I just read an article about a 13-year-old boy who shot and killed a man who was breaking into his house while we was home alone.
People are using this story as a way to prove why gun laws should not be made more strict. The boy is considered a hero by many.
What is interesting to me, though, is that this situation could have ended much differently.
Why, may I ask, was a 13-year-old able to so easily access this gun? If he had injured an innocent person with this gun, people would be talking about his irresponsible mother. They would have already condemned her.
But because the boy killed a criminal, nobody is thinking about that.
That brings up the question of gun safety. What is the best way to store a gun in a home where children may have access to them? If this boy had not been able to access the gun and ammunition, then he may have been the one who died.
But should a 13-year-old really be able to get his hands on a gun and its ammunition so easily? Most people would argue that guns should be locked away and ammunition should be locked away in an entirely separate place.
If it’s less accessible, though, then it’s less useful for protection. So should we just keep our guns and ammo in easily accessible places in the event of a home invasion? Most would say no, because then we may increase the risk of an accidental shooting.
There are so many arguments regarding gun control lately, and this story just brings up some of the hypocrisy and confusion surrounding all of that.
People argue that they needs guns for protection and in cases like this one, it works out favorably. But there are so many cases where the opposite is true — where innocent people are killed either intentionally or accidentally by someone who was able to to easily get his or her hands on a gun.
I’m not sure that the benefits outweigh the drawbacks when it comes to making gun laws more lenient.