Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
I don't know Nyc that Bible thread took a lot out of me rememer. I was thinking about it however.This Matt Guy seems cool
GROWING UP WITH GUNS
What's so different about kids today?
by Annie
annie@codyexpress.com
Webmistress, The Cody Express
Several months ago, while on a family vacation, I had the opportunity to debate the gun control issue with well-known talk show hostess (and gun control spokeswoman) Rosie O'Donnell, who happened to be staying at the same resort. The meeting was entirely by chance - she was headed to the fireworks display and we were headed to our rooms when our paths happened to cross. As we passed, she overheard someone in our group mention the Second Amendment Sisters, and the debate was on. Each and every time the logic of our side appeared to trump her argument, she fell back to her emotional appeal regarding the need to keep guns away from children. She seemed perplexed that I - a woman - didn't respond to her impassioned pleas that we must eliminate guns from our society in order to protect our children. I, on the other hand, found it odd that she considered the vast majority of parents in today's society completely incapable of teaching their children about the dangers associated with firearms. And I continue to find it astonishing that so many gun control proponents continue to promote the idea that our children cannot be taught to safely reside in a home where guns are kept. Are today's children all that different than we were? Do kids today really require more vigilance and protection than we did?
Guns in the Home
I grew up in a house with guns. As kids, my sister and I often accompanied my Dad on his Saturday fishing trips. His favorite fishing spots were located on narrow canals off a nearby lake, where tree branches stretched out over the water. It wasn't unusual to see a water moccasin draped over one of those out-stretched branches as we cruised a canal, so Dad kept a loaded revolver in his tackle box. I only saw him use the pistol once - to kill a snake on the bank where we were beached (and it wasn't until I was much older that I came to appreciate how good a shot he was.) That pistol stayed in his tackle box at all times. There was no trigger lock on the gun, the box was never locked and it was kept on a shelf in the carport shed. Both my sister and I knew where it was and could have easily satisfied our curiosity, if we had been the least bit curious. But, we weren't. We had been taught from an early age to respect other people's property. Dad's things were his and we didn't touch them without permission....Ever!
Dad also kept a loaded shotgun in his closet. Again, there was no trigger lock, no lock box, and no safe - just a loaded gun leaning in the back corner of a closet. We knew where it was, but neither of us ever touched it.
We occasionally saw Dad handle his weapons and observed the care he took when doing so. Still, Dad never said much to us about them. He didn't tell us they were dangerous, that they would hurt us or that we weren't to touch them. He didn't have to -- somehow, he managed to convey to us that guns were for grown-ups and that when we were old enough, he would let us handle them if we had an interest. It wasn't any different than knowing that we weren't old enough to drive the car, but that our opportunity would someday come. Leaving his guns alone just seemed to be ingrained. It never would have occurred to us to touch those weapons, any more than it would have occurred to us to take the keys and try to drive the car. The guns simply had no relevance to us - didn't spark the slightest bit of curiosity. We seemed to have an instinctive knowledge that they were adult-only items, that they were dangerous to us, and as a result, we ignored them.
Why are today's kids so different? Today we are led to believe that you can't teach a child about weapons; you must banish them from your house, your parks, your schools; or at the very least, make them unusable for their intended purpose - locked up tight with trigger locks or in safes. We are led to believe that what came naturally to us as children - respect for other people’s property and an understanding of the dangers in our young world - are lost traits in today's children. Are we really incapable of teaching our kids that guns are for grown-ups, or that guns are dangerous and not to touch them? We teach kids not to touch the hot stove, not to run with scissors, not to play in the street and to avoid a host of other activities that could prove harmful. Why is it so different with guns?
We are led to believe that parents who keep weapons in their homes are endangering their children's lives; that tragedy is all but certain unless we rid our homes of guns. If that was true, then there are generations of parents that would probably be most surprised to learn what poor parents they really were; parents who would marvel at the fact that their kids miraculously survived a childhood with a weapon in the home. The fact is that there are generations of responsible parents who, like my Dad, had guns in their homes and children who had been taught, through whatever means, that those weapons were off-limits. Just as there are generations of children who, like myself, respected their parents' property and authority. Do we really believe that today's children cannot learn the same discipline and respect? Are our children really that much different?
