This is what Christian schools in Florida doing to protect children from shootings

[asaratis]

What we need to do:

As soon as a school shooter is captured and determined to or confessed to to having killed the innocent people, the shooter should be shot dead. No trial. No automatic appeal to the death penalty after a long trial wherein the sleazy bastard is defended by sleazy ACLU lawyers paid with our tax money. Just SHOOT THE MOTHERFUCKER RIGHT BETWEEN THE EYES! I guarantee you, the school shootings would disappear.

But what we do is put the motherfucker's picture on TV, publish all we know about his troubled life and give him notoriety. That is all he wanted to begin with. Just kill the worthless bastard and make no mention of his name.

That is exactly what should happen to Nicolas Cruz. Instant fucking DEATH!

 

[toobfreak]

Yup bring god back into classrooms and you get a common sense approach..



Bulletproof panels for students' backpacks being sold by Florida school - CNN


This Florida school is selling bulletproof panels for students' backpacks
By Laura Diaz-Zuniga, CNN
Updated 4:37 PM EST, Tue November 07, 2017

Story highlights

• A Miami school is selling bulletproof panels that can be inserted into backpacks
• Teachers would show students how to use the backpacks to shield themselves in the event of a shooting

(CNN)A Miami private school is offering parents an unusual item for sale: bulletproof panels for their kids' backpacks.

The Florida Christian School website has a list of items available for purchase. These include winter wear, red school logo T-shirts and ballistic panels.

George Gulla, dean of students and head of school security at Florida Christian School, told CNN the bulletproof panels would add "another level of protection" to students of the pre-K through grade 12 school "in the event of an active shooter."

.

Pretty funny, Bear, the first school to come along with a down to Earth practical solution to the immediate problem of saving kids--- --- by wearing those backpacks as they run from the attacker it very well might save their lives, or they can hold it in front of them to protect their head and vital organs while every other school has them hiding under their desks, and the USMB Asshat Brigade shows up to denounce the idea and say what a shame and embarrassment it is?!

Is it really that big a challenge to stop a kid from entering your school with an AR-15 or similar rifle? What, are these kids hiding them up under their shirt or maybe tucked in their seeker? KNOWING of the increasing trend for school shootings, you'd think by now EVERY school in the country would already have looked into the matter of addressing school violence by TALKING TO THE KIDS AND PARENTS to get their FB on what is driving this, and a simple way of checking that kids aren't carrying SEVEN POUNDS of steel on them as they enter the building!

The great embarrassment of the USA is showing the world how utterly INEPT Americans have become from everything from passing effective healthcare legislation right down to educating our children in a safe and effective way without trying to pass the buck and live in denial about every goddam issue.

 

[Nosmo King]

Accepting dead school kids as part of doing business is willfully simplistic at best, criminally negligent at worst.

There is a class of Americans who have had pleasurable experiences with guns. Bully for them. But there is a growing group of Americans who have had tragic experiences with guns. The former class tells the latter class to deal with it because they cannot fathom the havoc wrought by assault weapons in the hands of our fellow citizens.

In short the gun lovers are saying that there is no acceptable solution to gun violence and the lives of school children just aren't as cool as their personal arsenals.

And then they blanch at the suggestion that the tent pole ethos of the Right Wing is greed.

First educate yourself. There are few assault weapons in the hands of your fellow citizens. Those who have them are licensed to own them.

Second, why should my weapons be considered a threat if they never leave my person, and I am not a threat?

Why do you want to take away my rights to satisfy your fear?

What is the virtue of an assault weapon. Let me preface that with, in the course of debate, an assault weapon is defined as a weapon equipped with a semi-automatic firing system fed by a high* capacity magazine. I know that gun lovers would like to take serious discussions down a primrose path of semantics. Face facts and employ the parlance of our times and agree that semantic differences do not and cannot advance discussion.

So, I ask again, what is the virtue of an assault weapon? They are not designedfor hunting quail, grouse, pheasant or turkey. They were not designed to hunt deer or moose or mountain goat. They were not designed for for paper target or clay pigeons. They were, in fact, designed to kill as many people as quickly as possible.

