The Flat Earth Society
Other Discussion Boards => Philosophy, Religion & Society => Topic started by: Lord Dave on February 15, 2018, 05:45:46 AM
-
Because we didn't notice the others that's happened this year.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/02/14/585835311/shooter-and-possible-injuries-reported-at-broward-county-fla-high-school
-
I was shocked when I read this was the sixth this year. School shootings are almost becoming a 'dog bites man' story.
-
I thought this was the 18th school shooting.
edit -
I'm half right.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/feb/14/school-shootings-in-america-2018-how-many-so-far
In all, guns have been fired on school property in the US at least 18 times so far this year, according to incidents tracked by Everytown for Gun Safety, a gun control group. In eight of these cases, a gun was fired on school property, but no one was injured. Another two incidents were gun suicides, claiming the lives of one student and one adult on school property.
-
Wow... what a douche-bag.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/jack-kingston-florida-survivors-hijacked_us_5a8c1f50e4b09fc01e037d29?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000618 (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/jack-kingston-florida-survivors-hijacked_us_5a8c1f50e4b09fc01e037d29?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000618)
Summary:
"Teenagers are being manipulated by the left to hate guns just because their school got shot up. Oh and they're too stupid to organize national rallies without help from grown ups." - Jack Kingston (paraphrasing)
"Fuck you." -Students (paraphrasing)
-
Holy shit, Trump is (maybe) bowing to pressure!
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-21/bump-stock-prices-soar-after-trump-proposes-ban
Watch the video. Even the NRA, on Fox News, agrees with addition regulations for bump stocks!
-
Holy shit, Trump is (maybe) bowing to pressure!
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-21/bump-stock-prices-soar-after-trump-proposes-ban
Watch the video. Even the NRA, on Fox News, agrees with addition regulations for bump stocks!
Banning bump stocks won't do anything. You can make your own from supplies from Home Depot.
-
Holy shit, Trump is (maybe) bowing to pressure!
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-21/bump-stock-prices-soar-after-trump-proposes-ban
Watch the video. Even the NRA, on Fox News, agrees with addition regulations for bump stocks!
Banning bump stocks won't do anything. You can make your own from supplies from Home Depot.
As long as it makes anti-gun advocates think they're actually accomplishing anything, I'm fine with them getting banned.
-
Holy shit, Trump is (maybe) bowing to pressure!
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-21/bump-stock-prices-soar-after-trump-proposes-ban
Watch the video. Even the NRA, on Fox News, agrees with addition regulations for bump stocks!
Banning bump stocks won't do anything. You can make your own from supplies from Home Depot.
As long as it makes anti-gun advocates think they're actually accomplishing anything, I'm fine with them getting banned.
The problem is they won't stop there. You and I have little use for bump stocks. However depending on the wording of the bill banning bump stocks, it can pratically ban all semi automatic firearms or at least ban lighter triggers and barrels.
-
The problem is they won't stop there. You and I have little use for bump stocks. However depending on the wording of the bill banning bump stocks, it can pratically ban all semi automatic firearms or at least ban lighter triggers and barrels.
I don't see the current Congress creating any document that bans any meaningful amount of firearms or firearm accessories.
-
Holy shit, Trump is (maybe) bowing to pressure!
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-21/bump-stock-prices-soar-after-trump-proposes-ban (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-21/bump-stock-prices-soar-after-trump-proposes-ban)
Watch the video. Even the NRA, on Fox News, agrees with addition regulations for bump stocks!
Banning bump stocks won't do anything. You can make your own from supplies from Home Depot.
I am aware.
Doesn't mean it isn't a step. I can only hope its used as a springboard to other bans.
-
Holy shit, Trump is (maybe) bowing to pressure!
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-21/bump-stock-prices-soar-after-trump-proposes-ban (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-21/bump-stock-prices-soar-after-trump-proposes-ban)
Watch the video. Even the NRA, on Fox News, agrees with addition regulations for bump stocks!
Banning bump stocks won't do anything. You can make your own from supplies from Home Depot.
I am aware.
Doesn't mean it isn't a step. I can only hope its used as a springboard to other bans.
And you just validated my concerns as to why I'm not in favor of the ban. If you succeed with this, you won't be happy until you're three miles down the road.
-
Holy shit, Trump is (maybe) bowing to pressure!
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-21/bump-stock-prices-soar-after-trump-proposes-ban (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-21/bump-stock-prices-soar-after-trump-proposes-ban)
Watch the video. Even the NRA, on Fox News, agrees with addition regulations for bump stocks!
Banning bump stocks won't do anything. You can make your own from supplies from Home Depot.
I am aware.
Doesn't mean it isn't a step. I can only hope its used as a springboard to other bans.
And you just validated my concerns as to why I'm not in favor of the ban. If you succeed with this, you won't be happy until you're three miles down the road.
I won't be happy until kids can go to school without having to worry they'll be shot at.
And if you feel your guns are more important than that, then you don't deserve a future.
-
I won't be happy until kids can go to school without having to worry they'll be shot at.
And if you feel your guns are more important than that, then you don't deserve a future.
That is a quality strawman.
-
I won't be happy until kids can go to school without having to worry they'll be shot at.
And if you feel your guns are more important than that, then you don't deserve a future.
That is a quality strawman.
Not really. I'm voicing my opinion.
I, personally, won't be happy.
And if it requires me going 3 miles down the road, then I'll go 3 miles down that god damn road.
If it requires banning all guns in America, then that'll make me happy.
It if requires putting an armed solider at every school building, fine.
If it requires $900 Billion of mental health professionals and aid to the American people, fine.
But I'm tired of people like this bitching about how guns don't kill people, people do, then bitching when we restrict people from buying guns, then nothing actually gets done. No one bothers to fix the problem, just mourn, fight a little in congress, then go "oh well, let's move on to how horrible immigrants are."
-
Dave, you don't even live in America. You live in a country where getting guns isn't even that difficult, in fact, per capita your country has the 8th highest gun ownership on the planet. Why are you so worried about gun rights in a country you don't live in?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country
Look, Norway has 1/3 the amount of guns per capita that America has. Does that mean Norway has 1/3 the amount of mass shootings? No? Really makes you wonder.
-
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/02/22/587832544/threats-against-schools-increase-since-florida-shooting (https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/02/22/587832544/threats-against-schools-increase-since-florida-shooting)
Well shit.
Hey look, the number of mass shootings NOT happening and how many already had the guns.
God, it's like getting the gun is the easiest part. Maybe we should make that more difficult...
Dave, you don't even live in America. You live in a country where getting guns isn't even that difficult, in fact, per capita your country has the 8th highest gun ownership on the planet. Why are you so worried about gun rights in a country you don't live in?
...
It's not easy to get a gun here. You can get a hunting rifle or shotgun easier than a handgun but you can't just say "I want a gun" you need a REASON to get a gun. And "I need to protect my home from criminals" isn't good enough. "I wanna hunt moose" usually is though. But then you're limited to hunting rifles.
And yeah, I'd believe that. Hunting is big here and so is sports shooting. And with a whopping 5 million people, it's really not hard to have a high amount of gun ownership. (though 8th really doesn't mean much given how many countries either outlaw gun ownership or have a population too poor to afford them.)
But again, they're super regulated. Cops can actually go to your house and inspect your gun safe at any time. Warrant not needed. So you know...
And hey, you're right. 1/3 less guns but way less mass shootings. Maybe it has something to do with population? The whole "most guns are outlawed"? The mental health system everyone has free access to?
Just a thought.
And I care because
1) I AM American. I lived there for 32 god damn years.
2) I do have friends and family there.
-
I think America should do it in baby steps. Eat away at gun laws.
Example.
1) How is it in America you can't buy a beer until you are 21, but you can buy a semi-automatic machine gun? That makes no sense. I'd up the age of gun ownership to 21. This would make it way harder for kids to shoot other kids. You can't be expelled from a college and go buy a gun. You aren't old enough.
2) I would make it an offense to carry a gun that isn't registered to you. You can't fire it, you can't hold it for a buddy, you can't look after it. The only person allowed to hold your gun is you.
3) You have to have your gun license on you, if you have the gun on you. Not carrying the license whilst armed should be an offense.
4) You have to obey drink drive style gun laws. If you are packing, you can be breathalyzed. If you are over the drink drive limit, you're over the gun carrying limit. The sentencing should be similar.
5) Ammo and guns must be stored in separate locked storage containers.
6) Designated smoking area style laws. You can't carry a gun into a school, into a hospital, into a restaurant, a convenience store, a bank or a bar. Anywhere where there are either vulnerable people, cash registers or they serve alcohol. If private businesses want to ban guns on their premises, its their private property and they are at liberty to do so and to search you before entry. You can take your business elsewhere if you object.
7) You can't operate heavy machinery when using certain drugs. That extends to carrying guns under the same influences. If you are too cognitively impaired to work a machine without hurting yourself, you're too impaired to make calls on when to pull out your gun.
