billvon 2,400
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Thank you airtwardo! I owe you a jump the next time you're in Virginia. I have been trying to explain that to some people forever, but they never seem to get it.
My philosophy: If you threaten me, or someone I love (even someone I like, for that matter) with death or bodily harm, I will be dispatching you either to your maker or that other guy, immediately. If I die in the process, at least I have the satisfaction of knowing you will never harm anyone again. But, lucky for me, I CAN and WILL hit my intended target whereas most criminals cannot. They apply the spray and pray method. I am either grabbing cover or covering those with me and point shooting, baby. The double tap always needs single-shot punctuation 12 inches higher for good measure.
If you can't protect you and yours, I feel terrible for you. Someday, something will happen where you will feel helpless and will wish to God you had a gun. I really hope that day never comes, but chances are, it will.
Anybody who hates guns but is even remotely interested in demystifying guns and shooting should contact me directly. If you come to Virginia, I will take you to the range and put a firearm in your hands (if you are not a convicted felon or domestic abuser). If you live elsewhere, I will find someone take you shooting. And no, Justin, just because you shot in the army, you don't know everything there is to know about guns. I am betting you coasted by with a bare minimum qual score and have never fired a handgun. I might be wrong, so enlighten me.
I really want to know where this fear of an inanimate (albeit powerful) object comes from. Anybody can answer in their own terms. If you don't like guns. WHY?
mike
Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills.
My philosophy: If you threaten me, or someone I love (even someone I like, for that matter) with death or bodily harm, I will be dispatching you either to your maker or that other guy, immediately. If I die in the process, at least I have the satisfaction of knowing you will never harm anyone again. But, lucky for me, I CAN and WILL hit my intended target whereas most criminals cannot. They apply the spray and pray method. I am either grabbing cover or covering those with me and point shooting, baby. The double tap always needs single-shot punctuation 12 inches higher for good measure.
If you can't protect you and yours, I feel terrible for you. Someday, something will happen where you will feel helpless and will wish to God you had a gun. I really hope that day never comes, but chances are, it will.
Anybody who hates guns but is even remotely interested in demystifying guns and shooting should contact me directly. If you come to Virginia, I will take you to the range and put a firearm in your hands (if you are not a convicted felon or domestic abuser). If you live elsewhere, I will find someone take you shooting. And no, Justin, just because you shot in the army, you don't know everything there is to know about guns. I am betting you coasted by with a bare minimum qual score and have never fired a handgun. I might be wrong, so enlighten me.
I really want to know where this fear of an inanimate (albeit powerful) object comes from. Anybody can answer in their own terms. If you don't like guns. WHY?
mike
Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills.
billvon 2,400
>I really want to know where this fear of an inanimate (albeit
> powerful) object comes from. Anybody can answer in their own
> terms. If you don't like guns. WHY?
I don't dislike them (they're just things) but I'll tell you why I think they're different from pencils, and should be treated differently.
A car is a good example. Cars are great. They allow our society to function as it does, they get us to work, keep us dry when it rains, allow partially disabled people to get out, etc. Still, I am careful when I cross the street, or when I'm biking, because they are dangerous. They are absolutely deadly when misused - driven with poor brakes, or by a drunk, or by someone who can't see well, or by someone who is incapable of driving safely.
Fortunately, there are rules on their safe usage. You have to pass a competence test to get a driver's license, because operating one of these things can kill someone if you're incompetent. The test is really pretty simple; I know people who scare the pants off me as drivers who breezed through the test. You have to get the car inspected for safety periodically, and it has to have basic safety devices (like brake lights and brakes.) You can't drive it when you're impaired by drugs or alcohol. And if you commit serious crimes in it (even a lot of minor crimes) you lose the right to drive it.
Now, cars are a lot more important to most people than guns. Many people cannot even work without a car; many others can't even get out of their houses easily. There are more and more places where it's even unsafe to walk out of a housing complex; there are no more sidewalks in many places! Everyone drives everywhere. And there really not all that dangerous when operated correctly. Indeed, you can avoid cars altogether, even out of control ones, with a decent row of trees around your property.
