Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics & World News' started by Beef Supreme, Dec 14, 2012.
in Indiana, that would be perfectly legal
Please register to disable this ad.
Could be, but you'll be railroaded in court and won't stand a chance.
But smart people do?
Ok no one does. I could have wrote that better.
Smart people tend to do smart things, like learn how to own and use weapons responsibly, and lock them up, keeping them out of the hands of insane/stupid people, etc.
(I knew what you meant...)
I think that's the worst part of the whole thing. That's what he said - the law stands behind it.
So who. fvcking. cares?
Just because it's legally defensible to needlessly kill some police officers who are trying to do their jobs in good faith, doesn't mean that it's anything other than batsh!t crazy and morally bankrupt.
Give each teacher a gun, problem solved.
You know I thought about this a bit. I'm not advocate of the teachers being armed. Most teachers I've met I barely trust to educate my children let alone be able to effectively deal with an active shooter situation.
But that got me thinking, what about all these combat experienced vets coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan. IIRC unemployment among vets is like 20% or something. So what about implementing something like the Air Marshall program at schools. Plain clothes, trained, vets would act as the “School Marshall”. They’d also be an awesome role model for the kids.
I’m sure it’s WAY more difficult that my back of the napkin idea, plus there is the demon of PTSD, so there’d have to be a rigorous screening process for that as well.
Light-years better than giving teachers a gun…………..
Haven't any of these morons heard of mace/bear spray (comes in fog for interior use and stream for outside/multipurpose), tasers, or other commonly used less than lethals weapons that are newer than guns and used more often by law enforcement?
Because only insignificantly small %s of flights actually had armed pilots, same thing with "federal air marshals". I'd have no problem with a qualification program if a teacher WANTED to carry, but it shouldn't be a federal program to "arm" teachers, nor would it actually do anything. Think about it, the kids would just shoot the teacher, then who's going to shoot back in a classroom? That's the problem, you can't stop these things by arming people. It's not enough of a check to prevent anything IMO.
I certainly give you credit for coming with an idea that is not a knee jerk "more guns all the time" answer. I still can't get behind it. Having to have an armed guard for elementary school kids represents an America I don't even recognize. I have never supported banning all guns but I would go there before armed guards for our kids.
As always, I appreciate your thoughtful posts.
Guns don't kill people. PING PONGS KILL PEOPLE!
I'm re-reading that article and genuinely laughing out loud. Holy. Sh1t.
Ok...it gets better all the time. I need not go one or two steps along the internet to find evidence to substantiate my claims that AMERICANS ARE TOO ****ING STUPID TO OWN FIREARMS.
And I would give you both rep if I only could. This was part of the conversation I had with the ex when she posted that story on facebook.
Andy has a good idea in general, much better than arming teachers. But there are school the have metal detectors to prevent KIDS from bringing guns to school. The fact that we have kids that WANT to bring a gun to school makes me lose faith in humanity.
I want less guns all around.
I wonder if any company has considered a dual gas safety/fire suppression system. It could be wired so a fire alert triggers the fire suppression gas and a security alert triggers mace/pepper spray/tear gas/sleeping gas which would incapacitate everyone but stop an incident.
That was one type of gas, fentanyl just as some gas fire suppression systems aren't safe for rooms with people in them and given that it was the Russians it was probably poorly tested and they didn't give a sh*t.
Pepper spray, mace, and tear gas have a long proven record. If they aren't generally safe then worldwide law enforcement would be forced to stop using them.
The NRA must have seen Andy's post.
After the Virginia Tech shootings, the N.R.A. lobbied extensively to minimize permanent mental illness restrictions against gun ownership for patients with temporary medical conditions such as depression, through advocating judicial review of medical conditions of patients rather than simply imposing permanent prohibitions of gun ownership for temporary medical conditions.
Never thought I'd venture into this forum (never mind this thread) but W.T.F. is going on America? I get the whole gun control argument (I've been to NH ) but, from what's being reported here, the NRA are just acting like a bunch of c**ts now. What real argument can there be to have an assault rifle, other than just "cause I want one"? Is America really full of 4 million idiots that couldn't possibly get over not having the ability to kill every motherf**ker in the room?
Then to hold a press conference right after the silence?!?! Jeeeessssusss, at least show some respect.
I posted this in the "other" thread, but it's worth a read in a serious context as well. The point being, that Columbine HS had an armed guard on campus, and it didn't stop a massacre there.
Yup, that pretty much sums it up. You see here in the states we like to fix the problem by implementing more of what causes the problem because more of anything is always the answer.
More bars with longer hours serving cheaper more powerful booze are the way to combat DUIs.
I could get behind that.
Drunks are less likely to be injured in an accident, so force all drivers to be drunk, and make sure they have a loaded M-4.
Nothing beats drunk on drunk (car) action.
Put an armed, drunk, cancer-ridden AIDS patient behind the wheel of a car in every school.
Edit: make sure the car is a Prius...
Relocate child molesters in religious institutions to help stop child abuse.
Gun violence is good for the economy.
More fear will make you not as scared.
Chicago's Naked Raygun has your answer:
...Then someone will make a buck, with a cure for your bad luck..."
Just because you don't want or need a gun doesn't mean you have to ruin it for everyone else. People like guns for a myriad of reasons. Could be a collector, could be a hunter, could be an avid shooter at the range, could be protection, could be a tool.
You don't like guns, we get it. So to answer your question, YOU aren't missing out on anything. But does that really mean no one should miss out on anything by not having guns? What kind of dumb ****ing reasoning is that?
You might as well ask us what you are missing out on by not having a 10" dildo shoved in your ass. If you aren't into that, you are missing nothing. Does this mean we should get rid of 10" dildos? Despite the number of colons we may save by doing so, the answer is **** no. Why? Because some people like having 10" dildos crammed in every orifice. Who the **** are you to say that's wrong?
Since I have been on the internet for more than a day, I know what is going to happen. Someone will be a prick and tell me that that is very different from guns, since a gun can be used to kill many people at once, whereas you'd have to be some kind of silicone ninja to do as much damage with a dildo. **** you in advance, that is not the point.
The point I am trying to make here is that if you don't like or need something, you aren't missing out by not having it. But you can seriously go **** yourself if you think that just because you aren't missing out no one will miss out.
Maybe you should quit ruining teh for everyone else?
Please explain how I am ruining ridemonkey. Why dont you put me on your ignore list like you said you would. Your on mine as of now.