A Michael Moore whine that might relate to gun owners

[Garand Illusion]

Michael moore whining about liberal butt whoopin' in '04

The above is on the Michael Moore site. It's good for a laugh, but it does make valid points about abused people (which the democrats clearly aren't, BTW). The rest of the MM site, BTW, is stomach turning. It's full of just plain hatred of mainstream America with the stories he chooses to spotlight.

But as for us gun owners ...

I am tired of getting beaten down. Whenever there's something horrible like a school shooting (Not trying to belittle that, they are a horrendous problem) immediately the television is filled with people talking about American's love affair with guns and the streets running with blood and when will our politicians express the will of the people and stand up to the NRA? And through this all of the liberal/semi-liberals sit and sadly nod their heads in unison and agree with MM and his ilk about how bad America is with all of it's misguided liberal rednecks.

As a gun owner, if you meekly make a statement like "maybe kids will be safer if some teachers and administrators were allowed to carry guns" you're immediately pounced on.

"Do you want all our schools turned into armed fortresses? Do you love your guns so much you care for them more than our children?"

"If givng up your guns would save just one child, wouldn't you do it?"

"Schools are for learning and children, they should be GUN FREE!"

Of course, it's hard to argue against any of the above. I want my girl to go to a school like I did, with an open campus and no cops hanging around (hopefully less drugs and unarmed violence, though).

If I thought it would save a child's life, and not actually endanger another child by doing so, of course I would give up all my guns. But that's not a deal anyone but God can make me, and he hasn't put it on the table yet. When he does, I'll sign up (I sure will miss that 1911 ...)

Schools are for learning and children. But so long as there are guns in this country and crazy children who want to kill, in violation of every law on the books INCLUDING existing gun laws, murderers will take them to school. More laws against law abiding people won't help that.

The bottom line is, I want my child to be safe. If she's at school and some crazy kid goes nuts with a gun they stole from a LEO, who do I want pulling out a firearm to intercede? The LEO who doesn't know the school or kids and is probably 10 minutes away and entering into an unknown situation? Or a teacher/administrator who knows the school AND the kids and is properly trained to use a firearm?

In all cases, I would choose the teacher/administrator. Hopefully several. And of course I would hope that police were on the way (maybe all teachers who are armed are also forced to carry walkie-talkie type cell phones so they can immediately and directly contact police?).

But the anti-gunners aren't going to allow anything like this to happen or even allow it to be discussed if they can help it. They go to self righteous phrases and are happy to wait until enough horrendous school shootings have happened that they can get more gun laws put through, and hopefully (in their eyes) someday a law including seizure.

Maybe a strict gun law forcing seizure would make schools safer. But we Americans like our liberties and many of us are willing to fight (legally in my case, violently in others) for them and hold on to them in every way possible. So it ain't gonna happen anytime soon, and even when it does millions of guns will still be on the streets.

So ... maybe we pro gun types need to find a way to quit being meek. We need to find some mainstream voice that will actually put a positive message out there and reinforce it with enough others that it won't be drowned out by the multitudes of hollywood liberal hordes. i.e. when Charleton Heston used to speak out, sometimes not using the most compassionate of words, he was immediately ridiculed as another gun nut by hundreds of others.

My whole point is ... it's better to do something NOW that might even include a few guns in the right hands in schools and avoid more school shootings immediately than just waiting for enough blood to be spilled to cause a political ground swell to start seizure laws. It's at least worth talking about, isn't it? As in a positive discussion about the dangers of AD's and students seizing guns from teachers vs. an unopposed gunman mowing children down with wild abandon?

What do you think? I try hard not to be meek around my ultra liberal coworkers and the like, but also try to make sure that I'm compassionate and fight for the high ground -- the statement that I'm trying to safe lives NOW, not in some distant future that is highly unlikely.

 

[jefnvk]

I'm just tired of the name-calling from the liberals on anyone that displays conservative tendicies. The whole 'Jesusland' v. 'Free' ( ) states thing is getting annoying. IIRC, one of the things that made Hitler successful was drumming up hatred against specific groups of people.

