Massacre at Elementary School

Lp, My lady thought the same. I of course think It was just a random attack brought on by many different things. But when gun control was brought up I started to see how and why one would think the way you do about this.
 
^^ This. The fact that gun control is being brought up so much is because people will take advantage of any horrible situation to further their political platform, AMES. It doesn't mean they created the horrible situation.
 
Tarkatan Trash said:
To be fair, though, if you don't like the Second Amendment and want it repealed, don't get mad at the NRA, get mad at the Founding Fathers. They were the ones who wrote it and ratified it, not the NRA. As a matter of fact, if you don't like gun rights, then get out of the United States. Gun rights are as American as baseball and apple pie.
Click to expand...

I never said I didn't like Gun rights.

did you ignore that part of my post?


I was just explaining your fear of guns being taken away, is highly not gonna happen.

NRA defends you harder than the constitution does. Just saying.


Money speaks louder than words these days. And NRA wants to defend it's money so they're involvement is more powerful atm than some people protesting to not take away their guns.
 
Drugs killing people isn't the same as murder.


Drugs is self inflicted
Murder is not.


I get your point though...

It's the same as americans spending millions/billions on terrorism. you're 4x more likely to die to lightning than get killed by a terrorist. So where's the millions of dollars in lightning rods?





No one ever uses the best argument I have for guns.

like i said in a earlier post:

There is no way to collect data on how often a gun shooting would happen if more people packed heat.


like do you think 9/11 would happen if everyone on the plane was allowed to carry a gun? would that increase the chances of a crazy person having a gun on a plane?

yes.

But it also deters people who WOULD'VE done it, because they're thinking "Well everyone here has a gun. I won't last very long" So they avoid that area.


Why did that colorado shooter choose a Theatre? And not a military base?

Obvious reasons, because he knew guns weren't allowed in the theatre.
 
Tarkatan Trash said:
To get his name in public. Why else do we know the names of John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, Charles Manson, John Wayne Gacy, Ted Bundy, Mark David Chapman, Eric Harris, Dylan Klebold, and Nathan Gale?
Click to expand...

John Wilkes Booth and possibly Lee Harvey Oswald murdered for political reasons. The rest of the people named were individuals who clearly had more than a few screws loose, some who would have continued killing regardless of whether they would gain any infamy or not.
 
Critical-Limit said:
I never said I didn't like Gun rights.

did you ignore that part of my post?


I was just explaining your fear of guns being taken away, is highly not gonna happen.

NRA defends you harder than the constitution does. Just saying.


Money speaks louder than words these days. And NRA wants to defend it's money so they're involvement is more powerful atm than some people protesting to not take away their guns.
Click to expand...

Well, people can also protest against the loss of their gun rights by actually using their guns against whoever has the power to take them away. After all, that is how the American Revolution started.
 
Great, fvcking shooting turns into conspiracy talk.

Time to stop watching the news for a good long while
 
The problem with stricter gun laws is they will only ever be to the detriment of law-abiding citizens. It may not be in an official, quotable report, but I know and hear of regularly, either people I know personally, or their close acquaintances, who were saved life, limb, and property by having been armed. One of the more memorable ones recently was a friend's best bud who was going to a drive-through ATM. He got up there, a car with four African-American guys cut him off and started getting out of the car, with knives and other assortment. He had his Colt in the glovebox. Pulled it, didn't need to fire a single shot, the baddies went running scared of a person with the means to actually resist them. There is ZERO doubt those people were out not only to take his money, but to hurt him. This is just one example of someone in my own circle.

You take that right away or further restrict it with silly things like defining what is and isn't an 'assault weapon', and F.Y.I., a rifle patterned after a military rifle but is still a semi-automatic is not an assault rifle! An assault rifle is a fully-automatic, fire-selectable, short-or-medium barreled rifle designed for warfare or assault tactics (such as the Military & Police versions of weapons SWAT teams use). And no, before anyone asks, "AR-15" does NOT stand for 'Assault Rifle 15'. It stands for Armalite Rifle, Armalite, Inc, the company that originally developed, based off of the M16A1, the AR-15 civilian, semi-automatic rifle, which is now made under license by Colt. This is reportedly what the shooter used, and it was legally purchased by his mother, who lived near the woods and was a single parent. Her weapon was stolen by her son, and she was subsequently murdered with it. Every sing;e action in this chain of events was criminal, and had nothing to do with legal gun ownership.
 
Freyith said:
The problem with stricter gun laws is they will only ever be to the detriment of law-abiding citizens. It may not be in an official, quotable report, but I know and hear of regularly, either people I know personally, or their close acquaintances, who were saved life, limb, and property by having been armed. One of the more memorable ones recently was a friend's best bud who was going to a drive-through ATM. He got up there, a car with four African-American guys cut him off and started getting out of the car, with knives and other assortment. He had his Colt in the glovebox. Pulled it, didn't need to fire a single shot, the baddies went running scared of a person with the means to actually resist them. There is ZERO doubt those people were out not only to take his money, but to hurt him. This is just one example of someone in my own circle.

