Such a policy would conveniently mark all families with young kids as homes ripe and primed for home invasions.
It begs the question then that when a family gets killed by an intruder the week following the taking of their guns, who is responsible for their deaths, as the family could have defended their 13 year-old kids the week before?
And what are you going to tell the young mother who gets raped by an intruder when her kids are away at school, and she could have defended herself the week before? Similar to the thousands of women who do so annually because they have a gun today. In my last CCP class, most women had young kids all under 12. Haven been attacked before, I wonder what they would think about people who want to make her and her family defenseless?
I remind you that a family (with young kids) in CT was killed not with guns, but with pipes, I believe, and then burned alive. They did not have a gun in the house, by their choice. Why would anyone take that choice away from other families who would not want to be defenseless against such terror?
There is no free lunch. All that is being discussed / decided here is who gets harmed and how, not if people are going to be harmed. It is essentially trying to play God with people’s lives and arranging the deck chairs of the titanic, as criminals are always going to get their targets. The question is which targets survive because they took it upon themselves to and an effective defense.
Having talked to enough senators over the past 20 years, I can confidently say this is not goIng to happen, ever. Even the lib senators hate the idea of being at the mercy of a killer without a fighting chance. And this is one of the main reasons they give major lip service to the far left gun control advocates (need their votes) and blame the NRA (good red meat talking point), but in the end they think about themselves and their families and would not want to be in that position. It would shock people how many congressman on both sides of the aisle have CCPs or guns in their houses.
It is really as basic as self and family preservation and only a small subset see some higher moral virtue in making themselves defenseless targets for criminals and the like and totally dependent on police for their personal well-being. In contrast, the self-preservation mindset pervades Congress as well, regardless of what they say, simply because they have kids too.
Well, it would give them incentive to keep guns out of the hands of their young kids. And still, 60% of households don’t have firearms, so they wouldn’t be in an unusual situation of any sort. We keep firearms from convicted felons because of the risk they pose. This follows the same logic.
This issue above particularly interests me since I befriended many women in CCP training class, the vast majority who have been attacked in the past.
I really would like to know what people would tell a woman who is attacked after her personal pistol is confiscated - would it be something like this, “It is now empowering to be raped and beaten because it is for the good of society. Even though you could have saved / defended yourself last week, society is better of with no guns in homes with young kids. At least your kids were not here to get hurt. Think of it as taking one for the team, because fewer young kids will be victims of accidents involving guns. Your assault is a small price to pay to save those kids. You did good.”
Do I have the argument just about right? Because society has to tell these women something once their power to defend themselves and their young kids is taken away. A power that many women have today.
If I have what would be told to these women wrong, I am sure other women on here will tell me what they would tell these women when they get assaulted after their guns are taken away.
This means taking guns away from ALL families with young kids, which includes the 97%+ of responsible families with guns with young kids.
Why is it somehow a good thing to penalize the 97%+ families with young kids who get it right, by taking away their right for an effective personal and familial defense?
Again, when they are attacked, what will you tell members of the responsible 97%+?
I think there are several different issues being conflated here. One is the prevalence of gun violence (some accidental; the majority quite intentional) in this country; another is mass killings. There is an obvious overlap there, but confronting the latter, which I would argue is particularly germane to this thread, really requires dealing with the “social contagion” part of the equation.
Obviously, there are a lot of privacy issues that will be raised as experts try to prevent future attacks, but this seems to fall under the category of preventing domestic terrorism. Certainly one is left to wonder how many single mothers of sons with Asperger’s also have small arsenals in their homes. I would think most of us could agree that that’s a bad combination!
Yes, we had lengthy discussions about the Sandy Hook and UCSB shooter, who also had a similar profile. I don’t recall anyone being able to come up with a solution (other than banning guns), because these men are adults so no one else can be held liable for their actions. The Sandy Hook mom didn’t secure her guns per law, but her son took care of that hook by killing her, and he owned a gun of his own anyway, as I recall.
Remember when the media (NYT?) published the map of homes of people who possessed registered guns? Aside from the privacy violation outcry, that map made the homes sitting ducks for gun thieves, and even worse, made their neighbors who didn’t own guns even bigger sitting ducks for other crimes. Even though I have never wanted to own a handgun, as a mom of 3 kids whose H was often away, I’d probably need to build my house into a fortress to feel secure if everyone knew there were no guns in my house. If you look to the UK, their property crimes rate is much higher than ours, ostensibly because no one own guns. As I said before, I’m a big believer in the “herd” value of other people having ready handguns in their homes.
How does this analysis explain why the burglary crime rate is lower in Canada, France, Scotland, Germany, the Netherlands and Italy than it is in the US? Is the Netherlands armed to the teeth?
And what is ostensibly doing in the quoted sentence?
CF,
Idk, why don’t you do your own research if you want more answers? I read an article about it years ago when Pierce Morgan was talking about our gun laws, so there was a lot of media discussion about it.
@Bay No, not really. Further to this, I thought the whole idea of the window stickers that read “Security System by Smith & Wesson” was to deter thieves because of an armed homeowner.
I have never seen those stickers, but they are a bad idea for the very reason I stated. Someone wanting to obtain a gun unlawfully will know where to look when the homeowners are away, unless of course the sign is a ruse.
A little bit of basic analysis of one’s ideas would help before writing them down. - the issue with gun thieves is that they know which house has guns, case the place, and then steal the guns when the people are not home.
But on top of that, it endangers people who are public figures.
And this is liberal NY and the the lib politicians who have guns figured out that they too were now outed as to their method of personal defense, as were their wives who had CCPs.
This is a great case of how the gun control advocates stupidly bite themselves in the butt with the people they want support from.
EDITED to add - A similar thing happened with lib politicians in IL when a paper there tried or did the same thing. There is a point where people realize that unlike others they see no virtue or moral high ground in waking around or being defenseless at home, lib politicians included.