7
   

THE DANGER OF GUN-FREE SCHOOL ZONES

 
 
gungasnake
 
  0  
Reply Fri 20 Oct, 2006 02:40 pm
There may or may not still be any sort of a controversy over airbags, but I can't imagine driving without seatbelts in this age.
0 Replies
 
Mame
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Oct, 2006 03:09 pm
Neither can I... I feel naked without one.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Oct, 2006 04:11 pm
Im wearing one right now, and a condom, and Ive got my RPG. Imset .
0 Replies
 
blacksmithn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Oct, 2006 09:53 pm
I'm wearing my bulletproof jock strap.

Talk about PROTECTION! Laughing
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Oct, 2006 10:52 pm
Montana wrote:
oralloy wrote:
blacksmithn wrote:
Presumably because you're not afraid to leave the house armed to the teeth. Or not so afraid of your government or the United Nations or (fill in the blank) that you feel the need to stockpile armaments. Certain paranoiacs may find this unbelievable.

Much like their behavior appears to sane people.



Do you wear a seat belt in cars because you are a paranoid who is in mortal terror of car crashes, or do you do it because it makes sense to be prepared for a car crash even though they are unlikely?

Enough of the bigoted stereotypes of gun-owners' motives (and that wasn't just directed at your post).


I know you were not responding to me, but I'd like to say that I don't wear my seat belt and it's because I can't stand being strapped into anything.
Seat belts can also take lives, but that's another thread.

Comparing guns to seat belts is a stretch, I think.

For the sake of safety,
in the spirit of today's mandatory seatbelt legislation,
colonial gun control laws prohibited going to church, or going to work,
in an unarmed condition. (Virginia 1631)
Clergymen checked to make sure that their congregants were well armed.
Apparently, they were losing too many Christians, on their way to church.
David
0 Replies
 
pachelbel
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Oct, 2006 11:01 pm
Gun violence in US
OMSigDAVID: here is the answer to your challenge to me regarding America being the most violent of 25 industrialized countries on earth.
And you think kids need more guns. Check out the stats below:

SOURCE: www.neahin.org

Statistics: Gun Violence in Our Communities

School Safety
Less than 1% of all homicides among school-aged children (5-19 years of age) occur in or around school grounds or on the way to and from school. (Centers for Disease Control, 1997)

Children and Gun Violence
In a single year, 3,012 children and teens were killed by gunfire in the United States, according to the latest national data released in 2002. That is one child every three hours; eight children every day; and more than 50 children every week. And every year, at least 4 to 5 times as many kids and teens suffer from non-fatal firearm injuries. (Children's Defense Fund and National Center for Health Statistics)

America and Gun Violence
American children are more at risk from firearms than the children of any other industrialized nation. In one year, firearms killed no children in Japan, 19 in Great Britain, 57 in Germany, 109 in France, 153 in Canada, and 5,285 in the United States. (Centers for Disease Control)

Guns in the Wrong Hands
Faulty records enable terrorists, illegal aliens and criminals to purchase guns. Over a two and a half-year period, at least 9,976 convicted felons and other illegal buyers in 46 states obtained guns because of inadequate records. (Broken Records, Americans for Gun Safety Foundation)

School Safety

Between 1994 and 1999, there were 220 school associated violent events resulting in 253 deaths - - 74.5% of these involved firearms. Handguns caused almost 60% of these deaths. (Journal of American Medical Association, December 2001)
In 1998-99 academic year, 3,523 students were expelled for bringing a firearm to school. This is a decrease from the 5,724 students expelled in 1996-97 for bringing a firearm to school. (U.S. Department of Education, October 2000)
Nearly 8% of adolescents in urban junior and senior high schools miss at least one day of school each month because they are afraid to attend. (National Mental Health & Education Center for Children & Families, National Association of School Psychologists 1998)
The National School Boards Association estimates that more than 135,000 guns are brought into U.S. schools each day. (NSBA, 1993)

Children and Gun Violence

America is losing too many children to gun violence. Between 1979 and 2001, gunfire killed 90,000 children and teens in America. (Children's Defense Fund and National Center for Health Statistics)
In one year, more children and teens died from gunfire than from cancer, pneumonia, influenza, asthma, and HIV/AIDS combined. (Children's Defense Fund) The rate of firearm deaths among kids under age 15 is almost 12 times higher in the United States than in 25 other industrialized countries combined. (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)
America and Gun Violence

Every day, more than 80 Americans die from gun violence. (Coalition to Stop Gun Violence)
The rate of firearm deaths among kids under age 15 is almost 12 times higher in the United States than in 25 other industrialized countries combined. (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)
American kids are 16 times more likely to be murdered with a gun, 11 times more likely to commit suicide with a gun, and nine times more likely to die from a firearm accident than children in 25 other industrialized countries combined. (Centers for Disease Control)
Guns in the Wrong Hands

