No...
in a system of Limited Gov't, the citizens' first sphere of defense is defending their natural human rights from the encroachment of gov't.
General 14 students, 1 teacher dead following mass school shooting in Texas
- Thread starter mysticmac
- Start date
in a system of Limited Gov't, the citizens' first sphere of defense is defending their natural human rights from the encroachment of gov't.
they're also the most common firearm used in self-defense.
in fact, they're used far more for defensive purposes than for aggression.
Also, the weapon of choice for killing a lot of people is a handgun. you can't kill a bunch of people from far away, they scatter like cockroaches.
because it's easier to commit mass murder with a handgun.
sell your guns and get a dildo collection if you can't be bothered to learn the basics of firearm function
Gonna be a big week for gun shops here.
How do you arrive at that conclusion?
So it isn't in effect yet?
i can't imagine the Dems being dumb enough to push this...
lots of progressive-minded people will weep and wail on FB over "reasonable gun control laws", but it's not going to get any extra votes in the ballot box.
However, it IS a single-issue vote for a lot of people in the Republican camp - even those that aren't ammosexual.
It isn't even a bill yet. The press conference claims seem difficult to square away with what they'll actually be able to enact. I'm not quite sure how one would argue that Pork Chop can keep his handguns, and Beard can keep his, but Beard wouldn't be allowed to divest himself of his firearms should he want them and Pork Chop want more. My guess would be that it's actually just delayed confiscation, but that's going to be tough to pull off. The whole concept also makes no sense from the standpoint that every law enforcement agency in the country has claimed that crime guns are almost exclusively illegal American imports.
...yet. Gun control is like a billionaire losing their fortune. A little at first, and then all at once.
the advantage of a rifle is long sight radius and range, neither of which is going to help you in trying to kill the maximum people possible.
if you want to kill a lot of people, you go to wear people are densely situated and it's only a question of getting the most rounds in to the mass of people. Handgun ammo is smaller and lighter, therefore more of it can be carried by the killer. You can also carry redundant platforms with handgun, if your AR quits you're out of business.
morons who know fuck-all about guns take an AR to a school shooting, as evidenced by the fact that most of these killers buy/steal a gun and then start killing with it. They're not knowledgable in tactic-appropriate weapons, they just get the biggest, blackest one they can find.
like when
@Splinty goes cruising for cock.
The main advantage of a rifle is that the ammo causes substantially more trauma than a handgun bullet moving at 900fps.the advantage of a rifle is long sight radius and range, neither of which is going to help you in trying to kill the maximum people possible.
if you want to kill a lot of people, you go to wear people are densely situated and it's only a question of getting the most rounds in to the mass of people. Handgun ammo is smaller and lighter, therefore more of it can be carried by the killer. You can also carry redundant platforms with handgun, if your AR quits you're out of business.
morons who know fuck-all about guns take an AR to a school shooting, as evidenced by the fact that most of these killers buy/steal a gun and then start killing with it. They're not knowledgable in tactic-appropriate weapons, they just get the biggest, blackest one they can find.
like when
That makes perfect sense, even though it makes no sense.
And who the fuck calls themselves "Pork Chop"
Stupidest name ever
Good points by both
Anders Breivik, in the act of murdering 69 people. He had a Glock as backup, but he used his long gun.
Stephen Paddock's weapons of choice to murder 60 strangers.
Brenton Tarrant murdered 51 people with this.
Pulse nightclub shooter. 49 dead.
Sandy Hook, 26 dead.
El Paso Wal-Mart, 23 dead.
Most of these assholes took handguns in as well, for insurance or to kill themselves with. But they used their long guns for the murders. A semi-automatic long gun with a 30 round magazine isn't going to help you kill as many people as possible? Then why is the list of deadliest one-man gun rampages completely dominated top to bottom by them? How you gonna just deny reality like this?
??
meh, I can get 400-800 ft/lbs of ME out of a 45, or 500 ft/lbs out of a 9mm.
An AR will give me 1200-1400, but at half the surface area of a .45
Against unarmored targets, a handgun is going to make big holes that bleed a lot. And most victims in mass shootings die from blood loss...remember that next time we talk about the 48 minutes the cops were waiting.
and you can get deep in a crowd without anyone knowing how much armament you're bringing...if this kid had wrecked his car and walked toward the school with 4 handguns and a couple bandoliers of magazines under his jacket, no one would have called the cops until he was shooting inside the school.
they would have killed more if they'd loaded out with handguns. and suppressors.Anders Breivik, in the act of murdering 69 people. He had a Glock as backup, but he used his long gun.
Stephen Paddock's weapons of choice to murder 60 strangers.
Brenton Tarrant murdered 51 people with this.
Pulse nightclub shooter. 49 dead.
Sandy Hook, 26 dead.
El Paso Wal-Mart, 23 dead.
Most of these assholes took handguns in as well, for insurance or to kill themselves with. But they used their long guns for the murders. A semi-automatic long gun with a 30 round magazine isn't going to help you kill as many people as possible? Then why is the list of deadliest one-man gun rampages completely dominated top to bottom by them? How you gonna just deny reality like this?
??
EDIT - the Vegas shooter being the exception. He used an appropriate platform for the situation where he was trying to kill as many as possible. However, that's a very rare situation.
Exactly. Bullet placement is paramount, but if you don't have that, you want force. Rifles have it, handguns don't. As you elude to, a handgun wants you to have the time to bleed out. A rifle will just kill you. Hydrostatic shock matter, and handguns don't have it.
I understand the term voluntary. I just don’t remember those proposing armed teachers highlighting the voluntary aspect of the idea.then there wouldn't be any armed teachers. you should really look up the definition of "voluntary".
and to reiterate, kids are twice as likely to be struck by lightning as to be present during a mass school shooting. So arming teachers is like sending kids to school with bulletproof backpacks - Stupid and Expensive.
I'd rather all teachers have to carry the knowledge and empathy to facilitate emotional growth in students.
but if dipshits would rather have them carry guns...
LoL at Hydrostatic shock.
it's not going to overcome all of the disadvantages of centerfire rifles.
why do you think Operators use AR carbines in handgun calibers?
So that’s not the same as the right to bear arms. Guess cmnh was correct.
probably because it's assumed. I can't imagine a rational argument for mandatory firearm training and possession by every teacher.
They don't.