Can anybody help us understand under this line of logic, which not the only one, clearly:<p>For driving, which is a dangerous activity, you need to qualify for it and regularly show you can handle the task responsibly, to avoid endangering yourself and/or others, but guns are a right without the need for any qualifications whatsoever? I'm not American, clearly, and I never got my head around this one fact, which I admit could be lowest of the low standard needed in the "I'd like to own a gun" for some reason category.
In lots of the country, parents should be asking the parents of their kids' friends if there are unsecured weapons in the house before letting them go over to play.
There's probably a bit deeper story behind this.<p><a href="https://www.texastribune.org/2022/07/28/texas-gun-stats/" rel="nofollow">https://www.texastribune.org/2022/07/28/texas-gun-stats/</a>
I blame the parents.<p>It stands to reason that guns and ammo should not need a "Keep out of reach of children" label, yet they plainly do since parents are obviously leaving loaded firearms where their kids can get at them.
Wait until they find out how dogs have shot their owner.<p><a href="https://abcnews.go.com/US/man-shot-dead-after-dog-steps-hunting-rifles/story?id=96688192" rel="nofollow">https://abcnews.go.com/US/man-shot-dead-after-dog-steps-hunt...</a>
> Last year there were 36 unintentional shootings by children of all ages in Texas.<p>Considering how many are <i>intentional</i> shootings by children of all ages this is, this is a non-story the same way the sky is blue and water is wet.