Trump endorses guns for teachers "to stop shootings"

Feb 2, 2017
680
382
245
Again with the ban claim...

And prior to port arthur, average mass killings was 6 per year. After port arthur it's 3.7.

Wow what a HUGE change! Never mind that homicides weren't effected by the buy back scheme and only continued their steady downward trend *shrug*
Woow look at that amazing dip in gun deaths per a year after 1996, wonder what happened here, Its not like the government started strict gun control and started buying back firearms and removing from sale weapons that can cause mass carnage.

 
Likes: llien

SatansReverence

Hipster Princess
Mar 30, 2012
4,000
1,041
555
Australia
www.neogaf.com
Woow look at that amazing dip in gun deaths per a year after 1996, wonder what happened here, Its not like the government started strict gun control and started buying back firearms and removing from sale weapons that can cause mass carnage.
Do you understand how statistics work? the actual reduction was about 1/4 overall after port arthur and was following a steady downward trend that has since stabilised.
 
Apr 6, 2014
3,946
31
310
Texas
A teacher is going to crack and threaten an unruly student with their gun, and then there will be even more student protests until this gets reversed. It will be such a shit show.
 
Sep 26, 2014
1,766
967
330
Yeah, I saw your post. Those aren't mass shootings. 2 people died in Monash university, and it was targeted using a handgun.
The cafe shooting was standoff where 1 hostage was killed and another hostage was caught from police fire ricochet. That incident is also considered an act of terrorism.
Mass shootings don't have a distinct definition, but most label it as a shooting of 3-4 or more people not counting the perpetrator, deaths are not a qualifier. So the Monash University Shooting would have been classified as a mass shooting, as would the Hunt Family Shooting,
 
Feb 2, 2017
680
382
245
Do you understand how statistics work? the actual reduction was about 1/4 overall after port arthur and was following a steady downward trend that has since stabilised.
The evidence is already there , you keep talking about this 1/4 drop show me the stats. But a 1/4 drop in deaths is fucking amazing in any circumstance. I dont have time to sit here and educate you about all the wonderful benefits of gun control and banning assault weapons, but what i can do is throw every stats and peer review that has examined the drop in deaths in Australia because of the buyback and reform. So heres a nice little study done by Harvard University that looks just into this.

II. Evidence the Buyback Saved Lives

For Australia, the NFA seems to have been incredibly successful in terms of lives saved. While 13 gun massacres (the killing of 4 or more people at one time) occurred in Australia in the 18 years before the NFA, resulting in more than one hundred deaths, in the 14 following years (and up to the present), there were no gun massacres.
The NFA also seems to have reduced firearm homicide outside of mass shootings, as well as firearm suicide. In the seven years before the NFA (1989-1995), the average annual firearm suicide death rate per 100,000 was 2.6 (with a yearly range of 2.2 to 2.9); in the seven years after the buyback was fully implemented (1998-2004), the average annual firearm suicide rate was 1.1 (yearly range 0.8 to 1.4). In the seven years before the NFA, the average annual firearm homicide rate per 100,000 was .43 (range .27 to .60) while for the seven years post NFA, the average annual firearm homicide rate was .25 (range .16 to .33).

Additional evidence strongly suggests that the buyback causally reduced firearm deaths. First, the drop in firearm deaths was largest among the type of firearms most affected by the buyback. Second, firearm deaths in states with higher buyback rates per capita fell proportionately more than in states with lower buyback rates.4
This might sound hard to hear but gun control works amazingly well, as it has in Australia, arming teachers to fight of potential murderers has no place in modern society.
 
Jun 19, 2017
117
3
175
Out of curiosity I just wanna see what happens. Might as well seal off the US from the rest of the civilised world and use it for experiments like arming teachers with fire arms.
 
Last edited:
Jun 11, 2013
410
89
335
This might sound hard to hear but gun control works amazingly well, as it has in Australia, arming teachers to fight of potential murderers has no place in modern society.
Gun control on an island continent that is of similar size to the entirety of the US while having a population size of 24 million vs the 320(?) million the US has. Compelling case.
Also, there is no way a gun buyback program like in Australia would get any sort of traction in America, and rightfully so.
 
Last edited:
Feb 1, 2017
3,631
1,136
355
This is good. There is more going on here then "muh guns". Leftists won't understand in general as they are either not conscious enough of reality (they eat everything CNN tells them happily) or don't posses the intelligence needed to understand deeper concpets and longer laid out plans.
What is "left vs right" about gun controls is beyond me.
 

