NRA

Adjust content blocking

User has deleted their account.

next random Comment

Properly used tags

Tags: batman | Guns | nra

We that stuns ,t.
3 Hall any Will] 3 Elli! Is 3
HIE like
PHASE

...

+813

Views: 29964 Submitted: 12/22/2012

Hide Comments

Add Comment Refresh (146)

First 2 3 4 Last Next

[ 146 comments ]

Top Rated Controversial Best Lowest Rated Newest

Live Updates: On

Options

asd

#4 - zarcos

Reply +51 123456789123345869

(12/22/2012) [-]

batman is a comic book character

#27 - whitcher

Reply +23 123456789123345869

(12/23/2012) [-]

They say guns don't kill people.

They then continue do say video games do. And the chromosomes sprinkled on the retard cake is that their examples include Mortal Kombat.

#49 to #27 - titfrowig

0 123456789123345869

has deleted their comment [-]

#105 to #27 - CrazyPsycho

Reply +1 123456789123345869

(12/23/2012) [-]

And don't forget in(famous) games like halo and call of duty. i've heard plenty of ramble about those ones too

#116 to #27 - baditch

Reply +1 123456789123345869

(12/23/2012) [-]

Actually, the first thing i did after playing Mortal Kombat was find someone on the street and reproduce the kung-fu moves perfectly, after which I shot fire from my hands and disemboweled my victim with my mind. If it weren't for video games, I wouldn't have been such a violent boy growing up.

#102 - whatugawkinat

Reply +15 123456789123345869

(12/23/2012) [-]

Why don't we just BAN criminals...

#45 - tomainstream

Reply +14 123456789123345869

(12/23/2012) [-]

What about his parents? Just sayin...

#1 - mdawgsome **User deleted account**

+11 123456789123345869

has deleted their comment [-]

#7 to #1 - xmegustax

Reply +5 123456789123345869

(12/22/2012) [-]

maybe if you ever stopped masturbating and did something you would be more memorable

#71 - Yojimbo

Reply +10 123456789123345869

(12/23/2012) [-]

Guns killed Batman's parents, but that caused him to be Batman. Batman reduced crime in Gotham significantly. Guns=Batmans=Less Crime

NRA: 1
Commie Conservative Yellow-bellied Gun Snatchers: 0
Spiderman: 0

I'm not being serious btw

#129 to #71 - anon id: 45828c0e

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(12/23/2012) [-]

All my internetz are belong to you

#22 - whothefkisanon

Reply +3 123456789123345869

(12/23/2012) [-]

What about preventing bad guys from getting guns?
>Logic

#23 to #22 - EpicXInfected

Reply -3 123456789123345869

(12/23/2012) [-]

That always works.

#24 to #23 - whothefkisanon

Reply +1 123456789123345869

(12/23/2012) [-]

Works better than giving out more guns and raising the amount of crazy or stupid people with weapons they can't handle.

#25 to #24 - EpicXInfected

Reply -3 123456789123345869

(12/23/2012) [-]

Giving out guns, yes, that is how it's done. True facts, brought to you daily by this faggot.

#26 to #25 - whothefkisanon

Reply +2 123456789123345869

(12/23/2012) [-]

I'm sorry you couldn't find of a way to disprove my argument and had to attack my English.

#33 to #22 - heartlessrobot

Reply -2 123456789123345869

(12/23/2012) [-]

That's great, how about you stop fire from being hot and the sun from giving people skin cancer? The bad guys will always have guns, legal or not. Anti-gun laws only keep the good guys from having them.

#41 to #33 - whothefkisanon

Reply +9 123456789123345869

(12/23/2012) [-]

If you'd care enough to google, you'd see that countries on the same or above the level of the United States (Europe) with a gun ban or stricter control have less gun crimes and homicides.
Yes, the United States have more inhabitants and comparing numbers is useless. But look at the crimes/number of population rate and you see that the United States is one of the highest ranked countries, being the first out of the most developed countries (triades).
Almost all of the European countries have a rate of at least 6 times lower than the US.
Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence (Wikipedia: Gun Violence, in case the link gets blocked).

#95 to #41 - friendlyanonymous

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(12/23/2012) [-]

Well, in the U.S, the areas where guns are allowed do have a lower gun-violence rate than the U.K
The places where the U.S does not allow guns, yeah. A lot higher than the U.K.

