Off Topic: The Flood
This topic has moved here: Subject: School Shootings and Guns: Chinese and American ,"Take Away Ou...
  • Subject: School Shootings and Guns: Chinese and American ,"Take Away Ou...
Subject: School Shootings and Guns: Chinese and American ,"Take Away Ou...

心の中に弱い風が吹いています。

But firearm possession is okay.

  • 12.15.2012 6:36 PM PDT

Just remember that no matter how terrible you feel, or how much you want to let go, there are people who care about you and love you.


Posted by: Garshne
Posted by: Fat Man 3000
Posted by: bulldog534
The first one obviously.


That would only take away guns from those who have obtained it legally. That way literally only criminals would have the guns.
If only criminals had guns, wouldn't it be far easier to identify who is a criminal and who is not?
Well by then it's much too late for everyone involved.

  • 12.15.2012 6:37 PM PDT

The Spartan Special Ops - Now with more LOLgasms!

Posted by: EnragedElite67
"The problem with quotes on the internet is 95% are made up." - Socrates


Posted by: MeltingBrainbob

Posted by: SpartanMk18
Just Sayin'


Just so you know, he didn't do anything. He confronted him, but he didn't shoot. -____- How the hell are you going to post something in defense of guns, and then not even read the article. The offender shouldn't even have a gun anyway. Just sayin'.


it was a scenario of the active shooter receiving armed resistance. Most active shooters are doing it only for the fame as they off them selves too. They go to places that would be considered, "Shooting Galleries." Once that active shooter met armed resistance, he ease of just shooting everyone ends.

Had Nick Meil not been there, the death count would have been much higher.

  • 12.15.2012 6:37 PM PDT

Hey guis what's goin on in this sig?

Posted by: MeltingBrainbob

Posted by: Fat Man 3000
You can't end gun possession in America. To do so would be to go to individual houses and take their guns off them.

How would you do that? Two ways?

A) Look at registered Gun owners, go to their address and take it away from them. What about those who obtained theirs illegally?

B) Conduct a very thorough search of every single house in America. A blatant invasion of privacy.

And it would be incredibly expensive and time consuming.


Just stop gun purchases now. Within 70 years, it'll be all gone, unless gramps passes it down.


...So your grand plan is to wait 70 years?

  • 12.15.2012 6:37 PM PDT

If we disagree, it's nothing personal, opinions are opinions.
Antagonizing me to build a false sense of worth is so damn cute.

Brighten your day with science.

Posted by: MeltingBrainbob
the Batman shootings

Batman had nothing to do with it.

  • 12.15.2012 6:37 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Well said OP, agree 100%

  • 12.15.2012 6:38 PM PDT


Posted by: MeltingBrainbob
Out of a 100 people who have guns, I would say this. 70 of them just put the gun in their cabinet and leave it there as a safeguard. That's ok. 20 of them flaunt it around and threaten people who tick them off that they have a gun. And 10 people are willing to shoot anybody that is in their way.

We can't take that 30% chance. End gun possesion, and school SHOOTINGS won't happen. Perhaps school stabbings or bombings, but those are very less common and less accessible. Besides, every school has that one really buff tech teacher to thwart the occasional stabber.

About this point your ignorance shows a lot more than the rest of your post. There are plenty of people out there that actually go hunting with their guns. I noticed you didn't include them at all in that percentage. Then your actual percentage of people that injure/kill others with guns compared to how many are out there is way off it is just too funny. For the most part I don't see why anybody should really argue with someone that is as uninformed about this topic as you currently are.

[Edited on 12.15.2012 6:38 PM PST]

  • 12.15.2012 6:38 PM PDT

Tej~

Posted by: BuzzKill9009
It is also there to defend the people from a tyrant government. While here in America that may not happen in todays world or later on, the risk is always there.
Let me paraphrasee what a floodian posted yesterday:

"Arming every red neck and soccer mom with handguns isn't going to do squat against UAV's, tanks, helicopters, jets, Nuclear submarines, aircraft carriers and nukes, if the American government became a tyrannical dictatorship then either the military would wipe out any opposition, or wipe out the would be tyrants.


Posted by: BuzzKill9009if they try to ban guns then there will be an uproar about it. Look at what happened when they tried to ban beer!It's a lot harder to kill someone with beer then it is with a gun.

