Welcome to Common Gunsense

I hope this blog will provoke some thoughtful reflection about the issue of guns and gun violence. I am passionate about the issue and would love to change some misperceptions and the culture of gun violence in America by sharing with readers words, photos, videos and clips from articles to promote common sense about gun issues. Many of you will agree with me- some will not. I am only one person but one among many who think it's time to do something about this national problem. The views expressed by me in this blog do not represent any group with which I am associated but are rather my own personal opinions and thoughts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Saturday, April 2, 2011

Guns in daycare centers???

courtesy of the Violence Policy Center
Just when I am wondering what to write about next, the NRA comes up with a new outrageous proposal. Thanks to the gun lobby's extremist positions and their ability to push through uncommon sense laws, there is always something to write about. It's sad, but true, that some in South Carolina, think that day care center teachers and/or parents need guns to protect- well to protect who again? Unbelievable. If you read this article, you will see that there is very little discussion about it in the South Carolina legislature. Maybe it's because the residents of South Carolina love their guns so much that even this is not something out of the ordinary. Either that, or most are totally oblivious to what is actually going on in their state legislature. Once again, we are dealing with fear, paranoia and foolishness.

Having 2 young grandchildren who attend day care, I get shivers just thinking about their teachers or parents of some children carrying guns around while caring for them or coming to pick up their kids. There is a code box on the door to their day care center so that strangers cannot get inside. That is good protection and makes me feel better about their safety during the day. I suppose it is possible that some crazed person would actually enter a day care facility with a gun and attempt to shoot young children. As sick as that is, it has, of course happened. In 1999, a member of an Aryan nation hate group sprayed 70 rounds at a day care center with his Uzi automatic weapon.  Five were injured, including several children. Who can forget the photo of those children being led across the street by the police all in a row? I know I can't. This event terrorized the neighborhood and the community of Grenada Hills in the Los Angeles area. It was also the impetus for the 2000 Million Mom March. The answer to this rare event is not more guns in day care centers. It is to stop these crazed people who shouldn't have guns from getting them in the first place. Why is it that prevention is never on the mind of the NRA? It is more into punishment after a shooting has happened or vigilante justice to attempt to stop a shooting as it is happening- something that will just not yield the imagined results.

And speaking of children, how old is a child anyway? When I say that 8 children a day die from gun injuries, that includes children up to age 19. I don't know about you, but my kids were my children while they lived in my home and attended public K-12 school. Even now, my 2 children are young adults with children of their own. When someone asks me how many children I have, the answer is 2. They don't ask how many young adults I have or how many teen-agers I have. Some take issue with the gun control groups using the figure of 8 child gun deaths a day. Here is a recent comment" How many of those children were involved in criminal activities when they die from their gun injuries? How many of them were gang bangers, drug dealers, thieves or otherwise engaged in miscreancy?" Yes indeed, those children who accidentally shoot each other or themselves at age 3 or 4 ( it happens every day) are certainly "miscreants". Or how about the parents who accidentally shoot a young child? That, too , happens with relative frequency. Are they miscreants? The gun lobby just refuses to believe that these incidents can occur because for them, shooters can only be bad guys or "miscreant children". In their world, the only children who die from gun shots are those who are into drugs or gang activity. 


Or then there is this one:" Your side lies and sculpts the facts to create galaxies that appear correct. The 8 children die comment is a fallacy. Most people describe children as 12 and under. Most people do not call 23 year olds children, but the vpc and the BC do. As PROVEN before by studies, many of those "children" quoted by the anti's are known felons and are killed by other known felons. When a 20 year old, three time convicted murderer is killed by rival gang members, no one should decry another "child" lost to gun violence. Yes we should be saddened that another young man was lost to a life of crime, drugs, etc. " Really? We make these things up? I don't make up the daily e-mails I receive about shootings all over the country. Many of them are children shooting themselves or others in their own age group. ( and by the way, where do these children get their guns in the first place?) Gun homicide and suicide account for a large number of violent deaths among children. Here, again, is a chart from the CDC showing the facts. In the 2 age groups, 10-14 and 15-24, gun homicide is the 2nd cause of violent death. In the age group 5-9, gun homicide is the 4th cause of violent death and firearm suicide is the 4th cause of violent death in the 15-24 year old age group. Presumably, some of those are under the age of 19. Notice also, that firearm suicide is in the top 10 causes of violent death in the 10-14 year age group. I don't make up the stories of kids getting their hands on a parent's gun and shooting a friend or sibling. We are not counting the 20 year olds. But the gun lobby would have us believe that those in that age group are included. They are wrong. But never mind the facts.


And while we are on the topic of children, toys are regulated more than guns by the Consumer Product Safety Commission. As I have written before, there is a disconnect between common sense and reality. The gun lobby has won the war of words by cleverly couching every objection to any sensible measure to increase public safety and reduce gun injuries and deaths in second amendment language. That makes it seem as if nothing can be done because anything will lead to violations of their rights. Nonsense. Let's make sure that common sense prevails. We simply do not need guns in day care centers. Too many children and teens die every day in the U.S. from gun injuries. Guns are not regulated at the front end for safety features like almost every other consumer product on the market. You do the math. It doesn't add up to public safety and common sense.

77 comments:

  1. By your own stats listed you confirm my post which you quoted that the CDC and the BC are now calling 24 year olds children and including them in the data. B as in Bull and you know the rest.


    Any child that dies is one too many. But if we are sending people to war at age 18, then let's quit calling 19 to 24 year olds children.

    Quit adding suicides to violence counts. It erodes your case.

    Likewise all humans are the children of someone, your argument about referring to your twenty something offspring as your children: therefore they are always children would suggest that as long as we have living parents we can be listed as children somewhere. By that logic a 13 year old who parents a child can no longer be called a child and must be removed from the CDC counts. When I was 18 and 3 months. I moved three states away from my parents to start college and work. I never again lived at home or relied on my parents for help. I would have been very much dismayed to be considered a child at that point in my life.

    Further more, who among us are as defenseless as a child. Who are most worthy of defending. I am sure as a mother you would have willingly sacrificed your life for your children or defended them at all costs. Almost any parent would.

