Turn on thread page Beta

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

    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nutz99)
    the person needs to have been committed to a mental institution or be regarded as mentally deficient or mentally defective.
    Hmm. That is a very low bar to get over, isn't it? Rather like imposing a qualifying height of three inches for the Olympic high jump competition.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IDOZ)
    Quite a few of the states are really safe, because many people have firearms.
    I think most sane people would turn that the other way round.
    • Very Important Poster
    Online

    19
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by IDOZ)
    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..."
    Which are the sates that are safe?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    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.
    It’s still harder to snap to the one person in the room with a gun if you have a cumbersome ar, and if you don’t snap to the person with the gun first, they’ll get you
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    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.
    And what I’m saying is that even special forces struggle to deal with untrained enemies if they’re holed up in a room with their gun trained on the door. If special forces equipped with the latest gear and massive training struggle, then how can some kid who stole an ar hope to clear one, let alone a school full of classrooms
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by D3LLI5)
    And what I’m saying is that even special forces struggle to deal with untrained enemies if they’re holed up in a room with their gun trained on the door. If special forces equipped with the latest gear and massive training struggle, then how can some kid who stole an ar hope to clear one, let alone a school full of classrooms
    They're not looking to clear the room. They're looking to create devastation and scare the **** out of everyone.

    They're not on some systematic mission to dispose of a room in an organised fashion, and it would be hilariously simple to get rid of the teacher first.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    They're not looking to clear the room. They're looking to create devastation and scare the **** out of everyone.

    They're not on some systematic mission to dispose of a room in an organised fashion, and it would be hilariously simple to get rid of the teacher first.
    They aim to kill people.... I don’t understand what you don’t understand about that

    I just explained why it wasn’t ‘hilariously easy’ to kill the teacher first
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by D3LLI5)
    They aim to kill people.... I don’t understand what you don’t understand about that

    I just explained why it wasn’t ‘hilariously easy’ to kill the teacher first
    No, you didn't.

    You're going off on some irrelevant rant about special forces and what they can and can't do.

    According to you, attaining any kind of high body count in these environments isn't possible. But we all know it is, so just what exactly are you talking about?
    Online

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    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.
    To be fair, assessment centres for teaching jobs will be much more interesting if they contain a shooting range round. As will PGCE courses.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    No, you didn't.

    You're going off on some irrelevant rant about special forces and what they can and can't do.

    According to you, attaining any kind of high body count in these environments isn't possible. But we all know it is, so just what exactly are you talking about?
    They’ll kill a handful of people granted but nowhere near as many as they could if everyone was sitting there like lemons waiting to get shot
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by D3LLI5)
    They’ll kill a handful of people granted but nowhere near as many as they could if everyone was sitting there like lemons waiting to get shot
    They're sat on classrooms. What else would you have them do? Build schools out of sandbags?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    They're sat on classrooms. What else would you have them do? Build schools out of sandbags?
    The point of this thread is discussing the idea of arming teachers. Maybe you need some sleep
    Online

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by D3LLI5)
    Or you just allow people to carry around their own protection rather than making it illegal. Teachers can still shoot up schools at the moment, at least with other teachers being armed they can defend the kids in their classroom from both types of attackers
    You shouldn't need protection in a school.Its not a normal thing.Other countries do not have gun drills or mass shootings every other week.And that's because they don't have an inalienable right to bear arms.There is no real reason why anybody needs to own an assault rifle.These weapons are not designed to shoot deer or for hunting.They are designed to kill large numbers of people very efficiently.It shouldn't come as any surprise to anyone when an assault rifle is used for its only intended purpose.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by D3LLI5)
    The point of this thread is discussing the idea of arming teachers. Maybe you need some sleep
    And pretty much every post is explaining why that's utterly moronic.

    Armed guards are a step up, but only treat the symptom, not the cause.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Robby2312)
    You shouldn't need protection in a school.Its not a normal thing.Other countries do not have gun drills or mass shootings every other week.And that's because they don't have an inalienable right to bear arms.There is no real reason why anybody needs to own an assault rifle.These weapons are not designed to shoot deer or for hunting.They are designed to kill large numbers of people very efficiently.It shouldn't come as any surprise to anyone when an assault rifle is used for its only intended purpose.
    Perhaps you need to read up on the American constitution, you don’t seem to even know what the reason for the second amendment is
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    And pretty much every post is explaining why that's utterly moronic.

    Armed guards are a step up, but only treat the symptom, not the cause.
    Please try and stick to your arguments rather than giving up on them as soon as I give a rebuttal.

    If you want to treat the cause then treat the reason for the second amendment, otherwise you’re just treating a symptom of yet another problem
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by D3LLI5)
    Please try and stick to your arguments rather than giving up on them as soon as I give a rebuttal.

    If you want to treat the cause then treat the reason for the second amendment, otherwise you’re just treating a symptom of yet another problem
    It's a 250 year old document written before there were street lights and when any form of firearm took a minute to reload.

    Now, weaponry is capable of firing several hundred rounds in that one minute.

    It's an archaic document that is no longer fit for purpose.

    Hence why additions are called "amendments". They can be changed. And there is precedent for that. Read up on the 18th and 21st amendments.




    All of which is immaterial. Giving guns to teachers is utterly pointless. They don't want them. They can't use them. Having the guns there won't help.
    Online

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by D3LLI5)
    Perhaps you need to read up on the American constitution, you don’t seem to even know what the reason for the second amendment is
    And the second amendment is not needed. Other countries seem to manage just fine without their civilians having assault rifles.
    Online

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    It's a 250 year old document written before there were street lights and when any form of firearm took a minute to reload.

    Now, weaponry is capable of firing several hundred rounds in that one minute.

    It's an archaic document that is no longer fit for purpose.

    Hence why additions are called "amendments". They can be changed. And there is precedent for that. Read up on the 18th and 21st amendments.




    All of which is immaterial. Giving guns to teachers is utterly pointless. They don't want them. They can't use them. Having the guns there won't help.
    It's not even just that it won't help, it's that it puts the teacher in a lot more danger. Rather than focusing on getting their kids to safety they are being asked to confront the crazed killer and try to shoot him dead while being fired at.

    There's also the point that if armed officers enter the building and see a teacher stood there with a gun, how are they meant to know not to shoot them?
    Online

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by D3LLI5)
    Perhaps you need to read up on the American constitution, you don’t seem to even know what the reason for the second amendment is
    It's a stupid reason.To resist tyranny.*******s.How are you going to resist tyranny when the American government has tanks and helicopters and warplanes? Also it says as part of a well regulated militia.How many Americans are part of a militia? Also the clue is in the word amendment.The constitution was amended once it can be amended again it's not some sacred document that can't be changed.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: February 28, 2018
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.