Get ready for a sharp rise of school shootings in Texas

[peach174]

Why do you have a problem with multiple lines of defense? Why do you want to deprive eligible citizens their constitutional rights? Why don't you want individuals to have the ability to protect themselves?

Guns aren't for protection. They were invented to kill things, mostly people, which is why I'd like all of them in a hole in the ground. For someone who calls humanity a disease I'm very Pro-life that way.

And, if you know there is armed security walking the halls only the nuts will attack, and there ain't shit we can do besides build a school as a prison to keep those fuckers out. They were comin' in regardless.

If guns aren't for protection then why do you want armed guards?

So they can kill the bad guy, who also has a gun, or a knife, or a baseball bat, or a bomb, or a box of tampons if it comes to that, I don't really care at that point. It's not like the security guy is going to hold the gun in front of his chest for protection now is he? That's a "bullet-proof" meaning "gun-proof", vest. That's protection not the gun, and he's going to shoot and kill the bad guy, hopefully, with the gun, which is why we invented the bloody things in the first place.

So guns are for protection?

Nope. They are for killing things. Let's say I have 10 loaded guns in the house, and there are five people who live there, but only one knows how to use a gun or is willing to kill someone and they are miles away right now but a rapist is outside breaking in, do the guns mean I'm protected? Or, do they only mean I'm protected if someone who knows how to use a gun is there and is willing to kill the rapist?

Guns don't kill people right, people do, so how, in this case, is the house protected? Answer, it isn't because guns aren't for protection, they are for killing things.

Then how would you kill a rattlesnake that is about to strike your dog?
We used a gun that protected the dog,anything else would not have been fast enough to protect the dog.
Guns are also for protection.

 

[2aguy]

You must have missed where I said armed security was fine by me, so, pay up.

They already have campus police departments, next.

They already have campus rapes and killings, next.

Yep, and the guns aren't going to change that either. Legally, most of the college girls can't even carry, they aren't old enough. That's a big help eh?

But the women and men who are 21 going to college can as can the staff, and the various other people who come onto the campus...creating a vast unknown for potential criminals who used to have a disarmed victim population.....now they will have no idea who they are attacking......

That's easy. I pick a younger female student, in a place where others aren't. Even if she has a gun I'm going to account for that and she will never see me coming, until it's too late and I'm cumming. If she has a gun, I get sex and a gun. What a deal.

You guys keep thinking the rapists are going to give her a sporting chance and that won't happen. She's either going to shoot a guy who wasn't going to rape her, meaning he gave her time to get to her gun, or she's never going to see him coming and by then it's way too late.

I have read the stories...you don't give people the credit they deserve and you give criminals too much credit sometimes.....you forget, the woman with a gun has it because she is concerned about her safety.....she is going to be looking for danger signs, not blundering around...and even if it comes to a physical struggle....she does not have to physically dominate her attacker when she has a gun.....empty handed she needs to use her hands and feet to physically incapacitate the attacker to the point she can escape...that takes a lot especially against a younger, stronger more aggressive male....

With a gun, she simply has to clear the holster, and apply 6-8 pounds of pressure on the trigger after putting the 1/2" opening in line with any part of the attackers anatomy...it could be a leg, or a foot and the damage she can do will be massive...and she still has 4-20 more times she can do that...and that is why most criminals run away when confronted by a victim with a gun.....

 

[2aguy]

Guns aren't for protection. They were invented to kill things, mostly people, which is why I'd like all of them in a hole in the ground. For someone who calls humanity a disease I'm very Pro-life that way.

And, if you know there is armed security walking the halls only the nuts will attack, and there ain't shit we can do besides build a school as a prison to keep those fuckers out. They were comin' in regardless.

If guns aren't for protection then why do you want armed guards?

So they can kill the bad guy, who also has a gun, or a knife, or a baseball bat, or a bomb, or a box of tampons if it comes to that, I don't really care at that point. It's not like the security guy is going to hold the gun in front of his chest for protection now is he? That's a "bullet-proof" meaning "gun-proof", vest. That's protection not the gun, and he's going to shoot and kill the bad guy, hopefully, with the gun, which is why we invented the bloody things in the first place.

So guns are for protection?

Nope. They are for killing things. let's say I have 100 loaded guns in the house, and there are five people who live there, but only one knows how to use a gun or is willing to kill someone and they are miles away right now but a rapist is outside breaking in, do the guns mean I'm protected?