Violence in the Media
In the debate on gun control, we occasionally hear about the negative effect movies and video games have on our children, and in some cases, I might tend to agree. Then again, my parents thought the music we listened to was "going to ruin us" and often complained about the content and language of the movies we watched. But those objections were primarily confined to our teen-age years and neither of us has ever been in any kind of trouble. Still, as children, we saw quite a bit of violence on television. We grew up watching the three stooges poke each other in the eyes and smash each other with hammers. Although we were never specifically told that you couldn't really do that to someone, we knew that you couldn't poke a playmate in the eye, as Moe did to Larry, and not hurt him. We also watched Wiley Coyote get blown to smithereens, flattened by anvils and dropped from flying contraptions quite frequently. But somehow, we had the common sense to know that in real life, Wiley wouldn't get up to try to catch the Road Runner yet again. We also knew that if you really discharged a shotgun in Bugs Bunny's hole, he wouldn't come hopping back out.
We watched Ben Cartwright and his boys shoot and kill the bad guys and somehow knew, without being told, that it was just acting. We knew you couldn't really shoot someone without inflicting severe injury. We watched John Wayne kill Indians from a run-away stagecoach and shoot German or Japanese soldiers in WWII. We watched The Rifleman gun down cattle rustlers in the street.
Whether it was cartoons or television drama, we saw a lot of fictional gun violence. Yet, somehow, we knew that it wasn't real. We knew that you couldn't do to your friends what John Wayne did to Indians without really hurting one of them. We knew the difference between acting and reality.
But, today we're told that violent video games and movies are responsible when kids "go bad"; that kids who use firearms to kill and maim have learned the behavior from the violence portrayed in videos, movies and on television. Yet, if the media is that influential, how is it that we knew better? If the media is that influential, why aren't all our kids in trouble? Is it really reasonable to believe that today's children are less capable of distinguishing fantasy from reality than we were? Do we really think that our kids today cannot comprehend the difference between entertainment and real life? Perhaps today's movies and television are more realistic in their portrayals of violent episodes, but if we believe we can't teach our children to recognize the difference between acting and reality, aren't we are selling our kids short? Aren't they are just as intelligent and capable as we were?
Cap Guns, Squirt Guns, and Cops and Robbers
When I was growing up, nearly every kid on my street had an arsenal of toy pistols, cap pistols and squirt guns. We donned our hats and boots, strapped our holsters around our little waists and went to work clearing the world of the bad guys. We were cowboys, Indians, soldiers, cops, robbers, stagecoach drivers, pony express riders and everything else our little minds could dream up when playing with our guns. When our guns weren't available, we used sticks or simply pointed fingers, yelling bang, bang as we ran through the yard. I imagine such a sight would incite incredulous outrage today. But, we knew we were playing. We knew it wasn't real. We knew real guns were dangerous and that we couldn't use one to shoot at a playmate. No one told us -- somehow it seemed to be ingrained.
No one seemed to give a second thought to our play. Parents didn't come running out the door to tell us that guns were bad or to stop us from pointing our fingers at each other while yelling, "Bang!" No one took our holsters and six-shooters away. Our "battles" were looked upon as normal, everyday play.
Today, kids are punished for simply drawing a picture of a gun. We are led to believe that if we teach our kids about weapons or allow them to play as the children of many generations have played, the result will be tragic gun violence. We are made to feel irresponsible if we take it upon ourselves to educate our children about firearms. We are warned that kids and guns don't mix.
If that is the case, why didn't my sister or I (or one of our playmates) take Dad's gun to school and shoot up the place? Why didn't all the play-acting - all those violent "gun-fights" in the backyard - lead us to use a real weapon on real people? According to today's theories, our exposure to firearms, to violence on television and elsewhere, and to toy weapons, should have led to the commission of some horrible gun crime long ago. Why didn't it? And what is so different about today's kids? Why do we need to go to the extremes called for by gun control proponents to protect them? Are they not as bright, as intelligent and as capable of learning the differences between fantasy and reality as we were? What is different today?
It's Not the Guns
Kids have been raised in homes with guns for generations. They have been taught to handle them, to use them, and to respect them, without the tragic consequences we are assured will take place if we don't eliminate guns from our homes and our lives. Kids have played with toy guns, hunted with real guns, watched guns on television and have been exposed to firearms in a myriad of ways without harm to themselves or others.
It's not the guns. And in spite of what Sarah Brady, Charles Schumer, Rosie O'Donnell, and a host of others would like us to think, I suspect they know it's not the guns, too. I suspect they know, just as we do, that the answer to preventing gun violence by children isn't that easy. I'm not a child psychologist or behavioral expert and I wouldn't begin to speculate where the real problem lies, but I do know that if guns were the problem, I (and just about every other member of my generation) would have "gone bad" a long time ago.
