People bear arms for a number of reasons – hunting, safety, sport. And people will bear arms with or without children. I grew up in a household with guns, my father was a hunter and collected them. As soon as I was old enough to understand, I was taught to respect them. I was taught how to use fire them, how to load them, and most importantly, how to check if they were loaded. Guns were never a forbidden item in my home. I was curious and my curiousity was satisfied. No one ever got shot. If there is a gun in your house, you must teach you child how to use it and how to check it. Take away the mystery and the lure of the forbidden.

I am shocked that people think it important to teacha 5 years old not to run out in the street without looking but that starting early with teaching them to respect firearms is not appropriate. I too grew up with guns at time when you could order on through the mail from Sears and gun cabinets where just that cabinets not safes. This bury your head in the sand and blame guns mentality of the gun haters is a symptoms of them trying to solve their cognitive dissonance about hating something that when used properly can save your life, put food on the table and be source of enjoyment as a sport.

Get a life gun grabbers. And, if you still prefer gun control over liberty instead of trying to change the country that stands as the bastion of liberty for the entire world why don’t you instead move to China.

Children are children. They should not be in proximity to pools. Please keep them off of your property. For their sake.

I know it’s been said before, but more children drown in home pools than are killed by guns in the home. This is an issue of supervision, not “guns are evil.” I hate guns. HATE them. My husband works in the security community and as such interacts with many older, right wing folks who shoot as a hobby. He’s talked about taking up shooting as a social activity, and I’m fine with that, but I refuse to have guns in my home. To extend a personal dislike however to “why does the 4th amendment exist” is ridiculous. I won’t say there are never times that the constitution should be changed, but changing it is always a perilous decision. I would love to live in a world with fewer guns, but I hate talk of banning guns. Yes, guns are dangerous, but not everything that is dangerous should be BANNED.

… because without the second amendment the first amendment would quickly vanish too.

What a terrible thing to have happen, I feel sorry for the family but also think they should be punished for not properly securing the firearms and supervising their children. As for why does the fourth admendmant exists? it’s not about hunting, it is about being free and being free of tyranny and oppression. I am a free citizen and I have a right to bear arms, remember through out history only Free citizes could bear arms, not slaves. So think about history when you want to take away someones rights, the next right being taken away may effect you. Now that being said as a parent and a gun owner I have a duty to make sure my firearms are secure and my son (God forbid) can not get a hold of it.

As a final note guns in the hands of law abiding citizins is not a bad thing even if you do not like guns.

Dennis P. Gluth

Personally, and this is germaine to the topic of children, I support the second amendment as the framers intended it: every American has the right to bear a muzzle-loading, single-shot musket for the purpose of serving in the local militia because the constitution does not provide for a standing army. (10th Amendment: because a standing army is not explicitly enumerated in the constitution, the power to organize a military is relegated to the states.) In order for a child (see?) to do harm with a musket, their arms must be long enough to support and load it simultaneously, and by that time they’re old enough to train in its use. Any other type of gun was clearly not intended to be supported, because they didn’t exist yet, and could not have been envisioned or included in the intent. (In the event of a standing army, obviously, the militia clause makes firearms a privilege, not a right. I teach grammar and Scalia’s opinion aside, the notwithstanding clause does, in fact, affect the meaning of the phrase that follows it.)

If we’re arguing law, that’s one thing, but to argue the constitution is to argue for muskets. Every other weapon requires a radical interpretation of the text. That said, pools *are* more dangerous than guns and I will never have either in my house, nor allow my children to play at a house that has either unless I’m there to supervise. Nor will I have much sympathy for people who are injured in accidents involving either (four times as many people are injured in firearms accidents every year than successfully defend their property with one – the 2 million home-defenders number is a myth).

Nope, do not own guns and will not allow my husband to bring his hunting rifles (that he owned when he was 15 years old) into our home.
My father is a police officer and we never knew where his gun was, he used to clean it in front of us and everything. I am not scared of guns but if I know that there will never be a tragedy at my house with guns that we own.

@Niknakpatty — Actually, I very specifically think guns in the home in the home are very much a parenting issue, and I think parents who don’t see it that way are putting their children in grave danger, like the family in Texas who just lost their son.