"Let's say" you can imagine all sorts of scenarios where a gun doesn't help. Let's also come up with matching scenarios where a gun DOES help. Have you managed to prove anything? I don't think so.

I posted this one.....two men approach a woman walking her dog...they have a baseball bat and tell her she is coming with them, she draws her pistol and tells them she isn't and they ran away.......this is somewhere on U.S. message....and I posted another one, a woman comes out the back door of a restaurant, gets grabbed by her pony tail and punched...she draws her pistol and shoots her attacker...

The gun is exactly what they say it is...it is an equalizer...it allows a smaller person, or a person facing multiple attackers to deal with them from a superior level of force...something they can't do empty handed......

 

[2aguy]

Why do you have a problem with multiple lines of defense? Why do you want to deprive eligible citizens their constitutional rights? Why don't you want individuals to have the ability to protect themselves?

Guns aren't for protection. They were invented to kill things, mostly people, which is why I'd like all of them in a hole in the ground. For someone who calls humanity a disease I'm very Pro-life that way.

And, if you know there is armed security walking the halls only the nuts will attack, and there ain't shit we can do besides build a school as a prison to keep those fuckers out. They were comin' in regardless.

If guns aren't for protection then why do you want armed guards?

So they can kill the bad guy, who also has a gun, or a knife, or a baseball bat, or a bomb, or a box of tampons if it comes to that, I don't really care at that point. It's not like the security guy is going to hold the gun in front of his chest for protection now is he? That's a "bullet-proof" meaning "gun-proof", vest. That's protection not the gun, and he's going to shoot and kill the bad guy, hopefully, with the gun, which is why we invented the bloody things in the first place.

So guns are for protection?

Nope. They are for killing things. Let's say I have 10 loaded guns in the house, and there are five people who live there, but only one knows how to use a gun or is willing to kill someone and they are miles away right now but a rapist is outside breaking in, do the guns mean I'm protected? Or, do they only mean I'm protected if someone who knows how to use a gun is there and is willing to kill the rapist?

Guns don't kill people right, people do, so how, in this case, is the house protected? Answer, it isn't because guns aren't for protection, they are for killing things.

Guns were created to save the life of the user....

And guns don't require Navy Seal level of training to use effectively....read the stories....not everyone goes to the range everyday.....

 

[hadit]

If guns aren't for protection then why do you want armed guards?

So they can kill the bad guy, who also has a gun, or a knife, or a baseball bat, or a bomb, or a box of tampons if it comes to that, I don't really care at that point. It's not like the security guy is going to hold the gun in front of his chest for protection now is he? That's a "bullet-proof" meaning "gun-proof", vest. That's protection not the gun, and he's going to shoot and kill the bad guy, hopefully, with the gun, which is why we invented the bloody things in the first place.

So guns are for protection?

Nope. They are for killing things. let's say I have 100 loaded guns in the house, and there are five people who live there, but only one knows how to use a gun or is willing to kill someone and they are miles away right now but a rapist is outside breaking in, do the guns mean I'm protected?

"Let's say" you can imagine all sorts of scenarios where a gun doesn't help. Let's also come up with matching scenarios where a gun DOES help. Have you managed to prove anything? I don't think so.

I've proven that just having a gun doesn't mean fuck all, meaning it's not protection until you kill the threat. A gun doesn't protect you, using it to kill, the reason it was invented however can, if you are willing to fire and never pull it out unless you are. If women shot the men who raped them, they'd be going to a lot of funerals of friends, boyfriends, and family members. The strangers jumping from bushes are the least of their concerns in this case.

Basically, you're saying that a gun is a tool that only has impact or meaning based on who is using it. That's what we've been saying all along.

 

[candycorn]

Texas lawmakers reach deal allowing guns on campus - Houston Chronicle

The far right legislature passed a law allowing any student, regardless of criminal record, state of inebriation, or age, to carry a handgun onto Texas school campuses

Nothing could go wrong. Right? Right?

Riddle me this, NRA nutjobs. Adam Lanza killed students whit a gun. Cho Seung Hui killed students with a gun. Charles Whitman killed students with a gun

Why the fuck do you want MORE guns on school grounds?

Bullet holes in the walls = remodeling

 

[thereisnospoon]

Texas lawmakers reach deal allowing guns on campus - Houston Chronicle

The far right legislature passed a law allowing any student, regardless of criminal record, state of inebriation, or age, to carry a handgun onto Texas school campuses

Nothing could go wrong. Right? Right?