Where's the nobility in that? Are people expecting hordes of criminals invading their homes? Are they living in a war torn area of the Middle East or southwest Asia or Central America? Do you see yourself as the hero gunslinger in the mold of Dirty Harry or some other cinematic character? What justifies the absolute need for such weapons?

After recognizing such weapons as the weapon of choice for mass murderers, can a reasonable argument be made for banning them?




*high capacity is defined as a magazine capable of loading ten or more rounds.

Stop right there. You are wrong. Dead wrong. Everything after that reeks of your insolence and stupidity.

Go get an education on types of weapons and maybe we can have a discussion, but until then you are unworthy of wasting my time.

BTW, you just described my $159.00 target pistol as an assault weapon. What a fucking dumbass!

I have to wonder how much you really read.

I have to wonder if you even shot a gun?




The guy you are talking to I believes him when he says he has multiple guns..




Me myself I just have a shot gun and my 9mm Glock some where along with my BB guns..

A pedestrian should be concerned about traffic regulations. Just because someone owns a personal arsenal, they are not by default the only legitimate voice in a gun debate.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Once again we can't stop your liberal modern day Sodom and gormorrah Utopia now can we? Just got to survive through it.

Accepting dead school kids as part of doing business is willfully simplistic at best, criminally negligent at worst.

There is a class of Americans who have had pleasurable experiences with guns. Bully for them. But there is a growing group of Americans who have had tragic experiences with guns. The former class tells the latter class to deal with it because they cannot fathom the havoc wrought by assault weapons in the hands of our fellow citizens.

In short the gun lovers are saying that there is no acceptable solution to gun violence and the lives of school children just aren't as cool as their personal arsenals.

And then they blanch at the suggestion that the tent pole ethos of the Right Wing is greed.

First educate yourself. There are few assault weapons in the hands of your fellow citizens. Those who have them are licensed to own them.

Second, why should my weapons be considered a threat if they never leave my person, and I am not a threat?

Why do you want to take away my rights to satisfy your fear?

What is the virtue of an assault weapon. Let me preface that with, in the course of debate, an assault weapon is defined as a weapon equipped with a semi-automatic firing system fed by a high* capacity magazine. I know that gun lovers would like to take serious discussions down a primrose path of semantics. Face facts and employ the parlance of our times and agree that semantic differences do not and cannot advance discussion.

So, I ask again, what is the virtue of an assault weapon? They are not designedfor hunting quail, grouse, pheasant or turkey. They were not designed to hunt deer or moose or mountain goat. They were not designed for for paper target or clay pigeons. They were, in fact, designed to kill as many people as quickly as possible.

Where's the nobility in that? Are people expecting hordes of criminals invading their homes? Are they living in a war torn area of the Middle East or southwest Asia or Central America? Do you see yourself as the hero gunslinger in the mold of Dirty Harry or some other cinematic character? What justifies the absolute need for such weapons?

After recognizing such weapons as the weapon of choice for mass murderers, can a reasonable argument be made for banning them?




*high capacity is defined as a magazine capable of loading ten or more rounds.

Your argument is irelvant all it takes is one bullet to kill some one.


Once they go over the edge and pull the trigger..9 times out of 10 the trigger man's life is over.

That was not the case in Parkland. And the Las Vegas shooter committed suicide after taking out nearly sixty.

What's your point? So long as the shooter is taken down it becomes an acceptable situation?

A gun is just an object, just a tool...we have to go after the root cause and it's surley not guns.

 

[strollingbones]

bullet proof backpacks on amazon ....300 to 500 bucks

 

[Nosmo King]

Accepting dead school kids as part of doing business is willfully simplistic at best, criminally negligent at worst.

There is a class of Americans who have had pleasurable experiences with guns. Bully for them. But there is a growing group of Americans who have had tragic experiences with guns. The former class tells the latter class to deal with it because they cannot fathom the havoc wrought by assault weapons in the hands of our fellow citizens.

In short the gun lovers are saying that there is no acceptable solution to gun violence and the lives of school children just aren't as cool as their personal arsenals.

And then they blanch at the suggestion that the tent pole ethos of the Right Wing is greed.

First educate yourself. There are few assault weapons in the hands of your fellow citizens. Those who have them are licensed to own them.

