Posted on 10/05/2006 9:42:48 AM PDT by OH2Am
In a remarkable moment of candor, Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell today acknowledged that stronger gun laws could not have prevented the horrible shooting at the Amish school in Lancaster County.
Rendell, a staunch gun control advocate, admitted, “I believe with all my heart that we need more gun control” during a live press conference. But he also acknowledged that tougher gun laws would not have prevented gunman Charles Carl Roberts IV from carrying out his deadly attack, noting, “You can make all the changes you want, but you can never stop a random act of violence by someone intent on taking his own life.”
Despite this, due to the current rash of school shootings, America is going to be inundated with lists from media talking heads and/or government taskforces/hearings (including a taskforce called by President Bush for next week), each list itemizing steps that need to be taken to protect the children.
So, while media talking heads broadcast their lists suggesting less violent video games and more anti-bully policies, I figured I would chime in with the one measure that clearly will have an impact on school shootings: Arm and train a select group of volunteer teachers in each building.
(Excerpt) Read more at buckeyefirearms.org ...
One thing you notice reading history books, is that Jack the Ripper never owned a gun.....
Soul control needed.
This articles is RIGHT ON THE MONEY. But can we find the necessary teachers with all the liberals brainwashing our kids. There might not be a "gun-friendly" conservative in a given school.
That is the best solution. It makes sense, it won't be done.
Govenrment will do what it always does, implement more of what hasn't worked.
"“You can make all the changes you want, but you can never stop a random act of violence by someone intent on taking his own life.”"
the difference is, this was NOT random
it was well though out, premeditated and he would have found another way if there was no such thing as guns
One of the TV magazine shows had Bums getting beaten to death by punks with unregistered baseball bats.
"Fat Eddie" Rendell telling the truth, for once? Must still be a burning sensation on his lying tongue.
But he also acknowledged that tougher gun laws would not have prevented gunman Charles Carl Roberts IV from carrying out his deadly attack...
He needs to make up his mind.
You assume liberals have minds.
PING!
If the schools were defended, Mr Crazy would never have gone there in the first place.
Even Israel doesn't have this problem.
How about this as a gun control argument. Lets look at Canada, France, England or most other first world nations. They have just as many guns when it comes to rifles, etc however they don't have nearly the same amount of hang guns. I assume based on the numbers I have seen that in other first world countries rifles and shotguns make of the difference for the lack of handguns. Also they have a much lower rate of death as a result of gun crime and even assults of other types such as stabbing, beating, etc.
So if you reduce the total pool of handguns without actually changing the numbers of guns owned by the populace you have now proportionally reduced the number of deaths as a result of Gun crime, even if the total number of assults stays the same.
I'd be against any reduction of handguns. The older I get the less I want to be lugging around a rifle or a shotgun. Besides, I'm partial to revolvers.
Applies to Islamonazi jihadists -- as well as to wacko, suicide-by-cop madmen like the recent examples...
Gun control will only help either sort of terrorist...
Don't get me wrong I know of someone whos life was saved because they had a handgun themselves when someone else was using a handgun to rob them. I'm simply stating that for all of the anti-gun control argument you can't dismiss the idea that a total reduction in the number of guns or in the case of the swiss, a reduction in the amount of ammunition accessable to the populace would reduce the overall amount of death, even if violent assults stayed constant.
Or to put it another way, I'm pro-gun because I live in the United States but if I was in another first world country I would not want the guns to be more accessable. When I was in Frankfurts RedLight district I witnessed a confrontation that, had the two parties had easy access to guns, I know would have ended in a shoot out.
Rendell, a staunch gun control advocate, admitted, "I believe with all my heart that we need more gun control" during a live press conference.
But he also acknowledged that tougher gun laws would not have prevented gunman Charles Carl Roberts IV from carrying out his deadly attack...
Of course movies and TV influence us. If they didn't, advertising agencies that specialize in television ads would go out of business and companies wouldn't pay millions of dollars for product placements in movies.
I'm not so sure if it would reduce the number of deaths by much. It might cut down on a few deaths that occur during domestic sqabbles or at drunken parties, but I'm a 90-pound weakling and without a firearm I would be on the losing end of any confrontation. In case of a physical assault, I don't like the idea of might makes right.
Or to put it another way, I'm pro-gun because I live in the United States but if I was in another first world country I would not want the guns to be more accessable.
I'm pro gun because I like having an "equalizer" within easy reach. As for other countries/cultures, well, I don't really care what they do. :^)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.