Americans for Gun Safety produced a 2003 report that reveals that 20 of the nation's 22 national gun laws are not enforced. According to U.S. Department of Justice data (FY 2000-2002), only 2% of federal gun crimes were actually prosecuted. Eighty-five percent of cases prosecuted relate to street criminals in possession of firearms. Ignored are laws intended to punish illegal gun trafficking, firearm theft, corrupt gun dealers, lying on a criminal background check form, obliterating firearm serial numbers, selling guns to minors and possessing a gun in a school zone. To access The Enforcement Gap: Federal Gun Laws Ignored, visit http://w3.agsfoundation.com/. For a state-by-state chart of gun crimes (FY 2000-2002), click here.
Studies show that 1 percent of gun stores sell the weapons traced to 57 percent of gun crimes. According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), the dealer that armed the DC area sniper is among this small group of problem gun dealers that "supply the suppliers" who funnel guns to the nation's criminals. (Between 1997 and 2001, guns sold by this dealer were involved in 52 crimes, including homicides, kidnappings and assaults. Still open today, it also can't account for 238 guns or say whether they were stolen, lost or sold, or if their buyers underwent felony-background checks.) As a result, these few gun dealers have a vastly disproportionate impact on public safety. The ATF can recognize such dealers based on: (1) guns stolen from inventory; (2) missing federal sales records, needed by police to solve crimes; (3) having 10 weapons a year traced to crimes; (4) frequently selling multiple guns to individual buyers; and (5) short times between gun sales and their involvement in crimes. Yet ATF enforcement is weak due to a lack of Congressional support and resources. For more details, click here.
Terrorists have purchased firearms at gun shows, where unlicensed sellers are not currently required to conduct background checks or to ask for identification. According to the Middle East Intelligence Report, for example, a Hezbollah member was arrested in November 2000, after a nine-month investigation by the FBI's counter-terrorism unit. Ali Boumelhem was later convicted on seven counts of weapons charges and conspiracy to ship weapons and ammunition to Lebanon. Federal agents had observed Boumelhem, a resident of Detroit and Beirut, travel to Michigan gun shows and buy gun parts and ammunition for shipment overseas. Boumelhem was prohibited from legally purchasing guns as gun stores because he was a convicted felon. Additional cases involve a Pakistani national with an expired (1988) student visa; a Lebanese native and Hamas member with numerous felony convictions; and a supporter of the Irish Republican Army. (USA Today, Wednesday, November 28, 2001 Americans for Gun Safety)
According to Americans for Gun Safety (December 2002), gun theft is most likely in states without laws requiring safe storage of firearms in the home and where there are large numbers of gun owners and relatively high crime rates. Based on FBI data, nearly 1.7 million guns have been reported stolen in the past ten years, and only 40% of those were recovered. The missing guns, over 80% of which are taken from homes or cars, most likely fuel the black market for criminals. NEA, AGS and the National Rifle Association advocate for safe storage. To access "Stolen Guns: Arming the Enemy" visit www.agsfoundation.com.
The American Medical Association reports that between 36% and 50% of male eleventh graders believe that they could easily get a gun if they wanted one.
In 1998-99 academic year, 3,523 students were expelled for bringing a firearm to school. This is a decrease from the 5,724 students expelled in 1996-97 for bringing a firearm to school. (U.S. Department of Education, October 2000)
According to a report by the Joshephson Institute of Ethics (2000 Report Card: Report #1), 60% of high school and 31% of middle school boys said they could get a gun if they wanted to (April, 2001).
0 Replies
 
Montana
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Oct, 2006 12:21 am
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Montana wrote:
oralloy wrote:
blacksmithn wrote:
Presumably because you're not afraid to leave the house armed to the teeth. Or not so afraid of your government or the United Nations or (fill in the blank) that you feel the need to stockpile armaments. Certain paranoiacs may find this unbelievable.

Much like their behavior appears to sane people.



Do you wear a seat belt in cars because you are a paranoid who is in mortal terror of car crashes, or do you do it because it makes sense to be prepared for a car crash even though they are unlikely?

Enough of the bigoted stereotypes of gun-owners' motives (and that wasn't just directed at your post).


I know you were not responding to me, but I'd like to say that I don't wear my seat belt and it's because I can't stand being strapped into anything.
Seat belts can also take lives, but that's another thread.

Comparing guns to seat belts is a stretch, I think.