Riddle me this, NRA nutjobs. Adam Lanza killed students whit a gun. Cho Seung Hui killed students with a gun. Charles Whitman killed students with a gun

Why the fuck do you want MORE guns on school grounds?

Another mental giant, you are.

 

[OKTexas]

Why do you have a problem with multiple lines of defense? Why do you want to deprive eligible citizens their constitutional rights? Why don't you want individuals to have the ability to protect themselves?

Guns aren't for protection. They were invented to kill things, mostly people, which is why I'd like all of them in a hole in the ground. For someone who calls humanity a disease I'm very Pro-life that way.

And, if you know there is armed security walking the halls only the nuts will attack, and there ain't shit we can do besides build a school as a prison to keep those fuckers out. They were comin' in regardless.

If guns aren't for protection then why do you want armed guards?

So they can kill the bad guy, who also has a gun, or a knife, or a baseball bat, or a bomb, or a box of tampons if it comes to that, I don't really care at that point. It's not like the security guy is going to hold the gun in front of his chest for protection now is he? That's a "bullet-proof" meaning "gun-proof", vest. That's protection not the gun, and he's going to shoot and kill the bad guy, hopefully, with the gun, which is why we invented the bloody things in the first place.

So guns are for protection?

Nope. They are for killing things. Let's say I have 10 loaded guns in the house, and there are five people who live there, but only one knows how to use a gun or is willing to kill someone and they are miles away right now but a rapist is outside breaking in, do the guns mean I'm protected? Or, do they only mean I'm protected if someone who knows how to use a gun is there and is willing to kill the rapist?

Guns don't kill people right, people do, so how, in this case, is the house protected? Answer, it isn't because guns aren't for protection, they are for killing things.

Spin, spin, spin, guns are only as good as the person holding them, who knew? You got any more fantasy scenarios up your sleeve?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Guns aren't for protection. They were invented to kill things, mostly people, which is why I'd like all of them in a hole in the ground. For someone who calls humanity a disease I'm very Pro-life that way.

And, if you know there is armed security walking the halls only the nuts will attack, and there ain't shit we can do besides build a school as a prison to keep those fuckers out. They were comin' in regardless.

If guns aren't for protection then why do you want armed guards?

So they can kill the bad guy, who also has a gun, or a knife, or a baseball bat, or a bomb, or a box of tampons if it comes to that, I don't really care at that point. It's not like the security guy is going to hold the gun in front of his chest for protection now is he? That's a "bullet-proof" meaning "gun-proof", vest. That's protection not the gun, and he's going to shoot and kill the bad guy, hopefully, with the gun, which is why we invented the bloody things in the first place.

So guns are for protection?

Nope. They are for killing things. Let's say I have 10 loaded guns in the house, and there are five people who live there, but only one knows how to use a gun or is willing to kill someone and they are miles away right now but a rapist is outside breaking in, do the guns mean I'm protected? Or, do they only mean I'm protected if someone who knows how to use a gun is there and is willing to kill the rapist?

Guns don't kill people right, people do, so how, in this case, is the house protected? Answer, it isn't because guns aren't for protection, they are for killing things.

Spin, spin, spin, guns are only as good as the person holding them, who knew? You got any more fantasy scenarios up your sleeve?

There's no spin there. You can't have it both ways. A gun only protects you if you kill the other guy first. If you aren't willing to do that. if you hesitate after drawing it, don't bother.

Guns don't kill people, people do, remember? So, if you have one but don't know how or won't use it, you might as well be holding a banana. It's not the gun, which isn't for protection, it's you being able and willing to use a deadly weapon.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

So they can kill the bad guy, who also has a gun, or a knife, or a baseball bat, or a bomb, or a box of tampons if it comes to that, I don't really care at that point. It's not like the security guy is going to hold the gun in front of his chest for protection now is he? That's a "bullet-proof" meaning "gun-proof", vest. That's protection not the gun, and he's going to shoot and kill the bad guy, hopefully, with the gun, which is why we invented the bloody things in the first place.

So guns are for protection?

Nope. They are for killing things. let's say I have 100 loaded guns in the house, and there are five people who live there, but only one knows how to use a gun or is willing to kill someone and they are miles away right now but a rapist is outside breaking in, do the guns mean I'm protected?

"Let's say" you can imagine all sorts of scenarios where a gun doesn't help. Let's also come up with matching scenarios where a gun DOES help. Have you managed to prove anything? I don't think so.

