Lawrence.com Mobile

I love it:

>
Guns are levelers, enabling the weak to stand up to the strong and the lowly to protect himself against the mighty. It is no coincidence that the end of the armored knight followed closely behind the introduction of the handgun in Europe. It is even less so that the words “All men are created equal” were written only after the widespread availability of personal guns made them so.
<

I find it fascinating that right-wingers—those who seem to be so blatantly fleecing our country for all its worth before they lose power—are also pro-gun rights. You'd think with the gaping income disparity they're facilitating, they'd be a little worried about uprisings as the disparity becomes intolerable for those on the losing end. I suppose they can't go about constructing their own little armed Green Zone communities if they weren't for gun rights...

“If guns cause crime, all of mine are defective.”
~ Ted Nugent

"It is no coincidence that the end of the armored knight followed closely behind the introduction of the handgun in Europe."

And yet the continent was still ruled by monarchs and emperors. The only difference is that it was cheaper to raise an effective army now.

And now that you've finished beating up that straw "voodoo doll" of an argument, can you give me any acceptable reason why an ordinary person should regularly bring a gun (or other weapon also banned by these statutes) to a school?

There is a certain level of fear mongering on both sides of this issue but there are definitely places in society where weapons should be prohibited. Even Scalia and the 4 other Justices in the majority agreed with that and exempted School gun control laws from this decision.

I got your WMDs.

Oops.

Never mind.

"That guns are bad magic is why schools can only be kept safe through the ritual of banning toy guns, drawings of guns, stories containing guns, and pieces of paper folded in such a way as to resemble guns."

You can be as snarky as you want, but it might, just maybe, be a good idea to remind the reader that there are myriad examples of children being shot and killed by the police for brandishing realistic toy guns.

I wonder, too, sir, if you took into account at all the possibility that there currently exists at least one gun for evey man, woman and child in this country, and that we live in a culture that, retardedly, celebrates violence but has a victorian sensibility when it comes to basic knowledge about sexuality. Then when some kid freaks out and shoots dozens of people because a girl wouldn't talk to him, we are *shocked* that it happened....

Please. This nonsense about keeping the king of england out of your living room is fantasy. If the US Gov't decides to take your shit, your Glock ain't stopping 'em.

"Of course, which is a perfectly good reason to bring criminal charges against 11-year-old girls who bring 4" plastic laser pistols to school. "

The headline says she "may face charges", but the article doesn't clarify...was she? If not, then that's a spectacularly weak argument.

Let's see...do you think the parents would have found it preferable to have their 11yo shot to death on accident?

I get your point, but come on: there are rules to attending school. The charges should be brought against the parents for letting their kid bring a banned item to school.

'I mean, how can a police officer be expected to distinguish that from an AK-47?"

Again, we're talking about consequences. Which is worse - taking the risk of getting shot over a piece of shit plastic toy, or a kid being "deprived" of the opportunity to pretend to kill people with said piece of shit toy?

If this is what you're worked up about, then in my insignificant opinion, your priorities are all out of whack.

When I was in school (not *that* long ago) I had guns in my locked car on more than one occasion. The principal of my school was aware of it and the reasons I had them there. I also got to shoot a gun on school grounds for a speech I gave. Had permission from both the principal and super. I just had to have the school resource officer present when I loaded and shot the rifle. So, there's another reason with prior approval by admin that it's okay to have firearms on school grounds.

(For those wondering the speech was based around safe handling of guns.)

"So, there's another reason with prior approval by admin that it's okay to have firearms on school grounds."

???

That's your "it's ok to have guns on school grounds" reason?

I do not understand where you people are coming from. There is no reason, absolutely no reason to have guns on school property. Ever. Would you really balance the (however improbable) risk of a Columbine or VT with your being able to give a gun safety presentation?

Before people jump to conclusions, I'm a gun owner. I grew up hunting and fishing and all of that, got my first gun at age ten, blah blah blah. I'm all for everyone knowing the p's and q's of guns so that they don't blow their own heads off. But this idea that gun control advocates want to take away all of your guns is ludicrous.

Can anyone really claim that the USA doesn't have a tremendous problem with gun violence? More guns to more people doesn't equal "level ground".

BTW -

"In November 2007, police in McHenry arrested a McHenry Middle School student, 11, who allegedly brought a "laser shock novelty" gun to campus. The 4-inch gun *emitted a small shock* when students pulled the trigger. Police considered a charge of disorderly
conduct, but eventually the case was referred to *a panel of student-age jurors*, who sentenced the youth to community service."

Do you find that to be unreasonable?

"But I do have one question: you note (falsely, but that's a different argument) that American culture has a dearth of "basic knowledge of sexuality,"

Firstly, you've misconstrued what I said (we'll get to that in a minute), but your supposition that even this position is false is *incorrect*, to wit:

"the United States continues to have one of the highest teen pregnancy rates in the developed world—almost twice as high as those of England, Wales and Canada, and eight times as high as those of the Netherlands and Japan.

• Every year, roughly nine million new sexually transmitted infections (STIs) occur among teens and young adults in the United States. Compared with rates among teens in Canada and Western Europe, rates of gonorrhea and chlamydia among U.S. teens are extremely high.

• By 2002, one-third of teens had not received any formal instruction about contraception.

• More than one in five adolescents (21% of females and 24% of males) received abstinence education without receiving instruction about birth control in 2002, compared with 8–9% in 1995.

