Associate
- Joined
- 2 Feb 2008
- Posts
- 777
The Chris Rock solution then? $5000 dollars a bullet?
Another school shooting in the US
- Thread starter .Griff.
- Start date
The Chris Rock solution then? $5000 dollars a bullet?
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
He did one on bullet control too
Edit: removed link as it had too much content not suitable for the forums, you can find it quite easily on youtube though.
Ahh thanks! Was curious to see if automatics had been used.
I didn't think she got the guns for him, she was the registered owner of the guns and nothing I've read says that she gave him the guns.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
Which ignores the more important statistic which is the probability of a mass shooting occurring in the first place when civilians are armed or not. If country A has 100 mass shootings in one year with armed civilians and country B, with the same population/culture/wealth, has 5 mass shootings in the same time with unarmed civilians, then country A saw 220 deaths whilst country B only saw 91.
It's like saying cigarettes should be freely available because you've got a good record of curing people with lung cancer.
Whats more likely?
A middle aged female kindergarten teacher buys herself a 10mm glock, sig sauer and M4 rifle?
A middle aged female kindergarten teacher buys her asperger shut-in, COD playing, spoiled brat 20 yr old son a 10mm glock, sig sauer and M4 rifle?
You can't compare it with cigarettes, it's nothing like that.
In America? Either is possible, but I would say if anything the first is more likely as so many Americans buy guns for defending themselves and their family.
Fair enough, his conclusions are sound. However his first one
suggests to me that getting rid of the shooting rampages all together would be the optimal solution.
In 1996 the US government banned guns from schools.
Had there been a single teacher/cook/janitor/cleaner/gardener on site with a gun, most of those children would have lived.
Look how quick the government is to blame anybody but themselves, they know who created this problem.
If I lived in a country with that many poor minorities or disturbed people wandering the streets, then I would want a gun too.
Fix the problem first, then take away the right for people to defend themselves. This isn't England with the Police a 5 minute call away.
Had there been a single teacher/cook/janitor/cleaner/gardener on site with a gun, most of those children would have lived.
Look how quick the government is to blame anybody but themselves, they know who created this problem.
If I lived in a country with that many poor minorities or disturbed people wandering the streets, then I would want a gun too.
Fix the problem first, then take away the right for people to defend themselves. This isn't England with the Police a 5 minute call away.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
It's called a metaphor (well, technically as I used the word 'like' it's a simile).
But anyway, you missed the point which was this bit....
Boasting that armed civilians means less deaths in mass shootings whilst ignoring the fact that arming civilians is probably a major contribution (along with culture, mental health quality, poverty levels etc) to mass shootings happening in the first place is asinine.
You're putting the cart before the horse (that IS a metaphor
)
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 1 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 53,749
- Location
- Welling, London
If that's the case then surely a simple handgun would suffice? I really dont see the need for handgun, a semi automatic and an assault rifle
What intruders were they expecting? The Marine Corps?
wtf, seriously?
So you're expecting a teacher to have the same mentality and reactions as a fire armed policeman? Last time i checked most fire arm training was reaction training and mental conditioning, I'd rather not have civilians armed and responsible for security as it'll most likely cause accidental discharges and false flag fatalities from poorly read situations.
The US needs to take a long hard look at itself and grow the hell up, there is no need for a civilian to own fully or semi automatic rifles in any situations and the idea that someone would use one in a home defence situation would make me want to move out of an area because of the penetration capability of these rounds.
The need to bring legislation into being where you have to prove that you need a firearm, i.e. hunting and sport. Which is backed up by medical and criminal checks.
but that would be common sense, what I expect will happen is armed guards will be brought into every school, metal detectors at every entrance and the turning of schools into prison like centres.
This is such a facetious argument and gets brought up every time...
'If more people had guns then the shooter couldn't have got away with it etc...'
of the school shootings prior to 1996 how many were stopped by an armed cook/janitor/cleaner?
If there is a genuine need for an armed member of staff then you employ a security guard...
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Dec 2005
- Posts
- 12,488
- Location
- Bath
and again the eternal question that should have been asked, why the **** does a school teacher need two handguns and an assault rifle for "personal defence"...
Because she can.
SHOCKER.
Once you allow something like holding guns and sitting on it for 300 years...it is literally almost impossible to stop allowing it, so the only way it will fix itself is if the common American Ego grows up or a civil war breaks out that forces people to re-evaluate their problems.
Also the procrastination option is always there, which one could say was best...sort of...if you look at it from a non-biased point of view.
Last edited: