File 152672371582.png - (39.04KB , 1053x391 , Guns4Girls.png )

School shootings occur at schools whether or not people at the school are armed.

School shootings are about making others feel as bad as the shooter feels about themselves by the act of killing other people's children. The objective isn't for the shooter to live, its to cause others pain.

Two things will happen if schools become heavily armed compounds, where every preschooler to graduate student is armed:
1) More guns will be sold
2) More gun accidents will happen

That's it. School shootings will still occur.

Buying more guns won't solve anything. If buying more guns was going to solve anything it would have happened by now.

>>762
So sexy. The girl's not bad either.

>>765
Actually yeah, it is pretty sexy.
I'd love to see her tits bounce while she fires it.

I wouldn't want to see her laying in a pool of her own blood with it still strapped to her moments after she thought it would save her life.

>>767
More of a hands tied behind her back lying in a pool of her own blood type of guy, huh?

I get it.

>>768
The fun part about openly carrying a gun strapped to your back is you've turned yourself into an easy target. All they have to do is sneak up behind you and immobilize or take your gun. There's legions of special forces and ex-special forces trained to do just that. Some of them work for police forces.

Her little pew-pew stick isn't the magic she thinks it is.

>>768
Yes.

This >>769; she's no action hero. I don't think it would take special forces; anyone with decent aim could take her out long before she managed to get that thing into her hands; and then they'd have her gun to kill people with too.

>>769
Yes, ex special forces working for the police is everybody's top concern.

>>770
As long as they can adapt to the terms of being a police officer--that they are meant to protect people, even suspects, so that justice may be served, as opposed to just filling the darkies "bad guys" with lead--I think it's fine if soldiers "retire" into law enforcement. I'm sure there are many soldiers whose contributions would be of great benefit--proper weapons training, reduced flight response, tactical awareness, etc. Given the numerous conflicts we've been involved in the last two decades, I imagine the number of returning vets looking for a job to put their skills to use is rather high.

It only becomes a problem if they lose sight of the purpose of law enforcement: upholding society, protecting people's lives, allowing justice to be served. Deadly force should be a last-ditch option for law enforcement officers, but too often it has been their crutch. This isn't so much a problem with soldiers joining the police, as it is with the tendancy of the police force to become militarized. Regardless of their backround really, all police officers should face rigorous and regular psychological testing and there should be oversight committees preventing police chiefs from buying military gear they don't need. We trust these people with upholding our society, we ought to be sure they are sane enough to do so and reasonably equipped for their job.

If the time comes that we need firing teams and tanks to put down a riot or whatever, that's why we have a National Guard.

File 152697818857.png - (11.63KB , 779x112 , NoMajorityForTheMinority.png )

>>771
Everyone's top concern are the nuts hoarding guns and using their arsenals to commit mass murder.

>>773
Is it the nuts hoarding guns committing mass murders? Most mass murderers seem to own just enough guns to make their plan work.

>>777
Actually, the nuts hoarding guns tend to be mass murdered.
You're right about the shooters, but they often do exhibit ammosexuality long before destiny calls.

Lately it seem the mass murders are kids who stole from their parents' collection. I miss the good old days of about 4 years ago when we thought the foreigners from the Middle East and Mexico were the ones we had to worry about.

>>783
>about 4 years ago
Before that it was
>kids who stole from their parents' collection
Terrorism was a fad.

File 152733928787.png - (16.31KB , 890x100 , NRA Slush Fund.png )

>>777
Did you check out how many guns the Vegas shooter had? These aren't people with thousands of firearms. Just having more than a half dozen puts you above the range of a normal gun owner. Most only have one or two.

But one thing is for sure though, most gun owners can't be trusted to properly secure their firearms. Because if you think the gubbermint is going to break down your door at any moment for years on end you can't properly secure your guns. You have to make sure you can commit suicide by cop. Otherwise your family would have to (gasp) sell your guns to try and get some semblance of an inheritance. And that's the worst fate of all. Your guns are more important than your life.

>>778
>Actually, the nuts hoarding guns tend to be mass murdered
Not really. They tend to end up "accidentally" shooting people.

Which is why the NRA is so adamant that there be no limits on the second amendment. If irresponsible ammosexuals were no longer able to purchase firearms, gun sales would plummet, and the NRA slush funds would dry up.

>>787
I was thinking Waco, Ruby Ridge, etc. I guess the point there being that they hoarded enough weapons to get the government's attention, and then they were murdered (and helpless to defend themselves against overwhelming numbers, tactics, and armament).

>most gun owners can't be trusted to properly secure their firearms
Apparently this is how you defend your children's freedom to mass murder.

>Vegas shooter
There's a conspiracy theory that this was an arms deal gone bad, that the guy accused of the shooting was laying dead on the floor the whole time, and that his customers escaped--some of them firing shots in nearby streets on their way out. Normally I wouldn't give it much thought, but I noticed a number of articles have recently been revised to make the guy sound more creepy and mentally disturbed--none of that was in the interviews people did in the days immediately following the incident; it was added months later. Then again, it's probably just a story and the later additions might just be the NRA's usual tactic of portraying any mass shooter as a deranged individual who shouldn't have passed the background checks. That's the one angle they're willing to give, since they know background checks are useless--saying they'll support stronger background checks lets them sound like they actually care without making any change to their arrangment with the politicians and gun manufacturers.