I guess we didn't "go bad" because our parents taught us respect - respect for ourselves, respect for others, and respect
Twenty Potential Weapons Control Law Violations by
Eric Harris, Dylan Klebold, and Others
Murderers Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold appear to have violated numerous federal and state weapons control laws, as detailed below.
This list differs substantially from a list of weapons law violations which was compiled by the National Rifle Association; while the NRA list includes various crimes which were committed during the course of the murders (e.g., discharge of a firearm on school property), this list includes only offenses which were completed before Harris and Klebold began their murder spree.
It appears that Harris and Klebold violated at least 17 different state and federal weapons control laws. Mark E. Manes, the man who allegedly sold the handgun to Harris and Klebold, may have violated at least one federal and one state law. If Harris or Klebold's parents knew of their juvenile's handgun possession, the parents would be in violation of one Colorado law.
Because Harris and Klebold killed themselves, it is not at this point clear which of them violated the particular laws below. But it is clearly that before Harris and Klebold committed a single violent act, they had already violated enough state and federal weapons control laws to be sent to prison for the rest of their lives.
Below are the state and federal laws these two murderers and their accomplices violated:
State of Colorado Laws
Instant Check System. Unlawful Acts and Penalties. Colorado Revised Statutes. 12-26.5-105.
"(1) It is unlawful for:..
(c) Any person to knowingly acquire a handgun for a person who is prohibited by local, state, or federal law from purchasing, receiving, or possessing a handgun;"
Terrorist Training. 18-9-120.
"(1) As used in this section, unless the context otherwise requires:
(a) 'Civil disorder means any planned public disturbance involving acts of violence by an assemblage of two or more persons that causes an immediate danger of, or results in, damage or injury to property or to another person.
(b) 'Explosive or incendiary device' means:...
(II) Any explosive bomb, grenade, missile, or similar device;
(III) Any incendiary bomb or grenade, fire bomb, or similar device, including any device which:
(A) Consists of or includes a breakable receptacle containing a flammable liquid or compound and a wick composed of any material which, when ignited, is capable of igniting such flammable liquid or compound; and
(B) Can be carried or thrown by one person acting alone.
(c) 'Firearm' means any weapon which is designed to expel or may readily be converted to expel any projectile by the action of an explosive or the frame or receiver of any such weapon....
(2) Any person who teaches or demonstrates to any person the use, application, or making of any firearm, explosive or incendiary device, or technique capable of causing injury or death to any person and who knows that the same will be unlawfully used in furtherance of a civil disorder and any person who assembles with one or more other persons for the purpose of training or practicing with, or being instructed in the use of, any firearm, explosive or incendiary device, or technique capable of causing injury or death to any person with the intent to unlawfully use the same in furtherance of a civil disorder commits a class 5 felony."
Possessing a Dangerous or Illegal Weapon. 18-12-102.
"(1) As used in this section, the term 'dangerous weapons' means a...short shotgun...
(3) A person who knowingly possesses a dangerous weapon commits a class 5 felony."
Unlawfully Carrying a Concealed Weapon. C.R.S. 18-12-105.
"(1) A person commits a class 2 misdemeanor if such person knowingly and unlawfully:
(b) Carries a firearm concealed about his or her person."
Unlawfully Carrying a Weapon--Unlawful Possession of a Weapon--School, College, or University Grounds. C.R.S. 18-12-105.5.
"(1) A person commits a class 2 misdemeanor if such person knowingly and unlawfully and without legal authority carries, brings, or has in such person's possession a deadly weapon...in or on the real estate and all improvements erected thereon of any public...high school."
(2). Requires a sentence of 12 to 24 months, as opposed to the normal class 2 misdemeanor sentence of up 12 months.
Possession of handguns by juveniles. C.R.S. 18-12-108.5.
"(1)(a) Except as provided by this section, it is unlawful for any person who has not attained the age of 18 years knowingly to have any handgun in such person's possession."
"(c)(1). Illegal possession of a weapon by a juvenile is a class 2 misdemeanor."
Note: The May 5 issue Denver Post reports that 22 year old Mark E. Manes sold the handgun to Harris and Klebold in Feb. 1999, when both Harris and Klebold were 17. The Post also reports that Manes has a long record of driving offense and underage drinking violations. According to the Post, Manes' mother is a long-time Handgun Control, Inc., activist, who always taught Manes about the "evilness" of handguns.
Unlawfully Providing or Permitting a Juvenile to Possess a Handgun. C.R.S. 18-12-108.7.
