10
   

Jobless father KILLS family and self

 
 
rabel22
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Oct, 2008 10:29 am
@OmSigDAVID,
I agree that every 10 and 7 year old in the U S should carry a weapon for self protection. David you are not a rational person.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Oct, 2008 12:58 pm
There shoud be firearms safety and proficiency training
in the schools, along with swimming and arithmetic.

Thay told us that we coud not graduate
without being able to swim.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Oct, 2008 12:26 am
@rabel22,
Quote:
Re: OmSigDAVID (Post 3433474)
I agree that every 10 and 7 year old in the U S should carry
a weapon for self protection.

David you are not a rational person.

Bear in mind, Rabel, that only Johnny-come-lately-laws
of the 1900s have outlawed children
being possessed of defensive guns.

I call upon u to bear witness (from your knowledge of history)
that before those laws went into effect
there were no ill effects from armed children.

Indeed, there survives a letter from Thomas Jefferson,
(the author of the Declaration of Independence,
the President of the United States,
and the founder of the University of Virginia inter alia)
to his 12-year-old nephew, wherein he advises the boy
always to take his gun out with him when he goes for a walk,
and to practice to be proficient with it.

In my own personal case,
I armed myself at age 8, and never had any ill effects therefrom,
nor did any of the other kids in my neighborhood,
who were similarly well armed.

Does that suggest
that your post was based upon prejudice and mindless hysteria ?



David
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Oct, 2008 12:29 am
@OmSigDAVID,
So, all children should be armed against their parents, OmSigDAVID?

Would that have prevented this family tragedy?

Most children who are sexually abused, physically abused, and murdered are the victims of parents, family members, or family friends. Should we protect all children by giving them firearms?

No point teaching firearms proficiency in the schools if we don't give the children guns--the proficiency won't protect them without the guns.

Should the schools supply the guns if parents refuse to do so?

At what age should we arm them. 6? 8? 12? Should they carry their guns with them to school?

Is there anyone who shouldn't be carrying a gun?
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Oct, 2008 03:32 am
@firefly,
U have raised many interesting questions,
(BTW, I love Fireflies; we used to call them Lightning Bugs.
U r very welcome in my backyard, in the summer)
some of which are complex to so great an extreme
that I am daunted in endeavoring to answer.

I 'll take a shot at it:

Quote:

So, all children should be armed against their parents, OmSigDAVID?

Every person, of every age,
needs to be able to preserve his life
in a predatory emergency, regardless of the identity of the predator.
For example, when Joel Steinberg was beating
his adopted daughter to death, ideally, it woud have been better
if she had the means to kill her tormentor. In the absence of those
means, she was tortured to death. I don t believe that is acceptable.

When Andrea Yates' oldest boy (7) discovered what his mom
was doing in the bathroom, he fled. He was unarmed.
She followed, ran him down and drowned him.
I wish that he was armed and alive now. I think the rong side prevailed.

Then there was when David Rothenberg 's dad
tried to burn him to death, in bed,
because he had a tiff with his wife.
That did not work out very well, in my opinion. Remember that ?

I recall a singularly horrible example from TV:
a 7 year old boy was riding his bike, after dinner,
when a pervert grabbed him off of it, cut his throat to murder him,
and cut off his penis; then left him for dead. The victim survived.
I wish he 'd had the means of self defense; I truly do.
It was a predatory emergency, based upon a contest of power.
I think the rong side prevailed.
I respect your right to your opinion.






Quote:

Would that have prevented this family tragedy?

Possibly, probably; for instance,
if a child sees that Dad has just taken out Grandma, opened up on Mommy,
then took out Sis and Rover, at some point it might occur to him
that he must turn his hand to his own defenses.
With luck, he might flank the predator, while he is engaging elsewhere.
In any case, if the victims were all well armed,
then when the victims see the primary attack against them begin,
thay can immediately begin a dispositive counterattack,
and that is the end of that.
I think its better if the bad guy LOSES.








Quote:

Most children who are sexually abused, physically abused,
and murdered are the victims of parents, family members,
or family friends.
Should we protect all children by giving them firearms?

That question is so extremely complex (factually)
as to make it almost impossible for me to answer; here goes:
I doubt that much physical abuse will take place
(slugging him, burning him, jamming his hand down the garbage grinder
in the sink) if the victim is well armed, with a handgun.

As to sexual abuse ? We have problems with definitions.
The victim 'd have to erect his own ad hoc definitions.
If Granny kisses him on the cheek ?
If his brother playfully swats him on the butt ?
If his friend, the child from across the street,
suggests thay play "doctor" ?
One of Cuban Elian Gonzalez' grandmothers
said on Cuban TV that thay opened up his pants
and went in there, inquiring after his penis.
Shoud he open up on them ?
Not in MY opinion.
If a pervert grabs him off of his bike and slices at him with a knife ?
Yes: I think that 's a good time for defensive firepower.