You take that right away or further restrict it with silly things like defining what is and isn't an 'assault weapon', and F.Y.I., a rifle patterned after a military rifle but is still a semi-automatic is not an assault rifle! An assault rifle is a fully-automatic, fire-selectable, short-or-medium barreled rifle designed for warfare or assault tactics (such as the Military & Police versions of weapons SWAT teams use). And no, before anyone asks, "AR-15" does NOT stand for 'Assault Rifle 15'. It stands for Armalite Rifle, Armalite, Inc, the company that originally developed, based off of the M16A1, the AR-15 civilian, semi-automatic rifle, which is now made under license by Colt. This is reportedly what the shooter used, and it was legally purchased by his mother, who lived near the woods and was a single parent. Her weapon was stolen by her son, and she was subsequently murdered with it. Every sing;e action in this chain of events was criminal, and had nothing to do with legal gun ownership.
Click to expand...

To add to that, even if you outlawed guns completely, people like this shooter are still going to find another weapon to use for this shit. Believe it or not, chemical weapons can be made with common household products. Case in point, there's a good reason why you DON'T mix ammonia and bleach; it makes chlorine gas...the same shit that was used as a weapon in WWI, and was supposedly used in concentration camps during Hitler's regime. Are you then going to ban ammonia and bleach from being sold in store shelves?
 
Just about any household product can be a weapon. However, their intended purpose is outside of harming individuals. You can stab someone with a pencil, but it's primary a writing instrument. A gun's only practical use is to kill or at least threaten someone with that possibility, not to mention its obvious advantages over most improvised weapons.
 
Jade said:
Banning guns will not prevent people from committing murder. They will just find other weapons to use. A gun is 'faster and easier', sure, but, it is not the only option. If you know how to use a weapon properly, ANY weapon can be fast, easy and very dangerous. Just like if someone knows how to use their hands and feet in a fight. They will be more dangerous than a person who doesn't know how to be quick and accurate.


Weapons don't kill people. You need someone with a problem to use those weapons maliciously.

The man who killed those kids yesterday suffered from multiple personality disorder.


I don't give a shit how 'innocent' your mental illness is. This guy could have been a real nice guy as Adam, but a real tool as Johnny. Just because people saw nice guy Adam most of the time doesn't mean he is okay. Anyone with a mental illness should be in some kind of institution.
Click to expand...

Jade said:
So tired of the LET'S BAN GUNS BECAUSE THEY KILL PEOPLE argument.

SO WHY DON'T WE BAN TOBACCO, WHICH KILLS MORE PEOPLE THAN GUNS?


Your argument is invalid, random person.
Click to expand...


Agreed 100%.
I'm also tired of this dumb-shit mentality that guns and violent vidya-games kill people.

On a side note:
If you raise your kids right, to begin with, teach them right from wrong and how to be a decent human being, then there would probably be less of these violent acts happening.
Whether you own a gun or not has NOTHING to do with it.
 
Still not convinced that gun control is not the solution? I offer this video...and you'd better pay close attention to it.



And this is the same country that banned MK9! If we don't fight to uphold whatever gun rights we do have, the same thing will happen to us! And to those who want to throw away our gun rights all in the name of "security", I offer the following quote!

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
~Benjamin Franklin, one of the Founding Fathers of the United States.
 
Of the one guy who stole a gun registered to a sane person who didn't abuse her weapons/use them maliciously, millions of law abiding gun owners didn't do what that guy did.

Put a gun in to a responsible person's hands and it wont be used to kill a bunch of 6 year olds in a school.


Put a gun in to the hands of a mentally ill individual, people are going to die.


Of the few massacres that happen in the US per year, there are still millions of people walking around with guns who don't go out and blow people away. Some incidents happen and people are quick to point the finger, as if it is the biggest issue ever.


If you check the stats pertaining to deaths in the US since January 1, 2012, guns ranks LAST on the list. Tobacco, alcohol, car accidents, drugs, and even doctor errors rates higher.
 
Violent crimes tend to go under-reported. One of my friends almost got killed a couple of times, including a drive-by shooting and a dispute that escalated with one guy pulling out his gun. Some people don't trust the police, and some cops in turn don't really give a damn about the people they are supposed to protect. The victims or witnesses may choose not to divulge out of fear of retaliation. I'm not suggesting that firearms should banned, but there are more people who are misusing them than what the statistics may suggest. If anything, owning a gun will help even the score against unscrupulous parties.

That being said, I don't see much justification in allowing guns in certain facilities such as schools outside of selected personnel. Schools are supposed to be places of education, students shouldn't have to look over their shoulder because someone is out to kill them.
 
Last edited:
FlawlessVictor said:
Violent crimes tend to go under-reported. One of my friends almost got killed a couple of times, including a drive-by shooting and a dispute that escalated with one guy pulling out his gun. Some people don't trust the police, and some cops in turn don't really give a damn about the people they are supposed to protect. The victims or witnesses may choose not to divulge out of fear of retaliation. I'm not suggesting that firearms should banned, but there are more people who are misusing them than what the statistics may suggest. If anything, owning a gun will help even the score against unscrupulous parties.

That being said, I don't see much justification in allowing guns in certain facilities such as schools outside of selected personnel. Schools are supposed to be places of education, students shouldn't have to look over their shoulder because someone is out to kill them.
Click to expand...

Instead of gun control, I instead suggest arming the faculty and staff of ALL public schools! That way we don't have people forced to bring a knife to a firefight when it comes to protecting the students!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top