  • 12.15.2012 6:38 PM PDT

-The Nasty Officah-


Posted by: MeltingBrainbob


Posted by: Officer Nasty16
OP, you do realize the shooter was aware that the school was a "gun-free zone," right? If there weren't gun restrictions already, maybe schools could have halfway decent security guards who could actually defend themselves in a scenario like that.


I'm sorry? Your school has armed police patrolling the corridors? Buddy, not everybody has as luxurious schools as you.


Sorry, "buddy," but you missed my point. Not once in what I said did I show that I go to a school with armed police. If you have ever been to any school, you would know that they are gun free, and have been for over 20 years. You jumping to conclusions like this show me you really have no idea what you're talking about, and because of that:

Don't feed the troll, people.

[Edited on 12.15.2012 6:41 PM PST]

  • 12.15.2012 6:38 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: Qbix89
Talking about Sweden is an ultrabannable offense.

Posted by: Achronos
Too bad being completely and utterly wrong isn't a bannable offense.

Posted by: Rayzor1995
Posted by: Garshne
Posted by: Fat Man 3000
Posted by: bulldog534
The first one obviously.


That would only take away guns from those who have obtained it legally. That way literally only criminals would have the guns.
If only criminals had guns, wouldn't it be far easier to identify who is a criminal and who is not?
Well by then it's much too late for everyone involved.
Not if you had a functioning, effective police force.

  • 12.15.2012 6:38 PM PDT


Posted by: SpartanMk18

Posted by: MeltingBrainbob

Posted by: SpartanMk18
Just Sayin'


Just so you know, he didn't do anything. He confronted him, but he didn't shoot. -____- How the hell are you going to post something in defense of guns, and then not even read the article. The offender shouldn't even have a gun anyway. Just sayin'.


it was a scenario of the active shooter receiving armed resistance. Most active shooters are doing it only for the fame as they off them selves too. They go to places that would be considered, "Shooting Galleries." Once that active shooter met armed resistance, he ease of just shooting everyone ends.

Had Nick Meil not been there, the death count would have been much higher.


READ THE DAMN ARTICLE! He didn't even pull the trigger! He could've had a water gun and the same thing would've happened.

  • 12.15.2012 6:38 PM PDT

-The Nasty Officah-


Posted by: Garshne
Posted by: Officer Nasty16
OP, you do realize the shooter was aware that the school was a "gun-free zone," right? If there weren't gun restrictions already, maybe schools could have halfway decent security guards who could actually defend themselves in a scenario like that.
The fact that schools even need security guards in the first place is very, very alarming and indicative of a problem.


Most schools have security guards to keep random outsiders from just walking in, and to prevent any fights from happening. What's wrong with that?

  • 12.15.2012 6:40 PM PDT


Posted by: SunGlassed Skunk
Posted by: BuzzKill9009
It is also there to defend the people from a tyrant government. While here in America that may not happen in todays world or later on, the risk is always there.
Let me paraphrasee what a floodian posted yesterday:

"Arming every red neck and soccer mom with handguns isn't going to do squat against UAV's, tanks, helicopters, jets, Nuclear submarines, aircraft carriers and nukes, if the American government became a tyrannical dictatorship then either the military would wipe out any opposition, or wipe out the would be tyrants.


Posted by: BuzzKill9009if they try to ban guns then there will be an uproar about it. Look at what happened when they tried to ban beer!It's a lot harder to kill someone with beer then it is with a gun.


Well said!

  • 12.15.2012 6:40 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: Qbix89
Talking about Sweden is an ultrabannable offense.

Posted by: Achronos
Too bad being completely and utterly wrong isn't a bannable offense.

Posted by: Officer Nasty16
Posted by: Garshne
Posted by: Officer Nasty16
OP, you do realize the shooter was aware that the school was a "gun-free zone," right? If there weren't gun restrictions already, maybe schools could have halfway decent security guards who could actually defend themselves in a scenario like that.
The fact that schools even need security guards in the first place is very, very alarming and indicative of a problem.


Most schools have security guards to keep random outsiders from just walking in, and to prevent any fights from happening. What's wrong with that?
Can't teachers do that? Teachers do that here.