Maybe some of these things are already laws, but I'd just keep turning the screw. Make it harder to get guns, more inconvenient to own them and pain to carry them around. If you really are a decent citizen and shoot targets on your own land or hunt and never bother anyone, I don't see an issue with that, but you wouldn't fall foul of any of the suggestions I put forward. You'd already be doing these things as they are responsible actions.
-
While gun laws vary by state, of your 8 list...
I think 7 of them are already laws in most places. I think #1 is the only one not a law in most (if any) states.
-
Great. I put forward 7 proposals. We voted through one of them, we just made America safer.
Now make another 7 and do it again. Just keep eating away at it.
-
Honestly, reinstating the whole "ban if you have a mental illness" would help a lot. Like "If you take medication because you have a mental illness like depression or anxiety, you shouldn't have a gun".
The next would be "No one with a gun ban can have access or possible access to a privately owned gun".
Like most mass shooters get their guns either by buying them legally or from a friend/family member.
-
Honestly, reinstating the whole "ban if you have a mental illness" would help a lot. Like "If you take medication because you have a mental illness like depression or anxiety, you shouldn't have a gun".
The next would be "No one with a gun ban can have access or possible access to a privately owned gun".
Like most mass shooters get their guns either by buying them legally or from a friend/family member.
If your gun is securely locked and the ammo is locked separately, the only way they can get your gun is if you lend it to them. And if you lend your gun to someone else who subsequently shoots up a school, you should do 5 years for aiding and abetting a criminal.
So lets add that, vote it in congress, surely it is very common sense and will get through ... onto the next constraint.
-
Honestly, reinstating the whole "ban if you have a mental illness" would help a lot. Like "If you take medication because you have a mental illness like depression or anxiety, you shouldn't have a gun".
The next would be "No one with a gun ban can have access or possible access to a privately owned gun".
Like most mass shooters get their guns either by buying them legally or from a friend/family member.
If your gun is securely locked and the ammo is locked separately, the only way they can get your gun is if you lend it to them. And if you lend your gun to someone else who subsequently shoots up a school, you should do 5 years for aiding and abetting a criminal.
So lets add that, vote it in congress, surely it is very common sense and will get through ... onto the next constraint.
Or they make a copy of the key without you knowing.
Or they watch you spin in the combination to the lock.
The recent florida shooter? Made a copy of the gun safe key.
-
I've been on this website for many years. And every major shooting gets a thread. And nothing changes. Not the frequency of the threads, the numbers of dead or the suggestions made.
It is never going to end.
-
It's not easy to get a gun here. You can get a hunting rifle or shotgun easier than a handgun but you can't just say "I want a gun" you need a REASON to get a gun. And "I need to protect my home from criminals" isn't good enough. "I wanna hunt moose" usually is though. But then you're limited to hunting rifles.
Ah, yes, the classic "you need a reason to exercise this right"
But again, they're super regulated. Cops can actually go to your house and inspect your gun safe at any time. Warrant not needed. So you know...
Oh dear, so you're telling me in addition to the second amendment, you'd like to see the fourth gone as well? What other rights bother you, Dave?
And hey, you're right. 1/3 less guns but way less mass shootings. Maybe it has something to do with population? The whole "most guns are outlawed"? The mental health system everyone has free access to?
Just a thought.
Maybe it's because the amount of guns doesn't actually correlate to the amount of gun crime.
And I care because
1) I AM American. I lived there for 32 god damn years.
You don't anymore, so it hardly matters what you think.
2) I do have friends and family there.
I hope they're not as morally disconcerting as you are.
I've been on this website for many years. And every major shooting gets a thread. And nothing changes. Not the frequency of the threads, the numbers of dead or the suggestions made.
It is never going to end.
That's because suggesting the banning of a right in order to prevent a crime is a fundamentally flawed argument. Imagine if a response to a rape epidemic was to castrate all men. No man really needs a penis, we can just start reproducing through artificial insemination. I'm sure rape rates will drop drastically as soon as we implement my game-changing law.
-
I suppose it depends on what you call a right.
Why do you have the 'right' to walk around with a lethal weapon? Why do you have the right to heighten the danger to your fellow citizens? Carrying a gun isn't a human right. It doesn't exist in international law. Castrating people does break the Geneva convention. The right to not be tortured or mutilated is also in there. Rights can be revoked. Which is just as well or wealthy land owners could still exercise their right to your fiancee's virginity in England. The Feudal system sucked.
If less people are killed by gun crime, is that not a right worth giving up? Sure, it means you can't shoot tyres in your backyard. Find another hobby. You needing to feel powerful shouldn't cost other people their lives. Go to the gym, put the gun away and stop being a pussy. You don't need a gun to feel like a man. Hiding behind 'its my right' doesn't make any sense. The right to bear arms was to help you form a militia if your government got out of hand. Well your government is out of hand, but you wouldn't win against it. The right is defunct. It doesn't fulfill its original purpose. It only enables school shootings and niggas holding up their local 7-Eleven.
-
It's not easy to get a gun here. You can get a hunting rifle or shotgun easier than a handgun but you can't just say "I want a gun" you need a REASON to get a gun. And "I need to protect my home from criminals" isn't good enough. "I wanna hunt moose" usually is though. But then you're limited to hunting rifles.
Ah, yes, the classic "you need a reason to exercise this right"
But again, they're super regulated. Cops can actually go to your house and inspect your gun safe at any time. Warrant not needed. So you know...
Oh dear, so you're telling me in addition to the second amendment, you'd like to see the fourth gone as well? What other rights bother you, Dave?
And hey, you're right. 1/3 less guns but way less mass shootings. Maybe it has something to do with population? The whole "most guns are outlawed"? The mental health system everyone has free access to?
Just a thought.
Maybe it's because the amount of guns doesn't actually correlate to the amount of gun crime.
And I care because
1) I AM American. I lived there for 32 god damn years.
You don't anymore, so it hardly matters what you think.
2) I do have friends and family there.
I hope they're not as morally disconcerting as you are.
I've been on this website for many years. And every major shooting gets a thread. And nothing changes. Not the frequency of the threads, the numbers of dead or the suggestions made.
It is never going to end.
That's because suggesting the banning of a right in order to prevent a crime is a fundamentally flawed argument. Imagine if a response to a rape epidemic was to castrate all men. No man really needs a penis, we can just start reproducing through artificial insemination. I'm sure rape rates will drop drastically as soon as we implement my game-changing law.
Wow...
Ok, first, at what point did I say "America should have the same laws as Norway"? Because I never suggested that. The right to bear arms is not written in the Norwegian constitution so it doesn't apply.
Second, I KNOW the amount of guns don't correlate to gun violence. Geeze. It's the access to guns by mentally unstable or economically oppressed that causes gun violence. If a sane, well adjusted person wants 100,000 guns, hey, why not?
-
If a sane, well adjusted person wants 100,000 guns, hey, why not?
Because keeping track of 100,000 death machines is difficult and if the sane, well adjusted person has their absurd armoury robbed then that's 100,000 more guns on the streets of potentially less sane, well adjusted people.
-
If a sane, well adjusted person wants 100,000 guns, hey, why not?
Because keeping track of 100,000 death machines is difficult and if the sane, well adjusted person has their absurd armoury robbed then that's 100,000 more guns on the streets of potentially less sane, well adjusted people.
Yeah, then he has to live with the guilt of knowing his guns are in the hands of bad guys.
-
I do wonder how one could be considered to be sane and well-adjusted whilst owning 100,000 guns...
Surely a sane, well-adjusted person needs only the guns that they require. Let's say that they're an enthusiastic hunter and range shooter who lives in an area beset by home invasions and muggings, he'll need a couple of rifles or shotguns for hunting his prey (Preferably locked away without ammo) and a range of guns which can be safely stored at the range. Say a handgun for personal defence and a shotgun for home defence.
Does anyone realistically need any more weapons than that? If you're hoarding guns in your house I'd question just how well-adjusted you are anyway.
-
I do wonder how one could be considered to be sane and well-adjusted whilst owning 100,000 guns...
Surely a sane, well-adjusted person needs only the guns that they require. Let's say that they're an enthusiastic hunter and range shooter who lives in an area beset by home invasions and muggings, he'll need a couple of rifles or shotguns for hunting his prey (Preferably locked away without ammo) and a range of guns which can be safely stored at the range. Say a handgun for personal defence and a shotgun for home defence.
Does anyone realistically need any more weapons than that? If you're hoarding guns in your house I'd question just how well-adjusted you are anyway.
1. Collector.
2. Historian
3. Gunsmith.
4. Home business (of selling guns)
5. Stockpile for the militia.
Also, just learned that of the 200 constitutions in the world, only America has unrestricted gun rights in it. Mexico and Guatemala are the only other two that have the right to bear arms with restrictions. Every other nation on Earth doesn't have that as a basic right of the people.
So... food for thought.
-
1) Collector - Surely a collector would have them deactivated - otherwise I go back to my previous point that someone who collects hundreds of active guns is someone I would doubt the sanity of.
2) Historian - Possibly. Though I'd hope that most would be deactivated unless they take part in displays of the weapons, in which case, surely they should be stored in the museum or institution, rather than some guy's house?
3) Gunsmith - Most of those gun will be parts, I would imagine?