For the sake of safety,
in the spirit of today's mandatory seatbelt legislation,
colonial gun control laws prohibited going to church, or going to work,
in an unarmed condition. (Virginia 1631)
Clergymen checked to make sure that their congregants were well armed.
Apparently, they were losing too many Christians, on their way to church.
David


For the sake of living, I find life much more pleasant when I'm living life, instead of worrying about losing it.
0 Replies
 
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Oct, 2006 03:55 am
that line should go to the sig line thread, i completely agree montana
0 Replies
 
blacksmithn
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Oct, 2006 04:48 am
In the 1600s they were still burning witches and the list of "crimes" you could be punished for included fornication, idleness and non-attendance at church! And, of course, slavery and indentured servitude were legal too. That hardly seems like a model of jurisprudence to harken back to, IMO.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Oct, 2006 06:33 am
In Missouri, it is still illegal to carry a concealed weapon longer than 6 feet
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Oct, 2006 06:36 am
Montana wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Montana wrote:
oralloy wrote:
blacksmithn wrote:
Presumably because you're not afraid to leave the house armed to the teeth. Or not so afraid of your government or the United Nations or (fill in the blank) that you feel the need to stockpile armaments. Certain paranoiacs may find this unbelievable.

Much like their behavior appears to sane people.



Do you wear a seat belt in cars because you are a paranoid who is in mortal terror of car crashes, or do you do it because it makes sense to be prepared for a car crash even though they are unlikely?

Enough of the bigoted stereotypes of gun-owners' motives (and that wasn't just directed at your post).


I know you were not responding to me, but I'd like to say that I don't wear my seat belt and it's because I can't stand being strapped into anything.
Seat belts can also take lives, but that's another thread.

Comparing guns to seat belts is a stretch, I think.

For the sake of safety,
in the spirit of today's mandatory seatbelt legislation,
colonial gun control laws prohibited going to church, or going to work,
in an unarmed condition. (Virginia 1631)
Clergymen checked to make sure that their congregants were well armed.
Apparently, they were losing too many Christians, on their way to church.
David


For the sake of living, I find life much more pleasant when I'm living life,
instead of worrying about losing it.

U repressionists ( almost ALL of u, and maybe ALL of u )
insist, year after year,
on posting as if we freedom-lovers
had said that we lived in a state of fear.

( I DID admit that at the age of 8,
I was ill-at-ease concerning matters of self defense
and home defense, until I was able to arm myself with a revolver,
but that was only for a few weeks out of many decades
of my life. )

I have repeatedly posted,
quite a few times,
that my choice to be armed
is a matter of dispassionate good judgment;
there r no emotions like fear involved.

One need not live in an unnatural fear of flat tires
to always carry a spare tire in his trunk.
One need not suffer from a phobia of fire
to maintain fire insurance on his house.
On these fora, we freedom-lovers r repeatedly called cowards
for preparing ourselves to deal effectively
with a predatory emergency, while those who carry spare tires
are do not have their courage challenged for carrying spare tires,
nor
are policyholders of insurance challenged for not being fearlessly
confident that no loss will befall them:
THIS IS INCONSISTENT.

David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Oct, 2006 06:43 am
blacksmithn wrote:
In the 1600s they were still burning witches and the list of "crimes" you could be punished for included fornication, idleness and non-attendance at church! And, of course, slavery and indentured servitude were legal too. That hardly seems like a model of jurisprudence to harken back to, IMO.


This post proves
that u r able to do better than just sling
emotional, ad hominem mud.

I was exemplifying a PRINCIPLE of
personal safety being mandated by statute,
thus requiring that the citizens be armed,
in the same spirit as today 's seatbelt laws.
I suspect that u really ARE able to see that principle.
David
0 Replies
 
blacksmithn
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Oct, 2006 09:14 am
Oh please. If I had attempted to advance an agenda utilizing such a specious example you'd be on it like fleas on an unbathed dog. My point, and I'm just sure such an astute barrister as yourself knows this, is that our society has much changed from 17th Century America, so your analogy holds no water.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Oct, 2006 09:50 am
blacksmithn wrote:
Oh please. If I had attempted to advance an agenda utilizing such a specious example you'd be on it like fleas on an unbathed dog. My point, and I'm just sure such an astute barrister as yourself knows this, is that our society has much changed from 17th Century America, so your analogy holds no water.


Society yes.

OSD. apparently not.
0 Replies
 
Montana
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Oct, 2006 11:09 am
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Montana wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Montana wrote:


For the sake of living, I find life much more pleasant when I'm living life,
instead of worrying about losing it.

U repressionists ( almost ALL of u, and maybe ALL of u )
insist, year after year,
on posting as if we freedom-lovers
had said that we lived in a state of fear.

