If students had guns would the 'terrorist' have been shot dead in under a minute?

[Energycore]

3 minutes ago, Albatross said:

Well I'm pretty poor and even I have access to weapons and I've seen people buy rifles for all sorts of purposes and barely even have a house to call their own (they hunt for food etc etc).

 

For prices, I think you'll find that differs state by state or even by city, but I could buy a Remington rifle for $100-120 here new at Wal-mart on "lesser models" and way less used at like a flee market or something. A Remington 597 would cost about $150-180new  etc etc. And here in Kentucky, flee markets are plentiful and usually packed by several isles full of guns for dirt cheap compared to brand stores and whatnot. And a lot of those people are pretty poor (like driving tractors down roads to stores 'cause they can't afford a car (as well) poor).

Hmm, that sounds like a pretty interesting setting to live in.

[Albatross]

Just now, Energycore said:

Hmm, that sounds like a pretty interesting setting to live in.

Yea, sometimes it is interesting, but most times it isn't.

[stconquest]

I wonder what life would be like if I did not need a gun when in the public (or at home) to feel safe... what would that be like...

 

...

[Energycore]

2 minutes ago, stconquest said:

I wonder what life would be like if I did not need a gun when in the public (or at home) to feel safe... what would that be like...

 

...

Would be nice huh.

[SansVarnic]

6 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

"I'm not gonna dignify this with an actual answer!"

 

Literally the next post:

 

"Lol you just assume my position I fucking refused to state at all incorrectly! Oh there's so much egg on your face now!"

 

So really you're fooling absolutely nobody: if you decline to state a position and someone ridicules you for it, you can't then come around and say that your position was incorrectly assumed, it was your stupid fucking choice to do the whole "I'm too cool for this" exit only you were easily drawn back into a discussion to make sure we all know you were not as ridiculous as I assumed.

 

Well good: on gun control, you're not. On actually engaging people, you're worst than I though.

I made my position quite clear. Do the research unless your to lazy. I have no reason re type all my previous arguments for your benefit only.

[stconquest]

1 minute ago, Energycore said:

Would be nice huh.

I like to think so.

[SImoHayha]

On 11/28/2016 at 1:26 PM, Velvet Revolver said:

its mostly all copy cats doing this, demented individuals they are. yes if the 'terrorist' had a gun it would be a different story. you could also look at it this way - what if the guard missed and killed a student. i wonder about the guards training, it being a campus and the campus dont want to be sued its got to be some extensive training. the only people allowed to carry guns around here are money haulers like Brinks.

 

What are you talking about. The officer did what he was trained for, before the officer even GOT there. The motherfucker/scum was slashing people. You expect the officer to speak some sense into the guy? No when someone goes around slashing students and other innocent people YOU'RE NO LONGER IN A STATE FOR being spoken too.

 

The officer did his job correctly. He ended the situation before, it got any worse. NOTE. Also it was not a guard it was an official police officer not a security guard so your wrong mate.

[Misanthrope]

4 minutes ago, SansVarnic said:

I made my position quite clear. Do the research unless your to lazy. I have no reason re type all my previous arguments for your benefit only.

Research on to your posts when it would take you 10 times less time to briefly restate it instead of this continued line of replies? No, you're not that important and I'm not that concerned with "researching" on the shit post forum.

[stconquest]

6 minutes ago, Ramamataz said:

 

What are you talking about. The officer did what he was trained for, before the officer even GOT there. The motherfucker/scum was slashing people. You expect the officer to speak some sense into the guy? No when someone goes around slashing students and other innocent people YOU'RE NO LONGER IN A STATE FOR being spoken too.

 

The officer did his job correctly. He ended the situation before, it got any worse.

You're right, but...

 

I have de-escalated a situation of someone drunk swinging a broken bottle at people in a downtown street in the core of Toronto.  He did not hit anyone though, just chased as they ran.  It lasted a while, 5 minutes or so.  I just used words.  He disarmed.

 

...then the people he was attacking kicked the crap out of him. 

[Wolther]

We need less guns in the world, not more. 

[Misanthrope]

12 minutes ago, stconquest said:

I wonder what life would be like if I did not need a gun when in the public (or at home) to feel safe... what would that be like...

 

...

I could perhaps talk on that: you wouldn't feel as safe but you'd learn to live with a healthy and proportionate amount of fear in your life if you didn't even have the option to have a weapon with you at all times.

 

And I make this argument not from assumptions only: a week ago a guy was killed right outside my house. Like literally 4 houses next to mine police and soldiers where shooting this motherfucker down and got one on a roof of a house extremely near. In fact my sister was leaving the house and nearly crashed into the get away car minutes before the confrontation started.

[SImoHayha]

1 minute ago, stconquest said:

You're right, but...

 

I have de-escalated a situation of someone drunk swinging a broken bottle at people in a downtown street in the core of Toronto.  I just used words.  He disarmed.

 

...then the people he was attacking kicked the crap out of him. 

Again , there is a massive difference. One there is someone killing people De-escalating a situation is out the fucking window. 

[stconquest]

2 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

I could perhaps talk on that: you wouldn't feel as safe but you'd learn to live with a healthy and proportionate amount of fear in your life if you didn't even have the option to have a weapon with you at all times.