4) Home business - Are you really allowed to sell guns as a home business in the USA? Your country is very strange.
5) Militia - He isn't really gathering hundreds of guns for himself then. Still, surely a Militia wouldn't normally just be based out of someone's house?
-
1) Collector - Surely a collector would have them deactivated - otherwise I go back to my previous point that someone who collects hundreds of active guns is someone I would doubt the sanity of.
Why?
Not like it'll fire without a human or ammo. Just keep it unloaded and it's fine.
2) Historian - Possibly. Though I'd hope that most would be deactivated unless they take part in displays of the weapons, in which case, surely they should be stored in the museum or institution, rather than some guy's house?
You might as well as "why do people keep old baseball cards? Why not put them in a museum?"
3) Gunsmith - Most of those gun will be parts, I would imagine?
Maybe. Or he is going to use them for spare parts.
4) Home business - Are you really allowed to sell guns as a home business in the USA? Your country is very strange.
Not a clue. But probably in some states.
5) Militia - He isn't really gathering hundreds of guns for himself then. Still, surely a Militia wouldn't normally just be based out of someone's house?
Yeah it would. Cause otherwise it's not a militia, it's the national guard or the army.
-
1) Fair enough, but given the legislative power, I'd require them all to be registered, reasonably secured and subject to periodic checks.
2) Old baseball cards don't typically have the ability to kill scores of people in minutes.
3) Like point 1. I think that they should be heavily monitored if you're storing hundreds of guns in your house/ business
4) As I said, your country is very strange.
5) I assumed the 'well regulated' part of the 2nd would mean that it has to have some sort of registered headquarters, keep the weapons secured and registered, etc. The idea that Bob from down the street can just decide to start an armed militia in his garage is baffling and terrifying to me.
-
1) Fair enough, but given the legislative power, I'd require them all to be registered, reasonably secured and subject to periodic checks.
2) Old baseball cards don't typically have the ability to kill scores of people in minutes.
3) Like point 1. I think that they should be heavily monitored if you're storing hundreds of guns in your house/ business
4) As I said, your country is very strange.
5) I assumed the 'well regulated' part of the 2nd would mean that it has to have some sort of registered headquarters, keep the weapons secured and registered, etc. The idea that Bob from down the street can just decide to start an armed militia in his garage is baffling and terrifying to me.
https://republicofflorida.wordpress.com/
There's a militia.
Here's a less scary one.
http://www.iiisecurityforce.com/home.html
No idea where they're based but I'd wager someone's ranch or home.
-
The use of the word “regulated” at the time meant equipped or outfitted.
-
the second amendment should be repealed and replaced
-
the second amendment should be repealed and replaced
This is where the argument needs to go if people actually want change.
Arguing over the existing 2A doesn't get anywhere. Maybe that is the point.
-
I guess the other question is if it is at all likely for 2A to be changed/repealed in the current political climate. It's a two-thirds majority in both houses, isn't it? Perhaps the reason people are focusing on circumventing it is that they think they're marginally more likely to be successful?
-
I guess the other question is if it is at all likely for 2A to be changed/repealed in the current political climate. It's a two-thirds majority in both houses, isn't it? Perhaps the reason people are focusing on circumventing it is that they think they're marginally more likely to be successful?
Yeah, I don't see it being changed even if the Democrats controlled both houses of congress 100%.
-
tbh i wouldn't actually want any amendment to be negotiated by these political parties. i don't think either side would do it in good faith.
-
Has anyone suggested banning bullets?
Like the sale of bullets, not the manufacture or possession? So you can make your own bullets for your guns, but not buy them at the gun shop or online?
Seems like it'll be an easy way to "Let them keep their guns" while making killers work way harder to actually use said gun.
-
Has anyone suggested banning bullets?
Like the sale of bullets, not the manufacture or possession? So you can make your own bullets for your guns, but not buy them at the gun shop or online?
Seems like it'll be an easy way to "Let them keep their guns" while making killers work way harder to actually use said gun.
Or just create an ammunition black market. But if you want citizens buying from Mexican cartels, this would be a great way to implement it.
-
Has anyone suggested banning bullets?
Like the sale of bullets, not the manufacture or possession? So you can make your own bullets for your guns, but not buy them at the gun shop or online?
Seems like it'll be an easy way to "Let them keep their guns" while making killers work way harder to actually use said gun.
Or just create an ammunition black market. But if you want citizens buying from Mexican cartels, this would be a great way to implement it.
Sure. But smuggling bullets is way harder than drugs.
1. They're metal.
2. They're not something you can divide and hide in a book or your stomach.
3. They're heavy and trugging them through the desert is not fun for the cost it would give you. I mean, who would pay $500 per bullet?
-
???
1. So what?
2. I could certainly hide them in a boat, train or car though.
3. I'd just line the chassis of my car with them. good luck metal detecting that. Why am I walking through the dessert? Did you ban vehicles as well?
As for $500 a bullet, where did you get this? They already get the no-tax discount advantage, by being contraband. Now all I need is a corrupt arms dealer and some organised criminals. Making ammo is quite easy. Making guns, much harder.
There is only one way to stop gun crime in America. You have to get rid of #2A. If you don't do that, forget anything else.
-
???
1. So what?
Metal detectors, X-rays, etc...
2. I could certainly hide them in a boat, train or car though.
Sure. I mean, it's not like boats, cars, and trains between the two countries aren't searched for drugs, which are much easier to conceal and require a far smaller amount to be profitable. I mean, how much money would you need to make just to pay for the cost of shipping? How many bullets would you need to sell?
3. I'd just line the chassis of my car with them. good luck metal detecting that. Why am I walking through the dessert? Did you ban vehicles as well?
Sure, you could. Drug runners probably do it all the time. But how many bullets could it hold? 2, 3 thousand? Current price of an AR-15 bullet is about $0.41/bullet. So you could, potentially, get like 2 grand for the lot. (inflated prices and what-not) How much of a profit is that? Would it even be worth it?
As for $500 a bullet, where did you get this? They already get the no-tax discount advantage, by being contraband. Now all I need is a corrupt arms dealer and some organised criminals. Making ammo is quite easy. Making guns, much harder.
Oh I just pulled a random number based on the cost of illegal drugs. Not sure what the price would be but you'd have to make a good profit for it to be worth it.
As for vehicles... have you ever SEEN our southern border? Most of it is a desert filled with impassable terrain, monitored by helicopters. It's not easy and alot of illegals are forced to make the journey on foot. And die.
I mean, you could make it a few times but eventually you'll get caught. And vehicles are way easier to track in the desert than people.
There is only one way to stop gun crime in America. You have to get rid of #2A. If you don't do that, forget anything else.
-
surely a Militia wouldn't normally just be based out of someone's house?
I know of several that are.
-
Why are we not also discussing better security at schools as in depth as the gun issue? I feel like that also would be a change more people can get behind.
-
surely a Militia wouldn't normally just be based out of someone's house?
I know of several that are.
Of course you do...
-
Why are we not also discussing better security at schools as in depth as the gun issue? I feel like that also would be a change more people can get behind.
Because money.
The NRA doesn't want people who have guns already to defend the kids because then they wouldn't get kick backs from the massive gun orders if teachers got armed.
Also, there was a cop at parkland. He didn't go in.
-
Why are we not also discussing better security at schools as in depth as the gun issue? I feel like that also would be a change more people can get behind.
Because money.
The NRA doesn't want people who have guns already to defend the kids because then they wouldn't get kick backs from the massive gun orders if teachers got armed.
Also, there was a cop at parkland. He didn't go in.
What are you talking about? The NRA only does what is best for Americans. Lots and lots of guns!
-
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/03/05/591036676/florida-senate-approves-gun-control-package-oks-arming-some-school-personnel
Holy Shit!
Actual compromise based gun bill!
Those teens just won Florida.
-
I think America should do it in baby steps. Eat away at gun laws.
Example.
1) How is it in America you can't buy a beer until you are 21, but you can buy a semi-automatic machine gun? That makes no sense. I'd up the age of gun ownership to 21. This would make it way harder for kids to shoot other kids. You can't be expelled from a college and go buy a gun. You aren't old enough.
Seems like Florida liked that idea.
-
Holy shit, Trump is (maybe) bowing to pressure!
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-21/bump-stock-prices-soar-after-trump-proposes-ban (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-21/bump-stock-prices-soar-after-trump-proposes-ban)
Watch the video. Even the NRA, on Fox News, agrees with addition regulations for bump stocks!
Banning bump stocks won't do anything. You can make your own from supplies from Home Depot.
I am aware.
Doesn't mean it isn't a step. I can only hope its used as a springboard to other bans.
And you just validated my concerns as to why I'm not in favor of the ban. If you succeed with this, you won't be happy until you're three miles down the road.
I won't be happy until kids can go to school without having to worry they'll be shot at.
And if you feel your guns are more important than that, then you don't deserve a future.
I too want kids to go to school without worried about being shot. And I also value kids more tgan guns. However neither of those attributes means I'm going to support everything that you propose. Because I don't want kids shot is why I advocate for allowing staff to be trained and armed if they want. Because I value kids over firearms is the reason why I to abolish gun free zones especially gun free zones with no way of enforcing it like metal detectors.
