Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It's insane because of the cost effectiveness. It sure is.
People dont just go shooting up little school children. Your chances of dying that way are so miniscule, that it would be more cost effective to put a giant inflatable ball on the bottom of every airplane that flies...EVER.
You're missing "perspective."
We dont have the money for things such as an armed guard in every little school everywhere, across America. It's almost retarded to compare that to the Secret Service. Seriously, it is.
It doesn't have to cost much at all. Just allow securty, staff, and teachers to carry conceal if they choose. If they want to carry, they can. If not, they don't. As long as it's not announced who has what, it will be a deterent because killers wont know who is armed and who isn't.
Oh. And just because you disagree with something, doesn't make what you disagree with retarded. That would be the point of the thread. Instead of trying to deal with topics or THINK, you label things and avoid putting any thought or effort into addressing anything.
The comparison IS retarded, that's what makes it...................retarded. Not because I disagree with it. I agree with plenty of retarded shit.
Also - most of these shooters end up suicidal. Don't know that guns for those particular suicidal shooters are much of a deterrant.
It's something that might end up making it so there are less bodies, but not a deterrant for a suicidal maniac.
Just wondering
Since cons like to privatize everything, why don't they advocate putting hired guns at their childrens' schools? What could possibly go wrong?
You think that will be a deterent? Seriously, have you given this any thought at all? At what point did you come to the conclusion that people who walk into elementary schools and shoot children are thinking rationally?
It would probably put more students at risk. Nutters that prey on children take jobs that put them around children. I'm sure this isn't news to you as there are always stories in the news about abusive teachers, priests, etc.
Wouldn't it be more logical to let the nutjobs be fired instead of making it virtually impossible to fire them through union negotiations then?
So rather than make an effort to eliminate bad teachers and nutjobs from being around students, you think taking away the rights of your fellow citizens is a better idea?
Now you're just being stupid. Enjoy yourself.
Just wondering
Kennedy, Ford, Reagan and that's just in my lifetime.
No, I'm not ok with my babies kindergarten teacher walking around the classroom with a .45 hidden under her skirt, but if you want that in your kids school, then do it.
It doesn't have to cost much at all. Just allow securty, staff, and teachers to carry conceal if they choose. If they want to carry, they can. If not, they don't. As long as it's not announced who has what, it will be a deterent because killers wont know who is armed and who isn't.
Oh. And just because you disagree with something, doesn't make what you disagree with retarded. That would be the point of the thread. Instead of trying to deal with topics or THINK, you label things and avoid putting any thought or effort into addressing anything.
The comparison IS retarded, that's what makes it...................retarded. Not because I disagree with it. I agree with plenty of retarded shit.
Also - most of these shooters end up suicidal. Don't know that guns for those particular suicidal shooters are much of a deterrant.
It's something that might end up making it so there are less bodies, but not a deterrant for a suicidal maniac.
So you think comparing the safety of one life to the safety of many lives is retarded? Are you kidding me?
MY gun control laws? wtf are you babbling about?Thank you for supporting my point. It IS easy for criminals to acquire firearms. Further, we know from history that your gun control laws have zero effect on criminals that don't give a shit about your regulations.
So I ask yet one more time, why would you support laws that result in ONLY law abiding citizens being restricting in their inalienable right to self defense? If you were serious about protecting children, why would you want to make it harder for good people to protect those children?
Why are you putting words in my mouth?
Criminals get their guns from sloppy, lazy, shifty, irresponsible but otherwise law abiding people. These people should be held criminally responsible for not securing their weapons.
Actually, you're wrong. If a person sells a firearm to a criminal, that person is no longer 'law abiding'. You see, we already have laws on the books about selling firearms to felons. If a criminal steals a firearm, that's hardly the fault of the legal owner. I suppose if someone doesn't put their car in a locked garage and it's stolen and used to harm another, we should punish the legal car owner? Patently ridiculous.
You keep making my point for me, that criminals will get firearms no matter what laws are put in place. Yet, you call for measures to "make it harder for criminals to obtain guns" when you know damn well that means law abiding citizens are put at a disadvantage while criminals get those firearms anyway.
So, yet one more time, why would you support laws that help the bad guys while restricting good guys from defending themselves and their families (children)?