@Quinn
Couldn’t the same be said of the first amendment being restricted to quill pens and ink press? Where did the framers ever envision the internet, television, radio, photography, motion pictures or any of the other mediums we use today and protect as free speech

@Quinn… You need to actually study the constitution if you want to start describing your opinion on the framers intent. Read the Colonist papers, study John Adams thoughts on self preservation, study Madison and Jefferson thoughts on keeping the power in the hands of the people through the arming of the citizenry. Read Washingtons thoughts on the right to bear arms and the importance of EVERY citizen owning firearms (including CANNONS) that were equal to the governments. Study the tyranny that they chose to escape when the citizens were unable to defend themselves from the British. Learn what the actual roles of the militias were.

2a was intended to protect the people from a tyrannical government by keeping the power in the hands of the people. Militias and self preservation and all the other benefits were simply an intended bi-product of 2a.

There is a reason SCOTUS has consistently side with the individuals right to bear arms in defense of themselves and there loved ones. They have also ruled that the police have no duty to protect an individual so any reasonable legal scholar can conclude that you are responsible for your own safety and the safety of your loved ones.

On the subject of the tragedy, it is just that, a tragedy. The parents should be culpable if it is found that they acted in an irresponsible manner by not securing their firearm. Sad event to say the least.

Why? Because it’s a right- and you bet yer ya yas it’s one people better keep, and keep the knowledge thereof.
We have an old safe- the kind we needed a rigger and tow motor to have placed in our garage. None of the kids know the combination, nor is it written anywhere. THAT is where our guns are stored. However, 2 of 3 of the kids have taken gun safety course and are pretty accurate marksmen.
Teach the kids the proper gun safety handling and rules and never give them access without you there- and you will remove the mystery many children have concerning guns.

You commenters are paranoid nuts. Guns are not even good self defense–you are more likely to be shot by the person you’re trying to shoot than you are if you just got down and hid. Having a gun doesn’t make your family safer–intruders are more afraid of dogs anyway. Get a dog and get a life! If this headline was: 4 year old eaten by parents’ pet alligator, we could all agree that alligators have no place in a home. To me, this story is no different.

@K Annie — Boy, it must be the sign of the apocalypse that you and I agree on so much these days.

@ K Annie – Actually we live in the real world where emotion is not a driving force but logic and reason. And can you back up your claim that a gun owner will get shot with their own weapon? Maybe 1-2% MIGHT, but the FBI and other law enforcement statistics where homeowners have successfully defended their homes and their families from criminals will soundly whomp your emotional rhetoric.

Stick to facts and keep the emotional bias out and you might actually learn something while gaining a better understanding of why people own firearms for personal protection. Try it… it’s pretty easy really.

I can think of 1,911 reasons why this article should have never been published, let alone crapped out by the emotionally charged twat waffle of an author we have here. Don’t blame the inanimate object. Blame the worthless adults in that house who left their firearms accessible and their children unsupervised. I suppose if they had walked out the back door and been run down by a FedEx truck, you would be calling for the banning of dangerous vehicles?

You have no business behind a keyboard.

Honestly, this why I wonder about countries like America where people think owning a gun is a right. I understand when the gun has a function like for hunting. But why on earth would anyone need a handgun in their house? Nobody does. The people who end up getting hurt are almost always unintended. In society you make decisions for what is best for the whole. Honestly what kind of lunatics collect handguns? Uneducated hillbilllies or criminals, that’s who.

@Sophia’s Mom
I don’t “think” owning a firearm is a right I know it is,and it is protected by the 2nd. I don’t consider myself an uneducated hillbilly or a criminal,yet I still collect pistols. Why,you ask? I enjoy going to the range and shooting,it’s a hobby. When an innocent life is taken by a firearm it is truely a tragedy and the news reports it because sheep like you flock to the television and boost ratings. Responsible people carry a firearm everyday and on rare occasions need to protect themselves, I suggest you go look up recent FBI statistics before any of you antis start showing anymore of your ignorance. Are there criminals that have guns,sure. You really think outlawing guns is going to do anything to change the criminals minds on owning one? To the writer of the article,it wasn’t the guns fault that the child is dead. The fault lays with the parents,and they will have to live with that. By the time I was six I knew the basics of gun safety and handeling. Maybe instead of vilifying guns you should preach that a parent should be more responsible with their children.