File 152770506132.jpg - (13.38KB , 550x413 , TrumpClock.jpg )

>>800
>Apparently this is how you defend your children's freedom to mass murder.
Coming soon in the 71st amendment.

>There's a conspiracy theory that this was an arms deal gone bad
There's a conspiracy theory for everything. Conspiracy theories are supported by people who demand that everything fit their preconceived narrative of the world. They see nothing wrong with on one breath talking about how the government is completely incompetent and can't do anything right, while in the next breath talking about how the government is behind all these massive super complicated conspiracies that would require superhuman levels of coordination if not outright telepathic communication.

File 157056592990.jpg - (407.39KB , 1350x1379 , weapon of war.jpg )

>>1712
How can you be so dumb?

File 157060674633.png - (460.38KB , 499x768 , NRA Qualify.png )

>>1713
Its a side effect of fervently supporting the 2nd amendment while also fervently supporting a president who thinks the constitution doesn't apply to him or his agents.

The hypocrisy shreds all common sense and reason, leaving only a quivering mass behind.

File 157195317325.jpg - (180.58KB , 1081x1391 , Coming Together.jpg )

>>1714
Trump's lawyer recently argued in court that Trump could walk into a 2A supporter's home, gather up all his guns, take them to a place and have them destroyed, and the home owner couldn't legally interfere with him in any way. And he wouldn't be able to get compensation either.

Because the president has absolute power to do anything at any time with no consequence.

>>1714
Twitter is so cringe, why are you posting that shit?

>>1753
not as cringe-worthy as your internet dialect

>>1755
You're an insufferable faggot.

File 157491085971.jpg - (34.19KB , 475x356 , Just_Sayin.jpg )

There is a real simple solution to guns in America. Ban the sale of guns in America.

The existing guns that are used in crimes will be seized. A small stock of surplus guns will be bought up by criminals then used in crimes and those too will be seized. Then most criminals just won't have access to guns.

Eventually, maybe a generation later, your guns will be too valuable and bullets too expensive to be used for most crimes.

All the people who have guns and want to keep them can pass them down through their families.

It seems simple enough to me.

>>1760
"Just seize the guns, but only for criminals when they commit crimes"
Like that will go over well

>>1760
>Ban the sale of guns in America.
:laughs in the founding fathers beat the British with rifles they had at home:

File 157510214050.jpg - (126.71KB , 750x500 , NRA Well Regulated.jpg )

>>1763
Except the guns weren't kept in their homes because the British would have confiscated them. After the WoI was won, they were all gathered up and kept in buildings called armories so they could be used by - get this - militia.

>>1764
You're thinking of guns that were militia property, or government property. They didn't totally disarm the colonists (this is the NRA mythos that every major travesty in history was preceded with a mass disarmament).

People still had rifles for hunting and whatnot; pistols if they could afford them. The weapons in the armory were maintained for warfare and police actions--they didn't want them rusting in some poor colonist's hovel.

Nonetheless, the rusty hunting rifle in your average revolutionary's hovel proved effective enough against the redcoats.

This is what people who want guns for defense against government tyranny are holding on to: the myth that the average man with commercially available firepower could overpower an empire.

Unfortunately their mythos is the overriding principle that guides interpretation of the constitution: most people think this is the reason the founding fathers wanted civilians to be armed.

No one thinks about the dangers the early states faced from attempts by the British to undermine their sovereignty and retake them, disputes between the states themselves, to marauders and the vengeance of displaced natives. The point was to have ready a locally-organized armed force when needed at a fraction of the cost of a standing army, not to overthrow the government of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".

>>1766
You do realize there is no militia, right?

FDR federalized all state militias and named them the "national guard" after New York's militia. They're paid and maintained by the US federal government with soldiers often from out of state.

>>1767
There are still state militias. I don't know about every state, but a lot of states still have an organization, mostly populated by decrepit old veterans, retired police officers, and a handful of ultra-right-wing basket cases. These state militias need refurbishing, to be sure, and new leadership, but I think they could still provide something our armed services lack: community.

Gun owners need community. We have too many people buying guns and then falling off the radar. We don't have to invade their privacy or subject them to searches or seizures to establish their mental health and gun safety practices. Rather, we make militia membership mandatory--by state law in as many states as possible--for all registered gun owners. The militias could offer competency and safety training, as well as keeping an eye on the general well-being of its members. Give a minimum required attendance like one or two events per year, and require licensing to prove safety training. Give benefits to gun owners with extra licensing; reduced taxes or fines, insurance, etc.

Will that solve our black market gun problem? No.
Is that a valid counter-argument? No.

The real problem with the gun debate is that predominant faction of the pro-guns side that has no idea why it wants more guns in more hands and no concept of what having guns does to people. By binding gun ownership to a community that will encourage their safe use and knowledgeability, we could not only decrease shooting incidents but perhaps even change the course of these stupid debates.

