Two legislators is very far short of a majority.

...all the voices in their heads, I'm pretty sure they think they have a majority...

Now if only those voices meant signatures

Last week we were trying to find some "wins" for gun grabbers.

Does finding two legislators from the same town to propose a bill, with no apparent additional backing, to overturn preemption count? Even if it goes nowhere?

fighting back against the right wing push to weaken our nation's gun laws.

Those weak laws?

Which specific laws do you think are too weak?

Try and be specific and give us something a little more detailed than the bumper sticker on your neighbor's Prius, OK?

It's a smear against Priuses, their owners and bumper-sticker logic. BTW - not all liberals support gun regulations. Arguably, one cannot be a liberal and be pro-gun-control as gun control is an argument favoring the restriction of freedoms.

(P.s. - the Prius is not really fuel efficient. In fact, over its projected lifespan, it is less fuel efficient than a lot of SUVs. Its a car that lets people tell themselves they're saving the planet while they're actually driving one of the least economic cars in production)

You didn't happen to read that in one of the same right-wing papers that you get your gun propaganda from, by any chance...

Also, re: "one canot be a liberal and be pro-gun-control", I have to ask, do you actually know many liberals? Because I think you're confusing liberal with libertarian. You see, libertarians are the Ron Paul type crazies who think everything from gun control to medical licensing to food inspections to wall street regulations are "anti-freedom". Liberals, at least in the way the word is used today, are people intelligent enough to understand that many government regulations are necessary in order for society to function properly.

Big difference.

the "myth" being the claim that other poster just made: that Hummers have less of a lifetime environmental impact than Priuses. And, according to your link, this myth was based an a non-peer-reviewed study by a automobile marketing research company, which was then cited by a lot of other people, many of them no doubt conservatives opposed in principle to energy conservation, trying to make a case against progressive environmentalist types who drive Priuses with the idea of reducing their carbon footprint.

And so I think my original guess was correct: that other poster picked up "SUVs cleaner then Priuses" idea from one of the same right-wing sources where he/she gets his/her gun propaganda.

I simply said it could be based on energy used to build one (mining the battery materials for example). I am making no claims about anything else. I can't afford one and would be caught dead in the other (assuming I could afford it either), and neither would make it down my dirt road. It is not something I really put that much though in. I actually like the Leaf and the Volt more.

All of the Prius drivers I know are Republicans that live in deed restricted communities, the Hummer drivers (which has nothing to do with real HUMVs) are basiclly the same demographic. But then, this is Florida.

but in this part of Florida, the Prius is kind of the 98 Olds of the 21st century. The only people I see driving them are old white people living in deed restricted developments. But then, it could be because they are the only ones that can afford them.
Not saying it is a bad thing, some day I'll be old and white but not living in a deed restricted community.

Its mostly sanctimonious types in their late-20's to early-30's. They usually have the ass end covered in bumper stickers professing their thought process and have been known to yell at people in SUVs while sitting at a stop light for wasting fuel and destroying the planet, and (if the SUV is full of kids) for being indiscriminate breeders with no concern for overpopulation.

Yeah - I know - sounds hard to believe but they really do this...

because gun control is an ideology of narrowminded authoritarianism. A liberal supports broad freedom for all, even when freedom is exercised in a way he or she finds distasteful. A liberal who doesn't like guns will choose not to own or carry guns, but will not work to disarm everyone around him or her. An authoritarian who doesn't like guns will do everything in his or her power to make sure that the law restricts gun ownership and possession to such a degree as to effectively disarm most of the population.

It seems to me that you're more of an authoritarian than a liberal.

Where in the hell do you get the idea that liberals all support more gun regulation? Another bumper sticker?

Every survey on DU that I've seen over the last few years has shown that over half of the members here own firearms. You are really way the hell out of the mainstream, or stuck in 1992, if you still think gun control is a winning or even popular issue.

We held the WH and both houses of Congress for two years. What gun control was passed or even proposed, if it's such a seminal belief?

By the same token if you really think a Prius is a "fuel efficient vehicle" you are living in a dream world. Aside from the massive amount of "smug" their owners emit, their mileage is worse than several traditional Toyota, Kia, Honda and even Ford models with plain old gas engines.

The question was "what weak gun laws are you talking about?" We have the lowest violent crime rate in 40 years, which specific ones are "weak" in your fetid imagination?

