The Second Amendment column in this month's issue of Guns & Ammo magazine mentions an interesting statistic, in the course of arguing that the Gun-Free School Zones Act may well have cost more children's lives than it has saved.
The statistic:   Between 1997 and 2002, 32 students were shot and killed in elementary and secondary schools across the US.
Sounds bad, doesn't it? Makes it understandable why there's a lot of fuss on the subject, huh?
Here's what so interesting about that number: During the same period, in the same schools, 53 students died playing football. That's more than half again as many.
So why don't we have a football-free schools act, "for the sake of the children"? Surely if it's killing 65% more students every year than those horrible, evil guns, football must be a really serious problem, right?
Simple. We don't have a football-free schools act because it's not about preventing child deaths. It's about exploiting child deaths to ban guns, regardless of how many children's lives that saves or costs.
So next time someone tells you that guns need to be banned "for the sake of the children", ask them how they feel about banning football. Or any of the other causes that kill more kids every year than guns do -- bicycles, swimming pools, .........
no subject
NO-ONE should be trusted to possess nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, not only including governments but ESPECIALLY governments.
I think we're agreeing on everything, almost. We agree that shotguns are okay, being hard to conceal and well-suited to defense; we agree that nobody, absent a need to do some heavy earth-moving, needs high explosives; we agree that nuclear, biogical or chemical hazardous materials, being useful as weapons of mass destruction, are to be kept out of private hands (and public hands too, we wish).
Which leaves handguns, the easily-concealed lethal weapons everybody gets their knickers in a twist about.
Yikes, I'm being called to dinner. More later.