imported post
swine wrote:
The intersection of guns and children is an unresolved issue
Support the premise, for until you do your argument relies on an unsupported premise and a dubious inference. It is thus an unreasonable argument even if its conclusion is correct.
Remember,
more children die in swimming pool accidents than die by gunplay.
Defend the premise. What issue arises from the intersection? I fail to see one, unless it is an issue which also needs to be addressed re:swimming pools and other sources of danger.
Edit; Furthermore, even if you've dealt with those issues, your conclusion remains a
non-sequitur. What do children have to do with open carry? You've committed a classic fallacy of relevance until you demonstrate a relationship between the one and the other. For, even though some children do indeed die by guns, this in and of itself has nothing whatever to do with the open carry of guns by adults.
I'd point out that no child has ever killed himself or another with a gun which was, at the time, being openly carried by an adult. Usually, such a tragedy occurs with unattended firearms, which notably precludes all actively-carried weapons.
Even if you consider theft, no child is getting my gun out of its retention holster (adult police routinely have a hard time with that).
I'd also point out that any children "killed in the crossfire" (your favorite, albeit incredibly rare, scenario) are undoubtedly killed by firearms which were, prior to their being employed in anger, carried
concealed.
So, what do the statistically quite few deaths of children by guns have to do with the very specific sub-issue of open carry?
Articulate the relevance, for I fail to see any.