[QUOTE=GotNext post_id=1543869741]In statistics we don't look at a slice of data (year-to-year), but overall trend and look for causes in anomalies. Look at the graph I posted above, do you notice a pattern of brief increase/peaks? That correlated to the pre-election cycle in the US, where the NRA and lobby groups constantly tell us that the guns will be taken away by democrats, so people start to get permits and guns "just in case they can't any longer". Fear-mongering works as a sales pitch, what can I say?

What happens when that election fear is gone? Well:

[img]https://i.imgur.com/oXqgVdU.png/img]

Like it or not: conservatives and gun owners are the most scared and most easily manipulated group (by fear). They say "know your customer" and the gun industry certainly does.[/QUOTE]Like it or not, 'gun owners' are aware of political climate and know when there is a risk on the horizon, so they buy the things they want ahead of time. Imagine that.

Definitely this, open up Gofundme accounts for Veteran "volunteers" at each of the schools, as a father of two kids I would gladly donate every god damn month for this chit to stop happening, and I know many other parents would as well..

Yes, it all costs money.

Except lifting the asinine restriction on lawful gun carriers also being armed at school just like they are almost everywhere else. That costs nothing.

Or two other people or seven other people...no way to know...any adult could be lawfully carrying concealed and you just wont' know until the psycho mass murderer catches a few bullets in the back

True.

Good post. But a couple of things are unrealistic. If there was a ban on guns it would come in waves. The first would be the ban on AR-15 style rifles which would be called an assualt rifle ban. Followed by subsequent bans or restrictions.

The libs may talk about the end goal being to take away all guns, but that's obviously not how it would be implemented. They would either allow grandfathering, or tell you to turn in the banned gun with harsh penalties for anyone caught with that gun in the future. They could do the same with registry of guns. All guns must be registered and anyone caught with an unregistered gun will face harsh penalties.

They can't come and get them from you. It's completely unrealistic.

http://thefederalist.com/2017/10/19/...kpile-17-guns/

You also are skewing numbers even if the % of households have decreased as you say it still means there are MORE gun owners because the population, and therefore the number of households have increased. See in the 70s the % of households was around 53% but that was of a population of only 200m, now while the % of households owning guns may have dropped the number is higher because the population is around 340m. So therefore even tho its a less % it is still more households.

There is also tue fact in the current anti gun climate many gun owners will deny owning guns.

And there goes more funding for training and arming the staff. Along with yearly training to keep your skill set. Plus you need willing teachers that would act in a situation like this. It's not an easy thing to run towards gunfire or a fight. You must be willing and able to act. In any school shooting, no mass of students or adults attempted to overpower the assailant. I can't blame them as who rushes an armed person or waits for the opportunity to attack a blindside? No one. Maybe a teacher who is a veteran with combat experience. Do we know if this shooter was on any anti-depressants, SSRI, adhd drugs? I believe this is the biggest issue we all ignore with mass shootings and prescribing to kids while brain development hasn't reached full maturation.

This could’ve been prevented

The authorities knew

https://www.buzzfeed.com/briannasack...XEo#.lj9VJOPLn




But did NOTHING

If you haven't noticed I am on your side with this gun debate. So chill the fuk out.

I do not think just "anyone" should be able to carry a firearm on school property, and I have a CCW permit myself and carry daily. The difference is that I carry my weapon to potentially protect myself. A teacher/faculty member carrying their weapon on school property is carrying it to potentially protect the lives of hundreds of kids. Now, I'm sure a lot of CCW permit holders could definitely make a difference, however if you've ever been around a lot of people who have CCW permits, they have minimal firearm experience and have only shot their weapon at the range. Could they possibly help? Yes of course........but could they also panic and god forbid hit an innocent person due to lack of training and experience with their weapon.....Yes they could.

If someone is going to be protecting my child, I want to know it is someone who knows what they are doing. That being said, due to money, if schools invested in training a couple faculty members in active shooter training/weapon training it is definitely better than nothing, but its not the most ideal option.

Right.

They are doing it step by step, incremental, death by a thousand paper cuts

Very important point IMO. There are definitely more bystanders than action people in this world, and that's hard to argue.

Yeah, they could. So could the trained person and so could the police.

But if you step back and look at actual defensive uses with firearms by random joe blows with their carry guns, hitting innocent bystanders virtually never happens (far more common with police).