-
I do wonder how one could be considered to be sane and well-adjusted whilst owning 100,000 guns...
Surely a sane, well-adjusted person needs only the guns that they require. Let's say that they're an enthusiastic hunter and range shooter who lives in an area beset by home invasions and muggings, he'll need a couple of rifles or shotguns for hunting his prey (Preferably locked away without ammo) and a range of guns which can be safely stored at the range. Say a handgun for personal defence and a shotgun for home defence.
Does anyone realistically need any more weapons than that? If you're hoarding guns in your house I'd question just how well-adjusted you are anyway.
What if he just likes collecting them and the vast majority of his 100,000 guns are between 80-200 years old? If you want to talk about need then really you don't need a parking lot full of cars either. We can all get by with a Prius or if you have a family a station wagon.
-
Has anyone suggested banning bullets?
Ha ha ha ha :D
That's a famous Chris Rock routine.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VZrFVtmRXrw
-
Holy shit, Trump is (maybe) bowing to pressure!
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-21/bump-stock-prices-soar-after-trump-proposes-ban (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-21/bump-stock-prices-soar-after-trump-proposes-ban)
Watch the video. Even the NRA, on Fox News, agrees with addition regulations for bump stocks!
Banning bump stocks won't do anything. You can make your own from supplies from Home Depot.
I am aware.
Doesn't mean it isn't a step. I can only hope its used as a springboard to other bans.
And you just validated my concerns as to why I'm not in favor of the ban. If you succeed with this, you won't be happy until you're three miles down the road.
I won't be happy until kids can go to school without having to worry they'll be shot at.
And if you feel your guns are more important than that, then you don't deserve a future.
I too want kids to go to school without worried about being shot. And I also value kids more tgan guns. However neither of those attributes means I'm going to support everything that you propose. Because I don't want kids shot is why I advocate for allowing staff to be trained and armed if they want. Because I value kids over firearms is the reason why I to abolish gun free zones especially gun free zones with no way of enforcing it like metal detectors.
But even if every teacher got a gun, was certified, and was the best damn shot in the world, it wouldn't stop a mass shooting from starting. Kids WILL die because someone is gonna be first and only AFTER the first shot is fired and the first person killed will the alarm (hopefully) get sounded.
I mean, hell, if you know the teachers are armed, aim for them first then go for the kids.
Or do it when the halls are crowded so the helpful teachers can't shoot back.
I worked at a school district whose high school had about 1,200 students. Every 45 mintues classes changed. Every ring of that bell had 1,200 students walking through crowded halls. And with an AR, ya don't even need to aim.
The best solution is to stop it before it starts, not after.
I mean, Florida just signed a bill into law that did it. The funny thing is, is that the teacher needs a huge amount of certification, drug tests, psych eval, etc... to do it. But if I'm just some guy, I don't need all that to get a gun. Kinda odd, isn't it? That a normal person, who is likely to want to kill students, don't need to be checked, but the "good guy with a gun" teacher at the school does.
-
Holy shit, Trump is (maybe) bowing to pressure!
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-21/bump-stock-prices-soar-after-trump-proposes-ban (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-21/bump-stock-prices-soar-after-trump-proposes-ban)
Watch the video. Even the NRA, on Fox News, agrees with addition regulations for bump stocks!
Banning bump stocks won't do anything. You can make your own from supplies from Home Depot.
I am aware.
Doesn't mean it isn't a step. I can only hope its used as a springboard to other bans.
And you just validated my concerns as to why I'm not in favor of the ban. If you succeed with this, you won't be happy until you're three miles down the road.
I won't be happy until kids can go to school without having to worry they'll be shot at.
And if you feel your guns are more important than that, then you don't deserve a future.
I too want kids to go to school without worried about being shot. And I also value kids more tgan guns. However neither of those attributes means I'm going to support everything that you propose. Because I don't want kids shot is why I advocate for allowing staff to be trained and armed if they want. Because I value kids over firearms is the reason why I to abolish gun free zones especially gun free zones with no way of enforcing it like metal detectors.
But even if every teacher got a gun, was certified, and was the best damn shot in the world, it wouldn't stop a mass shooting from starting. Kids WILL die because someone is gonna be first and only AFTER the first shot is fired and the first person killed will the alarm (hopefully) get sounded.
I mean, hell, if you know the teachers are armed, aim for them first then go for the kids.
Or do it when the halls are crowded so the helpful teachers can't shoot back.
I worked at a school district whose high school had about 1,200 students. Every 45 mintues classes changed. Every ring of that bell had 1,200 students walking through crowded halls. And with an AR, ya don't even need to aim.
The best solution is to stop it before it starts, not after.
I mean, Florida just signed a bill into law that did it. The funny thing is, is that the teacher needs a huge amount of certification, drug tests, psych eval, etc... to do it. But if I'm just some guy, I don't need all that to get a gun. Kinda odd, isn't it? That a normal person, who is likely to want to kill students, don't need to be checked, but the "good guy with a gun" teacher at the school does.
My thoughts exactly. Wouldn't less bullets typically result in less casualties?
-
Apparently, even God himself is trying to show people how stupid this idea is:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/03/14/teacher-accidentally-discharges-firearm-in-calif-classroom-he-was-trained-in-gun-use/?utm_term=.6480ec92c6af
Basically, a well trained teacher was doing a gun safety course in class and the gun went off into the ceiling.
-
Holy shit, Trump is (maybe) bowing to pressure!
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-21/bump-stock-prices-soar-after-trump-proposes-ban (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-21/bump-stock-prices-soar-after-trump-proposes-ban)
Watch the video. Even the NRA, on Fox News, agrees with addition regulations for bump stocks!
Banning bump stocks won't do anything. You can make your own from supplies from Home Depot.
I am aware.
Doesn't mean it isn't a step. I can only hope its used as a springboard to other bans.
And you just validated my concerns as to why I'm not in favor of the ban. If you succeed with this, you won't be happy until you're three miles down the road.
I won't be happy until kids can go to school without having to worry they'll be shot at.
And if you feel your guns are more important than that, then you don't deserve a future.
I too want kids to go to school without worried about being shot. And I also value kids more tgan guns. However neither of those attributes means I'm going to support everything that you propose. Because I don't want kids shot is why I advocate for allowing staff to be trained and armed if they want. Because I value kids over firearms is the reason why I to abolish gun free zones especially gun free zones with no way of enforcing it like metal detectors.
But even if every teacher got a gun, was certified, and was the best damn shot in the world, it wouldn't stop a mass shooting from starting. Kids WILL die because someone is gonna be first and only AFTER the first shot is fired and the first person killed will the alarm (hopefully) get sounded.
it's still far better than having 17 dead.
I mean, hell, if you know the teachers are armed, aim for them first then go for the kids.
That only works if you know which teachers are armed and there's only one of them. if only ten teachers are armed then the other 9 will have a heads up and plan accordingly. These shooters aren't Navy SEAL operators.
Or do it when the halls are crowded so the helpful teachers can't shoot back.
People will either duck, run back into the classrooms, or run away from the shooter. If the teacher hold in place and wait for the crowd to pass then he can engage him.
I worked at a school district whose high school had about 1,200 students. Every 45 mintues classes changed. Every ring of that bell had 1,200 students walking through crowded halls. And with an AR, ya don't even need to aim.
The best solution is to stop it before it starts, not after.
I agree that we need to stop it before it starts.
I mean, Florida just signed a bill into law that did it. The funny thing is, is that the teacher needs a huge amount of certification, drug tests, psych eval, etc... to do it. But if I'm just some guy, I don't need all that to get a gun. Kinda odd, isn't it? That a normal person, who is likely to want to kill students, don't need to be checked, but the "good guy with a gun" teacher at the school does.
Raising the age won't stop either this shooting or others. For one the average age of mass shooters is 34. Second, One of the Columbine shooters wasn't even old enough to vote.
-
Apparently, even God himself is trying to show people how stupid this idea is:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/03/14/teacher-accidentally-discharges-firearm-in-calif-classroom-he-was-trained-in-gun-use/?utm_term=.6480ec92c6af
Basically, a well trained teacher was doing a gun safety course in class and the gun went off into the ceiling.
I kinda find the story rather suspect. But going with the story, that is one example and certainly doesn't represent the majority. In fact, CCW holders are more law abiding than police officers.
-
it's still far better than having 17 dead.
Yes. But so is 0.
That only works if you know which teachers are armed and there's only one of them. if only ten teachers are armed then the other 9 will have a heads up and plan accordingly. These shooters aren't Navy SEAL operators.
And teachers aren't cops.
And we all know cops shoot unarmed people more often than the should. Do you really think a teacher with no real world experience in shooting people is going to do better? And how do 10 teachers coordinate and plan? What, do all 10 leave their classes and students helpless while they go hunting for anyone in the halls who has a gun? Also, will you force 10 teachers to have guns per school or just volunteer?
People will either duck, run back into the classrooms, or run away from the shooter. If the teacher hold in place and wait for the crowd to pass then he can engage him.
