Snickering Snotty
 

"JustWait" wrote in message ...

On 12/18/2012 3:50 PM, Eisboch wrote:


"GuzzisRule" wrote in message
...

On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 10:43:39 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:


But statistics indicate that this is *not* a growing epidemic or
upward trend. There were unfortunately more that occurred in the
1980's and 1990's. We just didn't hear as much about them as we
hear
today.



I've also heard similar statistics presented on one of our local
radio
stations. The statistics make
us look better.

However, I'd have no problem with the banning of assault weapons.
Target
practice and hunting can
both be done with other types of rifles. The question will then be,
"What constitutes an assault
weapon?"

------------------------------------------

"Justwait" made a comment that caused me to think about this. I
think
his definitions of guns could be developed into a reasonably simple
category system of what is available for purchase and ownership by
private citizens and what is reserved for military and police use.

For private citizens:

Firearms (handguns and rifles/shotguns) specifically designed for
target practice and competition. No more than 7-10 round capacity.
Firearms (rifles and shotguns) designed specifically for hunting.
No
more than 5-10 rounds.
Firearms designed for personal/home defense. Includes handguns with
no
more than 7-10 round capacity. Concealed carry permits allowed
based on
background check.
Non-functioning firearms as collectibles/display pieces. These can
include military type weapons but must be permanently disabled.

For Law Enforcement and Military:

Firearms and weapons designed for both defensive and offensive use.
Automatic and semi-automatic with unlimited round capacity.

The days of private citizens being concerned about arming to the
teeth
to protect themselves from their own government are long over.
That interpretation of the 2nd Ammendent is obsolete. Private
citizens
don't need high capacity, offensive weapons.


There you go... Now let's get on my idea of hiring retired PoPo as
administrators, janitors, coaches, teachers aids, cafeteria workers,
etc
in schools and let them carry.

Like I said, a uniformed security guard or even police officer is a
sitting duck if he doesn't know an attack is being planned, he would
just be fodder. Now imagine in CT, if there were two or three armed
teachers or staff, even a janitor who heard the shots come over the
loud
speaker and made their way to the office, even if just to lay down
cover
fire until the cops got there minutes later. There is a good
possibility
the kid would have never made it out of the office and to the
classroom.
We might be talking about less than 5 dead... The key though is the
unions would have to allow these retired PoPo to come into the
system...

-------------------------------------

I can't go along with armed teachers. Not their job and not
consistent with their calling. Can't go along with guns in schools
period.

We need to be careful of over-reacting due to the highly emotional
influence and nature of tragic events such as this and the whipping up
of reactions due to the media coverage. I think *that* has more of an
influence on these nut cases to get the attention they are looking
for.

Snickering Snotty
 

"GuzzisRule" wrote in message
...


But, I have no problem with laws banning the 'assault style weapon' -
providing they can be defined.
You didn't address the questions I posted with the pictures.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Your first picture was that of a typical rifle.
The second was a tiny thumbnail of a magazine (I think).

What was the question?

Snickering Snotty
 

In article ,
says...

"GuzzisRule" wrote in message
...

On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 10:43:39 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


But statistics indicate that this is *not* a growing epidemic or
upward trend. There were unfortunately more that occurred in the
1980's and 1990's. We just didn't hear as much about them as we hear
today.



I've also heard similar statistics presented on one of our local radio
stations. The statistics make
us look better.

However, I'd have no problem with the banning of assault weapons.
Target practice and hunting can
both be done with other types of rifles. The question will then be,
"What constitutes an assault
weapon?"

------------------------------------------

"Justwait" made a comment that caused me to think about this. I
think his definitions of guns could be developed into a reasonably
simple category system of what is available for purchase and ownership
by private citizens and what is reserved for military and police use.

For private citizens:

Firearms (handguns and rifles/shotguns) specifically designed for
target practice and competition. No more than 7-10 round capacity.
Firearms (rifles and shotguns) designed specifically for hunting.
No more than 5-10 rounds.
Firearms designed for personal/home defense. Includes handguns with
no more than 7-10 round capacity. Concealed carry permits allowed
based on background check.
Non-functioning firearms as collectibles/display pieces. These can
include military type weapons but must be permanently disabled.