"The United States experiences epidemic levels of gun violence, claiming over 30,000 lives annually, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. For every person who dies from a gunshot wound, two others are wounded. Every year, more than 100,000 Americans are victims of gun violence. In addition to those who are killed or injured, there are countless others whose lives are forever changed by the deaths of and injuries to their loved ones.

http://www.lcav.org/statistics-polling/gun_violence_statistics.asp


Support for Gun Control Measures

Women, residents of large cities and their suburbs, liberals, and Democrats are most likely to support general gun control measures, whereas men, residents of rural areas, conservatives, and Republicans are least likely to support such measures. People with higher levels of educational attainment also are more likely to support general gun control measures. Support does not vary by marital status, age, or income.

http://futureofchildren.org/publications/journals/article/index.xml?journalid=42&articleid=172§ionid=1116

You see no relationship between record numbers of people wanting a firearm for their home or person and the dwindling support for more gun laws?

I may well be a fool, but I'm one of the fools that's clearly on the winning side of this argument. Hell, it's not even an argument anymore, it's over now. Your side lost.

One more time. Can you point to any significant gun control "wins" in the last few years, legislatively or in the courts?

With all your imaginary BS support for more gun control, the gun grabbers still can't get shit done in any state legislatures or the Congress. Gun control has pretty much lost every major court battle for the last few years. Even Chicago got its ass kicked, twice so far.

Outside of a couple in safe districts that use it for fund raising from saps that actually think they are going to get a new AWB, no politician will even touch the issue on the stump.

But I'm confused, if everybody agrees with you on this, why can't you seem to get anything done?

Let me guess ... that bad old evil NRA is to blame for your repeated failures?

Gun control "wins"

http://www.google.com/search?q=republican+gun+legislation+defeated

Since that big "win" we've had several states allow shall issue concealed carry, two went constitutional carry and Chicago lost in SCOTUS and again at the appellate level.

Keep up the good work. With more big "wins" like that we can expect the '34 NFA to be repealed soon.

Be sure and let us all know which Dems are running on a gun control platform this year too. My rep (A Dem of course in Illinois) ran in 2010 with an A rating from the NRA as well as the ISRA and around $29,000 from their political victory fund.

Maybe I should break it to her that she must not be a "real" Dem, since she doesn't support gun control and supports CCW for Illinois.

Democrats are now defending strong gun laws.

The NRA/radical right wing are on the offense to weaken gun regulations..

not doing a very good job of defending those guns laws.

From the left. it appears the radical right have only managed to weaken gun laws in 15 states after 25 years.

fewer laws, more freedoms - that's what America is all about.

BTW - don't you think that the incorporation of the 2A was a huge blow to gun control? For the first time ever it leaves thousands of local and state gun laws vulnerable to repeal. How do you plan to plug that leak?

"From the left" "From the radical right" You are funny.

Do you really think that the wave of concealed carry laws were all passed just by GOP supporters? How dense and ill informed on the subject can you be? Every state passed CCW with a bipartisan vote.

Not one state has any serious proposal to repeal CCW now.

Or do just want to revoke all their "D" membership cards?

You seem to live in a simplistic, imaginary world where all Dems think just like you and want more gun control, and only people like you have the true vision to achieve that.

You're back to your bumper sticker level of logic again. All Dems don't want more gun control and part of the expansion of gun rights rests with our party and many of us like that idea a lot.

I asked you about all the Dems that have voted to support expanding concealed carry, legal carry in National Parks, support the "individual right to keep and bear" as outlined in the 2nd amendment, including our President and Right Wing Nuts like Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and the other recent expansions of the 2nd amendment?

Are they not "Real Dems"?

I noticed you had no response to the question, or you're just avoiding having to state the obvious?

to weaken gun laws does not negate the fact that the push for weaker laws comes from the NRA & Republicans.

How small?

So every state legislature is dominated by the GOP? To the point where a "handful" of frightened Democrat "Traitors" vote with them on gun issues?

It doesn't really matter where the proposals comes from what matters is who supports it. I live in the bluest of blue states (Illinois) and our latest legislative CCW proposal has bipartisan sponsorship and broad support from our "downstate" Dems.

Wow, we are in real trouble aren't we?

