Forum menu
@nickc - just another example of how trump is owned.
The NRA and Putin have him exactly where they want him - in the WH and subject to them.
A kid who was there says it better than anyone could:
So the shooter is '....sad and remorseful'. I call bollocks.
Looks like a pathetic kid without his guns and knives.
Member of 'white supremacist' group; he will get a few years while they are still out there spouting racist, xenophobic, isolationist poison into the ears of anyone dim enough to listen.
The NRA donated $21 million to the Trump election campaign. He is a member. His family are all members. He was the key speaker at their last conference. Do not expect Trump to do anything whatsoever.
<quote>
Enough is enough! Public massacres and school shootings must stop!
Stephen Willeford grabbed his AR-15-style rifle after hearing the gunfire and went over to investigate. Confronting the shooter, Devin Kelley, Willeford shot him in the leg and torso before Kelley dropped his weapon and fled the scene in his SUV.
At Moore, Oklahoma, a man went crazy at a food plant and attacked a female worker, literally chopping her head off. He then went after a second woman. Hearing the screams, C.O.O. Mark Vaughan pulled out his firearm, ran to the scene and shot down the killer.
The Clackamas Mall shooting in Oregon, a psycho with a semi-automatic rifle opened fire. Nick Melli, a young man carrying a .40 pistol on a permit, drew and aimed at the gunman. Melli didn’t fire, for fear of hitting innocents behind the perpetrator, but the gunman at that point fled through an employee’s-only doorway and down an inside hall, where he then committed suicide. What could have been a high-casualty mass murder was apparently aborted by the mere sight of an armed citizen.
Jeanne Assam, armed with the 9mm pistol she was licensed to carry as an armed citizen was at Church in Colorado Springs, Colorado, in 2007 , she shot the killer on the run and dropped him, at which time he shot himself, concluding the matter. Assam was hailed for her courageous act, which indisputably saved many lives.
An enraged man entered a psychiatric clinic and shot a caseworker dead and wounded one of the doctors before the latter drew his pistol and shot the man down, limiting the death toll to one. The doctor recovered and, declared a hero by local police, suffered no consequences for being armed in a “gun-free” zone.
The lessons are clear. One fights fire with fire, and defeats force with force. Criminals make a point of striking in places where police are absent, and the police can’t repeal the laws of time and motion to get to the scene in time to stop the murders. If someone collapses with a heart attack, a citizen first responder with an AED is more likely to save him than waiting for a paramedic unit. The State of Maine and New Hampshire do NOT require a concealed weapon Permit. In these states, anyone can carry a pistol in their pocket, or in a holster, No License Needed!
Let’s save America, and abolish the draconian laws that restrict it’s citizens from protecting themselves.
</quote>
This was posted on the abovetopsecret forums. It's pretty standard response to these events. There is little point engaging in a gun-control debate online, even a suggestion that simple things like performing basic checks or enforce cooling off periods are a good idea get no where.
From a UK/European centric stand point it is very odd and somewhat tragic.
As I've said - The real issue is about whether American democracy works. People, children, are literally dying live on television, and they (the people) seem unable or unwilling to stop it. That's ****ed-up
The fact that the NRA are able to peruse their outrageous agenda by openly bribing elected officials is a) a demonstration of how dysfunctional american politics is, and b) a demonstration of how their agenda is contrary to the best interests of the people - otherwise they wouldn't need to bribe people, surely?
It seems like the anti-guns lobby (or "normal people") really need to organize themselves into something that can counter the NRAs deep pockets. Maybe they can offer counter-bribes to the politicians to encourage them into action? FFS
Also - am I the only person that breathes a sigh of relief when the gunman is white?
NRA finances and funding; 5 million members - are their membership dues tax deductible?