"(1)(a) Any person who intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly provides a handgun with or without remuneration to any person under the age of 18...or any parent or legal guardian of a person under eighteen years of age who knows of such juvenile's conduct which violates section 18-12-108.5 and fails to make reasonable efforts to prevent such violation commits the crime of unlawfully providing or permitting a juvenile to possess a handgun."
(b) Class 4 felony.
(2)(a) and (b). If the parent "is aware of a substantial risk that such juvenile will use a handgun to commit a felony offense," the parent's crime is a class 4 felony.
Possession, Use, or Removal of Explosives or Incendiary Devices. C.R.S. 18-12-109.
"(2) Any person who knowingly possesses or controls an explosive device commits a class 4 felony."
Possession of a loaded firearm in a motor vehicle. 33-6-125.
"It is unlawful for any person, except a person authorized by law or by the division, to possess or have under his control any firearm, other than a pistol or revolver, in or on any motor vehicle unless the chamber of such firearm is unloaded."
Note: Most of the above statutes have exceptions, none of which applied to Harris and Klebold.
Federal Law, Gun Control Act
Possession of Firearms by Drug Users. 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(3).
"(g) It shall be unlawful for any person--
(3) who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance...
to...possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce."
Gun Free School Zones Act. 18 U.S.C. 922(q).
"(2)(a) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone."
Sale of Handgun to a Minor. Possession of Handgun by a Minor. 18 U.S.C. 922(x).
"(x)(1) It shall be unlawful for a person to sell, deliver, or otherwise transfer to a person who the transferor knows or has reasonable cause to believe is a juvenile--
(A) a handgun;...
(2) It shall be unlawful for any person who is a juvenile to knowingly possess--
(A) a handgun;..."
Penalties for above offenses. 18 U.S.C. 924.
(a)(2). Violation of 922(g) is up to 10 years imprisonment.
(4). Violation of 922(q) is up to 5 years imprisonment, which must be consecutive to any other sentence.
(6). Violation of 922(x) is up to one year imprisonment. Up to 10 years if the transferor know or had reasonable cause to know that the juvenile intended to use the handgun in a crime of violence.
Federal Law, National Firearms Act
The federal Gun Control Act covers rifles, shotguns, and handguns, and was enacted in 1968 (and has since been greatly amended). The National Firearms Act (NFA) was enacted in 1934, and covers a smaller category of weapons. For NFA purposes only, a "firearm" is defined to include sawed-off shotguns, and "destructive devices." 26 U.S.C. 5845(a)(1) and (8). "Destructive devices" include "any explosive...bomb...or similar device." 26 U.S.C. 5845(f)(1). With that definition in mind, here are the NFA violations committed by Harris and Klebold:
Making Tax. 26 U.S.C. 5821.
Requires a $200 tax for the construction each NFA "firearm." The two sawed-off shotguns were made into NFA "firearms" when Harris or Klebold sawed off the barrel to less than 18 inches. Harris and Klebold also failed to pay the $200 tax for each bomb they made.
Making. 26 U.S.C. 5822.
Prohibits making any NFA firearm unless the maker has registered with the Secretary of the Treasury, and identified in advance the firearm that will be made.
Registration. 26 U.S.C. 5841(c).
Requires manufacturers of NFA "firearms" (the sawed-off shotguns, and the bombs) to register each firearm with the Secretary of the Treasury.
Identification. 26 U.S.C. 5842.
Requires that every maker (Harris and Klebold) of NFA firearms place serial numbers on them.
Record and Returns. 26 U.S.C. 5843.
Requires manufacturers to keep certain records.
Prohibited Acts. 26 U.S. 5861.
"It shall be unlawful for any person--
(f) to make a firearm in violation of the provisions of this chapter."
Each violation of the above laws is punishable by up to 10 years in prison. Each sawed-off shotgun and each bomb constitutes a separate violation.
Other Federal Laws
Explosives Law. 18 U.S.C. 842.
"(i) It shall be unlawful for any person--
(2) who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance....
(4)....to...possess any explosive which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce."
"(j) It shall be unlawful for any person to store any explosive material in a manner not in conformity with regulations promulgated by the Secretary [of the Treasury]."
Explosives Law penalties. 18 U.S.C. 844.
(a) Up to ten year prison term for violation of 842(i).
(b) Up to one year for 842(j).
Localized Terrorism and Our Schools
Jeremy D. Blanks, Ph.D.
