Child is killed during school walk out against gun violence

a reply to: DBCowboy

If there were no guns, then the kids at Sandy Hook would still be alive. Are guns worth it?

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: Grambler

Like I said before. If a kid is considered old enough to handle a gun, with supervision, then he’s old enough to handle a protest, with supervision. Should we ban all guns because some dumb ass parent left theirs sitting out and a kid who didn’t know what they were doing got hold of it and shot their younger sister? Should we ban all school protests because one school didn’t provide adequate supervision?

Good question - should we ban all guns if one idiotic parent leaves a loaded gun around where a child can get it?

I'm guessing you'd say no...so that answers your second question.

D'oh!

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: DBCowboy

If there were no guns, then the kids at Sandy Hook would still be alive. Are guns worth it?

Was the protest worth the life of a child?

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: Grambler

wow grambler, I can't believe you just used the death of a child to push your political ideology.....

There's a whole posse in here doing just that, he is far from alone.

I think you and scraedtoslee can't seem to grasp is that the only reason the kid was in the road to get hit in the first place was because someone is using the kids to push a political agenda, and thus his death is already in that realm, stop blaming grambler or anyone else.

a reply to: DBCowboy

The answer to your question is the same as the answer to my question.

It's a sad paradox that the discussion is whether a vehicle or a gun killed this lad.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
What’s really funny here, is that of all the school protests/walk outs that have been happening across the country, One kid gets tragically killed in an accident. By some of the responses here, you would think the end is nigh. But way more than one child has died in school shootings, and the response is “yeah, but that’s still such a RARE event - nothing to worry about.”

Let us use the power of our imagination for a sec, let us say the walkout was pro gun, kid gets killed during the walkout. The left would be up in arms, I have no doubt, and would likely try to use that to push more anti-gun laws even though a gun wasn't involved, except they would argue it was a pro-gun event.

a reply to: kaylaluv

If there were no guns, then the kids at Sandy Hook would still be alive. Are guns worth it?

There were no guns at Sandy Hook according to the law. It's a gun free zone. What else do you propose we do to make it where "there are no guns"? They're already banned.

It is simple enough to keep a kid from playing in heavy traffic during school hours: don't take them there.

TheRedneck

Look at the petty bickering.

You lot actually think you're being constructive or making a difference here?

None of us can say or do anything to fix what happened. You are ALL using this situation to score political points against one another.

The best action to take is to remain impartial and see this thread for what it is.

ATS in its death throes.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: DBCowboy

The answer to your question is the same as the answer to my question.

If there had not been a protest, then the child would be alive.

You conflate that with banning guns and Sandy Hook?


People who commit crimes with any type of weapon don't care about the law or what is banned.

So your premise is false.

Was the protest worth the life of a child?

Your answer is obviously yes.

Which is too bad.


It's a shame that some would place ideology over the safety of a child.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Yep. But we have a MUCH bigger problem than one school protest not being supervised properly.

Tell that to the family that lost their child.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: Grambler

Like I said before. If a kid is considered old enough to handle a gun, with supervision, then he’s old enough to handle a protest, with supervision. Should we ban all guns because some dumb ass parent left theirs sitting out and a kid who didn’t know what they were doing got hold of it and shot their younger sister? Should we ban all school protests because one school didn’t provide adequate supervision?

But it is near impossible to provide adequate supervision for a schools worth of children on open streets

Why should schools put children in dangerous situations to make political points?

Kayla has already nullified their position.

Tell us the answer to the question you posed earlier, should we ban all guns if one irresponsible idiot leaves a gun unattended for a child to get their hands on it?

Answer that, please.

Kayla knows that if they answer yes to the above that they are basically saying that all protests involving schoolchildren shouldn't be allowed as that was basically the comparison being made.

You've rendered yourself obsolete in this debate by your own idiotic reasoning.

Truth is everyone is acting out of self interest, nobody cares about this child.

On one hand it's collateral damage - they won't come right out and say it but tht's how it is.

On the other hand it's leverage...nobody cares about the child.

Be honest...ain't fooling no-one.

True...colours....everywhere.

your biggest mistake is thinking you're smarter than everyone else and that nobody can see through the smoke.

Fail.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: DBCowboy

If there were no guns, then the kids at Sandy Hook would still be alive. Are guns worth it?

If there was no sandy hook elementary school then the kids at sandy hook elementary school would still be alive.

Your move....

a reply to: TheRedneck

I suppose it would be simple enough to stop all children from being shot at school by shutting down all schools. That would be one way to do it. Or, we could have not allowed Adam Lanza’s mother to have guns in the house, considering he was a nutbag.

I never let my daughter ride her bike alone in our neighborhood. Too many bad things could have happened to her. Instead of not letting her have a bike, I just had to ride with her, so I could make sure she didn’t get hurt or abducted by someone. Good move on my part, right? Adequate supervision makes a difference.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: TheRedneck

I suppose it would be simple enough to stop all children from being shot at school by shutting down all schools. That would be one way to do it. Or, we could have not allowed Adam Lanza’s mother to have guns in the house, considering he was a nutbag.

I never let my daughter ride her bike alone in our neighborhood. Too many bad things could have happened to her. Instead of not letting her have a bike, I just had to ride with her, so I could make sure she didn’t get hurt or abducted by someone. Good move on my part, right? Adequate supervision makes a difference.

So it's the schools fault for not adequately supervising the child?

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: TheRedneck

I have said many times on this site that I’m not for taking away guns. I am for making it harder for the bad people to get guns, and if that means the good people have to jump through a few more hoops to get guns, I’m okay with that.

Then you have to admit, in this case (parkland), the laws in place SHOULD have stopped this from occurring. The discussion should be WHY the laws were not enforced, nothing more, nothing less.

a reply to: DBCowboy

If there had been adequate supervision, the child would not have died. The protest itself was not the problem. Inadequate supervision was the problem.