Quote from Pugnae Draco

Mk, so assault rifles are good for nothing? they may not be accurate, but they have a high rate of fire, so if you are in a closed area... such as your own house which somebody just broke in to... you can put a lot of bullets in them in a short amount of time... and GZento... the point of private gun purchases is so that people do not have guns registered in their names... and they are called "private" for a reason... I am not entirely sure how you could ban private purchases of guns...

I can't believe there are people who actually think this is a good and valid reason. You don't need to murder someone just because they break into your house. And you could use a handgun for defense, one bullet will suffice for disabling someone. Honestly you sound like a blood thirsty monster, and it's kinda creepy.

Quote from Cobalt

I can't believe there are people who actually think this is a good and valid reason. You don't need to murder someone just because they break into your house. And you could use a handgun for defense, one bullet will suffice for disabling someone. Honestly you sound like a blood thirsty monster, and it's kinda creepy.

I'm sorry, but if somebody breaks into my house, I will shoot them before they can shoot me, if I happen to kill them, oh well, if I happen to disable them, good, if I shoot them and they are still capable of shooting me, I will shoot again... AND! unlike in FICTION, it will probably take more than one shot to kill somebody, it is improbable to kill somebody with one shot when you are in such a situation... especially in a low caliber weapon, such as a very common 9mm, and there are also bullets that will miss...

Quote from Pugnae Draco

I'm sorry, but if somebody breaks into my house, I will shoot them before they can shoot me, if I happen to kill them, oh well, if I happen to disable them, good, if I shoot them and they are still capable of shooting me, I will shoot again...

How does any of this apply to gun control? I'm not sure how any of this is relating to the topic.

Quote from Exilement

How does any of this apply to gun control? I'm not sure how any of this is relating to the topic.

ok back to the topic... i believe you said earlier that you could disprove my entire opening comment... you still have not done so...

I was replying to this.

also, his whole comment was saying that because U.S.A. is more populated, there will be a higher percentage, thats all that #/100,000 is, it is essentially a percentage...

Specifically, "because USA is more populated, there will be a higher percentage". Your logic was a larger population directly correlates to a higher percentage of crimes. That's the only thing I was responding to. Are we clear on that? Good. and I responded to it with this:

El Salvador has a population of 6,227,491. They have a firearm-related death rate of 50.36/100,000 people

The US has a population of 311,591,917. We have a fire-arm related death rate of 10.2/100,000 people

311,591,917 > 6,227,491

50.36 > 10.2

By your logic that "a higher population means a higher death rate", the US should have a much higher death rate than El Salvador. It doesn't, for reasons you explained further, but those reasons don't change the fact that your initial statement was completely wrong.


I don't know how the fuck you still don't get this.

Quote from Exilement

We have nearly 60 times as many people in our country than El Salvador, but their gun homicide rate as a percentage of their population is 5 times as high as the United States.


I want you to reread that statistic, then your reply. I could explain why your post was completely wrong, but I'm hoping you can figure this one out yourself. Hint: You don't seem to understand what a percentage is.

hmmm so that part in there about "I could explain why your post was completely wrong" was only about one part? and its not like i made a comment about El Salvador being an under developed country or anything...

Quote from Pugnae Draco

hmmm so that part in there about "I could explain why your post was completely wrong" was only about one part? and its not like i made a comment about El Salvador being an under developed country or anything...

Instead of bickering and defending your old post, why not simply let water run under the bridge and get back to the topic, the topic being whether or not teachers should be armed.

On the subject, I just learned they're actually passing a law to remove the commercial sell of military-grade weaponry. This is in no way going to affect whether or not someone is going to go to a school and shoot it up, but rather will simply increase the amount that it will occur with guns such as pistols, shotguns, and winchesters (or rifles, I just prefer that company). Arming teachers would clearly help deter this, but arming a teacher is about as bad as giving a kid a gun. Things go wrong, people get mad, things happen. As I stated earlier, if it becomes absolutely necessary for teachers to be armed, I say give them stunguns or 9mm's with rubber bullets. Neither are deadly, both hurt like hell, and both will most likely reduce the amount of school shootings that occur. There's also the fact that if a teacher simply attacks them, they'll be more or less safe and it will literally be next to impossible for them to go on a killing spree. Of course, they could go around hurting people, but it would make it possible for them to be easier to apprehend and restrain, especially if there is at least one actual security guard/cop.