For Law Enforcement and Military:

Firearms and weapons designed for both defensive and offensive use.
Automatic and semi-automatic with unlimited round capacity.

The days of private citizens being concerned about arming to the teeth
to protect themselves from their own government are long over.
That interpretation of the 2nd Ammendent is obsolete. Private
citizens don't need high capacity, offensive weapons.

Why should they have greater firepower than us. When the US Constitution
was written, debated and adopted did not distinguish between military
assault style weapons and regular weapons.

Snickering Snotty
 

In article ,
says...

"JustWait" wrote in message ...

On 12/18/2012 3:50 PM, Eisboch wrote:


"GuzzisRule" wrote in message
...

On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 10:43:39 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:


But statistics indicate that this is *not* a growing epidemic or
upward trend. There were unfortunately more that occurred in the
1980's and 1990's. We just didn't hear as much about them as we
hear
today.



I've also heard similar statistics presented on one of our local
radio
stations. The statistics make
us look better.

However, I'd have no problem with the banning of assault weapons.
Target
practice and hunting can
both be done with other types of rifles. The question will then be,
"What constitutes an assault
weapon?"

------------------------------------------

"Justwait" made a comment that caused me to think about this. I
think
his definitions of guns could be developed into a reasonably simple
category system of what is available for purchase and ownership by
private citizens and what is reserved for military and police use.

For private citizens:

Firearms (handguns and rifles/shotguns) specifically designed for
target practice and competition. No more than 7-10 round capacity.
Firearms (rifles and shotguns) designed specifically for hunting.
No
more than 5-10 rounds.
Firearms designed for personal/home defense. Includes handguns with
no
more than 7-10 round capacity. Concealed carry permits allowed
based on
background check.
Non-functioning firearms as collectibles/display pieces. These can
include military type weapons but must be permanently disabled.

For Law Enforcement and Military:

Firearms and weapons designed for both defensive and offensive use.
Automatic and semi-automatic with unlimited round capacity.

The days of private citizens being concerned about arming to the
teeth
to protect themselves from their own government are long over.
That interpretation of the 2nd Ammendent is obsolete. Private
citizens
don't need high capacity, offensive weapons.


There you go... Now let's get on my idea of hiring retired PoPo as
administrators, janitors, coaches, teachers aids, cafeteria workers,
etc
in schools and let them carry.

Like I said, a uniformed security guard or even police officer is a
sitting duck if he doesn't know an attack is being planned, he would
just be fodder. Now imagine in CT, if there were two or three armed
teachers or staff, even a janitor who heard the shots come over the
loud
speaker and made their way to the office, even if just to lay down
cover
fire until the cops got there minutes later. There is a good
possibility
the kid would have never made it out of the office and to the
classroom.
We might be talking about less than 5 dead... The key though is the
unions would have to allow these retired PoPo to come into the
system...

-------------------------------------

I can't go along with armed teachers. Not their job and not
consistent with their calling. Can't go along with guns in schools
period.

We have police in our high schools and in our middle schools in
Montgomery County Maryland, adjacent to and directly north of
Washington, D.C. These police are sworn Montgomery County Police
officers who come with badge, radio and handgun.

Why would one of the richest counties in the country need to have police
officers in the schools? Gangs and thugs. The "central american" gangs
are making inroads and within the legal and illegal immigrant population
that is flocking to Montgomery County due to its permissive policies
when it comes to illegal aliens.

We need to be careful of over-reacting due to the highly emotional
influence and nature of tragic events such as this and the whipping up
of reactions due to the media coverage. I think *that* has more of an
influence on these nut cases to get the attention they are looking
for.

Rather than take matters into our own hands, which is not a bad thing at
all, and providing for our own security via various actions, planning
and general awareness we have abdicated our responsibilities to the
Federal, State and local governments.

The media has its agenda and it more often than not it is contrary to
the publics best interest.

Snickering Snotty
 

On 12/19/2012 7:49 AM, BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...

"JustWait" wrote in message ...

On 12/18/2012 3:50 PM, Eisboch wrote:


"GuzzisRule" wrote in message
...

On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 10:43:39 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:


But statistics indicate that this is *not* a growing epidemic or
upward trend. There were unfortunately more that occurred in the
1980's and 1990's. We just didn't hear as much about them as we
hear
today.



