Oh yes, they were making sure that their guns were legal before killing the tsar.
The clip I posted above might be interesting to you as well.
-
Friendly reminder: The politics section is a place where a lot of differing opinions are raised. You may not like what you read here but it is someone's opinion. As long as the debate is respectful you are free to debate freely. Also, the views and opinions expressed by forum members may not necessarily reflect those of GBAtemp. Messages that the staff consider offensive or inflammatory may be removed in line with existing forum terms and conditions.
About the Texas massacre and easy access to guns.
- Thread starter Nikokaro
- Start date
- Views 25,429
- Replies 1,005
- Likes 7
You're talking like you live in america al the time. So sorry for me missunerstanding. Still the point stants: People want more security at scools. And with people I mean civilians.
Did you sleep while we rioted? This was big international news:
In this videos you see police trying to stop us but that was when less then 1% of civilians where on the streets. We stacked up and that changed their minds so they gave up. This in return directly influeced politicans to do what we say instead of forcing their rules.
When police, military and government giving up is not a victory, what else is?
So when they have no more manpower left to fight cause they lost all in civilian wars they have power against the rest of the world? Sounds reasonable... o.O
Yes, and this will be accomplished by returning to order.
If you are at the point were you have to do things like this to stop politicians from forcing certain things on you, you are at the loosing end.
Being a selfdetermined people?
This is a misunderstanding, I think I didn't follow your train of thought there. If you want to restate your position feel free to do so.
Not sure if I'm understanding what you want to say. Are you a soldier?
... What difference did you guns make here exactly? And why is us rioting beeing on the loosing end but you (US citisens) rioting is not?
I could but I'm really tired argumenting.
The U.S. a country that still (rightfully) enables its citizens to bear arms, but many modern policies are incompatible with that notion. There’s a reason why so many mass shootings take place in schools - they’re gun-free zones, and criminals have a nasty habit of not following the law. If someone’s going to commit a mass shooting, there’s no better place than a gun-free zone - who’s going to stop the assailant, and with what? *If* you’re going to have a gun-free zone, you necessarily need armed guards around it protecting everybody in the zone who can’t effectively protect themselves - that’s not only costly, it’s hardly optimal or efficient. The alternative is to abolish gun-free zones and allow responsible adults to carry for the purposes of self-defense, just like they can in any other circumstances. Just this Monday a mass shooting in West Virginia was successfully prevented by one woman lawfully carrying - I firmly believe that citizens, not the police, are the first line of defense against mass killings. Police response time is simply too long, and even when police does show up, the expectations people have regarding the police are too high. Everyone’s upset that the police simply secured the perimeter and waited as opposed to barging in to neutralise the threat, which is odd because that’s the most predictable turn of events possible. They’re just people - they don’t want to get shot either, and they’re not paid to get shot. If anyone’s under the impression that it’s their job to charge in like Superman and take a bullet for you, you need to divorce yourself from that Superhero myth. They’re just a bunch of guys. They will neutralise a shooter if they’re safe and have clear line of sight - anything else would be an exception, not the rule. “Protect and serve” is not a shorthand for “mercenary”, they’re not paid to die for anyone.
You have the habit of assuming that I have positions I dont have.
Okay
@Foxi4 Whole germany is a gun-free zone. We neither need protection nor do we have shootings anywhere. How do you explain that?
When response time of police is too slow you need better police training.
When civilians are the first line of defense, why didn't civilians stop the texas massacre?
When response time of police is too slow you need better police training.
When civilians are the first line of defense, why didn't civilians stop the texas massacre?
With "you" I mean US citisens in general. Thought I made this clear, sorry if not.
What’s there to explain? You have no firearms (besides the few illegal ones, and the few licensed ones), so you have no shootings - that part is not disputable, and it’d be in bad faith to claim otherwise. There’s a cost in liberty associated with that.
Please explain this some more. What liberty do you have that I don't have? Except the right to kill anyone entering my property, cause I don't want that anyway.
I live in the UK - my right to bear arms as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights was curbed with subsequent legislation, sadly. As such, my ability to defend myself and the population’s countermeasure against tyranny were sadly removed.
Is there more tyranny since the ban? Not sure if UK was part of the EU riots (you "brexited" after all) but in case it was: Was it harder to fight against the tyranny than before? In case you didn't riot anyway just ignore this question, please.
No. Airports and many government offices have metal detectors, and those are hardly viewed as prisons. If they staffed vets as security guards, that would help two fold, with giving jobs and having security guards with applicable knowledge. I don't understand the thinking behind not funding and providing ample security and protection for future generations; if kids keep getting killed, who's going to get taxed for social security?
Are scoolers forced to go to airports and government offices each day? Try to see this from the viewpoint of a scooler, please.
So your argument is "they steal our jobs"? That's not a good argument for keeping guns and threatening scoolers like prisioners so they'll get mental illnes more easily. Also where was this applicable knowledge at the texas massacre?
You have to balance security measures based on effectiveness. The TSA is a prime example of this - besides stealing a bunch of money and luggage the results of implementing the agency are questionable. There’s no evidence that they’ve ever prevented a single terrorist attack, but they’ve been inconveniencing the population for two decades now. In fact, their own self-assessments show that they fail to stop 95% of contraband from coming through, so what are they for, besides wasting tax dollars? In fact, the Government Accountability Office verified this - they planted 70 “fake terrorists” on flights, all with fake weapons and bombs. Guess how many passed through the checks without any issues? 67. The TSA is useless, and the government knows this.
https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/2016/5/17/11687014/tsa-against-airport-security
The number one answer to this problem is to abolish gun-free zones entirely - schools are full of sitting geese, perfect targets that cannot fight back. Just the *possibility* of someone there being armed is a deterrent for a potential shooter.
Sorry for bringing this argument now but: How exactly did the possibilty of armed flight agents stopped the 11. of september?
As others said: When you have a gun the bad guys will get bigger guns... Or Bombs... Or even worse things. So you want every citisen to have his own nuclear army? THIS is what terror really is! Don't be that afraid. Trust just a tiny bit in humanity. Sure there will always be bad guys doing bad things but more and more armory won't stop them at all.
//EDIT: Also aren't there armed guards at US scools already? Did that stop shootings?
//EDIT²: Also do you realise that these shooters want to get shot in the end? Don't you know what suicide by cops means? This kind of suicide is something you see in the US only...
Last edited by V10lator,
Similar threads
