Sandy Hook Elementary School

[GeoKill----->]

Innoc is right, the thread was being hijack and off topic.

With that said, I am down the middle when it comes to gun owner ship, but I do believe in banning Assault weapons. I understand gun enthusiasts, but some weapons should not belong to average citizens, only the military.

What is the point, besides pride, of owning an assault weapon?

[aleXtric]

you realize when the 2nd amendment was written to kill 26 people with a gun it would take like 20 minutes right? Unless you brought with you 26 seperate guns. Guns are a vicious cycle, when you think of it logically. People buy guns to protect themselves from other people with guns. How many gun owners know jujitsu? It's the pussy way to protect yourself. As far as I'm concerned gun-owners are paranoid freaks. The NRA has brainwashed all of you gun owning lunatics, gun owners used to own them for sport. Now it's all about "defending your family. blah blah blah 2nd amendment!"

also Innoc you're an idiot for attacking Paft and calling him a "liberal kunt" obviously Liberals have a little more brain power than paranoid separatist conservatives. Liberals were able to generate 15 million more votes for a BLACK guy in the last 2 elections than the old white guys. Liberals are going to keep winning, hopefully we can say goodbye to your precious guns.

[Innoc]

Originally Posted by GeoKill----->

Innoc is right, the thread was being hijack and off topic.

With that said, I am down the middle when it comes to gun owner ship, but I do believe in banning Assault weapons. I understand gun enthusiasts, but some weapons should not belong to average citizens, only the military.

What is the point, besides pride, of owning an assault weapon?

I had a rough night last night so I will apologize if what I write seems either unclear....or tl;dr...This is a very important topic to me.

First I think we should have some understanding of the term Assault Weapon. It's a made up word that largely is designed to invoke a fear reaction. Any time the word is used as part of legislation it must be very rigidly defined as the term itself is meaningless. You can google it yourself and see what I am saying.

Take a Mini 14 rifle with a light brown stock made of wood and compare with the exact same rifle that has had it's stock replaced with a folding stock and has had perhaps a laser or other targeting aids. In past bills and bans you would see the latter defined as an assault weapon and banned even though there is literally nothing at a functional level that sets the two rifles apart. They both operate in the same manner....and both use a very common rifle round.

As far as means testing goes for whether a private citizen should be "allowed" or not "allowed" I think it's important to reiterate the framework that makes owning such a weapon covered by the 2nd Amendment. Let me first start of by saying that I disagree vehemently with those who say that the concepts in the Constitution are antiquated and out of step with "Modern Society".

There's a number of concepts and drivers that lead to the inclusion of the 2nd Amendment. There is an implied order of important as you look at the initial Amendments. The Rights protected in the 1st Amendment were deemed to be the most important of all. These were rights that had been absolutely stomped on by European Govt and it was something for which people had been persecuted, imprisoned and killed. Which is why the 2nd Amendment was the next most important.

Protecting (Note: it does not establish or create those rights....only protects) the Rights under the 1st Amendment could best be guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment. With the Power being in the hands of the people there would be little to no risk of the People being ordered about and crushed by a standing army. Additionally, preserving that right to keep and bear arms as also been described as that critical piece to allow the people to throw off the yoke of tyranny should Government become so intrusive, burdensome and overbearing that the people of the time find that to be necessary.

There are other elements that influence the rights protected by the 2nd Amendment. That is the Right to Self Defense as a function of Natural Law. The 2A is a natural extension of ones right to defend oneself from others that would rob, injure or kill you. Depending on the Police to protect you is stupid. The fact of the matter is that, with few exceptions, all the Police do is arrive after the crime occurred and try to see if they can figure out what happened. Self defense using firearms happens daily but it's the major events that, to me, justifies the keeping of high-power rapid fire weapons by the law abiding citizen should they decide to do so.

While it happened some time ago the 1992 LA Riots would be a perfect example. Look at the experience of the Korean-Americans. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Lo...rean-Americans Yeah....I know...it's Wikipedia. Bite me...it was a quick grab. Anyway, I suspect that most of you are probably not old enough to remember this event. I do. The Korean-American community banded together to protect their shops and one another during the riots. And when the trials circled around the next year they prepared for the worst in case there was a verdict that the scumbags didn't like....and riots broke out again.