#144 to #95 - awesomenessdefined

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(12/24/2012) [-]

Where'd you get those statistics?

#44 to #41 - TheMacDaddy

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(12/23/2012) [-]

Yes, Europe does have less gun crime. However, The United States of America has an overall lower crime rate. Great Britten, for example, has a higher rape, assault, and drug offence per capita then the US. so making the US overall a safer country the GB.

http://www.nationmaster com/compare/United-Kingdom/United-States/Crime

#50 to #44 - aciar

Reply +3 123456789123345869

(12/23/2012) [-]

To be fair. It's Scotland's fault for the assaults.

#46 to #44 - whothefkisanon

Reply +2 123456789123345869

(12/23/2012) [-]

I see your point, but that doesn't have directly to do with guns imo.
Assault includes pickpocketing, mugging and robbery, which doesn't mean that the victim gets physically harmed, most of the time only threatened.
Drug offense: the more drugs are legal, the less drug offenses (marijuana, etc).
I agree with you that in that sense the UK is more dangerous than the overall USA, but the UK is only a small island (in Europe) compared to the US, where some states that are bigger than the UK have higher crime rates.

#42 to #41 - anon id: bc6d1c38

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(12/23/2012) [-]

Breivik.

#36 to #33 - captaincabinet **User deleted account**

+6 123456789123345869

has deleted their comment [-]

#37 to #36 - heartlessrobot

Reply -7 123456789123345869

(12/23/2012) [-]

Well, that's great, but we're the only country that can effectively stand up against their government should we need to. America was founded by civilians with guns, and it's going to be run by them.

#47 to #37 - pickledpee

Reply +3 123456789123345869

(12/23/2012) [-]

So you're saying the government, the American government, is going to rise against the people. Despite the fact that its leaders are elected by the people, and can be taken out of office, by the people.

It can't get half your people to agree anyway, so maybe them taking some control for once would be a good thing.

#81 to #37 - angelusprimus

Reply +1 123456789123345869

(12/23/2012) [-]

Ok.
If you need to fight off your governement its going to go one of the two ways.
1: Military is with you. In that case civilians with guns are getting in the way, shooting people who actually are trained in military procedures and tactical combat and generally ask a trained soldier what he thinks of "militia" and be prepared for the curses.
2: military is against the people. In that case america is full blown fashist dictatorship, and you are ******. Because you are waving your semi autmoatic, and you get a rocket up your ass from a drone you never even see.
Civilians who can fight off government size of USA... that was over by time of ww2.

#84 to #81 - heartlessrobot

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(12/23/2012) [-]

Civilians are everywhere, they can't fight on that many fronts. If they could fight people that looked like civilians, why haven't we ended our wars in the middle east? They have ****** automatic weapons, while we have decent to higher grade semi-automatic. They would not fire a predator missile into groups of their own people, as there would be without a doubt non-hostiles there as well.

#136 to #84 - whothefkisanon

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(12/23/2012) [-]

I think you don't get the concept of democracy and government. Those people should be on your side, and not against you, which would be the opposite of their purpose. So unless you can give me concrete people who you would fight against in a "war against the government" your argument is invalid because you would basically fight against yourself...

#43 to #37 - whothefkisanon

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(12/23/2012) [-]

I find this attitude really sad and disappointing (generally speaking).
You do realize that the point of democracy is that everybody has the chance to express his opinion and have an influence on the country's decisions? It is a bit hard to take it serious sometimes when your vote only counts for 1/30 000 000, but you're never alone with an opinion and if so, it might be a good idea that your vote counts for that little.
So, who's the government? People that represent your opinion, so the government is, or should, be indirectly you, i.e all the citizens.
So, why would you attack the government, or be attacked by it? Is it a legitimate government if you have to think so far?

BTW: you can oppose and win a political issue without violence. If, which is very unlikely, a civilian war breaks out in the USA, it's probably going to end very, very bloody if guns are involved. Look at Syria, whichever site wins the war, the other side is going to be executed (possibly even literally). Do you really want to think of America in the same way?

#57 to #43 - heartlessrobot

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(12/23/2012) [-]

Actually, due to the electoral college, the people's votes literally count for nothing.