Quote:
No point teaching firearms proficiency in the schools if we don't
give the children guns--
the proficiency won't protect them without the guns.

(I got my OWN guns; its not impossible.)
My school told us all that we 'd not be able to graduate
if we did not know how to swim. Shoud we apply the same filosofy ?

In the 1990s, I saw on Peter Jennings World News (ABC)
that there was a school in a Northwestern state,
wherein all the students had to arrive armed in school.
Apparently, thay 'd lost some students to the local fauna.
Thay interviewed a small group of students aged 8 to 12.
Every day thay arrived, put their coats on the coatrack,
their hats on the hatrack and their guns on the gunrack,
studied arithmetic n geografy (no fonetic spelling ?)
and at the end of the day thay took their stuff and went home: no trouble.








Quote:
Should the schools supply the guns if parents refuse to do so?

That s like asking whether the schools shud supply
pens, paper n shoes, if parents refuse to.
The schools ALREADY HAVE supplied the guns
for their own gunnery teams. Around the First World War,
Congress created the Director of Civilian Marksmanship Program,
which promoted Civilian Marksmanship. Many schools had their own
gunnery teams. I was not sufficiently accurate to qualify.
I bought a mint .30 caliber M-1 Carbine from the Director of Civilian Marksmanship
for only $20 plus shipping and a .45 caliber pistol for $12.






Quote:
At what age should we arm them. 6? 8? 12?

I armed myself at age 8; a matter of luck.
Age depends upon the individual, in my opinion.
I had one of my tenants recently ask me to help him get a gun.
I have yet to respond.








Quote:
Should they carry their guns with them to school?

Thay have no need of guns in school, if NO students have ever
been attacked nor shot while in class in America.

Respectfully, that is like asking whether thay shoud have
health insurance in effect when thay go to school, or anywhere.

WHEREVER u go:
Its better to HAVE a gun and not NEED it,
than it is to NEED a gun and not HAVE it.




Quote:
Is there anyone who shouldn't be carrying a gun?

From WHOSE perspective ?
According to WHOSE definition ?

If some no-good, dirty bum were on his way
to the corner to get a sandwich,
possibly, he might think that his personal safety
requires his being able to defend himself from the violence of man or beast.

No matter WHO he is,
if he is beset with a predatory emergency,
he will need the means to handle it.

From the point of vu
of others who don 't care much about his well being,
I suppose there IS " anyone who shouldn't be carrying a gun ".

On the other hand,
if I had a child, and I CARED that he shoud be able
to survive predatory emergencies,
then I 'd certainly desire that he 'd possess anything
that was necessary for his survival to an old age. Call me sentimental.



I 'd not be in a hurry to put a submachinegun
into the hands of a chimpanzee or a lunatic of ANY age,
but I know that if the lunatic cares sufficiently about arming
himself, then he will succeed, if he is not paralyzed,
the same as anyone can get marijuana or heroin.
Remember when Bush Sr. showed us a plastic bag
full of white powdered drugs sold a block from the White House ?

The REAL Supreme Law of the Land is the Law of Supply n Demand.














dagmaraka
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Oct, 2008 04:02 am
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

Many schools had their own
gunnery teams. I was not sufficiently accurate to qualify.
I bought a mint .30 caliber M-1 Carbine from the Director of Civilian Marksmanship for only $20 plus shipping and a .45 caliber pistol for $12.


so you couldn't shoot accurately, but you walked around with guns anyway. great....that really makes the world a safer place...
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Oct, 2008 04:57 am
@dagmaraka,
Quote:

so you couldn't shoot accurately,
but you walked around with guns anyway. great....
that really makes the world a safer place...

It wasn 't THAT bad, Dag.
Please don 't make it worse than it already was.
(I bet I coud have nailed your spider.)
Its just that other guys were MORE accurate.

Anyway, we all know that defensive gunfire is at very close range.

Bad guys are usually cowards
who flee if a victim competently fights back.
In the 1990s, I had some armed bad guys flee the scene
at the mere SIGHT of my defensive firepower.
That 's Y stainless steel mirror is recommended,
for nite use, whereas blued with gold trim is more esthetic.




dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Oct, 2008 05:18 am
@OmSigDAVID,
david, the only reason I don't put you on ignore is that I enjoy your silliness.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Oct, 2008 05:33 am
@dyslexia,
That 's no excuse, Dys.
0 Replies
 
dagmaraka
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Oct, 2008 06:12 am
@OmSigDAVID,
nailed my spider? wha? i guess you have me confused with someone, i don't have an issue with spiders...and certainly would never want one shot. that's just silly.

OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Oct, 2008 06:26 am
@dagmaraka,
U r correct; sorry for the confusion

http://able2know.org/topic/123652-1





David
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/15/2021 at 08:48:44