7
   

THE DANGER OF GUN-FREE SCHOOL ZONES

 
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Thu 5 Oct, 2006 07:31 pm
farmerman wrote:
oralloy, How far would you go to assure that children arent able to reach guns until a certain age where they can absorn the significance of guns and their danger?


Keeping them in a gun safe sounds reasonable.



farmerman wrote:
You recognize the danger of guns yet you are rather cavlier about accessing them.


What is cavalier about requiring guns to be kept in a gun safe?
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Oct, 2006 07:44 pm
oralloy wrote:
Intrepid wrote:
The wisdom is to keep guns away from children. Also to make access difficult in domestic situations. etc. etc. The wisdom of such actions seem to go over the heads of those who are blinded by the vigilante mentality.


Simply keeping the guns locked up will keep the guns away from children.

You really shouldn't run around talking about wisdom. You aren't equipped for it.



Your frustration at losing your arguments is showing in your current snide remarks. If I was so inclined, I could point out that you are also unarmed for a battle of wits. However, I doubt that you would understand it.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Thu 5 Oct, 2006 07:53 pm
Intrepid wrote:
losing your arguments.


Liar.



Intrepid wrote:
snide remarks.


You've exposed yourself as being morally indistinguishable from a Nazi or a Klan freak. Contempt is warranted.



Intrepid wrote:
If I was so inclined, I could point out that you are also unarmed for a battle of wits. However, I doubt that you would understand it.


More lies and hypocrisy.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Oct, 2006 07:55 pm
oralloy wrote:
Intrepid wrote:
losing your arguments.


Liar.



Intrepid wrote:
snide remarks.


You've exposed yourself as being morally indistinguishable from a Nazi or a Klan freak. Contempt is warranted.



Intrepid wrote:
If I was so inclined, I could point out that you are also unarmed for a battle of wits. However, I doubt that you would understand it.


More lies and hypocrisy.


Getting a little out of control, are we? There you go with the liar; Nazi and Clan garbage. Try some warm milk. Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Thu 5 Oct, 2006 08:06 pm
Intrepid wrote:
Getting a little out of control, are we?


You may well be. Bigots such as you are frequently lacking in the "control" department.

I'm not. I just dismiss you as the bigoted trash that you are, and leave it at that.



Intrepid wrote:
There you go with the liar; Nazi and Clan garbage.


Think of it as "truth in labeling".
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Oct, 2006 08:32 pm
scroll







scroll






scroll
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Oct, 2006 08:49 pm
Intrepid wrote:
scroll







scroll






scroll


The best response.
0 Replies
 
kiwimac
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Oct, 2006 08:55 pm
Fire-arms related deaths in NZ have tended to be suicides with one or two quite singular exceptions.

Please note the following information:

Quote:
Firearms legislation and reductions in firearm-related suicide deaths in New Zealand
A. L. Beautrais, D. M. Fergusson, L. J. Horwood

Objective: To examine the impact of introducing more restrictive firearms legislation (Amendment to the Arms Act, 1992) in New Zealand on suicides involving firearms.

Method: National suicide data were examined for 8 years before, and 10 years following the introduction of the legislation.

Results: After legislation, the mean annual rate of firearm-related suicides decreased by 46% for the total population (p < 0.0001), 66% for youth (15-24 years; p < 0.0001) and 39% for adults (≥25 years; p < 0.01). The fraction of all suicides accounted for by firearm-related suicides also reduced for all three populations (p < 0.0001). However, the introduction of firearms legislation was not associated with reductions in overall rates of suicide for all three populations.

Conclusions: Following the introduction of legislation restricting ownership and access to firearms, firearm-related suicides significantly decreased, particularly among youth. Overall rates of youth suicide also decreased over this time but it is not possible to determine the extent to which this was accounted for by changes in firearms legislation or other causes.

Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry 2006; 40:253-259


SOURCE: http://murl.se/13109

You might also want to check out : http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrhtml/00046149.htm

for the following: "...
Rates of Homicide, Suicide, and Firearm-Related Death Among Children -- 26 Industrialized Countries ..."

Unfortunately the US is the highest ranking. Sad
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Oct, 2006 09:01 pm
Thanks for the links, kiwimac. Actually, there were no surprises here.
0 Replies
 
kiwimac
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Oct, 2006 09:03 pm
As well the following information might be of interest.

Quote:
Finally, you may want to consider one more statistic...

* In 1996, handguns were used to murder 2 people in New Zealand, 15 in Japan, 30 in Great Britain, 106 in Canada, 213 in Germany and 9,390 in the United States.[23]


Source: http://murl.se/13110

However we are not perfect as the following urls will show:

http://murl.se/13111 ; http://murl.se/13112


I hope this is informative!

Kiwimac
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Thu 5 Oct, 2006 09:19 pm
kiwimac wrote:
However, the introduction of firearms legislation was not associated with reductions in overall rates of suicide for all three populations.


