They won't stop anytime soon.. .. agree with OP read court case where principal garbed shotgun from his car and killed a student before the student could shoot another bunch of people with his a
x
Click to expand

Comments(291):

[ 291 comments ]
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#176 - edzeppelin (12/15/2012) [-]
I wouldn't mind my teacher carrying a gun if it was Lana Caine.
I wouldn't mind my teacher carrying a gun if it was Lana Caine.
#193 to #176 - albiwankenobi (12/15/2012) [-]
Me too.
Me too.
#196 to #176 - sidnineonefourtwo (12/15/2012) [-]
But she can't stand kids. She's baby crazy.
#1 - MuahahaOfLore (12/15/2012) [-]
This image has expired
agree with OP

read court case where principal garbed shotgun from his car and killed a student before the student could shoot another bunch of people with his assault rifle.

the principal saved countless lives but was fired for having a gun.
User avatar #222 to #1 - haaaxderp (12/15/2012) [-]
Link?
Some sort of name?
This sounds like it probably has happened, but I would find it interesting to read the court transcript or a court case.
User avatar #223 to #222 - haaaxderp (12/15/2012) [-]
Not sure if he was specifically referring to this, but it's similar.
http://www.davekopel . com/2a/othwr/principal&gun.htm
#208 to #1 - anon (12/15/2012) [-]
You know teachers can be crazy too? By giving them guns, we are also giving them a great opportunity to go on a massacre.
+2
#2 to #1 - doctorlean **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#31 to #1 - jakefenris (12/15/2012) [-]
Because it makes no sense to make it impossible for civilians to acquire assault rifles, and instead we should just hand out guns on street corners to everyone who doesn't have one yet.
Because it makes no sense to make it impossible for civilians to acquire assault rifles, and instead we should just hand out guns on street corners to everyone who doesn't have one yet.
#243 to #31 - dubmaster (12/15/2012) [-]
Certainly. Not having a gun conversely makes the enemy more powerful. Not many would be willing to shoot up the school, mall, swedish sex shop, or movie theater knowing they'd get shot withing seconds.
#206 to #31 - MuahahaOfLore (12/15/2012) [-]
This image has expired
exactly

the purpose for the second amendment was to protect citizens from their governments anyway.

more than 99% of people would never use a gun to hurt someone besides defense.
safety precautions are of course very necessary.
#292 - masterofpoon (12/15/2012) [-]
Giving everyone guns is great idea, Look at Sanford they won village of the year multiple times!
#122 - angelusprimus ONLINE (12/15/2012) [-]
Anyone noticed how many of those "overpaid" and "spoiled" "worthless" teachers died trying to protect the kids?
Like Vicky Soto hiding the kids in the closets and then staying outside the closet, telling the shooter kids are in the gym, and getting shot.
Like principal and psychologist who ran straight at the shooter to try to take him down and got killed.
And why did two men rushing a shooter who already fired several times died? Because shooter had an assault rifle.
I have nothing against people owning hunting rifles or hand guns for home defense. I own a gun myself. Taught my gf to shoot and got her one too.
But there is absolutely no reason for private citizens to be able to get their hands on military grade assault rifles. With no psychology check up, with nothing more then waiting for three days for it.
If he had a hunting rifle, or a hand gun, he would have been taken down when he stopped to reload. Assault rifle he had comes with 30+1 rounds. 28 dead.
Oh and you can legally buy it online. 950 bucks. Ships for free. No matter if you are a mental patient with homocidal tendencies. No one cares. It ships free.
So yeah, I don't want anyone to take guns away. But god damnit some CONTROL would be nice.
User avatar #272 to #122 - Charizard (12/15/2012) [-]
**** off handguns hold around 17 rds it only takes a second to reload if a shooter who has a 30rd mag or a drum did't just spray and pray and actually aimed or took time alot more people would have probley died. Also it was not an assault rifle you stupid **** an assault rifle has to have fully automatic capability. Also the "Assault rifle" was not used in the shooting it was in his trunk.
#307 to #272 - angelusprimus ONLINE (12/16/2012) [-]
People who need to insult others during disagreements usually have a very low intelligence and bad upbringing. Its ok. We don't all have to be very capable people, but you don't really have to go showing to everyone how limited you are.
Weapons he used were Glock 32 with 13 rounds and SIG Sauer with 9 rounds.
He also carried a Bushmaster .233. In his car was another long rifle.
Check the facts before you go insulting people.
#137 to #122 - anon (12/15/2012) [-]
Forgot to add to that though that both those pistols can be equipped to have up to 30round mags in them and are semi - automatic. I do not know if he had such an equipment on them but if i remember correctly each mag hold 10+rounds as a default. Also if you own an assault rifle if must be semi automatic unless you get special licensing and go through a physiology check to make sure you can own a full automatic. So those pistols had the same potential as said assault rifle with getting special mags which are not hard to get at all.
#147 to #137 - angelusprimus ONLINE (12/15/2012) [-]
Modifying a weapon takes quite a bit of know how, and if you do it wrong they tend to go bad on you. If you are lucky they stall, if you are unlucky they go boom.
All his weapons were brand new, out of the box.
I'm not saying a determined psychotic wouldn't be able to do it, but do we have to make it EASY for them?
Again, I am a big believer in 2nd amendment. I own a gun, and think anyone who loves their family should have one in the house.
BUT, I am also believer in gun control (not banning) I believe psychologist testing should be mandatory for anything but basic hunting rifle and small caliber hand guns.
User avatar #313 to #147 - brobathehutt (09/22/2013) [-]
2nd amendments mostly about militias, but go ahead and keep misusing it.
#314 to #313 - angelusprimus ONLINE (09/22/2013) [-]
Yes it was. But militia was not same then as now.
Militia was a force of normal citizens, armed with their own weaponary in time of need.
Amendment was about right to be armed and defend yourself. It was direct response to British law that did not alow commoners to have personal weapons.
User avatar #315 to #314 - brobathehutt (09/22/2013) [-]
No, it actually referred to state militias. The way it's written implies nothing about citizens owning guns, just people in the militia. Thankfully the amendment has been interpreted to mean that anyone can own a gun, otherwise **** would be crazy in this country.
#125 to #122 - harryblazer (12/15/2012) [-]
this right here
User avatar #131 to #122 - trollanator (12/15/2012) [-]
He didn't use the assault rifle it was in his car they found a glock and another pistol on him in the school. This is the last I checked CNN which was late last night.
#134 to #131 - angelusprimus ONLINE (12/15/2012) [-]
He had sig sauer and a glock, and a bushmaster 223 assault rifle on him, and another assault rifle in the car.
User avatar #145 to #134 - trollanator (12/15/2012) [-]
"Armed with two semi-automatic pistols, Lanza rapidly sprayed bullets in hallways and classrooms. Twenty children, many of them kindergarteners, and six faculty members lost their lives. Lanza killed himself before police officers could reach him."
He had the bushmaster in the car he only wielded the pistols
#149 to #145 - angelusprimus ONLINE (12/15/2012) [-]
From CBS news:
A law enforcement source told CBS News that Adam Lanza had three weapons with him during the attack: Two handguns (a Sig Sauer and a Glock), and a Bushmaster .223 assault rifle; spent shells were found in the school. Those three weapons were registered to his mother.

