5-year-old shoots 2-year-old sister in Kentucky
- Thread starter GameBoy27
- Start date
Ignorance, fear and prejudice walk hand in hand.
I will assume that you are a well meaning person but in reality, often times the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Do you think that Marx and Lenin believed that their ideas would lead to the death of over a hundred million people in the past hundred years?
Ignorance of history, facts and reality. Please tell us, have you ever owned a firearm? Anyone in you family ever owned or used firearms? Have you ever fired a gun. Do you have any firearms related experience whatsoever?
Let's talk about scientific facts for a moment. One of the most compelling academics in this feild is law and economics Professor John Lott.
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html
"The total number of accidental gun deaths each year is about 1,300 and each year such accidents take the lives of 200 children 14 years of age and under. However, these regrettable numbers of lives lost need to be put into some perspective with the other risks children face. Despite over 200 million guns owned by between 76 to 85 million people, the children killed is much smaller than the number lost through bicycle accidents, drowning, and fires. Children are 14.5 times more likely to die from car accidents than from accidents involving guns."
In reality, taking firearms away from peaceful law abiding citizens, taking away their right and ability to defend themselves simply encourages criminals. Criminals do not obey laws, what makes you think they will obey gun control laws? Your lack of basic common sense is truly frightening.
Firearms are used twice as often to prevent crimes than they are used to commit crimes.
Would it be safe to say you are afraid of firearms? Your posts clearly seem to indicate that.
The study refers to accidental deaths. What about deaths period, pure and simple? Any bets it's a lot higher?
Car/truck accidents, as passenger, pedestrian, or driver? Cars/vehicles have multiple functions, the most important of which is the transportation of goods, so the elimination of vehicles is a non starter. I wish you pro gun freedom wackos would realize that.
I guess you missed this earlier post;
Having a gun in a house significantly increases the risk of death for you, your spouse or your kids, period.
http://www.minnpost.com/second-opini...aving-gun-homeHaving a gun in your home significantly increases your risk of death — and that of your spouse and children.And it doesn’t matter how the guns are stored or what type or how many guns you own.
If you have a gun, everybody in your home is more likely than your non-gun-owning neighbors and their families to die in a gun-related accident, suicide or homicide.
Furthermore, there is no credible evidence that having a gun in your house reduces your risk of being a victim of a crime. Nor does it reduce your risk of being injured during a home break-in.
The health risks of owning a gun are so established and scientifically non-controvertible that the American Academy of Pediatrics issued a policy statement in 2000 recommending that pediatricians urge parents to remove all guns from their homes.
I believe these kind of studies are so damaging to the discussion they weren't allowed to be done for years by law. The ATF weren't allowed to publish their gun stats, the medical professionals were not allowed to publish their findings. Ever wonder why?
Blackrock, since you can't bother to actually read, I'll spell it out for you. The link is to an interview with the professor regarding one of his books. I only posted a small excerpt that spoke about accident deaths. His analysis is based on data for all 3,054 counties in the United States during 18 years from 1977 to 1994.
The reality is that guns can be used for good and for evil. Banning guns will not prevent criminals from having or using them for evil purposes. It will however take them away from peacefully law abiding citizens who can and do use them to defend themselves.
That is not my opinion, it is a scientifically documented fact.
The reality is that guns can be used for good and for evil. Banning guns will not prevent criminals from having or using them for evil purposes. It will however take them away from peacefully law abiding citizens who can and do use them to defend themselves.
That is not my opinion, it is a scientifically documented fact.
The study refers to accidental deaths. What about deaths period, pure and simple? Any bets it's a lot higher?
Car/truck accidents, as passenger, pedestrian, or driver? Cars/vehicles have multiple functions, the most important of which is the transportation of goods, so the elimination of vehicles is a non starter. I wish you pro gun freedom wackos would realize that.
I guess you missed this earlier post;
Having a gun in a house significantly increases the risk of death for you, your spouse or your kids, period.
http://www.minnpost.com/second-opini...aving-gun-home
I believe these kind of studies are so damaging to the discussion they weren't allowed to be done for years by law. The ATF weren't allowed to publish their gun stats, the medical professionals were not allowed to publish their findings. Ever wonder why?