Want something a little more recent? How about the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in 2005? Not only was the looting and violence out of control but you also had numerous accounts of the Police participating in both. If you're interested you can dig for yourself. This would, however, be an example of where being able to own whatever firearm you decide you want would be important.

A firearm is not like a car where you're likely to be using and doing something with it daily. If you're an enthusiast you shoot with regularity but even that isn't daily. There may be many reasons why but it doesn't matter. It's an activity that occurs under the protection of the 2nd Amendment. That some posting here and elsewhere don't see the point or necessity doesn't matter. The VAST majority of people do their thing under the protection of the 2nd Amendment and it doesn't affect anyone else...ever.

Since Sandy Hook is the impetus for this thread why not consider the following:

• If you want to do something then figure out how to identify sooner and get help for the broken people who are given bad ideas by video games and movies.
• Let's create defensible space within the schools where a bad guy could be stalled long enough for the Police tactical teams to arrive.
• Let's consider permitting those teachers that wish to carry concealed in school the opportunity to do so.
• Let's create improved warning systems so that when a school goes into lockdown external sirens alert the surrounding buildings and homes.

We're not going to stop evil and/or crazy people from hurting others. There is, however, things that can be done to mitigate the damage they do. Frankly the concept of the gun-free zone needs to go away. Most states already have a number of CCW permit holders and they are NOT the root cause of our problems. Florida has had it for the longest time and has the longest statistics available for their ccw permittee holders.

I would point out that the worst school massacre did not involve firearms. And if the number of deaths is what bothers you then you're being short-sighted...look at all of the other causes of preventable death.

@aleXtric: If you're going to insult then feel free to leave. I'm happy to have a reasoned discussion but if this is all you've got then see ya.

edit: ugh....wall of text....

[KoRniLLiAn.LG]

Originally Posted by Innoc

@aleXtric: If you're going to insult then feel free to leave. I'm happy to have a reasoned discussion but if this is all you've got then see ya.

that's funny coming form the guy who was dishing out name calling on another thread...there was nothing reasonable about your comments...in short..your a dipshit

[KoRniLLiAn.LG]

Originally Posted by GeoKill----->

Innoc is right, the thread was being hijack and off topic.

With that said, I am down the middle when it comes to gun owner ship, but I do believe in banning Assault weapons. I understand gun enthusiasts, but some weapons should not belong to average citizens, only the military.

What is the point, besides pride, of owning an assault weapon?

what is he sucking you off or something?...this is crazy..he can call people names for stating a FACT..but then it's the conversation has been off topic...that's what happens when people step over the line...he deserved to have his thread hijacked...he is a tool for only wanting to have one side be heard...and now he comes in here saying he wants to be cool and talk about shit...wow..way to show no back bone at all for the rest of us who simply disagreed with his name calling.i'm not wasting another iota on this site.

[Innoc]

No, I was responding in kind to your rude attempts to hijack the thread.

Look, I don't care that you're either ill informed or immature. If you want to have a reasoned and polite discussion then fine. If you're simply coming in to spout nonsense then beat it. No one is interested in your stupid actions of comments.

[aleXtric]

yeah dude, dont dish it if you cant take it. you can call people cunts but I cant call the average gun fanatic a paranoid separatist? i didn't realize you were attempting to be mature this whole debate... could have fooled me.

[Innoc]

Originally Posted by aleXtric

yeah dude, dont dish it if you cant take it. you can call people cunts but I cant call the average gun fanatic a paranoid separatist? i didn't realize you were attempting to be mature this whole debate... could have fooled me.

No, you have it wrong. I'll make one last attempt. I was responding in kind to a rude thread hijack attempt. At least Paft showed the integrity to own it. Now if you want to participate in the thread go for it. If not then go fuck yourself as you are continuing the hijack attempt with your useless prattle and have nothing useful to contribute to either side of the conversation.

[KoRniLLiAn.LG]

Originally Posted by Innoc

No, I was responding in kind to your rude attempts to hijack the thread.

