"Let's put an end to gun violence by handing out more guns"

Scroll to see replies

Quite a few of the states are really safe, because many people have firearms.
I would think it's the fear of: "If I fire on him, then those people over there will more than likely fire on me..."

Reply 41

username3672344

Original post by D3LLI5

You don’t need special forces training to hide in a classroom with a pistol trained at the door, nor do you need to be a marksman to hit 1/10 shots from a couple of meters away. At close ranges, such as in a classroom, pistols are just as lethal as assault rifles

So when a lunatic breaks into a school firing off hundreds of rounds per minute, a teacher is going to stop them with a pistol?

The idea that we should be arming school teachers is one of the most absurd things I have heard.

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 42

Good bloke

Original post by DeBruyne18

The fact that we are talking about the need for armed officers at schools is really quite startling. This is meant to be America, the 'best' country in the world. Not some mob rule country.

Today's revelation is that this school had just such an armed officer, and he did nothing.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43164634

Reply 43

Notoriety

Original post by Good bloke

Today's revelation is that this school had just such an armed officer, and he did nothing.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43164634

Might have been different if he were trapped inside the building alongside students and teachers.

Reply 44

username1207499

Original post by DeBruyne18

Have you ever been to a school? There are classrooms and doors, if the shooter just started spraying hundreds of rounds per minute he wouldn’t hit many people at all until he ran out of ammunition. Assault rifles are cumbersome and slow to snap fire in comparison to smgs and as such special forces use smgs for room clearing. Even then they use flash bangs, bullet proof vests, and explosives to make it slightly less dangerous for them. The idea that a kid with an ar is so much better than an SAS operator that they can outperform said operator without any of the kit is absurd

Reply 45

Good bloke

Original post by Notoriety

Might have been different if he were trapped inside the building alongside students and teachers.

Yes. He might have opened fire, missed and killed or injured children in the next classroom.

Reply 46

Notoriety

Original post by DeBruyne18

I am not sure why you think repeating this statement is at all impressive, persuasive or important. It merely says "I think this" and little else. No one here knows you very well or cares enough about what your opinion is in itself. They might care about the reasoning you have to offer, but you are yet to provide any.

Reply 47

Good bloke

Original post by D3LLI5

The idea that a kid with an ar is so much better than an SAS operator that they can outperform said operator without any of the kit is absurd

The difference is, of course, that the perpetrator just wants to kill indiscriminately, and can even get kills when he misses his target. Special forces are seeking to nail just their targets, with no collateral damage to innocent bystanders and colleagues.

Reply 48

Notoriety

Original post by Good bloke

Yes. He might have opened fire, missed and killed or injured children in the next classroom.

Begs the question why the attacker bothered to go into classrooms, spot victims and then shoot. He could have just shot through walls.

Reply 49

Good bloke

Original post by Notoriety

Begs the question why the attacker bothered to go into classrooms, spot victims and then shoot. He could have just shot through walls.

Hmm. Even deranged gunmen know that the exterior walls to buildings are normally very much thicker, made of tougher material and more protective than internal partition walls.

Reply 50

cat_mac

Original post by k.n.h.

Oh..

That tweet seems real, definitely check out for me :yep:

But that tweet isn't there on Trump's account... strange... :doh:

The tweet is from 2016, so it won’t be anywhere recent on his account!

Reply 51

Xyspher

It is very stupid.
Mainly for 3 reasons:
1) A teacher can open fire.
2) The teacher may leave the gun unattended or leave it in plain sight for a student to grab it and open fire.
3) It won't solve the issue.

Reply 52

Drewski

Original post by D3LLI5

Comparing anybody to special forces is redundant for this argument.

Comparing them to even normal members of the forces is equally redundant.

What we're talking about here is the potential for complete amateurs to counter the threat. Complete amateurs who would have very little training, certainly no repeat or regular training. Amateurs who wouldn't be trained to the standards of, say, the average policeman - who only hits the target a third of the time. Amateurs who are supposed to be equally concerned with getting the 30+ children they're with to safety.

Amateurs. Not SAS. Not Delta. Not SEAL team 6. Not any other ally'd up wet dream.

I've handled weapons. Loads of them. Full sized machine guns, smaller bullpup assault rifles, match rifles, handguns, the lot. Under the best of conditions they're difficult to shoot accurately. Under stress, being shot at, fearing for your life and the lives of people you care about, when you've had basically no training to deal it? Impossible.

Reply 53

Good bloke

Original post by Drewski

Comparing anybody to special forces is redundant for this argument.

Quite! We should only be comparing things with what is shown in Hollywood, where the hero is nerveless and hits every time, no bullets go astray, fences are bulletproof and panicking people do not rush around and get in the way.

Reply 54

Notoriety

Original post by Good bloke

Hmm. Even deranged gunmen know that the exterior walls to buildings are normally very much thicker, made of tougher material and more protective than internal partition walls.

My point was that the risk of a pistol round inadvertently hitting a student on the other side of a wall is less than a perp entering into that classroom (behind the wall) and shooting everyone with an AR. If Ais the risk to students behind the wall from a round from a pistol and B is the risk to students from AR gunfire, A < B.

Reply 55

Good bloke

Original post by Notoriety

Neither risk is a good one to be running. Thank goodness British laws prevent such people from getting hold of firearms and perpetrating such atrocities and that we don't need armed guards to protect our schools from them.

Reply 56

Notoriety

Original post by Good bloke

Wholeheartedly agree.

Reply 57

username3672344

Original post by Good bloke

They really are in a Hollywood fantasy aren't they? Where the 70 year old 5 foot librarian with a walking stick whips out her gun and shoots dead the killer with a single shot.

Reply 58

Good bloke

Original post by DeBruyne18

They really are in a Hollywood fantasy aren't they? Where the 70 year old 5 foot librarian with a walking stick whips out her gun and shoots dead the killer with a single shot.

You forgot the bit where she looks the class dimwit in the eye and forces him to come up with an answer to the question she posed before the interruption.

Reply 59

nutz99

Original post by Ninja Squirrel

The guy is Florida had a history of violence though but it wasn't picked up in the background check because those checks are not thorough enough. Most school shootings are committed by people under the age of 21 so limiting the sale of any gun to 21 and over is a start.

Then to buy these guns they should have to go through a much more detailed background check that doesn't just look at criminal convictions but looks at school records, employment history and mental health checks.

Contrary to what people believe Mental Health checks are carried out in most states. The problems arise because the person needs to have been committed to a mental institution or be regarded as mentally deficient or mentally defective. Unless the patient has been regarded as a danger to themselves or others it won't get picked up.