Being able to shoot back, and without extensive fancy training, is a benefit.That's money that many do not have, and it sets up a scenario where everybody is going to end up knowing, including the kids (they will find out, you know they will) who those people are. You don't want anybody to know who might be armed. It could be any of them. AND the less hoops to jump through and less $ required to be armed, the more that will be.

It seems to me that, rather commonly among school shootings, you hear about one of the teachers/faculty confronting the shooter and/or using themselves as a human shield for the bullets. It was the assistance principle IIRC at Sandy Hook and I saw it reported a coach/gym teacher or similar yesterday.

But no we don't want those people to have guns. Riiight

farley with the cake, what do you wish you could do with guns that you cannot do right now?

all i can think for me, is i'd like to hunt my pops 7 acres with a suppressed .30-06 without making a list.

the land is kind of adjacent to a large-lot neighborhood and i think suppression would be less disruptive

Some perspective, from 2013.

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/a...d-gun-control/

These crimes are exceedingly rare and occur at rates that have remained steady for the past 30+ years, but are covered by the media as if they are so commonplace that "something" must be done urgently. This is what Obama's chief of staff referred to back in 2009 when he smugly asserted that "no crisis should go to waste", when it came to using any and all tactics to implement liberal political policies.

Every one of the celebutards in Hollyweird or demotards in DC who lashed out on twitter yesterday blaming this (yet again) on the Trump, the GOP, the Constitution, or the hoi poloi (that is too dumb to know what's in their best interests)... are simply using it as a means to a political end. I guess they believe their feelz and opinions matter more than the many tens of millions of Americans who have expressed their opinions on the matter by voting down every attempt at gun control or voting out politicians who have implemented it without the consent of the people.

http://variety.com/2018/biz/news/hol...ng-1202699481/

Even that dried up old hypocrite Feinstein is out there shilling to re-instate that unconstitutional ban of hers again. There is no such thing as "assault weapons". It's a term coined by demotards because it sounds scary to the uninformed. In fact, their legislation has to include a definition of what constitutes an "assault weapon" because it's not a term used outside of highly charged political discussions. Not to be outdone, the zealots at the Huffington Post are now trying a new tactic, calling these weapons, "weapons of war" to create an equivalence in low IQ voters minds that a rifle with a clip only has use on a battlefield.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b0ab6daf45ab2d

And here are the demotards deliberately lying to make the problem of mass shootings seem to be much more of a crisis than it is:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...ings-far-2018/

As a rule of thumb, emotional appeals for immediate action, made in the moments immediately after a shooting, are always not to be trusted as anything other than attempts by political opportunists to take advantage of the situation.

TIL from untrained miscers with no combat experience that your average teacher with minimal training and a gun is a useless sack of chit that will shoot innocent bystanders, but your average school shooter with no training but Xbox is a ruthless killing machine that can only be stopped when the SWAT team shows up or he blows his own brains out

No. That is someone who needs the training and tools to protect those students and themselves by being able to eliminate a threat. He's willing to die for those kids. Give him the chance to fight and possibly stop the threat. Saved lives at the cost of his own. Hero.

-Extend everything I can 'do with guns' to folks in all other states
-Give/receive guns across state lines as a private transaction, requiring federal government permission and record keeping to get a gun from my dad or give one to my brother or my best friend is asinine, for example.
-Carry on my person without having to pay a fee and register myself with the government (I could borrow that one from several other states actually)
-Buy or build a suppressor without paying a stamp tax, registering, and waiting ~1 year for said stamp tax to be processed
-Buy or build a select fire firearm
-Carry in all other states
-Carry in the current criminal empowerment zones where the law abiding are unarmed but criminals are armed ("gun free" needs to mean controlled access and screened like court houses, secure areas of airports, jails, etc)
-Buy or build rifles and shotguns with whatever barrel length I want without paying a stamp tax, registering, and waiting ~1 year for said stamp tax to be processed
-Travel through other states with the same guns/magazines/ammo I lawfully have/use/carry in this state
-Have access to many firearms that exist or could be made but would not qualify for the stupid ATF 'import points' rule that deals with things like 'target triggers' or sights or 'sufficient sporting cartridge' etc to determine if a firearm may be imported.
-Sell surplus government (military, law enforcement) small arms to The People instead of destroying them (this is done currently in small scale, expand it greatly)

That would be a start.

agreed 100%. the topic deserves it's own thread, imo, but these "gun free zones" are a joke. cant afford having secured schools, time to start finding ways to fix the system.

most of that involves travelin to pussy states tho. you are talkin about like not even a corner piece of the cake. your anime cartoon showed the whole cake ate up.

also i would ((hypothetically)) cut the barrell off my auto 5 and not tell no body and not lose a minute of sleep.


i would like to be able to carry to a bar. i apparently have a very punchable face.

