Actually, it's gun education. There was a time where just about every young man knew how to shoot at a relatively young age and treated it as a responsibility. Some kids are stupid, but gun deaths are prevented by proper education and respect of firearms, not by hiding and fear. The NRA has some VERY good rules for teaching kids about guns (always treat one as loaded, don't touch it, a gun is not a toy, if you see one out tell an adult, etc).
The laws are actually there, it's enforcement - a common complaint of those of us who are pro-gun. On another note, the statistics on firearms saving lives is relatively unknown - stats on simply brandishing a weapon at an intruder go mostly unrecorded.
Here's the crazy part - those shootings were in "gun-free" zones. Had a student or professor been allowed to have a conceal-carry permit, there may have been plenty less carnage. Remember the shootings in the churches in Colorado, and that they were stopped by a private citizen with a firearm.
Something like 99.9% of gun owners in America never commit a crime, and conceal-carry owners typically have better records (and are better shots) than cops.
Also, take a look at the more crime-ridden cities - DC, Chicago, Detroit - which have high restrictions on gun ownership.
Gun owners, as a rule, don't commit crimes. Period.
The terminology REALLY depends on who you're talking to. The one that I have recently come to find that many preferred is "person with a disability," which allows someone to not define themselves by their disability and uses it as a descriptor instead. (Props to Joni Erickson Tada and her Joni and Friends organization for the experiences and education.)
And then you run across the blind population, many of which I've found completely embrace the term "blind" for ANY level of legal blindness and hate any other politically-correct descriptions. To prove my point, check out the National Federation of the Blind and American Council of the Blind, two programs run, administrated by, and founded by blind people.
My dad had one of those REALLY old voice pagers that had the loudest beep, and then whoever was on the other side spoke through it - except that it was hard to tell who was on the other end because it sounded worse than a drive-through speaker box.
Meh, just head to Macon, GA or Monroe, LA. When the cops in those towns feel that they need some good publicity, they bust the places to seem like they're "doing something." That being said, they probably finally ran some of them out of Macon for a long time...those places are getting notorious for human trafficking and smuggling...
I'll go you one better - over in the Middle East, there were apparently some insurgents/terrorists/whoever using the tried-and-true method of hiding in a sandstorm before attacking or while attacking. It worked well in the good old days, but we now have these things called satellites and night-vision and infrared and technology, where they're pretty much sitting ducks now.
Quick Biblical example, that may help show what he is talking about. Paul and Peter BOTH promoted submission to the ruling authority in the midst of a time when that authority wasn't necessarily friendly to their religious views. They kept on preaching because they believed that their calling was something the state didn't have the authority to tell them not to do; however, they willingly went to their deaths as martyrs and NEVER disputed the power of the state to take their lives for disobeying the laws.
I'm with you. Though it's an idiocy to say "you can't legislate morality," when that's pretty much most of what we legislate (don't murder, don't steal), there are limitations that are supposed to be there.
And if we do our "job" as Christians, there becomes no need to try and legislate.
I somewhat agree with you, save that I think that the state can serve as a certain protection for the furtherance of the kingdom (though should not as an agent); and that God HAS given it the "power of the sword" to enforce laws (which, btw, Paul nor Peter never disputed, even to their own death at the hands of the Romans).
I think, however, that a VERY good case can be made Biblically for the death penalty, but I respect opinions to the contrary. I side with you on the abortion issue, and that's one of the reasons I voted McCain.
I think the biggest reason I voted against Obama is that he blatantly is pushing for more government interference and power (health care, fairness doctrine, leftist judges, eminent domain, firearms). I also think that he will attempt to, in a sense, through tax dollars, attempt to tell me where and when I can be charitable.
That being said, Christ (who dined with sinners) nor Paul ever promoted removal and isolation from secular society, and from what we can tell, took part in it as far as they weren't sinning. We have the ability, and therefore the obligation, to affect secular society in government, but we must ALWAYS realize, as Christians, that real change is affecting the culture through the Gospel, NOT by trying to make sinners not sin through the law.
That's the truth - complaining is easier than doing something about the problem, and too many on both sides fight it out and little to nothing actually gets done at times.
I'm a little surprised that it's taken this long to get to Gatto. He's beloved by homeschoolers on both sides of the aisle, and he's hard to prove wrong. He's why I'll be homeschooling if I can't afford to put my kids in the best private school locally, and maybe even then.
Slashdot Mirror
I was just thinking...solar? The heck? Your islands are VOLCANOS.
Actually, it's gun education. There was a time where just about every young man knew how to shoot at a relatively young age and treated it as a responsibility. Some kids are stupid, but gun deaths are prevented by proper education and respect of firearms, not by hiding and fear. The NRA has some VERY good rules for teaching kids about guns (always treat one as loaded, don't touch it, a gun is not a toy, if you see one out tell an adult, etc).