I've proven that just having a gun doesn't mean fuck all, meaning it's not protection until you kill the threat. A gun doesn't protect you, using it to kill, the reason it was invented however can, if you are willing to fire and never pull it out unless you are. If women shot the men who raped them, they'd be going to a lot of funerals of friends, boyfriends, and family members. The strangers jumping from bushes are the least of their concerns in this case.

Basically, you're saying that a gun is a tool that only has impact or meaning based on who is using it. That's what we've been saying all along.

Yep, but it's still not for protection. That's you using correctly what a gun is for, killing something that threatens you.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

If guns aren't for protection then why do you want armed guards?

So they can kill the bad guy, who also has a gun, or a knife, or a baseball bat, or a bomb, or a box of tampons if it comes to that, I don't really care at that point. It's not like the security guy is going to hold the gun in front of his chest for protection now is he? That's a "bullet-proof" meaning "gun-proof", vest. That's protection not the gun, and he's going to shoot and kill the bad guy, hopefully, with the gun, which is why we invented the bloody things in the first place.

So guns are for protection?

Nope. They are for killing things. let's say I have 100 loaded guns in the house, and there are five people who live there, but only one knows how to use a gun or is willing to kill someone and they are miles away right now but a rapist is outside breaking in, do the guns mean I'm protected?

"Let's say" you can imagine all sorts of scenarios where a gun doesn't help. Let's also come up with matching scenarios where a gun DOES help. Have you managed to prove anything? I don't think so.

I posted this one.....two men approach a woman walking her dog...they have a baseball bat and tell her she is coming with them, she draws her pistol and tells them she isn't and they ran away.......this is somewhere on U.S. message....and I posted another one, a woman comes out the back door of a restaurant, gets grabbed by her pony tail and punched...she draws her pistol and shoots her attacker...

The gun is exactly what they say it is...it is an equalizer...it allows a smaller person, or a person facing multiple attackers to deal with them from a superior level of force...something they can't do empty handed......

Three idiots. If she sees you coming, you're doing it wrong, obviously.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

They already have campus police departments, next.

They already have campus rapes and killings, next.

Yep, and the guns aren't going to change that either. Legally, most of the college girls can't even carry, they aren't old enough. That's a big help eh?

But the women and men who are 21 going to college can as can the staff, and the various other people who come onto the campus...creating a vast unknown for potential criminals who used to have a disarmed victim population.....now they will have no idea who they are attacking......

That's easy. I pick a younger female student, in a place where others aren't. Even if she has a gun I'm going to account for that and she will never see me coming, until it's too late and I'm cumming. If she has a gun, I get sex and a gun. What a deal.

You guys keep thinking the rapists are going to give her a sporting chance and that won't happen. She's either going to shoot a guy who wasn't going to rape her, meaning he gave her time to get to her gun, or she's never going to see him coming and by then it's way too late.

I have read the stories...you don't give people the credit they deserve and you give criminals too much credit sometimes.....you forget, the woman with a gun has it because she is concerned about her safety.....she is going to be looking for danger signs, not blundering around...and even if it comes to a physical struggle....she does not have to physically dominate her attacker when she has a gun.....empty handed she needs to use her hands and feet to physically incapacitate the attacker to the point she can escape...that takes a lot especially against a younger, stronger more aggressive male....

With a gun, she simply has to clear the holster, and apply 6-8 pounds of pressure on the trigger after putting the 1/2" opening in line with any part of the attackers anatomy...it could be a leg, or a foot and the damage she can do will be massive...and she still has 4-20 more times she can do that...and that is why most criminals run away when confronted by a victim with a gun.....

You have a fantasy about how women get raped, and it doesn't happen that way.

 

[mikegriffith1]

The Clackamas Mall shooter ran away barely a minute after he opened fire because one of the mall patrons pulled a gun and pointed it at him, saving untold numbers of dead and wounded.

In the other recent shootings you mentioned, many lives would have been spared if someone nearby had been carrying a gun.

Unless you want a 1984-like police state, even more oppressive and intrusive than the Soviet Union, you will never keep guns from someone who is determined to get one. The Soviets could not do it. The Russian mafia was quite well armed, despite Soviet laws that forbade them from having guns.

When you ban guns, criminals are still able to get guns. The only people you disarm are law-abiding citizens.

Use some common sense: If you're thinking about doing a school shooting, which school will you pick--the one where you know guns are banned or the one where you know that you will likely encounter armed opposition?