Second, why should my weapons be considered a threat if they never leave my person, and I am not a threat?

Why do you want to take away my rights to satisfy your fear?

What is the virtue of an assault weapon. Let me preface that with, in the course of debate, an assault weapon is defined as a weapon equipped with a semi-automatic firing system fed by a high* capacity magazine. I know that gun lovers would like to take serious discussions down a primrose path of semantics. Face facts and employ the parlance of our times and agree that semantic differences do not and cannot advance discussion.

So, I ask again, what is the virtue of an assault weapon? They are not designedfor hunting quail, grouse, pheasant or turkey. They were not designed to hunt deer or moose or mountain goat. They were not designed for for paper target or clay pigeons. They were, in fact, designed to kill as many people as quickly as possible.

Where's the nobility in that? Are people expecting hordes of criminals invading their homes? Are they living in a war torn area of the Middle East or southwest Asia or Central America? Do you see yourself as the hero gunslinger in the mold of Dirty Harry or some other cinematic character? What justifies the absolute need for such weapons?

After recognizing such weapons as the weapon of choice for mass murderers, can a reasonable argument be made for banning them?




*high capacity is defined as a magazine capable of loading ten or more rounds.

Your argument is irelvant all it takes is one bullet to kill some one.


Once they go over the edge and pull the trigger..9 times out of 10 the trigger man's life is over.

That was not the case in Parkland. And the Las Vegas shooter committed suicide after taking out nearly sixty.

What's your point? So long as the shooter is taken down it becomes an acceptable situation?

A gun is just an object, just a tool...we have to go after the root cause and it's surley not guns.

You're right. Guns are tools. Consider the design purpose of tools. Hammers are designed to drive and pull nails. Some hammers are designed to work metal. Screwdrivers are designed to tighten and loosen screws. Wrenches are designed to tighten and loosen nits and bolts.

Some guns are designed to shoot fowl. Others are designed to hunt game. Some guns are designed to be concealable and are used in either self defense or armed robbery. Some guns are designed as sniper weapons accurately placing a shot fro a great distance.

But some guns are designed solely to kill as many people as quickly as possible. Those are the "tools" in question. What is the virtue of such a "tool"?

 

[Wyatt earp]

bullet proof backpacks on amazon ....300 to 500 bucks

Have the government subsidise them, $10 bucks.

 

[asaratis]

Accepting dead school kids as part of doing business is willfully simplistic at best, criminally negligent at worst.

There is a class of Americans who have had pleasurable experiences with guns. Bully for them. But there is a growing group of Americans who have had tragic experiences with guns. The former class tells the latter class to deal with it because they cannot fathom the havoc wrought by assault weapons in the hands of our fellow citizens.

In short the gun lovers are saying that there is no acceptable solution to gun violence and the lives of school children just aren't as cool as their personal arsenals.

And then they blanch at the suggestion that the tent pole ethos of the Right Wing is greed.

First educate yourself. There are few assault weapons in the hands of your fellow citizens. Those who have them are licensed to own them.

Second, why should my weapons be considered a threat if they never leave my person, and I am not a threat?

Why do you want to take away my rights to satisfy your fear?

What is the virtue of an assault weapon. Let me preface that with, in the course of debate, an assault weapon is defined as a weapon equipped with a semi-automatic firing system fed by a high* capacity magazine. I know that gun lovers would like to take serious discussions down a primrose path of semantics. Face facts and employ the parlance of our times and agree that semantic differences do not and cannot advance discussion.

So, I ask again, what is the virtue of an assault weapon? They are not designedfor hunting quail, grouse, pheasant or turkey. They were not designed to hunt deer or moose or mountain goat. They were not designed for for paper target or clay pigeons. They were, in fact, designed to kill as many people as quickly as possible.

Where's the nobility in that? Are people expecting hordes of criminals invading their homes? Are they living in a war torn area of the Middle East or southwest Asia or Central America? Do you see yourself as the hero gunslinger in the mold of Dirty Harry or some other cinematic character? What justifies the absolute need for such weapons?

After recognizing such weapons as the weapon of choice for mass murderers, can a reasonable argument be made for banning them?




