THE DANGER OF GUN-FREE SCHOOL ZONES

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.

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.

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.

In both cases,
government, by statute,
requires each citizen to defend himself
by the use of a tool; that is the point;
in the later case defending himself
from predatory automotive collisions,
in the earlier case,
defending himself from predatory criminals,
animals or Indians.

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.

OmSigDAVID wrote:

In both cases,
government, by statute,
requires each citizen to defend himself
by the use of a tool; that is the point;
in the later case defending himself
from predatory automotive collisions,
in the earlier case,
defending himself from predatory criminals,
animals or Indians.

Well, seatbelts aren't defending you from "predatory automotive collisions". They are protecting you in the case of an accident.

Arresting someone who is DUI would maybe qualify as "defense from predatory automotive collisions", but not wearing seatbelts.

Same with guns. A mandatory Kevlar vest wearing law would protect you from "predatory criminals".

That's something else entirely than actively defending yourself.

protection: passive - defense: active

Do you spot the difference?

You are making way too much sense here. Are you trying to confuse OSD with logic?

Franz Ferdinand Hapsberg was killed
by a shot to the neck; ( but maybe
the Serbians wud not have hurt him,
if " gun control " were in effect, right ? )

Stonewall Jackson was killed
by a shot to the leg.

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

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

I'm not trying to repress you! I just think you're a nut with a bunch of guns!

OmSigDAVID wrote:

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

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

I'm not trying to repress you!

Since u r in Canada,
I don 't believe that u CAN,
repress me,
but as I said above,
people of your philosophy
are doing their best to inflict
repression of American freedom of self defense
from violent crime.

Quote:

I just think you're a nut with a bunch of guns!

I am " with a bunch of guns "
but I have only expressed the prevalent vu
of the Founders of America in regard to
l'aissez faire freedom of the right to personal defense.
This applies, without discrimination, to everyone,
inasmuch as we all share an equal right
to resist a predatory attack from criminals or animals.

WHAT is nutty about THAT ?
David