I'm assuming that this statistic is based on what happens in the States. I would bet my life that this is absolutely not the case here in Canada. I can't recall (over the last 6 months) hearing about a single crime being thwarted by a gun toting vigilante.Firearms are used twice as often to prevent crimes than they are used to commit crimes.
Sure, in the states where there are more than 3 times as many guns per person I believe it. This doesn't mean that guns ACTUALLY make things safer. This just means that in a country filled to the tits with guns, you're probably better off owning a gun of your own.
Your points is?Blackrock, since you can't bother to actually read, I'll spell it out for you. The link is to an interview with the professor regarding one of his books. I only posted a small excerpt that spoke about accident deaths. His analysis is based on data for all 3,054 counties in the United States during 18 years from 1977 to 1994.
When vehicles deaths are calculated no one ever takes in accounts that millions of people come in contact with millions of vehicles every day, as passengers, pedestrians, or by standers. The fact that there aren't more deaths is a wonder. The interaction is far in excess of any gun/human interactions. With all those guns, less than <10% of the population are hunters and the numbers are in decline, and those hunters spend less than you would think actually hunting.
Wrong as per usual. You are the only person I have on my ignore list, thanks for reminding me why.
A study conducted by the U.S. of Fish & Wildlife Service showed an increase in the number of hunters and anglers over the last five years, reversing a downward trend spanning decades.
According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar released a preliminary report — part of the USFWS’s 2011 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation — Wednesday in Milwaukee that showed the number of hunters increased about 9 percent from 2006 to 2011, while the number of anglers grew by 11 percent.
“Seeing more people fishing, hunting, and getting outdoors is great news for America’s economy and conservation heritage,” Salazar told the Journal Sentinel.
The survey, conducted every five years since 1955, showed that almost 38 percent of Americans participated in some wildlife-related activity in 2011; that’s 2.6 million more people than the last survey conducted in 2006. In addition, that fraction of the population spent $145 billion on gear, trips, tags, licenses, and land leasing and ownership, accounting for about 1 percent of the United States’ gross domestic product.
In addition, a reported 13.7 million people, about 6 percent of the total population over the age of 16, went hunting, and spent a total of $34 billion. That’s an average of $2,484 per hunter.
The full survey will be released later this year.
Read more: http://www.petersenshunting.com/201...ises-for-first-time-in-decades/#ixzz2SFvjFIxF
http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2012/08/early_numbers_say_numbers_of_h.html
A study conducted by the U.S. of Fish & Wildlife Service showed an increase in the number of hunters and anglers over the last five years, reversing a downward trend spanning decades.
According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar released a preliminary report — part of the USFWS’s 2011 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation — Wednesday in Milwaukee that showed the number of hunters increased about 9 percent from 2006 to 2011, while the number of anglers grew by 11 percent.
“Seeing more people fishing, hunting, and getting outdoors is great news for America’s economy and conservation heritage,” Salazar told the Journal Sentinel.
The survey, conducted every five years since 1955, showed that almost 38 percent of Americans participated in some wildlife-related activity in 2011; that’s 2.6 million more people than the last survey conducted in 2006. In addition, that fraction of the population spent $145 billion on gear, trips, tags, licenses, and land leasing and ownership, accounting for about 1 percent of the United States’ gross domestic product.
In addition, a reported 13.7 million people, about 6 percent of the total population over the age of 16, went hunting, and spent a total of $34 billion. That’s an average of $2,484 per hunter.
The full survey will be released later this year.
Read more: http://www.petersenshunting.com/201...ises-for-first-time-in-decades/#ixzz2SFvjFIxF
http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2012/08/early_numbers_say_numbers_of_h.html
Your points is?
When vehicles deaths are calculated no one ever takes in accounts that millions of people come in contact with millions of vehicles every day, as passengers, pedestrians, or by standers. The fact that there aren't more deaths is a wonder. The interaction is far in excess of any gun/human interactions. With all those guns, less than <10% of the population are hunters and the numbers are in decline, and those hunters spend less than you would think actually hunting.
So basically you're splitting hairs?The survey, conducted every five years since 1955, showed that almost 38 percent of Americans participated in some wildlife-related activity in 2011; that’s 2.6 million more people than the last survey conducted in 2006. In addition, that fraction of the population spent $145 billion on gear, trips, tags, licenses, and land leasing and ownership, accounting for about 1 percent of the United States’ gross domestic product.