*high capacity is defined as a magazine capable of loading ten or more rounds.

Your argument is irelvant all it takes is one bullet to kill some one.


Once they go over the edge and pull the trigger..9 times out of 10 the trigger man's life is over.

That was not the case in Parkland. And the Las Vegas shooter committed suicide after taking out nearly sixty.

What's your point? So long as the shooter is taken down it becomes an acceptable situation?

A gun is just an object, just a tool...we have to go after the root cause and it's surley not guns.

True. Only liberals and other idiots blame the weapon rather than the user of it.

 

[Windparadox]

`
Correction; This is what ONE school is doing in Florida. - Note: Bulletproof school supplies get low grades from safety experts
`

 

[toobfreak]

Accepting dead school kids as part of doing business is willfully simplistic at best, criminally negligent at worst.

There is a class of Americans who have had pleasurable experiences with guns. Bully for them. But there is a growing group of Americans who have had tragic experiences with guns. The former class tells the latter class to deal with it because they cannot fathom the havoc wrought by assault weapons in the hands of our fellow citizens.

In short the gun lovers are saying that there is no acceptable solution to gun violence and the lives of school children just aren't as cool as their personal arsenals.

And then they blanch at the suggestion that the tent pole ethos of the Right Wing is greed.

First educate yourself. There are few assault weapons in the hands of your fellow citizens. Those who have them are licensed to own them.

Second, why should my weapons be considered a threat if they never leave my person, and I am not a threat?

Why do you want to take away my rights to satisfy your fear?

What is the virtue of an assault weapon. Let me preface that with, in the course of debate, an assault weapon is defined as a weapon equipped with a semi-automatic firing system fed by a high* capacity magazine. I know that gun lovers would like to take serious discussions down a primrose path of semantics. Face facts and employ the parlance of our times and agree that semantic differences do not and cannot advance discussion.

So, I ask again, what is the virtue of an assault weapon? They are not designedfor hunting quail, grouse, pheasant or turkey. They were not designed to hunt deer or moose or mountain goat. They were not designed for for paper target or clay pigeons. They were, in fact, designed to kill as many people as quickly as possible.

Where's the nobility in that? Are people expecting hordes of criminals invading their homes? Are they living in a war torn area of the Middle East or southwest Asia or Central America? Do you see yourself as the hero gunslinger in the mold of Dirty Harry or some other cinematic character? What justifies the absolute need for such weapons?

After recognizing such weapons as the weapon of choice for mass murderers, can a reasonable argument be made for banning them?




*high capacity is defined as a magazine capable of loading ten or more rounds.

Your argument is irelvant all it takes is one bullet to kill some one.


Once they go over the edge and pull the trigger..9 times out of 10 the trigger man's life is over.

That was not the case in Parkland. And the Las Vegas shooter committed suicide after taking out nearly sixty.

What's your point? So long as the shooter is taken down it becomes an acceptable situation?

A gun is just an object, just a tool...we have to go after the root cause and it's surley not guns.

Families had guns up the yinyang in the
1940's
1950's
1960's
1970's and
1980's
and we didn't have mass shootings or school serial killings every other week!
This crap didn't begin to become a serious problem until sometime in the 1990's with the Columbine shootings being one of the first big ones I remember!

IF GUNS WEREN'T A PROBLEM all those years and far before that, indeed, kids probably had a lot MORE exposure to guns years ago, why weren't guns the big problem then they are supposedly today? If guns weren't the cause of mass shootings all the time years ago, why are we blaming them now?

If you think guns are such an issue now, up to the mid-1930's people had real automatic weapons laying around, and hardly no one was running around like a nut killing people with them. The more we try to remove firearms from people's lives and make them an unfamiliar item, the more, not less they are getting abused.

 

[TheMoreYouKnow]

Accepting dead school kids as part of doing business is willfully simplistic at best, criminally negligent at worst.

There is a class of Americans who have had pleasurable experiences with guns. Bully for them. But there is a growing group of Americans who have had tragic experiences with guns. The former class tells the latter class to deal with it because they cannot fathom the havoc wrought by assault weapons in the hands of our fellow citizens.

In short the gun lovers are saying that there is no acceptable solution to gun violence and the lives of school children just aren't as cool as their personal arsenals.