I've also heard similar statistics presented on one of our local
radio
stations. The statistics make
us look better.

However, I'd have no problem with the banning of assault weapons.
Target
practice and hunting can
both be done with other types of rifles. The question will then be,
"What constitutes an assault
weapon?"

------------------------------------------

"Justwait" made a comment that caused me to think about this. I
think
his definitions of guns could be developed into a reasonably simple
category system of what is available for purchase and ownership by
private citizens and what is reserved for military and police use.

For private citizens:

Firearms (handguns and rifles/shotguns) specifically designed for
target practice and competition. No more than 7-10 round capacity.
Firearms (rifles and shotguns) designed specifically for hunting.
No
more than 5-10 rounds.
Firearms designed for personal/home defense. Includes handguns with
no
more than 7-10 round capacity. Concealed carry permits allowed
based on
background check.
Non-functioning firearms as collectibles/display pieces. These can
include military type weapons but must be permanently disabled.

For Law Enforcement and Military:

Firearms and weapons designed for both defensive and offensive use.
Automatic and semi-automatic with unlimited round capacity.

The days of private citizens being concerned about arming to the
teeth
to protect themselves from their own government are long over.
That interpretation of the 2nd Ammendent is obsolete. Private
citizens
don't need high capacity, offensive weapons.


There you go... Now let's get on my idea of hiring retired PoPo as
administrators, janitors, coaches, teachers aids, cafeteria workers,
etc
in schools and let them carry.

Like I said, a uniformed security guard or even police officer is a
sitting duck if he doesn't know an attack is being planned, he would
just be fodder. Now imagine in CT, if there were two or three armed
teachers or staff, even a janitor who heard the shots come over the
loud
speaker and made their way to the office, even if just to lay down
cover
fire until the cops got there minutes later. There is a good
possibility
the kid would have never made it out of the office and to the
classroom.
We might be talking about less than 5 dead... The key though is the
unions would have to allow these retired PoPo to come into the
system...

-------------------------------------

I can't go along with armed teachers. Not their job and not
consistent with their calling. Can't go along with guns in schools
period.

We have police in our high schools and in our middle schools in
Montgomery County Maryland, adjacent to and directly north of
Washington, D.C. These police are sworn Montgomery County Police
officers who come with badge, radio and handgun.

Why would one of the richest counties in the country need to have police
officers in the schools? Gangs and thugs. The "central american" gangs
are making inroads and within the legal and illegal immigrant population
that is flocking to Montgomery County due to its permissive policies
when it comes to illegal aliens.

We need to be careful of over-reacting due to the highly emotional
influence and nature of tragic events such as this and the whipping up
of reactions due to the media coverage. I think *that* has more of an
influence on these nut cases to get the attention they are looking
for.

Rather than take matters into our own hands, which is not a bad thing at
all, and providing for our own security via various actions, planning
and general awareness we have abdicated our responsibilities to the
Federal, State and local governments.

The media has its agenda and it more often than not it is contrary to
the publics best interest.



It's still my feeling that uniformed, armed police will eventually be
targeted by these kids who have spent years learning to "clear a room"
and devise an offense. They are sitting ducks in an ambush... That's why
I would just rather see staff that is staff, who also happen to be
retired PoPo in a second career...

Snickering Snotty
 

On Wednesday, December 19, 2012 9:37:26 AM UTC-4, JustWait wrote:
On 12/19/2012 7:49 AM, BAR wrote:

In article ,

says...



"JustWait" wrote in message ...



On 12/18/2012 3:50 PM, Eisboch wrote:





"GuzzisRule" wrote in message

...



On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 10:43:39 -0500, "Eisboch"

wrote:





But statistics indicate that this is *not* a growing epidemic or

upward trend. There were unfortunately more that occurred in the

1980's and 1990's. We just didn't hear as much about them as we

hear

today.







I've also heard similar statistics presented on one of our local

radio

stations. The statistics make

us look better.



However, I'd have no problem with the banning of assault weapons.

Target

practice and hunting can

both be done with other types of rifles. The question will then be,

"What constitutes an assault

weapon?"



------------------------------------------



"Justwait" made a comment that caused me to think about this. I

think

his definitions of guns could be developed into a reasonably simple

category system of what is available for purchase and ownership by

private citizens and what is reserved for military and police use.