@Sophia’s mom

Yup, I’m just an uneducated hillbilly. . Oh wait. . I did get that BSCS degree, and that MSCS degree, and I’m working on my MBA. .

So I must be a criminal. . . Oh wait. . .I’ve adopted two children internationally which required a FBI background check, a Child services background check and a State Police background check. . twice. (once for each adoption).

But go ahead and continue to insult people because that is all your argument has been reduced to: “If you don’t agree with me, I’m going to call you an idiot because I’M SO MUCH SMARTER that you gun owning moron hicks”

Hope you feel so much better now that you have declared yourself so brilliant and superior.

@Bettywu And it’s no wonder my rightwing friends ignore me when I tell them to stop being paranoid, that no one wants to take away their guns. Because apparently I’m wrong. As I said before, I personally hate guns. I know plenty of responsible gun owners however.

I love the anti-gun rationalizations… Gun folks are buck-toothed morons, NRA functionaries, etc. News flash. I’m a regular person, and my opinion is my own, just like everyone else here. I haven’t seen Wayne LaPierre show up yet, so why don’t you accept that our opinions are those of your neighbbors, co-workers, etc.?

@Meridith: You are ignorant by your own admission. You say in your first sentence that you don’t get why anyone would want to bear arms, yet you’ve heard in just a few comments multiple valid reasons for doing so.

P.S.: My dental work is well aligned, and I have degrees from MIT, and 3 other graduate programs, including a business degree. I’ve held a security clearance, so no criminal background. And I’ve got enough firearms to outfit a platoon. And I vote.

Have a wonderful day!

Approximately 60 million homes have firearms in them, depending upon whose stats you take.

Let’s say that 1/3, or 20 million of these homes have children in them.

If just 10 percent of those homes (not a large percentage) have children who misuse guns we should have 200,000 dead children each year. Do we? Of course not.

If just 1 percent of those homes (a very small percentage) have children who misuse guns we should have 20,000 dead children each year. Do we? Of course not.

If just 0.1 percent of those homes (a very teeny tiny percentage) have children who misuse guns we should have 2,000 dead children each year. Do we? Of course not.

Or… if just one one-hundredth of one percent (a mind-numbingly small percentage) have children who misuse guns then we should have 200 dead children each year. Do we. Not even close. That is still FOUR TIMES the number of children who are accidentally killed by firearms each year.

And the poster thinks that she knows what is best for the 99.99 percent of families who are doing it correctly and keeping their firearms safe. That, my friends, is the type of logic that those who have no rational thinking skills but depend upon emotions to drive their thoughts come up with.

quinn sez: Personally, and this is germaine to the topic of children, I support the second amendment as the framers intended it: every American has the right to bear a muzzle-loading, single-shot musket

Jack replies: Thank you for agreeing with me. I have been arguing for years that the 1st Amendment only allows citizens to have freedom of speech when they are using the tools that existed at the time of the Constitution being written. Only the soap box, quill pen and a slow paper printer are germane. The 1st simply doesn’t apply to high speed presses, radio, TV, and certainly not the internet. It’s good to finally meet a kindred spirit in you.

quinn sez: I teach grammar and Scalia’s opinion aside, the notwithstanding clause does, in fact, affect the meaning of the phrase that follows it.)

Jack replies: I’ll take the word of a real expert.

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm

quinn sez: Nor will I have much sympathy for people who are injured in accidents involving either (four times as many people are injured in firearms accidents every year than successfully defend their property with one – the 2 million home-defenders number is a myth).

Jack replies: No cite for either thin-air stat? Typical…. throw made up stuff out and expect people to believe it.

Meridith sez: Actually, I very specifically think guns in the home in the home are very much a parenting issue, and I think parents who don’t see it that way are putting their children in grave danger, like the family in Texas who just lost their son.

Jack replies: I am still waiting for a reason why you think that 99.99 percent of the parents who have guns in the home and the children are okay are somehow putting their children in grave danger.

