[Xello]

Originally Posted by PT145SS

I don’t hate your opinion, I just don’t agree with it. You state that crime has decreased in general over the past few decades but fail to say that the decrease is a result of stricter gun laws. And while I do not think any study can directly correlate gun laws to crime rates I think an inference can be made that over those same few decades, more and more states are allowing conceal carry and at the same time, those places that still have strict gun laws (like Chicago and DC) have some of the highest crimes rates in the country and even in the world. Not conclusive, but something to ponder.

As for arming teachers, we have models for this. In places like Israel, The Philippines, and other places where school shootings were once rampant they have installed training programs and encourage teachers and parents to carry… and in those places, the carnage caused to their children have been greatly reduced.

By no means am I suggesting that eliminating gun free zones solve everything. We still need to reconstruct the family core and fix social economical discrepancies. And by no means am I saying that everyone should be armed and it is tragic that some gun owners are not responsible for the safe keeping of their firearms.

In regards to my last post, sorry, it was a bit emotional and I try to take that out of these debates. I like to stay logical. That means inferences in general (crime rates and other countries laws in this discussion) are only good to those making them. A good example: Wood, floats, ducks float, so ducks must be made out of wood. Not true , but sounds logical enough without anything to back it up.

I am not an advocate of eliminating the right for people to own firearms, but I do believe that strict gun control needs to be in place in order to curtail accidental and intentional killings and to reestablish the responsibility to what owning a gun really means. Owning a gun is not the same as owning a car yet we seem to put less limitations on guns.

It would just be nice if we could have a policy that first looked at how gun ownership in general and public gun carrying specifically truly impacts society and then address individual rights not visa-versa. We do that with airline safety, road rules, alcohol and tobacco and food and drugs, so why can’t we also do it with firearms?

BTW, I agree wholeheartedly with your last paragraph. Related to it, I also find it ironic that the government continues to allow the free ownership of guns and at the same time continues to allow for the sucking of wealth from the average person to a small percentage. Clearly a recipe for revolution at some point in the future. But I guess that’s why they want to spy on us more and more as well.