For private citizens:



Firearms (handguns and rifles/shotguns) specifically designed for

target practice and competition. No more than 7-10 round capacity.

Firearms (rifles and shotguns) designed specifically for hunting.

No

more than 5-10 rounds.

Firearms designed for personal/home defense. Includes handguns with

no

more than 7-10 round capacity. Concealed carry permits allowed

based on

background check.

Non-functioning firearms as collectibles/display pieces. These can

include military type weapons but must be permanently disabled.



For Law Enforcement and Military:



Firearms and weapons designed for both defensive and offensive use.

Automatic and semi-automatic with unlimited round capacity.



The days of private citizens being concerned about arming to the

teeth

to protect themselves from their own government are long over.

That interpretation of the 2nd Ammendent is obsolete. Private

citizens

don't need high capacity, offensive weapons.





There you go... Now let's get on my idea of hiring retired PoPo as

administrators, janitors, coaches, teachers aids, cafeteria workers,

etc

in schools and let them carry.



Like I said, a uniformed security guard or even police officer is a

sitting duck if he doesn't know an attack is being planned, he would

just be fodder. Now imagine in CT, if there were two or three armed

teachers or staff, even a janitor who heard the shots come over the

loud

speaker and made their way to the office, even if just to lay down

cover

fire until the cops got there minutes later. There is a good

possibility

the kid would have never made it out of the office and to the

classroom.

We might be talking about less than 5 dead... The key though is the

unions would have to allow these retired PoPo to come into the

system...



-------------------------------------



I can't go along with armed teachers. Not their job and not

consistent with their calling. Can't go along with guns in schools

period.



We have police in our high schools and in our middle schools in

Montgomery County Maryland, adjacent to and directly north of

Washington, D.C. These police are sworn Montgomery County Police

officers who come with badge, radio and handgun.



Why would one of the richest counties in the country need to have police

officers in the schools? Gangs and thugs. The "central american" gangs

are making inroads and within the legal and illegal immigrant population

that is flocking to Montgomery County due to its permissive policies

when it comes to illegal aliens.



We need to be careful of over-reacting due to the highly emotional

influence and nature of tragic events such as this and the whipping up

of reactions due to the media coverage. I think *that* has more of an

influence on these nut cases to get the attention they are looking

for.



Rather than take matters into our own hands, which is not a bad thing at

all, and providing for our own security via various actions, planning

and general awareness we have abdicated our responsibilities to the

Federal, State and local governments.



The media has its agenda and it more often than not it is contrary to

the publics best interest.







It's still my feeling that uniformed, armed police will eventually be

targeted by these kids who have spent years learning to "clear a room"

and devise an offense. They are sitting ducks in an ambush... That's why

I would just rather see staff that is staff, who also happen to be

retired PoPo in a second career...

So you recommend that 'douple dipping' municipal servents replace low paid custodial employees who are scraping by trying to make a living.
Someone like you should be a 'friend' of the low paid working class heros of our society.
Wait a minute...you are no fan of work of any kind...eh?

Snickering Snotty
 

In article ,
says...

"GuzzisRule" wrote in message
...

On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 10:43:39 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


But statistics indicate that this is *not* a growing epidemic or
upward trend. There were unfortunately more that occurred in the
1980's and 1990's. We just didn't hear as much about them as we hear
today.



I've also heard similar statistics presented on one of our local radio
stations. The statistics make
us look better.

However, I'd have no problem with the banning of assault weapons.
Target practice and hunting can
both be done with other types of rifles. The question will then be,
"What constitutes an assault
weapon?"

------------------------------------------

"Justwait" made a comment that caused me to think about this. I
think his definitions of guns could be developed into a reasonably
simple category system of what is available for purchase and ownership
by private citizens and what is reserved for military and police use.

For private citizens:

Firearms (handguns and rifles/shotguns) specifically designed for
target practice and competition. No more than 7-10 round capacity.
Firearms (rifles and shotguns) designed specifically for hunting.
No more than 5-10 rounds.
Firearms designed for personal/home defense. Includes handguns with
no more than 7-10 round capacity. Concealed carry permits allowed
based on background check.
Non-functioning firearms as collectibles/display pieces. These can
include military type weapons but must be permanently disabled.