March 5, 2001
KeepAndBearArms.com
We have yet another school shooting. This time at a school located outside of San Diego, CA. This is the second school shooting in under a year and a half for the state of California. The other was a Jewish daycare center in late 1999. We also had a mass shooting in Massachusetts, as well as one just outside of Chicago, IL earlier this year. Both California and Massachusetts have the most stringent gun control laws in the nation, including registration, waiting periods, selected gun bans, and a whole host of other items that are on the gun control agenda. While the shooting in Illinois did occur just outside of the city limits of Chicago, it should be noted that Chicago has a virtual handgun and “assault rifle” ban. Yet, none of these laws seem to have any affect at stopping such crimes.
"...the aforementioned laws are complete failures because they fail to address the true problem that we have in America."
It is my belief that the aforementioned laws are complete failures because they fail to address the true problem that we have in America. The problem that we have in our schools, work places, and in our society in general is what I have termed “localized terrorism.” Localized terrorism is defined as an act that is carried out by one or more individuals against another group of people or individual that the attacker believes has in one way or another committed an injustice against them. Just as terrorism based on political beliefs is carried out to strike back against a perceived oppressor in many cases, i.e. the Irish Republican Army, Palestinian militant groups, etc., localized terrorism has the goal of fighting back against one or more individuals that the attacker despises for a variety of reasons. Schools commonly have problems between groups of young people, and we all remember the disagreements between individual students that were common in our school years. Work places have similar disputes. and of course the resulting rage that often develops. The reality is that these aforementioned settings are tailor made for local terrorism.
Essentially every incident of a school or work place mass shooting in the US over the last two years falls into this local terrorism category. In this most recent school shooting in California, the teenager that carried out the attack was commonly called names and he was bullied. He obviously believed that those that he attacked had caused him harm and this was his twisted way of fighting back. In the Chicago, IL incident, we have an ex-worker that had been fired and was going to spend time in jail for an incident that occurred at work. Here we have an individual who believed that his coworkers were responsible in large part for his own personal failures. And finally, in the Massachusetts shooting, we have another angry worker that impugned others for his own failures. A pattern of anger against one or more fellow students or coworkers, blame, and eventually a violent act is a common theme to all of these school and work place shootings.
It is not surprising to find that we have a number of school and work place shootings when one realizes that we have many disturbed people, as well as a society that accepts violence and often times encourages the blaming of others for our own failures. This aforementioned combination makes it convenient for people to point the finger at others and ultimately to carry out violence against those that they deem responsible for their own failures. The result of this aforementioned condition is that we have created a new type of terrorist, a localized terrorist. This revelation does not relieve these violent criminals of their responsibility whatsoever, but such is valuable in determining how to counter such attacks.
Methods to counter these localized terrorist should be based on proven methods to stop terrorism in general. Israel learned this lesson the hard way several decades ago when their schools became the targets of terrorism. They made sure that in every school there were armed and well-trained guards as well as selected teachers and administrators that had access to an emergency firearm. I can hear the absurd cries now from people like Rosie O’Donnell, who by the way has an armed guard for her child, that we don't want guns in our schools and the law abiding gun owners should be blamed. Of course, if you don't want guns in the hands of a trained teacher or administrator, then you want the victims to be defenseless. Who out there wants their children's lives in the hands of some nut that managed to gain access to an illegal gun? If you are against giving select teachers and administrators the ability to defend their schools, then you are indeed placing the life of your child into the hands of a madman. It's time to give the victims a fighting chance.
By the way, you don't hear about school shootings in Israel anymore. I wonder why?
About the Author: Dr. Blanks is a Senior Research Scientist with the premier R&D company in the world. In the past, Dr. Blanks was supportive of many of the current proposals offered by gun control groups. However, through research into the effectiveness of such measures and the value of firearm ownership in the prevention of millions of crimes each year, Dr. Blanks is now an advocate for self defense and firearm ownership rights. He is a member of the Board of Directors of Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws, http://www.keepandbeararms.com/dsgl. Dr. Blanks can be reached at crimson@wserv.com.
Hi Matt. Nice web sight you have here.
Probably Post the generic invite and e-mail addresses
Maybe he dating the new owner?
Careful how you spread it over at the rag hole.Do it throgh e-mail
RB wont even respond to my request for reinstatement.They told me the reason for my boot was not that one post but the fact I had multiple alias.
Looks like Karinna will be on her way shortly
I think Colt has been invited here?
These chat rooms are cool.I type slow
Paule is here! Good JOB NYC.