There was also a fourth weapon (a long gun) found in the car he drove to the school.
User avatar #152 to #149 - trollanator (12/15/2012) [-]
You were correct good sir now i am curious as to why i cant find such info on cnn nor yahoo
User avatar #150 to #149 - trollanator (12/15/2012) [-]
I will check CBS then
#151 to #150 - angelusprimus ONLINE (12/15/2012) [-]
I am just going by what I read. Could be that CNN is right.
User avatar #141 to #134 - trollanator (12/15/2012) [-]
Really? then I am going by old information I will go check the news really quick to update on some things. but last i heard they found the bushmaster in the car and the sig sauer and glock on him
User avatar #13 - TimBisley (12/15/2012) [-]
Well, look at Switzerland.
Everyone is legally required to be armed, and there is virtually no crime.
#19 to #13 - anon (12/15/2012) [-]
2nd largest amount of deaths by gunshot in Europe.
+4
#23 to #19 - doctorlean **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #284 to #23 - captainrattrap (12/15/2012) [-]
The fact that there's a crossed out pony in your picture makes your comment much more awesome.
0
#288 to #284 - doctorlean **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
+2
#159 to #13 - herzy **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#16 to #13 - notafunnyguy (12/15/2012) [-]
that's also partly because for them when you commit a crime, instead of going to jail for a designated amount of time where you meet other criminals and are actually taught how to be a better crook, and have an 80% chance to recommit ( this is what most first world countries do) , in places like switzerland they actually rehabilitate criminals and teach them right from wrong, and look after them, and they have a 4% chance to recommit.
User avatar #309 to #16 - TimBisley (12/16/2012) [-]
How exactly do they rehabilitate people?
#311 to #309 - notafunnyguy (12/16/2012) [-]
i believe based on the crime committed, they let them talk to therapists and psychologists and attend meetings about how to thrive better in society
#154 - nebuchadnezzaurus (12/15/2012) [-]
arm the authority
arm the internet police
arm everything
User avatar #207 - lolerlaura (12/15/2012) [-]
I support common sense gun control. I think that someone should have to have an evaluation to see if they are mentally fit to own a gun. a lot of the recent tragedies could have been avoided if that was in place. The counter argument is that people who want a gun badly will find a way to get one. I admit that this is true, but crazy Joe probably isn't in with the maffia so getting a gun would at least be very difficult.

What really pisses me off though is the religious crazies saying that the reason this happened is because we took god out of schools. Or the mother ******* Westboro Baptist Church saying that god sent the shooter. This boiled my blood.
User avatar #218 to #207 - allcontent (12/15/2012) [-]
Proof that religion ruins everything.
User avatar #213 to #207 - doombunni (12/15/2012) [-]
I think there are some states that do a psych exam before you can get your permit, though I'm not sure. I don't own any myself, but it does irk me people are calling out to ban guns. If someone really wanted to kill you, they'd do it regardless of what weapons they have. Also, banning guns might make those who get them illegally feel more empowered to use them in robberies, kidnappings, etc because they know law abiding citizens wouldn't be able to shoot back.
#219 to #213 - allcontent (12/15/2012) [-]
you realize i could get a fully auto AK in under a month and im not even 18 yet. people will find a way to get guns no matter their condition.
#241 to #219 - caplocker (12/15/2012) [-]
Fully auto at 18? Can you get an ATF license at 18?
User avatar #244 to #241 - allcontent (12/15/2012) [-]
no idea but black market is great.
User avatar #221 to #219 - doombunni (12/15/2012) [-]
I know it's insanely easy to get guns, I was just talking about getting permits not the guns themselves.
User avatar #230 to #221 - allcontent (12/15/2012) [-]
we already get jewd out by all these rich ************* on capital hill, do you REALLY think its worth it?
User avatar #232 to #230 - doombunni (12/15/2012) [-]
Wait what? I'm not sure what your getting at.
#158 - spatialstatus (12/15/2012) [-]
For all you "gun control to stop crime" faggots
www.wnd.com/2007/04/41196/
User avatar #194 to #158 - durkadurka ONLINE (12/15/2012) [-]
This is just common sense. When you take away guns, anyone who wants to go on a killing spree KNOWS their victims will be unarmed and therefore easy targets.

In the example you linked to, criminals know EVERYONE has a gun and therefore the risk of being killed while committing a crime is high.