File 157554535219.jpg - (113.60KB , 1125x1189 , NRA Dildo Threat.jpg )

>>1768
>perhaps even change the course of these stupid debates
Unlikely since one half of the debate isn't arguing in good faith, they're arguing to expand gun manufacturer profits and providing false narratives to distract from their actual motive

>>1769
You're right. One wonders if they will ever run out of people willing to poison debates for money.

>>762
If Ohio had a state militia, the federal government wouldn't have been able to compel it's troops to murder it's students over a war the federal government wanted.

Yet, all you faggots just want more federal government. The government can't win the drug war, but hey, let's have them get into another war over guns. I swear, you idiots are retarded.

>>1776
oko.ohmr.ohio.gov/join/info_about.php
It had one then and it has one now. Many states still have a militia in one form or another. They are generally underfunded, lacking in manpower, and populated with craggy war vets and retired cops, but they still exist.

www.history.com/topics/vietnam-war/kent-state-shooting
The Ohio National Guard was deployed by state authority, at the request of municipal authority. The federal government had nothing to do with it (other than the rumored of CIA provocateurs among the protestors).

Yes, everything you believe was just ripped to shreds by three seconds of googling. No, don't try to pick up the pieces--it's gone. Move along now.

File 157673771690.jpg - (74.13KB , 611x609 , NRA Doing It Wrong.jpg )

>>1777
Reality is just a liberal plot to make them look ignorant and stupid.

If they had a "Trespassers will be shot" sign would they be legally free of any guilt?

Could we just assume no one wants a bunch of backwards hippies pissing on their lawn for days?

>>1837
There was a guy in my hometown who had one of those, and a six-foot high chain-link fence around his whole yard with an additional privacy fence behind it around his back yard.

He threw a rock at a friend and I once just for sitting on the curb across the street from his place; he threw it from his back yard--over the privacy fence, and would have nailed my friend in the face if we didn't see it coming. No warning; just noticed what looked like a rock flying at us all of the sudden.

Everyone thought he was a lunatic, but no one knew who he actually was because he was never seen leaving the place. Like not even to buy groceries. Total mystery how he even lived.

>>1837
And then I realized you were referring to Kent state students who were shot and killed on the campus of the school they were enrolled in as trespssers.

You don't get to make up what history is. We've already been over that.

>>1851
Sorry, I'll check my CBS newsfeed next time ;_;

>>1860
I'm sure you meant that as some sort of commentary, but since I'm not tuned in to your alien conspiracy theory frequency, I don't have any idea what you mean by it.

>>1861
It means my point still stands, they were being disruptive and got what they deserved

>>1864
Shoot yourself. Right now. Don't hesitate. Don't ask why.

>>1865
Ya'll the one getting shot

>>1867
You know what the authoritarian scum you worship will give you?

A bullet to the head as soon as you aren't of use to them.

Might as well get ahead of the game.

>>1868
Nine people have been murdered in the protests so far

>>1869
And how many falsely arrested?
How many news crews fired on?

>>1870
Not nearly enough

Those people are still breathing as well lmao

>>1871
You thought this was the place for your shit.

It isn't. Leave. Leave this mortal plane.

>>1872
Is that a threat?

Are you really internet tough-guying on 7chan?

How the fuck did you even find this place?

>>1875
This is 7chan. We have our own totalitarianism; we don't need your petty thuggery. You killed yourself yet?

>>1879
No, you will surely beat me to the grave

>>1884
How hard are you gonna cry when the pedulum swings the other way in four years or so? Did you sleep through history class? You're just a tool for people who want you to die for their selfishness, and you know it.

>>1886
I'll probably be alright

Heaven sounds cool

>>1887
There's no god, and your idiotic human ideals are laughable.

>>1891
...

>>1892
I mock your value system, and you also appear foolish in the eyes of others.

>>1914
Appearing foolish to a bunch of sinners is a blessing

>>1937
lol, a chistfag on 7chan?

Good luck ministering to this lot!

>>1938
I've had some moderate success here I believe

Any questions? Feel free to mock me

File 160395247438.jpg - (304.25KB , 1634x1716 , Trump Tell Me More About Dementia.jpg )

>>1938
Only a christfag could miss Simpsons quotes.

File 160402314281.jpg - (66.94KB , 1024x682 , 1596609022144.jpg )

>>1940
Simpsons is a show for edgy children. Not even teens, fucking 4-9 yo children

File 160416188820.jpg - (73.56KB , 801x768 , Alabama Evildoers Never Punished.jpg )

>>1941
Yeah, yeah, everyone's lame but you.

Shouldn't you be spending this time cutting yourself?

>>1942
Not really

File 160561780987.gif - (134.52KB , 600x750 , Wear A Mask.gif )

>>1943
A shame, you could really benefit humanity by cutting extra deep next time

>>1949
Does the sorrow you spread ever turn on you?

>>1950
Have you noticed how the sorrow Trump and his supporters spread never turns on them?

Everything is illegal, everyone is a criminal, everyone is under surveillance 24/7, and no one cares.

Living in a police state means that you must live in dread of being arrested. You can't help feeling hopeless.