Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2018 12:32:18 GMT -5
Ban video games with any shooting violence Or allow adults to have the video games only, but then force the adults to punch themselves in the balls for being an adult and still playing video games.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2018 12:35:38 GMT -5
I would rather have a few paid people at school who are armed and trained than teachers who are armed but not trained well.
There is so much upper management money wasted in schools, they could use the money to hire trained security personnel or off duty police officers to patrol the perimeter of the school.
|
|
|
Post by andrewk1988 on Feb 19, 2018 12:35:40 GMT -5
I think bullet proof doors is a more logical answer, but I get where you're coming from.
I think it's really easy to sit and armchair qb how you'd be such a badass if you were a teacher and you'd have your gun and put an end to it before it started. I would be willing to bet absolutely anything that if that situation could be simulated, and we put the 20 or so of us that post here regularly through it, MAYBE 2 would get a "passing grade" on their reaction.
Everyone thinks they're a badass, especially on the internet. Very very few people actually are even close.
|
|
|
Post by Comrade Question on Feb 19, 2018 12:38:05 GMT -5
Armed guards? No. Armed teachers? Yes. Mass shootings are still going to happen. Just not at schools. A teacher should be allowed to defend their own life, and it used to be that going to work as a school teacher did not entail putting your life in danger. But that hasn't been the case since 1999. Bout time we accept and recognize that the world changed, and in order to protect our children we have to change with it. How does it really benefit society if all your plan does is ensure the mass shootings (which are apparently completely unpreventable despite the fact that we have a near-monopoly on them in the developed world) happen elsewhere? Do you think people particularly care where their children are mowed down?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2018 12:57:11 GMT -5
Why does America have a “monopoly” on school shootings?... it’s definitely not because of gun laws, and the case study called Chicago is a perfect example of why gun laws don’t stop anything.
The reason we have more shootings at school is because parents, doctors, teachers, coaches and counselors are fucking lazy and don’t do their jobs. We have a country full of spoiled, lazy, dependent, socially awkward, medicated and non disciplined kids... who are never told no, not expected to grow up and be adults, and are told its okay to lose or not even try in the first place. These kids would rather sit in a dark room playing video games than be outside playing (and are allowed to do so), are not expected to get jobs, don’t have to make eye contact and talk to any adults, and are medicated as a shortcut instead of parented.
We have created these troubled youths who will film a kid getting beat up by bullies instead of stopping it because they are more concerned about social media “likes” than doing the right thing. These kids get put on pills for being hyper instead of putting their energy in to physical labor or learning. They are told it’s okay to not have a job, or get your drivers license/ buy a car until we’ll in to your 20’s. They are the same kids who spend the day staring at their phones and watching endless videos of other people doing things instead of going out and being kids themselves.
We have ruined these kids because we are fucking lazy, self absorbed parents and adults who have gotten distracted by our own selfish tendencies instead of seeing the job of raising competently mature kids as our first priority.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2018 13:24:40 GMT -5
Armed guards? No. Armed teachers? Yes. Mass shootings are still going to happen. Just not at schools. A teacher should be allowed to defend their own life, and it used to be that going to work as a school teacher did not entail putting your life in danger. But that hasn't been the case since 1999. Bout time we accept and recognize that the world changed, and in order to protect our children we have to change with it. How does it really benefit society if all your plan does is ensure the mass shootings (which are apparently completely unpreventable despite the fact that we have a near-monopoly on them in the developed world) happen elsewhere? Do you think people particularly care where their children are mowed down? That's a shortsighted and weak argument, and you know it, James Esq. We might have mass shootings on "monopoly" but we are not the only country that suffers from mass attacks. The worst civilian attacks in this country didn't even involve guns. Go look at China, they have problems with people taking knives out and stabbing 10-15-20 people before they are subdued. Japan had a nerve gas attack in the Tokyo subway. Nice France (and several other places) have had people turn vans into weapons that kill just as many people as a gun would. I benefits society (obvious you have no children) by keeping our children safe from the insanity that has caused mass killings to become so wide spread. IT MAKES THEM LESS OF A TARGET!!!!!! Is this really that hard to wrap your brain around? Why don't these mass shooters ever just walk into a police station? Or a gun club? Or a gun show? Or my house? Because they know they're likely to get shot before they can make their "statement". New schools are already built with bullet proof doors and quick lock barricades. If you tried to shoot up my son's school, you wouldn't get past the entrance. Every 15 feet in the hall are retractable bulletproof barricades designed to hold an attacker until the police arrive. But that's still not enough. Put a gun in every classroom and these mass shootings stop happening at schools. It's not that complicated.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2018 13:27:13 GMT -5
And - additional and unintended benefit:
You make our teachers more conservative by default if they need to have a gun to to their job. Lib-tards are scared as fuck of guns, so they would have to go get another job and stop indoctrinating our kids with their commie bullshit because they couldn't take having a gun in their drawer.