 

And I make this argument not from assumptions only: a week ago a guy was killed right outside my house. Like literally 4 houses next to mine police and soliders where shooting this motherfucker down and got one on a roof of a house extremely near one. In fact my sister was leaving the house and nearly crashed into the get away car minutes before the confrontation started.

*fucking hell.

 

I have been chased down by guys with guns... I did not go out and buy one.  I was a fast runner growing up.

[CantThinkOfAUserName]

Im in favor of guns people were much more polite when everyone was packing the heat

[Misanthrope]

Just now, stconquest said:

*fucking hell.

You can say that:

 

 

[stconquest]

2 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

You can say that:

 

The balls to record on that second perspective. 

[SansVarnic]

7 minutes ago, CantThinkOfAUserName said:

Im in favor of guns people were much more polite when everyone was packing the heat

Unfortunately during that period people were more apt to shoot you than have a verbal retort.  

[CantThinkOfAUserName]

Just now, SansVarnic said:

Unfortunately during that period people were more apt to shoot you than have a verbal retort.  

Meh lifes a grind anyway

[Energycore]

18 minutes ago, Wolther said:

We need less guns in the world, not more. 

Without stating whether I agree or disagree.

 

Why do you think so?

[SansVarnic]

15 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

Research on to your posts when it would take you 10 times less time to briefly restate it instead of this continued line of replies? No, you're not that important and I'm not that concerned with "researching" on the shit post forum.

I don't see myself as important, I just have no need to rehash all that and no it cant be summed up because if that was so you would have taken my initial comment as such and we would not be at this point in conversion.

[Wolther]

2 minutes ago, Energycore said:

Without stating whether I agree or disagree.

 

Why do you think so?

 

 

Well more restrictions (in the US) to be specific. 

They aren't safe and many accidents happen because of them; there are many inexperienced adults that get their hands on guns or children just playing with their parents guns (would happen commonly if everyone had access to a gun) 

 

Semi-automatic weapons should be banned entirely I feel because there is no reason to have them in the general population. Small pistols (or anything else) would be enough for self-defense against a criminal and would have the same effect if it was a semi or a pistol. Semi-automatics should be reserved for military-use-only; this restriction would prevent mass shootings from occurring, or at least reduce deaths in them. 

 

If you combine the population of France, Great Britain , Sweden, Japan, Switzerland, Germany, Australia and Denmark, you get the same population of the USA. We had 30,000 gun deaths last year, they had 112. The difference between those countries and the USA is they have strict gun control laws and we do not. 

 

A whole country being armed just means that no one trusts anyone, and there starts to be tight tensions. 

Say a rebellion occurs, two sides are going at it who disagree with each other and fighting occurs, the second one side fires a single bullet, both crowds will fire at each other in order to survive. As you can imagine a large death count could occur just because of everybody being armed, including extremist groups or unstable people. 

 

 

[stconquest]

17 minutes ago, Kumaresh said:

Wow, the gun control debate is still raging :3 Even @stconquest is here .... I really wanna throw my hat in the ring now, is it possible to repost something I have already posted in another thread ? Or do I have to cpoy paste it ? I posted it in the LGBT thread in page 599 I believe, where I assumed 2 scenarios and the potential ramifications of each.

Relax dude... even though we argue, almost all of us want the same thing (on the surface anyway):  innocent people not to get hurt.

 

If the arguments to arm everyone and their brother worked in the real word, I would be for unregulated gun access.  This is not the case though, and the influx of guns into the populace at high rates means that the sub-market of illegal guns is really abundant too.

 

Regulations keep the guns out of criminals hands better.  Unless of course, criminals make their own guns... do they, do they make their own guns? 

[drqi]

14 minutes ago, Kumaresh said:

I do understand that not everybody has the suitable mentality and aiming skill to own a gun, so the workshop ( maybe like a month long course ) would whittle down the suitable individuals and they could be given small concealed firearms, no need for anything crazy like sub machine guns. The US has a very long history of gun culture and guns are very easy to obtain without any license. It would be very difficult to track all these guns, so stricter gun regulation is useless as far as preventing antisocial elements goes. 

I think it wouldn't actually be all that hard to track them. Again, treat them similar to cars. They already have unique serial numbers so you could easily track who the owner of each gun is. You don't even need to make it illegal to sell them privately, just require a transfer of ownership similar to what you need to do to sell a car.

[Velvet Revolver]

6 hours ago, AkiraDaarkst said:

A knife can be thrown and will still be potentially deadly.

Ninja style, yes that is true.

They could have throwing starts close by too.

[CantThinkOfAUserName]

26 minutes ago, stconquest said:

Relax dude... even though we argue, almost all of us want the same thing (on the surface anyway):  innocent people not to get hurt.

 

If the arguments to arm everyone and their brother worked in the real word, I would be for unregulated gun access.  This is not the case though, and the influx of guns into the populace at high rates means that the sub-market of illegal guns is really abundant too.

 

Regulations keep the guns out of criminals hands better.  Unless of course, criminals make their own guns... do they, do they make their own guns? 

No but some make their own bombs which are worse then guns. On a side note illegal arms is already pretty big. As it is right now it's easier for a criminal to get a hand gun then a law abiding citizen. Think everyone should be able to handle and carry a hand gun after they pass a safety class and a background check.