Glorifying Guns?

Parents who do not own a gun should assume that their children will encounter a weapon at some point, perhaps in the house of a friend or a relative.

Wendy McElroy is not liberal by any standard definition I'm aware of. She lives in Canada with her husband, and is a research fellow for The Independent Institute in Oakland, California. She is not a liberal feminist from Canada anymore than any tourist sending a postcard from Canada is from Canada.

The premise of her article is definitely nothing you'll see supported by Canadians, liberal or not-so liberal.

Quote:

Parents who do not own a gun should assume that their children will encounter a weapon at some point, perhaps in the house of a friend or a relative.

This is definitely not written from a Canadian perspective. If a parent suspected their child was going to be exposed to a gun in the home of a friend (?) or relative, they'd probably not permit the child to go to that home.

dlowan, you simply read your own agenda into my posts. Read them for what they are, not for what you want them to be.

The fact of the matter is, statistics indicate Canadians own more guns per capita than the U.S. Since handguns are banned there (unless you're a cop or a bodyguard for an elected official - there's irony), I'm going to assume most of these are owned by rural residents to use them for hunting. That's a very fair assumption, don't you think? I like people who hunt and fish and am far more likely to give them my trust than to ignorant city dwellers who don't understand the outdoors.

That is absolutely true. Gun laws only apply to people who obey the law. Criminals, by definition, disobey laws. It is SO SIMPLE that I don't understand why some of the gun control people don't smack themselves in the forehead and give up trying to make more restrictive laws.

"Gun-control" doesn't rely on the trustworthiness of law breakers any more than any other law. "Only law-abiding citizens obey laws against murder" is also just as true and the statement does not have relevance to the validity of laws against murder. For its viability it needs to be enforced to compel the reluctant to comply.

Whether or not it can be realized in America is a good question and the saying does have a point in that the law's enforcement would have to be viable. I think the staunch opposition to it by so many generally law-abiding citizens would hamper the ability to use the law-abiding majority to dry up the sources for the criminal minority. That's why I'm not too keen on the idea stateside. Culture itself would have to change for it to be possible.