Annie sez: You commenters are paranoid nuts. Guns are not even good self defense–you are more likely to be shot by the person you’re trying to shoot than you are if you just got down and hid.

jack replies: And isn’t it amazing, folks, that people like annie who never shot a gun, who are dreadfully afraid of guns, who believe that guns CAUSE good people to go bad, who only barely know which end the bullet comes out of, are somehow the people to whom we should take advice from on how well guns work for self defense?

While we simple-minded, misguided, befuddled people with decades of experience with guns in all circumstances really apparently have no clue about how to make guns work, and without the anointed ones’ guidance we will merrily continue to shoot ourselves in our feet, kill our children, and generally screw up society?

Like they say: When you’re sick you go to a car mechanic; when you’re in court you need a butcher; and when you want to know something about guns, you go to annie.

Jenna sez: unfortunately “worthless adults” are the ones who tend to own guns. Not the types who should own guns. That’s the problem.

Jack replies: Then perhaps you can explain, in detail and with specifics, why 99.999 percent of all guns and guns owners never, ever do illegal actions with their guns.

@Jack: LOVE you!
@K Annie Guns in my home are for the hobby and skill-building first. They wi;ll be here when my son gets his police commission as well- work-related.
I don’t want a dog (major EW- hair, urine, feces and fleas) and have a life I LOVE, TYVM! I suggest YOU keep YOUR nose out of it.
@Sophia’s Mom: educated quite well- in fact better manner than some :-P I’d suggest you just don’t live in a country that protects this right. Some hobbyists collect guns and enjoy target shooting as well. Oh- no misdemeanors OR felonies in this family :-) In fact, law enforcement-officials with baccalaureates on board. Why not educate yourself instead of being mentally lazy and resorting to the use of stereotypes?

“You possess the Right and are more than Free to choose, not to keep or bear any arms, but you Shall Not infringe on my Right.” EDIT that extra are out of there.

I am.

@Michelle I am very skeptical of your claim that “several thousand” children are being killed in home gun accidents each year. I imagine there ARE cases where children are killed in spite of sensible safety measures taken by parents, but I can’t think of the last time I heard about it happening.

A “certain number” of children die each year from many different unusual causes. As I pointed out before, a backyard pool is far more likely to kill a child than a home gun, but so far I’ve not heard anyone suggesting banning pools, or claiming that pool owners are “ok with” a certain number of child deaths.

@Betty I’m certainly a regular reader here.

Meredith Carroll, you don’t understand why anyone would want to bear arms. You don’t understand because you are stupid. Unfortunately stupidity can’t be fixed.

And yes, my right to own a gun is never forsworn because someone else was careless or negligent., That’s a tragedy, but still- this village member will keep her guns and rights, TYVM. I expect others to keep theirs safe from children as well.

Michelle apparently lives in a fantasy world of absolutism, where nothing ever goes wrong, people never make mistakes.

Since the records have been maintained, we see from the 1930′s a total of over 2,500 deaths by accidental firearm discharge has dropped to a low of 613 in 2007, with only 116 below the age of 18. Wow, a reduction of over 75%, all while the US population has gone from 122.8 mil to 302 mil in 2007.

Why didn’t those accidental firearms discharges increase with the population at a 245% increase eh Michelle?

This reduction is due solely to the actions of all the hunting and pro gun organizations as the number of gun owners has increased by over 30 million and the number of firearms by over 100 million during the same time frame. Frankly, the anti gun organizations safety tip of “bad gun, no touch” really doesn’t do anything, at least not in the real world.

Care to google how many people are killed by police accidentally each year but you are comfortable with that eh?

Care to google how many crimes are committed by police each year of rape, murder, drug dealing etc, etc yet you who believe they are the “only ones” are comfortable with that eh?

You do realize that there are only 800k police in the US.

You do realize there are 80 million law abiding gun owners in the US eh?

Care to do a side by side count Michelle between the collateral shootings by the 800k police versus the 80 million law abiding gun owning civilians.

But hey, people like Michelle are apparently comfortable with all that crap about the only ones supposedly capable of defending the public killing and injuring more people by accident than civilians eh?