SatansReverence

Hipster Princess
Mar 30, 2012
4,000
1,041
555
Australia
www.neogaf.com
The evidence is already there , you keep talking about this 1/4 drop show me the stats. But a 1/4 drop in deaths is fucking amazing in any circumstance. I dont have time to sit here and educate you about all the wonderful benefits of gun control and banning assault weapons, but what i can do is throw every stats and peer review that has examined the drop in deaths in Australia because of the buyback and reform. So heres anice little study done by Harvard University that looks just into this.

This might sound hard to hear but gun control works amazingly well, as it has in Australia, arming teachers to fight of potential murderers has no place in modern society.
Here ladies and gentlemen we learn how to cherry pick data to push an agenda.

Great, so firearm related suicides and homicides decreased. You know what didn't decrease? Actual suicides and homicides.

Gun control on an island continent that is of similar size to the entirety of the US while having a population size of 24 million vs the 320(?) million the US has. Compelling case.
Also, there is no way a gun buyback program like in Australia would get any sort of traction in America, and rightfully so.
This is a point I've also forgot to bring up. Trying to compare America and Australia with raw laser pointed super specific data points is entirely intellectually bankrupt.
 
Last edited:
Feb 2, 2017
680
382
245
Gun control on an island continent that is of similar size to the entirety of the US while having a population size of 24 million vs the 320(?) million the US has. Compelling case.
Do you understand why stats use per 100,000 when comparing against other countries

Here ladies and gentlemen we learn how to cherry pick data to push an agenda.

Great, so firearm related suicides and homicides decreased. You know what didn't decrease? Actual suicides and homicides.
Im still waiting for you to point me towards your reading material, for your own stats and gun control analysis.
 
Oct 27, 2015
8,678
1,442
355
Mass shootings don't have a distinct definition, but most label it as a shooting of 3-4 or more people not counting the perpetrator, deaths are not a qualifier. So the Monash University Shooting would have been classified as a mass shooting, as would the Hunt Family Shooting,
Who are these "most"? And the definition is based on the shooters intent. In the Monash shooting, Xiang, the shooter, was targeting his classmate, Wu, which he believed to be an "Agent of Evil" due to his mental impairment. Evidence has shown this intent. The intent of mass shooting is to indiscriminately kill as many people as possible. Indiscriminate is the key word. When the shooter has a target, then everyone else are just innocent bystanders.

The Hunt family example is the father killing specifically his family. Again, not a mass shooting.

Gun control helps prevent this. Prevention is not 100%, but it is a net that's going to make it damn hard for mentally dangerous people for owning guns. In the case of the Monash shooting, if Xiang exhibited mental health issues within the timeframe of the government screening they might have caught him before he committed, but his lecturer testified that she became concerned a week before the shooting. Gun control has continuous screening of gun owners and uses events like divorce or job loss as an indicator of mental health issue. There is a documentary about Canadian gun control that showed stories of people who would have committed suicide if the gun control screening didn't take their gun license away.
 
Last edited:

SatansReverence

Hipster Princess
Mar 30, 2012
4,000
1,041
555
Australia
www.neogaf.com
Do you understand why stats use per 100,000 when comparing against other countries
Completely ignoring the vast difference in population concentration in Australia.

Australia, 3.4 people per sqkm America? 33...

Im still waiting for you to point me towards your reading material, for your own stats and gun control analysis.
page 8 of the first slide. Suicide trending upwards again for men after a low point, women stable before and after 1996.

No statistically significant drop after 1996, just a general decline before and after. Oh, but do just look at the one bit thats steep and try to act like that's all that matters and show again how little you know about how statistics work.

Who are these "most"? And the definition is based on the shooters intent. In the Monash shooting, Xiang, the shooter, was targeting his classmate, Wu, which he believed to be an "Agent of Evil" due to his mental impairment. Evidence has shown this intent. The intent of mass shooting is to indiscriminately kill as many people as possible. Indiscriminate is the key word. When the shooter has a target, then everyone else are just innocent bystanders.
Arguing intent? Really? You could attribute intent to someone who was prevented from even firing a shot. It's a non argument.
 
Last edited:
Feb 2, 2017
680
382
245
Completely ignoring the vast difference in population concentration in Australia.