... Yes. The teacher can hide until no one is left to shoot except the shooter, THEN jump out in the open and open fire. You know that maryland shooting? The cop and the shooter shot at each other simultaniously. And that's a trained officer vs a kid with a pistol. Imagine a trained (on a shooting range) teacher with a pistol vs a kid with an AR. I'll take the AR anyday.
Raising the age won't stop either this shooting or others. For one the average age of mass shooters is 34. Second, One of the Columbine shooters wasn't even old enough to vote.
It may stop some. Very few, I admit, but some. There is no "This law will fix everything". We need many changes, many different things to chip away at all the various root causes because there are a LOT of them. And eventually, mass shootings may be a rare event again.
-
it's still far better than having 17 dead.
Yes. But so is 0.
Which you aren't going to get with a sign that says "no guns."
That only works if you know which teachers are armed and there's only one of them. if only ten teachers are armed then the other 9 will have a heads up and plan accordingly. These shooters aren't Navy SEAL operators.
And teachers aren't cops.
They don't need to be.
And we all know cops shoot unarmed people more often than the should.
I beg to differ. Most "shooting unarmed people" incidents are justified. But leaving that aside, there really isn't much question when you hear multiple shots being fired whether or not you should shoot.
Do you really think a teacher with no real world experience in shooting people is going to do better?
Most cops go through their entire careers without ever shooting someone yet you want only them to respond in an active shooter incident?
And how do 10 teachers coordinate and plan? What, do all 10 leave their classes and students helpless while they go hunting for anyone in the halls who has a gun? Also, will you force 10 teachers to have guns per school or just volunteer?
Clearing tactics and moving as a group isn't really that hard to learn. If suppose the shooter shoots one of the armed teachers, then the other teachers who are armed will be alerted and hold in place that gives him the best ambush angle. Also I don't want to force anyone to carry. If they want to then they should be able. If you already want to be armed then you already have the mindset of learning how to defend yourself and your students.
People will either duck, run back into the classrooms, or run away from the shooter. If the teacher hold in place and wait for the crowd to pass then he can engage him.
... Yes. The teacher can hide until no one is left to shoot except the shooter, THEN jump out in the open and open fire. You know that maryland shooting? The cop and the shooter shot at each other simultaniously. And that's a trained officer vs a kid with a pistol. Imagine a trained (on a shooting range) teacher with a pistol vs a kid with an AR. I'll take the AR anyday.
Again, it's far better than what happened in Parkland. And there are active shooter courses for civilians available.
Raising the age won't stop either this shooting or others. For one the average age of mass shooters is 34. Second, One of the Columbine shooters wasn't even old enough to vote.
It may stop some. Very few, I admit, but some. There is no "This law will fix everything". We need many changes, many different things to chip away at all the various root causes because there are a LOT of them. And eventually, mass shootings may be a rare event again.
They actually are already. We have lesd mass shootings now than what we had 20 years ago.
-
Which you aren't going to get with a sign that says "no guns."
Why would a sign be saying "no guns" be the only anti-gun measurement?
And we all know cops shoot unarmed people more often than the should.
I beg to differ. Most "shooting unarmed people" incidents are justified. But leaving that aside, there really isn't much question when you hear multiple shots being fired whether or not you should shoot.
[citation needed]
-
Which you aren't going to get with a sign that says "no guns."
You're right, you aren't. Just like a sign that says "no parking" doesn't mean you won't get people parking there. But the sign isn't there to stop everyone, the sign is there to tell you "it's not allowed and if we find out, you will be punished."
They don't need to be.
Yeah... they kinda do. Police protect civillians from those who break the law. They don't even punish law breakers, they just stop them. The judges and courts punish them. So when you say "Teacher, your job is to stop students from breaking the law but only when it comes to murder" well... it's still "stop law breakers" thus, cops.
And on top of grading papers, learning the new curriculum (if your state changed shit) and managing 30+ students.... you have to run into an active shooting situation and hope you hit the right person who is likely gonna fire back.
I beg to differ. Most "shooting unarmed people" incidents are justified. But leaving that aside, there really isn't much question when you hear multiple shots being fired whether or not you should shoot.
Right.
Like when cops shot an 11 year old who had a toy.
Or the most recent, cops shot a man who had a cell phone in his hand. (shot him like 20 times) then stood around for 10-20 min. demanding he show his hands cause they couldn't see it over the tall grass and were too chicken shit to walk up to him.
Most cops go through their entire careers without ever shooting someone yet you want only them to respond in an active shooter incident?
I'll take a guy who literally signed up for the job to shoot others if needed over a guy who signed up to teach math. Different mindset. The math teacher didn't go into teaching because he wants to save people, stop criminals, and do a dangerous job. He went in to help students learn, and become better. Or because they like summer break. Whatever the reason, I can assure you: The reasons to become a teacher are not the same as the reasons to become a police officer.
Clearing tactics and moving as a group isn't really that hard to learn. If suppose the shooter shoots one of the armed teachers, then the other teachers who are armed will be alerted and hold in place that gives him the best ambush angle. Also I don't want to force anyone to carry. If they want to then they should be able. If you already want to be armed then you already have the mindset of learning how to defend yourself and your students.
1. "group" tactics and moving requires coordination. Mr. Stammens is in room 201 but Mr. Gaze is in the gym, on the other side of the building. How the hell are they going to coordinate? And who in their right god damn mind is gonna leave their students in a room alone?
2. If you don't force, you can't guarentee "group" tactics.
3. What's the difference between a teacher with a gun, looking for the shooter and a shooter with a gun? Nothing. Absolultely nothing. And if you think shooting an unarmed guy because he might have been holding a gun is justifiable, imagine what shooting an armed teacher with his gun out is gonna look like.
Again, it's far better than what happened in Parkland. And there are active shooter courses for civilians available.
Yes. Or we can just station an officer in each school. Done. No need for teachers, who TEACH, to go on a hunt for an active shooter. The parkland guy never went in. He was either afraid or got the wrong info. And he KNEW he might have to get shot at one day. He had the training. Why would a teacher be better than a police officer?
They actually are already. We have lesd mass shootings now than what we had 20 years ago.
>_>
20 years ago was 1998.
Hold on, let me pull up the mass shootings in 1998.
(via wikipedia)
1998 - 4 (total)
2018 - 3 (so far)
1999 - 6
2017 - 18
Feel free to show me some other data because you reeally need to back up your claim.
-
Which you aren't going to get with a sign that says "no guns."
Why would a sign be saying "no guns" be the only anti-gun measurement?
No.
And we all know cops shoot unarmed people more often than the should.
I beg to differ. Most "shooting unarmed people" incidents are justified. But leaving that aside, there really isn't much question when you hear multiple shots being fired whether or not you should shoot.
[citation needed]
What do you need?
-
By the time the criminal is punished for bringing a gun into a gun free zone, he already committed the crime he intended to do as shown in the recent shooting.
-
@Luke you broke your quotes in your last post. Not sure what should read.
-
Yeah... Learn to quote.
-
@Luke you broke your quotes in your last post. Not sure what should read.
Not sure what I did there. It's the very bottom portion.
-
Yeah... Learn to quote.
Actually you messed up your response toward me. I thought the rest of your post was directed to someone else and skipped to the end which I messed up.
-
Yeah... Learn to quote.
Actually you messed up your response toward me. I thought the rest of your post was directed to someone else and skipped to the end which I messed up.
You're right, my appologies.
I'm not sure why it fucked up. Spent a good 15 min trying to fix it. Seems like the quote tag is case sensitive now...
-
Yeah... Learn to quote.
Actually you messed up your response toward me. I thought the rest of your post was directed to someone else and skipped to the end which I messed up.
You're right, my appologies.
I'm not sure why it fucked up. Spent a good 15 min trying to fix it. Seems like the quote tag is case sensitive now...
No worries.
-
a semi-automatic machine gun
(http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/173/576/Wat8.jpg?1315930535)
-
Meh. We don't have the same fascination with guns over here.
I don't know the difference between the 58 genders on Tumblr either, but I'm not losing any sleep over it.
-
Meh. We don't have the same fascination with guns over here.
I know Europeans have a big fascination with alcohol. It has even less use than guns, but kills more people. Maybe we should ban it.
-
Meh. We don't have the same fascination with guns over here.
I know Europeans have a big fascination with alcohol. It has even less use than guns, but kills more people. Maybe we should ban it.
Do they?
Also, alcohol is a steralization agent used in a lot of things like hand soap. Also used in food.
Sooo... More uses than guns. :P
All jokes aside, cigarettes kill more than both of those. We should ban them too.
-
Also, alcohol is a steralization agent used in a lot of things like hand soap. Also used in food.
Sooo... More uses than guns. :P
It kills over twice as many people every year over guns. Alcohol will only be used for sterilization. All other uses will be banned.
cigarettes kill more than both of those. We should ban them too.
Yes. We'll ban those too.
-
Also, alcohol is a steralization agent used in a lot of things like hand soap. Also used in food.
Sooo... More uses than guns. :P
It kills over twice as many people every year over guns. Alcohol will only be used for sterilization. All other uses will be banned.
cigarettes kill more than both of those. We should ban them too.
Yes. We'll ban those too.
With alcohol the most likely victim will be the user of the alcohol. Not always, but more than drunk driving. With guns, the victim more likely be someone that the gun user inflicted themselves on.
Moderate doses of alcohol have been shown to have beneficial health effects. Moderate doses of gun fire don’t kill you as much.
-
With guns, the victim more likely be someone that the gun user inflicted themselves on.
Incorrect. In the US, most gun deaths are from suicide.
-
With guns, the victim more likely be someone that the gun user inflicted themselves on.
Incorrect. In the US, most gun deaths are from suicide.
Hey, fair enough!
-
Also, alcohol is a steralization agent used in a lot of things like hand soap. Also used in food.
Sooo... More uses than guns. :P
It kills over twice as many people every year over guns. Alcohol will only be used for sterilization. All other uses will be banned.
Yes, I see that. Excessive drinking kills via long term health issues.
Know what also kills from excessive use? Everything.
Pure oxygen over long periods of time is bad.
Too much water will drown you (either vis lungs or via blood thinning)
Food. Hell, fatty or greasy foods do it faster.
IKEA book shelves will eventually crush you if you get too many.
Stupid? Yes. But that's humans: instant gratification over long term risks.
By contrast to the above: one bullet is considered excessive use for a human body and will almost always lead to death without treatment.
cigarettes kill more than both of those. We should ban them too.
Yes. We'll ban those too.
I'm good with that.
-
Which you aren't going to get with a sign that says "no guns."
You're right, you aren't. Just like a sign that says "no parking" doesn't mean you won't get people parking there. But the sign isn't there to stop everyone, the sign is there to tell you "it's not allowed and if we find out, you will be punished."
What good does that do when someone commits a mass shooting?
They don't need to be.
Yeah... they kinda do. Police protect civillians from those who break the law. They don't even punish law breakers, they just stop them. The judges and courts punish them. So when you say "Teacher, your job is to stop students from breaking the law but only when it comes to murder" well... it's still "stop law breakers" thus, cops.
And on top of grading papers, learning the new curriculum (if your state changed shit) and managing 30+ students.... you have to run into an active shooting situation and hope you hit the right person who is likely gonna fire back.
Which if the teacher is willing and passionate about defending himself and his class, wouldn't be that much of a load.
I beg to differ. Most "shooting unarmed people" incidents are justified. But leaving that aside, there really isn't much question when you hear multiple shots being fired whether or not you should shoot.
Right.
Like when cops shot an 11 year old who had a toy.
If you're talking about Tamir Rice, for one his airgun was indistinguishable from a real gun and he was pointing it at people. For another, As the officers approached Rice, Rice made a quick draw motion.
Or the most recent, cops shot a man who had a cell phone in his hand. (shot him like 20 times) then stood around for 10-20 min. demanding he show his hands cause they couldn't see it over the tall grass and were too chicken shit to walk up to him.
The guy pointed the phone as if it was a firearm. As for why they didn't approach, you can still shoot while lying down.
Most cops go through their entire careers without ever shooting someone yet you want only them to respond in an active shooter incident?
I'll take a guy who literally signed up for the job to shoot others if needed over a guy who signed up to teach math. Different mindset.
Not really if the math teacher carries for most of his adult life.
The math teacher didn't go into teaching because he wants to save people, stop criminals, and do a dangerous job. He went in to help students learn, and become better. Or because they like summer break. Whatever the reason, I can assure you: The reasons to become a teacher are not the same as the reasons to become a police officer.
However some teachers possess the fortitude of a seasoned officer and I advocate those with the fortitude should be allowed to carry.
Clearing tactics and moving as a group isn't really that hard to learn. If suppose the shooter shoots one of the armed teachers, then the other teachers who are armed will be alerted and hold in place that gives him the best ambush angle. Also I don't want to force anyone to carry. If they want to then they should be able. If you already want to be armed then you already have the mindset of learning how to defend yourself and your students.
1. "group" tactics and moving requires coordination. Mr. Stammens is in room 201 but Mr. Gaze is in the gym, on the other side of the building. How the hell are they going to coordinate? And who in their right god damn mind is gonna leave their students in a room alone?
That's why they offer active shooter training for civilians.
2. If you don't force, you can't guarentee "group" tactics.
If not moving as a group, then barricading the room you're in.
3. What's the difference between a teacher with a gun, looking for the shooter and a shooter with a gun? Nothing. Absolultely nothing. And if you think shooting an unarmed guy because he might have been holding a gun is justifiable, imagine what shooting an armed teacher with his gun out is gonna look like.
Which again, this can be mitigated by training and having familiarity on who are the teachers who are armed.
Again, it's far better than what happened in Parkland. And there are active shooter courses for civilians available.
Yes. Or we can just station an officer in each school. Done. No need for teachers, who TEACH, to go on a hunt for an active shooter. The parkland guy never went in. He was either afraid or got the wrong info. And he KNEW he might have to get shot at one day. He had the training. Why would a teacher be better than a police officer?
The coach you sacrificed his life had a CCW but couldn't carry it and he was far better than any of the deputies that responded.
They actually are already. We have lesd mass shootings now than what we had 20 years ago.
>_>
20 years ago was 1998.
Hold on, let me pull up the mass shootings in 1998.
(via wikipedia)
1998 - 4 (total)
2018 - 3 (so far)
1999 - 6
2017 - 18
Feel free to show me some other data because you reeally need to back up your claim.
I believe I've answered this one.
-
You're right, you aren't. Just like a sign that says "no parking" doesn't mean you won't get people parking there. But the sign isn't there to stop everyone, the sign is there to tell you "it's not allowed and if we find out, you will be punished."
What good does that do when someone commits a mass shooting?
Probably the same as "Drug Free Zone." Imagine if teachers could bring pot or alcohol into school.
Let me put it another way. Without that sign, anyone can walk in with a gun strapped to their hip with no fear of being told they can't. Which means every single one of them could start opening fire at any time. But you can't stop them from entering. Nope. Gotta open that door for them. So instead of having at least a reason to stop someone from entering with a gun, you gotta wait until they start shooting before you call the cops. Like if I saw someone, carrying a gun, walk from the parking lot of my old school I'd be able to call the cops right away. Without that gun free sign, I'd have to wait until they start shooting. Also, it forces the shooter to conceal their gun before entering, which limits the guns they can carry.
Which if the teacher is willing and passionate about defending himself and his class, wouldn't be that much of a load.
A lot of teachers are willing and passionate about protecting their students. In fact, even in the parkland school shooting, the policies of "locking the door and hiding in a corner" worked super well. The people who get shot now are those in the hall ways. So what you're saying is we should give teachers guns so they can abandon their students and run off in the halls to find a shooter that could be another teacher or parent they know?
Right.
Like when cops shot an 11 year old who had a toy.
If you're talking about Tamir Rice, for one his airgun was indistinguishable from a real gun and he was pointing it at people. For another, As the officers approached Rice, Rice made a quick draw motion.
The guy pointed the phone as if it was a firearm. As for why they didn't approach, you can still shoot while lying down.
These kinda prove my point.
1. Shooting a kid is never a good option. I don't care if he does have a real gun with real bullets, you tackle him and hope you don't die when he fires.
2. Cops must be in a state of hyper vigilance at all times on the job. Each of these cases illustrate that no matter how much training you have, you're gotta shoot whoever you think can shoot you back. So every single CCW teacher is now a target and cops WILL shoot first. They're trained to. Shoot first, figure out if they were innocent later.
Not really if the math teacher carries for most of his adult life.
Still take the cop.
However some teachers possess the fortitude of a seasoned officer and I advocate those with the fortitude should be allowed to carry.
Again, fortitude is not the issue. I've no doubt many CCW teachers could handle a gun. My issue is that they shouldn't have to in a school, with an active shooter, while police are gonna come in. It adds more guns to a situation that's already chaotic.
That's why they offer active shooter training for civilians.
I've seen those.
Rubbish. The video simulator is better but even so, it's a bunch of stand up targets in a plywood covered area. It lacks the other students, police, a moving shooter, etc...
If not moving as a group, then barricading the room you're in.
Which is what they do now. And it's really effective. The parkland kids who died? Died cause they were not in the classroom (due to a fire alarm being pulled if I recall correctly).
Which again, this can be mitigated by training and having familiarity on who are the teachers who are armed.
Yeah... sure... >_>
1. A teacher could be the shooter.
2. A student could be the shooter.
3. A police officer is familiar with a phone yet as you just told me, a quick motion, pointing something towards them, etc... causes the officer to shoot. They have to decide to shoot or not in the span of a few hundred miliseconds. So no, even if they memorized the name and faces of every armed teacher in the school, they're still gonna shoot. It's how they're trained. "See what could be gun or person going for a gun - shoot." You figure out if they were gonna shoot at you after that. That's how it is if you want to live. It sucks. It's stupid. I think they should choose to die before killing but that's me.
The coach you sacrificed his life had a CCW but couldn't carry it and he was far better than any of the deputies that responded.
Yep. He was brave. Still doesn't stop my point though: Cops would have shot him.
I believe I've answered this one.
Can you point out where?
-
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/04/23/604879633/im-not-a-hero-says-james-shaw-jr-acclaimed-hero-of-waffle-house-attack
Once again, a good guy WITHOUT a gun, stopped a bad guy with a gun. Go figure, right?
-
A bad guy who wasn't allowed to access or own guns anyway. Go figure, right?
-
You're right, you aren't. Just like a sign that says "no parking" doesn't mean you won't get people parking there. But the sign isn't there to stop everyone, the sign is there to tell you "it's not allowed and if we find out, you will be punished."
What good does that do when someone commits a mass shooting?
Probably the same as "Drug Free Zone." Imagine if teachers could bring pot or alcohol into school.
Let me put it another way. Without that sign, anyone can walk in with a gun strapped to their hip with no fear of being told they can't. Which means every single one of them could start opening fire at any time. But you can't stop them from entering. Nope. Gotta open that door for them. So instead of having at least a reason to stop someone from entering with a gun, you gotta wait until they start shooting before you call the cops. Like if I saw someone, carrying a gun, walk from the parking lot of my old school I'd be able to call the cops right away. Without that gun free sign, I'd have to wait until they start shooting. Also, it forces the shooter to conceal their gun before entering, which limits the guns they can carry.
Most criminals don't open carry anywhere and rifles are easy to spot. If a criminal wants to carry conceal there's nothing stopping him.
Which if the teacher is willing and passionate about defending himself and his class, wouldn't be that much of a load.
A lot of teachers are willing and passionate about protecting their students. In fact, even in the parkland school shooting, the policies of "locking the door and hiding in a corner" worked super well. The people who get shot now are those in the hall ways. So what you're saying is we should give teachers guns so they can abandon their students and run off in the halls to find a shooter that could be another teacher or parent they know?
If not going to the threat then certainly barricading themselves and covering the door.
Right.
Like when cops shot an 11 year old who had a toy.
If you're talking about Tamir Rice, for one his airgun was indistinguishable from a real gun and he was pointing it at people. For another, As the officers approached Rice, Rice made a quick draw motion.
The guy pointed the phone as if it was a firearm. As for why they didn't approach, you can still shoot while lying down.
These kinda prove my point.
1. Shooting a kid is never a good option. I don't care if he does have a real gun with real bullets, you tackle him and hope you don't die when he fires.
That's simply unrealistic. A person with a gun pointing it at people is a lethal threat and should be treated as such.
[/quote]
2. Cops must be in a state of hyper vigilance at all times on the job. Each of these cases illustrate that no matter how much training you have, you're gotta shoot whoever you think can shoot you back. So every single CCW teacher is now a target and cops WILL shoot first. They're trained to. Shoot first, figure out if they were innocent later.[/quote]
If that be the case then how come there aren't many cases of off duty cops being shot while responding to an armed subject?
Not really if the math teacher carries for most of his adult life.
Still take the cop.
And that's fine. However If the school or department can't afford to assign a cop or if the cop was like the deputy at Parkland then allow staff to be armed as a last resort defense.
However some teachers possess the fortitude of a seasoned officer and I advocate those with the fortitude should be allowed to carry.
Again, fortitude is not the issue. I've no doubt many CCW teachers could handle a gun. My issue is that they shouldn't have to in a school, with an active shooter, while police are gonna come in. It adds more guns to a situation that's already chaotic.
If they want to, they should be allowed to.
That's why they offer active shooter training for civilians.
I've seen those.
Rubbish. The video simulator is better but even so, it's a bunch of stand up targets in a plywood covered area. It lacks the other students, police, a moving shooter, etc...
Hate to break it to you, but most police training dealing with active shooter is no better. When I went through the academy they had the simulator and then something akin to paintball as our training.
If not moving as a group, then barricading the room you're in.
Which is what they do now. And it's really effective. The parkland kids who died? Died cause they were not in the classroom (due to a fire alarm being pulled if I recall correctly).
Yet some died trying to prevent the shooter from entering some classrooms.
Which again, this can be mitigated by training and having familiarity on who are the teachers who are armed.
Yeah... sure... >_>
1. A teacher could be the shooter.
2. A student could be the shooter.
3. A police officer is familiar with a phone yet as you just told me, a quick motion, pointing something towards them, etc... causes the officer to shoot. They have to decide to shoot or not in the span of a few hundred miliseconds. So no, even if they memorized the name and faces of every armed teacher in the school, they're still gonna shoot. It's how they're trained. "See what could be gun or person going for a gun - shoot." You figure out if they were gonna shoot at you after that. That's how it is if you want to live. It sucks. It's stupid. I think they should choose to die before killing but that's me.
Which again, if that be the case then how come we don't hear of police shooting off duty cops responding to the threat?
The coach you sacrificed his life had a CCW but couldn't carry it and he was far better than any of the deputies that responded.
Yep. He was brave. Still doesn't stop my point though: Cops would have shot him.
Your evidence? By the time police responded, the threat would've already been taken care of.
I believe I've answered this one.
Can you point out where?
It was a post in response to you. I beleive it was in the last page.
-
Meanwhile in Canada, a perpetrator who had just finished running over 20 or so people was taken down without a shot being fired.
-
Meanwhile in the UK, a shopkeeper fought off 3 armed robbers with some chilli powder.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-43886058/shopkeeper-fights-off-armed-robbers-with-chilli-powder
-
Meanwhile in Canada, a perpetrator who had just finished running over 20 or so people was taken down without a shot being fired.
Impressive as the cop, puts his gun away and pulls his batton, in Luke-world he would have been dead, Americans seem to have forgotten the protect and serve mantra, in favour of look after number one.
-
Meanwhile in Canada, a perpetrator who had just finished running over 20 or so people was taken down without a shot being fired.
But one Good Guy With a Gun(tm) could have popped a cap right in his head, resulting in fewer casualties.
-
Meanwhile in Canada, a perpetrator who had just finished running over 20 or so people was taken down without a shot being fired.
Impressive as the cop, puts his gun away and pulls his batton, in Luke-world he would have been dead, Americans seem to have forgotten the protect and serve mantra, in favour of look after number one.
Now instead of getting the Instant Death Penalty he'll be stuck in a concrete room wasting tax payer dollars. Definitely the better outcome for everyone, haha. All thanks to "if you kill your enemies, they win" Trudeau.
-
"if you kill your enemies, they win" Trudeau.
Don't you dare insult Tredeau again.
-
Meanwhile in Canada, a perpetrator who had just finished running over 20 or so people was taken down without a shot being fired.
Impressive as the cop, puts his gun away and pulls his batton, in Luke-world he would have been dead, Americans seem to have forgotten the protect and serve mantra, in favour of look after number one.
Now instead of getting the Instant Death Penalty he'll be stuck in a concrete room wasting tax payer dollars. Definitely the better outcome for everyone, haha. All thanks to "if you kill your enemies, they win" Trudeau.
To be fair:
You suffer longer in prison. And America is all about suffering. So which is better for society? A quick, easy death for a criminal, or knowing he'll rot and suffer for decades, longing for death as he's raped over and over again by those bigger than him?
-
Meanwhile in Canada, a perpetrator who had just finished running over 20 or so people was taken down without a shot being fired.
Impressive as the cop, puts his gun away and pulls his batton, in Luke-world he would have been dead, Americans seem to have forgotten the protect and serve mantra, in favour of look after number one.
Now instead of getting the Instant Death Penalty he'll be stuck in a concrete room wasting tax payer dollars. Definitely the better outcome for everyone, haha. All thanks to "if you kill your enemies, they win" Trudeau.
Maybe he has mental health issues and needs help.
-
Meanwhile in Canada, a perpetrator who had just finished running over 20 or so people was taken down without a shot being fired.
Impressive as the cop, puts his gun away and pulls his batton, in Luke-world he would have been dead, Americans seem to have forgotten the protect and serve mantra, in favour of look after number one.
Now instead of getting the Instant Death Penalty he'll be stuck in a concrete room wasting tax payer dollars. Definitely the better outcome for everyone, haha. All thanks to "if you kill your enemies, they win" Trudeau.
To be fair:
You suffer longer in prison. And America is all about suffering. So which is better for society? A quick, easy death for a criminal, or knowing he'll rot and suffer for decades, longing for death as he's raped over and over again by those bigger than him?
Why do I care about someone suffering in what is essentially just a longer form of the death penalty? I've never understood the "we have to punish them" approach to crime. We just have to remove them from society, punishing them is meaningless. Banning them from the universe seems like a cheaper and easier punishment than having them waste away in some cell for years.
Maybe he has mental health issues and needs help.
His mental health issues are apparently a direct result of "tfw no gf" so unless you plan on issuing him a state-sponsored girlfriend I think he's better off in the ground where at least the amount of damage he can still do to anyone around him is zero.
-
Why do I care about someone suffering in what is essentially just a longer form of the death penalty? I've never understood the "we have to punish them" approach to crime. We just have to remove them from society, punishing them is meaningless. Banning them from the universe seems like a cheaper and easier punishment than having them waste away in some cell for years.
US Society seems to prefer suffereage over reform. They like the idea of people suffering, of hurting because they hurt someone else. It's not logical, it's vengeful.
[qote]
Maybe he has mental health issues and needs help.
His mental health issues are apparently a direct result of "tfw no gf" so unless you plan on issuing him a state-sponsored girlfriend I think he's better off in the ground where at least the amount of damage he can still do to anyone around him is zero.
Maybe. Or he had other issues. The "I've no GF so I'm angry as fuck" does happen but you also have "I'm angry as fuck and murder people cause I have a giant fucking tumor in my brain and no one noticed". or "I'm a violent asshole cause I've been hit in the head so many times that my brain is missing large pieces from it."
-
Meanwhile in Canada, a perpetrator who had just finished running over 20 or so people was taken down without a shot being fired.
Impressive as the cop, puts his gun away and pulls his batton, in Luke-world he would have been dead, Americans seem to have forgotten the protect and serve mantra, in favour of look after number one.
Now instead of getting the Instant Death Penalty he'll be stuck in a concrete room wasting tax payer dollars. Definitely the better outcome for everyone, haha. All thanks to "if you kill your enemies, they win" Trudeau.
Maybe he has mental health issues and needs help.
You should forfeit your right to everything but a clean death if you kill 20 people on purpose.
-
Including soldiers?
-
Including soldiers?
No. Your country is ordering you to kill. It would be pretty fucked up if it then charged you as a criminal for that order.
-
Including soldiers?
No. Your country is ordering you to kill. It would be pretty fucked up if it then charged you as a criminal for that order.
What about cops?
Cops kill people intentionally.
-
Including soldiers?
No. Your country is ordering you to kill. It would be pretty fucked up if it then charged you as a criminal for that order.
What about cops?
Cops kill people intentionally.
Yeah, sometimes it’s necessary. I’m talking about people who kill without justification or orders.
-
Including soldiers?
No. Your country is ordering you to kill. It would be pretty fucked up if it then charged you as a criminal for that order.
What about cops?
Cops kill people intentionally.
Yeah, sometimes it’s necessary. I’m talking about people who kill without justification or orders.
Sooo...
A person who comitts first or second degree murder.
What if they're literally crazy. Like holes in their brain, hearing voices, etc... crazy? Like "I can't tell reality from non-reality"
-
Including soldiers?
No. Your country is ordering you to kill. It would be pretty fucked up if it then charged you as a criminal for that order.
I understand that if you have conscription but if you’re signing up to do ittyen you are complicit in the choice. It’s not just orders.
-
Including soldiers?
No. Your country is ordering you to kill. It would be pretty fucked up if it then charged you as a criminal for that order.
What about cops?
Cops kill people intentionally.
Nope. Police are trained to shoot to stop the threat. the fastest and easiest way to do that is to shoot center mass.
-
Including soldiers?
No. Your country is ordering you to kill. It would be pretty fucked up if it then charged you as a criminal for that order.
What about cops?
Cops kill people intentionally.
Nope. Police are trained to shoot to stop the threat. the fastest and easiest way to do that is to shoot center mass.
Yes.
Are you saying they don't intentionally point their gun at a person and fire? Cause I'm 100% sure they don't accidentally shoot people. They totally aim center mass to stop the threat, yes. Center mass also happens to have vital organs.
So it's pretty intentional.
-
Including soldiers?
No. Your country is ordering you to kill. It would be pretty fucked up if it then charged you as a criminal for that order.
What about cops?
Cops kill people intentionally.
Nope. Police are trained to shoot to stop the threat. the fastest and easiest way to do that is to shoot center mass.
Yes.
Are you saying they don't intentionally point their gun at a person and fire? Cause I'm 100% sure they don't accidentally shoot people. They totally aim center mass to stop the threat, yes. Center mass also happens to have vital organs.
So it's pretty intentional.
I'm not arguing whether they intend to shoot. That's a given. My contention is the idea that they are trained to shoot to kill. which is not true. They shoot to stop the threat. If he lives, so be it. If he dies, so be it. the threat was stopped and that all the cop is trained and cares about.
-
Including soldiers?
No. Your country is ordering you to kill. It would be pretty fucked up if it then charged you as a criminal for that order.
What about cops?
Cops kill people intentionally.
Nope. Police are trained to shoot to stop the threat. the fastest and easiest way to do that is to shoot center mass.
Yes.
Are you saying they don't intentionally point their gun at a person and fire? Cause I'm 100% sure they don't accidentally shoot people. They totally aim center mass to stop the threat, yes. Center mass also happens to have vital organs.
So it's pretty intentional.
I'm not arguing whether they intend to shoot. That's a given. My contention is the idea that they are trained to shoot to kill. which is not true. They shoot to stop the threat. If he lives, so be it. If he dies, so be it. the threat was stopped and that all the cop is trained and cares about.
You are now talking about some theoretically ideal cop. Some cops behave like you say and I am glad to ahve those, and then some put 6 more rounds in to someone who is on the ground. Sometimes, it may be necessary, sometimes not, but that is trying to subdue someone, they are trying to kill them. Even the cop who is putting a round in to center mass knows that there is a significant non-zero chance that person will die too.
Also, how many trials where a person has shot another person does not carry an attempted murder charge? I don't know the answer and think it would be instructive to know.
-
Attempted murder involves intent, Rama Set. If you shoot someone, and you didn't intend to kill them, then that's assault with a deadly weapon, not attempted murder. An attempted murder charge can be very difficult to prove in court versus assault because one only requires the act be proven, and the other requires both the act and intent be proven.
-
Holy shit, Trump is (maybe) bowing to pressure!
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-21/bump-stock-prices-soar-after-trump-proposes-ban (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-21/bump-stock-prices-soar-after-trump-proposes-ban)
Watch the video. Even the NRA, on Fox News, agrees with addition regulations for bump stocks!
Banning bump stocks won't do anything. You can make your own from supplies from Home Depot.
I am aware.
Doesn't mean it isn't a step. I can only hope its used as a springboard to other bans.
And you just validated my concerns as to why I'm not in favor of the ban. If you succeed with this, you won't be happy until you're three miles down the road.
I won't be happy until kids can go to school without having to worry they'll be shot at.
And if you feel your guns are more important than that, then you don't deserve a future.
Why do you think that banning guns is the only solution to stopping school shootings? Better school security and allowing teachers to arm themselves May be just as effective.
-
Why do you think that banning guns is the only solution to stopping school shootings? Better school security and allowing teachers to arm themselves May be just as effective.
It's not the only solution, but I feel it's the best(of many that need doing) solution at this time.
The cons of armed teachers, in my opinion, outweigh the Pros.
Pro - Teachers can shoot other shooters on sight.
Pro - Lower cost than hiring someone to protect the school.
Pro - Teachers feel safer.
Cons - Teachers become a primary target both for active shooters AND for law enforcement. (As said law enforcement may not know if a teacher is the active shooter)
Cons - Teachers may try to go at it alone and leave their students alone.
Cons - There's a gun in the classroom or hallway that could be stolen at any given time.
-
Cons - Teachers become a primary target both for active shooters AND for law enforcement. (As said law enforcement may not know if a teacher is the active shooter)
What exactly stopped a teacher from being the shooter anyway? Mass shootings aren't an out-of-the-blue phenomenon, they're planned events. A teacher could just as easily bring a gun to school right now as it is.
Cons - Teachers may try to go at it alone and leave their students alone.
I'm sure they're better off with an equally scared, unarmed adult!
Cons - There's a gun in the classroom or hallway that could be stolen at any given time.
This assumes that the teacher isn't carrying the weapon at all times. Having each classroom store the weapon somewhere easily accessible but not actually on a person would be very dumb.
-
Cons - Teachers become a primary target both for active shooters AND for law enforcement. (As said law enforcement may not know if a teacher is the active shooter)
What exactly stopped a teacher from being the shooter anyway? Mass shootings aren't an out-of-the-blue phenomenon, they're planned events. A teacher could just as easily bring a gun to school right now as it is.
That's kinda my point. When the police arrive, they're gonna shoot anyone holding a gun because that teacher could be the shooter. Better safe than sorry.
Cons - Teachers may try to go at it alone and leave their students alone.
I'm sure they're better off with an equally scared, unarmed adult!
They are. Authority figures help keep people calm in a crisis. Especially depending on the age of the students. You think a group of 8 year olds would be better served being locked in a classroom alone?
And that's to say nothing of what happens if a shooter kills a teacher leaving his classroom. A nice, open door. A set of keys to open more doors.
A locked door has proven very effective against mass shooters.
Cons - There's a gun in the classroom or hallway that could be stolen at any given time.
This assumes that the teacher isn't carrying the weapon at all times. Having each classroom store the weapon somewhere easily accessible but not actually on a person would be very dumb.
Actually I was assuming it was on their person at all times. Ever seen a fight between high schoolers? Some of those are brutal and unless you're a tough person, breaking it up is not easy. All you need are two decently strong students and you can take anything off a teacher.