I dunno. A thing meant expressly for killing people is kind of gnarly to have around the house. But I take karate, so I shouldn’t argue…I guess…sticky issue.
BLEH!
~stv
¡Voltroñ!
The tragedy here, I think, is that this subject (school shootings) would even come up in the sixth grade. Sure, the school may have over reacted. But if they did nothing and another shooting did occur? It would seem that they just went too far.
I hope he poor kid isn’t fearful of ever giving an honest answer to a question in the future.
“It’s beginning:”
And so, Tank, how’s it going to end? Is our only choice going to be between dead kids and lost rights? 
Peace,
mangeorge (Wishing for a simple solution)
mangeorge:
Either you didn’t read the link, or you are deliberately misquoting it. There is a huge leap between the facts presented and the conclusion you drew.
However, from your conclusion, I conclude that you are decidedly of a leftist mentality, just the sort who would willingly give up your rights in exchange for an empty promise of security.
::
Huh? What are you talking about?
Yes, I read the link. Then after seeing your reply, I went back and re-read it.
Please explain, and be specific. Well, except for your red baiting statement. I’ve heard that often enough. I’m one of those liberals you might have trouble dealing with, because I won’t dismiss everything you say out of hand. I might even agree with some of it. Conservative extremists hate that.
The article was pretty specific, except around the “oath” part. I didn’t have a problem understanding any of it.
Maybe the confusion was in your reading of my reply?
Peace,
mangeorge
mangeorge:
Here is the ‘offense’-
How do you leap from this to ‘dead kids?’
It seems to me that if an armed homicidal maniac were met with armed resistance, the incidence of ‘dead kids’ would be substantially lessened, if not entirely eliminated.
::
“It’s beginning:”
And so, Tank, how’s it going to end? Is our only choice going to be between dead kids and lost rights?
That paragraph. I see now. You left out a little bit, Ex Tanks statement. I was asking if the debate was going to go to those extremes.
Here;
Extreme Pro-gun:
Anyone can have any weapon, anywhere, at any time, and for any purpose, etc.
Result, dead kids.
Extreme Anti-gun:
No one can have any weapon, anywhere, at any time, for whatever purpose, etc.
Result, lost rights.
Here’s where the article waffled;
“and something to the effect of never to use a gun or other weapons”
That, taken with the “not defend myself” part, sounds just a little too convenient. The “Letter” is what I’m a tad sceptical about.
I’d like to see this incident looked into more deeply. I don’t think it’s a schools place to brainwash or browbeat a child into any philosphy.
Peace,
mangeorge
mangeorge:
I took your statement out of context. I apologize for jumping to unwarranted conclusions.
:
And dead kids, parents etc…etc…
Taking away all legally held guns will only result in more deaths.
I don’t believe the Right to Bear Arms was put into the Constitution to protect people’s hunting and target-shooting rights. It was put there so citizens would have a means of fighting back against the government if it ever became tyrannical.
As comfortable as things happen to be for most in America these days, you don’t simply give up your constitutional rights because you are really, really confident that you don’t have to worry about your government.
And if you believe the premise that your Second Amendment rights are there to provide insurance against a tyrranical government, as many do, you can see why those believers would be queasy about such things as gun registration and assault weapons bans.
I have friends who own automatic and semi-automatic weapons, and they own and use them responsibly. Someday, someday, the focus will shift to criminal use of weapons. Won’t it?
As I posted on one of the other threads on this subject - I am fully in favor of one new gun law. Make use of a firearm in the commission of a felony a life offense. (Currently, in my state, it adds only 4 years to a sentence, I believe.) That won’t stop tragedies involving guns from happening, but if the person who commits those crimes is caught, at least he or she won’t be doing it anymore.
“We are here for this – to make mistakes and to correct ourselves, to withstand the blows and to hand them out.” Primo Levi
Freedom;
In this hypothetical situation, “no one” would include both legal and illegal guns.
I guess the total opposite would be for everyone to be required to own a gun.
Didn’t some community pass, or try to pass such an ordinance?
Peace,
mangeorge
This is not a possibility. It is 100% impossible to remove ALL guns from existence. It is also 100% impossible to remove all private (legal and illegal) guns from existence.
To support my position, look at prohibition, Drugs, gun crime in England and Australia, and qany other possesion or behavior that has ever been made illegal.
In fact, could you please name ONE thing that was effectively banned 100%?
“Look out! He’s got a board with a nail in it!”
– evil aliens on The Simpsons
SuaveSkin,
If you are 14, you are ( to borrow an already used analogy ) swimming in very deep water. You are also doing quite well, I might add. As one for whom typing is a chore, I offer this advice: just slow down a bit, take your time, and state your point clearly. We are a friendly bunch, and I’m sure you will fit in just fine. Now, on to the OP.