No people like Michelle who continue to infer that the NRA or the 80 mil law abiding gun owners have responsibility for the actions of others only invokes memories of another time, where a government blamed societal ills upon a group. They demonized, persecuted, blamed, used government propaganda and in the end, maybe you can ask the Jews how all that turned out for them in WW2.

People like Michelle sure seem to infer that everyone is responsible for everyone else’s failures, crimes and actions.

So let’s see Michelle become the leader and live life just like that, for every crime or failure, she should be footing the bill, giving up her rights etc, etc, etc, etc. Failure to do so just proves the hypocrisy of her position.

I continue to be sadly amazed at how uneducated people are who comment on these matters.
1. The argument that the Founders were referring only to muskets, as if they were some less than lethal arm is a red herring. Rifles existed that could reach out to a thousand yards with remarkable accuracy for the time existed; but that’s not the real argument. The Founders were addressing human behavior, not technology. They fully well knew that humans were, are and continue to be capable of behavior to deprive their peers of their liberty and lives, either governments placing the thumb of oppression upon the citizen, or the criminal looking to rob, rape, or murder. They were wise enough to know that humans needed to ability to protect themselves against those who would deny them these fundamental rights.
2. Those who state the Founders were only referring to organized government military units as those who should be armed have not read any of the historical works and words of these people. A consistent theme runs through their writings; writings such as the Federalist Papers. The theme is simple-the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right granted not by the government, but by higher authority. However you interpret the concept of higher power, as in God, a group of gods, or nature itself, those rights are granted by that higher power, and are to be protected by the government, not granted or taken away by government.
Just take a careful, unbiased look at history. Gun control leads to crime, chaos, and some of the terrors recorded for posterity. Criminals and governments practicing criminal behavior do not discriminate; men and women, all races and creeds, straight and gay, young and old can fall victim.
What happened in this case is a tragedy. The death of any person in such a way is terrible. The answer is not, however, the hoary old calls for gun control which echo each time these incidents happen. The answer is personal responsibliity and following the basic rules of gun safety.

Meredith Carroll dear, you are paranoid, and need to seek mental help for your Hoplophobia and other unreasonable fears.
I will address your emotion based concerns, but it won’t likely matter . . . you’re paranoid, this means you’re the victim of unreasonable fear that logic and reason is unlikely to alleviate.

You asked: “Leeada — Why do you assume I don’t know what I’m writing about?”

Because you wouldn’t have written, such a baseless and foolish article, if you knew anything at all about the subject.

There is actually so little risks of accidental gun death for children, your child is at far greater risk of you killing them through neglect or abuse than from a gun.
In 1998 4 children a day (approximately 1,460), died in the U.S. from parental neglect and abuse. (National Center on Child Abuse Prevention, 1998 Annual Survey)

While in 2001, there were only 65 accidental gun deaths for children under age 13. (A “child” is considered birth to puberty, usually 13). (WISQARS Injury Mortality Report, Center for Disease Control, 2001)
Each death is a tragedy to someone, but those able to use logic and reason base their opinions on facts rather than emotions and paranoia.

Let’s put guns into a clearer perspective of actual threat risk to children:
If each of the 80 MILLION gun owners in America gave you a penny, and each time a child is accidentally killed by a gun accident in 2001, you gave the family a penny.
You would take in $800,000 a year and you would have paid out . . . 65 cents.

Many people believe it “perfectly reasonable” to give their 16-year-olds a driver license and a car to “enjoy their freedom”.
Yet in 2001, over 13 teenagers died each day in vehicle accidents, of those, 7 of those teens were the drivers of the death vehicles. (U.S. Department of Transportation’s Fatality Analysis Reporting System, 2001)

If you’re concerned about the death of “children”: In 2001, 72 young people 1-14 were killed by gun accidents and 4,450 were killed in vehicle accidents. (Center for Disease Control, 20 Leading Causes of Unintentional Injury Deaths, United States, 2001, All Races, Both Sexes, Ages: 1-14)
Want to ban cars, or just teen drivers?

Do you really, truly believe that the police need to be armed?
Those capable of logic and reason understands, that if the police actually “need a gun”, the victims the police were called for needed a gun as well.

