Then who are you to call someone out on an argument? You're just contributing to the thread being off topic. This thread is about gun rights. I find it relevant to talk about gun rights.

I understand wanting a firearm for your protection, but teachers are in charge of other children. I don't think it's appropriate for them to make a choice that could potentially involve life and death for someone else's child. Teachers aren't trained in using and securing firearms unlike cops.

Yet I say I don't agree with this and everyone assumes I'm completely against guns?

Bringing evidence to spite a claim can support your own argument. Infact it's kind of required, otherwise who's to know what's correct?

Then why the hell are you posting in the first place? Don't give your opinion if you're too afraid to see what I think about it. I used to think you were cool, but all you've done here in the past couple of months is complain about how you've never even touched an iPhone server and how you're so ****ing special because you don't understand what anyone is talking about.

Ugh... I came in here to unsubscribe to the thread because I forgot to before and I wasn't going to reply, but that last part is kind of annoying.


Topic is gun control. Okay, fine. You're right.


Nobody is saying that anyone should just let teachers bring in their own guns and take justice into their own hands. In fact, the teachers aren't even saying that. There would be rules. There would be guidelines. There would be training. There would be screening. There would be testing. There would be monitoring. There would be evaluation. I understand the arguments against it. Thank you for sharing your opinion. I'll let the voters take it from here.


I cannot speak for anyone else but I never assumed you were "completely against guns," and I don't see why that has anything to do with me. My main argument was about how I don't like people from other countries suggesting things that are impossible with out system of government. The only advice I'd ever give other countries is that they need to work on their entertainment industries because Hollywood is getting pretty ****ty these days, but I digress.


Yes. No.


Entertaining. Just like how it was entertaining for me to type up this post.

You don't actually believe that I'm afraid of what you think. Don't pretend. I don't care about what you think of me. You can assume whatever you want for how I think of you.

I do not like playing games on my phone. I am aware I can play on Facebook, and I have played Classic on Facebook. I am aware that this site is mainly for those servers and the people whom play those servers. I think Classic is a pretty good server and the staff are at least trying to make it a good game. All of the other servers are garbage. Reading the threads about them make it pretty clear that they are garbage.

I will never stop talking about PC Graal because it is what I know about Graal. That's that.


Done for realsies this time. Unsubscribed from the thread. If you want to reply do it in a PM.

:giggle:

But yeah think if anything if was really wanted to stop gun crime and control then the people need to make big statement about it and get government to actually do something other than that y'all will be going round in circles mass kills>complain for few days>ignore-mourn speech >mass kills etc

Australia has tough gun control measures and we're 100% chill. I've never seen a gun anywhere than on a cop in my life.

Giving teachers guns won't solve anything, guns aren't the answer to violence.

The answer in an American context (as I see it) is the improvement of mental health treatment because anyone who's going on a shooting spree has to be mentally ill.

Making tools of death available to more people, and/or loosening restrictions won't do anything to stop murders, there's the adage that "guns don't kill people, people kill people" but guns, as a tool, can kill far far more people way more efficiently than a knife or a hammer or something.

A hand-gun should not be allowed anywhere other than shooting ranges and with a police officer; it's only purpose it to kill, it's not even used for hunting only "sport" and killing Humans.

America probably wouldn't be in this situation if the government enforced the 2nd amendment and made sure that everyone who purchased a gun was a part of a legitimate well regulated militia, going to the gun store and buying a gun legally doesn't mean you're in a regulated militia.

*Kids get in fight* *Teacher pulls out gun* Kids will never want to stay near that teacher, and some legal reason will get the teacher arrested. One kid might be scarred. Overall terrible

It doesn't actually solve anything though. While casualties from shootings would go down it would do nothing to prevent them.

Pretty sure that the Supreme Court agreed that the militia and right to bear arms were two separate clauses.

I live in Australia and we don't have to worry about guns.

So because we can't bring the casualties down to 0 then we shouldn't make any attempts to damper it at all???

You aren't taking into consideration that guns don't exist to commit homicides. They exist for defense, sport, etc. Like I said before, it's the equivalent of wanting a ban on cars because some people are irresponsible drivers and kill others in accidents. We don't just get rid of things because some people use them irresponsibly.

What we should be doing to lessen murders by shooting is to work on improving mental health. Until you do that, the problem isn't going to be fixed. If it was even a possibility to remove every single gun from every single civilian, crazy people would still find a way to kill you. The difference is that the 99% of gun owners who are responsible are then left without being able to protect themselves.

Did you not read my earlier posts? I'm talking about a ban on fully automatic assault rifles. Something you don't need for protection.

I totally see your side. But I also see the side that there's no problem with automatics and it would abridge the rights of citizens. Especially if the guns need to be used for protection against the government, and the gov. has much more powerful guns. I'm not saying I'm against your side, because I'm actually unsure, and that's the reasoning for why I find it to be a difficult decision. I think it's potentially a dangerous precedent.

I'm more concerned with innocent dying than I am with those butthurt about losing their guns that have no practical use.

I don't understand what you're trying to say here. A war against our own government? If that's the case I think there's a lot more to worry about than our laws... If you want protection then buy a pistol. Not a fully automatic rifle.

Gun collectors use the excuse of rebeling against an imaginary anarchy/apocalyptic scenario that seems apparently so close of happening, just to defend their hobby. I have never seen a news where someone defends himself or his store with an automatic rifle, only shotguns and pistols. Ban autos and semis, you don't need anything else.

The 2nd amendment was made to protect ourselves from an oppressive gov. so the laws don't matter in that case, but because of the laws, they don't have guns to protect themselves from a government's military that has much more powerful weapons. Banning automatics is to gun control as deporting is to illegal immigration. It doesn't solve any problem. Illegal immigrants will still come back in. People will still use guns or weapons of any kind to kill people. The mass murderers I guess may not be able to kill as many people, but that's implying they actually can't get a hold of an automatic rifle. I think the background checks and entire gun processing system needs to be drastically changed, but I'm not sure about banning guns, even if its only automatic rifles. It's obviously not like I want people to die, but I'm not sure it would solve any actual problem. I would like the gov. to actually do something about it and fix the restrictions and background check process, plus to create programs to actually help and monitor people with mental illnesses, and then see how much that affects gun crimes, and then go from there on whether or not to ban certain types of guns.

Considering America originally gained independence from an oppressive government... Who's to say it won't happen again? Just because it's not happening now. Other countries could invade ours too. I agree, no one needs an automatic rifle right now, but the gov. has been notorious for thinking about the present and never planning for the future, and that's how we get into problems.

Let's say automatic rifles are banned. Gun crimes will still happen, and people will still try to commit mass murders with what they have access too, even if it's just a handgun. No one will be thinking that lives were saved when an incident happens, they'll be thinking about the live(s) that were lost. One life lost is too much. That's why I think the people behind the guns need to be the prioroty, along with much better and stricter background checks to prevent them from legally purchasing a gun in the first place.

I love all these Australians coming on the thread like "Yeah just ban guns it's easy guys, works for us."

I wish we had these brilliant minds coming in as U.S politicians in the future, wow.

Automatic rifles are banned m8

nope.