( I DID admit that at the age of 8,
I was ill-at-ease concerning matters of self defense
and home defense, until I was able to arm myself with a revolver,
but that was only for a few weeks out of many decades
of my life. )

I have repeatedly posted,
quite a few times,
that my choice to be armed
is a matter of dispassionate good judgment;
there r no emotions like fear involved.

One need not live in an unnatural fear of flat tires
to always carry a spare tire in his trunk.
One need not suffer from a phobia of fire
to maintain fire insurance on his house.
On these fora, we freedom-lovers r repeatedly called cowards
for preparing ourselves to deal effectively
with a predatory emergency, while those who carry spare tires
are do not have their courage challenged for carrying spare tires,
nor
are policyholders of insurance challenged for not being fearlessly
confident that no loss will befall them:
THIS IS INCONSISTENT.

David


Who are you calling a repressionist? I have you know that I sing and dance while I work Laughing
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Sat 21 Oct, 2006 11:31 am
blacksmithn wrote:
Oh please. If I had attempted to advance an agenda utilizing such a specious example you'd be on it like fleas on an unbathed dog. My point, and I'm just sure such an astute barrister as yourself knows this, is that our society has much changed from 17th Century America, so your analogy holds no water.


Not the "society has changed therefore we shouldn't carry guns anymore" argument.....

Been awhile since I've heard that one.


There is nothing wrong with the government forcing people to have guns, even today. The problem is when freedom-hating politicians (like Pelosi) want to take guns away from law abiding citizens.
0 Replies
 
blacksmithn
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Oct, 2006 12:29 pm
No, the problem is delusional paranoids who feel the frontier society of 17th Century America is somehow equivalent to America of the 21st Century. And who see illusory boogeymen coming to take away their precious guns under every bedpost.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Oct, 2006 01:22 pm
blacksmithn wrote:
Oh please. If I had attempted to advance an agenda utilizing such a specious example you'd be on it like fleas on an unbathed dog. My point, and I'm just sure such an astute barrister as yourself knows this, is that our society has much changed from 17th Century America, so your analogy holds no water.

U get a low grade for logic.

In both cases,
then and now,
government enacted a statute
to require each citizen to use equipment
to protect himself.

In the first case,
it was defensive weaponry
against predatory animals, criminals or Indians,
on the way to Church;
in the second case,
it was use of a seatbelt
against the chance of a vehicular collision
on the way to anywhere.

The principle involved is ONE and THE SAME,
in both cases.

U shud be able to see that, counsellor.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Oct, 2006 01:30 pm
Montana wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Montana wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Montana wrote:


For the sake of living, I find life much more pleasant when I'm living life,
instead of worrying about losing it.

U repressionists ( almost ALL of u, and maybe ALL of u )
insist, year after year,
on posting as if we freedom-lovers
had said that we lived in a state of fear.

( I DID admit that at the age of 8,
I was ill-at-ease concerning matters of self defense
and home defense, until I was able to arm myself with a revolver,
but that was only for a few weeks out of many decades
of my life. )

I have repeatedly posted,
quite a few times,
that my choice to be armed
is a matter of dispassionate good judgment;
there r no emotions like fear involved.

One need not live in an unnatural fear of flat tires
to always carry a spare tire in his trunk.
One need not suffer from a phobia of fire
to maintain fire insurance on his house.
On these fora, we freedom-lovers r repeatedly called cowards
for preparing ourselves to deal effectively
with a predatory emergency, while those who carry spare tires
are do not have their courage challenged for carrying spare tires,
nor
are policyholders of insurance challenged for not being fearlessly
confident that no loss will befall them:
THIS IS INCONSISTENT.

David


Who are you calling a repressionist?

I have you know that I sing and dance while I work Laughing

My point is that people of your philosophy try to
REPRESS other citizens
who opt to exercise their freedom
to defend their lives and other property,
by either prohibiting them from defensive armament,
or by legally harassing them
to the point of dissuading them from
arming themselves in their own defense
( not that u repress yourself; that is your private affair,
and none of my business ).
David
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Oct, 2006 01:32 pm
OmSigDAVID wrote:
In the first case,
it was defensive weaponry
against predatory animals, criminals or Indians,
on the way to Church;
in the second case,
it was use of a seatbelt
against the chance of a vehicular collision
on the way to anywhere.

The principle involved is ONE and THE SAME,
in both cases.



... the difference being that the number of crimes committed with seatbelts is probably close to zero. The number of people accidently killed with seatbelts is probably close to zero, too. And we can safely assume that the number of people who strangled themselves while cleaning their seatbelts isn't much higher, either.

What you are propagating with your comparison is the right to wear Kevlar vests, not the right to bear arms.
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 0.07 seconds on 11/16/2024 at 07:31:58