"Time to unload on gun stupidity"

[cmidkiff]

YES!

Is the right to bear arms really worth this price? The price of our children's blood? Blood on the streets of North Philadelphia? Blood in the woods behind the home of a respected member of the legislature?

Yes, by God, it is. As tragic as the deaths described are, the right to bear arms is worth any price. The alternative is to be defenseless in the face of evil. Evil like Elizabeth Bathory, David Berkowitz, Jeffrey Dahmer, and John Wayne Gacy. Evil like Mao, Stalin, Pol-Pot, Hitler, Rwanda, Biafra, Somalia, AlQaeda, and Hizballah...

I am the father of four beautiful daughters. Stories of innocent children dying sickens me. The answer is responsibile gun ownership, responsibile parenting and early education, not unconstitutional legislation. As a responsible parent, my guns are on my person, or locked up. Period.

 

[Mr. James]

Damned right, cmidkiff!

Was thinking the same thing, "Well, Mr. Grogan, since you asked, why, yes, it is worth it."

My son learned at a very tender age what firearms do, what they are for, and how (in rudimentary terms at least) they work. He knows how they are loaded, how they are cleared, how they are fired, and what happens - including the possible catastrophic "whats" - when they are. As a result, guns are slightly less alluring to him than a toaster - at least the toaster offers up tasty snacks. They are not sirens, beckoning him towards his doom from the back of a closet.

To those who say I MUST lock up my firearms in my own home simply because my own minor child is there, I say get stuffed. Don't attribute your own failure to teach your children, or their inability to take a lesson, to me and mine.

 

[grampster]

Sigh................

 

[Ryder]

My grandfather, my father and my Uncles made sure
we grandkids knew better then to touch those weapons

I knew better and nobody told me. So did all my brothers, sisters, and countless cousins. It is not the gun owners fault. Would it have been my grandpa's fault if I had died jumping off the silo? What if I had drowned playing in the flooded ditch? He could have built a fence, right?

He'd be more irresponsible to not protect his family from criminals than to leave unlocked/loaded guns in the house. You can't have it both ways.

 

[the pistolero]

Time to unload on gun stupidity

Yes, it is...
Time for people to stop assigning malevolent motives to inanimate, morally neutral objects as if they were some sort of talisman.
Time for people to start holding people accountable for their misdeeds as opposed to holding those aforementioned inanimate objects responsible.
Time for people to pull their kids out of the insidious muck of gun ignorance manufactured by the media and anti-gunners everywhere.
Time for our kids to be educated on all the good things that have come about at the barrels of guns wielded by decent and moral men and women throughout history. And likewise, time for our kids to be educated on the bad things that have come about when those same decent moral men and women were denied the right to arms.

Long past time to unload on gun stupidity, indeed...

 

[bclark1]

how naive of me to hope that any article would have understood that "gun stupidity" is attaching emotions to an inanimate object, completely incapable of... well, anything... for all eternity, without human hands.

call me when it's "time to unload on worthless parenting." my sensitivity for unfortunate circumstances like these dwindles daily, as people like this author blame anyone and anything but the one person at fault. particularly when they're approaching the age to operate a motor vehicle.

 

[Wiley]

I gotta respond to mikeburk101's comment:

"If you have a gun, and kids in the house, yours or anyone else's, THE GUN NEEDS TO BE LOCKED UP! This is just common sense."

California has a law that requires that firearms be lockup. Because of that law a young girl was murdured by an escaped mental patient in the late 90's. The girl knew how to safely use a firearm but couldn't defend herself or her younger sibling from the pitchfork weilding mental patient because THE GUNS WERE LOCKED UP!

Which senario exhibits more "common sense?"

 

[Sindawe]

Wiley:Are you thinking of this incident? http://www.gunowners.org/op0132.htm

If you have a gun, and kids in the house, yours or anyone else's, THE GUN NEEDS TO BE LOCKED UP! This is just common sense.

Which is why children are for the most part verbotten in my home. I've no kids, so the ONLY times in the last 11 years there have been children in my house has been when my sister's kids have been over visiting with the entire family. Kids were NEVER unattended since they could get into the sharp knives, the heavy sword or the aquarium and its chemicals. Besides, they scare the cats.