I am not sure what legislation was supposed to reduce firearms-related suicide, but what is the point of trying to shift the method people use to commit suicide?

I'd think the resources would be better directed towards preventing the actual suicides.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Thu 5 Oct, 2006 09:27 pm
edgarblythe wrote:
The best response.


It would have been better yet for the little bigot to keep his hatred to himself in the first place.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Thu 5 Oct, 2006 09:38 pm
kiwimac wrote:


The Brady people are prolific liars. Even when what they say is true it is likely to be presented in a misleading context.



kiwimac wrote:


GunCite, on the other hand, is an outstanding source (though I have to admit I'm remotely connected to the site, so my claim could be regarded as biased).
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  0  
Reply Thu 5 Oct, 2006 09:54 pm
The stats I'm seeing here are selective. Firearms in America prevent vastly more crime than they cause.

One stat you don't see in America is that of large numbers of people being killed by dangerous animals:

http://www.tigerhomes.org/animal/common-cobra.cfm

Quote:

...Medical facilities have a hard time keeping accurate statistics on Cobra bites because villagers seek the help of the local "Witch Doctor" or "Medicine Man" often before seeking professional medical help. Considered a big mistake in this modern age, it is this tradition that often delays a rapid professional medical response. This factor alone significantly increases the human mortality rate for Cobra envenomation with over 10,000 Cobra snake bites recorded in India alone each year. Almost immediately after envenomation, the victim may react with sudden convulsions, drowsiness, headache, limb paralysis, loss of consciousness, nausea, vomiting, intense abdominal pain and excruciating pain around the bite wound. Increased blood pressure and cardiac output is common but by far the greatest danger is respiratory failure. Fang marks may be deep puncture wounds or evidenced only by a series of small lacerations. Cobras are very capable of multiple snake bite strikes from a single snake, or not uncommon with Cobra strike encounters, envenomation from multiple snakes even for those skilled in Wilderness Survival....


Armed people do not have those kinds of problems. The second ammendment is an idea whose time has come for the whole world, and not just the US.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Thu 5 Oct, 2006 09:56 pm
gungasnake wrote:
The second ammendment is an idea whose time has come for the whole world, and not just the US.


Amen to that.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  0  
Reply Thu 5 Oct, 2006 10:07 pm
oralloy wrote:
gungasnake wrote:
The second ammendment is an idea whose time has come for the whole world, and not just the US.


Amen to that.


You know, if you had to pick a way to die, that one doesn't sound like it would be at the top of your list, does it?

Quote:

...Almost immediately after envenomation, the victim may react with sudden convulsions, drowsiness, headache, limb paralysis, loss of consciousness, nausea, vomiting, intense abdominal pain and excruciating pain around the bite wound. Increased blood pressure and cardiac output is common but by far the greatest danger is respiratory failure....
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  0  
Reply Thu 5 Oct, 2006 10:24 pm
Any A2Kers living in India, take note:

http://www.lesjones.com/images/posts/bfr1.jpg

The image shows a 410-guage revolver (no longer produced) loaded with snake shot, which would put even a king cobra out of business double quick. Best choice at present would probably be a large caliber magnum pistol loaded with snake shot. I'd GUESS that recoil from snake shot loads would be about half that of ordinary ammo for a 45 Colt, 454 Casull, or 500 SW, and that such a pistol would not be difficult to shoot.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Oct, 2006 10:26 pm
I suppose I'll have to get a grip and review the last twelve or so pages.
Back in a bit.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  0  
Reply Thu 5 Oct, 2006 10:33 pm
I know, I know, some ignorant d***head is gonna say that cobras must be protected because they kill rats....

http://imagescommerce.bcentral.com/merchantfiles/4508723/no%20bullshit1.jpg


Simple solution: Kill the fricking cobras, and then buy or otherwise procure an animal which kills the rats but doesn't kill you or your family. It's called a "CAT"....

http://www.petnet.com.au/cat/C101.jpg


Between that and a king cobra, I know which one I'd rather have around and it isn't even close.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Oct, 2006 10:49 pm
oralloy wrote:
edgarblythe wrote:
The best response.


It would have been better yet for the little bigot to keep his hatred to himself in the first place.


Let's keep our peforatives in order, here. It was Blatham, not Intrepid, who referred to you and others like you as gun-obsessed and dickless.
Intrepid (and most others here, by the way) simply agreed with him.

You're the only one here who looks hateful and bigotted.
And forgive me for saying so, but also not too damn bright.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Drumsticks - Discussion by H2O MAN
nobody respects an oath breaker - Discussion by gungasnake
Marksmanship - Discussion by H2O MAN
Kids and Guns by the Numbers - Discussion by jcboy
Personal Defense Weapons (PDW) - Discussion by H2O MAN
Self defense with a gun - Discussion by H2O MAN
It's a sellers market - Discussion by H2O MAN
Harrisburg Pa. Outdoor Show "Postponed" - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 12/23/2024 at 11:38:59