    Therefore the notion that a guardian or parent must by law, disarm themselves in the very places where children are gathered is ludicrous. Every time my wife left the house with our children she was armed. Likewise for me. I hated the concept that I was to remove my weapon to enter a school building. Because that left an unattended weapon in the car. Luckily I was able to convince my childrens principals of that same idea and got a waver to carry at all school functions. Before you have a seizure at that notion look at it this way. Me, background checked, trained, responsible adult in control of the weapon vs leaving an unattended weapon either in a car which might have ther children still in it, or in a trunk where theft was not unheard of. The choice is clear.

    The law in question allows parents picking up their kids to leave their weapons secured to their person and still be legal and it would allow safe, trained, permitted teachers to have the means necessary to protect themselves in the event of the worst.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Joan,

    Regarding health and safety standards with guns: While it may be true that there are no specific standards enforced by the government comparable to the FDA or the Consumer Safety Commission, I simply do not see the need for one. Simply put, we're not swamped with news about people killed when their gun blew up in their hands. Nobody's house burns down when their ammunition randomly catches fire. The firearms industry does a very good job of voluntary recalls, and the gun community is extremely sensitive to quality.

    Regarding guns in daycare: After having read the article, it seems that the proposed bill would allow concealed carry permit holders to enter a daycare with their firearm. Would you allow a police officer to enter a daycare wearing his gun? Would you make this police officer remove his weapon in the patrol car? His tazer? His pepper spray? His baton? If not, why can I not walk my daughter into preschool to drop her off, while wearing my concealed gun?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Why ask these questions Red? They distract from the issue at hand as you well know. There are always exceptions for law enforcement in bills such as these. But you knew that didn't you>

    ReplyDelete
  4. The only reason I published the comment from anon, above, is because it is full of nonsensical attacks on my facts. If you read what I wrote, you will note, of course, that I said that at least some of the young people in the 15-24 age group have to be under 19. I did not claim that those over 19 were to be called children. Nor does the CDC in it's age groupings. That just happens to be the way they place folks in their age groups- in 10 year spans. So don't go off now and say that I said anybody up to age 25 is considered to be a child. You know that isn't true and if you actually think it is then you can't read very well. If suicide by gun isn't a violent death, I don't know what is. Remember now, these are not mine but the CDC's assessment of violent deaths. I wonder under what category you would place suicide by gun? It is not a quiet, non violent type of death. Any time a bullet is the cause of death, it's violent. What a bullet does to the brain or the organs in a person's chest is violent and severe trauma. That is why it is called violence. It causes a lot of damage to a person- different from dying by a drug overdose, as an example. Each is a death that is senseless- one involves a violent trauma to the body, the other does not. I did not ever find it necessary to carry a gun to defend my children. I know no one in my group of friends who did. I find your need and your wife's to carry guns in schools to be totally paranoid. I can't believe, by the way, that you talked any principal into allowing you to carry a gun in a school. Isn't that violating laws? It sounds questionable to me. The very idea of a pre school teacher carrying is just plain dangerous. We all know how curious children are. We all know that teachers are running around chasing little children and doing things that could result in a gun dropping out of clothing or being jostled. The chances of an accident are very much greater than any chance of needing that gun to defend children or one's self in a pre school setting. You just can't make a good case for this one but I can see that you are going to try. I will not be publishing future remarks that make that case if they don't involve some facts about why guns are necessary in schools and pre-schools. By the way, you need to come out with your name. Anonymous comments are pretty easy to hide behind.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "I will not be publishing future remarks that make that case if they don't involve some facts about why guns are necessary in schools and pre-schools"

    Columbine, VT and Nickel Mines all spring immediately to mind. A quick Google search for "mass murders in schools" also brings up University of Iowa 1991 (6 dead, 1 wounded), Northern Illinois U 2008 (6 dead, 16 wounded), Stockton, CA 1989(6 dead, 30 wounded), Cal State 1976 (7 dead, 2 wounded), Red Lake HS 2005 (10 dead, 7 wounded), and UT 1966 (18 dead, 30 wounded). I'm sure there's plenty of people that survived those shootings (and some who didn't) who would've loved to have been able to legally defend themselves.

    There's also Bath Elementary School in MI, 1927, which involved explosives (not guns), where 45 people were killed and 58 injured, thus proving that no matter how much you attempt to restrict gun ownership, madmen intent on mass murder will still find ways to kill people (and in a much more "efficient" manner, to boot). Don't forget that the two worst terrorist attacks on US soil didn't involve firearms either, and those death tolls were far in excess of anything perpetrated with a firearm.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Thank you anon. There is absolutely no evidence in any of these that someone with a gun could have changed the outcome. In fact, I would suggest, that bringing out a gun to try to stop the shooter would have exasperated the situation. How would the law enforcement officers who responed to VT had known who was the shooter and who was a victim? In talking to Colin Goddard, he says that having a gun would have done him no good. By the time he would have thought to get a gun out from wherever it might have been, it would not have stopped Cho. If his gun was in a backpack, for example, he was under a desk on the floor. If it was on his person, he was already shot and bleeding and the first thing on his mind was saving himself and dealing with his injuries. What actually stopped more shootings in that case was Colin using his cell phone to tell L.E. where the shooter was- outside in the hallway from his French class. He could not have gotten himself to his feet to go to the hallway to confront Cho because of his injuries. He was one of the few survivors in that classroom. The others were badly injured and unable to do anything. They didn't even realize what was happening until it was too late to react. The surprise element and adrenaline almost always accompany these incidents. To think that one or more of the young girls at the Nickel Mines school could have shot the shooter is a fantasy. But you guys do have the fantasy that you will be able to act and react in these situations and that anyone else could, too. Those in charge of safety at public colleges have almost all, to a person, come out against measures to allow guns in their facilities for very good reasons. They understand that the danger of having those guns is more that accidents will happen, a student who is stressed may act on their stress, alcohol and drugs are involved on college campuses. The odds of needing a gun for self protection at a college would be very slim. The answer is not more guns but preventing people who shouldn't have them from getting them. Why are you guys so opposed to any measure that has a chance of doing just that? There is no guarantee. There never is. But we must at least try.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Another comment for anon, above- now you brought in the terrorist attacks on our country that isn't even in the ball park of what we are talking about so that is totally off the mark and not a relevant comment to this blog post. Any attempt to distract the conversation by bringing in something not addressed on this blog will serve on purpose and therefore not published or discussed here. As well, you have not given me a case where a gun in a pre-school is necessary. To think someone at the Jewish Day Care center could have reacted to a crazed shooter who started indiscriminately spraying bullets is inane. Maybe you imagine yourself as some sort of hero in these cases but it is a figment of your imagination. Can you tell me about a case where someone has been able to stop such a shooting with their own gun? Or give me a scenario where you think you could save the day. Even law enforcement can't do that. Now I am going to violate my own rules about sticking to the topic to illustrate a point. The police officers sitting at a coffee shop in Tacoma, WA last year, obviously all armed, couldn't do a thing to defend themselves. I am talking about why guns could possibly be needed in pre schools here. We have already talked ad nauseum about school and college shootings. Let's stick to my topic. So if you have some examples of real life or set up situations where you think someone who is armed could react to a mass shooting to save lives, please give those to me. Also, specifically, if you can think of any where you believe a gun carried by a pre school teacher would save lives, I would love to hear that. Their first job is to make sure the kids are in a safe place and to take care of the children. That was my first job while working at an elementary school. To keep the kids safe, my job was to turn out the lights, lock the door, get to a safe place in the room and stay with the kids. Never in the drills we went through in the school district, was there a scenario where one of us confronted a shooter with a gun. We all knew that would just plain not work. It would probably get the person who confronted killed and then leaving children without a responsible adult to protect them in the classroom or place where they are hiding or being kept away from danger.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Ok back to carrying in schooland day are.