The original article? Well, maybe I'll get a bird. Or a puppy. 'Bout all that tripe is good for.

 

[Wiley]

That's the one! Thanks Sindawe.

 

[the pistolero]

I was thinking yesterday as I was working...

...yes, I know, I really shouldn't, as it gets me into so much trouble...

...but I came to this conclusion: Since this gun-fearing pansy says he's sick of hearing the "bellicose rants" from freedom-loving peoples, would it be a non-High-Road course of action to leave him with nothing more than the two words Leonidas said to Xerxes at the Battle of Thermopylae? It's just a thought, as I haven't fired off an e-mail saying as much. He may be sick of us, but, well, I for one am sick of people like him trying to impinge on our natural rights just because some people can't or won't raise their kids right...:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

 

[GLOCK19XDSC]

Unfortunately, the anti-gun movement in Philly is gaining momentum. The recent state legislator pay-raise scandal combined with the upcoming elections have provided the enemies of freedom with an opportunity to advance their agenda. In addition, the upcoming mayoral election in Philly provides a golden opportunity for sleazeball candidates to appeal to the very large voting-bloc of criminals in Philly. The preemption issue, with a movement towards allowing Philly (among other PA cities) to pass laws that would override state law, is being played to the hilt. The anti-gun media, of course, can be expected to use these opportunities to fullest advantage.

Currently, there are a multitude of events being hosted by organizations that are masquerading as anti-violence, but are in reality anti-gun, and are obvously intended to be used as a forum for anti-gun candidates to campaign on someone else's dime.

Of course, Section 21 of the PA state constitution, "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned," is given no consideration whatsoever, to say nothing of the 2A.

Articles similar to the one posted in this thread have become commonplace in Philly, and I expect the hysteria to worsen until at least after the elections.

Edited to add:

Edited again to add: I work in the Wanamaker building, where Macy's just opened their new store. I came back from lunch the other day and looked over the balcony to see the news people interviewing Hizzoner the mayor. He was so close, I could have spit on his head!

 

[carterbeauford]

When it comes to controlling guns, Pennsylvania is a national embarrassment.

No, Ed Rendell is an embarassment.

 

[Desertdog]

Post a question or comment for John Grogan at http://go.philly.com/askgrogan. Or by e-mail: [email protected].

 

[Firethorn]

To those going on about how we didn't have trigger locks and safes for guns 30 years ago: I'd like to remind you that the accidental death rate for children has been dropping. Yes, we've gotten better at preventing kids from shooting themselves or their friends with guns.

I believe that guns should be secured away from children too young to know the consequences of handling them. While the difference varies depending upon the individual child, I generally mark the difference when they become a teenager. There are substantial differences in the capability to act responably between a 12 and a 14 year old, for example. Certainly, a precocious 12 year old might be more responsable than a childish 14 or even 18 year old, but we have to work on the law of averages sometimes.

Nevertheless, there is the issue of education. A child or teenager, while they may be able to act responably, do not yet have the body of knowledge that an adult would have.

I like my mother's philosophy. She believes that every child/teenager needs to be taught:
1. How to cook/clean/wash dishes and clothes. Back in the more sexist history, that included boys. To many parents never bothered to teach my generation.
2. How to swim: Like what was said, kids are less likely to drown if they know how, and it's more than 50 times more likely than being in a firearm accident.
3. How to balance a checkbook/plan a budget. That included my allowance.
4. Sex Ed: No birds and bees for me. The classes in school were no suprise to me.
5. Firearm safety: Early on, don't touch, but gradually expand into responsable usage.

Today, learning how to read would probably be on the list as well. Recognition of enviromental dangers such as pools, floods, poisons, dangerous wild animals(to include deer), electricity, along with proper firearms handling might not be a bad idea.