In addition, a reported 13.7 million people, about 6 percent of the total population over the age of 16,
The trend of "less people hunting" spanned decades, and so far there's been a single "blip" in the trend, and you declare his assertion as false?
This is getting off topic. I feel compelled the argue the "anti-gun" side of things but in actuality I don't actually care to eradicate all civilian owned guns. Don't get me wrong, I think firing a gun in the name of "sport" is stupid, pointless, and there are far better things to do with one's time. I also have some serious feelings about what most men are compensating for when engaging in said "sport".
But whatever... I'm sure the majority of the population doesn't think very highly of my hobby of getting blown by escorts with big fake tits.
The point was originally that it is both stupid and reckless for guns to be manufactured (and sold) to appeal to children.
But whatever... I'm sure the majority of the population doesn't think very highly of my hobby of getting blown by escorts with big fake tits.
The point was originally that it is both stupid and reckless for guns to be manufactured (and sold) to appeal to children.
Since the Canadian government makes it so much more difficult for people to own firearms, I believe it is much more likely for criminals to possess and use them in Canada than law abiding citizens using them to defend themselves from assault, rape or murder. So that may be true. In any case, even if someone did defend themselves, they would be unlikely to report it because it seems to be illegal to defend yourself in Canada especially with a gun. You would likely be charged with several criminal offenses.I'm assuming that this statistic is based on what happens in the States. I would bet my life that this is absolutely not the case here in Canada. I can't recall (over the last 6 months) hearing about a single crime being thwarted by a gun toting vigilante.
Sure, in the states where there are more than 3 times as many guns per person I believe it. This doesn't mean that guns ACTUALLY make things safer. This just means that in a country filled to the tits with guns, you're probably better off owning a gun of your own.
http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/news/canada/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com/2011/01/20/man-faces-jail-after-protecting-home-from-masked-attackers
Firearms prohibitions skyrocket in Canada
2012 01 24 - In the Media
By Jeff Davis, The Vancouver Sun
Tens of thousands of Canadians are being slapped with firearms prohibitions each year, often at the request of police or for crimes that do not involve firearms.
Since 1999 there has been an explosion in the number of weapons prohibitions issued by Canadian courts, with the number of Canadians subject to such orders rising from 18,774 in 1999 to a cumulative total of 301,048 in 2010. In 2010 alone, almost 22,000 such orders were issued to Canadians, according to data from the RCMP Canadian Firearms Program.
Firearms experts attribute this 16-fold increase to Crown prosecutors seeking such prohibitions as a matter of course, in a misguided attempt to crack down on gun violence.
Canadian Shooting Sports Association executive director Tony Bernardo said that these days "the courts are handing out firearms prohibitions like candy."
Bernardo said Crown prosecutors routinely tack firearms prohibitions onto tens of thousands of court cases, including many cases where firearms were not involved in the alleged crime at all.
He said he is familiar with a case where a man was slapped with a prohibition after an impaired driving charge, and another where a 14-year-old boy received a five-year weapons ban after being convicted of a minor assault in which no weapons were used.
Both the Conservative party and the NDP voiced their support Tuesday for the increasing number of weapons prohibitions.
A spokesman for Public Safety Minister Vic Toews said the government will ensure only qualified individuals will have access to firearms.
"Guns in the hands of law-abiding Canadians are simply another piece of property, however guns in the hands of dangerous individuals or the mentally ill will only lead to tragedy," said Mike Patton. "We will continue to insure that dangerous criminals and the mentally ill do not have access to firearms."
NDP Public Safety critic Jasbir Sandhu said the courts are acting in the best interests of the public by limiting the number of people who can own guns.
"This is a tool that courts use to keep weapons out of hands of people who shouldn't have them in the first place," he said. "It improves public safety, and decreases violence against women."
Canadians with prohibition orders cannot possess any firearm, ammunition, crossbow, fireworks or other explosives. They may, however, possess blades.
Registered gun owners, if issued a prohibition order, face the immediate revocation of their firearms licence and the seizure of their collections.
On the first instance, the maximum duration of a prohibition order is five years. On the second instance, the duration can be anywhere from five years to lifetime.