In 2010, the NRA reported revenue of $227.8 million and expenses of $243.5 million,<sup id="cite_ref-NRA990-2010_202-0" class="reference">[</sup>with revenue including roughly $115 million generated from fundraising, sales, advertising and royalties, and most of the rest from membership dues.<sup id="cite_ref-Robison-Crewdson2011_203-0" class="reference"></sup><sup id="cite_ref-204" class="reference"></sup> Less than half of the NRA's income is from membership dues and program fees; the majority is from contributions, grants, royalties, and advertising. <sup id="cite_ref-FactCheck130115_180-2" class="reference"></sup><sup id="cite_ref-Robison-Crewdson2011_203-1" class="reference"></sup><sup id="cite_ref-Hickey130116_205-0" class="reference"></sup>The NRA has said that less than 5% of its funding comes from the firearms industry, with the majority coming from small donors.<sup id="cite_ref-206" class="reference"></sup>
Corporate donors include a variety of companies such as outdoors supply, sporting goods companies, and firearm manufacturers.<sup id="cite_ref-FactCheck130115_180-3" class="reference"></sup><sup id="cite_ref-Robison-Crewdson2011_203-2" class="reference"></sup><sup id="cite_ref-Hickey130116_205-1" class="reference"></sup><sup id="cite_ref-VPC110413_207-0" class="reference"></sup> From 2005 through 2011, the NRA received at least $14.8 million from more than 50 firearms-related firms. <sup id="cite_ref-Robison-Crewdson2011_203-3" class="reference"></sup>An April 2011 Violence Policy Center presentation said that the NRA had received between $14.7 million and $38.9 million from the firearms industry since 2005.<sup id="cite_ref-VPC110413_207-1" class="reference">[</sup>In 2008, Beretta exceeded $2 million in donations to the NRA, and in 2012, Smith & Wesson gave more than $1 million. Sturm, Ruger & Company raised $1.25 million through a program in which it donated $1 to the NRA-ILA for each gun it sold from May 2011 to May 2012. In a similar program, gun buyers and participating stores are invited to "round up" the purchase price to the nearest dollar as a voluntary contribution. According to the NRA's 2010 tax forms, the "round-up" funds have been allocated to both public interest programs and lobbying.<sup id="cite_ref-FactCheck130115_180-4" class="reference"></sup>
In my opinion, it's going to take nothing less than a public movement to surpass the Civil Rights Movement, to get gun control implemented.
If those who don't own guns (as well as those who do, but aren't still brainwashed) have any social conscience,they should march on Washington, and the other major cities, in their millions. Show the NRA and their President puppet this can't go on and won't be tolerated any longer.
Why would Trump want to upset his base?
mikey74, I think you're right - a mass political movement is the only way to go. The second amendment should be reworded. There's no fundamental reason not to - the right to bear arms came to the USA from English law designed for the defence of Protestants against any future Catholic government. That anachronism has been addressed in English law, no reason for the same to happen in the USA.
Once it's clear what the rights should be, banning rapid fire weapons should be easy.
I suspect it won't happen in the next 10 years though.
No need to reword the amendment. It calls for a 'well regulated militia' having the right to bear arms. Which strongly suggests the need for some kind of oversight and control over those who want to own weapons. I don't believe the Supreme Court has ever chucked out reasonable gun control measures as unconstitutional.
So it is simply a case of politicians voting to introduce automatic weapon bans, make other guns harder to buy, increase background checks etc. But there is simply not enough popular support, or the political will to make unpopular decisions. You would hope that Sandy Hook would be a turning point, but if even the massacre of primary school children is not enough, I fear nothing will be.
Spokeswoman for the gun group (whatever it's called) on the BBC this morning was embarrassing. If those people have any sense of embarrassment that is. The interviewer appeared to cut the interview short as she was so damn stupid - even corrected him when he said "automatic weapon" - "it was a sem-eye automatic" like that matters. Arm the teachers was her solution ffs.
[edit]just remembered another thing she said - "everyone talks about the guns, but no-one talks about who's behind the shooting"! Unbelievable ignorance.