For Law Enforcement and Military:

Firearms and weapons designed for both defensive and offensive use.
Automatic and semi-automatic with unlimited round capacity.

The days of private citizens being concerned about arming to the teeth
to protect themselves from their own government are long over.
That interpretation of the 2nd Ammendent is obsolete. Private
citizens don't need high capacity, offensive weapons.

It's a crutch for the NRA lack of penis group.

Snickering Snotty
 

In article ,
says...

On Tuesday, December 18, 2012 3:50:18 PM UTC-5, Eisboch wrote:
"GuzzisRule" wrote in message

...



On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 10:43:39 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:
------------------------------------------



"Justwait" made a comment that caused me to think about this. I
think his definitions of guns could be developed into a reasonably
simple category system of what is available for purchase and ownership
by private citizens and what is reserved for military and police use.

For private citizens:

Firearms (handguns and rifles/shotguns) specifically designed for
target practice and competition. No more than 7-10 round capacity.
Firearms (rifles and shotguns) designed specifically for hunting.
No more than 5-10 rounds.
Firearms designed for personal/home defense. Includes handguns with
no more than 7-10 round capacity. Concealed carry permits allowed
based on background check.
Non-functioning firearms as collectibles/display pieces. These can
include military type weapons but must be permanently disabled.


For Law Enforcement and Military:

Firearms and weapons designed for both defensive and offensive use.
Automatic and semi-automatic with unlimited round capacity.

The days of private citizens being concerned about arming to the teeth
to protect themselves from their own government are long over.
That interpretation of the 2nd Ammendent is obsolete. Private
citizens don't need high capacity, offensive weapons.

Problem is... ANY firearm can be used both offensively and defensively. Take an M15 and a .45 ACP. Generally, the first fits the offensive weapon category, the second the home defensive one. But in the right situation, the M16 would be the better defense, and the ACP the better offense.

In the end, it's the person pulling the trigger. It always comes down to that.

It's the person pulling the trigger? Exactly! That's why we need to keep
guns out of the hands of lunatics and criminals.

8. More guns tend to mean more homicide.
The Harvard Injury Control Research Center assessed the literature on
guns and homicide and found that there?s substantial evidence that
indicates more guns means more murders. This holds true whether you?re
looking at different countries or different states. Citations here.
9. States with stricter gun control laws have fewer deaths from gun-
related violence.
Last year, economist Richard Florida dove deep into the correlations
between gun deaths and other kinds of social indicators. Some of what he
found was, perhaps, unexpected: Higher populations, more stress, more
immigrants, and more mental illness were not correlated with more deaths
from gun violence. But one thing he found was, perhaps, perfectly
predictable: States with tighter gun control laws appear to have fewer
gun-related deaths. The disclaimer here is that correlation is not
causation. But correlations can be suggestive:

Snickering Snotty
 

In article , says...

On 12/18/2012 4:43 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 12/18/2012 3:50 PM, Eisboch wrote:


"GuzzisRule" wrote in message
...

On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 10:43:39 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


But statistics indicate that this is *not* a growing epidemic or
upward trend. There were unfortunately more that occurred in the
1980's and 1990's. We just didn't hear as much about them as we hear
today.



I've also heard similar statistics presented on one of our local radio
stations. The statistics make
us look better.

However, I'd have no problem with the banning of assault weapons. Target
practice and hunting can
both be done with other types of rifles. The question will then be,
"What constitutes an assault
weapon?"

------------------------------------------

"Justwait" made a comment that caused me to think about this. I think
his definitions of guns could be developed into a reasonably simple
category system of what is available for purchase and ownership by
private citizens and what is reserved for military and police use.

For private citizens:

Firearms (handguns and rifles/shotguns) specifically designed for
target practice and competition. No more than 7-10 round capacity.
Firearms (rifles and shotguns) designed specifically for hunting. No
more than 5-10 rounds.
Firearms designed for personal/home defense. Includes handguns with no
more than 7-10 round capacity. Concealed carry permits allowed based on
background check.
Non-functioning firearms as collectibles/display pieces. These can
include military type weapons but must be permanently disabled.

For Law Enforcement and Military:

Firearms and weapons designed for both defensive and offensive use.
Automatic and semi-automatic with unlimited round capacity.

