Study confirms the idea that schools should have armed/trained security.

[Cthulhu 2020]

And how is a nut case mass murderer the same as a soldier in war?

Apparently nut case murderers get +200 bladed weapon skill. I'm rolling that class for one of my IRL alts, just think of all the money I'll save on ammo.

Yes, it's why they still have tactical knives.

I'd probably defer to RICH on this one, but I doubt those see much combat outside of a battle with some rope.

[Aeluron Lightsong]

Yes, it's why they still have tactical knives. And how is a nut case mass murderer the same as a soldier in war?

Which is hardly used and I can bet it's a last resort.

[Heineken]

Which is hardly used and I can bet it's a last resort.

Close quarters combat is very real. It's not "rarely used". I'd almost rather have a solid knife on me for protection than a pistol.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Close quarters combat is very real. It's not "rarely used". I'd almost rather have a solid knife on me for protection than a pistol.

Depends on your starting position. If their pistol is at their hip and you're 1 foot behind them sure, I'd take a knife over a pistol. Any other situation I'm not sure why someone would take a knife other than the be dishonest about it to try and prove that their silly selection of weapon somehow proves something about the lethality of knives.

[Noomz]

Get more Police sure, but teachers have enough shit to deal with as it is without them requiring more training, regulation and responsibilities.

Oooor... hold on for this one: severely restrict/ban firearms.

Americans obsession with owning firearms is absurd and the distrust and hate everyone seem to have against one another blows my mind.
You shake each others hands whilst holdign a gun behind your backs and wondering when that other sucker is gonna do something so you can shoot him.

[Wells]

No one is saying you can't kill the shit out of someone with a knife so stop with that.

But a gun is far, far, far more deadly.

[Heineken]

Oooor... hold on for this one: severely restrict/ban firearms.

Americans obsession with owning firearms is absurd and the distrust and hate everyone seem to have against one another blows my mind.
You shake each others hands whilst holdign a gun behind your backs and wondering when that other sucker is gonna do something so you can shoot him.

I'm sorry, I refuse to live in a nation where only Government is armed. I live in the real world where it hasn't even been 100 years since Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin. I do not and will not EVER trust my Government. I know my world history and I'm a real person. I'd rather deal with random shootings every year as a society than another mass genocide.

- - - Updated - - -

No one is saying you can't kill the shit out of someone with a knife so stop with that.

But a gun is far, far, far more deadly.

It depends, honestly, on who your enemy is. Facing an army? Yes, you'd want some guns. Some nut case that's just out to kill random people can and will do that with anything they choose. You do not disarm the entire population because some idiot wants to kill people or themselves. They're going to do it no matter what you ban. The only option is to give the good people a chance to defend themselves.

[Cthulhu 2020]

It depends, honestly, on who your enemy is. Facing an army? Yes, you'd want some guns. Some nut case that's just out to kill random people can and will do that with anything they choose. You do not disarm the entire population because some idiot wants to kill people or themselves. They're going to do it no matter what you ban. The only option is to give the good people a chance to defend themselves.

You changed the subject mid sentence from the deadliness of a knife to good guys with guns vs bad guys with guns. I'm mildly impressed.

Oh wait, it was just backpedaling to the original argument that people are going to maim each other no matter what, so we should let them do it with guns rather than blunt objects.

[Heineken]

You changed the subject mid sentence from the deadliness of a knife to good guys with guns vs bad guys with guns. I'm mildly impressed.

Oh wait, it was just backpedaling to the original argument that people are going to maim each other no matter what, so we should let them do it with guns rather than blunt objects.

I never said LET them do anything. I'm simply saying that people should have a right to defend themselves. And guess what? The bad guys are going to get guns no matter what you ban. I don't care how many times you've heard it said, it's true, "only the good guys follow the laws".

[Zannis]

Ban automatic and semi-automatic rifles from civilians. Limit clip sizes on all weapons sold. Mandate fingerprint checks on all firearms sold in the US. In other words....prevent anyone with a criminal record from access to military grade weapons. You won't stop mass shootings, but you can limit their scope.

Anyone who claims to need more than a handgun for their own protection is deluded. Gun Zealots defending their cache of weapons are disgusting, and the criminals who destroy gun control legislation are up there with murders and rapists. The blood of each dead child is on their hands as far as I'm concerned.

