Students Should Be “Raging Bears” Not “Sitting Ducks”

Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by x_x, Mar 16, 2018.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

  1. lol it really sonds like you havent been around guns much. You didnt even read the quote i posted previously lol. Im quoting FACTS if you can dispute them with FACTS post them please. :p

     
  2. ...i mean yould really rather get shot with a .223 then a .44mag or45??? Idk .223 is a nasty round but you get hit with that .44mag body parts are flying off.
     
  3. Rather not get shot with anything.who gives about facts/statstic what kinda gun used at killing ppl most?they kill thats a fact.
    But you like facts so check out the how many hand guns there are per assault rifle and kill rate per gun.
    I say:who needs em if no one else got em.
    But maybe you guys are right,Trump is your president so atleast half your country is crazy.think i would arm myself to if i lived there lol
     
  4. I mean you do realize that the AR-15 .223 was "SPECIFICALLY" designed to injure but not kill the combatant youre engaging? This is absolute FACT they were using m1 grand I think before that and had a big ass .30 cal round, I believe someone correct me if they know better. So when they released the AR-15 the reasoning was that wounding a combatant was logistically better in warfare than outright killing him. If you wound the combatant it takes at least 2 people to carry him off the battlefield and then all the medical personnel and resources that goes along with taking care of the wounded. This is FACT.
     
  5. Your facts say that there are alot of guns in your country.
    Guns make it easy to kill ppl.alot of ppl die from shootings in your country,THAT IS FACTS,
     
  6. .44 mag & .45 hell even .357 were made SPECIFICALLY to kill people with. FACT and like i said you get hit with that .44 youre losing body parts same with .357
     
  7. Not sure what you want to proove to me?what guns that kill the most efficense?
    Im against them all lol.
     

  8. FACT i was victim of a failed home invasion and aggravated assault/attempted murder ...he used a hammar i used a gun. FACT I won

     
  9. ...yeah well im against death by hammer lol
     
  10. ...ild buy a bazooka if they let me, ild buy two of em' lol
     
  11. Ooh you took a hammer to your head.
    Well that explains alot.
    FACT
     


  12. The National Institute of Justice funded evaluation of the literature on the criminology of firearms states:

    "there is no good reason to suppose that people intent on arming themselves for criminal purposes would not be able to do so even if the general availability of firearms to the larger population were seriously restricted. Here it may be appropriate to recall the First Law of Economics, a law whose operation has been sharply in evidence in the case of Prohibition, marijuana and other drugs, prostitution, pornography, and a host of other banned articles and substances, namely, that demand creates its own supply. There is no evidence anywhere to show that reducing the availability of firearms in general likewise reduces their availability to persons with criminal intent or that persons with criminal intent would not be able to arm themselves under any set of general restrictions on firearms.
    [1]

    An English gun control analyst has commented that no matter how restrictive and severe its laws, in any society there will always be enough guns available to arm those who are willing to obtain and use them illegally. Thus, "conventional wisdom" is wrong in thinking that gun laws can substantially reduce crime as it is in thinking that widespread gun ownership leads the law-abiding to murder.
    [2]

    1. James D. Wright, Peter rossi and Kathleen Daly, Under the Gun: Weapons, Crime and Violence in the United States (New York: Aldine, 1983), pp. 137-38.

    2. Colin Greenwood and Joseph Magaddino, "Comparitive Cross-Cultural Statistics," in Restricting Handguns, ed. Don B. Kates (New York: North Point, 1979).


    Gun Control -- A Historical Perspective

    Whether you agree or not, it's an interesting lesson in history. Something to think about:

    In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

    In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

    Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews &others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

    China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

    Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

    Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

    Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

    Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million (very conservative number).

    It has now been 12 months (old numbers) since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in:
    Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent
    Australia-wide, assaults are up 86 percent
    Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent
    In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent.

    Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns.
    (Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not)


    For further information, read:

    Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America

    What is striking is that Prof. Kleck actually began this series of studies to "prove" that guns in the hands of citizens doesn't reduce crime. Ya see, Kleck is a liberal Democrat. He is a member of the ACLU, Common Cause, Amnesty International and supports the typical liberal agendas. When he got done crunching the data he found results that shocked him. At a minimum, Americans use firearms 2.5 million times per year in direct, face to face defenses. And that is Kleck's admittedly conservative estimate. Additionally, only 1% of the time is the thug shot, and only 0.1% of all encountered thugs are killed. Remarkable restraint, I'd say. Good people just left alone.

    The bad news, Kleck received far fewer invitations to Florida State University cocktail parties. The good news, He won the Hindelang Award for the most significant work by a criminologist (in a whole bunch of years).
     
  13. Shooting a person is a lot different than shooting a target. All I’ll say on that.
     
  14. We can debate this for years and the facts don't change. Areas with strict gun laws have higher gun violence for one simple reason the only people effected by the law are law abiding citizens the criminal had already decided they don't care about the law, so if they don't care about the law saying murder is illegal do you think they would stop because a gun is illegal. Look at the guy in New York who used a truck as a weapon or the bomber on Austin isn't making a bomb illegal what about intentionally running someone over? Our problem had to do with people's values not guns. A gun is simply a tool like a hammer or a pressure cooker can they be used illegally, yes do they have legitimate uses, yes
     
  15. Personally I think every student should have a concealed carry permit. Don't like what your teacher is saying? Welp, rip her. Bang Bang.

    On a serious note, the deficit in funds for public schooling in America speaks volumes. Teachers have to buy their own teaching supplies, pay for the books their students use..the pens and other stationery. Point being, no other country has stupid rules in which they require teachers to pay for teaching supplies from their own pocket. So where do you think money is going to come from to train teachers in using guns? Do they have to pay for it, who will pay for the ammo and hours of conditioning and practice required? There's a reason teachers are in the teaching and nurturing field, and not in the Army. A majority of teachers do not have the aptitude or mental fortitude to handle a gun, let alone fire a shot in the right direction during a tense situation. You want to arm mild mannered, docile Miss Daisy who teaches Kindergarten? Good luck with that, what happens when a child is shot accidentally by a Teacher who was forced to take up gun training against her wishes?

    Don't get me started on arming students, I'm sure throwing more guns in the equation should solve the problem. :roll:


    Ps: An armed Marshall in the school didn’t do much against the last mass shooting. It's strange how America has the largest population of guns..even more than their people and the largest mass shootings every year. I'm certain there is no correlation between that.


    Times have changed, shouldn't a 300+ year old law change? Back when the constitution was written, the right to bear arms was solely to make sure a well regulated militia could be raised when required. Why? Because the circumstances then called for it, they were violent and the entire country was formed on the gun and wresting the land from the natives and other attackers.
    Is it the same now? Nope. Only makes sense to amend a 300+y old law that is no longer relevant. When is the last time we needed a "well regulated militia"?

    Also.. Countries with gun laws have very low shooting and gun related massacres. When was the last time you heard somsone set up a snipers nest in Singapore and open fire on a crowd below?

    It simply boils down to this, the NRA makes a lot of money. Its a multi million dollar industry and they'll do anything to protect it.
     
  16. Well i know i am safe and protected with my magic purple rock and 5 foot long stick .... both great defenders of violence and assault
     
  17. When the govt says “you don’t need a gun”......buy 2
     
  18. @venom.... you don’t think that it’s more important now than it’s ever been? I do, these hrc and dark operators need to know there’s opposition to their BS
     
  19. hahahahahahahahahahahaha
     
  20. 2 bazookas ...i want "2" bazookas 
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.