As a result crime goes down. A similar effect is being seen in Virginia, where guns sales have been going up but gun related crimes are falling.
#179 to #158 - dof (12/15/2012) [-]
unfortunately, most people don't care about statistics, they just care about feelings, and guns make them feel unsafe.
+4
#161 to #158 - doctorlean **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#291 - aerosol ONLINE (12/15/2012) [-]
To those of you in the comments who are angry(for whatever reason that may be):   
<look at this gif and be calmed.   
   
   
just trying lighten the mood.
To those of you in the comments who are angry(for whatever reason that may be):
<look at this gif and be calmed.


just trying lighten the mood.
+3
#264 - jelatinman Comment deleted by Abandoned [-]
#280 to #264 - certifiedidiot (12/15/2012) [-]
That is actually quite a feet
That is actually quite a feet
0
#282 to #264 - doctorlean **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #299 to #282 - yellowjack (12/16/2012) [-]
why does that remind me of Christopher Hitchens?
#163 - candyjust (12/15/2012) [-]
All these people are talking about banning guns and don't realize that it would be just as easy for the guy to have used a bomb instead and the results could have been more devastating. Hell, you can even look up how to make one on the internet.
All these people are talking about banning guns and don't realize that it would be just as easy for the guy to have used a bomb instead and the results could have been more devastating. Hell, you can even look up how to make one on the internet.
#44 - antisocialtwilight (12/15/2012) [-]
Ban guns?
Are you insane?
Like it's said in the related picture, we need guns in case the government goes 1984 on our asses, or if we're invaded by foreign nations.
We can't just ban guns because of the actions of a few mad people.
So what, you think guns should be banned because of some people shot up a school?
Fine, then by your logic, the internet should be shut off because of the deaths caused by cyber-bullying, all cars should be decommissioned for causing deaths, consuming fossil fuels, and endangering the environment, and all painkillers should be abolished for the deaths of people overdosing on them and all humans on the planet should be exterminated for killing each other in every conceivable situation in history. But tell the cancer patient that painkillers should be abolished, tell the average internet user that it should be shut off, tell any sane modern person that cars should be decommissioned, they they will look at your like you're ******* insane, because it is insane!
In this modern day and age, we are playing with Promethean fire, and there will always be collateral damage, it's how we evolve.
User avatar #246 to #44 - blahness (12/15/2012) [-]
tell me, how many cases of death were caused by self defense?
tell me, how many people carry assault rifles with them for self defense?
tell me, if this law works so well, why are crime rates in non-gun countries SO MUCH LOWER than america? coincidence? i think ******* not.
User avatar #296 to #44 - zhader (12/16/2012) [-]
Dude, seriously? Let me explain the difference between a car and a gun

A gun is created with the intention to someday be used to injure or take another persons life..

A car is simply a method of transportation between point A and point B

Take a chill-pill dude..
User avatar #55 to #44 - Smidgit (12/15/2012) [-]
England seems to be doing alright without guns...
Your argument is quite illogical to be honest because there are many countries in the world that aren't all "1984" despite the fact the citezens aren't allowed guns
User avatar #78 to #55 - dedaluminus (12/15/2012) [-]
Like england is gun free

the english countryside is the most heavily armed populace outside of kentucky or the congo
User avatar #82 to #55 - chiefrunnyjeans (12/15/2012) [-]
The uk has had a constantly rising murder and crime rate since stricter gun control was enacted. People can't even defend themselves anymore. You can get charged with murder for killing someone that's trying to murder you. Here in the US hundreds of thousands of crimes are stopped each year by guns. In states with less gun control have been named the safest in the nation. Your argument is invalid.
#115 to #82 - drtfgyhuj (12/15/2012) [-]
******** the murder rate has fallen steadily for 30 years
User avatar #105 to #55 - onezeroeight (12/15/2012) [-]
England doesn't have a volatile, drug cartel run country connected to it. If the US were to outlaw guns, only those who actually obey the law would not carry. Anyone who wants to go on a shooting spree could just go to the nearest slum and get connected with gun(s) shipped in from Mexico just like the they do with drugs that aren't legal either.
+1
#227 to #44 - nengcaste **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #53 to #44 - dingojohn (12/15/2012) [-]
Internet wasn't designed to kill people
Cars weren't designed to kill people
Painkillers weren't designed to kill people

Guns were designed to kill people, and they're good at it.
User avatar #61 to #53 - iamthou (12/15/2012) [-]
yes, but we as citizens are allowed to defend ourselves. By banning guns all thats doing is taking the defense away. the people who do kill with guns would find a way to get a hold of them no matter what. All that does is remove the guns from us rightful citizens who would defend ourselves
User avatar #69 to #61 - dingojohn (12/15/2012) [-]
It's a two headed snake though...

