I pointed this out to some folks today when I was asked about teachers carrying. I told them if they start expecting me to carry in school then I want SWAT/Military level training... and even then, the average grunt misses about 99% of the time when they return fire.
Gun control
- Thread starter ukbob
- Start date
I pointed this out to some folks today when I was asked about teachers carrying. I told them if they start expecting me to carry in school then I want SWAT/Military level training... and even then, the average grunt misses about 99% of the time when they return fire.
Someone deleted their idiotic comment. it was mjsBest way to arm teachers is with a shotgun TBH. Have a secure corner in the classroom for the kids get the kids. Flip the desk over and use it as cover. Aim at the door and blast anyone that comes threw with a gun unless they are law enforcement. Taking someone down that is wearing a bulletproof vest with a 9mm is extremely hard. Hitting them with a couple of 12 gauge shells is very easy.
Keep the shotgun in a fingerprint safe and make them bright orange so the cops will know who the friendly shooters are.
*I think actually arming teacher is a stupid idea.
Actually was adding the quote I was replying to. You have a little hard on for me don't you princess.
I came in here to ask if it was sincere or sarcastic. It was such a bizarre "solution", the kind you'd read in The Onion.
Arming teachers is a daft idea BUT if they are going to seriously consider it then a 12-gauge is a much better option than a handgun.
you also added the asterisks that completely disavowed the entire post
My stance on arming teachers, and gun control in general, is pretty clear.
How on earth are Trump supporters still behind him at this point?
This is so shameful
Could go one further - .50 cal nest in select rooms.
American politics is tribalism in the extreme. Guns, god, and freedom!
True and very sad. I don't understand why people vote on polices like guns and abortion in a general election.
All this talk of background check, reduce guns circulation etc. maybe too hard to carry out.
I have one good idea for a policy/law that can do all the above for gun control.
Just put in the law that anyone that sold the weapon to the perpetrator used in mass shooting will be charged as the accomplice.
You want to earn money by selling assault rifles? Sure go ahead. Make sure you do the right checks and take the risks. If you can't bear the risk, then don't sell them.
One policy to achieve adequate gun control.
I have one good idea for a policy/law that can do all the above for gun control.
Just put in the law that anyone that sold the weapon to the perpetrator used in mass shooting will be charged as the accomplice.
You want to earn money by selling assault rifles? Sure go ahead. Make sure you do the right checks and take the risks. If you can't bear the risk, then don't sell them.
One policy to achieve adequate gun control.
Except that you can't know what a person plans to do with a weapon at the point of sale.
That's the thing, you can't bear the risk? Don't sell. If they still intend to sell o it, you can bet that they will do all the required due deligence. And that will add cost. Which will then make it more expensive. A vicious cycle that is great for gun control. Add to that a lot of people wouldn't want to bear the risk, as like you said, they can never be 100% sure, then less sellers, subsequently harder to get guns.
The other great thing is, when a mass shooting does occur, at least we get to punish someone.
Its not up to the gun shop to bear the risk. As long as they are within the law, they can sell the gun. It is implicit in the sale that the purchaser bears the responsibility of all things thereafter.
Last edited:
That's why if they want to do gun control, make the gun shop bear the risk. Easy fix. Why let people profit by selling weapons with no consequence?
If no one wants to bear the risk = no more guns shop, isn't that better?
Same reason people sell cars with no consequence. Its legal and once the transaction is complete, the responsibility is transfered to the purchaser.
We are not trying to control the amount of cars, are we?
The point is you can't sanction someone for legally selling a product. Once it is bought, the seller is no longer responsible for it and the purchaser assumes all the risk.
We can change that. For guns at least. Isn't that what we are trying to acheive with gun control?
Not in a country where gun ownership is enshrined as a basic right of citizenship.
Yes, no one is taking away right of gun ownership.
The beauty of my suggestion is that it doesn't contradict with any constitution.
Would it be against the 2nd amendment if heavy taxes/VAT's were put on semi-automatic and similar weapons? Would make it harder for younger people to buy one?
Yeah but it contradicts the fact that it is legal to buy guns in America, where the responsibility is owned by the purchaser. That will never change.
It would depend if SCOTUS interpreted the VAT as a means to "infringe" on the rights of people to buy a firearm.
well, the background check was introduce do disallow people from selling guns. So never say never.
All these talks of background checks and stuff are to infringe on people rights to buy a firearm
That's for people who are disqualified to buy one. Not for every day people who are hunters, sport shooters, or want a gun for personal protection.
A gun store owner could do all his due diligence and still be wrong. He could sell a gun to a model citizen and, if 3 years later that model citizen goes crazy, the owner can't be blamed. You can't judge someone's character that well. Courts would strike it down.
What you could have is a system similar to a drivers license and hold the gun shop accountable if they sell to anyone without the proper paperwork.
The background check doesn't infringe on anything as long as the purchaser isn't disqualified as a result of the check.
Yes, the rights of those disqualified people were impinged. So the people's rights can be impinge.
Ok, just thought that by the time these murderers can afford a "weapon of war" hopefully a few aren't as "angry" anymore. A pistol would still do terrible things but not like the AR15 or an equivalent weapon.
Well yes, if you're a criminal or a headcase then you are disqualified. We also disqualify people from voting while in jail or on probation. That however has nothing to do with gunshop owners being able to legally sell a gun to a normal citizen.
Yes, but obviously that system doesn't work and like you said, a model citizen can go crazy later down the track and shoot people.
Isn't that the main reason for discussing gun control?
Or am I in the wrong thread? We actually in favour of having guns?
I'm all for a ban on assault rifles. They are completely unnecessary.
If that's the case, any sellers of assault rifles used in mass shooting will be charged as accomplice. Not a real ban, but will at least help achieve the intended outcome of a ban.