(Even though there are a lot more Dems than you seem to think, that see things our way and happily cashed their support checks from the NRA-ILA last election. In fact, I didn't hear of a single Dem that got NRA-ILA support money sending the check back in disgust.)

Well what should we do about that evil "handful"? Drum them out of the party? Take away their "D"ecoder rings? Will you be holding tribunals to publicly shame them?

And what are you going to do about that President of ours, you know the one that taught constitutional law, that thinks it's an individual right, not connected to militia service? How can you support someone that has signed so much pro gun legislation and thinks I have a right to own as many guns as I can afford and maybe even carry one here and there? (Pssst, I hear Romney is big on more gun control.)

We'll wait while you take time to find another person's opinion you can cut and paste for our entertainment.

Wait, I know the answer to that- you wouldn't have said what you did if you had.

H.R.822 - Heath Shuler (D-N.C.)
S.570 - Jon Tester (D-Mont.)
H.R.1558 - Mike Ross (D-Ark.)
HB 1438 - Scot Kelsh (D)
H.R.1865 - Jason Altmire (D-Pa.)
SB321 - Kirk Watson (D)
HB25 - Veronica White (D)
HB 650 - Michael H. Wray (Dem)
HB 294 - signed by Jay Nixon (D)
HB48 - signed by Jack Markell (D)
S.1588 - Jim Webb (D-Va.)
H.R.58 companion bill - Mark Begich (D-Alaska)
AB69 - Chris Danou (D)

most of them are about 100 years old esp. the ones restricting concealed carry.

There's been a move to the right on a lot of issues, let's not pretend it's just guns. For example, the basic ideas behind Obamacare, which passed with no Republican support at all, were actually conceived by conservative think tanks (Heritage IIRC) as a free-market alternative to Hillarycare in the 90s. Taxes on the wealthy are at their lowest point in decades, and the tea party just won big with promises to cut taxes on the wealthy and corporations and also cut the social safety net even more. The same state legislatures that are loosening gun laws are also going after abortion rights and trying to take down unions. Etc.

In short, the country has moved to the right, and elections have consequences. However, hopefully you're not saying that progressives should just give up and accept a world where creationism is taught in schools, the top 1% own all the wealth, and our levels of homicide and gun violence exceed the rest of the developed world by a huge margin. I think we can do better than that. And I think we will.

Another thing to keep in mind is that gun militancy is something largely confined to right-wing Americans. Progressives in the US largely support stronger gun laws, and outside the US even conservatives don't bother trying to argue for "gun rights". In fact, if there's anything good about US gun laws and the resulting astronomical levels of gun violence, it's that people in other countries who suggest moving to a lax gun law system like the US would just get laughed at.

In many countries, those laws were passed by conservatives hoping to stay in power. Can you name one jurisdiction where murder or violence dropped after gun laws? Europe was the same or safer even when they had laws more like Vermont's.

Is that really all you can muster? I guess when there are a total of zero present-day developed nations with sane gun laws and a level of homicide anywhere close to the US, you need to really stretch to find "evidence" to supporting your cause, which is why pro-gunners always seem to want to compare the present day with a century ago, or compare the US with Mexico, or whatever other preposterous comparison NRA-ILA has served up. LOL.

As far as a jurisdiction that strengthened gun laws recently, the one that comes to mind is Australia, which was indeed followed by a decrease in murder and gun violence.

but still equally valid. Even then, the first handgun I learned to use was purchased by my brother in a Hamburg FDR gun store.
They still had lower violence rates than the US, even lower than the parts of the US that had strict laws like the south. I still fail to see how "developed" vs "undeveloped" matters, other than the fact that all of those "undeveloped" countries have stricter gun laws and much higher murder rates. I have yet hear or see an explanation, valid or otherwise. I look at "developed" as a nicer way of saying "civilized", a meaningless term that makes imperialists feel better. In this case, it is really a respectable cherry picking technique.

Both sides over state their case with Australia.

http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

http://www.gunsandcrime.org/austudies.html

http://www.gunsandcrime.org/aussiegc.html

Using Mexico's tight gun control and high gun violence relative to the US to argue against gun laws is plainly silly. In the same way that trying to use the fact that the US delivers better health care than Mexico to argue in favor of private vs public health care systems would be. If you're interested in policy options for a modern-day developed nation like the US, obviously the most relevant datapoints come from other modern-day developed nations.