The Commissioner of Firearms 2010 Report says this huge rise in prohibitions is due to "new mandatory prohibitions for certain drug offence charges and convictions which came into effect" in 2005 and 2006. The RCMP's Canadian Firearms Program declined to speak with Postmedia News Tuesday.
Toronto-based criminal defence lawyer Ed Burlew has successfully defended over 600 firearms owners, and is among Canada's leading experts on firearms law. Burlew said police and Crown prosecutors have many ways to impose a prohibition on an individual.
Prohibitions are mandatory for such crimes as criminal harassment or growing marijuana plants. Prosecutors may also request a "discretionary" prohibition in which violence was threatened, attempted or used.
Burlew said Crown prosecutors now almost always request a discretionary prohibition from the courts, even in the case of minor assaults such as shoving matches.
"Crown attorneys, when they deal with a domestic assault, for example, their mandate is to get a weapons prohibition as well as a finding of guilt," he said. "And that is done with regularity whether someone used a weapon or not."
Most troubling, Burlew said, is Criminal Code Section 111 which allows police officers to request prohibitions be imposed even when no crime has been committed. The threshold he said, is simply that a peace officer "believes on reasonable grounds" an individual may be a threat to himself or others.
Burlew said many firearms owners have had prohibition orders issued against them, and their collections seized and destroyed, after such applications were made by police. If the prohibition request is granted, the firearms owner can do little more than watch.
"As soon as judge agrees, Jack's guns are immediately forfeit to Her Majesty," he said. "End of story. No compensation."
Ottawa based criminal defence lawyer Solomon Friedman said Crown prosecutors have come to see the issuing of weapons prohibitions as a "victory" in and of itself.
"Crown attorneys are increasingly operating under policies that require them to seek discretionary weapons prohibitions even when there was no weapons used," he said.
Friedman said very frequently, during plea bargaining, the Crown will offer a very light charge if the defendant voluntarily accepts a weapons prohibition.
Bernardo agreed.
"The Crown is using prohibitions as a plea bargain," he said. "They will arrest somebody for some minor charge, and say: 'We'll make the charge go away if you accept a prohibition."
Bernardo said the huge rise in the number of Canadians banned from owning guns can be traced back to political efforts to get tough on gun crime.
"My understanding is a lot of this is reflected in Ontario and Quebec, where Crown attorneys have been instructed by the Attorney General's office to prosecute firearms crimes vigorously," he said.
In an email, a spokesman for the Ontario Attorney General said his office does not have statistics on weapons prohibitions orders, and did not offer an explanation for the dramatic rise in the number of prohibitions issues.
"The authority to impose such an order rests with the presiding judge based on a consideration of all of the circumstances of the case and the conditions set out in the relevant section of the Criminal Code," wrote Brendan Crawley.
Particularly active in requesting weapons prohibitions, Friedman said, is the Toronto Guns and Gangs Task Force. He said he has defended numerous Toronto gun collectors whose homes have been raided after the Task Force requested a discretionary prohibition order. In such cases, police often recommend charges such as unsafe storage of a firearm.
"I have many clients who are in that situation, who face no substantive charges that they used their firearms in any illegal way," he said. "They are simply in technical non-compliance with the Firearms Act."
Read more: http://www.canada.com/news/Firearms+prohibitions+skyrocket+Canada/6045847/story.html#ixzz1lng9XTlG
You mean the same way gun control and civilian disarment folks use these same tragedies to push their agenda, completely glossing over a child is dead? Pot, meet kettle.It never ceases to amaze me that the NRA and the second ammendment supporters always turn these tragedies into a debate. Completely glossing over a child is dead due to poor judgement on adults part. It is like they can't see the forest for the trees. Fucking shame.
No one ever claimed hunting wasn't big business, but relatively very few actually 'regularly' hunt, not just tried it. The rise in 2006/2011 was just, as pointed out, a single point in a decades long trend.Wrong as per usual. You are the only person I have on my ignore list, thanks for reminding me why.
A study conducted by the U.S. of Fish & Wildlife Service showed an increase in the number of hunters and anglers over the last five years, reversing a downward trend spanning decades.
According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar released a preliminary report — part of the USFWS’s 2011 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation — Wednesday in Milwaukee that showed the number of hunters increased about 9 percent from 2006 to 2011, while the number of anglers grew by 11 percent.