And then they blanch at the suggestion that the tent pole ethos of the Right Wing is greed.

First educate yourself. There are few assault weapons in the hands of your fellow citizens. Those who have them are licensed to own them.

Second, why should my weapons be considered a threat if they never leave my person, and I am not a threat?

Why do you want to take away my rights to satisfy your fear?

What is the virtue of an assault weapon. Let me preface that with, in the course of debate, an assault weapon is defined as a weapon equipped with a semi-automatic firing system fed by a high* capacity magazine. I know that gun lovers would like to take serious discussions down a primrose path of semantics. Face facts and employ the parlance of our times and agree that semantic differences do not and cannot advance discussion.

So, I ask again, what is the virtue of an assault weapon? They are not designedfor hunting quail, grouse, pheasant or turkey. They were not designed to hunt deer or moose or mountain goat. They were not designed for for paper target or clay pigeons. They were, in fact, designed to kill as many people as quickly as possible.

Where's the nobility in that? Are people expecting hordes of criminals invading their homes? Are they living in a war torn area of the Middle East or southwest Asia or Central America? Do you see yourself as the hero gunslinger in the mold of Dirty Harry or some other cinematic character? What justifies the absolute need for such weapons?

After recognizing such weapons as the weapon of choice for mass murderers, can a reasonable argument be made for banning them?




*high capacity is defined as a magazine capable of loading ten or more rounds.

Your argument is irelvant all it takes is one bullet to kill some one.


Once they go over the edge and pull the trigger..9 times out of 10 the trigger man's life is over.

That was not the case in Parkland. And the Las Vegas shooter committed suicide after taking out nearly sixty.

What's your point? So long as the shooter is taken down it becomes an acceptable situation?

A gun is just an object, just a tool...we have to go after the root cause and it's surley not guns.

Nick was going to use a wretch, but it doesn't shoot those nice fast hard bullets.

 

[Wyatt earp]

First educate yourself. There are few assault weapons in the hands of your fellow citizens. Those who have them are licensed to own them.

Second, why should my weapons be considered a threat if they never leave my person, and I am not a threat?

Why do you want to take away my rights to satisfy your fear?

What is the virtue of an assault weapon. Let me preface that with, in the course of debate, an assault weapon is defined as a weapon equipped with a semi-automatic firing system fed by a high* capacity magazine. I know that gun lovers would like to take serious discussions down a primrose path of semantics. Face facts and employ the parlance of our times and agree that semantic differences do not and cannot advance discussion.

So, I ask again, what is the virtue of an assault weapon? They are not designedfor hunting quail, grouse, pheasant or turkey. They were not designed to hunt deer or moose or mountain goat. They were not designed for for paper target or clay pigeons. They were, in fact, designed to kill as many people as quickly as possible.

Where's the nobility in that? Are people expecting hordes of criminals invading their homes? Are they living in a war torn area of the Middle East or southwest Asia or Central America? Do you see yourself as the hero gunslinger in the mold of Dirty Harry or some other cinematic character? What justifies the absolute need for such weapons?

After recognizing such weapons as the weapon of choice for mass murderers, can a reasonable argument be made for banning them?




*high capacity is defined as a magazine capable of loading ten or more rounds.

Your argument is irelvant all it takes is one bullet to kill some one.


Once they go over the edge and pull the trigger..9 times out of 10 the trigger man's life is over.

That was not the case in Parkland. And the Las Vegas shooter committed suicide after taking out nearly sixty.

What's your point? So long as the shooter is taken down it becomes an acceptable situation?

A gun is just an object, just a tool...we have to go after the root cause and it's surley not guns.

You're right. Guns are tools. Consider the design purpose of tools. Hammers are designed to drive and pull nails. Some hammers are designed to work metal. Screwdrivers are designed to tighten and loosen screws. Wrenches are designed to tighten and loosen nits and bolts.

Some guns are designed to shoot fowl. Others are designed to hunt game. Some guns are designed to be concealable and are used in either self defense or armed robbery. Some guns are designed as sniper weapons accurately placing a shot fro a great distance.