  • 12.15.2012 6:41 PM PDT


Posted by: Garshne
Posted by: Officer Nasty16
Posted by: Garshne
Posted by: Officer Nasty16
OP, you do realize the shooter was aware that the school was a "gun-free zone," right? If there weren't gun restrictions already, maybe schools could have halfway decent security guards who could actually defend themselves in a scenario like that.
The fact that schools even need security guards in the first place is very, very alarming and indicative of a problem.


Most schools have security guards to keep random outsiders from just walking in, and to prevent any fights from happening. What's wrong with that?
Can't teachers do that? Teachers do that here.


Where is "here"?

  • 12.15.2012 6:41 PM PDT

-The Nasty Officah-


Posted by: Garshne
Posted by: Officer Nasty16
Posted by: Garshne
Posted by: Officer Nasty16
OP, you do realize the shooter was aware that the school was a "gun-free zone," right? If there weren't gun restrictions already, maybe schools could have halfway decent security guards who could actually defend themselves in a scenario like that.
The fact that schools even need security guards in the first place is very, very alarming and indicative of a problem.


Most schools have security guards to keep random outsiders from just walking in, and to prevent any fights from happening. What's wrong with that?
Can't teachers do that? Teachers do that here.


How can teachers do that while they're teaching?

  • 12.15.2012 6:42 PM PDT


Posted by: Garshne
Can't teachers do that? Teachers do that here.

Considering how there are daily fights in some schools nope. For the most part schools with security guards need them. Ones without them typically have the occasional fight in which case a teacher could separate the fight as you said.

[Edited on 12.15.2012 6:42 PM PST]

  • 12.15.2012 6:42 PM PDT

The Spartan Special Ops - Now with more LOLgasms!

Posted by: EnragedElite67
"The problem with quotes on the internet is 95% are made up." - Socrates


Posted by: MeltingBrainbob

Posted by: SpartanMk18

Posted by: MeltingBrainbob

Posted by: SpartanMk18
Just Sayin'


Just so you know, he didn't do anything. He confronted him, but he didn't shoot. -____- How the hell are you going to post something in defense of guns, and then not even read the article. The offender shouldn't even have a gun anyway. Just sayin'.


it was a scenario of the active shooter receiving armed resistance. Most active shooters are doing it only for the fame as they off them selves too. They go to places that would be considered, "Shooting Galleries." Once that active shooter met armed resistance, he ease of just shooting everyone ends.

Had Nick Meil not been there, the death count would have been much higher.


READ THE DAMN ARTICLE! He didn't even pull the trigger! He could've had a water gun and the same thing would've happened.


I've read the article, trust me.

Also, a watergun? Seriously? A big bright watergun. Yeah, that will stop an active shooter.

You people are always -blam!-ing about discretion of pulling the trigger. That having a conceal weapon will just lead to trouble.

In this incident someone used discretion before pulling the trigger and you believe it's the wrong thing to do.

Make up your -blam!- minds, or just stop talking about something you have no understanding of.

  • 12.15.2012 6:42 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: Qbix89
Talking about Sweden is an ultrabannable offense.

Posted by: Achronos
Too bad being completely and utterly wrong isn't a bannable offense.

Posted by: DeclinedA1
Posted by: Garshne
Posted by: Officer Nasty16
Posted by: Garshne
Posted by: Officer Nasty16
OP, you do realize the shooter was aware that the school was a "gun-free zone," right? If there weren't gun restrictions already, maybe schools could have halfway decent security guards who could actually defend themselves in a scenario like that.
The fact that schools even need security guards in the first place is very, very alarming and indicative of a problem.


Most schools have security guards to keep random outsiders from just walking in, and to prevent any fights from happening. What's wrong with that?
Can't teachers do that? Teachers do that here.


Where is "here"?
Australia. And yes these things do happen (fights are serious business) but for the most part teachers handle this -blam!-, with police assistance if needed.

  • 12.15.2012 6:43 PM PDT

Yah, law enforcement will protect us. Just like it protected all those kids. Teachers need to carry guns in my opinion.

  • 12.15.2012 6:43 PM PDT


Posted by: Officer Nasty16

Posted by: MeltingBrainbob


Posted by: Officer Nasty16
OP, you do realize the shooter was aware that the school was a "gun-free zone," right? If there weren't gun restrictions already, maybe schools could have halfway decent security guards who could actually defend themselves in a scenario like that.