[Heineken]

Ban automatic and semi-automatic rifles from civilians. Limit clip sizes on all weapons sold. Mandate fingerprint checks on all firearms sold in the US. In other words....prevent anyone with a criminal record from access to military grade weapons. You won't stop mass shootings, but you can limit their scope.

Anyone who claims to need more than a handgun for their own protection is deluded. Gun Zealots defending their cache of weapons are disgusting, and the criminals who destroy gun control legislation are up there with murders and rapists. The blood of each dead child is on their hands as far as I'm concerned.

Okay, you set up all those restrictions... and who follows them? The law abiding citizens. It's already law that criminals can't have guns. They still get them. They will still get them. CRIMINALS DO NOT FOLLOW LAW... that's why they're criminals. Grown adults are capable of being responsible with firearms, that's something that people really need to understand.

[satimy]

Which had to do with...

Here, do some reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh

- - - Updated - - -



Citation required.

Statistically speaking, a gun is more likely to be used on a loved one than someone seeking to do you harm.

Watch the 60 minutes interview with him, ive read that wikipedia article several times. He was standing outside the gates at Waco and watched them shoot tank rounds into a building with women and children. To say that he was some gun nut that was acting only on his view that the government was oppressing gun owners is just wrong. He had severe PTSD from the Gulf War and when he came home and saw that shit at Waco I think it made him go crazy.

[Wells]

Okay, you set up all those restrictions... and who follows them? The law abiding citizens. It's already law that criminals can't have guns. They still get them. They will still get them. CRIMINALS DO NOT FOLLOW LAW... that's why they're criminals. Grown adults are capable of being responsible with firearms, that's something that people really need to understand.

Yeah that's why we need to get rid of laws against murder! Murderers are just gonna murder, they don't follow the law. That's why they're criminals.

Sure grown adults are capable, they're just frequently not.

[Shway Norris]

Oooor... hold on for this one: severely restrict/ban firearms.

Americans obsession with owning firearms is absurd and the distrust and hate everyone seem to have against one another blows my mind.
You shake each others hands whilst holding a gun behind your backs and wondering when that other sucker is gonna do something so you can shoot him.

This is not only ignorant its flat out wrong in it premise. Banning guns would in no way help the problem with mass shootings in the USA, why? Because in the last 80 years only 2 mass shootings have been done with firearms legally owned by the offender. Do some research people its not hard. Numerous counties/towns mandate the ownership of firearms and in said places violent crimes are extremely rare. People that perform mass shootings are simply cowards. They go places where they know no one has firearms, they target them specifically because these are victims who can in no way fight back. Put a gun in the hands of said victims and guess what? Problem solves itself. also, no substantial proof exists connecting high suicide rates to gun ownership/availability though many try to make it seem so by saying that area's with legal guns have much higher suicide rates with said weapon... well.. duh.. its available to use its going to be used, but it didn't cause the suicide, plenty of ways to off ones self.

Now if your an angry US hating person and need examples outside of the country look at Sweden, the crime rate is ridiculously low and person to person percentage wise have far more firearms then Americans. a friend of mine went on his honeymoon out their, and not only was it one of the most peaceful places he had ever been, he saw atleast 25 people openly carrying firearms, a few even had what one would call "assault rifles". no one was worried. no one caused a fuss.
now how about the suicide rates? well lets take a look at Japan where it is notoriously hard to obtain any kind of firearm with out the right connections with criminals, or being part of the police force. in 2009 they had the highest suicide rate in the world. so, no connection their. its sad how simple this all really is but everyone just listens to what they are told instead of doing a little research and having their own informed opinion. ah well, follow your shepherd, i prefer to live with a free mind.

[Heineken]

Yeah that's why we need to get rid of laws against murder! Murderers are just gonna murder, they don't follow the law. That's why they're criminals.

Sure grown adults are capable, they're just frequently not.

So every person on this planet is a murderer now? Or a potential murderer? I mean, looking back through history, even some of the most hardened criminals were against murdering innocent people. It's just not the social make up of our species aside from the severely mentally ill... which is an extremely small portion of our population. What you said here makes no sense... guns do NOT kill people. People kill people... mentally ill people kill people.

[Wells]

So every person on this planet is a murderer now? Or a potential murderer? I mean, looking back through history, even some of the most hardened criminals were against murdering innocent people. It's just not the social make up of our species aside from the severely mentally ill... which is an extremely small portion of our population. What you said here makes no sense... guns do NOT kill people. People kill people.