|
|
|
Post by andrewk1988 on Feb 19, 2018 13:40:56 GMT -5
Conservatism does not equal good, you goon. And you think that teachers are going to sway their politics because you force them to carry a gun? Silly shit you guys come up with.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2018 13:58:41 GMT -5
Conservatism does not equal good, you goon. And you think that teachers are going to sway their politics because you force them to carry a gun? Silly shit you guys come up with. You are a hilarious child. "Goon"? Conservative I was talking about = appreciation of capitalism and a free society. Sway their politics? Fuck no. I expect them to GET A DIFFERENT JOB where they cannot indoctrinate kids with their stupid socialist bullshit. That's all. And it makes you look like you're getting worked over when you start trying to get insulting, just because I think you are not making valid points that discredit the simple fact that a school with armed teachers is not a soft target. I hope someday you can have a kid so that you can learn what it means to actually care about someone more than yourself.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2018 14:03:39 GMT -5
I think bullet proof doors is a more logical answer, but I get where you're coming from. I think it's really easy to sit and armchair qb how you'd be such a badass if you were a teacher and you'd have your gun and put an end to it before it started. I would be willing to bet absolutely anything that if that situation could be simulated, and we put the 20 or so of us that post here regularly through it, MAYBE 2 would get a "passing grade" on their reaction. Everyone thinks they're a badass, especially on the internet. Very very few people actually are even close. You think you know so much more than you actually know. It's funny. Just because YOU might pee your pants when you hear gunshots doesn't mean there aren't people out there who can handle their business when things get tense. YOU might be a person prone to panic, but that doesn't mean everyone else is. Nor does it put you in a position to toss out that only 10% of the people in the world would know how to shoot someone who was shooting at them, or better still, shoot someone who doesn't even see them coming. You kinda need to be an authority to speak from a position of authority, and you are not one on this topic. Not saying I am either, but I'm not tossing out half baked statistics that are based on my tenuous understanding of mankind as a whole. Hell, I would be fine with them converting the old prison in the next town over from mine into a private school, complete with the walled in yard and 12ft cyclone fences. That school won't be shot up. Y ou are actually trying to argue that arming teachers, or at least giving those with CC permits the right to bring their protection with them into the classroom isn't going to be an effective deterrent. I am not saying this would prevent another mass shooting from happening at a school. I am saying that the number of incidents would drop in dramatic and drastic fashion and there is absolutely ZERO QUESTION that it would be a strong deterrent and force these cowardly mass shooters to take their bullshit into an area where there is a better chance they get shot back at quickly.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2018 14:20:44 GMT -5
It is generally accepted that people do not rise to the occasion when shit hits the fan. People panic, get sloppy, can't react, and fall back to their lowest level of proficiency. That isn't a Floyd argument, that is expert arguments from the likes of Massad Ayoob and resident badass JRod. I believe if you arm teachers, they would need more training than what is required to get a CCW. Many, and probably the majority of people have never taken more than a hunters safety course or an intro to gun safety before they start carrying. Now put a teacher with very little training in a high stress situation with kids around and they only have their training to fall back on, I don't like the odds of that ending well.
However, it would be a deterrent. People don't know how well versed you are in handling a gun and if multiple people are carrying, the likelihood of somebody trying to shoot up the school would go down. Either that or the kid shoots the known armed teacher first.
