Given the ONLY option ALLOWED by Republicans to protect our children, arming folks!!!

I never once said guns should be banned. This is the problem. You don't know who you are talking to. Gun control laws affect people. DUH

 

You cant respond so revert back to trolling?

 

how do you suggest I respond to an absurd post?

 

Gun control is the violent alt left code word for banning guns. This has been a fact for decades.

 

If you can't speak English you should try another forum.

 

no, it is not.

that's just the RW's strawman.

 

Why was it absured? Someone compares heroin tk guns, you come back with guns arent a physical addiction, and I point out that you cant become addicted to something you havent used before.

 

Which words didnt you understand?

 

so folks only use heroine cause its illegal?????????????

LOL!!!!

tell that to millions of opiod addicts who started out on meds for pain.

 

Why do you hate children?

I speak fluent Jimmy79.

 

And it is a stupid idea that has not worked.

 

background checks work.

time to expand them

 

When I see someone talking about "megaclips" and "guns" in the same breath, I know I'm reading someone completely unqualified to have such a discussion.

Riddle me this: How many abortions were performed between January 1st, 2018 and the date of the latest "Mass Shooting" in America? Next, how many people have died in ALL "Mass Shootings" in America since inception of the mass shooting media tag. Then, compare that number to the total number of Abortions in just 2017, alone. It is 'ok' to drive down to the local Death Doctor and have the "little problem" taken care of, no. But, whoa! Wait a minute. Is that Long Gun in your hands? Oh, s-h-i-t- - call SWAT and 911 simultaneously.

Where is SWAT when the UNBORN needs it!

Wake up to the Liberal Hypocrisy. Killing is killing. Period. I don't hear anything from Liberals about storming the offices of Abortion Clinics, or the Doctor Death Offices who perform them.

 

Guyzilla, inside a classroom, an AR-15 has no advantage over a handgun. An AR-15 magazine can hold more ammo than a handgun can, and an AR-15 has greater long range accuracy. But inside a school building, a well trained individual with a decent handgun is on a level playing field against some kid with an AR-15.

No teacher or other staff member should be forced to train with or carry a gun if they don't want to. But those who do want to train and carry should be allowed to, and they could save lives when seconds count. Let's be clear. The key to stopping a massacre, the key to limiting casualties - is the speed with which the shooter is engaged.

And no adult who is placed in the care of our children should be mandated to be helpless. This policy is not grounded in logic or in morality.

None of this means we can't talk about other things as well, such as how law enforcement responds to a reported threat. Should a young adult who was expelled from 3 high schools for violent and threatening behavior be allowed to purchase a gun? We don't allow convicted felons to possess firearms. Should we expand that to people convicted of misdemeanors involving violence? Should people diagnosed with certain mental diseases be entered into the database as being prohibited from possessing/purchasing firearms? Why did these types of crimes not happen in the past, but they happen now? What has changed in our society? Should we talk about the entertainment media and the violence it depicts? What about video games that act as murder simulators? And what of the news media? Is the news media turning these shooters into criminal "celebrities" by publishing their names and showing their pictures?

It is also worthwhile to remember some things ... The original school shooter in modern memory is the Texas Tower shooter who killed 17 people using a bolt action hunting rifle and a shotgun. The Virginia Tech shooter killed 32 people with just two handguns. President Kennedy was killed with a bolt action rifle. President Reagan was almost killed with a .22 caliber pistol. The Sandy Hook shooter used an AR-15, but most of the defenseless children he killed were at point blank range where he could have done just as much damage with a pistol with a few magazines to reload with. The Umpqua Community College shooter killed 8 with handguns.

And so the point is that if we focus on getting rid of one type of firearm, and we think we've made our schools safer, we're fooling ourselves.

I think we have much more difficult questions to answer and to act upon than simply focusing on AR-15's. I don't think that's the answer.

Seth

 

There are already school districts that allow some of the faculty to be armed and so far there haven't been any tragic stories of their guns going on rampage shooting sprees. I am confident that the media would be all over any accidental tragedy with these rules so I'm guessing there have been none.

 

Given that virtually every thing you're stating is just argumentative BS. I'm only marginally interested in commenting. None the less I shall. First if you can launch a surprise attack against a school, than said school hasn't even taken the absolute minimal security precautions. Which should involve closed circuit security cameras sinced with metal detectors at all primary entrances that can be observed by any one in the school office who could then lock down the school keeping the shooter out of the class rooms and the students in. And notifying the police.

 

Besides all the errors in your rant the left just wants schools to remain free kill zones. Simple as that.

 

Good, we will test that THEORY.

 

GOP blocks Dem attempts to allow federal gun research
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/286847-gop-blocks-dem-attempts-to-allow-federal-gun-research

 

So where and what do you think is/was stored in the ATF ballistics data base back in 2006 and presently?

 

What's with the left's obsession with saying "folks"? Really puzzles me.

 

What is it about guns that clueless democratics want government to research?

 

SO are the mass murderers.

CERTAIN types of data? Not those that folks concerned requested?

 

I agree. I heard GWB use it. It sounded strange, specially when he used it for those he considered EVIL. Then it hit me. It is a neutral term, that doesn't bungle up the rest of your message.

 

That is a fascinating question that I will devote a bit of time on. Thanks.