By letting lawful citizens obtain guns legally, murder is just simply too easy.. Not all murderes are some nutcase who just kills at random. In fact, 80 percent or so of all murders are done by family or friends. Committet in a time of distress or a moment of psychosis. And as such, grabbing a nearby gun and puling a trigger is far easier to go through with than beating to death, stabbing or choking or something.

And of course, when guns are legal, they are easily obtained by people who obviously should not be allowed to get a hold of a firearm.

But the big problem is, there's just too many guns around to ban them now. As said by many, if you ban guns, you will only be taking them out of the hands of law abiding citizens. That is the problem. You could say you lie in the bed you made for yourself, there's no way back, even if the whole country wanted to. There's too many guns around, and too big guns as well.
User avatar #97 to #69 - antisocialtwilight (12/15/2012) [-]
We're living in the house we've built, like you said, it's too late to stop making them, there's plenty to go around. I'm partly agreeing with you, it's far too late to just ban them.
User avatar #142 to #53 - thradrenaa (12/15/2012) [-]
Not gonna argue that guns weren't designed to kill people but they do have other functions. A lot of people in rural areas get a substantial amount of food from hunting and would be affected by stricter gun control
User avatar #286 to #142 - dingojohn (12/15/2012) [-]
True, UZIs, AR15, Kalashnikov and Glocks are great for hunting !

I got nothing against hunting, or shotguns, rifles or even a high-caliber pistol for bear defense in areas where necessary, but you gotta draw a line somewhere.
#57 to #53 - anon (12/15/2012) [-]
Guns are designed to put holes in a target with high velocity projectiles. The target is irrelevant.
User avatar #59 to #57 - dingojohn (12/15/2012) [-]
Hollow Point rounds ?

Explain.
User avatar #63 to #59 - aahrg (12/15/2012) [-]
are used and made for law enforcement/military.

taking legal guns away from innocent people will not stop illegal guns going to criminals.
User avatar #73 to #63 - dingojohn (12/15/2012) [-]
But civilians can buy them as well... As well as submachine guns, high-powered assault rifles and FMJ rounds.
User avatar #81 to #73 - aahrg (12/15/2012) [-]
yes, but after a **** ton of paperwork, and a **** ton of regulations.
you can't just decide "hey, i'm gonna go kill some people, better go buy a high powered assault rifle from the store!"
User avatar #88 to #81 - dingojohn (12/15/2012) [-]
I'm sure most mass murderers didn't plan their 20 kill streak on children the day before... Either they plan long time ahead and are sociopaths with the abilities to get a hold of guns, or they do it instantly, snapping some day after a whole life of being somewhat normal, and able to obtain guns. And when they finally snap, guns are within their reach.

I'm not really wanting to go into any discussion here, you lie in the bed you made, and most Americans seem to be very pleased with it.

But stop whining when people are shot, your own amendments gave them the means to do it with ease. And it's too late to do anything about it, as most people say, because guns are everywhere, and a ban would only take them out of the hands of law abiding citizens.
User avatar #67 to #59 - titilanious (12/15/2012) [-]
hollow points rounds are made so when they impact the target they "mushroom" making a larger hole and having more stopping power.
User avatar #71 to #67 - dingojohn (12/15/2012) [-]
I know what they are... That was my point, if "Guns are designed to put holes in a target with high velocity projectiles. The target is irrelevant." then why can a civilian buy HP rounds?