But some guns are designed solely to kill as many people as quickly as possible. Those are the "tools" in question. What is the virtue of such a "tool"?

Again I don't have a clue , because I never had a desire to need one, but I moved from City Life to the Utopia republican controled country life where I don't bother to lock my doors at night



.

 

[asaratis]

First educate yourself. There are few assault weapons in the hands of your fellow citizens. Those who have them are licensed to own them.

Second, why should my weapons be considered a threat if they never leave my person, and I am not a threat?

Why do you want to take away my rights to satisfy your fear?

What is the virtue of an assault weapon. Let me preface that with, in the course of debate, an assault weapon is defined as a weapon equipped with a semi-automatic firing system fed by a high* capacity magazine. I know that gun lovers would like to take serious discussions down a primrose path of semantics. Face facts and employ the parlance of our times and agree that semantic differences do not and cannot advance discussion.

So, I ask again, what is the virtue of an assault weapon? They are not designedfor hunting quail, grouse, pheasant or turkey. They were not designed to hunt deer or moose or mountain goat. They were not designed for for paper target or clay pigeons. They were, in fact, designed to kill as many people as quickly as possible.

Where's the nobility in that? Are people expecting hordes of criminals invading their homes? Are they living in a war torn area of the Middle East or southwest Asia or Central America? Do you see yourself as the hero gunslinger in the mold of Dirty Harry or some other cinematic character? What justifies the absolute need for such weapons?

After recognizing such weapons as the weapon of choice for mass murderers, can a reasonable argument be made for banning them?




*high capacity is defined as a magazine capable of loading ten or more rounds.

Your argument is irelvant all it takes is one bullet to kill some one.


Once they go over the edge and pull the trigger..9 times out of 10 the trigger man's life is over.

That was not the case in Parkland. And the Las Vegas shooter committed suicide after taking out nearly sixty.

What's your point? So long as the shooter is taken down it becomes an acceptable situation?

A gun is just an object, just a tool...we have to go after the root cause and it's surley not guns.

You're right. Guns are tools. Consider the design purpose of tools. Hammers are designed to drive and pull nails. Some hammers are designed to work metal. Screwdrivers are designed to tighten and loosen screws. Wrenches are designed to tighten and loosen nits and bolts.

Some guns are designed to shoot fowl. Others are designed to hunt game. Some guns are designed to be concealable and are used in either self defense or armed robbery. Some guns are designed as sniper weapons accurately placing a shot fro a great distance.

But some guns are designed solely to kill as many people as quickly as possible. Those are the "tools" in question. What is the virtue of such a "tool"?

Weapons designed to kill enemy combatants are designed to project citizens of the nation being defended.

You are a stupid ass if you think misuse of a weapon of any type should be blamed on the availability of the weapon. The blame of the misuse is clearly the property of the USER!

 

[TheMoreYouKnow]

First educate yourself. There are few assault weapons in the hands of your fellow citizens. Those who have them are licensed to own them.

Second, why should my weapons be considered a threat if they never leave my person, and I am not a threat?

Why do you want to take away my rights to satisfy your fear?

What is the virtue of an assault weapon. Let me preface that with, in the course of debate, an assault weapon is defined as a weapon equipped with a semi-automatic firing system fed by a high* capacity magazine. I know that gun lovers would like to take serious discussions down a primrose path of semantics. Face facts and employ the parlance of our times and agree that semantic differences do not and cannot advance discussion.

So, I ask again, what is the virtue of an assault weapon? They are not designedfor hunting quail, grouse, pheasant or turkey. They were not designed to hunt deer or moose or mountain goat. They were not designed for for paper target or clay pigeons. They were, in fact, designed to kill as many people as quickly as possible.

Where's the nobility in that? Are people expecting hordes of criminals invading their homes? Are they living in a war torn area of the Middle East or southwest Asia or Central America? Do you see yourself as the hero gunslinger in the mold of Dirty Harry or some other cinematic character? What justifies the absolute need for such weapons?

After recognizing such weapons as the weapon of choice for mass murderers, can a reasonable argument be made for banning them?




*high capacity is defined as a magazine capable of loading ten or more rounds.

Your argument is irelvant all it takes is one bullet to kill some one.


