Stop blaming the NRA for failed gun control efforts

Who said they weren't?

However that is a DEFLECTION because it does NOT answer the pertinent question.

Why is this firearms massacre of children acceptable?

 

What makes you think it's acceptable?

 

The lack of outrage and the abject failure of the NRA to do anything practical and effective about reducing it.

 

The NRA trains more firearms safety instructors than any other organization in the world. Their lobbying arm works to protect 2A rights. Why should they be expected to solve the problems of gang violence, filicides and suicides, which account for most of the gun deaths of children 0-12?

I googled and didn't find anything for items like "March for car safety for children" or "Moms against fillicide". Given that four times as many children were murdered by non-firearm methods, it would appear that guns aren't even necessary to kill children. Most filicides of children 6 and under are committed with natural weapons, hands and feet, used in beatings, stranglings, suffocations and drownings.

Proposed Constitutional, effective, enforceable and necessary laws, and we can talk about them.

 

Translation: The deaths of children under 12 are acceptable to those who are allied with the NRA!

 

If that's the way your twisted logic works, sure. It seems your outrage is "kids are murdered with guns", not "kids are murdered", given that gun homicides account for 20% of those homicides yet it's all you focus on. You don't care about kids. You care about guns.

 

I suggest that you reacquaint yourself with the thread title and stop trying to deflect/derail from the topic.

 

Okay, stop blaming the NRA for failed gun control efforts.

 

The deaths of children under 12 are not an object lesson in the NRA's obstruction of gun control that would have ensured that guns were safer?

 

Should we give up our rights to protect children? Should we impose ineffective, unenforceable laws to protect children?

If you want to protect children you should march to overturn the 4th Amendment.

 

Why the nonsensical hyperbole?

Since when is ensuring that guns cannot be fired by children under the age of 12 "giving up your rights"?

 

It's not "nonsensical hyperbole". It's fact; as much as you refuse to acknowledge such.

It's better to train the children so they know how to safely coexist with firearms. It's what my grandfather did, as he started training me in proper safety pretty much from the moment I was old enough to wander the house myself; roughly about the age of 4. I owned my own guns and knew how to handle them safely long before I was 12.

 

Indeed.
If you do not teach you child in an age-appropriate manner how do deal with a firearm, your negligence is at least partly to blame for any firearm-related accident said child may be involved in.

 

What would it take to ensure that guns cannot be fired by children under the age of 12? That's not even what we're talking about, anyway. We're talking about what it would take to ensure that children 12 and under aren't shot by guns, but not any other of the methods that 80% of children under 12 are murdered by.

 

If these individuals being referred to by yourself are truly so dangerous, then they are devoid of a legitimate reason for being left free in society to begin with, where they are capable of causing the most harm. It is truly as simple as that. The argument cannot be made that someone who is mentally ill and dangerous to themselves and others, can be trusted to not pose a threat so long as they do not legally possess a firearm, as there would be nothing preventing them from illegally acquiring a firearm, or simply refusing to surrender them.

 

Anyone under the age of eighteen is legally classified as being a minor, and thus a child, even if they are a member of a gang organization.

 

The NRA is not at fault for individuals who deliberately choose to engage in the reckless, illegal use of a firearm.

 

Nonsensical hyperbole it remains because what you alleged was utter nonsense.

I have no problem with requiring that 100% of all gun owners pass training courses on how to keep guns safe from children. If they can't pass the training then they should not be allowed to own firearms.

 

Obviously it takes a great deal more than the NOTHING meaningful that the NRA is doing about it.

 

My post ONLY referred to SMALL children. That you are disingenuously deflected to TEENAGERS says volumes.

 

The NRA is 100% at fault for OBSTRUCTING the implementation of SAFER guns that would prevent small children from being able to fire them.

 

Which post?

 

Which "safer guns"?

 

And the gangbangers are going to do this exactly how?

 

The one that Xen initially responded to. Just follow the thread back and you will find it.