Guns are soemwhat similar. They are relatively safe when not used (or used only for target shooting.) They are absolutely deadly when in the wrong hands, used incorrectly in the right hands, or even used 'correctly' in the right hands (i.e. the homeowner who blows away his brother in the middle of the night thinking he's a thief.) Given that, I support reasonable restrictions on their usage, not even as strict as those that drivers must deal with.
So I'm not afraid of either a gun or a car, when both are sitting idle somewhere. I am afraid of both in the wrong hands. I support both the rights of most people to drive, and the rights of most people to own guns. If someone proposes a rule that will make operation of either safer, without unduly restricting the ability to use either one, I'd probably be for it. If that makes me a gun control nut (or car control nut) well, I guess I'll have to live with that.
BTW I think this statement:
>If you can't protect you and yours, I feel terrible for you. Someday,
> something will happen where you will feel helpless and will wish to
> God you had a gun. I really hope that day never comes, but
> chances are, it will.
is a bunch of alarmist nonsense. If you really live in that much fear, I think you're watching too much TV (or reading too many gun magazines.) I have met perhaps two people in my life who came to harm that _might_ have been averted had they been armed, and I know a few hundred people well enough to know the story of their lives. OTOH I know a lot of people who are glad they did not carry a gun; at least four or five people I know are walking around free men today because they used their fists (or in one case a knife) in a bar fight instead of a gun.
> powerful) object comes from. Anybody can answer in their own
> terms. If you don't like guns. WHY?
I don't dislike them (they're just things) but I'll tell you why I think they're different from pencils, and should be treated differently.
A car is a good example. Cars are great. They allow our society to function as it does, they get us to work, keep us dry when it rains, allow partially disabled people to get out, etc. Still, I am careful when I cross the street, or when I'm biking, because they are dangerous. They are absolutely deadly when misused - driven with poor brakes, or by a drunk, or by someone who can't see well, or by someone who is incapable of driving safely.
Fortunately, there are rules on their safe usage. You have to pass a competence test to get a driver's license, because operating one of these things can kill someone if you're incompetent. The test is really pretty simple; I know people who scare the pants off me as drivers who breezed through the test. You have to get the car inspected for safety periodically, and it has to have basic safety devices (like brake lights and brakes.) You can't drive it when you're impaired by drugs or alcohol. And if you commit serious crimes in it (even a lot of minor crimes) you lose the right to drive it.
Now, cars are a lot more important to most people than guns. Many people cannot even work without a car; many others can't even get out of their houses easily. There are more and more places where it's even unsafe to walk out of a housing complex; there are no more sidewalks in many places! Everyone drives everywhere. And there really not all that dangerous when operated correctly. Indeed, you can avoid cars altogether, even out of control ones, with a decent row of trees around your property.
Guns are soemwhat similar. They are relatively safe when not used (or used only for target shooting.) They are absolutely deadly when in the wrong hands, used incorrectly in the right hands, or even used 'correctly' in the right hands (i.e. the homeowner who blows away his brother in the middle of the night thinking he's a thief.) Given that, I support reasonable restrictions on their usage, not even as strict as those that drivers must deal with.
So I'm not afraid of either a gun or a car, when both are sitting idle somewhere. I am afraid of both in the wrong hands. I support both the rights of most people to drive, and the rights of most people to own guns. If someone proposes a rule that will make operation of either safer, without unduly restricting the ability to use either one, I'd probably be for it. If that makes me a gun control nut (or car control nut) well, I guess I'll have to live with that.
BTW I think this statement:
>If you can't protect you and yours, I feel terrible for you. Someday,
> something will happen where you will feel helpless and will wish to
> God you had a gun. I really hope that day never comes, but
> chances are, it will.
is a bunch of alarmist nonsense. If you really live in that much fear, I think you're watching too much TV (or reading too many gun magazines.) I have met perhaps two people in my life who came to harm that _might_ have been averted had they been armed, and I know a few hundred people well enough to know the story of their lives. OTOH I know a lot of people who are glad they did not carry a gun; at least four or five people I know are walking around free men today because they used their fists (or in one case a knife) in a bar fight instead of a gun.