Someday, I hope they will realize that their ideals won't solve the problems, that they will always be there. They all sound like the beauty pagent whose only wish is for world peace.

I'd rather live in a world of problems and be free to make my own choices than to live in a utopia and be controlled by puppet strings.

(Don't know if any of that helpoed, but its my random rant of the day)

 

[Spotted Owl]

Whenever there's something horrible like a school shooting (Not trying to belittle that, they are a horrendous problem)

This is where you're playing directly into the hands of the liberal gun grabbers. School shootings are not a horrendous problem. In fact, they're quite rare. More people are killed by lightning every year than die in school shootings, but school shootings get so much coverage in the press that you'd think they're an every day occurence in this country.

So many thousands of people die every year from poisonings, falls, drownings, etc., that by comparison school shootings are the merest drop in the bucket.

 

[Fred Hansen]

Mikey simply whines to in order to hear/see/read himself whine. He figured out the deal on guns when he wrote "Tears Down The West Side Highway" September 22nd, 2001 on his "Blog" (gosh that word fits Mikey so well) at michaelmoore.com.

Mikey (like liberals everywhere) isn't able to be intellectually honest on a sustained basis, and so he still thinks that whining all the time is some sort of solution to the world's problems. No surprise there, but I am constantly amazed at the number of dopes who will give that gasbag their hard earned money. Some folks say they do it in order to feel comfortable in criticizing Mikey's work. Maybe those folks haven't noticed that if they just wait a second Mikey will bleat some more and give folks all the ammo they would ever need to criticize Mikey's "work".

In other words, why buy the cow, when it gives it's BS away for free?

 

[Garand Illusion]

This is where you're playing directly into the hands of the liberal gun grabbers. School shootings are not a horrendous problem. In fact, they're quite rare. More people are killed by lightning every year than die in school shootings, but school shootings get so much coverage in the press that you'd think they're an every day occurence in this country.

Easy to say, but you've got your head in the sand if you think it's not a problem. I'm reminded of it every day because I drive by Columbine High School on a regular basis. I also have a FIL who was a rural LEO and on a couple of different occasions had to deal with a student with a gun (no one ever got shot, but anyone with a kid in school knows of at least one local sitaution with a weapon in a school, even if it turned out to be benign).

Its is a problem, my friend, and comparing it to accidental forms of death makes it no less so. God would probably consider himself out of our jurisdiction and not follow any laws on "lightning control" laws anyway.

The fact that school shootings don't happen very often does bring up the very real conversation of which is overall more dangerous; Several thousand teachers with guns who might have an accidental discharge or have their weapon taken by a student who has figured out who is carrying and seizes the gun or the threat of a student with a gun from home. My $$ is curently on the teachers with weapons, though I would want them to have a slightly higher level of training on retention and firearms than the average CCL.

And BTW, IIRC, a major impetus for gun laws in both Austraila and Britain were school shootings. So yeah, Mate, don't worry about School shootings -- they just don't happen often enough.

 

[Fred Hansen]

The fact that school shootings don't happen very often does bring up the very real conversation of which is overall more dangerous; Several thousand teachers with guns who might have an accidental discharge or have their weapon taken by a student who has figured out who is carrying and seizes the gun or the threat of a student with a gun from home. My $$ is curently on the teachers with weapons, though I would want them to have a slightly higher level of training on retention and firearms than the average CCL.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say in that paragraph. It sounds like you are posing the question of which is more dangerous... the current unarmed sheeple technique for (not) dealing with school mass-murderers, vs. the very idea of school teachers trading their fleece for a spine and then having more/worse/all of the above type mass-murders in schools.

It seems like on the one hand you say that the current technique (unarmed sheeple to the slaughter) is less dangerous: "My $$ is curently on the teachers with weapons", but then you go on to say "though I would want them to have a slightly higher level of training on retention and firearms than the average CCL." I think you are saying that you would prefer armed (but better trained) teachers. Please clarify if you don't mind.

The one time that (I know of) a school employee had brains enough to use a gun to stop one of these incidents, it stopped immediately. Vice Principal Joel Myrick stopped Luke Woodard in his tracks without firing a shot. The link I've provided leads to Mr. Myrick's current school - where he is the principal - in which one of his current students interviews him about that day in Pearl MS where only Mr. Myrick had the means and the wherewithal to stop a murdering punk.

