My point is the same in both situations. If the (Sandy Hook) shooter didn't have access to his mom's weapons, we probably wouldn't be looking at potential bans & EOs. Yes the young boy did the right thing and fought off the burglers, but are you going to apply firearms "personal responsiblity" to young kids? No, it's the parent's responsibility to lock-up guns and the father should have known better as he is a law enforcement officer!RoyGBiv wrote:If the kid didn't have access to the weapon, he and his sister might be dead, or worse.v-rog wrote:I'm glad that the kids are OK and their was a favorable outcome!
On the other side of the argument, this is another example of Parents not locking-up their firearms and/or keeping the weapons from underage children; similiar to what occured in Sandy Hook. Turn the table a little bit and say that this 15 y/o male had ill feelings toward friends & those in authority. He could use that same firearm to inflict trauma and death on others.
IMO, we have to have a uniform voice concerning our argument and when addressing the anti(s). We don't need more gun legisltaion, a weapons ban, or an EO, we need responsible citizens to account for their firearms & use them in a lawful manner.
Liberty is dangerous. Personal responsibility is required.
IMO, to be consistent, we have to keep the firearms argument to enforcing current laws and not creating new laws, bans, etc...