And, what will you have to say when school shootings do *not* increase in Texas?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Guns aren't for protection. They were invented to kill things, mostly people, which is why I'd like all of them in a hole in the ground. For someone who calls humanity a disease I'm very Pro-life that way.

And, if you know there is armed security walking the halls only the nuts will attack, and there ain't shit we can do besides build a school as a prison to keep those fuckers out. They were comin' in regardless.

If guns aren't for protection then why do you want armed guards?

So they can kill the bad guy, who also has a gun, or a knife, or a baseball bat, or a bomb, or a box of tampons if it comes to that, I don't really care at that point. It's not like the security guy is going to hold the gun in front of his chest for protection now is he? That's a "bullet-proof" meaning "gun-proof", vest. That's protection not the gun, and he's going to shoot and kill the bad guy, hopefully, with the gun, which is why we invented the bloody things in the first place.

So guns are for protection?

Nope. They are for killing things. Let's say I have 10 loaded guns in the house, and there are five people who live there, but only one knows how to use a gun or is willing to kill someone and they are miles away right now but a rapist is outside breaking in, do the guns mean I'm protected? Or, do they only mean I'm protected if someone who knows how to use a gun is there and is willing to kill the rapist?

Guns don't kill people right, people do, so how, in this case, is the house protected? Answer, it isn't because guns aren't for protection, they are for killing things.

Then how would you kill a rattlesnake that is about to strike your dog?
We used a gun that protected the dog,anything else would not have been fast enough to protect the dog.
Guns are also for protection.

No, they are for killing things, like the snake. What protected you was the ability to kill, and that could have been done many ways but a gun is a remarkable tool for that, hence why they were invented.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

So you want the teachers to play cops instead of hiring them just because armed security costs money? See the problem here?

Why do you have a problem with multiple lines of defense? Why do you want to deprive eligible citizens their constitutional rights? Why don't you want individuals to have the ability to protect themselves?

Guns aren't for protection. They were invented to kill things, mostly people, which is why I'd like all of them in a hole in the ground. For someone who calls humanity a disease I'm very Pro-life that way.

And, if you know there is armed security walking the halls only the nuts will attack, and there ain't shit we can do besides build a school as a prison to keep those fuckers out. They were comin' in regardless.

If guns aren't for protection then why do you want armed guards?

So they can kill the bad guy, who also has a gun, or a knife, or a baseball bat, or a bomb, or a box of tampons if it comes to that, I don't really care at that point. It's not like the security guy is going to hold the gun in front of his chest for protection now is he? That's a "bullet-proof" meaning "gun-proof", vest. That's protection not the gun, and he's going to shoot and kill the bad guy, hopefully, with the gun, which is why we invented the bloody things in the first place.

So guns are for protection?

Nope, they are for killing things, which can change the game from you die to they die, if done right.

 

[OKTexas]

If guns aren't for protection then why do you want armed guards?

So they can kill the bad guy, who also has a gun, or a knife, or a baseball bat, or a bomb, or a box of tampons if it comes to that, I don't really care at that point. It's not like the security guy is going to hold the gun in front of his chest for protection now is he? That's a "bullet-proof" meaning "gun-proof", vest. That's protection not the gun, and he's going to shoot and kill the bad guy, hopefully, with the gun, which is why we invented the bloody things in the first place.

So guns are for protection?

Nope. They are for killing things. Let's say I have 10 loaded guns in the house, and there are five people who live there, but only one knows how to use a gun or is willing to kill someone and they are miles away right now but a rapist is outside breaking in, do the guns mean I'm protected? Or, do they only mean I'm protected if someone who knows how to use a gun is there and is willing to kill the rapist?

Guns don't kill people right, people do, so how, in this case, is the house protected? Answer, it isn't because guns aren't for protection, they are for killing things.

Spin, spin, spin, guns are only as good as the person holding them, who knew? You got any more fantasy scenarios up your sleeve?

There's no spin there. You can't have it both ways. A gun only protects you if you kill the other guy first. If you aren't willing to do that. if you hesitate after drawing it, don't bother.

Guns don't kill people, people do, remember? So, if you have one but don't know how or won't use it, you might as well be holding a banana. It's not the gun, which isn't for protection, it's you being able and willing to use a deadly weapon.

Actually the vast majority of people who use guns for their protection never have to fire a shot, that's why you get roughly 2 million DGU's a year and only around 250 DGU's deaths a year. But hey let's just ignore the facts and go with your fantasy yarn, right?