Look, I don't care that you're either ill informed or immature. If you want to have a reasoned and polite discussion then fine. If you're simply coming in to spout nonsense then beat it. No one is interested in your stupid actions of comments.

LOOK IN THE FUCKING MIRROR you dumb-ass douche-bag fuck!!...NOBODY ATTEMPTED to do anything...we just did it...don't like it...people don't like being called names either...and i wish you and all your guns(because only pussies really need guns) lived close to me.I know a few THOUSAND Vietnam and Irag vets that think you are the enemy...because you have no respect for others opinion on the subject and give them bad names because they too like guns...so keep up the good work...i'm sure running your mouth to people in forums is doing you well..the rest of us will move on..at-least i am

[Dexter]

politics rule

[KoRniLLiAn.LG]

And by the way...moving this discussion to thread entitled sandy hook elementary is fucked up.very disrespectful to those who died.should call it "people pissed because innoc runs his mouth...and calls people names for stating facts and everyone is ok with it except those with common sense"..but i guess that was too much to write...no wonder people leave this community so quick.

[squeek.]

Originally Posted by Dexter

politics rule

Indeed.

KoRniLLiAn, you seem to want to get furious at anything and everything related to this. The shooting was off-topic in the gun owners thread as it was an obvious attempt to incite a debate and should have been posted in the D&A forum as its own thread in the first place.

The thread title is fine. I don't understand your point at all about that.

[FDA_Approved]

Rofl yeah, I don't see how you can post that in the gun thread and think any different. It wasn't meant to be a discussion of gun politics or anything of the sort. Just friendly discussion of particular fire arms used by enthusiasts.

Posting about the recent incident in that thread was taking it off topic and rather rude.

It's like if I started a topic asking people about their favorite weed strands, or asking advice for what kind of a bong to buy, and someone came in just ranting and raving about how weed is ruining our children. Or if someone went into the babe thread and started ranting and raving about how adult content of that sort is ruining the moral fiber of our country.

[squeek.]

Also, we don't usually moderate the D&A forum, but you're VERY close to becoming an exception to that, KoRniLLiAn. Either calm down or remove yourself from the thread. Personal attacks in every single post are totally unwarranted and will not be tolerated.

[KoRniLLiAn.LG]

Originally Posted by squeek.

Also, we don't usually moderate the D&A forum, but you're VERY close to becoming an exception to that, KoRniLLiAn. Either calm down or remove yourself from the thread. Personal attacks in every single post are totally unwarranted and will not be tolerated.

ya know what,your right..this isn't worth my time...but dude was calling someone a kunt...that's a personal attack my friend.

[KoRniLLiAn.LG]

Originally Posted by FDA_Approved

Rofl yeah, I don't see how you can post that in the gun thread and think any different. It wasn't meant to be a discussion of gun politics or anything of the sort. Just friendly discussion of particular fire arms used by enthusiasts.

Posting about the recent incident in that thread was taking it off topic and rather rude.

It's like if I started a topic asking people about their favorite weed strands, or asking advice for what kind of a bong to buy, and someone came in just ranting and raving about how weed is ruining our children. Or if someone went into the babe thread and started ranting and raving about how adult content of that sort is ruining the moral fiber of our country.

ok,that's fair..that's not even MY issue..my issue is him calling people kunts...did he deserve that..no...i think not.

[Raynian]

Originally Posted by Innoc

If you want to do something then figure out how to identify sooner and get help for the broken people who are given bad ideas by video games and movies.

Seriously? Haven't we had enough of blaming games and movies for this? The issue is caused by poor living/social conditions which result in a situation where the offender wants to inflict harm upon others, and/or end his own life. The most you could attribute to games/tv/movies is "inspiration" in how they accomplish that, but that's still a shitty excuse - it's not like people don't know how to shoot others if they haven't played CoD.

Let's create defensible space within the schools where a bad guy could be stalled long enough for the Police tactical teams to arrive.

And let's update tens of thousands of schools, shopping centers, and other public areas across America to do this. Isn't going to happen, and as crude as it sounds, DEFINITELY isn't worth the cost. Something people need to learn to realize is that there IS a value of each life. If you spend a million dollars to save one person's life, you're taking that money from other people. If you take enough from people who are already having trouble getting by, you're just making it worse for them in the end.