#40 to #37 - captaincabinet **User deleted account**

-2 123456789123345869

has deleted their comment [-]

#58 to #33 - giblets

Reply +4 123456789123345869

(12/23/2012) [-]

Yeah, I live in England and I can't tell you the amount of times that I see guns about /sarcasm

Honestly you have to pay £1000 < here to be able to get a ****** pistol (I don't know the exact price but I've heard that figure somewhere).

#82 to #58 - pyroniclol

Reply -1 123456789123345869

(12/23/2012) [-]

You can't compare the England or any other country to the situation in the US. You're gun restrictions have been longstanding and have resulted in a fewer number of guns from the beginning. The guns are already here, and many of the criminals already have them. Banning them now isn't gonna make all those guns magically disappear. The gangbangers and robbers and what not aren't gonna turn their gun back in.

#86 to #82 - giblets

Reply +2 123456789123345869

(12/23/2012) [-]

Gun control legislation in the UK was first introduced in 1907 as a piece of legislation meant that if you didn't have a license you couldn't have a pistol/gun.
Of course people didn't hand in guns like that, however, over time the guns they have will break/be lost/be stolen or whatever. Then they won't be able to get another gun as easily as they did that one.

At the end of the day Gun Control won't effect this generation, it might not really effect the next 5 generations, but eventually it's effects kick in and it creates a more peaceful future.

#92 to #86 - reconred

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(12/23/2012) [-]

Either way, guns are apart of our society and there are as many guns in this country as people, they can not be banned here, and they never will be. So instead of banning firearms and leaving innocent people defenseless, how about we start diagnosing the sick, depressed and psychotic BEFORE they snap and decide to hurt somebody, because remember; it didn't start with the gun, it started with the parenting and their mind as a whole, so don't leave me defenseless because of this.

#134 to #92 - giblets

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(12/23/2012) [-]

Well yeah, gun control would entail that, as you would have to pass a test to get a licence

#138 to #134 - reconred

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(12/23/2012) [-]

No, no licenses. Just help the people that are sick. My constitution never said "You have the right to bear arms with a license." and it never said "You have the right to own a handgun with less that 10 rounds." either. Just let me own a handgun to defend myself like my constitution says.

#139 to #138 - giblets

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(12/23/2012) [-]

The constitution is largely outdated.

#147 to #139 - reconred

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(12/24/2012) [-]

Elaborate.

#148 to #147 - giblets

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(12/24/2012) [-]

Many issues in the constitution were to do with America in the 17th century, and as such, society has evolved, many peoples views on matters have changed and developed and so that means that large parts of the constitution have become dated. Granted a lot of them were written vaguely to contract this problem, some don't.

For example the right to bear arms was to do with having a milita to fight against the British forces, which doesn't need to happen in this day and age.

#149 to #148 - reconred

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(12/24/2012) [-]

Incorrect, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It's has nothing to do with the British, should we be oppressed by anyone we have the right to defend ourselves. It also clearly states that "the right of the people (Me) to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed (By anyone)." It doesn't say that I only have the right to bear arms in a militia, it also doesn't say "in time of war."

Firearms are still apart of this society and until we develop psychological weapons that are fast and easy to use, they will be. And so as a American I have the right to keep and own firearms, for it is my right.

#150 to #149 - giblets

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(12/24/2012) [-]

Forgive me if some of my wordings are wrong, I've only read the constitution once (still more than most US politicians).

I put it to you that a 'well regulated milita' is no longer necessary to the security of a state in modern times where there is a national guard that can be deployed very quickly?

#151 to #150 - reconred

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(12/24/2012) [-]

We would generally not need a well regulated militia however, there are plenty of militia's in America as we speak, such as, The Oath Keepers a militia of U.S. Military veterans that have sworn to up hold the Constitution of the united states of America, NOT the president of the US.

And as we are constantly becoming oppressed by our current government, IMO, I believe we are heading for a new civil, and revolutionary war. Which is why we have the right to bear arms, to keep us free from a tyrannical government. In every case of an oppressor, the first thing they did was remove the peoples ability to defend themselves, as Adolf Hitler and Stalin have done. Removing somebody's right to defend themselves only spells trouble.