Australia, 3.4 people per sqkm America? 33...



page 8 of the first slide. Suicide trending upwards again for men after a low point, women stable before and after 1996.

No statistically significant drop after 1996, just a general decline before and after. Oh, but do just look at the one bit thats steep and try to act like that's all that matters and show again how little you know about how statistics work.
Okay your first link has nothing to do with gun control so im not sure where yo are heading with that it does not mention firearm related suicides aswell, but you second link shows a drop in arms related deaths post 1996 , its very clear.

And onto population differences and why they dont matter when you are comparing. We compare per 100000 because most modern societies have over 100000 citizens , so it makes it an even playing field when you need to contrast different points of data from 2 different countries,. I have to say this is a real stretch to say you cant compare gun violence between the two because of the population difference. its a very stupid way of thinking and it flushes out any notion of critical though.
 
Feb 1, 2017
3,631
1,136
355
Honestly I am not against the idea. Don't get me wrong it's fucking terrible for reasons that range from it would be cheaper to pass effective gun legislation, insurance premiums will skyrocket, what if teachers don't wanna carry arms, and who will pay for the additional weapons and training. Maybe a tax on guns and bullets.
When major attack had happened in Europe back in November 2017, seven attackers, 137 killed, 413 injured,, POTUS said:

Donald Trump: Paris terror attacks would not have been as deadly if the French had GUNS

Then came 2017, Las Vegas, Nevada, with gun laws as loose as it gets in USA and a single motherfucker kills 58 and injures 851.

I was told "more guns" approach works in Israel (not sure, haven't checked stats in details, but Israel is essentially fighting cold civil war and is a special case.
 
Jan 12, 2009
15,383
1,091
735
Australia didn't have much of a mass shooting problem to begin with, at least compared to the U.S. I applaud them for fixing the mass shooting issue though. Such a similar change would be too drastic here. Armed guards/teachers may result in less student deaths, but we want zero deaths.
 
Last edited:
Sep 26, 2014
1,766
967
330
Who are these "most"? And the definition is based on the shooters intent. In the Monash shooting, Xiang, the shooter, was targeting his classmate, Wu, which he believed to be an "Agent of Evil" due to his mental impairment. Evidence has shown this intent. The intent of mass shooting is to indiscriminately kill as many people as possible. Indiscriminate is the key word. When the shooter has a target, then everyone else are just innocent bystanders.

The Hunt family example is the father killing specifically his family. Again, not a mass shooting.

Gun control helps prevent this. Prevention is not 100%, but it is a net that's going to make it damn hard for mentally dangerous people for owning guns. In the case of the Monash shooting, if Xiang exhibited mental health issues within the timeframe of the government screening they might have caught him before he committed, but his lecturer testified that she became concerned a week before the shooting. Gun control has continuous screening of gun owners and uses events like divorce or job loss as an indicator of mental health issue. There is a documentary about Canadian gun control that showed stories of people who would have committed suicide if the gun control screening didn't take their gun license away.
The ones Cited here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shooting Like the FBI, and other sources used by the media.
 

SatansReverence

Hipster Princess
Mar 30, 2012
4,000
1,041
555
Australia
www.neogaf.com
Okay your first link has nothing to do with gun control so im not sure where yo are heading with that it does not mention firearm related suicides aswell, but you second link shows a drop in arms related deaths post 1996 , its very clear.
Are you being deliberately obtuse? I just showed you that over all, suicides and homicides did not go down regardless of firearms related ones going down. It's not difficult to see that people still kill themselves and others regardless of them having a gun or not.

The old adage "guns don't kill people, people kill people" rings true.

And onto population differences and why they dont matter when you are comparing. We compare per 100000 because most modern societies have over 100000 citizens , so it makes it an even playing field when you need to contrast different points of data from 2 different countries,. I have to say this is a real stretch to say you cant compare gun violence between the two because of the population difference. its a very stupid way of thinking and it flushes out any notion of critical though.
Again ignoring population density...

The more you put people together, the higher the chance these people are going to have disagreements and thus want to kill each other...
 
Last edited:
Oct 27, 2015
8,678
1,442
355
Arguing intent? Really? You could attribute intent to someone who was prevented from even firing a shot. It's a non argument.
Yeah, I can see you're some pro-gun nut twisting any argument to fit yours and Trump's view like a true lackey.

