On Dec 25, 12:08*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
harry wrote:
On Dec 24, 2:42 am, "HeyBub" wrote:
DGDevin wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
news:svKdncUUku1R0I7QnZ2dnUVZ_hadnZ2d@earthlink .com...

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.

Very few guns are "designed" to kill people. That said, you are arguing from
a false premise: there are many people that NEED killing.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Virtually all guns are designed to kill people. Especially hand guns,
they have no other purpose.