Let's consider permitting those teachers that wish to carry concealed in school the opportunity to do so.

How do people honestly come up with this? Seriously? "oh, we're having an issue with guns in schools, let's just make them ALWAYS available in schools so that teachers can do something!"

so many things wrong with that.

1) what if the teachers are the ones at fault here? they're working a high stress job, and everyone knows that some teachers definitely have some mental problems. it's not a "well create a program where we phase out the bad teachers"

same sort of problem as your first point there, it's not feasible and would cost too much.

2) are you going to train the teachers how to use said weaponry? a shooter that comes into a school isn't just going to give up because there might be someone else in the school that can possibly stop him. he doesn't care about his own life. besides, he can just shoot the armed teachers anyways. it's not some miracle fix where "oh this school might have a hidden gun so I won't kill all the students there". if anything the cons highly outweigh the pros.

Let's create improved warning systems so that when a school goes into lockdown external sirens alert the surrounding buildings and homes.

see above statements about cost and how impractical it is to do

even if you just used existing systems (EBS, tornado sirens, etc) it wouldn't change much

the shooter walks into the school, kills people, kills himself. it's what happens every time. not going to change the fact that at the end of the day there are dead bodies.



I understand it's just as hard to flush out all of the firearms in America because there are literally hundreds of millions of them. but frankly there is no excuse for how prevalent they are in our culture except for people who "feel safer" because of them, which itself is a shitty excuse 90%+ of the time. If there were actually significant gun control you'd clearly see a huge drop in homicides/violent crimes.

[WiFiDi]

this is for debating not for thorwing mud. which is shortly what this is gonna enter.

for the most part at this point I agree with innoc.

[Innoc]

Originally Posted by Raynian

Seriously? Haven't we had enough of blaming games and movies for this? The issue is caused by poor living/social conditions which result in a situation where the offender wants to inflict harm upon others, and/or end his own life. The most you could attribute to games/tv/movies is "inspiration" in how they accomplish that, but that's still a shitty excuse - it's not like people don't know how to shoot others if they haven't played CoD.

It's not a shitty excuse. Fact is if you have a vulnerable person you work to keep them moving in a positive direction and you minimize or work to mitigate those factors that may have a negative effect. Only a fool would permit continued exposure for vulnerable individuals. There is a demonstrable link that has already been established for this type of person. Let me make sure that you don't misconstrue what I am saying. I don't think this should be kept from everyone...only those who are at risk.

Also, I think your comment about poor living/social conditions. We're talking about a brain that is WAY outside of normal. While there may be some occasions where that is a factor I suspect you cannot show that anything but an edge case and certainly not at all true for the majority.

Originally Posted by Raynian

And let's update tens of thousands of schools, shopping centers, and other public areas across America to do this. Isn't going to happen, and as crude as it sounds, DEFINITELY isn't worth the cost. Something people need to learn to realize is that there IS a value of each life. If you spend a million dollars to save one person's life, you're taking that money from other people. If you take enough from people who are already having trouble getting by, you're just making it worse for them in the end.

i didn't say "do it". I suggested it as a possibility and it would be up to the people living in that area whether they want to do so as they would and should be those who would pay for such changes. And frankly what you posted seems contradictory. On one hand you express that there is value to a person's life and then try to say that it's not worth spending money to save it? Really? Frankly, the idea of making the doors in a school assault-resistant so as to make it more difficult for a deranged person to blow through killing people seems like a cheap buy to reduce or eliminate future potential massacres.

Originally Posted by Raynian

How do people honestly come up with this? Seriously? "oh, we're having an issue with guns in schools, let's just make them ALWAYS available in schools so that teachers can do something!"

so many things wrong with that.

1) what if the teachers are the ones at fault here? they're working a high stress job, and everyone knows that some teachers definitely have some mental problems. it's not a "well create a program where we phase out the bad teachers"

same sort of problem as your first point there, it's not feasible and would cost too much.