    You are not reading into my posts. I am not afraid of daycare. That's most obvious. I am, however afraid of what might happen anytime I have my children out and about with me. I carry a weapon for the defense of myself and my family. Therefore, everytime I was was picking up my children or driving them to school or anywhere, I am carrying.

    Understand I carry to protect them and myself.

    Secondly. I used to drive several other kids to school as well. All the parents knew, none of the kids knew as concealed is concealed. The gun stays under the shirt and no one knows it's there.

    Thirdly, if you are honest with a school official, getting a waiver to carry on school grounds is not uncommon or difficult. It's legal as Mn State law allows for it. The easiest reasoning is tied to the above. I will be armed while having others peoples children in my care. I will never look at some mother and say " there was nothing I could do". Therefore the principals decision was do I allow this permitted, trained, background checked, parent legally carry into school buildings, or do I force him to stand outside the vehicle where people can see him and remove the weapon and place it in his trunk or sit in a car full of other kids and make him handle the gun there? The choice is fairly easy. The reason you haven't heard anything on the news is just that, it's far safer to leave a gun concealed on a permit holders belt rather than the alternatives.

    Your description of what to do in a daycare center or school is fine IF you have lots of support. What happens if you a Mom taking kids in to make ends meet, a farmwife watching other farm kids a half hour from town. How about a daycare in a public building with not enough staff? Running and hiding from a lunatic only works in fairytales. If you run, he follows, and now your cornered.

    If you have paid attention to the news, many studies have been done on reactions to the mass shootings that have taken place and each and everyone have said running away and hiding does nothing. It only gives the shooter(s) a captive groups of victims. Current police thought has decided as well that arriving and setting up a perimeter, waiting for SWAT, and then slowly entering the building "under control" has only allowed the shooter(s) more time to kill. The current strategy is for every officer to enter the building and run toward the gunfire as fast as possible tostop the shooter as quick as possible.

    By that logic, what would happen if a few teachers were to be armed? No one is saying all teachers but a few, able to engage a shooter as the initial attack is happening. It has been my experience in teaching many years ago that a sizable portion of the men were military vets. If we trust them with guns in other countries and here, why not in our schools.

    Lastly, if I have enough confidence in my day are provider or teacher to leave my children with them, I would probably trust them as well to protect my children as needed.

    ReplyDelete
  9. This is a link i wanted to post with my above response

    This is a link to a police association article on dealing with "active shooters.". Please note the emphasis on Immediate action and how sitting and waiting just allowed the shooters more time to kill.

    http://www.poam.net/main/train-educate/active-shooter-response-training.html

    ReplyDelete
  10. All schools should be gun-free zones, especially nursery schools.

    I liked what Red Ramage said about the guns not blowing up and the ammo not catching fire. I think that makes sense.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Minnesota law allows a permit holder who has written permission from the principal of a school or manager of a licensed day care to carry a firearm on the property.

    There is also an exemption for permit holders to arm & disarm at their vehicle in the parking lot, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "toys are regulated more than guns by the Consumer Product Safety Commission"

    To see why that is, listen to Josh Sugarmann of the Violence Policy Center: "any rational regulator with that authority would ban handguns."

    japete, do you really expect gunowners to endorse a regulatory gun "safety" bureaucracy when gun control advocates like Sugarmann have touted that as a means toward "back door" gun bans?

    ReplyDelete
  13. You said that it was your job to keep the children safe.

    How did you do that?

    Please be specific.

    ReplyDelete
  14. My comments are not to distract from the issue at hand. I am also well aware that law enforcement is always exempted from these laws. However, the actual risk to children in a daycare of a police officer entering the premises while wearing his firearm is exactly the same risk as allowing me to wear mine while I drop off my child. To allow one but not the other is illogical.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Anon- your reasoning is flawed regarding what would happen in a school should a shooter stop by. I have been there doing the lock down drill. How would we know that teacher x- down hallway y would be in the right place to stop a shooter? Teacher x is busy taking care of his or her students and getting them into a safe place- the first job of teacher x and all other teachers. Would you have the kids stay out in the hallway or would you have them go to a coat room or a place away from windows? I choose the latter and I"m sure you do, too, so saying that hiding somewhere is not safer is ludicrous. That is what we have to do in lock downs. We don't all challenge the shooter. Your scenario is flawed.

    As to Minnesota law- you are flat out wrong. " Where am I prohibited from carrying my pistol? School property
    A childcare center while children are present" What are you talking about? I believe that you and the principal, if you live in Minnesota, have broken the law. As to your children's friends not knowing about your gun, I am betting that they do. Kids generally get wind of things like where guns are. Be careful out there. Please explain further your "agreement" with the school principal. I need to know what you are talking about here. It sounds pretty illegal to me.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I need to check that one out for myself since it is very hard to believe that a school principal would allow a parent to carry a loaded gun inside the facility.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Anon- above- thanks for the interesting link. It is meant, of course, for law enforcement and not teachers or the public so I'm not sure what your point is here. " police departments could no longer depend on the special skills, weapons and tactics of SWAT teams in resolving some incidents.The emotional and analytical aftermath of the Columbine High School killings has driven police departments across the nation to take a new approach: training patrol officers to specifically and efficiently deal with the Active Shooter scenario."