I'm sorry? Your school has armed police patrolling the corridors? Buddy, not everybody has as luxurious schools as you.


Sorry, "buddy," but you missed my point. Not once in what I said did I show that I go to a school with armed police. If you have ever been to any school, you would know that they are gun free, and have been for over 20 years. You jumping to conclusions like this show me you really have no idea what you're talking about, and because of that.

Don't feed the troll, people.


You'd be one hungry person if we stopped feeding you. I think it's funny how you made a bunch of assumptions. You're like 13. At least you act like one.
Posted by: Officer Nasty16
You didn't put a comma before that fragment. Obviously you are mentally incapable of arguing with me, and have no life.

-_-
Read your first quote:

Posted by: Officer Nasty16
OP, you do realize the shooter was aware that the school was a "gun-free zone," right? If there weren't gun restrictions already, maybe schools could have halfway decent security guards who could actually defend themselves in a scenario like that.


Ok. I'll give you one thing. I assumed that you had security guards in your school. That was phrased incorrectly. I assumed that when you said, "Schools should have security guards" that you had guards in your school yourself, that's why you were saying it. But it wasn't. You were suggesting that.

However, the thing is, it would cost a lot of money to put a decent amount of police in a school. It would also make the students uneasy. What you just said was just simply a terrible idea. No guns, no shooters. No need for police, better work environment.

  • 12.15.2012 6:43 PM PDT

International Army for the Liberation of Hotdogs.
" The Grunt " - Death Served on A Screaming Platter!
You lack the majestic curves of a ripe banana! YOU SIR ARE A PINEAPPLE
win
Justin Bieber sounds like two high-pitched walruses engaging in sex.

Couple things:

1. The firearms, as you stated, were not his. They were not sold to him, he did not acquire them through purchase. They were his mothers. Please tell me how taking a gun from an owner who may be using it for completely legitimate reasons and going on a rampage indicates why we need to get rid of firearms entirely. If anything, his mother should be at fault for not keeping tighter lock on the firearms.

2. Actual bulletproof vests can cost near the thousands of dollars. I dont see a high school student ever really getting one of those. Ever. Unless he stole it from law enforcement. So that doesn't make sense.

3. So, by your reasoning, if someone kills 5 people with golf-clubs, you think we should ban golf clubs, because we can club people with them? Despite the fact that its a major sport, hobby, and industry?

4. Sure, guns make killing more effective. But humanity went for a long ass time killing with swords and other pointy objects.

  • 12.15.2012 6:44 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: Qbix89
Talking about Sweden is an ultrabannable offense.

Posted by: Achronos
Too bad being completely and utterly wrong isn't a bannable offense.

Posted by: Officer Nasty16
How can teachers do that while they're teaching?
Fights happen in the middle of class?


Schools don't sound very pleasant in the U.S.A. right now.

  • 12.15.2012 6:45 PM PDT


Posted by: MeltingBrainbob
However, the thing is, it would cost a lot of money to put a decent amount of police in a school. It would also make the students uneasy. What you just said was just simply a terrible idea. No guns, no shooters. No need for police, better work environment.

A decent amount of police what? Do you know anything about this topic at all?

  • 12.15.2012 6:45 PM PDT

----------------------------------------
petitminou: become part of the mob.
Shadow Rayzor: It's the perfect plan! (edited)
Sergent Nesquic: Your spelling is what is "prefect".
----------------------------------------
petitminou: Quoted for teh lulz


Posted by: Rayzor1995

Posted by: MeltingBrainbob
Posted by: BuzzKill9009
China and America are totally different

one we have something called the second amendment


Yes absolutely. So what? They created that back when there was no law enforcement and bears were very prominent. Now people are beginning to kill each other with their high tech guns, and it's time we start to change. It's been 300 years. Things change.
Guess what, wildlife is still a problem for those of us in the country, traps work but when you need to kill an animal "right now" you need a gun.

Things have changed, there are now a lot more people here who don't value human life, and instead of working out their issues they cast the blame on literally anything they can.

  • 12.15.2012 6:46 PM PDT