The link leads to a printer friendly page. I would encourage everyone to print out the story and give it to friends who may never have heard the story before, or who may not realize that this common sense way of dealing with the situation has worked in the past. At the very least it will give people something to think about.

 

[Spotted Owl]

Easy to say, but you've got your head in the sand if you think it's not a problem.

I didn't say it was not a problem, I said it wasn't a horrendous problem (your words). The fact that these shootings are so rare is why they receive the publicity that they do.

Compare school shootings with commercial airline crashes. Crashes don't happen very often, but then they do, they're on nationwide news for days on end even though far fewer people are killed in a year in airliner crashes than are killed in car crashes every day.

God would probably consider himself out of our jurisdiction and not follow any laws on "lightning control" laws anyway.

You must follow some really bizarre religion if you believe there's a supreme being somewhere personally directing every lightning bolt at earth.

And BTW, IIRC, a major impetus for gun laws in both Austraila and Britain were school shootings. So yeah, Mate, don't worry about School shootings -- they just don't happen often enough.

That's unfortunate for all of the law abiding British and Aussie gun owners, but we all get the government that we deserve.

Here's a question for you: why are we having so many school shootings recently? Why didn't we have any decades ago when there was no gun control and anyone could buy a gun at the local hardware store, gas station, or mailorder? Perhaps it's because the shootings have nothing to do with guns and we should be looking elsewhere for the cause (and the solution)?

 

[Fred Hansen]

Here's a question for you: why are we having so many school shootings recently? Why didn't we have any decades ago when there was no gun control and anyone could buy a gun at the local hardware store, gas station, or mailorder? Perhaps it's because the shootings have nothing to do with guns and we should be looking elsewhere for the cause (and the solution)?

When I think about how little history people learn and in corporate into their lives these days, I don't think those questions can be asked often enough.

Scary to think that there will come a day when those of us who lived in a world when there were little to no gun-control laws (NFA etc... excepted), and can also remember that a shooting was treated no differently than any other murder, will be gone. That is to say the people (when possible) were caught/tried/convicted/one appeal/hanged/gassed/zapped/etc. TWEeeeeeet!!! You! Out of the gene pool!!! And it was over.

After that I suppose the new Eloi will believe whatever the Morlocks tell them to. :barf:

 

[Garand Illusion]

Scary to think that there will come a day when those of us who lived in a world when there were little to no gun-control laws (NFA etc... excepted), and can also remember that a shooting was treated no differently than any other murder, will be gone. That is to say the people (when possible) were caught/tried/convicted/one appeal/hanged/gassed/zapped/etc. TWEeeeeeet!!! You! Out of the gene pool!!! And it was over.

There's never been a time when school shootings/mass murders (not all were committed by students) haven't occured. We just have better national press/media to cover it/focus on it. Take a look below:

A timeline of school shootings/mass murders

An interesting point to the anti gunners, by FAR the greatest school murder in history involved virtually no guns; just bombs.

And don't know if everyone knows this, but the Columbine murderers also had set up propane bombs in the school, but fortunately none successfully detonated (timers weren't set up right). Maybe if they hadn't had guns available they would have spent more time perfecting their bomb skills and hundreds would have been killed instead of a dozen.

In any case ... it doesn't matter if these have happened before or not. They're happening now, and it seems like everyone knows someone who had had a kid in school when there was some kind of a gun incident.

My Grandfather, a WW I vet, also used to tell a story that happened post WWII. Right after the war one of his coworkers stopped to picked up a hitchhiker who was obviously a recently released soldier (picking up soldiers hitchiking was considered pretty much a duty back then and was even a law in some states -- hard to believe by our standards, huh?). While driving him ino their small Illinois town the man started talking about killing people in Europe and how after a while got to be fun. It was a lot of bizarre talk, but my grandfather's friend let him ramble on. As they drove into town the man suddenly pulled a .45 out of his coat and started shooting people walking down the street, killing one and wounding some others (maybe 3? -- don't remember) before they got the gun away from him.