Jib 0
Quote>To many gun owners, the idea of "sensible compromises" are
> nothing more than erosions of the Second Amendment leading up
> to the loss of the right to bear arms.
Which is too bad, because they will end up doing more damage than anyone else to the cause of owning guns. Most people support free speech, but the people who insist that gives them the right to shout "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre, or threaten other people with death and claim that freedom is covered under the first amendment, will cause an erosion, rather than a strengthening, of that amendment. Similarly, someone who claims it is his god-given right to own antiaircraft weapons, and buy them on the spot wherever he chooses, and point them at whoever he chooses, is going to cause a great deal of public outcry; and this will likely lead to more, not less, regulation.
"The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." Justice Holmes talking about yelling fire in a crowded theater. They don't say we're not going to let someone into a crowded theater because they might yell "fire." If you yell, "fire" you may suffer the consequences. Similarly, if you threaten someone with anything, it may be a crime. A gun is not excluded from the otherwise neutral law and the issue isn't the criminalization of the improper use of a gun. It's the limitation of the right to have one at all.
--------------------------------------------------
the depth of his depravity sickens me.
-- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt
QuoteYou have to pass a competence test to get a driver's license, because operating one of these things can kill someone if you're incompetent. The test is really pretty simple; I know people who scare the pants off me as drivers who breezed through the test. You have to get the car inspected for safety periodically, and it has to have basic safety devices (like brake lights and brakes.) You can't drive it when you're impaired by drugs or alcohol. And if you commit serious crimes in it (even a lot of minor crimes) you lose the right to drive it.
You do? You have to? Really? I know people who have no license who drive all the time. I know of people who scrape stickers and replace license plates. I certainly know people who drive drunk and stoned. And, I know of people who have used vehicles in crimes who are probably on the road right now. Plus, I never read a thing about vehicles in the Bill of Rights.
I do feel it is the responsibility of every gun owner to educate himself (herself) and every member of his (her) family on firearms. I do not feel the government should stick their fingers in to say how much training someone should have before they get a gun. Kinda like saying (using your car analogy): You can't own a car until you have a license. Hmmm. Well, I owned a car at nine and drove it all over my family's farm. I owned a .22 rifle and .22 pistol earlier than that.
Anyway, you presented your argument, but you really don't say what formed your opinion. (Unless I missed something.)
mike
Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills.
I agree with you Bill on both counts...
However I don't see the need to further infringe on the guaranteed rights of Americans wishing to own firearms...
I think it's up to the criminal justice system to make a statement concerning the misuse of either cars or guns.
Harsh penalties, swiftly enforced for felonies committed with either would made for strong deterrence to misuse of both.
...and lest we forget,
Gun ownership is a RIGHT
Driving an automobile is a PRIVILEGE
~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~
However I don't see the need to further infringe on the guaranteed rights of Americans wishing to own firearms...
I think it's up to the criminal justice system to make a statement concerning the misuse of either cars or guns.
Harsh penalties, swiftly enforced for felonies committed with either would made for strong deterrence to misuse of both.
...and lest we forget,
Gun ownership is a RIGHT
Driving an automobile is a PRIVILEGE
~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~
Quoteis a bunch of alarmist nonsense. If you really live in that much fear, I think you're watching too much TV (or reading too many gun magazines.)
Actually, I live in the real world. I have seen armed robberies (at a time I was unarmed). I have seen people beaten within inches of their lives. I have had a gun to my head at a gas station in Jax, FL. So, no, I don't consider myself to be an alarmist. More of a realist, thank you very much. A convert to the side of "the protected."
QuoteOTOH I know a lot of people who are glad they did not carry a gun; at least four or five people I know are walking around free men today because they used their fists (or in one case a knife) in a bar fight instead of a gun.
Well, if they would have been prone to using a firearm to end a life during a simple drunken fist fight, their judgment is flawed and they should be in jail. See, I got absolutely no problems using my hands and feet before using a firearm, if the situation will stay within those parameters. In fact, I welcome it over shooting someone. I have never felt guilty for breaking someone up or putting them in the hospital with my body. That's probably because I never started a fight. But I digress...