I think, as a minimum, there needs to be a ban on the sale AND ownership of automatic and semi-automatic weapons, followed by a nationwide amnesty to give people a chance to hand them over.
Good piece by Mark Steel in The I.
Ok its a comical take on the situation, but the argument being that as it’s quite easy to own a gun in the US, then we can all have guns to protect ourselves. If somone did this with a legally owned tank, they would ban tank ownership, as it’s beyond the ability of most people to by a tank to protect themselves from other tanks.
No need to reword the amendment. It calls for a ‘well regulated militia’ having the right to bear arms
That's what I've argued in the past but apparently I'm just a Brit who doesn't know much. The actual meaning has been debated for a very long time.
Jeez:
This week in Montgomery County, Maryland.......
https://twitter.com/ABC7Kevin/status/966017884047773698
Why are we so bothered though, why are we more bothered by mass shootings in the USA (murder rate 4.88/100,000 people, 15696 murders) compared to the narco and other deaths in Mexico (16.35/100,000, 20762 murders).
Because bringing the War on Drugs into this thread will open a different can of worms?
Both are bad.
Paraphrase from another friend's comment, who in turn may have picked up elsewhere:
Why don't we just ban guns, and then send 'thoughts and prayers' to all those affected.
If T&P are comfort enough for those that have lost sons, daughters, parents, partners and friends, then SURELY they're good enough for those upset by the loss of their firearms.
compared to the narco and other deaths in Mexico
Well there is a connection in that in both cases the firearms used are often purchased legally in the states. So whilst there are other sources having a functioning firearms control system in the USA would make it harder to acquire weapons in Mexico.
Florida house of representatives voted yesterday to reject a motion to consider a bill that would ban assault rifles and immediately followed that by passing a resolution declaring pornography a public health risk.
Tell you what though, these kids are amazing. While the usual suspects say "now is not the time" the survivors are saying **** you, we decide when it's the time. Just kind of in awe of it, especially as they become the focus of the alt-right's mania about "crisis actors" and the like. They're going straight from the line of one sort of fire to the next.
martinhutch Subscriber
No need to reword the amendment. It calls for a ‘well regulated militia’ having the right to bear arms.
slowoldman Subscriber
That’s what I’ve argued in the past but apparently I’m just a Brit who doesn’t know much. The actual meaning has been debated for a very long time.
There's a comma, whose presence makes the intended meaning semantically debatable. Gun advocates have used that comma to argue that the milita bit isn't relevant when it comes to determining who should be able to bear arms.
For example: [url] http://www.businessinsider.com/the-comma-in-the-second-amendment-2013-8?IR=T [/url]
Let them crack on, i dont give a shit if they want to shoot their kids - it's democracy just like Brexit.
I am not going back to the US and have advised my kids not to visit the shit hole, at best its third world with shiny stuff and neon.
Land of the free... my arse
Why stop at arming just the teachers? Arm the children as well. After all, more guns - safer schools, right?
Just ban schools. Sorted.
Children will need to be armed in case one of those commie pinko liberal teachers give in to their evil base urges and shoots up their kids for talking back in class.
Stephen Willeford grabbed his AR-15-style rifle after hearing the gunfire and went over to investigate. Confronting the shooter, Devin Kelley, Willeford shot him in the leg and torso before Kelley dropped his weapon and fled the scene in his SUV.
Looks like irrefutable proof that armed citizens can save the lives of others when a lunatic goes postal with a gun.
Of course, if the lunatic can't get a gun, there's no need for armed citizens, is there?
Or ban SUVs so the shooter wouldn't have been able to drive off. (I am starting to get the logic used now)
Of course, if the lunatic can’t get a gun, there’s no need for armed citizens, is there?
True. Maybe they should ban them, after all, it seems to have worked with drugs, because nobody ever manages to ship them over the border from Mexico and sell them to kids.
The ban on handguns in the uk seemed to work pretty well in stopping mass shootings and it's still pretty hard to get a gun and even harder to get ammo and it's not as if we've won the war on drugs is it
We had a baseline of restriction since ww1 though. We knew everyone who owned a legal handgun (and still ww2 ones are cropping up)
the baseline of introducing a ban in the states tomorrow is 300m firearms with no list of who owns what (plus all the ones that Obama admin. knowingly let drug cartels ship to Mexico)
add to that the fact that we have a channel in the way..., perhaps you’re suggesting that some form of physical barrier between the US and Mexico would help?
Ah! I see Trump's sycophant has arrived to offer his NRA-sponsored take on all this.
Ban semi and fully automatics now. The rest can follow later. That's all.
Sorry forgot it was all Obamas fault. As stated we banned guns and it worked obviously doing nothing because it's a bit tricky is by far the more sensible solution. Iirc most of the nut job, gun freak weirdos seem to use legally held firearms in the US, (as in the UK, the old addage anyone who wants to own a gun really shouldn't be allowed one is so true) shouldn't be too difficult to go round collecting the rest of them up. The us border is, even without trumpy's wall, significantly harder to breach than the channel has ever been.
The us border is, even without trumpy’s wall, significantly harder to breach than the channel has ever been.
Lolz
We had a baseline of restriction since ww1 though. We knew everyone who owned a legal handgun (and still ww2 ones are cropping up)
the baseline of introducing a ban in the states tomorrow is 300m firearms with no list of who owns what (plus all the ones that Obama admin. knowingly let drug cartels ship to Mexico)
add to that the fact that we have a channel in the way…, perhaps you’re suggesting that some form of physical barrier between the US and Mexico would help?
No sensible person thinks that passing gun control laws will instantly make things better in the US and that things like this will immediately stop, that's a straw man argument (dammit!) that is put up by people who want to retain the status quo. What such controls would do would make it progressively harder over time to obtain guns, and ammunition and ultimately make these things less common. Gun control won't be a perfect solution and shouldn't even be the only thing that is done (increased spending on mental health would help too but there we run into a healthcare argument!) but it will help.
"The perfect is the enemy of the good"
Nope still can't get the quote thing to work!
"Why are we so bothered though, why are we more bothered by mass shootings in the USA (murder rate 4.88/100,000 people, 15696 murders) compared to the narco and other deaths in Mexico (16.35/100,000, 20762 murders)."
Because the US holds themselves up as some shining beacon of how the world should be and export their brand of democracy and values abroad, often by force, so therefore hold themselves up for scrutiny and being held to account by others. The US loves to criticise others, but when criticism is turned onto them they get all defensive and offended by it. And also it is a tad frustrating for others who see a huge problem in US society which we know the solution and answer for but the US politicians and vast swathes of the public don't seem to want to listen. But it's not our kids and people being slaughtered in their tens every day, week in, week out, but what do we know hey?
and still ww2 ones are cropping up
LOLz.
America is headed toward civil war at this rate.
No sensible person thinks that passing gun control laws will instantly make things better in the US and that things like this will immediately stop, that’s a straw man argument (dammit!)
i could say exactly the same thing about encouraging CCW or arming teachers. Nobody is suggesting it as a panacea, they are suggesting that it’s better than the status quo
Yes because a teacher with a concealed handgun who is taken by surprise whilst teaching by a prepared and gee'ed up shooter with no expectations of a positive outcome armed with semi auto rifles or full on autos will prevent deaths. How well did the overtly armed security guard do at Florida?
i could say exactly the same thing about encouraging CCW or arming teachers.
REALLY. You think MORE GUNS in a PLACE OF LEARNING is a good idea when it is clear to EVERYONE that more guns mean more gun deaths, just like more knives means more stabbings! Prevention is a wayyyyy better solution that a cure.
compulsory body armor for all children!
Only saw a tiny bit of the "debate" with Trump on the news this morning - were there any teachers there? Surely a teacher would've said to him "I'm not carrying a gun in school!".