Insanity and random gun crime is nothing new.

You must follow some really bizarre religion if you believe there's a supreme being somewhere personally directing every lightning bolt at earth.

This isn't a theological discussion, but my religion tells me that god knows the count of every hair on everybody's head. Don't know if he personally decides on the placement of every lightening bolt, but a supreme being who created an entire univers and billions of souls certainly could. What religion do you follow with a creator too powerless to control the weather?

I didn't say it was not a problem, I said it wasn't a horrendous problem (your words). The fact that these shootings are so rare is why they receive the publicity that they do.

With about 2 a year, I stand by my words. Don't want to argue semantics. How many children have to be gunned down before it's horrendous?

Here's a question for you: why are we having so many school shootings recently? Why didn't we have any decades ago when there was no gun control and anyone could buy a gun at the local hardware store, gas station, or mailorder? Perhaps it's because the shootings have nothing to do with guns and we should be looking elsewhere for the cause (and the solution)?

First off, I never blamed it on the guns themselves. If you know of a magical way to make adolescents somehow different, I'm all ears. When I was in High School (quite some few years ago) there was a kid who had been highly picked on all through Jr. High who got a far-away look in his eyes and started carrying a gun to school everyday. We never told a teacher because it just wasn't the thing to do. And he never opened up on his attackers; just let a few people know he had a gun stuck down his pants and went about his pimply faced business. Maybe if he'd seen how famous the columbine gunners became he'd be more open to that?

I don't know if kid's are more dangerous or if we just hear about it more. But it doesn't matter, we still have to deal with the problem today.

And I'll repeat ... try to just pass if off as comparable to accidental poisonings and lightning strikes and you'll lose a lot of support.

 

[spacemanspiff]

whuzzah? free guns at school????

 

[Spotted Owl]

This isn't a theological discussion, but my religion tells me that god knows the count of every hair on everybody's head. Don't know if he personally decides on the placement of every lightening bolt, but a supreme being who created an entire univers and billions of souls certainly could. What religion do you follow with a creator too powerless to control the weather?

You're right, it's not a theological discussion, so I'll only address your points. Unfortunately, "my religion tells me" is the rational a lot of crazies in this world use to justify their actions. If your God created the universe, then who created him? And lastly, I don't follow anyone or any thing who'd bother to take a direct interest in such straightforward natural phenomena as the weather.

And I'll repeat ... try to just pass if off as comparable to accidental poisonings and lightning strikes and you'll lose a lot of support.

You do have a valid point here. This shouldn't be the case, because dead is dead, and it really shouldn't matter whether a kid dies when a deranged classmate shoots up his school or if he drowns in the school pool. It would be helpful, however, to shift the "cause" away from guns and onto the nut cases doing the shooting (or bombing, or whatever).

 

[Garand Illusion]

You're right, it's not a theological discussion, so I'll only address your points. Unfortunately, "my religion tells me" is the rational a lot of crazies in this world use to justify their actions. If your God created the universe, then who created him? And lastly, I don't follow anyone or any thing who'd bother to take a direct interest in such straightforward natural phenomena as the weather

"My religion tells me" is also the rational a lot of people like Mother Theresa and people who dedicate their lives to helping others use. Humans have never needed an excuse to kill, but they often need an excuse to do good works. And besides ... Religion doesn't kill people, people kill people (and sometimes God with the occasional lightening bolt) .

But anyway ... obviously you're an atheist who believes everything just popped magically out of nothingness from the big bang. If there was nothing before the big bang, where did the big bang occur?

Since we've both had our shots, probably be best to stay on topic.

You do have a valid point here. This shouldn't be the case, because dead is dead, and it really shouldn't matter whether a kid dies when a deranged classmate shoots up his school or if he drowns in the school pool. It would be helpful, however, to shift the "cause" away from guns and onto the nut cases doing the shooting (or bombing, or whatever).

A death is a death to the person killed. But as a society we try to keep deaths decreased, especially among children. Thus child proof caps on drugs and poisons (open to a lot of jokes, but has saved a lot of lives with virtually no extra expense) and child seats in cars (and many, many other things that are less effective but may save a kid or two a year).