2) are you going to train the teachers how to use said weaponry? a shooter that comes into a school isn't just going to give up because there might be someone else in the school that can possibly stop him. he doesn't care about his own life. besides, he can just shoot the armed teachers anyways. it's not some miracle fix where "oh this school might have a hidden gun so I won't kill all the students there". if anything the cons highly outweigh the pros.

You can stop with trying to be insulting. It just makes you look like an asshole.

How many of the school massacres have been carried out by teachers in the past 10 years? 20 years? 50 years? Fact is, most people work high stress jobs and most people are not taking arms into work to work out that stress. We can certainly go back and forth with ignorant generalizations or we can look at what history shows for this. The teacher population is not all that different from the general population and the fact is most people are not at all likely to take any weapon into a place to do harm to others like we saw with Sandy Hook. It's a person with a fucked up brain that would do such a thing. And if there isn't a program in place to remove such teachers from duty that exhibit such behavior then I'd be shocked...we could certainly go off on a tangent about how unions unfairly protect such fucked up individuals from being fired...but that deserves a different thread.

As to your second point that simply is not true. Situations where a shooter will face resistance are ones that they will avoid. They aren't looking for a gun battle. They are looking for a slaughter. Do we need to dig in to all of the statistics and articles about the correlation between gun ownership and violent crime rates declining?

The way you write seems like you think I'm shoving a gun into the hands of a teacher and then booting their ass into the classroom. If you re-read what I posted you will see that I mention those teachers who wish to carry. In order a regular to carry a concealed weapon you have classes you attend and you have to shoot a qualifying score. You also have to re-certify every so often (how long between events depends on the state). If a State goes this direction they can determine what, if any, additional qualification and check ups may be needed. Fact is...we're already seeing some movement this direction. Stop school shootings by letting teachers fire back, say Texas officials

Originally Posted by Raynian

see above statements about cost and how impractical it is to do

even if you just used existing systems (EBS, tornado sirens, etc) it wouldn't change much

the shooter walks into the school, kills people, kills himself. it's what happens every time. not going to change the fact that at the end of the day there are dead bodies.

As I stated above this isn't something I say must be mandated. I throw it out as ideas that would be inexpensive to implement and would possible help mitigate or stop these events from happening. For you to say it wouldn't change much seems silly. Based on what? Ever spend any time in a small rural community? The concept of mutual aid is huge. Raise an alarm like this and you have the potential of many in the community showing up to help. My guess is that you'll counter this with your disdain for those that own firearms and who actually shoot. Fact is I have much more faith in my fellow countrymen with a firearm than simply relying on the Police for everything. They can't be everywhere and it is incumbent

In multiple cases what has been reported was that as soon as it seemed clear that law enforcement was nearing or was on site the shooters took their own life. We can certainly argue what the specific reason might have been in each case but it seems clear that either capture or interdiction by an armed person was part of that.

Originally Posted by Raynian

I understand it's just as hard to flush out all of the firearms in America because there are literally hundreds of millions of them. but frankly there is no excuse for how prevalent they are in our culture except for people who "feel safer" because of them, which itself is a shitty excuse 90%+ of the time. If there were actually significant gun control you'd clearly see a huge drop in homicides/violent crimes.

No excuse except for the 2nd Amendment? Honestly, what you posted here is made up. I can post the FBI Index crime stats that show that you're wrong. I can post stats from the CDC that show that you're wrong. You're just making this up. You can also look at the trends.

I'm not sure why you have such a hard on for firearms as I don't think I've read anything here that would suggest a root cause. Frankly my general sense is that you have some incredible disdain for you fellow humans. If I am right I am sorry about that. To see your fellow citizens and such untrustworthy things is an awful way to go through life.

I have no problem being around others who are armed. I generally see them as people taking charge of their own life and circumstances and people on whom I can rely. Do not construe this to mean that I think ill of those who choose not to own or use firearms. What you do has no impact on me....unless you are trying to infringe on my rights. In which case....you're a POS...

[Raynian]

Originally Posted by Innoc

It's not a shitty excuse. Fact is if you have a vulnerable person you work to keep them moving in a positive direction and you minimize or work to mitigate those factors that may have a negative effect. Only a fool would permit continued exposure for vulnerable individuals. There is a demonstrable link that has already been established for this type of person. Let me make sure that you don't misconstrue what I am saying. I don't think this should be kept from everyone...only those who are at risk.

Also, I think your comment about poor living/social conditions. We're talking about a brain that is WAY outside of normal. While there may be some occasions where that is a factor I suspect you cannot show that anything but an edge case and certainly not at all true for the majority.

except poor conditions have a direct correlation to increased violence, whether it's on the street or in places like this. read Freakonomics, they have a great chapter on the subject and it shows you how places that have been hit hard end up with that generation of kids growing up to have a higher rate of criminals.

and no, it's not always "poor living conditions", but when has it ever been the fault of a video game? I mean actually because of the videogame? Even though the media points to that shit, there's never anything more than "oh well he played CoD so he became a bloodthirsty killer". No proof, anything. The closest would be Columbine, but do you think it wouldn't have happened if doom didn't exist?

i didn't say "do it". I suggested it as a possibility and it would be up to the people living in that area whether they want to do so as they would and should be those who would pay for such changes. And frankly what you posted seems contradictory. On one hand you express that there is value to a person's life and then try to say that it's not worth spending money to save it? Really? Frankly, the idea of making the doors in a school assault-resistant so as to make it more difficult for a deranged person to blow through killing people seems like a cheap buy to reduce or eliminate future potential massacres.

The fact that you threw the idea out there suggests that you want it implemented in some way. What if I'm struggling to get by and my state/county passes a law saying I now have to pay additional taxes so my local neighboorhood, which has never had any of these issues, gets spooked by what happens across the country and now wants to spend a couple hundred thousand/million updating this shit? Now I can't afford to pay rent, so I'm living on the street.

I'm saying there's a LIMIT on how much people's lives are worth. Some people say a life is invaluable and you should spend as much as possible trying to protect it. That's a childish philosophy that breaks apart as soon as you look past the ethos in it.

And why would it matter if you make doors assault resistant? It doesn't stop someone with a couple of handguns tucked into their belt from getting someone to let them in, or, you know, the shooter just walking in while the doors are open with shotguns blazing. Pointless.

You can stop with trying to be insulting. It just makes you look like an asshole.

How many of the school massacres have been carried out by teachers in the past 10 years? 20 years? 50 years? Fact is, most people work high stress jobs and most people are not taking arms into work to work out that stress. We can certainly go back and forth with ignorant generalizations or we can look at what history shows for this. The teacher population is not all that different from the general population and the fact is most people are not at all likely to take any weapon into a place to do harm to others like we saw with Sandy Hook. It's a person with a fucked up brain that would do such a thing. And if there isn't a program in place to remove such teachers from duty that exhibit such behavior then I'd be shocked...we could certainly go off on a tangent about how unions unfairly protect such fucked up individuals from being fired...but that deserves a different thread.

As to your second point that simply is not true. Situations where a shooter will face resistance are ones that they will avoid. They aren't looking for a gun battle. They are looking for a slaughter. Do we need to dig in to all of the statistics and articles about the correlation between gun ownership and violent crime rates declining?

The way you write seems like you think I'm shoving a gun into the hands of a teacher and then booting their ass into the classroom. If you re-read what I posted you will see that I mention those teachers who wish to carry. In order a regular to carry a concealed weapon you have classes you attend and you have to shoot a qualifying score. You also have to re-certify every so often (how long between events depends on the state). If a State goes this direction they can determine what, if any, additional qualification and check ups may be needed. Fact is...we're already seeing some movement this direction. Stop school shootings by letting teachers fire back, say Texas officials

hahaha holy shit are you seriously saying I'm insulting when you're...well, you.

whatever on to the points

We hear all about the time about teachers taking out their stress on students, and it happens a LOT more than what the media can report. Sure, they don't beat the shit out of their kids (usually), but they flip tables over, scream incessantly at them, shit like that. A lot of these cases go unreported because of fear from the students. It just takes one case where a teacher isn't thinking properly to pull out his gun and suddenly there's a dead student.

And I already said school shootings don't result in the shooter walking out alive. He knows he's going to be getting a life sentence or a bullet to the head. He doesn't plan on living, why would he care about a teacher having a gun? By the time they could react, he might've already killed a dozen or more students.