What purpose do they serve on a shooting range?
User avatar #169 - ihatem (12/15/2012) [-]
Guns kind of have a Laffer curve, with people with guns corresponding to crime rate.
If no one has a gun, there's less crime, then if everyone has a gun, there's less crime, but a very unfair distribution is where there's the most.
User avatar #204 to #169 - asschwitz (12/15/2012) [-]
Take guns away from law-abiding citizens; only criminals have guns.
User avatar #157 - bronynexgen (12/15/2012) [-]
Here's my input on things. If you take away the right to bear arms, then you take away the weapons from people who legally acquired them, went through training, and are using them for defense/hunting/collecting. You will not take it away from the people who got them through shadier means, because they already don't care about the law, what makes you think that they are going to give up their gun just because your country banned them.
^This is the problem.
|
\/ This is the solution.
In the case of controlling how guns are legally bought; when people want to buy a gun, legally, they must first obtain a license. The way they go about it is taking a training course. If they fail it, no license. Then they go take a psych test and an IQ test, if they passed the training course. If they fail it, and turn up mentally unstable, or racist, or an alcoholic/junkie, then no license. There will also be a license to carry a concealable weapon in cities that will be easier to get if you already have the first. Both will need to be renewed every 3-5 years.

Now with their newly acquired gun license, they can just go online and- nope. Guns will be prohibited to be sold through the internet because these licenses could be forged with photoshop, or you could just swipe somebody else's. They will only be sold at stores.

Lastly, if you kill a man in self defense, and he has the same killing power as you do, (ex: handgun vs handgun, knife vs baseball bat, shotgun vs assault rifle), then the killer should not be charged with manslaughter, but instead have to retake the training and psych tests to prove he/she isn't ****** up after just killing a man. But if it was done without a gun, just take a psych test for future reference.
And that's all I've got to say about that.
User avatar #198 to #157 - durkadurka ONLINE (12/15/2012) [-]
This is a good concept, but you can't require licenses to exercise a right. You also can't deny rights to people because they are racist, alcoholic, etc.

Mental instability is another thing. A mentally unstable person with a weapon could easily be a threat to the rights of others, so we can restrict guns in that sense.

I hesitate to support banning guns sales online because it invites the government to ban OTHER things online as well.

I do like your point about self defense: Too often are people incarcerated for defending themselves and their families, often in their own homes.
User avatar #166 to #157 - nightmarecorpse (12/15/2012) [-]
I can understand a sidearm for self defense, or a rifle/shotgun for hunting. What I don't understand is why anyone anywhere outside of the military should be allowed to purchase a fully automatic weapon like an smg or an assault rifle. Those serve no practical purpose outside outside of killing a lot of people quickly. Thoughts?
User avatar #202 to #166 - durkadurka ONLINE (12/15/2012) [-]
Because we need them if we are ever required to remove our government. Back in the day the colonists owned weapons that were the same or comparable to what the British military used. It was because of this that the colonists were able to overthrow the tyrannical government and begin this experiment of government by the people.

They figured that there may be a need for the people of the new country to forcibly remove their government some time in the future. To ensure that we could do this if necessary, they established the Second Amendment. And this is why we can own guns that can stand up to what the military is equipped with.