It's natural to try and protect our children. Many people even consider it a normal and good thing -- even gun owners. Protecting our children is what keeps us in the gene pool. It's a reason I own firearms (well -- I guess I'd do that anyway).

If you disagree with all of this and you have children, then paint your house with lead paint, leave cocked and locked handguns lying everywhere, store solvents and cleaners in low, unlocked cabinets with no childproof tops and drive down the highway with your kid unrestrained in the seat.

 

[Rojoe67]

outlaw all weapons.........we must save our children...

Ok, I would agree if nobody had any guns and they all just vanished nobody would get shot anymore. Fairy tale land and some folks think it's some place we should all strive for. I think if we go that route we better turn in all car keys of all cars. Motor vehicles and high speed is a huge life taker too. Let see how about baseball bats too. When all guns and cars are gone you just know we will resort back to caveman days and beat the life out of each other. I just wish these fairy tale chasers would leave this country and never be heard from again. At first they were ignorantly funny - Now they are just ignorant......

 

[Fred Hansen]

There's never been a time when school shootings/mass murders (not all were committed by students) haven't occured. We just have better national press/media to cover it/focus on it. Take a look below:

I guess that would depend on how desperate people become to stretch the definition of school shootings. The link you provided includes colleges, universities, shootings by adults, and some shootings that quite frankly appear no where else on the internet (that I can find) except on that page. They also include stabbings and other sorts of things, as you noted.

At least 95% of the stories occur post 1960s (most post 1978) - long after liberals were successful in dumbing down and disarming the sheeple. One or two attacks per decade prior to the 1960s do not a trend make.

For some reason they also see fit to lie about what transpired in at least two of the shootings they list. When they talk about the Pearl MS shootings they say that the vice principle stopped the attack by ramming the shooter's car with his own. According to Joel Myrick (the vice principal in question) and other eyewitnesses to the event, Mr. Myrick was able to stop the shooter by pointing his .45 in the punk's face. As a matter of fact at the time the U.S. Attorney in Jackson MS talked about bringing charges against Mr. Myrick for the defensive use of his firearm on school property.

In their account of the Law Schoool shootings in West Virginia they make no mention that students with CCW permits were instrumental in stopping that shooting.

I suppose they could even pad the page a little more if neccessary by including Indian massacres... nah! That wouldn't fit their political agenda.

I don't know if kid's are more dangerous or if we just hear about it more. But it doesn't matter, we still have to deal with the problem today.

The kids I grew up around tended to be incredibly strong due to all of the farm chores that were part of our daily lives, but oddly enough - even though a kid like that could break bones with a single punch - I would (and do) feel more comfortable around that kind of kid. The truly scary and dangerous kids are the weakling punks who have nothing resembling a parent/adult in their lives, no discipline, no respect, and who must use weapons to lash out because they know they are weak. I'd say that the first step in addressing this problem would be for all parties to be honest in what has changed so drastically in our society that these punks are now the rule rather than the exception. We might also ask ourselves what we are going to do with the rutting mutts that are the so-called parents of these kids.

 

[Spotted Owl]

Here's another theory I've seen:

Man as a species is a predator, and has a certain amount of built-in bloodlust.

Back in earlier times, when we were less urbanized, that bloodlust was satisfied through hunting and similar activities. Now that hunting is looked upon as scandalous by the liberal bunny-huggers, most kids have no way to satisfy their inherent bloodlust. Violent video games probably come closest, but the "kill" is sanitized and virtual--the players don't get to see and hold their dead victims in their hands like hunters do. Killing isn't 'real' to them.

So going out and shooting up a school has no more emotional effect on them than does shooting up a room full of virtual 'enemies' in a video game.

 

[Garand Illusion]

Spotted Owl ... I think you might be on the right track there. It's a valid point, just hard to know how to fix it. Except to get Parents to control what kind of games their kids play (what are the chances?).

I know the columbine kids played violent games, and even reprogrammed them to be like their fellow students, but the question is: Did they shoot up the school because they played violent games, or did they play violent games because they were the murderous type? I've got to think those 2 things may play off each other in some few people. Don't know, though.