"Guns save lives, maybe yours"
mike
Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills.
Bill, I was first taught how to shoot on a range (not coke cans, etc) by a Scouting program.
--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."
Bill, I think you make a logical and coherent argument. And I see your point. However,
Anyway, I think I would say I agree with your statement. However, apply it in real life is impossible in my opinion. Therefore as a responsible citizen having been trained, it is might right to defend myself against people who have acquired illegal guns for deviant uses. I still insist that a point which almost everyone misses is this: MOST CRIMES ARE COMMITTED WITH ILLEGAL GUNS! They are already illegal, right now. They were obtained in a illegal manner and the cops could take them right now. So more restriction does not really fix that. Taking my gun away because they know the address on the registration does not fix that. Why is the illegal gun out there? Lack of resources for the PD, they might not even know it exists, until a crime is committed using it.
is VERY VERY hard to interpret for one person, let alone a group of people. Furthermore, if you feel obligated to interpret the First Amendment in such away as to allow flag-burning, you had better not "unduly restrict" my right to own a gun one single fraction of a percent. I feel that the Second Amendment is typically read much more constrictively than the first. We could start a whole other argument about which one of those is more dangerous.Quotewithout unduly restricting the ability to use either one
Anyway, I think I would say I agree with your statement. However, apply it in real life is impossible in my opinion. Therefore as a responsible citizen having been trained, it is might right to defend myself against people who have acquired illegal guns for deviant uses. I still insist that a point which almost everyone misses is this: MOST CRIMES ARE COMMITTED WITH ILLEGAL GUNS! They are already illegal, right now. They were obtained in a illegal manner and the cops could take them right now. So more restriction does not really fix that. Taking my gun away because they know the address on the registration does not fix that. Why is the illegal gun out there? Lack of resources for the PD, they might not even know it exists, until a crime is committed using it.
--
All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.
All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.
billvon 2,400
>You do? You have to? Really? I know people who have no license who drive all the time.
Of course, and there are people who use handguns to kill robbery victims. Heck, all you have to do is pull the trigger. Both are illegal.
> Kinda like saying (using your car analogy): You can't own a car until you
> have a license.
Reasonable law, if the car is to be used on public streets, and the car is insured in your name. Generally speaking, ownership and children is a gray area. If you 'bought' a car when you were 8 your father could take it away and no court in the land would protect your right to keep 'your property.'
>Well, I owned a car at nine and drove it all over my family's farm.
That's fine; if you use it only on your property, you are putting no one else at risk. Your parents get to decide if you can do it or not. However, you have absolutely no _right_ to do it; the rights belong to your parents.
>Anyway, you presented your argument, but you really don't say what formed
>your opinion.
No one single event. A lifetime of listening and talking with people. Being mugged once, having my car stolen once (at least they tried to.) Having friends who were cops, SEALS, lawyers and criminals. The usual, in other words.
Of course, and there are people who use handguns to kill robbery victims. Heck, all you have to do is pull the trigger. Both are illegal.
> Kinda like saying (using your car analogy): You can't own a car until you
> have a license.
Reasonable law, if the car is to be used on public streets, and the car is insured in your name. Generally speaking, ownership and children is a gray area. If you 'bought' a car when you were 8 your father could take it away and no court in the land would protect your right to keep 'your property.'
>Well, I owned a car at nine and drove it all over my family's farm.
That's fine; if you use it only on your property, you are putting no one else at risk. Your parents get to decide if you can do it or not. However, you have absolutely no _right_ to do it; the rights belong to your parents.
>Anyway, you presented your argument, but you really don't say what formed
>your opinion.
No one single event. A lifetime of listening and talking with people. Being mugged once, having my car stolen once (at least they tried to.) Having friends who were cops, SEALS, lawyers and criminals. The usual, in other words.
billvon 2,400
>Furthermore, if you feel obligated to interpret the First Amendment in such
> away as to allow flag-burning, you had better not "unduly restrict" my right
> to own a gun one single fraction of a percent.