On another note, a mass murder might be actually be less effective when equipped with automatic weapons. Your typical assault rifle magazine empties in about 4-5 seconds of automatic fire. A shooter can spend 200 rounds in under a couple of minutes. Because of this a shooter might get 1 kill for roughly every 3-6 rounds.
A person with a semiautomatic weapon will have more time to aim and kill bullet per bullet, potentially resulting in more casualties. (Not really trying to advocate anything here, it's just food for thought).
User avatar #168 to #166 - bronynexgen (12/15/2012) [-]
Because they are really fun to shoot. In the US already, a fully automatic weapon requires a class 3 license, which, by my understanding, is really ******* hard to get. Also, by my understanding, if you purchase an assault rifle, the clip size is limited and its automatic fire option is disabled, so you already have two things going for you.
User avatar #171 to #168 - nightmarecorpse (12/15/2012) [-]
I can get that, but it would make more sense to me if they were shooting range specific weapons. Not something that someone could have in their home.
User avatar #175 to #171 - totallynotafurry (12/15/2012) [-]
Gotta agree with you on this. Assault weapons are completely unnecessary for any normal citizen to have in their home.
User avatar #174 to #171 - bronynexgen (12/15/2012) [-]
Like I said, or rather implied, a sane man won't up and start murdering people, so it would be safe to leave that sort of weapon with him.
User avatar #177 to #174 - nightmarecorpse (12/15/2012) [-]
Indeed, I forgot about that part. Thanks for the polite and informative posts.
User avatar #178 to #177 - bronynexgen (12/15/2012) [-]
No problem man. I try to be a good person. We seem to have a shortage of those lately.
User avatar #189 to #157 - rhiaanor ONLINE (12/15/2012) [-]
I gotta say, I ******* LOVE that psych test idea. And it should be required so that someone who is severely unstable like the recent shooter was, they would be monitored, to make sure they dont obtain guns illegally either.
User avatar #191 to #189 - bronynexgen (12/15/2012) [-]
Excellent idea! Now if we can just take some funding out of the military, then we'll be good to go! (PS. 60 Billion, more than the rest of the world combined spends on its military, is a bit much don't you think?)
User avatar #11 - thelastamerican ONLINE (12/15/2012) [-]
I'm going to be an elementary teacher when I get out of college. I've been shooting all of my life, and I truly believe I could protect my class if I were allowed a gun. Something in .45 with magsafe, or some other frangible bullet. No penetration, so you don't have to worry about what or who is standing behind the shooter. Unfortunately, since this will never happen, all I can do is close and lock the door and hope that whoever is walking around the school with a gun doesn't decide that he/she needs to kill everyone in my classroom.

This is my own personal opinion, I understand that you who read this may have problems with anyone having a weapon on school grounds of any kind.
#17 to #11 - writertrash (12/15/2012) [-]
I've never understood why our teachers couldn't be allowed to carry concealed firearms if they're trained, and licensed. I can understand not wanting kids to be exposed to guns, but if they never see it, what harm has been done?
#220 - allcontent (12/15/2012) [-]
All the ********* voting to arm schools and ban guns are dumbasses.

For one, its already illegal to have any weapons on school, and HEY WHILE WERE
AT IT lets just put guns in the classroom as well.

If guns are banned do YOU REALLY THINK that will stop anyone from getting more?
they will just move to other weapons such as bombs chemicals and knives.

Also the gunban would make some serious riots and wars within the us and its civilians. Jesus think with your brains people.
Dont let your vaginas balls and emotions lead your discussion.
#237 to #220 - armagadonis (12/15/2012) [-]
"If guns are banned do YOU REALLY THINK that will stop anyone from getting more?"
"guns are banned... stop from getting more?"
"guns are banned"

Yes I do think that.
#250 to #237 - fuckyousuckmydick (12/15/2012) [-]
meth is banned but people can still get it
rape is banned but it still happens
#269 to #250 - armagadonis (12/15/2012) [-]
I respect your opinion but from my perspective thugs can make meth from basic things.
I'm going to school for Chem. Engineering, and I can make meth if I wanted to.
Guns parts are quite a bit more expensive than the ingredients in methamphetamine.

"Rape is banned..." --> Irrelevant, rape is a violent crime, not the tool that causes it.



User avatar #271 to #269 - allcontent (12/15/2012) [-]
um not really. guns are relatively easy to make as long as you know what your doing.

Flame throwers are also simple to make. and those had a federal ban too.
#242 to #237 - allcontent (12/15/2012) [-]
im 16 and i can get a Fully automatic AK-47 in under 2 weeks.

Not legal full auto, or at my age.