I guess that would depend on how desperate people become to stretch the definition of school shootings. The link you provided includes colleges, universities, shootings by adults, and some shootings that quite frankly appear no where else on the internet (that I can find) except on that page. They also include stabbings and other sorts of things, as you noted.

I didn't do the research personally so I can't be responsible for the results. I do know the one from the 20's where so many kids were killed without the use of guns is true because I've seen that one mentioned often in various sources.

It's also true the list is about school violence as defined by what (I believe) is an anti-gun group, but I don't have any reason to believe it's not correct.

I also know from other reports that researching school shootings even back to the 60's is hard because the records weren't necessarily kept in a manner that can be easily cross referenced. And not like the national media was as likely to jump on things back then. Don't know how true that last is, but having been around for a few decades and studying history I really don't think people have changed.

One thing that might have changed things to make school shootings more memorable was a general move from ownership of strictly revolvers and hunting type low cap weapons to the higher capacity weapons that began appearing more in the 80's (again -- I know these have always been out there, but when I was young I didn't know anyone with a high capacity semi-automatic rifle. Now I know many and have one myself).

Lot of guesses above.

For some reason they also see fit to lie about what transpired in at least two of the shootings they list. When they talk about the Pearl MS shootings they say that the vice principle stopped the attack by ramming the shooter's car with his own. According to Joel Myrick (the vice principal in question) and other eyewitnesses to the event, Mr. Myrick was able to stop the shooter by pointing his .45 in the punk's face. As a matter of fact at the time the U.S. Attorney in Jackson MS talked about bringing charges against Mr. Myrick for the defensive use of his firearm on school property.

Kind of the whole point of what I wrote above -- how much better for everyone if Myrick had gotten to his gun quicker.

The kids I grew up around tended to be incredibly strong due to all of the farm chores that were part of our daily lives, but oddly enough - even though a kid like that could break bones with a single punch - I would (and do) feel more comfortable around that kind of kid. The truly scary and dangerous kids are the weakling punks who have nothing resembling a parent/adult in their lives, no discipline, no respect, and who must use weapons to lash out because they know they are weak. I'd say that the first step in addressing this problem would be for all parties to be honest in what has changed so drastically in our society that these punks are now the rule rather than the exception. We might also ask ourselves what we are going to do with the rutting mutts that are the so-called parents of these kids.

Were the kids you grew up with from Krypton?

I did about the first half of my schooling in a rural school filled with ranchers kids who lived out on the desert. Spent the second half in a city school. Just not that much difference.

You are right, though -- it's the weak kids who are bringing in guns. The jocks don't have any need to -- they already rule the roost.

But every school has always been like that well back to the 80's. There have been week kids who were bullied and strong kids who did the bullying. So if nothing's changed, why more shootings?

And it's easy to blame the parents, but it changes nothing. School shootings are everyone's problem, not only because kids get killed but because they are used to promote gun laws. And the more they happen, the more people will leave the cause.

Of course if seizure laws go into effect you can sneer "from my cold dead hands," but that will probably just cause your wish to come true.

 

[Fred Hansen]

Lot of guesses above.

A talent for understatement.

You might believe that the doubleplusungood events of the past were just as frequent, and just as horrifying as today's episodes, but I'm not Winston Smith, and I'm not going to edit the reality I grew up in so that MiniTrue's memoryhole gets properly fed.

I was there, and even as a child I paid close attention to current events. There were no frequent school shootings. Occasionally we had fistfights that resulted in a broken jaw, but that was about the worst of it. I'll stick to oldthink, thank you. You are welcome to believe the revisionist version of reality if you so wish.

Kind of the whole point of what I wrote above -- how much better for everyone if Myrick had gotten to his gun quicker.

Whole lot of wishing in this world ain't there? He had to run out to his car to get it so as not to offend those who might be easily driven from "the cause". Heaven forfend he might tweak their delicate sensibilities. Better that more kids die I suppose. :barf:

And it's easy to blame the parents, but it changes nothing.

