Banned in America to Protect Them: Commenting on a Comment.
As to the substance of your comment: Did I say kids couldn't use guns? I don't think so. I've certainly suggested that it seems unwise. And some of our Constitutional rights are less fully available to kids (e.g.,freedom of speech within a school environment). But don't you find it at least a bit ... concerning that "[K]ids can use guns" but that they can't read whatever they want, can't go to whatever movie they want, and most importantly, can't vote? Moreover, as to the real substance of children and guns (and the dangers that idea presents), the month of April 2013 should prove terrifying: Guns in America: “Just One of Those Crazy Accidents”. Be sure to read the follow-up referenced at the bottom of that post because it adds to the already horrific body count.
Post a Comment
Please note that to cut down on spam, I've (sadly) elected to implement a comment moderation procedure.
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home