>Hail Eris! On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 21:20:32 -0700, Eris Kallisti Discordia was
>laughing at the antics of Aratzio, when they suddenly burst out in tears:

>> On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 02:27:14 GMT, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
>> "Scout" got double secret probation for writing:

>>>"Aratzio" wrote...

>>>> On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 23:07:18 GMT, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
>>>> "Scout" got double secret probation for writing:

>>>>>"Aratzio" wrote...

>>>>>> On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 11:46:26 -0500, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
>>>>>> "RD (The Sandman)" got double secret probation for writing:

>>>>>>>Aratzio wrote:

>>>>>>>> On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 10:56:23 -0400, in the land of
>>>>>>>> alt.usenet.kooks, Bama Brian got double secret probation for
>>>>>>>> writing:

>>>>>>>>>Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries wrote:

>>>>>>>>>> Bama Brian wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>> Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>> strabo wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZeD wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 12:29:23 -0700, mariposas rand mair
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fheal wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZeD wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 05:54:09 -0700 (PDT), TwoGuns
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 5, 12:20 am, mariposas rand mair fheal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ZeD wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> . . . > so prove to me that we would have even less crime

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if everyone carried firearms
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think the issue is that all law abiding citizens
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> carry firearms but that ALL law abiding citizens have the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right to carry firearms if , when and where they want.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DL

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe, but if all of us law abiding citizens carried guns
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and engaged the BG's whenever and wherever they tried to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ply their trade then crime would eventually become very
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rare.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they are already rare here
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then you don't need a gun, but what about the rest of us?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shall we be disarmed cause you live where crime is rare?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>> She's a standard issue liberal progressive, a collectivist, a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Marxist. She knows disarming will lead to increased crime.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> She looks forward to this chaos because she believes this
>>>>>>>>>>>>> will destroy the humanity that she hates and result in a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> utopia.

>>>>>>>>>>>> Get thee to a logic class. Stat

>>>>>>>>>>> See England.

>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I was just talking about his theory of my politics. (I'm
>>>>>>>>>> actually a libertarian.) I believe that with rights come
>>>>>>>>>> responsibilities. I'd just like to see a little more emphasis on
>>>>>>>>>> the "responsibility" part, at least as it applies to gun
>>>>>>>>>> ownership.

>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Then let's do the rational thing. Schools should train our
>>>>>>>>>children to be effective, functional adults. We teach sex ed in
>>>>>>>>>the schools because so few get it from home. So let's teach
>>>>>>>>>firearms handling and discipline in the schools also. Guns are a
>>>>>>>>>fact of life, so let's deal with it. I can make the same case for
>>>>>>>>>teaching students how to be informed consumers, and managing their
>>>>>>>>>money, BTW. Just as soon as the schools teach basic math and
>>>>>>>>>spelling.

>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The education is only needed for those who wish to own the
>>>>>>>> weapons. They are the minority.

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Firearms safety should be taught to all. What is to stop your kids
>>>>>>>from visiting a neighbor's house where there are guns? What is to
>>>>>>>stop your kids in playing macho games with firearms in other homes
>>>>>>>with no knowledge of how to treat those firearms with respect and
>>>>>>>safety? No, firearms safety training is for more than just those who
>>>>>>>wish to own firearms. It is like never warning your kids about
>>>>>>>matches or poisons since you have none in your home. Or safety
>>>>>>>around water like learning to swim because you don't have a pool.

>>>>>>
>>>>>> The minority should not dictate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Training is the 800lbs gorilla of the gun debate. But schools are
>>>>>> not the place for firearms.

>>>>>
>>>>>Why?

>>>>
>>>> Immature children would be the first clue.

>>>
>>>Which has what to do with it?
>>>
>>>After all, they handle deadlier things in school and we manage to get
>>>through it without killing everyone.

>>
>> Deadlier things that are of constant interest to children? Bang Gatcha
>> Nuh uh...

>
>Not to mention that not all children have the same level of immaturity
>-- some kids are heavily into machismo, frex. Also, other kids have
>issues WRT being bullied, and might be inclined, in various cases, to
>think that a gun would solve all their problems. Gun safety training
>could simply ensure that they'd be less likely to miss their target(s).
>
>Furthermore, there is the issue of stupidity: Since I'm not actually
>stupid myself, I hesitate to imagine what the genuine article (student
>or teacher) -- a real Darwin Award candidate -- might do, either during
>class or after, but a really high-profile example of grotesque idiocy
>could well sink a program that was otherwise working well, and turn
>public sympathy hard against gun ownership in general. Second Amendment
>fans don't really need to work at torpedoing themselves that way...

>

>>>>>> Children and firearms should only be mated in an exceedingly
>>>>>> controlled environment and in very small numbers (1 being optimal).

>>>>>
>>>>>Odd, the first organized training I had was in the fourth grade with
>>>>>some 500 other kids when we had a hunter's education course, and we
>>>>>managed to learn quite a bit about guns without ever having to touch
>>>>>one.

>>>>
>>>> And then you went hunting, with a weapon?

>>>
>>>Irrelevent. The issue was education.

>>
>> No, to the point that active use of the weapon was part and parcel.

>
>Widespread gun safety training works *in theory*. In practice, little
>things like making sure that the training actually /takes/ tends to go
>by the board. Theory =/= practice, never mind what should be. Even then,
>no amount of training can prepare one for the experience of firing at
>another living being, much less killing one -- killing another human is
>yet another thing entirely. Most gun nuts have never killed a human,
>much less one of the gangbangers, burglars, or rapists they fantasise
>about killing. If putative gun owners had to take psychiatric exams
>prior to buying a gun, I think you'd see a lot fewer new gun owners...

>>>>>I agree that
>>>>>range time should be done as you suggest, but see no reason why theory
>>>>>can't
>>>>>be learned in school.

>>>>
>>>> How do you propose to get the children to the range with enough
>>>> qualified instructors to handle all the children?

>>>
>>>Why should I?

>>
>> You support the idea, I want to here how the supporters plan to handle the
>> logistics.

>
>I'd love to hear how such a class would be handled in, say, LA or
>Chicago. Keeping the younger siblings of teen gang members out of it
>wouldn't, I think, go over too well, even though one might expect them
>to be gangbangers of the future -- not that expectations are worth much.
>Some siblings of gangbangers have grown up to become athletes,
>scientists, and actors, while others followed in their older sibs'
>footsteps.

>

>>>After all, we manage to teach sex ed without taking all the kids down to
>>>a brothel for practical experience.......

>>
>> And how often do fourth graders think about sex?

>
>Rarely, one hopes.

>

>>>>The bureaucratic nightmare that would ential boggles my mind.

>>>
>>>Well since you seem to desire to invent things to boggle your mind, that
>>>doesn't seem hard to do.

>>
>> What did I invent, be specific:

>
>His ability to refrain from dodging the question?