On the contrary it changes everything. We had mothers who worked in our homes raising their families. Because of that supervision we didn't have opportunities to take a Visa card down to the hardware store to obtain bomb building parts. We weren't able to leave said parts laying all over the garage as the Columbine shooters did. Nor did we leave the remnants of sawn off shotgun barrels on our dressers... as the Columbine shooters did. We would have never gotten away with such behavior. Not to mention that we led full lives complete with a work ethic that did not afford us time to video our classmates murders. A lot of today's kids are lucky if they can pick their parents out of a line up.

The other thing you seem to want to dismiss is that unlike today's kids, we had shotguns in just about every truck and car out in the parking lot at our high school. In the fall we hunted just about every day after school let out. No time to waste going to get our guns. Many of our teachers hunted as well. We even had a junior Rod & Gun club in our high school. We weren't strangers to their proper operation.

My junior high had a gun shop directly across the street. The old man who owned and ran it could have been knocked over with a feather, and yet no one was shot in either school. Hmmm... curiouser and curiouser.

We also (almost every last one of us) carried either a Buck or an Uncle Henry Schrade folding knife on our belts. We prided ourselves on being able to flick them open with one hand very quickly. Oddly enough no one was stabbed in any of my schools. Maybe we just never got the memo that mayhem was in vogue.

So once again the point being made here is that we had weapons all around us; weapons that we were, if not adept at, then at least competent with, and yet we killed no one.

I see a world of difference between the morality that existed in my youth vs. the permissive BS that passes for parenting today. Maybe you don't. No skin off my nose. See whatever you wish to see.

Of course if seizure laws go into effect you can sneer "from my cold dead hands," but that will probably just cause your wish to come true.

And what wish would that be exactly?

 

[Spotted Owl]

This may not be popular with liberals, for obvious reasons, but how about making parents personally responsible for the actions of their minor children?

Once parents get the idea that if their 'angel' goes out and commits a crime, they will personally go to the pokey, and perhaps all of this nonsense will stop.

 

[progunner1957]

Beating the gun hater's emotional arguments with FACTS

Grand Illusion brings up four points that gun haters use against us:

1: Do you want our schools turned in to armed fortresses?
2: Do you love your guns more than our children?
3: If banning all guns would save just one child, wouldn't it be worth it?
4: Schools are for children and learning - they should be gun free!

Actually, these points are not hard to shoot down. Here are my answers to them:

1: Do you want our schools to be to be turned into slaughterhouses where murderers know they will meet NO RESISTANCE to their killing sprees? That is EXACTLY what you will get if teachers are forbidden to be armed at school.

2: No, I don't love my guns more than I love our children. Guns are not the issue - FREEDOM is the issue. Privately owned guns secure the freedom of our nation, our children and future generations.

3: Ask the gun hater, "how many children are killed by the UNLAWFUL use of guns each year?" They will say, "twelve thousand" (or whatever). Tell them, "There are over TWO MILLION LAWFUL uses of guns in America each year where LAW ABIDING citizens are saved from murder, rape and maiming at the hands of criminal predators. It is an undeniable FACT that the LAWFUL use of guns saves hundreds of thousands more lives each year than the UNLAWFUL use of guns takes."

4: Schools should be MURDER FREE but they are NOT. The most certain way to pervent the murder of students is for any and all potential killers to KNOW FOR A FACT that if they bring a gun to school and start shooting, THEY WILL BE IMMEDIATELY KILLED by an armed teacher. We have tried "active compliance" and "passive submission". Neither approach works. Both approaches result in one and ONLY one outcome: DEAD STUDENTS and TEACHERS. "

These answers are based on proven facts. The gun hater's arguments ARE NOT. Their arguments are based on the philosophy of "give peace (or gun banning) a chance."

We did - it DIDN'T work.

 

[Cryptoboy]

I wholeheartedly agree with you Spotted Owl. Your child commits a crime, especially a violent/murderous crime, I think they parents should be seeing jail time/etc. as a result. All this crap how parent's aren't responsible for their childrens actions is just that, crap.

Good points also Fred. My dad told me stories about how they would go duck hunting early in the mornings (he's from NC) before school, and leave all their hunting gear, including their shotguns, in their trucks with no problems. Obviously that would never happen in this day and age!