    ReplyDelete
  18. Jay- I need the source of that quote. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I already told you what my job was earlier and I was quite specific. Just read my response. You don't need to ask me to repeat it since your intention here is to harass me.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Red- are you a trained officer of the law? There is a difference between you and those who are trained to deal with these situations. You may not think so but it's a fact.

    ReplyDelete
  21. For the anonymous commenter who says he has a written agreement from the principal to carry a gun in Minnesota in a school, please cite the law so I can find out if you are correct. Here are just a few things- it is clear that it is illegal to carry a gun in schools in Minnesota;

    there is one mention of a "contract" with someone for carrying- is that what you are thinking is the written permission from the school's principal? Is it sanctioned by the School Board? As a former School Board member, I would think that would have to come to the attention of the Board and the Board would have to vote on it since I don't think an individual principal can act on something this serious.
    "(4) "school property" means:

    (i) a public or private elementary, middle, or secondary school building and its improved grounds, whether leased or owned by the school;

    (ii) a child care center licensed under chapter 245A during the period children are present and participating in a child care program;

    (iii) the area within a school bus when that bus is being used by a school to transport one or more elementary, middle, or secondary school students to and from school-related activities, including curricular, cocurricular, noncurricular, extracurricular, and supplementary activities; and

    (iv) that portion of a building or facility under the temporary, exclusive control of a public or private school, a school district, or an association of such entities where conspicuous signs are prominently posted at each entrance that give actual notice to persons of the school-related use.

    (f) This subdivision does not apply to:

    (1) active licensed peace officers;

    (2) military personnel or students participating in military training, who are on-duty, performing official duties;

    (3) persons authorized to carry a pistol under section 624.714 while in a motor vehicle or outside of a motor vehicle to directly place a firearm in, or retrieve it from, the trunk or rear area of the vehicle;

    (4) persons who keep or store in a motor vehicle pistols in accordance with section 624.714 or 624.715 or other firearms in accordance with section 97B.045;

    (5) firearm safety or marksmanship courses or activities conducted on school property;

    (6) possession of dangerous weapons, BB guns, or replica firearms by a ceremonial color guard;

    (7) a gun or knife show held on school property;

    (8) possession of dangerous weapons, BB guns, or replica firearms with written permission of the principal or other person having general control and supervision of the school or the director of a child care center; or

    (9) persons who are on unimproved property owned or leased by a child care center, school, or school district unless the person knows that a student is currently present on the land for a school-related activity.
    (g) Notwithstanding section 471.634, a school district or other entity composed exclusively of school districts may not regulate firearms, ammunition, or their respective components, when possessed or carried by nonstudents or nonemployees, in a manner that is inconsistent with this subdivision."

    ReplyDelete
  22. It's MN Statute 609.66, which you quoted above - the relevant portion is:

    "(8) possession of dangerous weapons, BB guns, or replica firearms with written permission of the principal or other person having general control and supervision of the school or the director of a child care center;"

    Firearms falling under Minnesota's definition of a dangerous weapon.

    Link: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=609.66

    My suggestion - if you are going to advocate for additional gun control laws, become intimately familiar with the ones that already exist.

    Bryan

    ReplyDelete
  23. Thanks, Bryan,

    I do not have all Minnesota law committed to memory. Nor do many folks. You are one, apparently, who does. Minnesota laws are quite complicated, as you know, and difficult for even L.E. and legal folks to understand. And you don't need to respond with a snarky remark. It happens to be true. So I still am finding it very difficult to think of a principal who would grant permission for someone to carry a gun on school grounds without some authority from a School Board. Where is this may I ask? It just doesn't sound like a good idea to me and I am betting to very many others. There would have to be a very good reason to grant this permission. I would be quite uncomfortable working in a building where I knew that this was the case. But that's just me.

    ReplyDelete
  24. As a firearms instructor, I'd argue that I should know and understand Minnesota's laws clearly. I have the same expectation for law enforcement.

    Bryan

    ReplyDelete
  25. Bryan,

    Is your permission granted to you because you are a firearms instructor teaching classes on school property?

    ReplyDelete
  26. I don't have kids in school so I've never asked for permission. I will, however be doing so when the time comes.

    I didn't state that earlier either, I believe that was a different poster.
    b

    ReplyDelete
  27. Sorry, Bryan- I thought it was you. For what reason would you ask a principal for permission to carry? Do you find the world to be so dangerous that you need a gun even in a school setting?

    ReplyDelete
  28. "I need the source of that quote. Thanks."

    Here you are. You're welcome.

    http://www.nytimes.com/1999/11/04/opinion/laws-that-can-t-stop-a-bullet.html?pagewanted=print&src=pm

    ReplyDelete
  29. "While it may be true that there are no specific standards enforced by the government comparable to the FDA or the Consumer Safety Commission,"

    The standards are set by the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturer's Institute. It was founded in 1926 at the request of the federal government.

    It is an ANSI standards organization. The standards it establishes are published under the ANSI imprimatur, and have exactly the same legal weight as do the standards that the IEEE establishes for electrical transmission, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  30. "I need to check that one out for myself since it is very hard to believe that a school principal would allow a parent to carry a loaded gun inside the facility."

    Prior to 2003, it was legal for any permit holder to carry in any public school. We didn't seem to have any issues, then.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Thanks, Jay. This was a position of many in the gun control movement in 1999. " The public is way ahead of the politicians in understanding that incremental regulation won't control handgun violence. Polls show that in the past year up to half of Americans have supported a ban on handguns." It was even supported by the public. Things have changed since that time. You won't find Josh Sugarman saying that today. The Brady Campaign is not saying it. The Supreme Court has assured you all that you have your guns for self defense and hunting. People change. Times change. Things change. The NRA has taken more extreme positions of late than they did earlier in the organization's history. Time to let go of the idea that people who favor gun control favor handgun bans. It's not going to happen. It's off the table. Forget about it and move on. As long as you guys are stuck in this thought process, nothing productive can happen regarding common sense concerning guns and preventing gun injuries and deaths.