I would say that they should not be allowed to have a gun because what if one if the students manage to get their hands on it and then they shoot another student because of a fight or they don't like each other I'm bring this point up because there was a fight at my school yesterday and seeing this debate got me thinking and there are also a number of things that could but the main reason is like someone already mentioned that the teacher go go ballistic and use the gun on the student themselves and I now for a fact that some of the teachers at my school would not think twice to put a bullet in our head because of the way we all fuck around with her

Quote from Exilement

That's why I said "It doesn't, for reasons you explained further, but those reasons don't change the fact that your initial statement was completely wrong."

You're seriously going to keep defending your ignorance instead of simply admitting fault? I don't know why you keep trying to drag this on.

and yet you assume that you are at no fault and it is me that is ignorant? that seems pretty ignorant...

Quote from Shaq-of-All-Trades

Instead of bickering and defending your old post, why not simply let water run under the bridge and get back to the topic, the topic being whether or not teachers should be armed.

On the subject, I just learned they're actually passing a law to remove the commercial sell of military-grade weaponry. This is in no way going to affect whether or not someone is going to go to a school and shoot it up, but rather will simply increase the amount that it will occur with guns such as pistols, shotguns, and winchesters (or rifles, I just prefer that company). Arming teachers would clearly help deter this, but arming a teacher is about as bad as giving a kid a gun. Things go wrong, people get mad, things happen. As I stated earlier, if it becomes absolutely necessary for teachers to be armed, I say give them stunguns or 9mm's with rubber bullets. Neither are deadly, both hurt like hell, and both will most likely reduce the amount of school shootings that occur. There's also the fact that if a teacher simply attacks them, they'll be more or less safe and it will literally be next to impossible for them to go on a killing spree. Of course, they could go around hurting people, but it would make it possible for them to be easier to apprehend and restrain, especially if there is at least one actual security guard/cop.

i honestly do not see how it would be as bad as giving a kid a gun, because i said earlier, teachers could have the OPTION of carrying a gun... now, teachers are not just some random person on the street, they go through background checks and all sorts of stuff to see if they are the kind of person who would flip out, because they would be unfit to teach... teachers are, mostly, more mature than the children they teach... think of immature teachers you may have or know... how many of them would chose to carry a concealed weapon? and note the word CONCEALED... its not like they would leave them on their desk for anybody to grab...

But wouldn't it be odd to have to go that far? Children at that age shouldn't have to feel like they're school could be subject to mass murder at any moment. That's a psychological fuck up, and it is something that children REALLY should not become emotionally numbed to. Same thing goes for stun guns and rubber bullets......how can you think that's ok regardless of it's concealment?

Quote from Pugnae Draco

and yet you assume that you are at no fault and it is me that is ignorant? that seems pretty ignorant...

I didn't mean to say you're ignorant in general, just in the capacity required to say something as incorrect as "a higher population means a higher crime rate". That wasn't an assumption either, I explained in detail why it's incorrect about three or four times now.

Instead of saying "oh, my mistake" or something, you've been trying to distract from your error by bringing up irrelevant points or, as you're doing now, turning insults around onto me without explaining them.

Quote from Pugnae Draco

teachers are, mostly, more mature than the children they teach... think of immature teachers you may have or know... how many of them would chose to carry a concealed weapon?

We don't trust people to act as security guards on the basis of maturity, especially if the cutoff is "more mature than the average schoolchild".

Quote from Pugnae Draco

and note the word CONCEALED... its not like they would leave them on their desk for anybody to grab...

It's weird how you talk about this situation as if we live in a perfect world, but when we're discussing gun control you're the first to discredit it with unlikely side-effects and potential unintended consequences. I guess you didn't hear about the Michigan school security officer who forgot his gun in the school bathroom a few days after being hired?

if a teacher had a gun,it will be a big mess but from the other side the students these days are dangerous and teacher have the right to protect themselfs.
i see if they put a police agent in every class will be better cause if the teacher has a fight with a student the agent will be non sided, and he will stop it

I'm seeing a lot of concern in this thread for teachers getting into arguments with students which they may choose to settle by killing the child. I know I went to a relatively good school, but I refuse to believe that even in the shittiest inner-city school teachers might be tempted to resort to murder.

I don't think arming teachers could ever be a good idea. On the other hand, I don't think there's an easy solution to the entire problem. Armed guards...armed janitors (what the actual fuck?), no guarantee they could do enough or anything at all to prevent something from happening (2 officers at Columbine didn't respond fast enough)

I do however think that the proposals to gun control in general are ludicrous. Banning "military style 'assault weapons'" is the most bullshit thing I've ever heard of and won't do a thing to stop gun violence. What infuriates me more is that people on either side of the debate use video games and media as a scapegoat to the cause of violence. There simply is no end to their ignorance when it comes to those kinds of statements.