Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Nope, criminals get guns easily even when they are banned.
Criminals will always get guns, but it will be a lot harder for them, and, you won't have a nutjob / radical like this school shooter getting their hands on them.
So than they firebomb the school.
Doesn't give the same psychological stimulus to someone wanting to kill people while they beg for their lives. They would be too detached from the act.
Firebombing is for a terrorist, and terrorists won't target schools.
Now you're just speculating.
And terrorist do in fact target schools.
In the West it's not at the top of their list. They like to target big public events, govt buildings., specific individuals, and landmarks. Unless it's a school where they know certain govt. officials send their kids to, then yes. But those places are guarded well.
Unless it's a school where they know certain govt. officials send their kids to, then yes. But those places are guarded well.
Criminals will always get guns, but it will be a lot harder for them, and, you won't have a nutjob / radical like this school shooter getting their hands on them.
So than they firebomb the school.
Doesn't give the same psychological stimulus to someone wanting to kill people while they beg for their lives. They would be too detached from the act.
Firebombing is for a terrorist, and terrorists won't target schools.
Now you're just speculating.
And terrorist do in fact target schools.
In the West it's not at the top of their list. They like to target big public events, govt buildings., specific individuals, and landmarks. Unless it's a school where they know certain govt. officials send their kids to, then yes. But those places are guarded well.
Ooooops……you let the cat out of the bag…….I thought is was just craaaazy to put armed guards in schools…..
Unless it's a school where they know certain govt. officials send their kids to, then yes. But those places are guarded well.
See…..for the "important" people….they have armed guards in their schools….obama's kids go to school with a heavily armed escort, and guards at the school…...
China, Iran, Syria, N. Korea, Cuba, etc. these are all govt.s that the people do not want them in power, but have the support of the military. They continue to kill and brutalize the people. Until a Western govt. interferes using military power, like with Iraq, Afghanistan, or Libya, it doesn't look like they're going away anytime soon. You cannot overthrow a govt. and it's military using "armed militias" of citizens in the 20th and 21st centuries.
The whole premise of the 2nd amendment is false and no longer valid. Unfortunately, nothing is going to change and we will keep seeing people killed in inner cities and horrific massacres like the Oregon school shooting.
So did those governments disarm the populace to gain and keep control of it's citizens?
The intent of the 2nd is pretty clear and still very valid.
The only way the gov wins is if the military turns on the people,which I highly doubt is going to happen in the U.S.
Exactly. The U.S. military will never turn on its people, and if it does the people have no chance anyhow. So why again do we need hundreds of millions of guns again? We are going to relive these school shootings again and again, not to mention daily the gun violence until we find a workable solution.
Do you really think the German people believed, in the modern age of 1939, with science, and universities and intellectual development and first world status, that the German military would participate in murdering 12 million innocent men, women and children…..really, you think they knew that was going to happen?
Well you have a point. I never thought Americans would be foolish enough to actually vote for Obama, with full knowledge as to who he was beforehand. I don't think Germany of 1930 could be compared to US of today. Besides, allowing the people to carry small arms isn't a deterrent if the military truly wants to take over. The costs of guns being so open and available in this country far outweigh the theoretical benefits.
Not really…we have over 320 million guns in private hands…and only 8,145 gun murders…..that isn't even half of a percent that are used to commit the illegal act of murder.
And all of the countries of Europe, when their militaries surrendered, all of their populations were unarmed and helpless when the Germans occupied them…and then went on to murder 12 million people.
Now in Afghanistan, with small arms and improvised bombs…they have driven out the world most advanced military in the world…and not all of them have guns….
Now tell me again how 90 million homes with guns in them will not be able to stand up to the American military if it ever came to a conflict…….320 million guns in private hands….
The cost of guns……let's put numbers to it….
8,145 gun murders…in 2014. (That number is going down, not up as more Americans own and carry guns.)
505 accidental gun deaths in 2013 (last year for the numbers till 2014 comes out)
1.5 million Americans use guns to stop violent criminal attack (according to bill clinton)
The cost of not allowing Americans to own and carry guns would be far higher as those 1.5 million people would now be helpless in the face of violent criminal attack.
99.99728% of the guns in the US were NOT used to murder anyone in 2014.We still have way too much gun violence here compared to other Western nations.