I am for arming teachers but they would need a LOT of training. No annual training and a check mark to be able to carry in a school. I would say several times a year you are taking a weekend seminar of dynamic handgun training. Get your stress level to uncomfortable places, get your HR way up, and then practice shooting. These are things people like Massad, Miculek, or some of the dudes from MagPul do and they need to be doing it often.
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on Feb 19, 2018 14:59:58 GMT -5
Given all the complaints here about the quality of people becoming teachers nowadays, I'm surprised any of you would trust them with a gun around your kids.
|
|
|
Post by Baph on Feb 19, 2018 15:29:39 GMT -5
I would rather have a few paid people at school who are armed and trained than teachers who are armed but not trained well. There is so much upper management money wasted in schools, they could use the money to hire trained security personnel or off duty police officers to patrol the perimeter of the school. We already did this with the Air Marshals after 9/11. It works. No need to reinvent the wheel. Timmy Tremblezits isn't going 25 kills deep on a lunch room if there are armed guards on site, period. And the copy catting will come to an abrupt fucking halt when the next disenfranchised dipshit that tries to go Columbine ends up ventilated after just three kills. Back to cutting your wrists, losers. The Public shooting tantrums are over.
|
|
|
Post by andrewk1988 on Feb 19, 2018 15:40:49 GMT -5
As usual, my point has been spun into something it's not. Make it harder for young people to get guns that can do mass damage until they've had a little more time to develop emotionally, hormonally, psychologically.
And I'd be all in for paying vets to stand guard at schools and potentially be a different influence on the kids after building relationships with them. But only after the most extensive set of psychological and emotional testing and training we've seen in civilian life. We can't have people with the same training as a fucking cop doing it. Police training has failed, use this as a way to look into what kind of training should be used.
|
|
|
Post by Baph on Feb 19, 2018 15:42:20 GMT -5
As usual, my point has been spun into something it's not. Make it harder for young people to get guns that can do mass damage until they've had a little more time to develop emotionally, hormonally, psychologically. And I'd be all in for paying vets to stand guard at schools and potentially be a different influence on the kids after building relationships with them. But only after the most extensive set of psychological and emotional testing and training we've seen in civilian life. We can't have people with the same training as a fucking cop doing it. Police training has failed, use this as a way to look into what kind of training should be used. We should make it harder for teenage gang members in DC and Chicago to get guns, too. That way there will be less gun violence in those cities.
|
|
|
Post by andrewk1988 on Feb 19, 2018 15:43:30 GMT -5
I think bullet proof doors is a more logical answer, but I get where you're coming from. I think it's really easy to sit and armchair qb how you'd be such a badass if you were a teacher and you'd have your gun and put an end to it before it started. I would be willing to bet absolutely anything that if that situation could be simulated, and we put the 20 or so of us that post here regularly through it, MAYBE 2 would get a "passing grade" on their reaction. Everyone thinks they're a badass, especially on the internet. Very very few people actually are even close. You think you know so much more than you actually know. It's funny. Just because YOU might pee your pants when you hear gunshots doesn't mean there aren't people out there who can handle their business when things get tense. YOU might be a person prone to panic, but that doesn't mean everyone else is. Nor does it put you in a position to toss out that only 10% of the people in the world would know how to shoot someone who was shooting at them, or better still, shoot someone who doesn't even see them coming. You kinda need to be an authority to speak from a position of authority, and you are not one on this topic. Not saying I am either, but I'm not tossing out half baked statistics that are based on my tenuous understanding of mankind as a whole. Hell, I would be fine with them converting the old prison in the next town over from mine into a private school, complete with the walled in yard and 12ft cyclone fences. That school won't be shot up. Y ou are actually trying to argue that arming teachers, or at least giving those with CC permits the right to bring their protection with them into the classroom isn't going to be an effective deterrent. I am not saying this would prevent another mass shooting from happening at a school. I am saying that the number of incidents would drop in dramatic and drastic fashion and there is absolutely ZERO QUESTION that it would be a strong deterrent and force these cowardly mass shooters to take their bullshit into an area where there is a better chance they get shot back at quickly. I'm not a teacher that would be in that position, so whether or not I'd pee my pants is irrelevant to the conversation. I'm sure the perpetual internet tough guy who's personality has floated in whichever direction the wind blows it for the last 10 years is definitely a sane, objective opinion on who is or isn't fit for that kind of duty though.