Re: Australia, it's not that "both sides overstate their case". It's that the gun militants who claim that the buyback increased crime are simply lying. The fact of the matter is that the homicide rate in Australia dropped. If you want, you can try and argue that this was not caused by the change in law, that it was a coincidence or that it was a continuation of a pre-existing trend. But you can't argue that gun violence went up after the change in law, because it went down.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/files/bulletins_australia_spring_2011.pdf

that has higher murder rates also have stricter gun laws. US jurisdictions like USVI and Puerto Rico can't blame their higher than Mexico murder rates on some neighboring state. That includes Russia where gun violence is almost nonexistent.
All of these developed countries with lower murder rates, also have higher suicide rates than we do. Russia has both.
I never said it increased crime, I just said both sides are full of shit on that point, that is why I included snopes. Learn to read the whole thing in context and not cherry pick. One more thing, while Czech Republic does have national shall issue licensing, that license is also a national CCW and their murder rate is........

At least mine were not propaganda mills.

And more LOL regarding "mine are not propaganda mills". You're claiming that gunsandcrime.org ("This site is for people who care enough about violence, life, death, liberty and slavery to put in the effort to get the facts about guns" = ) is not a propaganda mill? I hope you're joking.

If not, the fact that you can't tell the difference between reputable researchers from the Harvard School of Public Health, with an extensive publication record in scientific journals, versus and some junk website put up by an apparently anonymous gun militant, doesn't mean there isn't one.

You see, it's things like these that are why there are so few progressives or scientifically minded people who buy into the gun ideology. It takes a certain kind of willing cluelessness to try and draw conclusions from a US/Mexico crime rate comparison, or to reject research from Harvard/JHopkins/UPenn/etc. as "propaganda" in favor of "gunsandcrime.org".

On edit: as if you haven't said enough false things, here's one more.

between real science and propaganda pretending to be science, you seem unable to. Notice Paid for by the Joyce Foundation. Hememway is hardly a reputable researcher. He is a hack that depends on Joyce money to publish his crap. Seriously, a press release from these clowns? I draw no conclusions about Mexico, only that your conclusions are nonsense.

All gunsandcrime did was reprint other's work. Show examples of him being a gun militant or dishonest. He reprinted different studies and even that very reputable criminologist (oh wait, he is head of the criminology dept of a lowly state university and does not take money from Joyce, so I guess he must be a hack.) If you think I am being sarcastic and pointing out your faux intellectualism, you are right.

Germany and UK the exceptions gee wizz. You whine about two exceptions.

Don't give me that scientifically minded people shit. Most scientifically minded people know academic prostitutes when they see them. The fact that you can't is not my problem.
Progressives more reality based on gun issues? Bullshit. Progressives are just as prone to mindless groupthink as anyone else. Most of the gun stuff on progressive sites are so poorly written and dishonest, it is shameful. That includes being against Bush's bogus list before being for it.

You're really outdoing yourself tonight gej. By now readers will be accustomed to a lot of false statements by pro-gunners, but you are certainly raising the bar.

Oh that's right, you don't do substance, just patronizing nonsense. They reprinted other's work

OK, many

When I see him do an honest study without grants with strings, I'll buy it. I really don't give a shit where he works. You say the same about Kleck without being able to show any flaws, but expect me to find them for you. More of your substance free patronizing and appeal to authority.

Has nothing to do with centrism, simply facing reality of how ideologies work. Anti gun militancy is a perfect example, string together various logical fallacies and emotional nonsense and pretend it is reasonable. Bush's list has no real terrorist suspects/let's add those random names to NICS and pretend there is. That is not dishonest? There are no bigots on the left? Bullshit. The only difference between the crooks and liars and freerepublec is who the "other" is. I'll have to post some of the screen shots. I have noticed both sides are awash in anti Mormon bigotry lately. It is a Technicolor world, deal with it.

You want to go say that in GD...I dare you.

to some farmer in Montana that his guns are the reason people in New Orleans can't stop killing each other over market share.
Isn't it rather pompous to think we or anyone else is immune?

Your description of the farmer in Montana isn't quite accurate. It's not his guns, it's the poorly regulated gun trade and irresponsible owners that contribute to urban gun violence.