I hope you don't miss targets as often as you miss points.

[Heineken]

I hope you don't miss targets as often as you miss points.

I believe that's called avoiding the argument... or at the very least a strawman.

[satimy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh


http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/law/1...hive.mcveigh2/


http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...imothy-McVeigh

I'd say gun rights was part of his agenda/delusion/whatever you want to call it.

- - - Updated - - -



"Gun nuts" is intended to refer specifically to those who have guns and are nuts, not to imply that all gun owners are nuts.

From the wiki article under Motivations for the Bombing

McVeigh claimed that the bombing was revenge for "what the U.S. government did at Waco and Ruby Ridge."[91] McVeigh visited Waco during the standoff. While there, he was interviewed by student reporter Michelle Rauch, a senior journalism major at SMU who was writing for the school paper. McVeigh expressed his objections over what was happening there.[8



The administration has said that Iraq has no right to stockpile chemical or biological weapons ("weapons of mass destruction") — mainly because they have used them in the past.

Well, if that's the standard by which these matters are decided, then the U.S. is the nation that set the precedent. The U.S. has stockpiled these same weapons (and more) for over 40 years. The U.S. claims this was done for deterrent purposes during its "Cold War" with the Soviet Union. Why, then, it is invalid for Iraq to claim the same reason (deterrence) with respect to Iraq's (real) war with, and the continued threat of, its neighbor Iran?

The administration claims that Iraq has used these weapons in the past. We've all seen the pictures that show a Kurdish woman and child frozen in death from the use of chemical weapons. But, have you ever seen those pictures juxtaposed next to pictures from Hiroshima or Nagasaki?

I suggest that one study the histories of World War I, World War II and other "regional conflicts" that the U.S. has been involved in to familiarize themselves with the use of "weapons of mass destruction."

Remember Dresden? How about Hanoi? Tripoli? Baghdad? What about the big ones — Hiroshima and Nagasaki? (At these two locations, the U.S. killed at least 150,000 non-combatants — mostly women and children — in the blink of an eye. Thousands more took hours, days, weeks or months to die).

If Saddam is such a demon, and people are calling for war crimes charges and trials against him and his nation, why do we not hear the same cry for blood directed at those responsible for even greater amounts of "mass destruction" — like those responsible and involved in dropping bombs on the cities mentioned above?

The truth is, the U.S. has set the standard when it comes to the stockpiling and use of weapons of mass destruction.


Hypocrisy when it comes to the death of children? In Oklahoma City, it was family convenience that explained the presence of a day-care center placed between street level and the law enforcement agencies which occupied the upper floors of the building. Yet, when discussion shifts to Iraq, any day-care center in a government building instantly becomes "a shield." Think about it.

(Actually, there is a difference here. The administration has admitted to knowledge of the presence of children in or near Iraqi government buildings, yet they still proceed with their plans to bomb —saying that they cannot be held responsible if children die. There is no such proof, however, that knowledge of the presence of children existed in relation to the Oklahoma City bombing.)

When considering morality and "mens rea" [criminal intent], in light of these facts, I ask: Who are the true barbarians? ...

I find it ironic, to say the least, that one of the aircraft used to drop such a bomb on Iraq is dubbed "The Spirit of Oklahoma." This leads me to a final, and unspoken, moral hypocrisy regarding the use of weapons of mass destruction.

When a U.S. plane or cruise missile is used to bring destruction to a foreign people, this nation rewards the bombers with applause and praise. What a convenient way to absolve these killers of any responsibility for the destruction they leave in their wake.

Unfortunately, the morality of killing is not so superficial. The truth is, the use of a truck, a plane or a missile for the delivery of a weapon of mass destruction does not alter the nature of the act itself.

These are weapons of mass destruction — and the method of delivery matters little to those on the receiving end of such weapons.

Whether you wish to admit it or not, when you approve, morally, of the bombing of foreign targets by the U.S. military, you are approving of acts morally equivalent to the bombing in Oklahoma City .

[Wells]

I believe that's called avoiding the argument... or at the very least a strawman.

No, its just you missing the point. Your argument against gun control is an argument against every criminal law.

[Heineken]

No, its just you missing the point. Your argument against gun control is an argument against every criminal law.

Are you following me?