|
|
|
Post by andrewk1988 on Feb 19, 2018 15:44:31 GMT -5
As usual, my point has been spun into something it's not. Make it harder for young people to get guns that can do mass damage until they've had a little more time to develop emotionally, hormonally, psychologically. And I'd be all in for paying vets to stand guard at schools and potentially be a different influence on the kids after building relationships with them. But only after the most extensive set of psychological and emotional testing and training we've seen in civilian life. We can't have people with the same training as a fucking cop doing it. Police training has failed, use this as a way to look into what kind of training should be used. We should make it harder for teenage gang members in DC and Chicago to get guns, too. That way there will be less gun violence in those cities. Right, because the loser who can't make a friend and harbors all the internal hate from that has all kind of black market weapon hookups.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2018 15:48:49 GMT -5
You think you know so much more than you actually know. It's funny. Just because YOU might pee your pants when you hear gunshots doesn't mean there aren't people out there who can handle their business when things get tense. YOU might be a person prone to panic, but that doesn't mean everyone else is. Nor does it put you in a position to toss out that only 10% of the people in the world would know how to shoot someone who was shooting at them, or better still, shoot someone who doesn't even see them coming. You kinda need to be an authority to speak from a position of authority, and you are not one on this topic. Not saying I am either, but I'm not tossing out half baked statistics that are based on my tenuous understanding of mankind as a whole. Hell, I would be fine with them converting the old prison in the next town over from mine into a private school, complete with the walled in yard and 12ft cyclone fences. That school won't be shot up. Y ou are actually trying to argue that arming teachers, or at least giving those with CC permits the right to bring their protection with them into the classroom isn't going to be an effective deterrent. I am not saying this would prevent another mass shooting from happening at a school. I am saying that the number of incidents would drop in dramatic and drastic fashion and there is absolutely ZERO QUESTION that it would be a strong deterrent and force these cowardly mass shooters to take their bullshit into an area where there is a better chance they get shot back at quickly. I'm not a teacher that would be in that position, so whether or not I'd pee my pants is irrelevant to the conversation. I'm sure the perpetual internet tough guy who's personality has floated in whichever direction the wind blows it for the last 10 years is definitely a sane, objective opinion on who is or isn't fit for that kind of duty though. No need to bring me into this...
|
|
|
Post by Baph on Feb 19, 2018 16:02:33 GMT -5
We should make it harder for teenage gang members in DC and Chicago to get guns, too. That way there will be less gun violence in those cities. Right, because the loser who can't make a friend and harbors all the internal hate from that has all kind of black market weapon hookups. You're literally promoting gun violence in your avatar, asshole. Ever heard of the internet? Losers have hook-ups these days. They find prostitutes, drugs, and guns with relative ease, or steal them from a friend/family member.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2018 16:02:37 GMT -5
When I was in high school, kids were allowed to have their hunting rifles on gun racks in their trucks. You know how many kids got shot at my school? 0.
I'm not really interested in getting into some kind of insult fest with you Andrew. But you keep on trying to bring it back to some kind of personal thing with me.
I don't give a fuck what your personal opinion of me is, so stop trying to make it look like I do.
(And I've been chatting with this crew of miscreants for 20 years. Not 10.)
There's a movie that just came out, I believe it was directed by Clint Eastwood. And it kind of goes into how people who were not even armed with guns were able to stop a terrorist attack on a train.
I have zero interest in my taxes going up so that we can invent another government agency, this one in charge of school security. I would prefer my tax rate remain the same and the teachers who are already collecting my tax dollars in the form of their salary are taught to defend my kids who are in their classroom. If that means that their job just got harder, Cry me a fucking River.
|
|
|
Post by andrewk1988 on Feb 19, 2018 16:13:25 GMT -5
Yeah you really got it, I am always the one starting with the personal insults.
But a movie is definitely a good dose of reality, good call.
