Hello John,   
      
    JM>> How many LAW ABIDING Americans who own millions of "assault   
    JM>> rifles" killed no one this week?   
      
    BK>> They didn't have the opportunity.   
      
   JM>Sure they had the opportunity. They just chose not to kill.   
      
   The shooter's mother owned the guns (and ammo).   
   The shooter's mother was the very first person to die.   
   As she lay sleeping in her pajamas.  She most definitely   
   should have swallowed.   
      
    JM>> Besides "assault rifles" are not used as a primary hunting   
    JM>> rife by serious hunters. That's not what they are for. Mine   
    JM>> will be used to defend my property when society breaks down   
    JM>> or ANYONE tries to take them away.   
      
    BK>> And when society does not break down?   
      
   JM>Then I will have been shown wrong.   
      
   National Geographic is airing a series called "Doomsday Preppers".   
   I have the first season on DVD.  The second season is airing now.   
   You can log on to the National Geographic web site and view the   
   previous episodes, as each episode is independent from the others.   
   Doesn't really matter about what order you view each episode.   
   Sure, people have the right to own guns.  That is not the issue.   
   The issue is, what limitations as to the type of weapons and ammo   
   ahould be put in place in light of the recent tragedy in Connecticut?   
      
   JM>UNTIL then What harm is there in me owning what you call an assault   
   JM>rifle?   
      
   Some nutcase might steal it and shoot you in the head as you lay   
   sleeping in your pajamas.  While the world would mourn your passing,   
   that really would not help you much as your remains are placed six   
   feet under.   
      
    JM>> Blaming guns for murder by an insane person is like blaming   
    JM>> the pencil and paper for misspelled words.   
      
    BK>> If the person is insane, then arming the teachers would not have   
    BK>> discouraged him.   
      
   JM>It would not discourage him?   
      
   Not if he/she is nuts.  In fact, a nut might be encouraged if   
   he knew someone else was armed, making those who are armed his   
   very first targets.  Arming teachers is a horrible idea, as   
   teachers are not trained in the use of weapons.  And they are   
   hardly paid enough to teach, much less put their very lives   
   on line by packing heat.   
      
   JM>You 100% sure?   
      
   Why do you think police officers receive the pay they do?   
   They put their lives on the line, each and every day, in order   
   to protect us from those who would do us harm.  And you want   
   teachers to take on that duty without any extra training or pay?   
   Why not just send kids to the police academy and let them learn   
   from cops how to read and write?  Wouldn't that make more sense?   
   Of course, if we did that, we'd have to find another line of   
   work for our teachers ...   
      
   JM>If so how are you 100% sure that if he knew the teachers were   
   JM>armed it would not have discouraged him.   
      
   Not only would we have dead school kids, but we would also have   
   dead teachers.  And dead principals.  And dead cafeteria workers.   
   And dead janitors.   
      
   JM>But setting that diversion aside, arming the teachers MIGHT have   
   JM>stopped him before as many kids had been killed.   
      
   Nah.  It would only have resulted in more dead teachers (and kids)   
   than the ones he did kill.   
      
   --Lee   
      
   --- MesNews/1.06.00.00-gb   
    * Origin: news://felten.yi.org (2:203/2)