Friday, January 10, 2014

NRA News Fights For The Right To Leave Unsecured Guns Around Children


NRA News host Cam Edwards

Media Matters

NRA News host Cam Edwards attacked laws to prevent children from accessing guns by positing that there should be no criminal penalty even when an admittedly careless adult allows a child access to a gun that the child then uses to kill themselves.


On the January 6 edition of NRA News program Cam & Company, Edwards attacked Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America founder Shannon Watts for advocating for state laws that create a criminal penalty for adults that negligently allow children access to firearms. In an interview with USA Today, Watts cited the fact that only 15 states have child access prevention laws and contended, "This idea that a shooting that involves a toddler is accidental is asinine. If I was drinking and driving and hit my son, I would immediately go to jail. But if I left my firearm on the top of the refrigerator and he found it and shot himself, everyone says, what a horrible accident."

Edwards responded to Watts' USA Today interview by suggesting that if "you are careless with a firearm and one of your own children accidentally kills themself" that the "horror" of the incident alone would be sufficient punishment for the adult. But in arguing against laws that criminalize negligently allowing children to access guns, Edwards ignores that research has shown that these laws are associated with a reduction in gun deaths among children resulting from accidents and suicide.

Mocking Watts' comparison between a child access prevention law and a law that criminalizes killing someone while drunk driving, Edwards said, "We don't have a negligent storage law for alcohol," and, "We don't have a negligent storage law for automobiles, and so I'm not quite sure what she is talking about." But state criminal laws governing the storage of dangerous items are hardly uncommon. For example, Michigan has a number of criminal laws concerning the improper storage of hazardous materials with increased penalties for conduct that endangers the public.

My opinion is that safe storage laws must apply to all. The half-a-million stolen guns a year demand it.

But how the gun nuts can possibly object to the extremely reasonable suggestions of Shannon Watts is beyond me. And when a smart-ass talk show host mocks her it really shows what kind of people they are.

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment.

26 comments:

  1. It's gone way beyond the old standard that republicans only care to increase the wealth of the rich and balance all of their pork on the backs of working and poor people. It's the doublespeak that Orwell spoke of. They must be stopped. We cannot allow them any more access to power. All that is holy is communist. All that is evil and abhorrent is to be desired.

    ReplyDelete
  2. You demand this, but America isn't listening. One size fits all rarely works here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Greg, why would you oppose a law requiring gun owners who have kids in the house to safely store their guns? Are you that opposed to the rule of law? Are you that adolescent in your response to being told what to do?

      Delete
    2. Your need to psychoanalyze everyone is unbecoming. This is America, not Austria. We believe in freedom. We punish people only if they screw up.

      Delete
    3. The site lying coward proves again he does not care about children's deaths. He proves again that he supports the wacko, racist, kill happy NRA.

      Delete
    4. I asked you a simple question, there was no psychoanalyzing to it. I repeat, why would you oppose a law requiring gun owners who have kids in the house to safely store their guns?

      Delete
    5. Mikeb, since this time you left out the psychoanalyzing and insults, I'll answer you:

      I oppose laws that make such demands when no bad act has occurred. Punish people who cause actual harm. But it's not the business of government to insert itself into private decisions on speculation.

      Delete
    6. Insults are the site lying criminal cowards expertise. He insulted a new comer Sally, and when asked to apologize, refused. So we add ass hole to his moniker of lying criminal coward.

      Delete
    7. Greg, a law requiring safe storage of guns in the home is not punishing people prior to doing wrong. Failing to safely store guns at home is wrong. The punishment comes after the fact. That's why we need the law, so that when one of you idiots fails to comply there can be consequences. The way it is now, people are getting injured and hurt and hundreds of thousands of guns are being stolen each year and in most states no one is held accountable. That's wrong.

      Delete
    8. Mikeb, telling all gun owners how their guns must be stored is micromanagement. And no, keeping a gun in a nightstand isn't a wrong for everyone.

      Delete
    9. Some one has to tell these lying criminal cowards, to stop the killing. They won't stop the killing, they love killing, they love the money made from their killing machines.

      Delete
    10. Greg, don't you agree that if there were such a law the number of guns stolen each year would be smaller? This is one of those yes or no questions.

      Delete
    11. Mikeb, the result would be irrelevant, since the method proposed is wrong. Punish the actual criminals--the thieves--rather than the victims of theft.

      Delete
    12. There goes the lying criminal coward again, saving lives is irrelevant. Thanks for proving again what we already know about you. You could care less about saving innocent deaths.

      Delete
    13. Actually, Anonymous, there are lots of things that we could do that on the face of it would save lives. We could ban cars or alcohol. But banning cars would crash our economy, causing many deaths. We've already seen the effect of banning alcohol.

      The point here is that the unintended consequences of gun control are too much of a risk, especially since we have no good reason to believe that gun control would achieve what it promises here.

      Delete
    14. Nice dodge, Greg. That's what you do when to answer would show the stupidity of your position. Let's try again. "if there were such a law the number of guns stolen each year would be smaller, yes or no?"

      Delete
    15. Mikeb, you ask questions that are not yes or no, but you demand simplistic answers. I do seriously doubt that the number of guns stolen would be that much different if your demands became law.

      Delete
    16. Then we have no excuse to not ban guns. That won't cause our national economy to crash. There is no proof to your claim that banning guns would have negative consequences. In fact the immediate consequence would be 33,000 less gun shot deaths. And your continued claim that gun control does not work simply is not true according to the positive effects gun control has had in the past, in other words that's a lie.

      Delete
    17. Greg, you're lying through your teeth. You know goddam well there would be many fewer guns stolen if gun owners were constrained to lock up their guns at home. You are in a corner and have to lie to avoid admitting I'm right. Par for the course for you.

      Delete
    18. False, Mikeb. You asked me what I believe. I don't believe that your proposals would change much. People who don't lock up their guns would continue not to lock them up. Criminals would continue selling each other guns. Guns would come across our borders.

      But you have to call everything I say a lie because if you were forced to admit that I'm not lying, you might end up seeing reason.

      Delete
    19. Still waiting for proof from the site lying criminal coward, that banning guns would ruin our society, or that gun control has never, or will never work.
      But he refuses to answer and then wonders why everyone calls him a cowardly criminal liar. HA HA HA HA HA

      Delete
    20. Everyone? You mean Mikeb and the sockpuppets. That's a good name for a fifties rock band, actually.

      Delete
    21. His blog, his readers, yes everyone except those who are criminal lying cowards like you.

      Delete
    22. Again, no response from the criminal lying coward. At least he's consistent.

      Delete
  3. Doesn't that seem kinda stupid just to go on saying that the loss of a child is sufficient punishment? Wouldn't it be better to move on and maybe try to prevent these childhood incidents of manslaughter?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. For good law abiding citizens it is better.
      But criminal thinkers like Greg the ass hole lying criminal coward,it's to much of an invasion of his rights to save thousands from death.

      Delete