 

[OKTexas]

Why do you have a problem with multiple lines of defense? Why do you want to deprive eligible citizens their constitutional rights? Why don't you want individuals to have the ability to protect themselves?

Guns aren't for protection. They were invented to kill things, mostly people, which is why I'd like all of them in a hole in the ground. For someone who calls humanity a disease I'm very Pro-life that way.

And, if you know there is armed security walking the halls only the nuts will attack, and there ain't shit we can do besides build a school as a prison to keep those fuckers out. They were comin' in regardless.

If guns aren't for protection then why do you want armed guards?

So they can kill the bad guy, who also has a gun, or a knife, or a baseball bat, or a bomb, or a box of tampons if it comes to that, I don't really care at that point. It's not like the security guy is going to hold the gun in front of his chest for protection now is he? That's a "bullet-proof" meaning "gun-proof", vest. That's protection not the gun, and he's going to shoot and kill the bad guy, hopefully, with the gun, which is why we invented the bloody things in the first place.

So guns are for protection?

Nope, they are for killing things, which can change the game from you die to they die, if done right.

In the vast majority of DGU's no body dies, dream on.

 

[peach174]

You are not using logic.
We will always need cops and not everyone should have a gun.

So you want the teachers to play cops instead of hiring them just because armed security costs money? See the problem here?

Why do you have a problem with multiple lines of defense? Why do you want to deprive eligible citizens their constitutional rights? Why don't you want individuals to have the ability to protect themselves?

Guns aren't for protection. They were invented to kill things, mostly people, which is why I'd like all of them in a hole in the ground. For someone who calls humanity a disease I'm very Pro-life that way.

And, if you know there is armed security walking the halls only the nuts will attack, and there ain't shit we can do besides build a school as a prison to keep those fuckers out. They were comin' in regardless.

If guns aren't for protection then why do you want armed guards?

So they can kill the bad guy, who also has a gun, or a knife, or a baseball bat, or a bomb, or a box of tampons if it comes to that, I don't really care at that point. It's not like the security guy is going to hold the gun in front of his chest for protection now is he? That's a "bullet-proof" meaning "gun-proof", vest. That's protection not the gun, and he's going to shoot and kill the bad guy, hopefully, with the gun, which is why we invented the bloody things in the first place.

More often than not, just showing you have a gun to a law breaker who doesn't have one, deters them. It's called protection.
Guns were invented for piercing body armor.
As the armor became better from deflecting arrows to swords, eventually guns were invented and that turned into gun proof protection vests.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Guns aren't for protection. They were invented to kill things, mostly people, which is why I'd like all of them in a hole in the ground. For someone who calls humanity a disease I'm very Pro-life that way.

And, if you know there is armed security walking the halls only the nuts will attack, and there ain't shit we can do besides build a school as a prison to keep those fuckers out. They were comin' in regardless.

If guns aren't for protection then why do you want armed guards?

So they can kill the bad guy, who also has a gun, or a knife, or a baseball bat, or a bomb, or a box of tampons if it comes to that, I don't really care at that point. It's not like the security guy is going to hold the gun in front of his chest for protection now is he? That's a "bullet-proof" meaning "gun-proof", vest. That's protection not the gun, and he's going to shoot and kill the bad guy, hopefully, with the gun, which is why we invented the bloody things in the first place.

So guns are for protection?

Nope, they are for killing things, which can change the game from you die to they die, if done right.

In the vast majority of DGU's no body dies, dream on.

If you pull a gun and no one gets shot, you didn't need the gun. Guns are for killing things, period.

 

[peach174]

If guns aren't for protection then why do you want armed guards?

So they can kill the bad guy, who also has a gun, or a knife, or a baseball bat, or a bomb, or a box of tampons if it comes to that, I don't really care at that point. It's not like the security guy is going to hold the gun in front of his chest for protection now is he? That's a "bullet-proof" meaning "gun-proof", vest. That's protection not the gun, and he's going to shoot and kill the bad guy, hopefully, with the gun, which is why we invented the bloody things in the first place.

So guns are for protection?

Nope, they are for killing things, which can change the game from you die to they die, if done right.

In the vast majority of DGU's no body dies, dream on.

If you pull a gun and no one gets shot, you didn't need the gun. Guns are for killing things, period.

How would you hold unarmed robbers in your home before the cops got there, if you didn't have a gun?