When someone shoots this president in the back of the head, will his dying thought be, I should've had a gun on me?
Given the fact that police struggle to hit their targets (unless they are unarmed) and the analysis of many shoot outs show nobody hits anything how would arming teachers help? It's only the bat shit crazy gun nuts suggesting it. In no way is it an improvement, simple because if your planning this sort of thing (and these guys did that) you now have to add in a bit more to overcome the teachers too.
Next you then need to train the teachers and find any who want to add security guard to their job description. If only there was a better way to stop kids getting hold of guns....
It’s only the bat shit crazy gun nuts suggesting it. In no way is it an improvement, simple because if your planning this sort of thing (and these guys did that) you now have to add in a bit more to overcome the teachers too.
S’funny, because when people plan these things they always seem to choose to attack somewhere in a no-gun zone.
Edit:
“Every single mass shooting that's occurred in the state of Florida has been in a gun-free zone. Pulse nightclub, gun-free zone, and it took law enforcement 3 1/2 hours to get into the Pulse nightclub, 3 1/2 hours while our citizens [hid] behind urinals and bathrooms and [lied] on the floor waiting for medical treatment because law enforcement didn't go into the building, and that was a gun-free zone. Florida State University, Fort Lauderdale airport and now Parkland. It's not a coincidence. If you look at some of these people that commit these heinous acts, and you read some of the things that they've written about their plans — like 'The Dark Knight' shooter out in Colorado, if you read his journal, he did a lot of research on what movie theaters he wanted to attack. There were eight movie theaters within a 4-mile radius of his home. There was one movie theater that didn't allow patrons to carry concealed firearms, and that's the one movie theater that he attacked. So there's a ton of evidence to show that this is where people like this want to go. They create mass chaos, and they're going to try to do it in a place where they know law-abiding citizens aren't carrying."
Florida state senator
Arming teachers is just bat shit mental...
NYPD stats show trained police only hit their target 18% of the time in a firefight
If only there was a simpler way ninfan....
Wood/Trees and all that
You've got me ninfan. How is this...
<span style="font-size: 0.8rem;">S’funny, because when people plan these things they always seem to choose to attack somewhere in a no-gun zone.</span>
A reply to [i]this[/i]???
It’s only the bat shit crazy gun nuts suggesting it. In no way is it an improvement, simple because if your planning this sort of thing (and these guys did that) you now have to add in a bit more to overcome the teachers too.
Oh, having another read, what you're saying is, if these places weren't gun-free zones, they wouldn't have been attacked... ahhh. Jeez.
If only there was a simpler way ninfan….
300m unregistered guns in circulation. What’s your plan to put that Genie back in the bottle?
as Gonefishing says
No sensible person thinks that passing gun control laws will instantly make things better in the US and that things like this will immediately stop
So your argument about “a simpler way” is just facile, as in a best case scenario it doesn’t change anything for decades, what’s your plan in the meantime, until the 300m guns out there are no longer in circulation, just sit back and relax, saying “ah, we’ve banned guns, job done, hopefully they’ll start running out of bullets soon”
[i]ninfan wrote:[/i]
i could say exactly the same thing about encouraging CCW or arming teachers. Nobody is suggesting it as a panacea, they are suggesting that it’s better than the status quo
Just for clarity here ninfan, can I check - are you in support of the NRA stance on gun laws (ie that the only way to improve things is more guns) or are you just on your usual trollathon?
" it doesn’t change anything for decades" well at least it's changing the underlying cause. So how did the overtly armed security guard, employed to stop shooters do on Florida then?
No I think ninfan loves his guns
Like any of the NRA types they really struggle to see a solution with less guns, logic escapes the room in these arguments.
"If" there are 300million unregistered guns out there it's only one each so much better than the registered arsenals out there.
Still not sure how anyone could defend a kid having access to this level of weaponry though, given alcohol is banned until your 21 there.