“Seeing more people fishing, hunting, and getting outdoors is great news for America’s economy and conservation heritage,” Salazar told the Journal Sentinel.
The survey, conducted every five years since 1955, showed that almost 38 percent of Americans participated in some wildlife-related activity in 2011; that’s 2.6 million more people than the last survey conducted in 2006. In addition, that fraction of the population spent $145 billion on gear, trips, tags, licenses, and land leasing and ownership, accounting for about 1 percent of the United States’ gross domestic product.
In addition, a reported 13.7 million people, about 6 percent of the total population over the age of 16, went hunting, and spent a total of $34 billion. That’s an average of $2,484 per hunter.
The full survey will be released later this year.
Read more: http://www.petersenshunting.com/201...ises-for-first-time-in-decades/#ixzz2SFvjFIxF
http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2012/08/early_numbers_say_numbers_of_h.html
No, my friend. You think of it that way because of your misguided view. The simple fact is that the tragic and recurring gun-related deaths are the REASON clear thinking people want to reduce civilian gun access. No one is using the tragedies for political advantage...unless you call a desire to reduce senseless killing an "agenda".You mean the same way gun control and civilian disarment folks use these same tragedies to push their agenda,
I get that guns are a cult to some americans but it surprises me to see that same deer-in-the-headlights mentality in Canada where we have better (not perfect) gun control and an exponentially lower rate of gun violence.
Again, what's with the "play" bullshit? By training, I mean with supervision and corrective action in a controlled environment, as in the exact opposite of what these parents did.You would let your kid play with a steak knife? What's wrong with you? Something tells me you don't have children.
Yeah, nobody's arguing about not teaching your kid about gun safety.
Teaching your kid about gun safety has NOTHING to do with buying them a pretty blue (child sized) gun.
Teaching your kid about gun safety does NOT involve teaching your kid how to load, aim, and fire the gun.
Teaching your kid about gun safety does NOT involve unsupervised "play" with a loaded gun.
Teaching your kid about gun safety DOES eventually require teaching them how to load, aim and fire a gun in a safe manner.
Teaching your kid how to safely load, aim and fire may require the purchase of a "pretty blue (child sized) gun" depending on the size of the child.
Teaching your child about gun safety DOES involve assessing your child's mood and behaviour at the time and if you feel based on your judgment, that the age, day or hour is in appropriate, by all means, don't hand the kid a gun.
The lower rate of gun violence has little to do with the gun control measures enacted by Chretian's Liberals in the 90's and more to do with an already decreasing rate of gun violence since the 70's, based on various socio-economic and cultural factors. But that's already been discussed to great length in other threads.No, my friend. You think of it that way because of your misguided view. The simple fact is that the tragic and recurring gun-related deaths are the REASON clear thinking people want to reduce civilian gun access. No one is using the tragedies for political advantage...unless you call a desire to reduce senseless killing an "agenda".
I get that guns are a cult to some americans but it surprises me to see that same deer-in-the-headlights mentality in Canada where we have better (not perfect) gun control and an exponentially lower rate of gun violence.
Don't you get it?Again, what's with the "play" bullshit? By training, I mean with supervision and corrective action in a controlled environment, as in the exact opposite of what these parents did.
The parents DID do it!
They bought their kid a child sized gun (it's a dangerous toy, no matter what spin you put on it) and then they left it loaded and unsupervised. At best, they are grossly negligent.
Posting rules for safe gun play in an escort forum won't change people's behaviour. Of course there were better ways they could have handled the situation but they didn't. As long as guns are readily available to children, this type of tragedy will happen again and again because not everyone can be trusted to be safe.
We have two choices. We can let children die to protect the "freedoms" of parents to let their children die or we can take the guns away and nobody gets hurt. In what universe is this a tough decision?
No, don't you get it?Don't you get it?
The parents DID do it!
They bought their kid a child sized gun (it's a dangerous toy, no matter what spin you put on it) and then they left it loaded and unsupervised. At best, they are grossly negligent.
Posting rules for safe gun play in an escort forum won't change people's behaviour. Of course there were better ways they could have handled the situation but they didn't. As long as guns are readily available to children, this type of tragedy will happen again and again because not everyone can be trusted to be safe.
