But your mistake is in thinking the NRA represents the views of all gun owners. The majority of gun owners don't even belong to the NRA but may believe in SA rights. Personally, I think the NRA leadership is insane because they could be a large part of a National solution that would benefit themselves, the gun industry, as well as public safety. But they are entrenched in their views. Of course, you cannot blame them exclusively for this because the other side is equally entrenched. The debate is SO polarized that solutions that could work for both sides are not even close to being on the table. So nothing ever gets done.
Shooting at a Florida high school
- Thread starter Mr Deeds
- Start date
If you ban the AR-15 or any other assault rifle, shooters will just revert to handguns.
Virginia Tech shooter only used a Glock and a P22 to kill 33 peeps.
So I dont see how thats a solution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_shooting
Virginia Tech shooter only used a Glock and a P22 to kill 33 peeps.
So I dont see how thats a solution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_shooting
Because the media plays up all acts of destruction.... violence, tornados, capsizing ships etc..... The more deaths the better.
It seems like more because the internet plays up everything 24/7.
If the world was still reliant on 11 pm news and day old newspaper article you would still see lots of negative news because the world has so much of it, no news show or newspaper can tell it all to begin with.
Just because gun violence has dropped in Canada/US for decades (overall crime has too since I think the 80s), it doesn't mean gun laws are ok and gun shootings are fine. There's still too much of it.
It's like a chronic smoker. Just because he's cut back from 3 packs a day to 2 packs a day doesn't mean everything's fine.
Then maybe the SA needs to cover nuclear weapons. How can a militia be 'well regulated' without nuclear weapons if/when it stands up to a tyrannical Federal Government that is the world nuclear superpower?
Ban all civilian semi auto and hand gun. There is no reason for a civilian to own them .If you ban the AR-15 or any other assault rifle, shooters will just revert to handguns.
Virginia Tech shooter only used a Glock and a P22 to kill 33 peeps.
So I dont see how thats a solution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_shooting
Totally sexist comment. Suggests that women are too fragile, physically and mentally, to be able to handle critical situations.
What could possibly go wrong?
Ya, we get it... women need to be always disarmed so that they can be rescued by white knights, even if it kills them in the process because they can't get there in time.
But at least, she's holding it properly, so demonstrating a certain amount of training.
The insinuation is that she's pointing it at a student, thereby demonstrating irresponsibility... just because she's a hysterical woman.
But if she's confronting a nutcase shooter, it's a deadly confrontation, and I'd say she's doing a pretty good job of keeping in control despite the fear factor.
BTW, women do better than men using pistols in critical situations. That's because they tend to naturally move the gun forward when they pull the trigger, just like they teach tactical shooters.
I don't think that in this situation, she would want to trade her gun for a cellphone to call 911. Would you?
Another slogan.... bla bla bla....
That's sure to get you re-elected in the US, where 85 million voters own a handgun.... not!
What....the.... fuck? I posted a JOKE PICTURE of a teacher and you applied your sexist comment in assuming that a woman (even in a joke picture) cannot represent anything except being a woman. So who's sexist here? My "what could go wrong" comment applies to all teachers tasked with protecting students by being armed in the classroom.
Man, you are seriously messed up to be triggered like that.
What makes you so sure that the second amendment doesn't cover nuclear weapons? Read the amendment (since most haven't). It doesn't refer to any specific weapon. It refers to a the right of "the people" to keep and bear "arms." As I said in a previous post - the founding fathers were either naive, or incredibly brilliant in their wording.
This is no joking matter. It's deadly serious.
Your picture and your caption had a clear message, regardless of whether it was a man or a woman: that people are too irresponsible to be trusted, and too stupid to act properly.
It was reinforced by a stereotype that women are especially incapable and inept, which is so far from the truth.
Bad choice and you should retract it.
Yeah, it's deadly serious - which is why an idiot like Trump should be removed from the debate. It's not a matter of being "irresponsible" or "too stupid" (again with your fucking stupid assumptions). It's about training, continued practice, all to prevent making a tragic attack even worse with "friendly fire" casualties not to mention LE teams who will now have to look out for not only an active shooter, but unknown friendlies with guns.
Oh as for retracting - go fuck yourself.
Back when the 2nd amendment was enacted, there were no limits on the types of weapons citizens could own. It included cannons and blunderbusses, that are definitly not suited to hunting.
And then, even if one accepts the premise that AR-15's did not exist at the time the 2nd Amendment was enacted, so that it only applied to muskets and not to AR-15's, does the 1st Amenment (free speech) only apply to printed news because TV and Radio and the internet didn't exist them in 1776?
You're changing the subject. But whatever.
Right now, Trump is the only person who can bridge the great divide between the polarized positions in this debate. He started legislation banning bump stocks. He proposed passing legislation that would make it mandatory for physicians to report to the FBI, behaviour that makes certain persons unsuitable to own firearms, and that would flag the FBI database check. He is in favour in increased background checks. He is favourable to closing the gun show loophole. He is in favour of raising the age to buy semi-auto firearms to 21.
That's because the NRA actually listens to him, and a great majority of the 'flyover' states who voted for him. An Obama or Clinton would never get anywhere with this, because they are percieved to have an ulterior agenda.
And all that the mainstream media could throw at him is that he had a cue card during his meeting with the students from Florida.
yes, it's all about training, and that's what Trump actually implied when he said that the teacher volunteers would be concealed carry holders... bacause they already have training.
I stand by my position. Your post was out of line.
NO, I'm not changing the subject. You're making dumbass assumptions instead of reading what's written. Banning bump stocks is a big nothing. They only exist because they're categorized as a trigger assist. FOPA came with a ban on automatic weapons - so the bump stocks exist legally ONLY because of the way they are categorized. You can replicate what a bump stock does with a rubber band with a rifle, and with nothing but two hands and a semi-auto pistol, And what "gun show loophole"? The entire loophole exists because background checks are exempt in private sales. So make them universal, which would imply that gun sales only be permitted through authorized dealers.
Wait - you think that the training to get a concealed carry permit is sufficient to perform under the stress of a school attack? Delusional.
Banning bump stocks is a step in the right direction.
Read again: Trump is proposing to close the gunshow loophole. At least, he's willing to talk about it. The problem with the total closure of the loophole for a lot of people, is that transfering a firearm between two members of the same family appears over the top through a FFL. We don't even have that in Canada. I can sell a non-restricted long gun to my neighbour without telling the RCMP about it.
And despite the number of mass shootings by insane people, nobody ever talked before about making it mandatory for physicians to report unstable persons to the FBI database. Trump is the first one who proposed concrete action.
If confronted by an armed gunman about to kill me and my charges, it makes perfect sense; and I'd look just as frightened as that lady in your post; but I'd have a chance at survival. Trump did talk about allowing concealed carry permit holders the right to carry in school, and give them extra training, and compensating them for their trouble. So yes, it is about training.
An example is the permission for airline pilots to carry firearms in the cockpit. They were given extra training. I would think that the level of intelligence of teachers is similar to airline pilots.
