Originally posted by aldo_14
Why weren't they secured, in that case? Or why/how did the kid have access, if they were in fact secured?
And I can't help but wonder about the ammunition.... i.e. what type / caliber / lethality was it? And was that level of lethality necessary in what is usually justified to be a crime deterrent weapon?
My father owns a pump shotgun, a revolver and an alarm pistol (wich he gave me to keep in my room), for years. And even i haven´t even seen them yet, allthough i´m 31 years old and he knows he can trust me with them. My father just doesn´t feel confortable knowing the guns are within reach, so he keeps them under lock and key, because there are kids in the house. And he never keeps the ammo in the same place as the guns. Alas it seems that most people are not so cautious with their weapons.
In this incident, the weapons used weren´t the most lethal around. A shotgun is probably the most commonly used weapon in the states. We´ve seen much worst, like Uzis, Mac-10s, and other nasties, in the hands of kids. While i might understand why someone might keep a shotgun or a handgun in the house, ownership of a machine gun is nothing short of lunacy.
I´m not saying the US should ban ALL weapons, but anything bigger than a shotgun should be reserved only for military and police use. Not that it would have made any diference in this case, but atleast some other shootings could have been avoided, and if not avoided, at least decreased in severity.
Sadlly, this incident won´t serve a damn thing, as no politician dares touch the subject. Even if the gun control discussion is spiked by this new incident, it won´t be long before the public outrage dies down and the issue is placed on ice untill the next killing spree occurrs. Then we´ll see another few weeks of heated discussion, and the process repeats itself...
Untill someone with balls and brains sits in the White House, we will never see the end of this.
