jump to navigation

A short list of reasons why legally mandated gun safety features are a good idea April 9, 2013

Posted by Erin Ptah in News Roundup.
Tags: , ,
trackback

Slate’s tally of gun deaths in America since Newtown.

Including some from the following accidental gun shots, none of which happened earlier than this February:

Ukranian child shot in the head by his American adoptive father. Who was “teaching the boy to shoot” at the time.

“The [Texas] school district was sponsoring the class as part of its program to arm teachers and other school employees, in response to the Sandy Hook Elementary massacre and the NRA’s call for America to arm its schools. […] You can guess what happened next.

“A school district in New York has put a program to put armed officers in schools on hold after a policeman’s handgun went off at Highland High School.

“A Massachusetts police dog was digging in a snow bank early Saturday morning found what he was looking for: not only did police canine Ivan discover a stolen handgun, he fired it too.

“A 3-year-old boy from Manchester, Tennessee was left in critical condition over the weekend after being shot while handling a small gun that an adult left sitting on a nearby counter-top.

“Family and friends in Michigan are mourning the death of a 4-year-old Jackson County deputy’s son, who accidentally shot and killed himself over the weekend.

A 6-year-old Toms River boy was shot in the head with a .22 caliber rifle early tonight while in the yard of a 4-year-old neighbor, police said. […] He said police were investigating whether the 4-year-old boy pulled the trigger or the rifle accidentally discharged.”

“[W]hy can’t we come up with a technology that would keep a gun from going off when it is being held by a child? […] It turns out — why is this not a surprise? — that such technologies already exist. […] Why aren’t these lifesaving technologies in widespread use? No surprise here, either: The usual irrational opposition from the National Rifle Association and gun absolutists, who claim, absurdly, that a gun that only can be fired by its owner somehow violates the Second Amendment.”

Advertisements

Comments»

No comments yet — be the first.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: