Some people. 99% of people will never shoot up a school. Having guns in the hands of extremely qualified and trained individuals is a good thing.
Another school shooting
- Thread starter Cubs79
- Start date
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott says he was 'misled' about the Uvalde shooting police response
Abbott says the information that he provided at a press conference two days ago was a recitation of what law enforcement had told him in a room beforehand.
www.npr.org
19 police offers were in the building starting minutes after the terrorist entered.
bUt wE nEEd mOrE pOliCe.
we do not.....what are you talking about? The republicans have been sitting on a gun control bill for 2 years.
NK.....that whole situation is just unimaginable. Is it like Mayberry out there or what? Geeze. And they were holding the parents back while the killer was still shooting. smfhTexas Gov. Greg Abbott says he was 'misled' about the Uvalde shooting police response
Abbott says the information that he provided at a press conference two days ago was a recitation of what law enforcement had told him in a room beforehand.
19 police offers were in the building starting minutes after the terrorist entered.
bUt wE nEEd mOrE pOliCe.
Just amazing how there are so many stupid Americans that think more guns are the answer. And, that doing nothing is the best thing. Even a 30% reduction in mass killings is better than doing nothing. Did you see the article in yahoo news on Switzerland.?...How their gun control in a gun loving society is working.
Annnnnnd it's official. Every one of these LEOs needs to be fired, no benefits, no pensions. Pieces of shit.
Can't reconcile them being in the hallway and hearing shots and not trying to breach the door. If the guy's not shooting, staging for Tac is understandable. But once he starts shooting again, it's all hands rush the shooter.
So, exploring the gun control angle, I think someone said to ban "assault weapons." If I may assume, I believe that you're talking about all semiautomatic long rifles. Is that accurate? Then, I believe you want Universal Background Checks, which means that my father has to do a background check on me before he can give me a firearm. Or I have to do a background check on my lifelong friend before giving her a gun to defend herself against her psychotic ex who she has a restraining order against but the police never quite show up in time.
What else do you think is a good law for more control of firearms?
What else do you think is a good law for more control of firearms?
I don't disagree. But we don't need to be selling assault rifles / weapons of war to any Joe Blow who wants one.
The government is involved if your father wants to gift you a motor vehicle or a house -- but hands off when it's a f*king GUN???!?
Now THAT is a compelling argument for allowing AR-15s if ever I heard one. Let me guess, she needs an AR-15 to protect herself from a "psychotic ex" with an AR-15!
The nonsense from our gun fetish crowd never ends.
Last edited:
It's no coincidence that a lot of the "Second Amendment" crowd live in rural America where they rarely, if ever, have to confront real gun violence.
This is what happens when the gun-toting, 'Tough Talkin'' Texas 'Good Ole Boys' are put in a position where they have to practice the bullshit they preach.
Every other civilized country on the planet looks at us like we are crazy knowing it’s the access to killing instruments that is the problem. Meanwhile Texas will probably react by installing remote controlled guns in elementary school classroom doors and make every kindergarten teacher carry a weapon.
I dont know why we keep listening to the people on this issue, whose policies clearly dont work. At some point it is on us as a society, to stop voting these failures into office over and over.
I grew up in a small town, and almost everyone I know who is super into guns, are quite honestly complete losers who have barely accomplished anything with their lives. There are some exceptions and obviously that is anecdotal but I kind of have a feeling that isnt uncommon. I do have a good friend who has an AR15 and a couple of other things, but he has told me if they banned them he wouldnt have any issue turning them over because they just sit in a safe anyway, and I am sure there are plenty of people like him out there too. But I have a feeling there are significantly more people who never accomplished much of anything who are gun nuts (for lack of a better word), then there are successful people. (at least in regards to people who dont use guns with their professions)
100% this
And it's because a bunch of inbred backward gun toting morons think Jesus would carry an AR-15.
I know many successful engineers who are avid hunters, participate in shooting sports, collect unique weapons, have them for home and self defense, or combinations of the above. All of whom are model citizens and successful by most measures. Most of them would turn their weapons over but some would resist. Even if it’s limited to the nuts, do you want to be the one that has to go to their property and force them to turn over their weapons? Or are we going to put that on police too?
So run for office. Propose some policies on this board. You’re long on complaints and short on solutions.
Bro, they aren't just pussies, they are also completely fukcing incompetent.
Last edited:
I am not talking about everyone who owns a gun, I am talking about people who think guns are a way of life almost.
No I dont want to be that person, but you even asking that illustrates the problem in this society, that we have way to many dangerous people with guns.