Once they go over the edge and pull the trigger..9 times out of 10 the trigger man's life is over.

That was not the case in Parkland. And the Las Vegas shooter committed suicide after taking out nearly sixty.

What's your point? So long as the shooter is taken down it becomes an acceptable situation?

A gun is just an object, just a tool...we have to go after the root cause and it's surley not guns.

Families had guns up the yinyang in the
1940's
1950's
1960's
1970's and
1980's
and we didn't have mass shootings or school serial killings every other week!
This crap didn't begin to become a serious problem until sometime in the 1990's with the Columbine shootings being one of the first big ones I remember!

IF GUNS WEREN'T A PROBLEM all those years and far before that, indeed, kids probably had a lot MORE exposure to guns years ago, why weren't guns the big problem then they are supposedly today? If guns weren't the cause of mass shootings all the time years ago, why are we blaming them now?

If you think guns are such an issue now, up to the mid-1930's people had real automatic weapons laying around, and hardly no one was running around like a nut killing people with them. The more we try to remove firearms from people's lives and make them an unfamiliar item, the more, not less they are getting abused.

I don't remember semi-automatic rifles being sold at Western Auto...do you?

 

[Wyatt earp]

`
Correction; This is what ONE school is doing in Florida. - Note: Bulletproof school supplies get low grades from safety experts
`

I would rather take the chance of a toddler having one then not.



Wouldn't you?

 

[TheMoreYouKnow]

What is the virtue of an assault weapon. Let me preface that with, in the course of debate, an assault weapon is defined as a weapon equipped with a semi-automatic firing system fed by a high* capacity magazine. I know that gun lovers would like to take serious discussions down a primrose path of semantics. Face facts and employ the parlance of our times and agree that semantic differences do not and cannot advance discussion.

So, I ask again, what is the virtue of an assault weapon? They are not designedfor hunting quail, grouse, pheasant or turkey. They were not designed to hunt deer or moose or mountain goat. They were not designed for for paper target or clay pigeons. They were, in fact, designed to kill as many people as quickly as possible.

Where's the nobility in that? Are people expecting hordes of criminals invading their homes? Are they living in a war torn area of the Middle East or southwest Asia or Central America? Do you see yourself as the hero gunslinger in the mold of Dirty Harry or some other cinematic character? What justifies the absolute need for such weapons?

After recognizing such weapons as the weapon of choice for mass murderers, can a reasonable argument be made for banning them?




*high capacity is defined as a magazine capable of loading ten or more rounds.

Your argument is irelvant all it takes is one bullet to kill some one.


Once they go over the edge and pull the trigger..9 times out of 10 the trigger man's life is over.

That was not the case in Parkland. And the Las Vegas shooter committed suicide after taking out nearly sixty.

What's your point? So long as the shooter is taken down it becomes an acceptable situation?

A gun is just an object, just a tool...we have to go after the root cause and it's surley not guns.

You're right. Guns are tools. Consider the design purpose of tools. Hammers are designed to drive and pull nails. Some hammers are designed to work metal. Screwdrivers are designed to tighten and loosen screws. Wrenches are designed to tighten and loosen nits and bolts.

Some guns are designed to shoot fowl. Others are designed to hunt game. Some guns are designed to be concealable and are used in either self defense or armed robbery. Some guns are designed as sniper weapons accurately placing a shot fro a great distance.

But some guns are designed solely to kill as many people as quickly as possible. Those are the "tools" in question. What is the virtue of such a "tool"?

Weapons designed to kill enemy combatants are designed to project citizens of the nation being defended.

You are a stupid ass if you think misuse of a weapon of any type should be blamed on the availability of the weapon. The blame of the misuse is clearly the property of the USER!

Guns don't kill people, stupid people with guns kill people. and those bullets though!

 

[Wyatt earp]

What is the virtue of an assault weapon. Let me preface that with, in the course of debate, an assault weapon is defined as a weapon equipped with a semi-automatic firing system fed by a high* capacity magazine. I know that gun lovers would like to take serious discussions down a primrose path of semantics. Face facts and employ the parlance of our times and agree that semantic differences do not and cannot advance discussion.

