If it were up to me, there would be no guns in any household with children under 18. Better yet, no guns in any household — children or no children.Well, that's all I need to hear.
Right, Jane. You obviously prefer pitchfork murderers butchering innocents to trained and armed young people being able to defend themselves against such maniacs. You clearly prefer gangs of thugs having free rein to brutalize families over brave boys being able to send them fleeing. It's evident you would deny access to the means of protection to all young people (and all older ones, too), no matter whose lives may be saved, and no matter which monsters might be sent howling back into the darkness.
Good Lord, you ignorant, conceited, dangerously silly woman. Stick to being an "authority" on matters that you can legitimately claim some kind of expertise with--unless you'd like to demonstrate your superior ability to repel attackers over those of us who know enough to ignore your stupid, unqualified admonitions.
[Thanks to Declan and Doug]
2 comments:
NY Times article....about the norm for them isn't it? Anti-Freedom and Liberty....
And just think, this is how it USED to be, and is SUPPOSED to be in NY;
Sorry Bloomberg/NY Slimes
Ironic that at the bottom of that article there was a reference to a previous article from the same author about children and accidental drowning.
Compare these two quotes:
"These are just two of several hundred such deaths that will almost certainly occur this year. Guns account for 10 percent of all injury-related deaths among children ages 5 to 14."
"drowning kills more than 1,400 children under 20 in a typical year. And for every child who dies in the water, four others are hospitalized for near-drowning, some of whom suffer permanent brain damage or physical disabilities."
So assuming her numbers are correct, then children are SEVEN TIMES more likely to die by drowning than by firearms accident. Even though there are WAY more firearms in the US than pools.
Yet she says this:
"If it were up to me, there would be no guns in any household with children under 18. Better yet, no guns in any household — children or no children."
She does NOT say this:
"If it were up to me, there would be no POOLS in any household with children under 18. Better yet, no POOLS in any household — children or no children."
Why? Clearly guns can be used to protect life and property and not merely for recreation. Guns are FAR LESS dangerous to children than pools. Nobody really "NEEDS" a pool, right? I have NEVER heard of a parent defending their family from brutal attack with their pool. So why then is her advice so different for guns than pools.
She clearly has hoplophobia. Because she fears firearms, she assigns them a higher risk than pools even though her own words confirm that pools pose the greater risk to children. In other words, she is delusional.
Post a Comment