I have listed things on this board you just ignore it. And I have no desire to run for office, but the people who do run for office have a responsibility and a measure of accountability. If they dont want that, they shouldnt run for office in the first place.
You listed universal background checks and banning assault weapons. That still leaves a shit ton of firepower. So how are you going to curb that?
Nothing is going to be perfect, but even lessening it is better than nothing. We can basically either do the same things over and over and expect different results, or we can at least try to do things to make it better.
BTW, this idea that people are going to come and take your guns comes more from Republicans, not Democrats. The previous assault weapons ban (passed by Democrats) didnt have people going around confiscating guns, it just prevented the guns that fit the criteria from being sold any longer, so people like this guy wouldnt have just been able to walk in a store and purchase these weapons. If you quit selling them and do buy back programs and things of that nature, I think you could reduce how many are in society. Again, it obviously wouldnt be perfect.
In the decade that the assault weapon ban was around there was one mass shooting involving at least 10 people murdered and they made a movie about it. In the 17 years since it expired there have been more than a dozen such mass casualty events using weapons that up until 2004 were banned.
Ok. But the most devastating single shooter incidents (prior to Vegas) were the Luby’s restaurant massacre in Texas and the Virginia Tech shootings. Both used pistols. Simply taking some ARs off the streets isn’t going to do it. Ramos could’ve walked into that store, bought 2 Glock 19s and cheaper ammunition, and wreaked just as much havoc. The gun just wouldn’t look as scary.
There were a number of notable mass shooting during the ban as well.
You forgot pulse. The San Diego McDonald’s guy used an Uzi which was subsequently banned. But what’s the point? That not every event can be prevented so why do anything? People can kill with hand guns. But the vast majority of these mass casualty events use weapons that fell under the assault weapons ban.
What you are essentially arguing is that if we cant prevent every single shooting we shouldnt do anything. Nothing is going to be perfect, we all know that. Mark Cuban quotes Churchill (I think) on shark tank quite a bit, where says "perfection is the enemy of progress". Essentially meaning, that if we only do things if they are perfect, then we are sacrificing a lot of progress that would be improvements. Things are rarely perfect, but progress is possible without perfection. . There is no way to get rid of all gun crime, just like DUI laws doesnt mean that nobody ever drinks and drives, but it does at least make it better.
Also, if you have waiting periods he also wouldnt have been able to just walk in buy any weapons. Again, obviously not perfect but if he had to wait 30 days to actually obtain the weapons it is possible he could change his mind, or maybe in that extra time someone would be suspicious and notify somebody about the things he is sending them on FB or whatever.
Last edited:
The only mass shooting of significance during the ban was Columbine. It’s funny that you have to resort to the Virginia tech incident where they guy was killing people for like 5 hours on campus with a pistol as evidence that we shouldn’t worry about weapons that kill 20 people in 20 seconds.
Guys, a terrorist could kill someone with a piece of string, ergo we should not ban civilians from owning nuclear weapons*
*inbred idiot logic.
*inbred idiot logic.
On May 21, 2008, (before Columbine) an expelled high school student killed four and injured 25 others in a school schooling in Springfield, Oregon.
On March 29, 1998, 2 middle school students killed four students and a teacher and injured 11 others in Arkansas.
On December 1, 1997, a high school student in Kentucky opened fire on a group of students praying outside of school, killing 3 and injuring 5.
There were others as well. It’s a blatant lie to say that the only mass school shooting during the assault weapons ban was Columbine.
3 or 4 killed in a mass shooting would be barely a blip on the radar in this day and age.
I hear you on the 30 day waiting period. What about the abused woman who needs a gun for protection against her ex and is told that she has to wait 30 days?
Unfortunately true. But just because they weren’t as good at killing people and injured a bunch rather than killing them, does that really invalidate them as data points?
All we need to do is redesign every school in America to be a supermax prison style with armed guards, metal detectors, pill boxes with M2 50 cal belt feds. Students can be issued level III+ body armor with SAPI inserts if they need to travel outside the wire.
It doesn’t invalidate them as data points. In fact those data points make the point for me. If the goal is limiting how many people a lone gunman can kill in a short period of time, showing a time period where shootings killed 3 or 4 people (or at most 13 with 2 gunmen at Columbine) and contrasting with present day where we frequently see a lone gunman killing 10+ people in a matter of seconds is the entire point. That’s it.
Correlation does not imply causation. 25 people getting wounded by gunfire could’ve easily been 25 people killed but for luck and aim.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
🚨 Conference Realignment Mega Thread: Clemson sues the ACC 🚨- Latest: Knightwalker94
-