"Better not?" Your right to own a gun _will_ be restricted to a degree that our government and courts decide. It is already restricted to some degree. It does not matter how much other rights are restricted. Fortunately, you have some say in the government here. That's a good thing; you can sometimes get what you want out of your government. The downside is that when things don't go your way (i.e. a law is passed that mandates a waiting period for handguns) you are obliged to obey it.
Personally, I think that the best possible way to prevent further restrictions is to do everything possible voluntarily to reduce gun theft, illegal use, incompetent use, and accidental injuries/deaths. If those things are reduced, no one will see a need for further restrictions.
>I feel that the Second Amendment is typically read much more constrictively
> than the first.
The first is a far more important right to 95% of the people in this country, and is the basis for a democratic system of government. Nevertheless, there are still restrictions on it.
> away as to allow flag-burning, you had better not "unduly restrict" my right
> to own a gun one single fraction of a percent.
"Better not?" Your right to own a gun _will_ be restricted to a degree that our government and courts decide. It is already restricted to some degree. It does not matter how much other rights are restricted. Fortunately, you have some say in the government here. That's a good thing; you can sometimes get what you want out of your government. The downside is that when things don't go your way (i.e. a law is passed that mandates a waiting period for handguns) you are obliged to obey it.
Personally, I think that the best possible way to prevent further restrictions is to do everything possible voluntarily to reduce gun theft, illegal use, incompetent use, and accidental injuries/deaths. If those things are reduced, no one will see a need for further restrictions.
>I feel that the Second Amendment is typically read much more constrictively
> than the first.
The first is a far more important right to 95% of the people in this country, and is the basis for a democratic system of government. Nevertheless, there are still restrictions on it.
Jib 0
>I feel that the Second Amendment is typically read much more constrictively
> than the first.
The first is a far more important right to 95% of the people in this country, and is the basis for a democratic system of government. Nevertheless, there are still restrictions on it.
> than the first.
The first is a far more important right to 95% of the people in this country, and is the basis for a democratic system of government. Nevertheless, there are still restrictions on it.
Most people take the 4th or 5th amendments for granted until they've been accused of a crime (and particularly, if they did not commit it). The concept of justice and liberty of person is rather important to a democracy too.
--------------------------------------------------
the depth of his depravity sickens me.
-- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt
kallend 1,625
QuoteI cannot read the link without registering, which I patently refuse to do. Earlier when I posted a link like that I copied the content as well. Sorry, I just don't want register with 10 different papers across the country to see my news. Which is what I would do if I read every link people send me.
I'm unable to cut and paste, sorry.
If you were actually interested in seeing data that contradicts your opinion, you'd bother to register. Apparently you don't want to.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
kallend 1,625
Quote
Well, if they would have been prone to using a firearm to end a life during a simple drunken fist fight, their judgment is flawed and they should be in jail. See, I got absolutely no problems using my hands and feet before using a firearm, if the situation will stay within those parameters. In fact, I welcome it over shooting someone. I have never felt guilty for breaking someone up or putting them in the hospital with my body. That's probably because I never started a fight. But I digress...
What an "interesting" life you must lead. I've never felt the need to shoot, knife, or even hit anyone in my 57 years on Earth. And I've worked on the south side of Chicago for 25 years and go about my daily life completely unarmed.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
No, sorry, no matter which side it is, I will not register. It is out of principle. If I wanted them to have my address I would order the hardcopy edition of there paper. Likewise, since you have registered, why don't you cut and paste? You cannot? Are you on a TRS-80?
--
All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.
All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.
Jessica 0
QuoteNo, sorry, no matter which side it is, I will not register. It is out of principle. If I wanted them to have my address I would order the hardcopy edition of there paper. Likewise, since you have registered, why don't you cut and paste? You cannot? Are you on a TRS-80?
Is that some kind of geeky insult? How old are you?
Cutting and pasting is a pain in the ass because of the ads, but here it is: More Guns in Citizens' Hands Can Worsen Crime, Study Says
By Aparna Kumar, Times Staff Writer
WASHINGTON -- State laws that allow private citizens to carry concealed weapons do not reduce crime and may even increase it, according to a study released Wednesday by the Brookings Institution.