For the record, I grew up where you could still bring your shotgun to school for trap, but it had to be in your car. My school never got shot up. Correlation could equal causation there, but I don't think so.
|
|
|
Post by andrewk1988 on Feb 19, 2018 16:16:04 GMT -5
Right, because the loser who can't make a friend and harbors all the internal hate from that has all kind of black market weapon hookups. You're literally promoting gun violence in your avatar, asshole. Ever heard of the internet? Losers have hook-ups these days. They find prostitutes, drugs, and guns with relative ease, or steal them from a friend/family member. OH boy, the old what ifs following an insult. Hell of an argument. As far as I know, the people who shot up places that were under the age requirement I suggested and they all bought the guns used legally. God forbid someone has an opinion and even a relatively simple suggestion that goes against the party line here boys. Edit: Sorry I didn't address my avatar on a fucking message board with 50 people on it. I forgot how easily it could influence the delicate snowflakes who can't tell the difference between reality and a work of fiction.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2018 16:27:02 GMT -5
Well normally a movie is fiction.
But, you might want to do something you don't usually seem to do: Look into something before you open your mouth. The movie in question is not only "based on real events" but it actually stars the guys who stopped the attack in real life.
Gun Control like you present is just window dressing bullshit.
I live in a state where pretty much everyone has a gun in the home. The waiting period to purchase a gun in Maine is Zero Days. Number of school shootings we've had: Zero. Murder rate: Lowest in the country. You do not even need a concealed carry permit to carry a gun in Maine.
Seems allowing people to have guns (and a homogeneous population) work pretty well.
What happened when that guy shot up the church (Soft target) in a state like Maine (with regards to gun ownership)? He was shot by a civilian (who must have been part of that 10% who know what to do) before he could kill anyone else.
|
|
|
Post by andrewk1988 on Feb 19, 2018 16:51:07 GMT -5
Dude, I live in Missouri. I grew up on a farm in the middle of nowhere Missouri. I've been around guns my whole life. I'm not sure where I got off as the take guns guy, but that ain't my bag. Oh wait, because I didn't just join the circle jerk with the same old cliches about the subject.
I think it's sensible to at least stop kids who aren't fully developed yet from buying the most badass ones legally. Put up one more barrier. It's not infringing on the 2nd ammendment anymore than we already have.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2018 16:56:59 GMT -5
I'm going out in a limb and saying that Andrew's idea about raising the age of buying a gun might not be a bad idea. There are certain responsibilities one grows into. 16 to drive, 18 to smoke and vote, and then 21 to drink. How would raising the age to 21 to buy a gun really hurt anything? I hope he isn't suggesting not being able to have a gun without a parent or something but I don't think he is.
It is common knowledge that 18 isn't a magic number that suddenly makes one responsible and there is a plethora of evidence showing one's brain is still developing into your 20s. It isn't banning people from having them. It would be similar to a cool down period that some states have.
I'm not sure I agree with it being raised to 21 but I can at least entertain it. I know the counter-argument is they could get their parents to buy it but that is true now.
Before anybody goes all emo on me. I am a huge proponent of the 2nd Amendment, regardless of what people try to accuse me of after reading my post.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2018 17:06:44 GMT -5
I don't have a problem with raising the legal age to purchase certain kinds of firearms (hunting rifles not included) to 21. Hell, my state just made it so you have to be 21 to buy a pack of cigarettes.
I agree that when you keep seeing that these shooters "purchased the guns legally", there is obviously a problem with the system in place. I just don't want to get caught on a slippery slope, where it becomes easier and easier for the government to prevent us from purchasing guns at all.
|
|
|
Post by andrewk1988 on Feb 19, 2018 17:12:55 GMT -5
Thank you Floyd, you're style is much more diplomatic than myself.
And Tony, I think we're already down that path with registered guns and background checks at all. I'm not advocating for anything but an age check on semi autos specifically.