    ReplyDelete
  32. "Sorry, Bryan- I thought it was you. For what reason would you ask a principal for permission to carry? Do you find the world to be so dangerous that you need a gun even in a school setting?"

    Why wouldn't I ask to carry? Minnesota law already allows me to carry in most other places.

    I've already obtained permission from the daycare we will be using shortly to carry there.

    Personally, I would consider a law abiding permit holder to be an incredibly low risk for creating an issue with a firearm in any location, let alone a school or daycare.

    Do you have some evidence showing that permit holders in schools or daycares are somehow more dangerous than criminals who would carry there anyways, regardless of what the law says?

    B

    ReplyDelete
  33. You have to be one of the very few if the only one to feel a need to carry in a day care. It's just totally ridiculous considering the possibility for accidents to happen that people even consider that they need guns in day cares. It is something that so many people would be upset about if they knew. I wonder if the day care has an obligation to inform other parents that one of the parents is carrying in the day care. I would strongly think of moving a child to a different day care if I knew that someone was carrying.

    ReplyDelete
  34. "You have to be one of the very few if the only one to feel a need to carry in a day care."

    I know many that do.

    "It's just totally ridiculous considering the possibility for accidents to happen that people even consider that they need guns in day cares"

    What exactly is the accident that you think is going to happen to a firearm being carried in a properly secured holster?

    And is it more or less likely that the accident(s) that you have in mind will happen to a permit holder versus someone who is carrying illegally in a daycare?

    b

    ReplyDelete
  35. What exactly is the accident that you think is going to happen to a firearm being carried in a properly secured holster?

    There are more than 80,000 "Permit to Carry a Pistol" holders in Minnesota - how many have had accidents happen while lawfully carrying in places other than daycares and schools?

    For that matter, for the minority of those 80,000 that have permission to carry at the daycare or school that they visit, where are the accidents that have occurred?

    B

    ReplyDelete
  36. There is a principle here, Bryan. We simply do not need guns everywhere we go in public places and most especially where children are gathered. The normalizing of gun carrying is simply a bad idea for many many reasons. So far, no accidents. The more who carry in more public places will inevitably be a prescription for possible accidents.

    ReplyDelete
  37. And we'll agree to disagree on this principle - mine is that individuals should have a right to defend themselves and their family in most locations.

    We've seen the normalization of lawful carrying of firearms over the last twenty years without the blood in the streets that your "side", so to speak, feared would happen.

    States like Florida and Texas have 4-5 times as many lawful permit holders as Minnesota without the widespread issues or accidents that others have feared.

    I expect this trend will continue.

    Bryan

    ReplyDelete
  38. I also have the written permission from the principal at my children's elementary school, as I did at their daycare before. The principal was impressed that I would ask, and by my attention to the safety of the students.

    This is a non-issue Joan, my actions endanger no one.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Needless to say, The BC supported the "Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act" at the time.

    Sure, they have not pushed that sort of thing lately. Sure, "things have changed since that time" -- but your side fought that change all the way. Many proposals appear to have been dropped "for now" because the votes are not there. But there has been no real repudiation of those positions from the BC or the VPC -- which inevitably leads many to suspect that those proposals would again be promoted as soon as you thought you again had a chance.

    Would you support such consumer safety legislation now if you could? I raised the point because it was you who said "toys are regulated more than guns by the Consumer Product Safety Commission." Do you want to tell us that you would not change that if you could? Yes, the Supreme Court has taken a total handgun ban off the table. The BC fought that too, and now they claim that almost anything else is still permissible so there is much mischief that could be inflicted upon gunowners in the name of "safety" regulation. For example: The VPC's Tom Diaz has said that a gun "safety" regulator could ban "assault weapons" and certain magazines as a threat to public safety. Those are current issues, not old ones.

    japete , I am not trying to convince you of anything. But you seem amazed that gunowners oppose federal consumer safety authority on guns, so you should know why: gunowners will always oppose governmental authority to ban certain guns or magazines by bureaucratic fiat that bypasses votes by their elected representatives.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Just so you all know, I am into mischief, as is the Brady Campaign. We are a devious bunch who simply cannot be trusted. I suppose you could say that we fight the things we think are not a good idea just as your side fights against what you fight against. To each side, the other's positions do not make sense and lead to a slippery slope. You guys do not own the slippery slope argument. It goes and has gone both ways if you insist on looking at it that way.

    ReplyDelete
  41. The police officers sitting at a coffee shop in Tacoma, WA last year, obviously all armed, couldn't do a thing to defend themselves.
    That was because it was a surprise attack on the known gun-carrying good guys. An anonymous concealed carrier has the element of surprise on his side when a gun-toting madman attacks a crowd of people that he believes to be helpless, which is why concealed rather than open carry generally makes more sense. This is also why that CBS (?) piece about defensive shooting in a classroom was flawed; the “bad guy” knew in advance who the armed “good guy” was. Of course that individual was going to get shot first, and by a well-trained aggressor no less! IIRC the “good guy” still managed to neutralize the attacker in one of the runs, so even without the advantage of being anonymous it is still possible to win (winning being defined as stopping the spree shooter, not necessarily personal survival).

    As well, you have not given me a case where a gun in a pre-school is necessary.
    You accuse us of derailing the discussion all the time, but that’s simply not the case here. I was most definitely addressing the topic at hand, which is armed self-defense in areas that you feel should be so-called “gun free zones.” Whether it’s a pre-school, day care or college, your “gun free zones” haven’t really protected anyone in recent memory. Besides, you even wrote of an example of an attack on a pre-school/day care in your own post.You also claim that “that bringing out a gun to try to stop the shooter would have exasperated [sic] the situation;” 32 people were killed at VA Tech, so I’m not sure how that could’ve been any worse! Having the possibility of stopping the shooter, no matter how slim the chance, would have been infinitely better than cowering under the desks hoping not to get shot. Remember, hope is not a method!

