Let me get this right, four shot at a 14-year-old's party at 1:16 a.m. with 150-200 people in attendance.
Call me old fashioned, call me crazy, but can someone explain to me what kind of parent allows their teen out at 1:16 a.m?
What kind of parent has 150-200 teens in attendance at this time of morning? Suppose for argument sake that each of these teens had a sibling with them. That would cut the number of families in attendance to 100. We can even say those were only one parent households. That would still mean there were 50 households represented. Can I find 50 people right now that would allow their 14, 15, or 16 year old out at a party at 1:16 a.m.?
My 17-year-old isn't allowed out at 1:16 a.m. Maybe we see things differently living in the country.
* * *
Well clearly, if everyone at this party would have been armed, these shootings wouldn't happened, according to the logic of the NRA.
* * *
Good question. I'm sure the gang task force can answer it. Maybe we need to spend more money on a new study.
I certainly hope those shooters had a concealed carry permit. Perhaps we should place more "Gun Free Zone" signs up.
* * *
Mr. Fricke, you are wrong in stating the NRA's logic is if everyone at the party had guns the shooting would not have occurred. Please understand that guns were not the problem at the party, rather evil people were the problem. I sure don't think any teens should be taking a gun to a party but let's not blame the guns.
The point Ms. Clark is making is there is a parental control problem (or lack thereof) in our city, state and nation. Your dislike for guns is not reason to jump on your bandwagon when the real problem, the lack of parental control, needs to be discussed.
Evil is not the opposite of good, it is the lack or absence of good. I think you will agree that teens shooting at each other is an absence of good. These punks would have found some instrument to perpetrate their evil had they not had guns.
J. Pat Williams