So, I ask again, what is the virtue of an assault weapon? They are not designedfor hunting quail, grouse, pheasant or turkey. They were not designed to hunt deer or moose or mountain goat. They were not designed for for paper target or clay pigeons. They were, in fact, designed to kill as many people as quickly as possible.

Where's the nobility in that? Are people expecting hordes of criminals invading their homes? Are they living in a war torn area of the Middle East or southwest Asia or Central America? Do you see yourself as the hero gunslinger in the mold of Dirty Harry or some other cinematic character? What justifies the absolute need for such weapons?

After recognizing such weapons as the weapon of choice for mass murderers, can a reasonable argument be made for banning them?




*high capacity is defined as a magazine capable of loading ten or more rounds.

Your argument is irelvant all it takes is one bullet to kill some one.


Once they go over the edge and pull the trigger..9 times out of 10 the trigger man's life is over.

That was not the case in Parkland. And the Las Vegas shooter committed suicide after taking out nearly sixty.

What's your point? So long as the shooter is taken down it becomes an acceptable situation?

A gun is just an object, just a tool...we have to go after the root cause and it's surley not guns.

Families had guns up the yinyang in the
1940's
1950's
1960's
1970's and
1980's
and we didn't have mass shootings or school serial killings every other week!
This crap didn't begin to become a serious problem until sometime in the 1990's with the Columbine shootings being one of the first big ones I remember!

IF GUNS WEREN'T A PROBLEM all those years and far before that, indeed, kids probably had a lot MORE exposure to guns years ago, why weren't guns the big problem then they are supposedly today? If guns weren't the cause of mass shootings all the time years ago, why are we blaming them now?

If you think guns are such an issue now, up to the mid-1930's people had real automatic weapons laying around, and hardly no one was running around like a nut killing people with them. The more we try to remove firearms from people's lives and make them an unfamiliar item, the more, not less they are getting abused.

I don't remember semi-automatic rifles being sold at Western Auto...do you?

I do the first time in Arkansas, I thought to myself it was so funny you could buy hardware , beer and guns and ammo at the same place...and yet I never heard of mass shootings at the time in the 1980s in Arkansas.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Basically it this liberalism will run it's course and die out, we just have to
now survive through it.

 

[TheMoreYouKnow]

Your argument is irelvant all it takes is one bullet to kill some one.


Once they go over the edge and pull the trigger..9 times out of 10 the trigger man's life is over.

That was not the case in Parkland. And the Las Vegas shooter committed suicide after taking out nearly sixty.

What's your point? So long as the shooter is taken down it becomes an acceptable situation?

A gun is just an object, just a tool...we have to go after the root cause and it's surley not guns.

Families had guns up the yinyang in the
1940's
1950's
1960's
1970's and
1980's
and we didn't have mass shootings or school serial killings every other week!
This crap didn't begin to become a serious problem until sometime in the 1990's with the Columbine shootings being one of the first big ones I remember!

IF GUNS WEREN'T A PROBLEM all those years and far before that, indeed, kids probably had a lot MORE exposure to guns years ago, why weren't guns the big problem then they are supposedly today? If guns weren't the cause of mass shootings all the time years ago, why are we blaming them now?

If you think guns are such an issue now, up to the mid-1930's people had real automatic weapons laying around, and hardly no one was running around like a nut killing people with them. The more we try to remove firearms from people's lives and make them an unfamiliar item, the more, not less they are getting abused.

I don't remember semi-automatic rifles being sold at Western Auto...do you?

I do the first time in Arkansas, I thought to myself it was so funny you could buy hardware , beer and guns and ammo at the same place...and yet I never heard of mass shootings at the time in the 1980s in Arkansas.

Funny about AK, getting married at 14yo is normal to these people...South and Lazy....customs and such.


Anyways,

It was easy to obtain AK's back in the day...as well as SKS, but not at an auto store.

But Patrick Purdy brought back the AK-47 in the Stockton's Cleveland School Shooting 1989.

This nutjob didn't like the influx of Southeast Asians and was fighting his own Vietnam.

 

[Windparadox]

I would rather take the chance of a toddler having one then not. Wouldn't you?

`
I think not. Even a cheap armored backpack costs $225.00, with the average price being $350.00.
`