Pretty much done with what you're saying.
The ones Cited here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shooting Like the FBI, and other sources used by the media.
Funny, that's where I got...

The United States' Congressional Research Service acknowledges that there is not a broadly accepted definition, and defines a "public mass shooting" as one in which four or more people selected indiscriminately, not including the perpetrator, are killed or injured, echoing the FBI definition of the term "mass murder".
Yes, there are various definitions in that wiki entry that doesn't have that definition, but they're just changing the numbers.
 

SatansReverence

Hipster Princess
Mar 30, 2012
4,000
1,041
555
Australia
www.neogaf.com
Yeah, I can see you're some pro-gun nut twisting any argument to fit yours and Trump's view like a true lackey.

Pretty much done with what you're saying.

quality dismissive rebuttal when your own logic got completely shut down.

Yes, there are various definitions in that wiki entry that doesn't have that definition, but they're just changing the numbers.
Including one with just 3 casualties which apparently is the one written into law.
 
Sep 26, 2014
1,766
967
330
Yeah, I can see you're some pro-gun nut twisting any argument to fit yours and Trump's view like a true lackey.

Pretty much done with what you're saying.

Funny, that's where I got...



Yes, there are various definitions in that wiki entry that doesn't have that definition, but they're just changing the numbers.
yeah in that same paragraph is this:

A crowdsourced data site cited by CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Economist, the BBC, etc., Mass Shooting Tracker, defines a mass shooting as any incident in which four or more people are shot, whether injured or killed.[11][20] As of November 2017, the FBI defines a mass shooting as an incident involving "four or more people shot at once.
 
Oct 27, 2015
8,678
1,442
355
yeah in that same paragraph is this:
Yes, I saw that. You should check the citation. It's a civilian run website that made its own definition.
If it was the case of how many people were involved in the shooting, there would be way more due to gang fights or police gun fights. That definition doesn't make it clear what happened.

Let's say a hostage situation happened, the shooter committed suicide, but police accidentally killed 3 people, would you say that's a mass shooting? It fits the "4 or more" definition.
I definitely think it isn't. Mass shooting happens indiscriminately.
 
Sep 26, 2014
1,766
967
330
Yes, I saw that. You should check the citation. It's a civilian run website that made its own definition.
If it was the case of how many people were involved in the shooting, there would be way more due to gang fights or police gun fights. That definition doesn't make it clear what happened.

Let's say a hostage situation happened, the shooter committed suicide, but police accidentally killed 3 people, would you say that's a mass shooting? It fits the "4 or more" definition.
I definitely think it isn't. Mass shooting happens indiscriminately.
I also included the FBI definition of 4 or more shot at once. I mentioned the other because the news media reports those numbers when they mention mass shootings.
 
Oct 24, 2017
5,311
3,906
315
I think people make it look way to easy when they are saying that a no gun law will prevents these. America to me and others has always been a land of the extreme. Wth gun control and mass shootings it has become the same. There are far more reasons why this is happening so often in America and not in other countries. Its the health system, its that the American society goes far beyond shaming people they are trying to destroy them. Mentally ill people have no real support and so on. Just banning all guns will not solve this problem however it can reduce these events for sure.
 
Feb 2, 2017
680
382
245
Are you being deliberately obtuse? I just showed you that over all, suicides and homicides did not go down regardless of firearms related ones going down. It's not difficult to see that people still kill themselves and others regardless of them having a gun or not.

The old adage "guns don't kill people, people kill people" rings true.
/QUOTE]

let me quote this again since you eyes seem to be immune to facts

The NFA also seems to have reduced firearm homicide outside of mass shootings, as well as firearm suicide. In the seven years before the NFA (1989-1995), the average annual firearm suicide death rate per 100,000 was 2.6 (with a yearly range of 2.2 to 2.9); in the seven years after the buyback was fully implemented (1998-2004), the average annual firearm suicide rate was 1.1 (yearly range 0.8 to 1.4).
So please drop the gun control does not reduce firearm suicides when it does. No one is making the argument suicides go down as a whole , but firearm related ones have.

Again ignoring population density...

The more you put people together, the higher the chance these people are going to have disagreements and thus want to kill each other...
 

SatansReverence

Hipster Princess
Mar 30, 2012
4,000
1,041
555
Australia
www.neogaf.com
@BraveOne

Ok, you are definitely being disingenuous.

