Why dont/ Will we see parents of dead CT kids voluntarily give up guns so as to act as catalyst

If almost every family didnt have guns then these kids would still be here and that includes the parents of the kids.

Should'nt the parents give up their own guns as an example to all in memory of their children.

Dont think this will happen because folk want their guns.

Restrictions can be applied but only on individuals acquiring guns but killers get their weapons from others and family/parents as in this case!

Will much will change without substantial example setting? Probably not and we will be talking about next time soon enough!

reply to post by RP2SticksOfDynamite


Maybe they dont have any? Ct is a very restrictive gun state..

Anyway,seriously getting tired of all these pro/anti gun threads.
Btw, im from Tx, I think you know where I stand, still its getting old.

they probably have better things to think about at the moment
like planning there kids funerals

Originally posted by Juggernog
reply to post by RP2SticksOfDynamite

 

Maybe they dont have any? Ct is a very restrictive gun state..

Anyway,seriously getting tired of all these pro/anti gun threads.
Btw, im from Tx, I think you know where I stand, still its getting old.

I think you will find that a large maj. have!
The shooters mum had a number.

Originally posted by RP2SticksOfDynamite
If almost every family didnt have guns then these kids would still be here and that includes the parents of the kids.

Should'nt the parents give up their own guns as an example to all in memory of their children.

Dont think this will happen because folk want their guns.

Restrictions can be applied but only on individuals acquiring guns but killers get their weapons from others and family/parents as in this case!

Will much will change without substantial example setting? Probably not and we will be talking about next time soon enough!

edit on 18-12-2012 by RP2SticksOfDynamite because: Early days so we have to see what the parents will do in the memory of their kids!

Originally posted by xszawe
they probably have better things to think about at the moment
like planning there kids funerals

Granted they are grieving also. Be interesting to see if anyone sets and example or not when their initial grieving has subsided.

Originally posted by RP2SticksOfDynamite
If almost every family didnt have guns then these kids would still be here and that includes the parents of the kids.

Should'nt the parents give up their own guns as an example to all in memory of their children.

Dont think this will happen because folk want their guns.

Restrictions can be applied but only on individuals acquiring guns but killers get their weapons from others and family/parents as in this case!

Will much will change without substantial example setting? Probably not and we will be talking about next time soon enough!

edit on 18-12-2012 by RP2SticksOfDynamite because: Early days so we have to see what the parents will do in the memory of their kids!

I respect your opinion, but mine is that if just one teacher or the principle had been carrying a gun, this also might not have happened. Gun bans won't work. Criminals will always find a way to get a gun. And if they don't, well, there are quite a few massacres that happened with knives or bombs. In fact, there was that school in China where 22 students were stabbed the same day as in Newtown.

Originally posted by RP2SticksOfDynamite

Originally posted by Juggernog
reply to post by RP2SticksOfDynamite

 

Maybe they dont have any? Ct is a very restrictive gun state..

Anyway,seriously getting tired of all these pro/anti gun threads.
Btw, im from Tx, I think you know where I stand, still its getting old.

I think you will find that a large maj. have!
The shooters mum had a number.

Doesnt mean that any of the 20 moms or dads of the dead kids had any. Youre making assumptions

Originally posted by shadwgirl

Originally posted by RP2SticksOfDynamite
If almost every family didnt have guns then these kids would still be here and that includes the parents of the kids.

Should'nt the parents give up their own guns as an example to all in memory of their children.

Dont think this will happen because folk want their guns.

Restrictions can be applied but only on individuals acquiring guns but killers get their weapons from others and family/parents as in this case!

Will much will change without substantial example setting? Probably not and we will be talking about next time soon enough!

edit on 18-12-2012 by RP2SticksOfDynamite because: Early days so we have to see what the parents will do in the memory of their kids!

I respect your opinion, but mine is that if just one teacher or the principle had been carrying a gun, this also might not have happened. Gun bans won't work. Criminals will always find a way to get a gun. And if they don't, well, there are quite a few massacres that happened with knives or bombs. In fact, there was that school in China where 22 students were stabbed the same day as in Newtown.

If you give guns to teaachers then how long do you think it will be before its a teacher that cracks and does the same.

Originally posted by Juggernog

Originally posted by RP2SticksOfDynamite

Originally posted by Juggernog
reply to post by RP2SticksOfDynamite

 

Maybe they dont have any? Ct is a very restrictive gun state..

Anyway,seriously getting tired of all these pro/anti gun threads.
Btw, im from Tx, I think you know where I stand, still its getting old.

I think you will find that a large maj. have!
The shooters mum had a number.

Doesnt mean that any of the 20 moms or dads of the dead kids had any. Youre making assumptions

But a wild guess wouldnt be far from the truth based on CT gun ownership stats! Also many have guns but wouldnt even admit it!

Most I bet are busy. But a lot of people buy a gun after being in or near a violent crime, so there is a good chance they might try getting one.

As I've been told be for by others and by life. No good law stops bad men.

I don't know, but it will happen eventually anyways, regardless of weapon on hand. People just sometimes crack, and as I stated previously, if there isn't a gun, there will always be some type of weapon to use. Butterflies and flowers aren't tools against evil, weapons are and we have the right to own and use them for noncriminal activities. Look at Chicago, there is a gun restriction in that city where basically only criminals have access to guns and shootings are skyrocketing there. But than, there is that town in (I think) North Carolina where it is mandatory to own a gun and virtually no crime there. There are good and bad to both sides of this debate, kind of like there are good and bad people. It's not the weapon that is bad, it's how a human uses it that makes that decision.

Originally posted by Juggernog


Doesnt mean that any of the 20 moms or dads of the dead kids had any. Youre making assumptions

You're 100% right the OP is making assumptions. But I think the idea that at least 1 or 2 out of 20 families have firearms may be reasonable. I think the unreasonable assumption OP is making, is this one:

Originally posted by RP2SticksOfDynamite
If almost every family didnt have guns then these kids would still be here and that includes the parents of the kids.

That's a terrible assumption. You have no way of knowing things would be different. Most criminals don't get guns from their parents.

Further, try to put yourself in the shoes of the parents. If someone had come into your child's school killing a bunch of kids, don't you think that might make you feel a bit on edge? Don't you think you might feel safer knowing you had a firearm of your own?

I speculate the opposite may even be true. I bet some of those parents go out and buy guns after this, not give up the ones they already have. Set an example? For who? Why? Not everyone thinks with your kind of flawed logic. Removing guns will not stop crime.