No this is how you know your country has a liberal media problem. Firstly I call bullshit, but we'll assume this is true for the sake of this conversation. How in hell
It's not a gun problem, it's people mass reporting on things. If they started reporting everytime a bus broke down you'd probably think there was some major defect that the manufacturer made when nothing changed but how often it's talked about.
I'm going to take "shit that never happened for 500"
1
deleted
· 6 years ago
It's amazing how informed children 5-8 have become in the last few years. Sometimes I can't even tell them apart from their parents online.
Wait a minute...
My seven year old already has a firm grasp of the concept and permanence of death, do not underestimate kids they are sometimes far wiser than their years!
4Reply
deleted
· 6 years ago
Oh yes, one person's fear just means that gun owners are just immoral because some people are sick.
She wouldn't have anything to be afraid if her school had an armed guard or teacher.
Why not have an armed and trained person on campus if they're just gonna call them when something bad happens anyways? When seconds count, the police are minutes away and will probably wait outside for a half-hour.
My high school was connected to the Cherokee nation complex and run by the Cherokee nation so we had nation marshals that would occasionally patrol and a marshal in an office by the front desk.
Because for the love of god putting guns in a classroom is not a solution.
First of all theres always the possibility that the armed guard becomes the menace. Arguably, this is a very limited risk.
Then theres the fact that amidst chaos a teacher might hit an innocent target.
Then theres the fact that the assaillent could first neutralize said target before moving on to unarmed targets.
Then theres the problem that YOURE TRYING TO GET GUNS IN SCHOOLS. HOW DO YOU NOT SEE HOW CRAZY THAT SOUNDS ?!
2
deleted
· 6 years ago
There are already guns in school.
Almost every school has armed guards, which have guns. We're just trying to tighten security.
1
deleted
· 6 years ago
So, when given the choice between a shoot-out or a massacre, you'd choose the massacre?
"not a solution" Why?
"limited risk" is an overstatement imo, but I'll allow it.
"might hit an innocent target" as opposed to the gunman who is trying to hit innocent targets. But even in hunter safety I was trained to look beyond the target. And I was 12. It's kinda a big deal in the gun world.
"first neutralize said target" This makes the least sense honestly. 'But then the gunman HAS to kill the armed guard before killing everyone else!' What?
CAPS LOCK PART. We're saying that signs stating "This is a gun free zone," don't work against mass shooters. Therefore, maybe we should try not making them gun free zones, and put guns in the hands of responsible adults that give a damn about the kids there. That way they have more ways to save lives than merely being a bullet sponge for the kids they're trying to protect. I'd prefer that over being a sitting duck. Doesn't seem that crazy to me.
The gunman could shoot the defender of the children so there no point in having said defender. Great logic there friend. Maybe we should just get rid of our military cause anyone we get invaded by could just shoot them first. And cops too cause crims can just shoot them first.
It's a completely plausible thing for a kid to say. All it would require is some useless prick to tell the kid that their school might get shot up. Creative child brain can easily jump to the rest.
Your hyperbolic example doesn't disprove the fact that many of the happiest most free countries in the world also have some of the strictest gun control and extremely low murder rates.
Switzerland has more guns per-capita than the US yet has one of the lowest gun violence rates in the world and very restrictive gun control laws. Culture is partially to do with that, but their gun control laws are baked into their culture now. If owning a gun in the US meant you had to go through the same training and licensing the Swiss do to own guns than we would have a lot less problems.
And if you believe that being in a "free" country means you should be able to do whatever the fuck you want you are retarded. There's a saying that goes "One's freedom stops where someone else's begins". Meaning that you should be able to do what you want provided you dont harm others. Well the problems with guns and gun shootings is that they kinda bother others.
▼
deleted
· 6 years ago
For a gun control advocate, you really like jumping them. No one's (hopefully) advocating for guns and for shootings. But what we are talking about is private gun ownership, family, and home defense.