300m unregistered guns in circulation. What’s your plan to put that Genie back in the bottle?
Ban new sales without licence.
Ban sales of particular weapons e.g. automatic rifles and hand guns.
Sunset date for possession of weapons in banned category with high fines for possession after that date and a amnesty for hand ins. Pay owners market rate for guns being made illegal.
Stronger controls for storage of licensed weapons.
Simple, proven plan - run it over 5 years, job done.
how would arming teachers help?
And how long would it take for a teacher with a gun drawn, ready to defend his/her students, to be shot by a cop/another teacher/"CCW"er responding to reports of shots fired? Or the teacher shoots another 'good guy'?
passing a resolution declaring pornography a public health risk.
Good idea. Someone could **** themselves to a heart attack. Though I would have thought the solution in the US would be to allow everyone access to pornography and the freedom to flaunt it in public places.
as Gonefishing says
To clarify, you agree with me now? With my whole point, not just the section you chose to cherry pick?
We managed to massively reduce drink driving in the UK over a few years. Back in the 60's and 70's drink driving was normal. Now its not. Pubs still sell booze, all that changed was a tightening of the rules and a change in social attitudes.
So it could be possible to change social attitudes in the US. All it takes is a few well spoken people and less lobbying.
Arming teachers is a joke.
Mine couldn't hit me with a blackboard duster from 10 feet.
You weren't taught chemistry by Mr Clinch then - he was a a crack shot with a board rubber.
That the response of so many supposedly rational people is to 'arm the teachers', shows just how far american politics and large swathes of its society have an Alice in Wonderland inability to face reality.
As I understand it many of these shootings involve miltary spec semi-automatic assault rifles, so presumably the teachers would need to be armed with similar weapons rather than 'just' a handgun. Logically, if you are going to arm teachers, it would also make as much - or even more sense - to equip them with body armour as well, and they would also need some training in the sort of close quarter battle fire fighting where they would be expected to defend their pupils.
And what happens when the first such armed teacher goes postal and kills their class because of their own personal problems or because of frustration with some pupils' bad behaviour? Presumably the response of those currently suggesting that teachers be armed, would then be to suggest that the pupils should be armed so that they could defend themselves against a rampaging teacher.
These threads and discussions are pointless (I realise the irony of posting myself). Too many in America and too many of its politicians have jumped down a rabbit hole of insanity. There is no point wasting any more time in frustration and disappointment at their collective insanity and pig headed refusal to face reality.
Jesus wept indeed for the madness that infects them but even more so for the appalling loss of young innocent lives and wrecked families.
Some common sense being shown by most posters on these last couple of pages. As usual, ninfan isn't one of them. When it comes to guns and bloodlust I can never quite work out if he is a (not particularly brilliant) troll or whether he really is so delusional in his ideas.*
As far as I can see, no one is suggesting that there is an easy, immediate fix to the problem. The only certainty is that arming untrained CIVILIANS is not the answer. Start by tightening the gun laws. More stringent checks on the potential purchaser. Stop selling military class weaponry to civilians. Some sort of registration / identification on ammunition and limit the amount that can be sold, returning spent cartridges before new live rounds can be issued. There is no perfect solution and all options will take effort and money but isn't that effort and money well spent if it saves the lives of children? Probably not in Trump, the NRA and ninfans world but in the world of the rational human being, yes.
*I can work it out and I don't believe he is a troll.
From what my stepdaughter tells me about some pupils in her class of teenagers (school near Doncaster) It would be a great idea to arm our teachers as it would alleviate young offenders/prison overcrowding.
In the UK we limit the number of packs of paracetamol a person can buy to help prevent individuals killing themselves.
Yet suggesting [b]any[/b] form of limitation be placed on firearm purchases in the US, to help prevent individuals from massacring others, is deemed lefty-snowflake-short-sightedness.