    ReplyDelete
  42. [Part 1 of 2]
    In talking to Colin Goddard, he says that having a gun would have done him no good. By the time he would have thought to get a gun out from wherever it might have been, it would not have stopped Cho.
    Joan, I feel you would benefit from an objective analysis of your preconceived notions regarding defensive firearms use; it’s not like in the movies with lots of slide racking and clicks that take forever as someone prepares to fire. Maybe you could ask an expert like your local police chief to take you through some kind of defensive firearm class. Colin Goddard, on the other hand, is most definitely not an expert on defensive gun fighting; he’s an expert on getting shot and calling 911 but that’s about it. His claim that he (or anyone else in his classroom) couldn’t have done anything to defend themselves is specious. I can draw my concealed firearm from under my shirt and hit a target at seven yards in less than three seconds, which is actually kind of slow compared to the self-defense experts out there. Given that fact, and the fact that Cho didn’t just magically teleport next to Goddard and shoot him, there would have been plenty of time to draw a concealed firearm, take a position of cover and/or concealment, and await Cho’s entry through the door (the “fatal funnel” as it’s known in military and police circles because it forces an opponent to come through one easily targeted location).

    ReplyDelete
  43. [Part 2 of 2]
    IIRC, Goddard’s teacher actually went out to the hall to see what was happening, returned, secured the door and told everyone to get under their desks; easily more than three seconds, and probably more like 10 or 15 (practically an eternity in a combat situation, which that most definitely was even if only one party was armed), so there would have been enough time to mount a successful armed defense. Hiding under a desk, being shot and calling 911 doesn’t make Goddard a hero—a survivor for sure, a coward maybe, but definitely not a hero. He didn’t “help” police neutralize Cho by calling them either; Cho shot himself before the police arrived, although their imminent arrival may have hastened his decision. Before you retort that I wasn’t there and therefore don’t know what really happened, let me remind you that I do have access to his description of the event as well as my personal knowledge of defensive firearm use (although I’m admittedly not an “expert witness” but am certainly more knowledgeable than him). I’d also like to point out that I’m an Iraq war veteran, so I have been under similar conditions and thus know how I would react. Being legally barred from having a firearm in that situation, I may not have been able to do much better, although I dang sure would’ve tried to intercept him in the doorway—with my pocket knife, an improvised club or even my fists—and get him before he got me, so to speak. I do know that if I had been in his position WITH my carry gun I’d put better than even odds on my chances of prevailing (again, success is defined as stopping the attack, not necessarily avoiding being shot myself in the process) over an untrained and deranged individual like Cho.

    ReplyDelete
  44. "I am into mischief, as is the Brady Campaign. We are a devious bunch who simply cannot be trusted."

    I said earlier that prior to 2003 it was legal, in Minnesota, for any permit carrier to carry in schools. That was changed when the shall-issue bill became law.

    During the negotiations leading up to the bill, the Minnesota Principals Association opposed the bill. They said that if a provision was added to the bill banning permitted carry in schools, they'd withdraw their opposition.

    A lot of gun owners were strongly opposed to this. They understand the consequences of creating gun free zones, and the risk that this would place on Minnesota's children. The backers of the bill, though, felt that without the compromise the bill would not pass, so it was the ban was added.

    And the Principals Association continued to oppose the bill.

    Truth is that no one on the anti-gun side can be trusted, period. They're fighting for what they see as revealed truth, and little things like honesty are unimportant, in the scheme of things.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Of course I knew that at least one of you would dispute Colin's own account of what happened that day at VT and how it went down. Perhaps you should go through a shooting to see how it works. That is what you are asking of us. We should go through training? I know people who have participated in the simulated police training who have told me how difficult it is to react and actually "shoot" the person coming around the corner. You guys have delusions of grandeur that just don't make sense in real life.
    Even police officers have a difficult time hitting their targets the first time around. What you are saying about the Tacoma case is that the officers themselves couldn't have defended themselves because it was a surprise attack ( which was exactly my case by the way) but that surely someone else who was armed could have taken down the shooter and stopped him before he fled. Too bad he already took 4 lives of armed police officers first. And you are quite sure that an armed citizen would have been in that exact place at the exact time to stop the shooter but not to stop the shooting in the first place because it was a surprise attack? And you yourself, after pulling out your gun, would surely have gotten off an accurate shot and the shooter wouldn't have tried to shoot you or, according to your over confidence in your own abilities, you would not have been shot of course because you are such a good shot. Wow- amazing that you can think this way. Colin Goddard, by the way, is a person who knows how to shoot. He was in ROTC. But you don't like to believe in real life situations. Yours are more in your imagination.

    ReplyDelete
  46. All I had to do was read the word "coward" to know that you don't deserve to be published on my blog. I will not accept your analysis that Colin was a coward. Who are you to judge? That is totally arrogant and insensitive. You cannot presume to call anyone who was in those classrooms cowards. That is just plain cowardly on your part. You guys are disgusting at times. Please don't ever do that again. Not acceptable.

    ReplyDelete
  47. You know jdege- I am officially sick of your diatribes about people on my side being untrustworthy and dishonest. Back at you. You guys are beginning to say things that are so outrageous that comments will be reconsidered from you and some others here who cross the line of civility and reason.

    ReplyDelete
  48. "Just so you all know, I am into mischief, as is the Brady Campaign."

    It's your right. You will just have to do it the hard way -- by votes of elected representatives, rather than the bureaucratic fiat of a federal consumer "safety" authority.

    "We are a devious bunch who simply cannot be trusted."

    With me, it did not help when gun control groups supported "renewal" of the AWB that would have repealed the exemption for 650 sporting guns (which is what persuaded me to support the original AWB).

    "You guys do not own the slippery slope argument. It goes and has gone both ways"

    OK -- you may be right. Perhaps you have to oppose everything the NRA wants, because when they win something they get "on a roll" and try for something more (just as we have often seen with gun control).

    ReplyDelete
  49. Firearms are allowed in daycare centers here. Number of shootings in daycare centers: zero. Number of negligent discharges: zero. Number of murders: zero. Number of people shot: zero. Number of children shot: zero.

    ReplyDelete
  50. "will not accept your analysis that Colin was a coward. Who are you to judge?"

    I didn't make that comment, but I agree. Goddard was and is a coward. If I had been in his shoes I would have drawn my knife and killed Cho even if I died in the process. The Marine Corps taught me to run at ambushes and counter-attack the threat. I'm not a hero, just a former grunt who isn't a coward.

    "You cannot presume to call anyone who was in those classrooms cowards."

    They cowered in fear. That's what a coward does. Are you completely unfamiliar with how language works?

