Why Are Toys More Regulated Than Guns?
Filed under: In The News
Actually, it's a good question.
Times columnist Nicholas D. Kristof points out that "Jared Loughner was considered too mentally unstable to attend community college. He was rejected by the Army. Yet buy a Glock handgun and a 33-round magazine? No problem." (For the record, I tweeted a similar sentiment two days earlier.)
The notion that any restriction on the sale of guns and ammunition is anti-gun seems foolish, especially considering the fact that Loughner was tackled by heroic bystanders when he stopped to reload -- meaning that if he hadn't had access to a 33-round magazine, he might have been stopped sooner.
The next time you open a toy package, look at the warnings. Toys are heavily tested and regulated, as is food, medicine and numerous other things. I can't even buy certain cold medicines without a prescription. But I could buy a handgun.
This is not to say that regulations automatically make people safer. But are anyone's rights being trampled upon if they can only purchase a 10-round magazine?
What do you think? Should guns be regulated as seriously as toys? Or are the current regulations good enough?
Got an idea for the Chatterbox? Talk to us!
Start by teaching him that it is safe to do so.