• In 2002, only 62% of sexually experienced female teens had received instruction about contraception before they first had sex, compared with 72% in 1995.

• Only one out of three sexually experienced black males and fewer than half of sexually experienced black females had received instruction about contraception before the first time they had sex.

• One-quarter of sexually experienced teens had not received instruction about abstinence before first sex.

• Sex education teachers were more likely to focus on abstinence and less likely to provide students with information on birth control, how to obtain contraceptive services, sexual orientation and abortion in 1999 than they were in 1988.

• In 1999, one in four sex education teachers taught abstinence as the only way to prevent pregnancy and STIs—a huge increase from 1988, when the fraction was just one in 50.

• The majority of teachers believe that topics such as birth control methods and how to obtain them, the correct way to use a condom, sexual orientation, and factual and ethical information about abortion should also be taught by the end of the 12th grade. These topics are currently being taught less often and later than teachers think they should be.

• More than nine in 10 teachers believe that students should be taught about contraception, but one in four are prohibited from doing so.

• One in five teachers believe that restrictions on sex education are preventing them from meeting their students’ needs.

• Eighty-two percent of adults support comprehensive sex education that teaches students about both abstinence and other methods of preventing pregnancy and STIs.

• Only one-third of adults surveyed support abstinence-only education, while half oppose the abstinence-only approach.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_sexEd2...

Now, what I said was this: "we live in a culture that, retardedly, celebrates violence but has a victorian sensibility when it comes to basic knowledge about sexuality."

I did not say that "American culture has a dearth of "basic knowledge of sexuality,"

The point should be pretty straightforward and verifiable - the FCC goes into full freak out mode because Janet Jackson's titty popped out (her nipple was covered completely), but children see thousands of acts of violence on TV, and are affected by it (do a quick google search). You couple that with the fact that guns are cheap, easy to get, and available, and what do you get? Do I really need to post the thousand or so links that come up when you search for "child, killed, gun" for you to get the point?

"Now, you just made the argument that everyone should know the Ps and Qs of gun safety so they don't "blow their own heads off.""

Indeed. My kids know which end is the business end and that if they ever see a gun (at a friends home, etc.) to get away from it, do not touch it, and find an adult asap. That's what I was referring to, not the ability to field strip a weapon.

I do support gun education. But not in school. The risks outweigh the rewards (IMHO). I'm knowledgeable about the guns that I own, but I didn't receive any lessons in school. Your point about drivers ed is laughable - are you really positing that the vast majority of 18 and 19 yo *need guns* to live their lives in this day and age?

We're obviously talking past each other, so I'll bow out.

"Indeed. My kids know which end is the business end and that if they ever see a gun (at a friends home, etc.) to get away from it, do not touch it, and find an adult asap. That's what I was referring to, not the ability to field strip a weapon."

You'll find that most safety courses geared for children are about SAFETY and focus and the safe use of firearms and what to do if you see one that is not properly stored or handled. While you are taking the time to teach these lessons to your children, many do not. In my opinion, teaching kids how to safely handle and respect firearms and what to do if someone is not doing that (tell an adult) works a lot better than telling them guns are bad and scary and will hurt you. As for the parents that teach their kids safety, good for you....but sometimes a message sinks a lot deeper when given to them by someone else in addition to their parents.
Slightly off the current thread, but I have taught shooting safety courses for youth and I have seen some really dramatic turn arounds. One youth was very adhd/add and on the line a switch was flipped. This youth was a totally different person: calm; cool; collected; focused on what needed to be done. They told me that they were able to improve their school grades by applying the basics taught to shoot to their class work. Granted, that may not happen for every kid, but who knows.
Do I think kids need to carry guns around....no, but there is no reason for them to fear firearms.

"I suppose if Columbine or VT had just thought to ban guns, both tragedies might have been avoided?"

I'm not sure about Columbine, but VT was a so-called gun safe zone.

My biggest problem with gun control is that there is no alternative to self-defense for human defense. Yup, the police have no legal obligation to protect anyone. I don't know what other proof you need that gun control is simply a tool for fascism.

To me guns are a lot like sex. Do we want it done in public a lot? No (well, not most people). Is there a proper time place and use of it? Yes. Should children be told all about it, in gory detail, as soon as they are able to understand? For their own sake, probably yes.

Banning something (sex or guns for instance) is a sure fire way to make a lot of people want it even more. Especially if you are trying to ban something OTHERS do and you do not care to do. (Why are so many laws aimed at the OTHER guy, and not oneself?).

Providing a ton of good and accurate information, not driven by bias or propoganda, is probably a good approach on a lot of topics. Sex and guns included. Unless of course you are the Supreme Being and you are absolutely all-knowing; in which case feel free to ban anything you want. However, if you are a normal human being (fallible) you may want to adopt the axiom that you will not try to control other people, and hope they adopt the same rule when it comes to telling you how to run your life. And by you, I am using it in the "we" sense, not aiming at anyone in particular......

justthefact and el_b....nice, very nice. And I'm so happy this thread picked back up....usually by the time I figure out what to post and how to word it, the thread is dead!

jtf ~ I had never heard it put that way, and will probably be using your reasoning in the near future!

el_b ~ I've noticed that trend with kids too....both with kids I've babysat for and in my job with the kids I work with whereas kids who are raised with and around firearms don't seem to obsess about them nearly as much.