Add to this the fact that the police have no duty to protect individuals.
But here’s what the courts have ruled:
Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982) (no federal constitutional requirement that police provide protection)

Calogrides v. Mobile, 475 So. 2d 560 (Ala. 1985); Cal Govt. Code 845 (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Calogrides v. Mobile, 846 (no liability for failure to arrest or to retain arrested person in custody)

Davidson v. Westminster, 32 Cal.3d 197, 185, Cal. Rep. 252; 649 P.2d 894 (1982) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Stone v. State 106 Cal.App.3d 924, 165 Cal Rep. 339 (1980) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C.App. 1983) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C.App 1981) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Sapp v. Tallahassee, 348 So.2d 363 (Fla. App. 1st Dist.), cert. denied 354 So.2d 985 (Fla. 1977); Ill. Rec. Stat. 4-102 (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Keane v. Chicago, 98 Ill. App.2d 460, 240 N.E.2d 321 (1st Dist. 1968) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Jamison v. Chicago, 48 Ill. App. 3d 567 (1st Dist. 1977) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Simpson’s Food Fair v. Evansville, 272 N.E.2d 871 (Ind. App.) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Silver v. Minneapolis, 170 N.W.2d 206 (Minn. 1969) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Wuetrich V. Delia, 155 N.J. Super. 324, 326, 382, A.2d 929, 930 cert. denied 77 N.J. 486, 391 A.2d 500 (1978) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Chapman v. Philadelphia, 290 Pa. Super. 281, 434 A.2d 753 (Penn. 1981) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Morris v. Musser, 84 Pa. Cmwth. 170, 478 A.2d 937 (1984) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Answer yourself this question in your heart of hearts:
Why should a police officer risk his life, to save something so insignificant (your children’s lives), that even the owner is unwilling to protect it?

I live in Canada where there are very strict gun control laws. It definitely isn’t anyone’s right here to own a handgun. Why would there be? In Canada, the murder and violent crime rate is much lower than in the US. And of all murders in Canada, only 30% are by guns. However, in the US, 70% of murders are contributed to guns. Its pretty clear, when guns are available, they tend to increase violence statistics. I definitely don’t understand the “god given right” approach either. I know my comments enraged alot of readers. But, the perception in most of canada, is that the only people who are rabid gun promoters (aside from hunters) are criminals and other low lifes. Sorry, that’s just how most of the western world rolls these days.

I love the argument that gun control laws would actually increase gun crime statistics. I think we sometimes forget that there are other countries out there who have adopted gun control measures. And guess what, they have lower gun violence statistics than the US.

Mexico is basically a third world country with an extremely corrupt police force and government. It is also suggested that illegal guns are smuggled from the US into Mexico and that is how criminals get their guns. Why don’t you pick another western, educated country that is actually similar to the US?

THINK Sophia’s Mom: do you really believe the supplier country would have fewer issues than the recipient country, if guns were the problem?

Yes, Obama’s BATF ILLEGALLY sent guns into Mexico. (“Project Gunwalker” and “Fast and Furious”)
But the majority of cartel guns come from other countries besides the USA. (THINK! Why would the Mexicans pay MORE, just to “buy American”?)

You state: “Why don’t you pick another western, educated country that is actually similar to the US?”
How about using the U.S.: In 1998, Washington DC had a near total ban on functional firearms (for the law-abiding) for 22 years, and a 56.9 per 100,000 murder rate.
While just 3 MILES away, in Arlington, Virginia, gun ownership was/is much less restricted for the law-abiding, yet the murder rates were only 1.6 per 100,000. (Crime in the United States, FBI, 1998)
So where guns were banned (DC) there was a 35 times higher murder rate than “Lax Gun Control” Arlington, Virginia.

Let’s see; on the subject of Canada: in 1920, no gun laws, Canada’s homicide rate-7% of that of the U.S. By 1986, with massive gun control legislation in place, homicide rate was…35% of that of the U.S. A five fold increase with gun control in place.

By 2003, in comparing the official figures as gathered by Canadian and US governmental agencies, the violent crime rate in Canada was 963 vs. 475 in the U.S. per one hundred thousand.