The days of private citizens being concerned about arming to the teeth
to protect themselves from their own government are long over.
That interpretation of the 2nd Ammendent is obsolete. Private citizens
don't need high capacity, offensive weapons.


There you go... Now let's get on my idea of hiring retired PoPo as
administrators, janitors, coaches, teachers aids, cafeteria workers, etc
in schools and let them carry.

Like I said, a uniformed security guard or even police officer is a
sitting duck if he doesn't know an attack is being planned, he would
just be fodder. Now imagine in CT, if there were two or three armed
teachers or staff, even a janitor who heard the shots come over the loud
speaker and made their way to the office, even if just to lay down cover
fire until the cops got there minutes later. There is a good possibility
the kid would have never made it out of the office and to the classroom.
We might be talking about less than 5 dead... The key though is the
unions would have to allow these retired PoPo to come into the system...

And to be clear... These folks are not hired to be security, or to sit
around collecting a check for nothing. They are hired for already
existing jobs within the facility, to push pencils in the office, coach
gym, janitorial, cook food... It would be a second career for them, just
that retired PoPo might be enticed by the town to fill some of those
every day jobs involved in the running of a school...

So you replace workers with retired people then those workers are out of
a job, while the others are getting their pensions plus the pay that
would have gone to the original workers. That should help the economy,
eh?

Snickering Snotty
 

In article ,
says...

"JustWait" wrote in message ...

On 12/18/2012 3:50 PM, Eisboch wrote:


"GuzzisRule" wrote in message
...

On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 10:43:39 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:


But statistics indicate that this is *not* a growing epidemic or
upward trend. There were unfortunately more that occurred in the
1980's and 1990's. We just didn't hear as much about them as we
hear
today.



I've also heard similar statistics presented on one of our local
radio
stations. The statistics make
us look better.

However, I'd have no problem with the banning of assault weapons.
Target
practice and hunting can
both be done with other types of rifles. The question will then be,
"What constitutes an assault
weapon?"

------------------------------------------

"Justwait" made a comment that caused me to think about this. I
think
his definitions of guns could be developed into a reasonably simple
category system of what is available for purchase and ownership by
private citizens and what is reserved for military and police use.

For private citizens:

Firearms (handguns and rifles/shotguns) specifically designed for
target practice and competition. No more than 7-10 round capacity.
Firearms (rifles and shotguns) designed specifically for hunting.
No
more than 5-10 rounds.
Firearms designed for personal/home defense. Includes handguns with
no
more than 7-10 round capacity. Concealed carry permits allowed
based on
background check.
Non-functioning firearms as collectibles/display pieces. These can
include military type weapons but must be permanently disabled.

For Law Enforcement and Military:

Firearms and weapons designed for both defensive and offensive use.
Automatic and semi-automatic with unlimited round capacity.

The days of private citizens being concerned about arming to the
teeth
to protect themselves from their own government are long over.
That interpretation of the 2nd Ammendent is obsolete. Private
citizens
don't need high capacity, offensive weapons.


There you go... Now let's get on my idea of hiring retired PoPo as
administrators, janitors, coaches, teachers aids, cafeteria workers,
etc
in schools and let them carry.

Like I said, a uniformed security guard or even police officer is a
sitting duck if he doesn't know an attack is being planned, he would
just be fodder. Now imagine in CT, if there were two or three armed
teachers or staff, even a janitor who heard the shots come over the
loud
speaker and made their way to the office, even if just to lay down
cover
fire until the cops got there minutes later. There is a good
possibility
the kid would have never made it out of the office and to the
classroom.
We might be talking about less than 5 dead... The key though is the
unions would have to allow these retired PoPo to come into the
system...

-------------------------------------

I can't go along with armed teachers. Not their job and not
consistent with their calling. Can't go along with guns in schools
period.

We need to be careful of over-reacting due to the highly emotional
influence and nature of tragic events such as this and the whipping up
of reactions due to the media coverage. I think *that* has more of an
influence on these nut cases to get the attention they are looking
for.

What a lovely atmosphere for raising kids, reminds you of what it would
be like to grow up in the Taliban. Send the kids to school with guns,
teachers have guns, everyone has guns, nice....