I have a right to autonomy, and a right to live. Taking away my means of effective defense against any threat in the world impedes on my rights. You have an actual argument, or are you going to keep saying that your "right" to be a powerless ward of the state overrides my right to take care of myself?
Should the ssme apply to freedom of speech? Your freedom of speech impedes my right to not hear things that conflict with my beliefs, or is that just stupid?
Right... my only point was that free didnt mean there shouldnt be control measures. I couldnt care less about going into a debate over gun control, if its not apparent that the US have a gun problem, then im not gonna argue.
But free != no rules. Thats anarchy. And it doesnt lead to freedom, it leads to someone eventually taking control.
Good thing I have guns, that way I have means to take care of myself when shit gets pear-shaped.
More people are killed with firearms, but you'll find that comparable nations without guns have fewer successful self-defense cases, and more than enough stabbing deaths and bludgeoning deaths to make up the difference.
If you look at the statistics of gun ownership vs gun violence across the world, the US has vey high (legal) ownership, and one of the lowest per capita deaths per 1000000 of,population. The numbers are skewed by the high amount of gun violence in cities which are (coincidentally?) controlled by the strongest gun control advocates, and have the strictest gun control laws but still have the most violence. So,really, a large part of what you're seeing is media frenzy over "the latest thing." You're child is still much much more likely to die in a pool accident.
Remember the rash of fires set in Black churches? Turns out the number was the same as ever, but the media made that a thing one year. We didn't seem too concerned about the Russians when the Secretary of State was giving them plutonium, but now "Russian medling" is in the news and being broadcast all the time.
Maybe take a look at the numbers before agitating for more laws that will only be obeyed by the law abiding.
Wait a minute...
Why not have an armed and trained person on campus if they're just gonna call them when something bad happens anyways? When seconds count, the police are minutes away and will probably wait outside for a half-hour.
First of all theres always the possibility that the armed guard becomes the menace. Arguably, this is a very limited risk.
Then theres the fact that amidst chaos a teacher might hit an innocent target.
Then theres the fact that the assaillent could first neutralize said target before moving on to unarmed targets.
Then theres the problem that YOURE TRYING TO GET GUNS IN SCHOOLS. HOW DO YOU NOT SEE HOW CRAZY THAT SOUNDS ?!
Almost every school has armed guards, which have guns. We're just trying to tighten security.
"not a solution" Why?
"limited risk" is an overstatement imo, but I'll allow it.
"might hit an innocent target" as opposed to the gunman who is trying to hit innocent targets. But even in hunter safety I was trained to look beyond the target. And I was 12. It's kinda a big deal in the gun world.
"first neutralize said target" This makes the least sense honestly. 'But then the gunman HAS to kill the armed guard before killing everyone else!' What?
CAPS LOCK PART. We're saying that signs stating "This is a gun free zone," don't work against mass shooters. Therefore, maybe we should try not making them gun free zones, and put guns in the hands of responsible adults that give a damn about the kids there. That way they have more ways to save lives than merely being a bullet sponge for the kids they're trying to protect. I'd prefer that over being a sitting duck. Doesn't seem that crazy to me.
Switzerland has more guns per-capita than the US yet has one of the lowest gun violence rates in the world and very restrictive gun control laws. Culture is partially to do with that, but their gun control laws are baked into their culture now. If owning a gun in the US meant you had to go through the same training and licensing the Swiss do to own guns than we would have a lot less problems.
- strictest gun control
You clearly don't know what at at least one of the aforementioned actually means
But free != no rules. Thats anarchy. And it doesnt lead to freedom, it leads to someone eventually taking control.
More people are killed with firearms, but you'll find that comparable nations without guns have fewer successful self-defense cases, and more than enough stabbing deaths and bludgeoning deaths to make up the difference.
Remember the rash of fires set in Black churches? Turns out the number was the same as ever, but the media made that a thing one year. We didn't seem too concerned about the Russians when the Secretary of State was giving them plutonium, but now "Russian medling" is in the news and being broadcast all the time.
Maybe take a look at the numbers before agitating for more laws that will only be obeyed by the law abiding.