Originally posted by Surtur
Anyone ever notice how when a good guy with a gun does something credit is given to the guy, but when a bad guy does something it is the guns fault?
No, because that's something you've invented in that head of yours.
But the man who stopped the shooter here is an SRO, basically a law enforcement officer for a school and they're trained like cops and to work with cops. He did his job, just like when a cop stops a assailant.
Originally posted by SurturAny object can be used for both good AND bad. Nuclear weapons can be used for both good and bad too. But sometimes the destructive potential outweighs anything good.
Anyone ever notice how when a good guy with a gun does something credit is given to the guy, but when a bad guy does something it is the guns fault?
Guns are good for many reasons, if someone needs to protect themselves GOOD. Fine.
But the destructive potential of rapid-firing rifles like the AR-15s and AK-47s is too much to justify the good. If not outright banning them, then you must at least be in favor of regulating them? Purchasing age from 18 to 21? Mental health checks? More advanced licensing procedures?
Originally posted by Robtard
No, because that's something you've invented in that head of yours.But the man who stopped the shooter here is an SRO, basically a law enforcement officer for a school and they're trained like cops and to work with cops. He did his job, just like when a cop stops a assailant.
Yes, he did his job. A good guy with a gun. Thank god this wasn't NYC, right? They pulled the last armed cop off his post weeks ago.
Originally posted by Silent Master
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/gun-murders-per-100000-residents/
" But that context was misleadingly elided in the creation of the chart, leaving viewers to surmise that the United States was first (by far) among all countries with respect to gun murders. Moreover, the 2015 chart cited research published in 2011, which in turn referenced homicide rates from 2003 (not 2015)."
Lol shows once again they need to lie to push their agenda. They know the facts are against them.
Originally posted by Firefly218
Any object can be used for both good AND bad. Nuclear weapons can be used for both good and bad too. But sometimes the destructive potential outweighs anything good.Guns are good for many reasons, if someone needs to protect themselves GOOD. Fine.
But the destructive potential of rapid-firing rifles like the AR-15s and AK-47s is too much to justify the good. If not outright banning them, then you must at least be in favor of regulating them? Purchasing age from 18 to 21? Mental health checks? More advanced licensing procedures?
You're aware that AR-15s and AK-47s don't fire any faster than a handgun, right?
Originally posted by SurturEverything in that graph is a fact lol. The reason snopes says it's misleading is because people might think USA has the highest gun violence in the world when in reality the USA only has the highest gun violence among high-income nations. So yeah, it's not factoring in the data from Nigeria...
[b]" But that context was misleadingly elided in the creation of the chart, leaving viewers to surmise that the United States was first (by far) among all countries with respect to gun murders. Moreover, the 2015 chart cited research published in 2011, which in turn referenced homicide rates from 2003 (not 2015)."Lol shows once again they need to lie to push their agenda. They know the facts are against them. [/B]
Originally posted by Surtur
[b]" But that context was misleadingly elided in the creation of the chart, leaving viewers to surmise that the United States was first (by far) among all countries with respect to gun murders. Moreover, the 2015 chart cited research published in 2011, which in turn referenced homicide rates from 2003 (not 2015)."Lol shows once again they need to lie to push their agenda. They know the facts are against them. [/B]
Notice how certain people aren't complaining how he's posting biased information? it's almost like they're saying it's ok when one side does it.
Originally posted by Surtur
Yes, he did his job. A good guy with a gun. Thank god this wasn't NYC, right? They pulled the last armed cop off his post weeks ago.
You're conflating "a good guy with a gun" which is generally used to denote some random armed civilian who saves people because he was armed and this guy, who was specifically law enforcement; which is his job to be armed and to save people if need be.
Did you do this conflating by accident, or are your being a "massive phaggot" again and trying to force a narrative that doesn't exist because of your feelings?
Originally posted by Silent Master
You're aware that AR-15s and AK-47s don't fire any faster than a handgun, right?
Feelings are at stake here. Tomorrow morning I'm probably gonna run to McDonalds for breakfast. On the way there I will lament the fact that buying a gatling gun is easier than going to McDonalds.
Originally posted by Robtard
You're conflating "a good guy with a gun" which is generally used to denote some random armed civilian who saves people because he was armed and this guy, who was specifically law enforcement; which is his job to be armed and to save people if need be.Did you do this conflating by accident, or are your being a "massive phaggot" again and trying to force a narrative that doesn't exist because of your feelings?
It's an example of a good guy with a gun preventing deaths. You say he is "trained like a cop" but we have instances of even cops f*cking up, misfiring their weapons, etc.
I think someone *competent* with a gun could have more than likely achieved similar results. The guy was dealing with a 17 yr. old not SEAL team 6.
Originally posted by Surtur
It's an example of a good guy with a gun preventing deaths. You say he is "trained like a cop" but we have instances of even cops f*cking up, misfiring their weapons, etc.I think someone *competent* with a gun could have more than likely achieved similar results. The guy was dealing with a 17 yr. old not SEAL team 6.
No. He's still a trained law enforcement official who was doing his job, applying the "good guy with a gun" label is a misnomer and is trying to push a false narrative. He's basically a cop who did his job; which is expected.
Originally posted by Robtard
No. He's still a trained law enforcement official who was doing his job, applying the "good guy with a gun" label is a misnomer and is trying to push a false narrative. He's basically a cop who did his job; which is expected.
He was a good guy that was experienced with a firearm. I don't think you need the training of a cop to be effective with a firearm.
The point is having someone there armed helped. Will NYC change and add armed personnel to schools?