And I'll agree with you here. But these kinds of heros are hard to come by. Would those two people with a firearm have made a difference? Most likely yes. But finding people willing to act like that isn't common. Also we have to even wonder how many of these teachers would actually want to have their CCW and weapon on them in the first place.And this is my main point ^^ The gun is no good without someone willing/capable to use it to end the crisis. Most people I know with their CCW would chit their pants in a violent situation. It doesn't help that I live in PA where all you need to get a permit is clean history and a heartbeat.

No...here is the list after I deleted the entries that involve traveling to other states


-Give/receive guns across state lines as a private transaction, requiring federal government permission and record keeping to get a gun from my dad or give one to my brother or my best friend is asinine, for example.
-Carry on my person without having to pay a fee and register myself with the government (I could borrow that one from several other states actually)
-Buy or build a suppressor without paying a stamp tax, registering, and waiting ~1 year for said stamp tax to be processed
-Buy or build a select fire firearm
-Carry in the current criminal empowerment zones where the law abiding are unarmed but criminals are armed ("gun free" needs to mean controlled access and screened like court houses, secure areas of airports, jails, etc)
-Buy or build rifles and shotguns with whatever barrel length I want without paying a stamp tax, registering, and waiting ~1 year for said stamp tax to be processed

I thought legally you're able to carry to bars/restaurants....... it's more so the establishments rule whether or not they will allow you in with it..... not illegal however. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Back in the days before public schools became 75+% "women under 40" as a percentage of their staff, you could rely on a good proportion of the men to have been veterans (WWII, Korea, Vietnam). Maybe we should have some affirmative action hiring to get veterans back into public school classrooms.

I wonder how the libtards opposed to training teachers to shoot, would respond to that... replacing women with veterans in the interest of child safety. Actually, I know how they would respond. They would scream about patriarchy and THE WAGE GAP!!11!1!11!!!!11!1!

im realizin some of my ((hypothetical)) activities not exactly street legal. i dont really leave the southeastern united states for any reason tho, so idk about the commerce laws from a personal standpoint. to me thats the feds shaking down more than anything havin to do with safety. same w suppression.

We dont' have to find them. We don't have to wonder. We just have to stop with the asinine laws that disarm them (and everybody knows it)

And where, other than a school, are you more likely to find people willing to risk or lose their lives to protect the kids??
Most people who carry a gun manage to use it effectively when the situation arises. This is true through decades of lawful carry across the country.

Or do you have a bunch of examples of lawful carriers "****ting their pants" and failing when they try to use their carry gun up there in PA??

100% depends on the state. Some it's legal, some it's not.

Literally using your own body as a human shield to save people that aren't even your family takes a hell of a more bravery and selflessness than using a pistol to engage a murderer actively trying to kill you. The former requires something extraordinary, the latter does not. FFS, there are child soldiers in Africa that shoot at people like it's no big deal.

Also, you honestly don't know how these people with a CCW will behave if their life was genuinely on the line. What's better, a teacher potentially freezing up or fleeing and their firearm never being utilized in the defense of their students, or that teacher never having had the opportunity to be a credible threat to an active shooter regardless of how brave that teacher is?It depends on what state you're in. Some states allow CC at bars and other establishments that serve alcohol, others don't. However, in both cases I don't see why a dedicated concealed carrier would change their habits. If you're a responsible CCW practitioner, then you should:

1) Never ever ever drink alcohol and carry
2) If a business bans carrying on their premise, either don't go there OR go there and still carry. There's a reason it's called CONCEALED carry.
3) In the unlikely and very unfortunate event you have to draw and use your pistol in self defense, the last thing you'll be worried about is if the business allows firearms on their premises. You'll be way more concerned about your safety and your loved ones safety and if it was a 'good shoot' in the eyes of the DA.