The findings, by Stanford University law professor John Donohue, contradict an influential study by economist John R. Lott Jr., a research fellow at the American Enterprise Institute who in 1997 concluded that by adopting such laws, states can substantially curb violent crime.
Since the late 1970s, 33 states -- California is not among them -- have enacted "shall-issue" or "right-to-carry" laws, which require law enforcement authorities to issue handgun permits to qualified applicants. Among the states are Texas, Florida, Pennsylvania, Utah and Nevada.
But social scientists, represented on opposing sides by Donohue and Lott, remain stubbornly divided over the effect of such laws on crime rates.
"If somebody had to say which way is the evidence stronger, I'd say that it's probably stronger that the laws are increasing crime, rather than decreasing crime," Donohue said Wednesday in an interview. "But the stronger thing I could say is that I don't see any strong evidence that they are reducing crime."
Donohue's study, which builds on work with Ian Ayres, a law professor at Yale University, will appear in "Evaluating Gun Policy," a book to be released by Brookings this month.
The book also includes a separate study by Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig, professors at Duke and Georgetown universities, who conclude that gun ownership may actually increase the risk of being burglarized in the United States.
Donohue's study will also be published in the May issue of the Stanford Law Review -- side by side with an updated study by Lott, who defends his position and rejects Donohue's findings.
Though they differ in methodology, both studies attempt to account for outside factors that may influence crime rates.
For his part, Donohue said that right-to-carry laws may deter violent crimes, such as murder or robbery, in some situations, while encouraging them in others.
For example, he said, an attacker may wrest control of a handgun away from a victim, who may be less experienced in handling firearms, and use it against the victim.
Also, otherwise law-abiding citizens may become "emboldened to do bad things, some of them violent" in the heat of the moment, Donohue said.
By contrast, Lott -- whose position is summed up in the title of his 1998 book, "More Guns, Less Crime" -- says that in states with right-to-carry laws, criminals are more wary of armed citizens who are prepared to defend themselves.
In his original study, published in the January 1997 issue of the University of Chicago's Journal of Legal Studies, Lott and David Mustard, an economics professor at the University of Georgia, contended that the 10 states that adopted right-to-carry laws from 1985 to 1991 experienced substantial declines in murder and other types of violent crime, compared with states without such laws.
Calling those conclusions "deeply flawed" and "misguided," Donohue said that his study revealed the opposite. According to his research, 13 states that enacted right-to-carry laws after 1992 experienced steep increases in murder and other violent crime rates, compared with states without such laws. His findings are based largely on a new analysis of the 1977-96 crime statistics originally presented by Lott and Mustard, along with new data from 1997.
In his Stanford Law Review article, Lott counters that "Ayres and Donohue have simply misread their own results....The most detailed results that they report ... show large drops in violent crime" right after the laws are adopted.
A comparison of crime trends in adjacent counties in two states -- one with a right-to-carry law and one without -- demonstrates "a drop in crime rates in the areas with the law and an increase in those without the law," Lott said.
But Donohue argues that such comparisons are generally skewed, since the states that have adopted such laws tend to be rural and relatively isolated from the types of violent crime -- such as offenses related to crack cocaine -- that disproportionately affect more urbanized states, many of which have not enacted similar laws.
Skydiving is for cool people only
> nothing more than erosions of the Second Amendment leading up
> to the loss of the right to bear arms.
Which is too bad, because they will end up doing more damage than anyone else to the cause of owning guns. Most people support free speech, but the people who insist that gives them the right to shout "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre, or threaten other people with death and claim that freedom is covered under the first amendment, will cause an erosion, rather than a strengthening, of that amendment. Similarly, someone who claims it is his god-given right to own antiaircraft weapons, and buy them on the spot wherever he chooses, and point them at whoever he chooses, is going to cause a great deal of public outcry; and this will likely lead to more, not less, regulation.
>As for attacking the NRA, please point out another organization
> trying to educate children not to touch a firearm and to tell an adult
> if they find one?
4-H. Boy Scouts and Cub Scouts. Mercer County Sheriff children's programs. National Education Association Health Information Network. Mothers Against Violence. A ten second search will give you dozens of organizations that teach children about the danger of guns, and what to do when they find one.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites