Child Safety in America

A nice campaign by Moms demand Action for Gun Sense in America:

child safety guns book

child safety guns dodgeball child safety guns Kinder chocolate surprise eggHaving grown up in Germany, I had Little Red Riding Hood (or rather “Rotkäppchen”), dodgeball and of course Kinder surprise eggs in my childhood. I didn’t have any assault rifles, sadly. But maybe that’s why I could walk to school alone, there were no fences or guards around the school, and if I ever came home half a day late, my parents weren’t overly worried. Also, I was never worried about one of my classmates overreacting and blowing me to pieces.

About Andreas Moser

Travelling the world and writing about it. I have degrees in law and philosophy, but I'd much rather be a writer, a spy or a hobo.
This entry was posted in Politics, USA and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Child Safety in America

  1. Travel Bug says:

    Looks like the moms have done a great job of putting together provocative adds. We definitely have a gun control problem here. The thing is, I don’t see the safety worries reflected in people’s behavior. I think most American children in small towns have the same experience you describe. I’m sitting in my parents dining room right now. Most of our doors are open – they’re usually unlocked even when the house is empty. Every morning, I see kids gathering at the bus stop (the local elementary school is way to far to walk). My mom just chatted with a neighbor about a mis-delivered letter. I suspect that Sandy Hook was an equally quiet community.

  2. Mary S says:

    I agree with you Andreas…this overly-zealous love affair with guns in America has gone too far. And quite a bit of the problem stems from the NRA. The NRA makes it virtually impossible to pass any modern gun laws that actually conform with ‘todays’ guns (e.g. the AR15) –
    in other words,
    The guns that the majority of gun owners keep in their homes and cars are NOT the same guns/ ‘arms’ that existed back in 1791 when the 2nd amendment was written – therefore, it makes rational sense that with the change in the power and capability of the arms, comes a need for a change or an addition to the gun laws.

    Definitely time for a change….

    (In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment “codified a pre-existing right” and that it “protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home”[9][10] BUTTTTT also stated that “the right is not unlimited. It is NOT a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose”. They also clarified that many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the Court are consistent with the Second Amendment.[11] ~Wikipedia)

    • Sterling Wilson says:

      “Guns have changed. Shouldn’t our gun laws?”

      Yes. The government has said that none of these office workers have the right to protect themselves. That must change. When it does we won’t have to cower in fear when “Ed” snaps.

  3. Heck, I grew up in the suburbs of Chicago and never, EVER had a concern over somebody shooting me. Granted, that was the late 70s and very early 80s, but even so, I can’t figure out where the heck our society went haywire.
    I have a few guns around the house, left over from my re-enacting days. They’re bolt-action rifles, one shot then you get to do some work before the next one. And I feel horribly over-equipped for home defence and personal safety. Who the heck needs semi-auto rifles and pistols with dozens of shots? If you can’t drop the offender with one or two shots, get your butt to a target range and practice!
    Though I prefer swords. You never run out of ammo, and they rarely go off accidentally. ;)

  4. Sterling Wilson says:

    Wow. This is a ripe one.

    “One child is holding something that’s been banned in America to protect them. Guess which one.”

    Answer: “Little Red Riding Hood”

    Except that it’s not. I live in America. I have Little Red Riding Hood in my home. My child has read it. It’s even in their school.

    “One child is holding something that’s been banned in America to protect them. Guess which one.”

    Answer: “the game dodgeball”

    Except that it’s not. Again, my child plays dodgeball today—even at school. It’s a fun game. I played it as a kid. And it’s not banned in America.

    “One child is holding something that’s been banned in America to protect them. Guess which one.”

    Answer: “Kinder chocolate eggs”

    What the hell is a “Kinder” chocolate egg? Should we be selling “meaner” chocolate eggs to the children? A chocolate egg I know. “Kinder”? Never heard of it. But again, yes, I can and do buy small chocolate eggs for my child—usually around Easter. It’s creepy to do so other times of the year.

    Is this ad a demonstration of how to make a point by lying?

    And why don’t we ban “assault” (or “defensive”) weapons in America? Because in America we understand that the government doesn’t have the authority to grant us the right to protect our lives. It is a natural right we have at birth. We don’t have to ask for it—it’s simply belongs to us. And since the goverment never gave us that right in the first place they certainly don’t have the power to take it away.

    As for Mr. Erickson, formerly of the Chicago suburbs, who “can’t figure out” what is the problem with society. I say “that’s OK. Others have done it for you.” And if Mr. Erickson also can’t figure out who needs dozens of shots for one offender, I suggest he head over to Google today and enter “wilding in chicago” in the search field. Read the first hit. And tell me if one or two shots protects againt a mob of how many?

    As for Mr. Moser, as one who grew up in Germany (of all places!) you should be keenly aware of what happens after a government decides it has the right to liberate you from your ability to protect the life of yourself and your family. Holy moly!

    • First off, Sterling, don’t talk down to people. Whether you agree with what’s written here or not, talking down to us is insulting and juvenile. if you have facts, just present them. Stow the snark.
      Second, you’ve missed the overall point here. It’s not which particular book or game has been banned, it’s the fact that I could walk into your daughter’s school, and with a few well-placed words, stand a real chance of having any book or game banned. No votes, no public discussions, just simply done. Yet if Andreas even SUGGESTS there’s something wrong with the idea of owning assault weapons, the pro-NRA bunch opens fire (pun fully intended) without bothering to get details or further information. Ever read Tom Sawyer or Huck Finn as a kid? There’s hundreds of schools and libraries where you can’t, because of the “n-word”. A word that described a large portion of our populace for hundreds of years. We can’t even discuss some reasonable ,limits on guns, but we can deprive our youth of classic literature or childhood games. And you find no problem with that?
      Finally, you destroyed your own counterpoint to my point on large magazines. No pistol, no rifle (within reason), no home-owner weapon at all SHOULD be able to stop a huge gang. A single example does not make up life. How many mass shootings have there been in Europe, or Canada, or anywhere else there are more stringent firearms controls? Yet your motto is “Outlaw guns, and only outlaws will have guns”, right? Where are the armed mobs sweeping through London every weekend? Sorry, one exception should NEVER define a rule. I could find you dozens of examples where only a 30-cal MG could save you, or a Browning M-2, or even a pack howitzer! How about that – a 75mm artillery piece in every home? (See how silly and ridiculous cherry-picking looks?)
      And by the by, check your Bill of Rights. The 2nd Amendment grants gun rights in the absence of a well-regulated militia. So you’re saying the US Army ISN’T worth anything? That they’re incapable of stopping foreign powers from invading? (The Army is not, and never was designed, to stop terrorism. That’s a point the Founding Fathers weren’t familiar with, in it’s modern, September 11th 2001 form.)
      But hey, I’m not gonna change your mind, and you’re not gonna change mine (not with your “gee, you’re DUMB!” style of writing. So I’ll make you a deal – you don’t come here and annoy the snot out of our host, and I won’t pick your arguments apart anymore. That’ll save us both a lot of aggravation. :)

  5. Sterling Wilson says:

    “SHOULD” is never part of an argument for or against anything. You are shoulding all over yourself. Argument not destroyed.

    I am aware that there are counties that have banned books. My local bookstore displays them every September. Essentially, the bookstore is thumbing its nose at the illegal actions taken by our own government. I support such action.

    I was not commenting on “stopping foreign powers” and 20th century Germany is not the single example. 20th century China, Turkey, USSR, Rwanda, Cambodia, Uganda et al. combined to kill over 200 million of their own people (200 million examples) in the 20th century alone. These actions were outside of the framework of war. This is called democide. And our Constitution acknowledges (not “grants”) our right to prevent it.

    Not one of the examples above occurred without first disarming the people to be exterminated. Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership has said “When the civilians are defenseless and their government goes bad… thousands and millions of innocents die.”

    I apologize if you were offended by my writing style. I hope my content makes up for it.

    • Sterling Wilson says:

      Upon rereading my comment I realize “I support such action” sounds as though I support the illegal action of banning books. That was poorly written and I mean to convey that I support the actions taken by the bookstore as a form of protest. I do not support the banning of books. I do not support the banning of sports or chocolates either. Apparently some people do. I am not one of them.

    • nietzschi says:

      I think you have a good point. But you still don´t need Assault Rifles for self-defence. First I also wanted to argue: ‘And furthermore I am doubtful whether it is the case that you could stop a government as Germany had during the Hitler-Regime.’ But then I remembered the Jew riot in Warsaw in the end of the war (when the Russians stopped their battle for a very long time so the Germans could kill everyone in the Ghetto). They were not well equipped and still gave a lot of trouble for the German Army … because of the House-to-House-Fighting.

      Btw when I am thinking longer about this issue, I am also asking myself if it really is right hat the biggest problem comes from the weapons. I think the biggest problem for America is that they don´t have a proper medical system and that especially mentally ill persons are very bad treated in the US. The mentally ill who did crimes are often just send to jail forever… Just think at drug-addicts.

Please leave your comments, questions, suggestions:

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s