The laws are actually there, it's enforcement - a common complaint of those of us who are pro-gun. On another note, the statistics on firearms saving lives is relatively unknown - stats on simply brandishing a weapon at an intruder go mostly unrecorded.
Here's the crazy part - those shootings were in "gun-free" zones. Had a student or professor been allowed to have a conceal-carry permit, there may have been plenty less carnage. Remember the shootings in the churches in Colorado, and that they were stopped by a private citizen with a firearm.
The overall picture is still in place - areas with looser firearm laws don't have as high crime rates, as a rule.
The argument still doesn't go against the matter that entire AREAS with conceal-carry and looser firearm rules STILL HAVE LOWER CRIME RATES.
Something like 99.9% of gun owners in America never commit a crime, and conceal-carry owners typically have better records (and are better shots) than cops.
Also, take a look at the more crime-ridden cities - DC, Chicago, Detroit - which have high restrictions on gun ownership.
Gun owners, as a rule, don't commit crimes. Period.
The terminology REALLY depends on who you're talking to. The one that I have recently come to find that many preferred is "person with a disability," which allows someone to not define themselves by their disability and uses it as a descriptor instead. (Props to Joni Erickson Tada and her Joni and Friends organization for the experiences and education.)
And then you run across the blind population, many of which I've found completely embrace the term "blind" for ANY level of legal blindness and hate any other politically-correct descriptions. To prove my point, check out the National Federation of the Blind and American Council of the Blind, two programs run, administrated by, and founded by blind people.
Push the button, Frank.
Wow, you completely slept through the Cold War, didn't you?
Fail - you got first post on a sharks column and made no mention of frickin' lasers.
My dad had one of those REALLY old voice pagers that had the loudest beep, and then whoever was on the other side spoke through it - except that it was hard to tell who was on the other end because it sounded worse than a drive-through speaker box.
format c:*.*
They get on the radio and drop a bomb on your head from the plane you didn't know was there.
Being ripoffreport, "disgruntled employee" has a rather broad definition that could also often mean "customer who should have known better."
Meh, just head to Macon, GA or Monroe, LA. When the cops in those towns feel that they need some good publicity, they bust the places to seem like they're "doing something." That being said, they probably finally ran some of them out of Macon for a long time...those places are getting notorious for human trafficking and smuggling...
I'll go you one better - over in the Middle East, there were apparently some insurgents/terrorists/whoever using the tried-and-true method of hiding in a sandstorm before attacking or while attacking. It worked well in the good old days, but we now have these things called satellites and night-vision and infrared and technology, where they're pretty much sitting ducks now.
Ummm...howzabout just hiding behind a tree or ducking...
Quick Biblical example, that may help show what he is talking about. Paul and Peter BOTH promoted submission to the ruling authority in the midst of a time when that authority wasn't necessarily friendly to their religious views. They kept on preaching because they believed that their calling was something the state didn't have the authority to tell them not to do; however, they willingly went to their deaths as martyrs and NEVER disputed the power of the state to take their lives for disobeying the laws.
I'm with you. Though it's an idiocy to say "you can't legislate morality," when that's pretty much most of what we legislate (don't murder, don't steal), there are limitations that are supposed to be there.
And if we do our "job" as Christians, there becomes no need to try and legislate.
I'm from Louisiana, and I honestly know how unfunny this can be. Mary Landrieu IS running, isn't she...
I somewhat agree with you, save that I think that the state can serve as a certain protection for the furtherance of the kingdom (though should not as an agent); and that God HAS given it the "power of the sword" to enforce laws (which, btw, Paul nor Peter never disputed, even to their own death at the hands of the Romans).
I think, however, that a VERY good case can be made Biblically for the death penalty, but I respect opinions to the contrary. I side with you on the abortion issue, and that's one of the reasons I voted McCain.
I think the biggest reason I voted against Obama is that he blatantly is pushing for more government interference and power (health care, fairness doctrine, leftist judges, eminent domain, firearms). I also think that he will attempt to, in a sense, through tax dollars, attempt to tell me where and when I can be charitable.
That being said, Christ (who dined with sinners) nor Paul ever promoted removal and isolation from secular society, and from what we can tell, took part in it as far as they weren't sinning. We have the ability, and therefore the obligation, to affect secular society in government, but we must ALWAYS realize, as Christians, that real change is affecting the culture through the Gospel, NOT by trying to make sinners not sin through the law.
There's an "Al Gore inventing the internet" joke in there somewhere....
That's the truth - complaining is easier than doing something about the problem, and too many on both sides fight it out and little to nothing actually gets done at times.
I'm a little surprised that it's taken this long to get to Gatto. He's beloved by homeschoolers on both sides of the aisle, and he's hard to prove wrong. He's why I'll be homeschooling if I can't afford to put my kids in the best private school locally, and maybe even then.