The NFA also seems to have reduced firearm homicide outside of mass shootings, as well as firearm suicide. In the seven years before the NFA (1989-1995), the average annual firearm suicide death rate per 100,000 was 2.6 (with a yearly range of 2.2 to 2.9); in the seven years after the buyback was fully implemented (1998-2004), the average annual firearm suicide rate was 1.1 (yearly range 0.8 to 1.4).
Specifically notes firearm related homicide and suicides.

I very specifically noted that overall homicide and suicide rates were unchanged. It doesn't take a genius to realise that means that non firearm related homicides and suicides had to actually increase for the overall numbers to remain the same.

And look, it's a dismissive gif because you can't actually formulate a response. You realise by default, you just admitted that I'm right?
 
Feb 2, 2017
680
382
245
@BraveOne

Ok, you are definitely being disingenuous.



Specifically notes firearm related homicide and suicides.

I very specifically noted that overall homicide and suicide rates were unchanged. It doesn't take a genius to realise that means that non firearm related homicides and suicides had to actually increase for the overall numbers to remain the same.

And look, it's a dismissive gif because you can't actually formulate a response. You realise by default, you just admitted that I'm right?
And there we have it the infamous disingenuous claim that gets thrown out when your beliefs are being questioned. That gif sums up my realisation that you are set in your ways of believing gun control will not work even though numerous case studies show it works.

Guns are the problem ...
 

Fbh

Member
Dec 6, 2013
9,549
1,109
545
It's funny how for many American politicians this is the only issue where more of the problem is the answer.

Drugs? Ban them and make them ilegal and put people in jail for carrying weed
Terrorism? Let's make travel bans for all the counties where terrorists come from and let's ban laptops on planes and let's have some of the most strict border control out there
Gun violence ? Nah...See what we need here is MORE guns


A teacher is going to crack and threaten an unruly student with their gun, and then there will be even more student protests until this gets reversed. It will be such a shit show.
Nah.
They will then decide that every class needs a designated student that will carry a gun to defend his classmates in case the teacher snaps.
But then one of those will inevitably shoot someone (either intentionally or by accident) and that's when we start arming the janitors
 
Jul 7, 2004
24,606
54
1,450
IT's crazy. Even if you say that 1 in every 1,000 schools that carried weapons, you were able to stop an active shooter and save lives.... do people honestly think those guns in those other 999 schools are going to have no harmful firearm-related incident from having those guns at all?
 

SatansReverence

Hipster Princess
Mar 30, 2012
4,000
1,041
555
Australia
www.neogaf.com
And there we have it the infamous disingenuous claim that gets thrown out when your beliefs are being questioned. That gif sums up my realisation that you are set in your ways of believing gun control will not work even though numerous case studies show it works.

Guns are the problem ...
disingenuous

adjective
  1. not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does.
Entirely applicable. Don't like the shoe? Stop wearing it.

And I've literally just pointed out that even reducing guns (Even though you claim we banned them) does not reduce overall deaths. I'm seriously questioning your understanding of statistics.

I'll make it as basic as I possibly can for you.

1,000 people are killed a year due to homicides and suicides.

100 of those are homicides due to firearms.

200 of them are suicide by firearm.

Now, ban firearms. What is the expected result in the overall deaths?
 
Last edited:
Oct 27, 2015
8,678
1,442
355
I also included the FBI definition of 4 or more shot at once. I mentioned the other because the news media reports those numbers when they mention mass shootings.
Again, read the citation. That's not the FBI definition.

And what's your end game? To discredit Australia's gun control, so America won't implement gun control?
 
Feb 2, 2017
680
382
245
Entirely applicable. Don't like the shoe? Stop wearing it.

And I've literally just pointed out that even reducing guns (Even though you claim we banned them) does not reduce overall deaths. I'm seriously questioning your understanding of statistics.

I'll make it as basic as I possibly can for you.

1,000 people are killed a year due to homicides and suicides.

100 of those are homicides due to firearms.

200 of them are suicide by firearm.