Isn't it rather pompous to consistently misrepresent your opponents position?

which kind of makes up most of the GOP. I don't see any of those people of those people running as actual conservatives other than Mitty. It is a continuum. That is why I ask you to clarify between left and right wing libertarians. I did not say that progressives or liberals are not nor do I think I said they were equal, simply that they are not immune to group think. There are faux liberals (and faux conservatives) who are more dependent on the image of being without really internalizing and living the values. That is where you find the same bigotry, different other. How is bashing Hicks, Mormons, etc any better than bashing gays, or whoever else?

That isn't your position? OK, maybe not yours personally but many on your side do put it that way. Don't forget irresponsible police departments, they get ripped off too. Although there is Park County cops (forgot the state) and NYPD that actually sold sub machine guns on the black market. I am old enough to remember when gangs did not have guns other than homemade zip guns. They made do with knives and tire chains. Was it gun laws? no. Price of guns drop? no, adjusting for inflation they are about the same. There was not much money in stealing hubcaps and petty rackets. Then the WoD came along, and the profits. That is why I say the typical bong owner (unless you grow your own or get certified violence free.) and coke/meth head is more contributes more to gang violence (regardless of weapon) than all of the gun owners combined.

It advocates an ideology that concludes the common interest must be behind the individual interest. I've never bought this who'll continuum notion. I see a binary. I see right and wrong.



Being against excessive and irresponsible gun ownership is not bigotry.

I think you're over-thinking this...

right wing libertarianism is not really anarchy, it is feudalism, the company town, warlords that are defacto governments. An example of left wing libertarianism is most indigenous societies. It is also known as libertarian socialism.
Noam Chomsky is thought to be a left wing libertarian.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-libertarianism

Everyone is against irresponsible gun, dog, etc ownership. The bigotry part is the dog whistle in some of your cartoons. Most of them depict rural or working class people in a very negative light. Those people pick up on that and the Republicans play the self loathing elitists.
What you define as excessive, I define as so what.

I'm against both - I really don't think they're that different in the end.

My cartoons are primarily from mid-size newspapers. If they make that depiction, that's your impression, but it's really not against rural or working class people. It's against gun nuts, who do in fact, trend toward middle aged white males. It's just the demographic truth. What I post is published newspaper and magazine material...don't like it, take it up with the editorial cartoonists, but they have not taken some vow to not offend anyone's senses. In fact, that's their job.

of course LCAV can't name one case of a gun law reducing crime. They have a hard time explaining current federal laws as well. The whole paragraqh is a copy and paste from HCI propaganda in the 1970s.

on guns than urban/rural.

For example, on a generic pro-gun/pro-control question:

PARTY ID
Republican 70 26 4 926
Democrat 30 67 3 1116
Independent 46 50 4 1328

URBANICITY
Urban 38 57 4 984
Suburban 46 50 4 1734
Rural 63 33 4 682

http://pewresearch.org/assets/pdf/gun-control-2011.pdf

explains what current federal (and their local laws are) to the respondents and ask them if "do we need stricter laws"
Most Americans don't have the slightest clue.

That may be a valid question to most people, but it seems like a false choice to me. Both are important.

The imperfections of the survey are the same for Dems, Reps, urbans, and rurals. But the Dem/Rep split is bigger, contradicting the idea that it's not really a left/right issue, more of an urban/rural thing.

If you want an efficient car, and a Toyota, get a Yaris. 3 years, 80,000 miles, 1 set of tires, 1 set of brake lining, 0 failures of any kind (okay a headlight bulb needed replaced, I do a lot of night driving) overall mileage: 42MPG. Now I know it isn't as big as a Prius and all that but it also doesn't suffer from the inherent inefficiency of two powerplants.

affordable.

How are they expected to control those terrible toddlers without some enforcement tools?

walk in, grab your kid, and walk out. Simple as that.

Oh, but that was my daddy you just shot! Oops!
Get real, you want shootouts in daycare centers? Who the hell is going to come in and grab a kid? I'll tell you who. Either a parent or a mentally disturbed person. And your solution is to shoot them. Holy shit.

easier and safer for mom or dad to keep the gun in the holster to pick up kid instead of leaving it in the car while getting Jr. Not kidnapping risk and you knew that.
"why someone needs to" does not show compelling state interest. Since toting adult would be in the center less than five minutes, your objections are silly.

