Sunny
68°
Sunny
Hi 74° | Lo 45°

Letter: Danger zones

For the Monitor

Monday, January 21, 2013

Killers at public schools like Newtown have killed so many people because they had lots of time to shoot defenseless people. They had so much time because politicians made schools gun-free zones. When every second could mean another dead child, the police are minutes away.

Rather than protecting people, gun-free zones are actually “helpless-victim zones” where killers easily get their 15 minutes of fame, revenge or company as they commit suicide.

Except for one time, killers have succeeded in publicly killing more than three people only in gun-free zones.

If people kept dying because a business refused to change a “safety” procedure that failed every time it was needed, the business owners would be loudly condemned as negligent, and they would be liable for civil and perhaps criminal penalties.

Only liberal politicians can get away with continuing a policy like gun-free zones, which repeatedly helps murderers achieve their evil objectives and not be considered negligent and perhaps accomplices.

Despite their talk, it doesn’t look like Democratic politicians are really fighting gun crime. Gun prosecutions are down 45 percent under President Obama and, despite strict gun laws, big-city mayors aren’t stopping their high murder rates.

The longer they deny the failure of gun-free zones to protect people and the more roadblocks they create to keep law-abiding citizens from defending themselves, the more Obama and other politicians are complicit in the deaths of innocent people.

DON EWING

Meredith

sail wrote:
24/01/2013

If a conservative doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one. If a liberal doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.
gsec92 wrote:
23/01/2013

This is for Rabbit, who just might be of the opinion that progressive can't read. This is taken right from the 2012 Republican National platform signed by Romney and company: The Sanctity and Dignity of Human Life (Top) Faithful to the “self-evident” truths enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. We oppose using public revenues to promote or perform abortion or fund organizations which perform or advocate it and will not fund or subsidize health care which includes abortion coverage. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life. No war on women? No reversal of Roe Vs Wade? This speaks volumes of Rabbit in denial of the true core republican goals
earthling wrote:
23/01/2013

It's cold. Maybe the rabbits are hibernating?
RabbitNH wrote:
24/01/2013

So if I am not on this forum in the pm or answering your post immediately, I am hiding. Nice try .
earthling wrote:
24/01/2013

Ok - My bad. Rabbits don't even hibernate. Apparently they just slow down when it gets cold (or hot too maybe).
earthling wrote:
23/01/2013

RabbitNH says "banning anything doesn't work". Then in another comment below (with no reply button) he/she pretends that the GOP doesn't want to "reverse Roe vs Wade" and ban the freedom for women to make decisions.
Publius wrote:
22/01/2013

Here we go - another argument for more and more guns in public places. Pro-gun folks continue to say that gun control "doesn't work." But we've been going the guns-for-everyone route for the past 20 years. How has that been working?
RabbitNH wrote:
22/01/2013

I actually thought the letter addressed quite a few points that were valid. But then again, when folks want to ignore stats, history and failed programs that have too many loopholes, then it is very easy for them to make sound byte statements, and never discuss the real issues of why we are in this spot. The idea that if you ban something it will fix the problem has many models in history that proves banning anything does not work. Crime and violence is rooted in many causes. Ignoring those causes does nothing to fix the problem.

Publius wrote:
22/01/2013

My point exactly. The causes of crime are varied. The idea that just arming everyone will eliminate crime is overly simpleminded. Sadly, Rabbit has taken the knee-jerk reaction to my comment, presuming that I'm promoting a weapons ban. Instead, I'm trying to point out the bankruptcy of the guns-for-everyone idea. We need to get over the notion that owning weapons by the truckload somehow makes us safer and start talking about real solutions to the problem of gun violence.
earthling wrote:
22/01/2013

RabbitNH says "banning anything does not work" - Maybe he/she could elaborate more on this with regard to the women's rights that Conservatives keep trying to ban.
RabbitNH wrote:
23/01/2013

The War On Women manufactured by the left does not exist. It was a great tactic to convince uninformed women that the right wanted to reverse Roe vs Wade and it worked. It also was a great tactic to say that religious entities that did not offer BC, etc were wrong. Asking them to change their beliefs was nothing more than a continuation of the attack on religion in this country that has been going on for years by the left. PP got 542 million in tax payer money last year. They made a profit of 87 million. Not bad for a non profit huh. I have no issue with what anybody does with their body. I have an issue with my taxpayer money going to any non profit that makes huge profits. I also have an issue with a govt that goes after any religious entity and demands they change their tenets.

earthling wrote:
22/01/2013

"banning anything does not work" - should we lift the bans on M16s, atomic bombs, and lead in paint and toys?
earthling wrote:
22/01/2013

There was an armed guard at Columbine. Virginia Tech had their own police force. That didn't work. Buy guns for all the teachers? Maybe the kids would learn a lesson from seeing the teachers with all the cool guns. I guess there would need to be a contract, so here's a rough draft: I the undersigned teacher agree to the following if I bring a loaded gun to school: 1. I promise to not go postal. 2. I promise to not drop the loaded gun onto the floor. 3. I, along with my estate, am fully responsible for any harm caused by the use of, or accidental discharge of, my gun by anyone. 4. I promise to provide the school with a $100,000,000 liability insurance certificate that covers me for bringing my gun to school. 5. In case the school is sued because of anything related to my gun, I relinquish any and all posessions, including my pension, to the school to pay for legal representation and court costs.
Post a Comment

You must be registered to comment on stories. Click here to register.