    ReplyDelete
  51. "It would probably get the person who confronted killed and then leaving children without a responsible adult to protect them in the classroom or place where they are hiding or being kept away from danger. "

    Cowering in the dark isn't what a responsible adult does. It doesn't work on fires and it doesn't work on murderers. You say it would "probably get the person killed" - but it's dang rare when an armed citizen is killed while defending themselves or others. Usually it's the bad guy who dies/surrenders/runs away/gets incapacitated.

    ReplyDelete
  52. japete: "Even police officers have a difficult time hitting their targets the first time around."

    japete is right about that. Even police officers, who receive extensive training for gunfights, often do not hit the bad guy (who is shooting at them)with the first 10 rounds fired. Good thing that their guns usually hold more.

    Hmm...

    ReplyDelete
  53. This is total crap. You are hateful individuals.

    ReplyDelete
  54. These comments are crazy hateful and wrong headed in so many ways. I only print them so other readers can see how hateful some of you are, You are willing to say anything, I guess, to support your own world view which is unsupported by the majority in this country. I don't think the world is a better place because of this sort of thinking. Do you all think through what you are saying here? I think you should.

    ReplyDelete
  55. dear readers- I am finding your remarks about Colin Goddard to be offensive and hateful. I will not be publishing any more of them. You are all being insensitive and arrogant enough to think you can speak for viciims. This kind of talk from you will get nowhere on this blog and nowhere in public debate. It is irrelevant. The people who survived VT did so by sheer luck. To call any of them cowards is beyond the pale and pretty outrageous. I just do not know people like you who would dane to say things like this publicly. You are not nice people.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Yes we are nice people. We are polite, honest and truthful. We are great neighbors and we work hard on church board meetings. Just because we do not agree does not make us ugly or not nice.

    Being honest is a key characteristic of being law-abiding as we are. Being honest may seem to be unkind, but in the end its the kindest thing to be.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Yes, I'm sure some of you are nice. Others of you are not, however and those are the people I am writing to. When those folks stop calling me dishonest and the many names I am called and quit accusing me of things that I am not, in fact, doing, then perhaps we can decide who is nice and who isn't. For now, I stand by my refusal to publish comments that are irrelevant, rude, accusatory, name calling and outright lying.

    ReplyDelete
  58. "If suicide by gun isn't a violent death, I don't know what is. "

    I'm confused - is dying in an auto accident a "violent death"?

    ReplyDelete
  59. johnny- why are you confused? That's your problem then. Because the CDC website includes auto accidents in their violent death category. You must have missed something. Did you miss it on purpose so you could ask this question or did you truly miss it?

    ReplyDelete
  60. japete, You do know why they hate Colin so much, don't you? it's the same reason they hate you and anyone else who dares to question their beliefs. They're dead wrong about guns and they know it. When all their arguments fail, which they do, they resort to personal attacks and fall back on the 2nd Amendment.

    The United States is a global disgrace with its leading position in guns per capita and its leading position among all developed countries in gun violence. Almost every single one of the guns used in crime comes from the world of lawful gun owners. They are responsible they and can't stand it when someone like Colin helps people see this.

    ReplyDelete
  61. "Because the CDC website includes auto accidents in their violent death category. You must have missed something. Did you miss it on purpose so you could ask this question or did you truly miss it?"

    All due respect (not that you've given me any), but you're mistaken.

    The chart you linked to HIGHLIGHTS "violence-related injury deaths" on a chart that includes completely non-violent causes such as "Adverse Effects" and "Undetermined Unspecified".

    In fact, CDC defines violent death as "NVDRS defines a death due to violence as "a death resulting from the intentional use of physical force or power against oneself, another person, or against a group or community." That clearly excludes auto accidents because they are accidents - the use of force wouldn't be "intentional" in such cases. See http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/wisqars/NVDRS/About-NVDRS.htm if you don't believe me.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Oh Mikey, I know you wish that we were a socialist utopia like your beloved Italy so you could come back here. Where's the data that supports your claim regarding how the US stands on the gun issue? What's that, can't find any? Here, let me help you out:

    http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/united-nations-ignores-its-own-data-to-promote-gun-ban/?singlepage=true

    ReplyDelete
  63. johnny- CDC- 10 leading causes of death- http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/pdf/Death_by_Age_2007-a.pdf
    10 leading causes of unintentional injury- CDC- http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/pdf/Unintentional_2007-a.pdf
    10 leading causes of violent related deaths- http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/pdf/Violence_2007-a.pdf- here you will find motor vehicle deaths listed as the #1 cause in almost every age grouping

    ReplyDelete
  64. Anon- it would be really great if you would just call Mikeb Mike rather than the demeaning "Mikey". I know you guys love to do that because it is an attack on the person rather than their ideas. But I won't be publishing any more of those demeaning comments from you. If I knew your name, would you love it if I called you a dimunitive nick name just to give you a jab? At any rate, if we can believe the source which comes from Pajamas Media which appears to me to be mostly conservatives. So that is one opinion. The CDC and other such official sources all report and this is widely known, that the U.S gun deaths per 100,000 are hugely higher than any other civilized country in the world not at war. That is common knowledge. If you click further on in the article to a map it shows some pretty interesting stuff. Australia, all of Europe and the middle east, including the northern African nations who are experiencing so much upheavle, have lower rates of homicide than the U.S. per 100,000. I don't know what your point is really here anon? I think it was to attack "Mikey" rather than the facts.

    ReplyDelete
  65. As mentioned, the data is readily available at the WISWARS report for the years 1999-2007.

    To make it actually CHILDREN and see just how much the includsion of adults aged 18-24 affects the results, Let's look at Homicides for Firearm and Non-Firearm causes by specific age.

    Firearm-related Homicides, Ages 0-17: 8320
    Other Homicides, Ages 0-17: 8675
    Firearm-related Homicides, Ages 18-24: 33,736
    Other Homicides, Ages 0-24: 7,330

    That means the inclusion of 18-24 YEar old adults makes up 80% of the sample in the statistic, completely masking the results and making them misleading and invalid.

    If you look even closer, you'll see that Firearm vs Non-Firearms causes keep pace until age 13. From 13-18 Firearms as a cause are increasing, 19-22 is relatively flat and then it decrease from there through the end of the data..


    Let's look at that 8 a day claim over 9 years (3,285 days).

    Firearm-related Homicides, Ages 0-17 (8,320): 2.53
    Other Homicides, Ages 0-17 (8,675): 2.64

    Interesting. Firearm related homicides Ages 0-17 is ~30% of the cited 8 a day.

    Let's look at this by age band:
    Firearm-related Homicides, Ages 0-12 (1344): .40 a day
    Firearm-related Homicides, Ages 13-17 (6976): 2.12 a day
    Firearm-related Homicides, Ages 18-24 (33736): 10.27 a day

    Other Homicides, Ages 0-12 (7076): 2.15 a day
    Other Homicides, Ages 13-17 (1599): .49 a day
    Other Homicides, Ages 18-24 (7330): 2.23 a day

    Aggregate Homicides, Ages 0-12 (8420): 2.56 a day
    Aggregate Homicides, Ages 13-17 (8575): 2.61 a day
    Aggregate Homicides, Ages 18-24 (41066): 12.5 a day

    So, given that the 18-24 age range makes up 80% of the statistic AND that the statistic includes data up until the point where it stops supporting the premise, I'd call it inaccurate at best and dishonest at worst.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Oops-job. You forgot to include gun suicides and accidental shootings. We say 8 children a day (under 19) die by firearm. That is absolutely true.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Sorry. I just rejected a comment about Brazil dun deaths and the school shooting. I am riding in the car using my iPhone. I will try to find it again and post for further discussion. It's an interestingcoincidence that this was the comment rejected considering that it was counter to my assertion that the US has the highest number of gun deaths per 100,000 in civilized countries not at war. Can you post it again?

    ReplyDelete
  68. Again, you're mistaken. The chart you label for "Unintentional Injury" includes Suicide and Homicide. It HIGHLIGHTs (in color) the unintentional causes - like "MV Traffic". The chart you label for "Violent Related" includes unintentional causes like MV Traffic and HIGHLIGHTS (in color) the violent causes.

    CDC does NOT categorize violent death the way you say it does.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Well johnny- yes the CDC chart for violent injury deaths included car accidents, firearm homicides and firearm suicides. I said that before. You were the one who was only comparing the homicides and I told you that the figures used by the Brady Campaign and others for 8 child gun deaths a day includes homicides, suicides and accidental gun deaths. I am not wrong in what I am saying. Perhaps you are reading it in a different way but it's clear that the 8 a day includes all 3 so trying to use only figures for gun homicides will not bring you to 8 a day. It would be apples to oranges.

    ReplyDelete
  70. You're mistaken. I didn't write about the 8 children number.

    I'm only taking issue with your calling "injury-related" data "violence-related" when CDC clearly distinguishes the two.

    The truth would make your point well enough, but it seems that you prefer to be able to use the word "violence" - maybe for its rhetorical effect?

    ReplyDelete
  71. Japete: Your inclusion of 18 and 19 year olds who are legally adults seriously skews your numbers

    Ages 0 - 17, Including All causes (Suicide and Accident or unknown) yields 4 per Day
    Ages 0 - 19 yields 8 per day.
    Interestingly, the inclusion of 18 and 19 YO ADULTS in the definition of Children skews the result by DOUBLING it.

    You ARE WRONG. You are reporting DOUBLE the rate for CHILDREN.

    ReplyDelete
  72. I'm done with this thread, johnny., I know what the CDC numbers say. They divide things into different catergories. They do violent injury related deaths, they do deaths in general, they have different ways of categorizing deaths and comparing them. You were taking something from a different place on the CDC website " The chart you linked to HIGHLIGHTS "violence-related injury deaths" on a chart that includes completely non-violent causes such as "Adverse Effects" and "Undetermined Unspecified".

    In fact, CDC defines violent death as "NVDRS defines a death due to violence as "a death resulting from the intentional use of physical force or power against oneself, another person, or against a group or community." That clearly excludes auto accidents because they are accidents - the use of force wouldn't be "intentional" in such cases. See http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/wisqars/NVDRS/About-NVDRS.htm if you don't believe me." I was looking at the chart with the 10 highest causes of violent injury related deaths in which auto accidents, firearm homicides and firearm suicides are included. Perhaps we were talking about 2 different things. The chart shows that all 3 of those are included.Again it is this one: http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/pdf/Violence_2007-a.pdf The title of this one is " 10 Leading Causes of Injury Deaths by Age Group Highlighting Violence-Related Injury Deaths, United States – 2007" Not sure how else you can take that one.

    ReplyDelete
  73. You guys are like bulldogs. Let this go. I am =NOT including 18 and 19 year olds. I have said that numerous times. The number is 8 a day including homicides, suicides and accidental deaths. Even if it was 4 a day that would be way too many deaths a day. So what's your point? Get over it. I am not continuing with this ridiculous line of argument. It is serving no purpose. I am not lying about this but you will just have to believe what you have to b believe if it serves your purpose of being sure that i have no idea what I am talking about and that I am lying. Whatever. Have a nice week-end.

    ReplyDelete
  74. The core question isn't whether there are kids who are injured and killed with guns, the question is whether there is any evidence whatsoever that your proposals would reduce the number of kids who are injured and killed with guns.

    And the answer is no, there is not.

    If you were offering a proposal for which there was substantial evidence that it would reduce the number of kids being killed, we could have a rational discussion about whether that social benefit outweighed the fundamental issues of liberty that are present in restricting the carry of guns.

    But you have never offered such a proposal.

    ReplyDelete
  75. It is absolutley and totally ridiculous to say we just can't do anything about kids being shot to death so why try?? Are you kidding me? Haven't we decided that child seats are mandatory? Haven't we decided that flammable materials in clothing are banned? Haven't we decided that certain types of cribs are unsafe so can't be sold? What nonsense for you guys to even think it's O.K. to argue this. Stop it. I'm done with it.

    ReplyDelete
  76. "Even if it was 4 a day that would be way too many deaths a day. So what's your point?"

    4 deaths a day x 365 days in a year = 1,460 deaths.

    8 deaths a day x 365 days in a year = 2,920

    Even assuming that every single one of those deaths was the result of an accident or outright non-defense murder, it doesn't change the fact that impartial studies conducted by the
    Department of Justice, guns are used around 108,000 times annually in justified self-defense.

    No one is denying that innocent deaths resulting from misuse of firearms is a tragedy, but to ignore the fact that guns are used in justified self defense 36 times as often as they are misused to take a child's life is to ignore the whole picture.

    But in order to eliminate those

    ReplyDelete