Now, ban firearms. What is the expected result in the overall deaths?
You have pretty much described your own behaviour on this thread as disingenuous, your the only one that is objecting to facts being presented, or you have completely misunderstood my argument on purpose. Please refer back to your original post in which you said ... “ the NFA did not stop anything” and you went on to quote shootings and murders that have happened since then. Well unless you have insight into an alternate universe where rapid gun reform did not happen in Australia you can’t make that claim. But what I can say is since 1996 your country has seen a sharp decrease in mass shootings ... FACT. Refer back to my post from the Harvard gun control research , firearm su
 

SatansReverence

Hipster Princess
Mar 30, 2012
4,000
1,041
555
Australia
www.neogaf.com
You have pretty much described your own behaviour on this thread as disingenuous, your the only one that is objecting to facts being presented, or you have completely misunderstood my argument on purpose. Please refer back to your original post in which you said ... “ the NFA did not stop anything” and you went on to quote shootings and murders that have happened since then. Well unless you have insight into an alternate universe where rapid gun reform did not happen in Australia you can’t make that claim. But what I can say is since 1996 your country has seen a sharp decrease in mass shootings ... FACT. Refer back to my post from the Harvard gun control research , firearm su
1,000 people are killed a year due to homicides and suicides.

100 of those are homicides due to firearms.

200 of them are suicide by firearm.

Now, ban firearms. What is the expected result in the overall deaths?

But hey, lets look at your ridiculous claims while attempting to discredit me

Australia banned guns after their last school shooting...
Has there been a mass shooting in Australia since the assault weapon ban ?
Apparently, in Australia, the country I was born in, raised in and still live in to this day, guns were banned. After a school shooting no less. And afterwards there has not been a single mass shooting. Do tell me how I don't know about my own country, I totally need your education on the matter.

A
And what's your end game? To discredit Australia's gun control, so America won't implement gun control?
To point out basic statistics and that Australia isn't some gun free utopia.
 
Last edited:
Jan 31, 2018
469
208
180
1,000 people are killed a year due to homicides and suicides.

100 of those are homicides due to firearms.

200 of them are suicide by firearm.

Now, ban firearms. What is the expected result in the overall deaths?
In theory less homicides - simply because killing with knives is not that effective. And planting bombs is also not that easy.
Suicides ... well it may vary - might increase and might decrease. After all those who wanted to die by being shot due to their shooting are more likely to consider simpler suicide. And at the same time suicide by gun is also simpler.
But in theory. The polarized USA society might not handle it quite well.
 
Mar 23, 2008
1,074
28
755
The more you put people together, the higher the chance these people are going to have disagreements and thus want to kill each other...


I haven’t seen such an out of your ass pulling fact since i ran across a tapeworm video. Since the goalposts have moved to five different stadiums in the thread do we have to start putting up densely populated cities with low murder rates now?
 
Likes: highrider

mars20

Neo Member
Feb 14, 2018
13
1
0
what is needed is a cop or private security which are armed with guns guarding the schools. Even if you tighten regulation on guns, people will just buy it in the black market.
 
Likes: Catphish
Dec 1, 2017
1,313
445
240
So, if there is a shooting at my workplace, is my manager getting a gun in the office?

Where is the line drawn on this idea?

At what point does this lead to hiring teachers because they have a good shot rather than just be a good teacher? They would have to hire superheros to go up against an AR-15 in a crowd of children? What about elementary school? Do you want your 10 year old kneeling on the ground while Mr Johnson and a crazy person exchange fire in the classroom? Are they going to give the teachers AR-15s or handguns?

To me this idea is a last resort, I'd rather try all of the other things before this. Like try harder to keep the possibility of a gun ever entering a school. Just try harder.
 

Musky_Cheese

Community Liaison
Oct 23, 2016
3,022
3,304
505
I have to assume the very high majority of people who will shoot up a school know their life is over before they start planning. So I can’t see this idea as a deterrent. It doesn’t solve the problem imo.
 
Likes: Tumle
Jan 8, 2018
181
73
205
Portugal
hahahaha I can´t believe i am reading this o_Oo_O
The president wants to give guns to teachers as solution for the gun problem, has everyone smoked the´re brains away, come on this is to much, this must be a nation wide joke.
How the fuck do the people not act and do something, i mean the president wants to give more guns instead of finding a real solution.

I swear i fell i live in an alternate dimension beause i never heard something so stupid and i honestly never believed someone had the balls to say something like this, do we live in the simpson universe?? someone, how much lower can this get
 
Likes: mckmas8808
May 28, 2013
7,499
4
0
St. Ivalice
Absolutely terrible first and second posts. Whether you are pro-gun or not you should have the common sense to know teachers are not and should not be lethal enforcers or armed as such. The only benefactor here is the NRA, and anyone who has personal stake in them.