We have two choices. We can let children die to protect the "freedoms" of parents to let their children die or we can take the guns away and nobody gets hurt. In what universe is this a tough decision?
What the parents did WAS negligent, we're in full agreement, that is NOT how I advocate parents treat guns around their children.
There are many other parents who have successfully trained their children how to safely handle firearms and this one tragedy does not undo all the other successful cases. Not everyone can be trusted to be safe, tragedies happen, these are realities of the world we live in no matter how many safety measures in place. Some people aren't fit to be parents yet no one seems to be willing to regulate that aspect of our society.
We have more than two choices especially when the "we can take guns away and nobody gets hurt" option is unrealistic...actually impossible.
How many instances of gun related crime go only reported (or witnessed) by the victim?In any case, even if someone did defend themselves, they would be unlikely to report it because it seems to be illegal to defend yourself in Canada especially with a gun. You would likely be charged with several criminal offenses.
You'd have to be arguing that in ALMOST all cases where the ONLY witness to the crime was the victim, a gun was used in self defense.
The fact is Canadians in general don't view a gun as a means of self defense. Nor should they. The shooting on Danzig Street is the perfect reason. On Danzig Street you had one spineless Douche Bag attempt to shoot another spineless Douche Bag who ALSO HAD A GUN.
How many innocent people have to be caught in a crossfire between two dickless losers before people like you realize that there's nothing admirable about gun slinging.
Teaching your kid about gun safety does NOT involve unsupervised "play" with a loaded gun.
Teaching your kid about gun safety DOES eventually require teaching them how to load, aim and fire a gun in a safe manner.
Teaching your kid how to safely load, aim and fire may require the purchase of a "pretty blue (child sized) gun" depending on the size of the child.
Teaching your child about gun safety DOES involve assessing your child's mood and behaviour at the time and if you feel based on your judgment, that the age, day or hour is in appropriate, by all means, don't hand the kid a gun.
No, gun safety can be taught with the following sentence "YOU'D BETTER NOT TOUCH ANY FUCKING GUNS UNTIL YOU'RE OLD ENOUGH TO COME HUNTING!". Period. If you're dumb enough to have guns in the house with children and NOT keep them locked up tighter than a nun's cunt, then you should probably spend some taking it up the rear at whatever penal system the judiciary decides to send you to. There is NO NEED for a child to feel "safe" around a gun EVER.
Additionally, there SHOULD be an age limit to gun usage. Allowing a parent to make that decision evidently results in 5 year old boys shooting their 2 year old sisters. The age limit should (at the extreme least) be at the age at which a child can be charged as a young offender. I don't know how you figure you have an argument in this regard.
Hmm..."YOU'D BETTER NOT TOUCH ANY FUCKING GUNS UNTIL YOU'RE OLD ENOUGH TO COME HUNTING!" Is that going to make a child more curious and willing to bypass your security measures or less curious? I wonder if any of the Danzig shooters were ever told by their parents, "YOU'D BETTER NOT TOUCH ANY FUCKING GUNS"?No, gun safety can be taught with the following sentence "YOU'D BETTER NOT TOUCH ANY FUCKING GUNS UNTIL YOU'RE OLD ENOUGH TO COME HUNTING!". Period. If you're dumb enough to have guns in the house with children and NOT keep them locked up tighter than a nun's cunt, then you should probably spend some taking it up the rear at whatever penal system the judiciary decides to send you to. There is NO NEED for a child to feel "safe" around a gun EVER.
Additionally, there SHOULD be an age limit to gun usage. Allowing a parent to make that decision evidently results in 5 year old boys shooting their 2 year old sisters. The age limit should (at the extreme least) be at the age at which a child can be charged as a young offender. I don't know how you figure you have an argument in this regard.
Do you think teaching a child how a gun can be fun and harmless, if handled correctly, is going to make handling a gun LESS attractive to a child?Hmm..."YOU'D BETTER NOT TOUCH ANY FUCKING GUNS UNTIL YOU'RE OLD ENOUGH TO COME HUNTING!" Is that going to make a child more curious and willing to bypass your security measures or less curious? I wonder if any of the Danzig shooters were ever told by their parents, "YOU'D BETTER NOT TOUCH ANY FUCKING GUNS"?
Is your argument that the shooters on Danzig Street were simply missing the correct level of education on guns?
What's your argument here?