You want a hunting rifle at 18? You're going to have to go the old fashioned way with a pump, lever, or bolt action for a few years.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2018 17:25:49 GMT -5
I'm going out in a limb and saying that Andrew's idea about raising the age of buying a gun might not be a bad idea. There are certain responsibilities one grows into. 16 to drive, 18 to smoke and vote, and then 21 to drink. How would raising the age to 21 to buy a gun really hurt anything? I hope he isn't suggesting not being able to have a gun without a parent or something but I don't think he is. It is common knowledge that 18 isn't a magic number that suddenly makes one responsible and there is a plethora of evidence showing one's brain is still developing into your 20s. It isn't banning people from having them. It would be similar to a cool down period that some states have. I'm not sure I agree with it being raised to 21 but I can at least entertain it. I know the counter-argument is they could get their parents to buy it but that is true now. Before anybody goes all emo on me. I am a huge proponent of the 2nd Amendment, regardless of what people try to accuse me of after reading my post. Devil's advocate... what about a semi-auto shotgun, a semi auto .22 rifle, or even a double action revolver? Do you think I couldn't go in to a school and use a pump shotgun, lever action rifles and double action revolvers with speed loaders and not get at least 17? From a hunting standpoint, semi auto guns usually end up with less kills compared to bolt/lever/pump actions. The reason is people get excited and dump their magazines quickly without any accuracy. When you have to reset your mind for a split second after each shot, you get some clarity that you don't get when using semi auto. If we are going to pass new laws and make a big deal about something, we need to be sure that the problem is the problem and the solution is actually a solution. What happens if we ban semi auto rifles and big magazines, and then there is a school shooting done with more conventional guns and the shooter get 25 kids?
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on Feb 19, 2018 17:27:21 GMT -5
Thank you Floyd, you're style is much more diplomatic than myself. And Tony, I think we're already down that path with registered guns and background checks at all. I'm not advocating for anything but an age check on semi autos specifically. You want a hunting rifle at 18? You're going to have to go the old fashioned way with a pump, lever, or bolt action for a few years. You live in Missouri, look at the clusterfuck that happened here when Obama tried passing new gun control laws. You really think Missouri will play ball with the feds on that? Alaska and Missouri, maybe Nevada and Louisiana will probably flat out ignore it. But the larger issue with "legal access" to guns comes with the fact there is no standard system on how to purchase a gun. The laws would be better off being Federal only, and don't let the states fuck with it anymore. Otherwise you are gonna stay stuck with things like people coming into say St Louis from East St Louis or Chicago, buying up guns legally and then heading back to their states that restrict them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2018 18:58:47 GMT -5
I'm going out in a limb and saying that Andrew's idea about raising the age of buying a gun might not be a bad idea. There are certain responsibilities one grows into. 16 to drive, 18 to smoke and vote, and then 21 to drink. How would raising the age to 21 to buy a gun really hurt anything? I hope he isn't suggesting not being able to have a gun without a parent or something but I don't think he is. It is common knowledge that 18 isn't a magic number that suddenly makes one responsible and there is a plethora of evidence showing one's brain is still developing into your 20s. It isn't banning people from having them. It would be similar to a cool down period that some states have. I'm not sure I agree with it being raised to 21 but I can at least entertain it. I know the counter-argument is they could get their parents to buy it but that is true now. Before anybody goes all emo on me. I am a huge proponent of the 2nd Amendment, regardless of what people try to accuse me of after reading my post. Devil's advocate... what about a semi-auto shotgun, a semi auto .22 rifle, or even a double action revolver? Do you think I couldn't go in to a school and use a pump shotgun, lever action rifles and double action revolvers with speed loaders and not get at least 17? From a hunting standpoint, semi auto guns usually end up with less kills compared to bolt/lever/pump actions. The reason is people get excited and dump their magazines quickly without any accuracy. When you have to reset your mind for a split second after each shot, you get some clarity that you don't get when using semi auto. If we are going to pass new laws and make a big deal about something, we need to be sure that the problem is the problem and the solution is actually a solution. What happens if we ban semi auto rifles and big magazines, and then there is a school shooting done with more conventional guns and the shooter get 25 kids? You seriously argued a point I didn't make. I'm not for banning any guns. Remember, I was the one that disagreed with you and said bump stocks should still be legal despite the Vegas shooting.
|
|