Your move.
#245 to #242 - jujuface (12/15/2012) [-]
United States Gun Related Homocides 2008: 9,484
Japan Gun Related Homocides in 2008: 11
Guns are banned in Japan. Please elaborate on how you would obtain said AK47
Your move
User avatar #268 to #245 - allcontent (12/15/2012) [-]
I got atleast 3 buddies connected to the black market.
#259 to #245 - icametochewgum (12/15/2012) [-]
Switzerland gives every citizen who's been to Rekrutenschule the proper training an assault rifle and ammo to keep at their house.
They've had 52 intentional homicides this year. Japan's had 442.

The tools really aren't the issue.
#274 to #259 - armagadonis (12/15/2012) [-]
You're not taking into account:
Swiss Population: 7.9mil,
Japanese Population: 127mil
#275 to #274 - icametochewgum (12/15/2012) [-]
0.3% intentional homicide rate vs 0.7%.
#298 to #275 - armagadonis (12/16/2012) [-]
Good point. But there are probably many more opportunities for crime in Japan due to such a large population in that amount of space. Ex: Look at the land mass to population ratios.
#251 to #242 - armagadonis (12/15/2012) [-]
At current times yes. But, what about if "guns are banned".
I.E: Restricted to everyone but, Police and Military.
I'm 17 and I can get a gun just as easily. But if they're banned that changes things.
User avatar #270 to #251 - allcontent (12/15/2012) [-]
If they were banned they wouldnt fall off the face of the earth.
People would still sell them just like alcohol in prohibition.

Anyways people would move to bombs and chemicals if not guns. It just gets worse down the line.
#279 to #270 - armagadonis (12/15/2012) [-]
Yes, but only the ones in circulation would remain. Which with time and patience will disappear. Why? Because if they use it, chances are it will be taken away. There would be no point to having a gun if even just owning one were illegal.
And in my opinion the bombs/chemicals would be irrelevant. What kind of thug threatens to bomb a 7-11 for cash? Or owns a hazmat mask/ knows enough to make cost effective- self-safe chemicals?
#293 to #279 - allcontent (12/15/2012) [-]
Mustard gas is pretty easy, and personally i wouldnt want a flame thrower pointed at my face.

Do you know the immense ********* the us civilian populous would cause if
firearms got banned? it wouldnt even be worth a thought. I hope you remember
the internet limitation act.
#297 to #293 - armagadonis (12/16/2012) [-]
Because our classic 7-11 thug can synthesize C4H8Cl2S.
I'm sure someone intelligent COULD make a flame thrower, or mustard gas. But, the fact is that the majority of crimes come from the unintelligent masses.
And I realize it would be a " ********* ", and would probably never pass because they'd have to make a Constitutional Amendment. I just think things would be better off if guns were banned.
Guns-
This is why we cant have nice things.
User avatar #301 to #297 - allcontent (12/16/2012) [-]
**** that.

And actually, if you mix bleach and ammonia it gives off a very deadly nerve agent
chemically identical to mustardgas.

And all you need for a flame thrower is a fire extinguisher. go figure.
#305 to #301 - armagadonis (12/16/2012) [-]
I can see it now. Our 7-11 thug pouring a cup of Ammonia into a cup of Bleach in front of the counter. I dont understand how you expect a common gun-weilding criminal to utilize those chemicals or items in a professional efficient manner, without harming themselves.
User avatar #306 to #305 - allcontent (12/16/2012) [-]
if you think in depth its pretty easy man. just think about it.
User avatar #217 - blackcomet (12/15/2012) [-]
In Arizona everyone is allowed to carry a gun out in public, they hardly have any crime there.
#183 - anon (12/15/2012) [-]
This isnt actually a bad idea. If you think back to the 18th century when the constitution was first written up, EVERYONE had quick access to a gun, and guess what? People didnt **** with other people because everyone was most likely carrying a gun on them. Stricter gun laws would only harm the public more than help it.
User avatar #215 to #183 - doombunni (12/15/2012) [-]
In South Carolina it's illegal to go to church without a gun. It's one of those old laws that were meant to deter indian attacks, and they just didn't bother to get rid of it.
[ 291 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)