On Dec 24, 2:42*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
DGDevin wrote:
"HeyBub" *wrote in message
om...

You're right that sometimes the little ones are the victims of gun
accidents. That is, regrettably, the price we must pay for the
ability to waste a goblin (which happens FAR more frequently than
kids getting shot with the family gun).

Firearms ownership comes with responsibility. *Anyone who leaves a
firearm unsecured where a child can handle it is an idiot, and in
many jurisdictions a criminal as well. *To suggest that kids being
killed by unsecured firearms they find is just "the price we pay" for
security is morally and intellectually repugnant.

I did NOT say "children killed by unsecured firearms;" I said "victims of
gun accidents." I agree with you on the responsibility of securing firearms.

That said, children being killed by firearms is not morally and
intellectually repugnant - it is a fact. Facts are not subject to moral
judgements nor intellectual ones.

Children die riding their bicycles. Children die in swimming pools. Children
die on the school bus.

I agree that owning a firearm carries responsibility. So does owning a
swimming pool or buying a child a bicycle. But irrespective of the
responsibility or diligence, children WILL drown, children WILL get hit by
cars, children WILL die in school bus crashes. And children WILL die from
gunshot wounds.

The fact that some children will die from a gunshot is no more a reason to
ban guns than children drowning is a sufficient reason to ban swimming
pools.

The difference is that guns are designed to kill people. None of the
rest are.