No, just like the electric car, it's about control. It's about tracking us, controlling us, and disarming us. Am I right@Enock-O-lypse Now! ?
Right on ....the money.....
Society Gun Control Discussion Thread
- Thread starter Freeloading Rusty
- Start date
-
- Tags
- gun
Right on ....the money.....
T
The Big Guy
Guest
Who promotes gun violence?
Who profits off the promotion of gun violence?
Who commits the large majority gun violence according to FBI and state statistics?
Who profits off the promotion of gun violence?
Who commits the large majority gun violence according to FBI and state statistics?
The jews?
T
The Big Guy
Guest
That's a little farfetched innit?
Hare Krishna's?
M
member 1013
Guest
*shoots
@RaginCajun*
*shoots
Like at Columbine?
There was an armed, sworn sheriff's deputy on scene at the school when it kicked off. Neil Gardner. He exchanged fire with both killers before they even entered the school building, in fact.
Or at Stoneman Douglas? Same thing. Armed, uniformed sheriff's deputy Scot Peterson was already on the scene when the shooting began. Just like at Columbine, he was a total non-factor.
Virginia Tech had armed campus security as well.
So that doesn't work.
Who pays for this, by the way? Where does the money come from, to install metal detectors and pay armed guards? Who are the guards - what training do they have, and why are they the solution, when they were already on scene at multiple of the most high profile, deadliest massacres and had no impact on events at all?
Seems like the solution is more nuanced and complicated than your one-line blanket statement acknowledges. Surprising, huh?
??
Excellent! Let me just go find one that's stupid enough and disproved easily enough to fit in. ?
??
Oh, I know I'll have to trawl some real cesspools to find "sources" as shit as the right wing conspiracy goons here routinely vomit up. ?It's tougher than you think. Good luck.
??
Hey, be nice to
@Freeloading Rusty
This logic applies to any solution that gets presented in the wake of a tragedy.
So your solution is to have armed guards in every public place, and that's a solution? Even though that's already the case in a number of the deadliest attacks, and your solution didn't do anything?
Were you aware that armed sheriff's deputies were on the scene at both Columbine and Stoneman Douglas as the attacks started, and actually exchanged fire with the Columbine killers before they entered the building?
??
You're making s good cade for the police being useless, but not really a good case for not having armed guard. You're also trying really hard to be fooled by randomness. Subtract those 2 incidents from every event with armed personnel and no negative outcomes.
Sporting events are kill boxes. How frequently do mass shootings occur at major sporting events?
Did you know that the Columbine killers exchanged fire with an armed, trained, sworn sheriff's deputy before they entered the school?
??
Yes, and statistics determine that to be an exceedingly rare outcome
You sure do run your mouth off like an expert about Columbine (this isn't the first time you've brought up Columbine)...you do realize there could be members on this board that lived through it ...you don't see them running their mouths off like a dip shit who was half a world away when shit went down.
Mass shootings by themselves are exceedingly rare.
You knew that armed police officers were on the scene from the start of multiple of the highest profile (and deadliest) mass shootings and their presence was a non-factor....... yet "armed guards" is still your catchall solution to address gun violence?
Word games, mate. Why not just say "hmmmm, yeah it's a bit more complex than one-line fixes really, isn't it"?
??
Cool story.
There was an armed sheriff's deputy on the scene who exchanged fire with the killers before they entered the building.
His presence didn't stop them.
That's reality. I know you struggle with reality, but tell me I'm wrong about what happened?
Feel free to attack the argument, as opposed to the messenger.
??
Please actually read instead of just being angry all the time.
So your "solution" of having armed guards everywhere is pretty much a nonstarter, and you refuse to expand on your one-line offerings.
Armed guards won't stop mass shootings.
Do you want armed guards at every bar, every school (better have multiple armed guards there, as one is proven to not be effective), every shopping mall, every movie theatre, every farmers market, every church, every nightclub, etc etc etc?
Who pays for all this? Does a minimum wage rent-a-cop with an AK every 100 yards in every urban area, make society better?
Are we going to have the armed guards carrying TEC-9s and AR15s, to match the firepower of a suicidal killer?
Do you think that having kids go to a school that for all intents and purposes functions as a jail with metal detectors, locked doors, armed guards everywhere, might lead to negative outcomes for the kids psychologically?
Do you think that maybe this problem is a little more complex and nuanced than your one-line blanket statements have acknowledged?
??
Armed security isn't a non starter. You just don't like the idea because, if I were going to hazard a guess, you think guns should be confiscated and that would fix the problem even though gun confiscation historically have gone very poorly.