It doesn't have to cost much at all. Just allow securty, staff, and teachers to carry conceal if they choose. If they want to carry, they can. If not, they don't. As long as it's not announced who has what, it will be a deterent because killers wont know who is armed and who isn't.
Oh. And just because you disagree with something, doesn't make what you disagree with retarded. That would be the point of the thread. Instead of trying to deal with topics or THINK, you label things and avoid putting any thought or effort into addressing anything.
The comparison IS retarded, that's what makes it...................retarded. Not because I disagree with it. I agree with plenty of retarded shit.
Also - most of these shooters end up suicidal. Don't know that guns for those particular suicidal shooters are much of a deterrant.
It's something that might end up making it so there are less bodies, but not a deterrant for a suicidal maniac.
So you think comparing the safety of one life to the safety of many lives is retarded? Are you kidding me?
Go hog wild. Name one, or a plethora.
If the people in the state want to pay for the cost to have armed guards in their public schools, then do it. However since states have been so strapped they have cut emergency services, I doubt many states will have enough money for armed guards.
This sounds like a good case for private security. Since cons like to privatize everything, why don't they advocate putting hired guns at their childrens' schools? What could possibly go wrong?
No, I'm not ok with my babies kindergarten teacher walking around the classroom with a .45 hidden under her skirt, but if you want that in your kids school, then do it.
You prefer she be absolutely defenseless if some nutjob comes in and tries to kill them all?
MY gun control laws? wtf are you babbling about?
Why are you putting words in my mouth?
Criminals get their guns from sloppy, lazy, shifty, irresponsible but otherwise law abiding people. These people should be held criminally responsible for not securing their weapons.
Actually, you're wrong. If a person sells a firearm to a criminal, that person is no longer 'law abiding'. You see, we already have laws on the books about selling firearms to felons. If a criminal steals a firearm, that's hardly the fault of the legal owner. I suppose if someone doesn't put their car in a locked garage and it's stolen and used to harm another, we should punish the legal car owner? Patently ridiculous.
You keep making my point for me, that criminals will get firearms no matter what laws are put in place. Yet, you call for measures to "make it harder for criminals to obtain guns" when you know damn well that means law abiding citizens are put at a disadvantage while criminals get those firearms anyway.
So, yet one more time, why would you support laws that help the bad guys while restricting good guys from defending themselves and their families (children)?
If you like it better you can call them would be criminals. As far as I can tell, not one of the mass shooters in this country had a criminal record.
So you are on record for not taking measures to make it harder for criminals, and would be criminals, to obtain guns.
You are part of the problem.
The comparison IS retarded, that's what makes it...................retarded. Not because I disagree with it. I agree with plenty of retarded shit.
Also - most of these shooters end up suicidal. Don't know that guns for those particular suicidal shooters are much of a deterrant.
It's something that might end up making it so there are less bodies, but not a deterrant for a suicidal maniac.
So you think comparing the safety of one life to the safety of many lives is retarded? Are you kidding me?
Yes; if you don't mind my jumping in.
Your child's safety: good car and parent who drives well; don't feed them too much crap food; monitor TV / video games; read them a lot of books; teach them to look both ways before crossing the street; regular doc / dentist check ups.
Your president's safety: lots of security people; coordinated with local LE; clear and monitor airspace.
Payback: no state funerals and your kid is better off.
Noodle on it; it'll come to you.
If you like it better you can call them would be criminals. As far as I can tell, not one of the mass shooters in this country had a criminal record.
So you are on record for not taking measures to make it harder for criminals, and would be criminals, to obtain guns.
You are part of the problem.
I haven't gotten involved much in the gun debate because I don't care, but I will say this...
Obama's daughters attend a heavily armed school, for obvious reasons of course. But it definitely begs the question of why shouldn't any other school be armed.
Just wondering
Kennedy, Ford, Reagan and that's just in my lifetime.
Kennedy - Rifle - 6.5 mm Carcano (not automatic)
Ford - .45 and .44 cal handguns (not automatic)
Reagan - Röhm RG-14 .22 cal revolver (not automatic)
Get some better talking points, assfucker.
Neg rep'd for having an asswiping pole-smoker in your avatar and zero knowledge of firearms.
Stick to doing what you do best - sucking cock.
Merry Christmas.