And, the Research Branch of the Library of Parliament examined the four Canadian prairie provinces vs. the ajoining Northern U.S. states; the rate of crime was 66% higher in this section of Canada, as examined from 1961 to 2003.

So, lock your doors and hope for the best. You have problems you’re unwilling to admit.

Ed- your stats are not correct. I’m from Canada as well and it Is a well known fact that violent crime in Canada is way lower than in america and it always has been. It is property crime that is higher in Canada than in America. Go to our government website for accurate stats (stats canada).

@Jackie dear, I’m afraid you are the one who may be wrong.
In 2003, Canada (963 per 100,000) had a violent crime rate more than double that of the U.S. (475 per 100,000) (Juristat: Crime Statistics in Canada, 2004 and FBI Uniform Crime Statistics)

After the implementation of Canada’s 1977 gun controls prohibiting handgun possession for protection, the “breaking and entering” crime rate in Canada rose 25%, surpassing the American rate. (Residential Burglary: A Comparison of the United States, Canada and England and Wales, Pat Mayhew , National Institute. of Justice., Wash., D.C., 1987)

What are some of your statistics and sources?

@ Quinn
Quinn states: “I teach grammar and Scalia’s opinion aside, the notwithstanding clause does, in fact, affect the meaning of the phrase that follows it.”
Pssst! “Teacher” Quinn! “germaine” is spelled germane, but that’s just a little language help between you and me.
On to the more obvious flaws in your skills as a grammar “teacher”.
Quinn states: “other type of gun was clearly not intended to be supported, because they didn’t exist yet, and could not have been envisioned or included in the intent.”
Since Quinn has probably never even read the 2nd Amendment I’ll post it:
“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the RIGHT of the PEOPLE to keep and bear ARMS shall not be infringed.” (Emphasis mine)
Notice Quinn that it does NOT say “…the right of the people to keep and bear muskets…” it says “ARMS”. A Glock 21 is covered by “ARMS”.
Next point: the Second Amendment states “. . . the RIGHT of the PEOPLE . . . ” not the “. . . privilege of the people . . . ”.
Next note it states: “. . . the RIGHT of the PEOPLE . . . ”, it does NOT say “…the right of the militia . . . ”. (Militias doesn’t have Rights, they have Powers, only people have Rights.)
Lastly, what part of “…shall not be infringed” confuses you English teacher?
Quinn states: “Nor will I have much sympathy for people who are injured in accidents involving either (four times as many people are injured in firearms accidents every year than successfully defend their property with one – the 2 million home-defenders number is a myth).”
We notice that you gave absolutely no support for this statement, “English teacher”.
Can you support your statement at all, in any way?
Sorry “English teacher”; your cowardice does not a fact make.
Do Guns Make Us Safer or Less Safe?
October 16, 1991, George Hennard drove his truck through the front window of “Gun-Free” Luby’s Cafeteria in Killeen, TX.
He casually walked around the cafeteria, slaughtering defenseless victims like, well, helpless sheep.
You can read the personal account of a survivor who got to watch both her mother and father be sacrificed on the Alter of Gun Control. (http://www.gunownersalliance.com/hupp-10.htm) Or you can listen to her tell the tale of how she lost her parents in a State created “Gun Free Zone” before Congress. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1u0Byq5Qis)
End results: 1 gunman, 23 murdered, 20 injured.

Nearly 2 months later to the day, December 17, 1991, a band of evil men did a “takeover” robbery at the Shoney’s Family Restaurant in Anniston, AL. This band of criminals had used their stolen guns to murder a manager a week or so before. They herded 20 hostages into a walk-in cooler and 2 of the goblins proceeded to search the restaurant for more victims and loot, while the 3rd forced the manager to open the safe at gun point.
One of the customers, postal worker Thomas Glenn Terry was armed:
3 gunmen, 20 hostages, one armed customer.
Eventually the police arrived to a safe and secure crime scene, as is usually the case. There they found one dead robber, one seriously wounded robber and the third had fled when the shooting started.
Because of the action of Mr. Terry, no innocent victim was harmed.