And you're putting firearms right next to kids. Seriously? It's bad enough that they're left out in the open in homes. With elementary students, if they got a hold of one that their teacher left out/in their belt/whatever, nobody knows what could happen. Middle school and high school students could use it as a weapon against people they hate. It's just asking for trouble. Can you honestly expect all these people to be responsible with their guns at a school?

also
fox news
texas

hahaha

As I stated above this isn't something I say must be mandated. I throw it out as ideas that would be inexpensive to implement and would possible help mitigate or stop these events from happening. For you to say it wouldn't change much seems silly. Based on what? Ever spend any time in a small rural community? The concept of mutual aid is huge. Raise an alarm like this and you have the potential of many in the community showing up to help. My guess is that you'll counter this with your disdain for those that own firearms and who actually shoot. Fact is I have much more faith in my fellow countrymen with a firearm than simply relying on the Police for everything. They can't be everywhere and it is incumbent

In multiple cases what has been reported was that as soon as it seemed clear that law enforcement was nearing or was on site the shooters took their own life. We can certainly argue what the specific reason might have been in each case but it seems clear that either capture or interdiction by an armed person was part of that.

first of all, it's not guaranteed to help, and in most cases wouldn't do a god damn thing. So what if there are different doors? won't stop someone from getting into a school. there's a siren? the shooter can accomplish what he wants to in 5 to 10 minutes, which gives him plenty of time before someone else can get there.

what it does guarantee is more taxes for the community. So in the end you're getting a pointless addition that just takes more money out of others.

No excuse except for the 2nd Amendment? Honestly, what you posted here is made up. I can post the FBI Index crime stats that show that you're wrong. I can post stats from the CDC that show that you're wrong. You're just making this up. You can also look at the trends.

I'm not sure why you have such a hard on for firearms as I don't think I've read anything here that would suggest a root cause. Frankly my general sense is that you have some incredible disdain for you fellow humans. If I am right I am sorry about that. To see your fellow citizens and such untrustworthy things is an awful way to go through life.

I have no problem being around others who are armed. I generally see them as people taking charge of their own life and circumstances and people on whom I can rely. Do not construe this to mean that I think ill of those who choose not to own or use firearms. What you do has no impact on me....unless you are trying to infringe on my rights. In which case....you're a POS... :D

OMG UR SO MEAN SCHTOP (see that? this is fortress forever related now because this is the FF forums and I've never seen you post outside of gun threads in the past 3 years) BEING SO INSULTING UR SO MEAN :( :( ;_; :( STOP MAKING FUN OF ME I'M NOT A POS :(

You can cherry pick information about gun control, but without understanding why such information is accrued for those purposes it means nothing.

Look at countries like britain and austrailia, where guns are heavily controlled.

Lower crime rates and defendants can actually DEFEND themselves. if someone comes into a store and pulls out a knife, or mugs you on the street, you can still pick anything around you up and actually fight them. This is a natural deterrent because assailants would think twice about fighting someone, because they're always putting themselves at risk.

Whereas with a gun they just have to pull the trigger and there's a nice blood splatter on the wall. If you say "well the other guy might have a gun too, so he has to worry about that!" then you're just turning this straight into a slippery slope where now we have to worry about multiple people having guns and it gets ugly real fast.

As for the 2nd amendment - this is no longer the colonial era. We don't have to worry about the redcoats coming in by force and burning down our villages anymore. If we DO suddenly have a war on our home turf, we can at least rest assured that our military is able to quickly respond because of technological advances since two centuries ago. (Do I believe our military would be perfect in defending us? No, but that's for a different discussion)

Thankfully, we haven't had a war on our own soil in a hundred and fifty years, so it's a moot point anyways because I'm not worried about anybody invading us any time soon.

Is the 2nd amendment necessary anymore? Hell no. And even though for a lot of issues I do believe the constitution is a solid document, there are definitely outdated issues on there that people need to grow up over and learn that this is the 21st century now.

ps stop being so insulting ;( ur making me hurt and feel tingly inside I'm such an awful human being

I mean all that ethos and pathos in that second to last argument you're so right I hate everybody and I'm a terrible human being :( :( :(