I am not what you would call a major pro-gun advocate, but I do think the anti-gun forces are usually living in fantasyland. Guns exist. Many people own them. Criminals use them to hurt other people. There will always be ways for those so inclined to secure guns to use in crimes. Given this set of circumstances, what is the most intellegent way to aproach the problem? I think it is not to make guns more and more restricted, but to make them more accessable. Let me explain.
One of the biggest tradgidies in the whole gun safety issue is when kids get ahold of guns and someone gets shot accidentaly. I think the root cause of this is the fact that they have no expierence with guns, and guns are a “forbidden” item. To kids, the forbidden is always seductive. I kind of liken it to the parent that says something like " I never discusses sex with my daughter, how can she be pregnant at 14???" Um, don’t you see the connection here? One of my neighbors has a son, 13 years old. They have hunted together for years, and little Steve is very familiar with guns. He would never dream of playing with one or fooling around with one. If he were to enter a room where other kids were playing with a gun, he would leave, or more likely, take the gun, eject the mag, and pull back the slide to make sure it was unloaded. He would probobly then put it away. He would do this because he is familiar with guns, he knows that they are not toys, and he knows how to treat them. If all kids were required to learn how to handle guns safely, a lot of the mystique would be gone. Those few who didn’t get the message would more than likely be surrounded by others who did, who would prevent the kid from playing with the gun, or leave if he persisted. Why else do you have to be trained in the propper use of other dangerous tools? You must take driving lessions before you may drive, right? You take shop class to learn how to handle tools, don’t you? If you saw an untrained 10 year old fooling around with a circular saw, would your reaction be " at least it’s not a gun?" Of course not. You would remove the saw from the child, and if he was going to be in contact with it later, make damn sure he knew how to use it. I think this is the biggest difference reguarding guns between today and 100 years ago. Back then, most people had guns around, but they were an accepted part of society. Young kids used guns to hunt, and handled them safely. ( in rural areas of the country, anyway) That’s not the case today.
I realize that the above is not strictly related to the OP, but the linked article reminded me of it, and one of the arguements that anti-gun zealots use most frequently is " Think of the children". The above is why that arguement holds very little weight with me.
Cecil said it. I believe it. That settles it.
I’m all for you Americans having the right to have as many guns as you like. Buy loads ! With pointy bits on the end ! As long as you stick to using them on each other.
http://porkypies.tripod.com
Lying - it’s not big and it’s not clever
That said by a man (or woman) who is probably only free enough to enjoy the freedom of posting on the American invented (not by Gore 
) internet.
Americans with guns are what keep the rest of the world free.
weirddave says;
“One of the biggest tradgidies in the whole gun safety issue is when kids get ahold of guns and someone gets shot accidentaly. I think the root cause of this is the fact that they have no expierence with guns, and guns are a “forbidden” item.”
I cannot agree with that, dave.
While it may be argueable up to a point, many of these children are too young to understand the danger of a gun. And it’s often the friend of a gun owners child who gets ahold of the gun.
Guns, power saws, and Draino should be secured so that small children can’t get at them.
Peace,
mangeorge
How old are children when you teach them not to touch the stove because it might be hot? How old when you teach them not to touch the bottles with the green “yuck-face” stickers on them? How old when you teach them not to touch kitchen knives?
I can remember learning such things around the age of 3. Do you believe that children capable of learning that stoves and chemicals can be dangerous are incapable of learning the same thing about guns? I’m not saying guns (and chemicals) in a home with small children shouldn’t be locked away safely, but kids are capable of learning about danger at a very young age.
By the way, I first fired a shotgun at age 7, under close scrutiny of my father. If he hadn’t been standing behind me, I’d have fallen flat on my ass. Nothing teaches a child to appreciate the danger faster than feeling the kick that a gun creates.
Then again, I might have a different appreciation for such things. I grew up very much in the country. From a very young age, I learned about hunting and keeping animals for food (chickens, turkeys, goats, rabbits…). I grew up around guns and death, and I’m grateful for it. You have a new appreciation for your food when you’ve helped kill it yourself.
Back to my original point: kids are learning machines. It’s rubbish to assert that they can’t learn about danger, no matter their age.
Where oh where did I say (assert) that you shouldn’t teach kids about the dangers of these things?
Nor did I ever stick one of my kid’s hands on a hot stove to teach what “hot” means. I fired a 12 guage at age 11, and ithurt.
Peace,
mangeorge
mangeorge,
I’m not saying it should be like this:
" Congratulations, mangeorge, it’s a boy. Here’s his gun, better see you on the range tomorrow!"
Certainly, small children need to be shielded from harmful things and taught not to touch, but by the time a child is 8-10, he or she can and should be taught how to safely handle firearms. I’m not saying they should be given firearms, just taught to handle them apropriately. It was at about this age that I started learning to work with power tools, and shortly thereafter I fired a gun for the first time in Boy Scouts. I do not own a gun today, (oh wait, My Grandad’s old .22 Winchester is locked in the closet) but I know how to handle them.
Cecil said it. I believe it. That settles it.