On April 15, 2007, the academics of “Gun-Free” Virginia Tech was proud that it was “a place of learning and intellect; not violence”.
Then April 16, 2007, a madman entered this “place of learning and intellect; not violence” . . . and started slaughtering the defenseless and cowering students at his leisure until he got bored and killed himself: 1 gunman, 32 murdered, 25 injured.
Most of the victims were murdered AFTER the police were “on scene”.
Five years earlier, on January 16, 2002, a gunman entered Virginia Appalachian School of Law to commit murder, there he encountered 2 ARMED STUDENTS: 1 gunman, 3 murdered, 3 injured.

On April 20th, 1999 “Gun Free” Columbine High School became famous.
Two convicted felons, they were NOT “bullied students” as the media stated, but goblins who were barred from legally possessing guns due both to their age and their felony convictions, had made a series of death threats against one of their previous victims, that were serious enough for a judge to order the County Sheriff to searched their homes for weapons; had the Sheriff done his job, the Columbine Massacre would have been prevented. But just like the Tucson shooting; the sheriff didn’t do his job.
2 gunmen, 13 victims murdered, 24 injured. Even with 5 SWAT Teams and many other officers, most of those victims were murdered AFTER the police were “on scene”.

Two years before Columbine, on October 1, 1997, a goblin beat and stabbed his mother to death and decided to slaughter more innocent victims at Pearl High School.
What the goblin hadn’t counted on, was Vice-principal Joel Myrick.
According to the media Vice-principal Myrick “confronted the gunman, and talked him into putting down his gun, and sitting down and quietly waiting for the police.”
Where are the REAL reporters?
What reader wouldn’t want to know: “What do you say to someone, who has murdered fellow classmates, as well as his own mother, to get them to put down the gun and just wait” for the police to eventually show up?

Sometimes, “it’s not so much what you say, as how you say it”.
Vice-principal Myrick had sprinted off school property, to return with his .45, stuck the gun in the goblin’s face and said “PUT DOWN THE GUN! WHY ARE YOU KILLING MY KIDS?!”
1 gunman, 2 murdered, 7 injured: Stopped by ARMED vice-principal.

Defenseless victims in “Gun Free Zones” murdered: 68/ injured 69
Places where murderers encountered ARMED resistance: murdered 5/ injured 10.
With the exception of the Shoney’s non-massacre, not a shot was fired to stop the murderers. (Which according to you, would means that guns didn’t stop the crimes.)

Now, let’s see proof where an armed intended victim “made things worse”.

Do you really, honestly, believe that the police should be armed?
Wouldn’t logic and reason suggest that the victims of any incident, that the responding police “needs to be armed”, the victims should have been armed as well?

@ K Annie
Annie do you really emote that the police carry those “nasty old guns” because their utility belts don’t weigh enough?
You really believe “intruders are more afraid of dogs anyway” than a bullet in the chest? Would you like to buy some beachfront property I own in Yuma, Az?

Please do a little actual research, so you don’t sound quite so stupid to those of us who have.

@Kikiriki ~ “Although I think the ones who claim it is their “God-given right” are going a bit too far – after all, if God thought it was your right to have a gun, wouldn’t He have just given one to Adam and Eve at the very beginning of time? I mean come ON.”

We have a God-given right to “keep and bear arms,” because it goes without saying (to those with even a grain of common sense) that is one of the most effective ways on this planet (at this point in time) to protect ourselves, our loved ones, our friends, our fellow citizens, and our property. It is a right worth dying for, and that may give you angina, but you need to come to grips with that fact. This is a heavily armed country, and nothing short of Armageddon will change that reality. Hoplophobics (like the gun-grabbers posting here) need to seek professional help in an effort to control their morbid fears. You may even be able to get a group together from those on this site; “Hoplophobic’s Anonymous” might be a good name for your group. Plus, I would suggest some type of inurement therapy as a start.
—
As an aside ~ Looks like the author (Meredith Carroll?) of this Strollerderby screed didn’t give any thought to her article being picked up by the Google News spider; that is where I saw the link. Appears she gave up replying a few hours after she posted. She had no clue what she was getting into, since her usual intended audience must be sympathetic to her condition.
—
All children should complete the NRA’s Eddie Eagle Program. Ignorance is no excuse, parents. You have alternatives. http://www.nrahq.org/safety/eddie/