<insert nathan fillion gif>
well at least it’s changing the underlying cause.
Thats the point
it isnt
It’s a sticking plaster
the underlying problems are issues like societal breakdown, social exclusion, drugs, poverty, and yes, healthcare.
same as with Columbine
Yet suggesting any form of limitation be placed on firearm purchases in the US, to prevent individuals from massacring others, is deemed lefty-snowflake-short-sightedness.
Actually, it isn’t, there’s huge support for it even amongst gun enthusiasts, but what people (IMO rightly) recognise is that it’s the start of a slippery slope towards the far greater, swinging restrictions on firearms that are the anti-gun lobbies explicit goals.
A bit like how cycling organisations stand up against banning bikes from the A63, or making cycle helmets compulsory.
The underlying problems certainly include those things and they need to be addressed now doubt, however the one single thing that is common to all mass shooting is guns and to deny that the apparent ease with which they are available isn't part of the problem is simply to deny reality.
Arming teachers against people with mental illness who come into schools with guns? Good job teachers absolutely cannot suffer from mental illness, eh?
they are suggesting that it’s better than the status quo
The difference is one option has a proven track record in reducing mass shootings., Just look at the number of mass shootings in the UK or Australia after firearms had further restrictions imposed.
The other, to put it politely, doesnt. It appeals to the macho dreamers who know that they could pull their trusty 9mm from their back pocket and shoot dead the bad guy before casually returning to teaching the difference between nouns and verbs.
You would need to find suitable teachers for the training (remember studies on soldiers would seem to indicate a surprising number cant actually shoot someone when it comes down to it) and then invest a lot of time into training them to be competent. Even then odds are you would have a higher casualty rate through NDs or a teacher deciding detentions just dont quite cut it than you would save.
attack somewhere in a no-gun zone.
Well apart from when they dont.
Las vegas for example.
A bit like how cycling organisations stand up against banning bikes from the A63, or making cycle helmets compulsory.
WTF!!! How do those possibly equate to removing weapons of mass destruction from the general public?
Worked in the uk. So how did the armed guard employed at Florida do then, how did that gun on the campus hep?
weapons of mass destruction
Lolz, no hyperbole there or anything
Banning assault rifles is like a compulsory helmet law.
er, right...........
Lolz, no hyperbole there or anything
Auto / semi-auto weapons facilitate the killing of very many people in a very short time frame, so yes mass destruction.
Ninfans bestest mate Greg Steube (florida senator he posted about above) is an NRA shill
Just listening to an American bloke explaining the 'logic' of arming all teachers, as if he was asking them to carry some spare pencils.
Absolutely, totally, completely and utterly insane!
Auto / semi-auto weapons facilitate the killing of very many people in a very short time frame, so yes mass destruction.
It's not even a case of 'facilitate', they are designed specifically to do that. It's not a by-product of some other primary function, or an alternative use that it just so happens they can be put to, they are specifically designed to kill as many people as possible, in the shortest time frame and easiest way.
My mind always boggles when it comes to America and guns. I understand the reasons behind it, the history, the many faceted nature of it both socially, politically and emotionally, but I still find it incomprehensible that as a nation they cant decide to sort it out.
It's not impossible task, it's not an easy task, it will be very very difficult and take a lot of time, but they* haven't even yet decided that they should try and fix it, that's what boggles my brain.
*obviously some people are trying...
As long as the NRA are buying power at the highest level and gun fetishists like ninfan are supporting at a grass roots level, nothing will change. The innocents in the middle will continue to be slaughtered and the great and good will send their thoughts and prayers.
There was a bloke talking on the radio this morning who has apparently studied mass shootings and he thinks the simplest answer to keeping fatalities to a minimum is for each classroom to have at least 2 doors. His stats say that most fatalities happen when people are trapped somewhere.
He also didn't think that having armed teachers or security in the school, hallway or classroom would make much difference to a nutter with an assault rifle.
I can see his logic.