Probably not a good word to use when visiting a daycare center, especially when armed. "I'm just here to grab that kid, and by the way, I'm armed!" Oh yeah! Nice one!

You never know when one of those little buzzards might threaten someone with a sippy-cup or something.

Oh, I see one a rational post above -- #4.

that the kids might need to be shot, when the folks doing the carrying think the kids might need to be protected?

Yes, I know they left off the sarcasm tags, but it is more fun to take them literally in this case.

Is that what you do in your spare time, that's how you get your warped ideas?

"Besides, I don't see many instances where some cowboy and his gun(s) would save kids at a center."

Of course you can show us all of those instances where the cops have saved kids at a center, right? Of course you are also going to show us where any court has said that cops have to "protect" the public, right?

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html
Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone

CCW people don't have the experience that LEOs have, because they don't practice as often.

If they do actually practice, they are just "wannabe" head cases that shouldn't have a gun under any circumstances.

See how simple he's made things for people?

Never practiced that draw? You can admit it. We've all done it at one time or another.

No I have never stood in front of a mirror with any of my guns, they are not toys to play with.

"Never practiced that draw?"

Nope, never have. My holster I use are not designed for quick draw. I have seen stories of people trying that and having a negligent discharge. Again, my guns are not toys.

"We've all done it at one time or another. "
Which is why I figured that's where hoyt gets his delusions/fantasies from.

Edit to add: I normally carry in a fanny pack since it is too hot 9 months of the year to wear enough clothes to conceal a handgun. You can't qwik draw from a fanny pack.

How are you gonna get the drop on someone if your pistol is all zipped up in your fanny pack. (You have no idea how funny that sounds to a British ear).
The thugs are not going to wait while you go through all that rigmarole. You need to get some lessons from Pave Pusher, my friend. Mirrors and video - that's what you need. Remember, a gunfight is like ballet. The movement needs to stay fluid and practicing in front of a mirror is essential.

And how many gunfights have you been in to know they are like a ballet? How many ballets have you been in for that matter.

My fanny pack is a rapid deploy pack designed just for carrying concealed carry. No practice in front of a mirror required.

"How are you gonna get the drop on someone if your pistol is all zipped up in your fanny pack."

No desire to get the quick draw and "get the drop on someone", that's for the fantasies of the anti-gun zealots.

&quot You have no idea how funny that sounds to a British ear). "

Ahhhh, so that's why you are so anti American rights.

What, you've played with your flare gun in front of a mirror?

LOL

It's integral to being well trained. I occasionally do it in a mirror, or video myself, so I can study my form and motions from an external vantage point. This is common in a myriad of occupations, especially any sports-related activity. It has nothing to do with this cowboy-fetish you and hoyt project/obsess on.

You seem to be mistaking Hollywood movies for reality.

Do you have any idea how ridiculous that sounds? Do you think an opponent or proponent of something is a zealot? Zealots are fanatics. Nobody here is a fanatic. We just have different views on human behavior in the context of a civilized society.

If you listen to one of our posters from the great white north, she will and has admitted on these pages that she is in fact an anti-gun zealot so there is nothing ridiculous about it. She has indeed admitted she is a fanatic.

I don't think there should be a limit on what anyone thinks is enough.

She is, by far, the sharpest pencil in the gungeon and takes no prisoners. I love watching her slice and dice the pro-gun zealots, or gun militants if you prefer. There are zealots of all stripes. Only some of them carry guns and some of those carry their guns in fanny packs

but the misogyny where it does not exist gets tiresome.

AAAAAAAhahahahahahahahaha

"She is, by far, the sharpest pencil in the gungeon"

Comic relief is more like it.

" and takes no prisoners."

Is that how you put it when you really means she alerts on a lot of posts?

"or gun militants if you prefer"

I think that's what she prefers

"Only some of them carry guns and some of those carry their guns in fanny packs "

That's all you've got? Found you've lost an arguement when someone proves you wrong so you think you have to make fun of them? Ahh the petty mind.

I'd say that qualifies.

be kind of silly to expose ourselves when we're around the most vulnerable in our society...kids and schools have been big targets for sicko's out there (not to mention custody disputes) doesn't it stand to reason it's one of the most important places to carry?