 

[lamazza]

I was taught about guns and how to shoot at a very young age. Guns were never taboo in our house so there was never that sneaky curiosity to go find dad's gun. We respected the power of guns and knew what they could do and how to use them safely.
Education is always better than taboo or banning something that scares you.
I think some of the main diseases that most antis suffer from is ignorance and apathy.
No Mrs. Cleaver the govt won't always look out for your best interests-learn to start thinking for yourself and stop acting like a sheep or you will be treated like one.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

How Does One Quantify Such Tragedies...

...without putting such things into perspective? Maybe if there were no other way that children could get killed it might be worthy of the heart-wrenching prose, but not when compared to how few actually do get killed with a firearm. Hell, look at me, for instance. I almost wrote "...how few actually do get killed by a firearm". Even I must stop and think about what I'm writing to keep the emotion out and the logic and truth in.

The tragedy is that the kid is dead. The gun didn't do it. Kids get killed in car wrecks all the time. Those kids might get killed with a car, but not by a car, same as some kids get killed with a gun and not by one.

Now, I'm aware he didn't say the kid was killed by a gun. He is saying if we didn't have the right to own guns, this kid would still be alive. But, if we didn't have guns, someone else would have them and we wouldn't even be speaking English, or still be subjects of the Crown. Hell, this kids parents may never have been born, because their parents could have been slaughtered by some despot.

From the article: " Someone tell me, please, what right are we protecting? The right to bear unbearable grief? What freedom? The freedom to place ourselves and our loved ones in needless peril?" Is it needles peril when we place our kids in a car to take them to ball practice or the movies and a drunk kills all aboard? Is it any less unbearable when a kid gets killed in a needless car wreck than a needless shooting? Why does this guy not pine over the kids who drown in the swimming pool in their own back yard and call for filling in each and every one? Why doesn't he rant disparagingly about our right to get wet in our own back yards?

It's because its so easy to hit the hearts instead of the minds of people. It is just as effective to say we need guns to protect us from needless peril. Despotism, tyranny, and criminal behavior are needless perils, are they not?

Besides, it's not the mere possession or bearing of arms that kills. It is miscreant or negligent behavior. Make that illegal! Oh, wait! Aren't those behaviors already illegal? Well, weLL WELL! Problem solved - many long years ago! Someone tell this guy, OK?

Woody

"Gun Control" seeks to put bounds upon, and possibly effect the elimination of, our inalienable Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Don't be led astray with the inference that it is "gun" control. What is under attack are rights of the people. Guns are inanimate objects; tools of freedom and self defense, primarily. Dehumanizing the discourse by calling it "gun control" or "gun rights" tends to lessen the impact from what the impact would be if the discussion were to be directed at the HUMAN right being infringed, and attempts to hide it from the strict scrutiny of the Constitution. B.E.Wood

 

[Redneck with a 40]

Accidental gun death's of children under the age of 15 = between 80 and 90.
Accidental death's from pools for the same age group = 900!!!
How about cars? That figure approaches 4000!
No one is advocating that we ban cars or pools!!
How about 5 gallon buckets of water? Those kill several hundred children under age 5 every year! Lets ban 5 gallon buckets!!

Bottom line in my book, the father should have educated his kids about guns and their resonsible use. Get the kid out on the range, teach him the safety rules, let him shoot, under supervision. Gun education will drastically reduce accidental death's, in my opinion. However, I will say that when young kids visit my home, I unload my guns, put them high up, out of reach, and store the ammo seperately. I pretty much assume that other people's kids are completely ignorant of guns, so I take precautionary measures.

The author of that newspaper column is severely misguided in placing blame. Its not the "gun". Its the negligence on the father's part, leaving a loaded gun accessible to children, and not educating his kids about guns and the hazard that careless handling presents. I 110% agree with the notion of "owner responsibility". Here in Colorado, if a child gets ahold of your gun and shoots someone with it, the gun owner is legally responsible!

 

[MarkDido]

Would there be as much of an uproar if the kid had found the keys to the guys Harley and wrapped it around a tree, killing himself?

 

[nainc]

Ass. Go pick on swimming pools or 115V AC.

 

[Otherguy Overby]

Way of life.

These people wish to destroy our standards and our way of life.

They believe in nothing American. Their strategy is to deny self defense which then enables them to deny other rights.

At what point does the right of "free speech" get to deny the right to self protection?