[QUOTE="DJ419"]

[QUOTE="Nuck81"] I don't understand how Tougher Gun Laws is hurting our freedom. -Sun_Tzu-

Easy, because it is taking away a constitutionally guranteed choice. Freedom = Choice.

Then you have a misguided interpretation of the purpose of the 2nd Amendment.

It's a dumb non solution spree killers will just target something elsekuraimen

Were talking about the safety of children at school, not the entire world.

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="redstorm72"]

What happens when one of the guards goes nuts and kills a bunch of students? Should we then get guards for the guards? This is only tackling the symptom (the shootings), not the cause (ease of access to fire arms and mental illness).

Nuck81

Easy, because it is taking away a constitutionally guranteed choice. Freedom = Choice.

What happens when one of the guards goes nuts and kills a bunch of students? Should we then get guards for the guards? This is only tackling the symptom (the shootings), not the cause (ease of access to fire arms and mental illness).

redstorm72

What happens when some demented 20 year old decides to steal his Mom's guns and then guns down a classroom of six year olds in a gun free zone where he knows there will be zero resistance.

Guns don't cause people to willfully start shooting people.

[QUOTE="xscrapzx"][QUOTE="HaloPimp978"]

I agree with you on all points. It is the parents responbility. It's so unfair the gaming industry has to take this heat when games like COD, Halo, GTA, Far Cry,etc are met for 17+. The games are rated M for a reason. It really pisses me off the news media doesn't even mention the ESRB at all.

HaloPimp978

I think its not fair they have to take either that's why both sides have to work something out. So something like Sandy Hook, VT or Columbine doesn't happen again.

You will never prevent massacres so long as Human Beings exist.

As far as I know, my county already does this. There was always a Deputy Sherrif on campus during school hours when I was in middle and high school. I don't see why people would say that this would cost too much money or be inefficient. I have not heard any complaints from where I live.

Don't think I can read the entire thread after reading the idiotic posts on the first page. But, has anyone mentioned that the buckmaster rifle used was just a .22?

slimjimbadboy

It was a Bushmaster not buckmaster.

The reported caliber used was a .223. While the caliber is identical. .22 is a much different catridge than a .223. As you can see.

[QUOTE="thegerg"] I've been in situations where the pistol I was carrying would have been ineffective against the threat, but my rifle (not an AK in this case, and not even full auto) did the job much better.C_Rule

Your country of origin must not have Grizzly Bears.

[QUOTE="thegerg"]

[QUOTE="Leejjohno"]

But wouldn't you trust the cop with a gun licence over somebody with no proven history at all? Not saying they are infallible.

They could make it so that you need insurance on a weapon, and your premium scales with your potential risk of accident or whatever. Probably wont be a popular idea but i'd say that could make a difference.

C_Rule

"But wouldn't you trust the cop with a gun licence over somebody with no proven history at all?"

Probably, but I can think of a number of civilians that I'd trust over a cop. Cops aren't the only ones wtih training, you know?

To say that all civilians are too irresponsible and shouldn't have guns is just as foolish as saying all civials are responsible enough and should.

The 2nd Amendment isn't about defending yourself from the average criminal.

The cops who went around inside to indentify all the casualties (names and ages are all relased now to the public)

wis3boi

That picture is over a year old.