#152 to #151 - giblets

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(12/24/2012) [-]

The current government is an ever changing entity, and as such wouldn't(/shouldn't) be able to mobilise such a movement as to cause a coup d'etat, or a civil war. The fact is you have the power to vote in who you want.

I believe that as the Human race is evolving we have much less need for weapons and fighting, and wars are becoming less justifiable in a time where diplomacy is becoming the real area of battle.

#153 to #152 - reconred

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(12/25/2012) [-]

I don't think we have anything else to talk about, later giblets.

#154 to #153 - giblets

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(12/25/2012) [-]

Have a good Christmas mate

#59 to #58 - heartlessrobot

Reply -3 123456789123345869

(12/23/2012) [-]

Well, congratulations, you found something that works. Until it doesn't and the wrong guy gets his hand on a good weapon, then he get's free reign until a special unit shows up, then they might be able to stop him.

#61 to #59 - giblets

Reply +2 123456789123345869

(12/23/2012) [-]

I'd much rather one in 100 million people kill more, than one in a million killing less.
Anyway there are tactics used to stop people with guns, and make them cause less damage until backup turns up with weapons.

#65 to #61 - heartlessrobot

Reply -2 123456789123345869

(12/23/2012) [-]

Yes, those tactics would work, unless they shoot you in the face. I would much rather be able to defend myself against a greater threat than be defenseless against a lesser threat.

#66 to #65 - giblets

Reply +2 123456789123345869

(12/23/2012) [-]

So what you're saying is you'd rather have a gun to protect yourself against muggings and that, which in turn allows someone to have a gun to mug you with?

And also causes more murders too

#69 to #66 - heartlessrobot

Reply -3 123456789123345869

(12/23/2012) [-]

Yes, and if I have a gun and someone mugs me, I can either shoot them or give them my money and shoot them as they go to leave. And people are less likely to mug you if there's the possibility that you have a gun as well. Unless they're stupid, then you can shoot them as they walk/run away.

#72 to #69 - giblets

Reply +2 123456789123345869

(12/23/2012) [-]

You could say the same with a knife, which are easier to protect against, more concealable, and don't allow for people to hit several targets in seconds

#74 to #72 - heartlessrobot

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(12/23/2012) [-]

Depends on how close they are together. Also, a man in China attacked 22 people with a knife.

#76 to #74 - giblets

Reply +3 123456789123345869

(12/23/2012) [-]

One occasion doesn't equal a regular occurance.

It's a cultural thing really, America has (right wing) media brainwashing them, and the NRA.
Where as British media brainwashes us into thinking guns are terrible, especially as we only ever hear about when someone goes on a killing spree with them or something.

Anyway, it's 3am and I'm tired so I'm going to bed, someone thumbed you down so I bumped you back up because I enjoyed our little debate. Happy browsing my friend.

#98 to #76 - anon id: 0582a9b5

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(12/23/2012) [-]

i work at a gun store in Texas, we had around 1500 guns in stock as of 2 days ago, but due to the NRA talks and other stuff in Washington, we have been slammed so bad that we only have 52 guns left at last count.... its ridiculous

#51 to #22 - BerwindTwentyFour

Reply +2 123456789123345869

(12/23/2012) [-]

If a person is crazy enough to want to go through with it they will get the guns no matter what. they always find a way. It's virtually pointless to ban guns for everyone.

#99 to #51 - magneticmonopole

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(12/23/2012) [-]

Except for the fact that just about every country that has put tighter controls on guns has lowered gun related crime. It's about restricting the ease of access, hard line criminals will get guns. But we arn't talking about those kinds of people, we're talking about 20-something year olds with no criminal history or connections, no history of mental illness who have a short mental break down lose control grab the nearest weapon to them and go nuts, realise what they have done and shoot themselves.

We are talking about reducing gun crime, nothing will stop it, but you can reduce it, and i think even if it saved one life a year it would be worth giving up a gun i never use and have never needed.

#118 to #99 - BerwindTwentyFour

Reply +1 123456789123345869

(12/23/2012) [-]

Well, the American second amendment was put in because the Colonists needed guns in order to defend themselves against the British, to overthrow the government if they violate the constitution and amendments, and for recreational use.
And the main reasons why they won't get rid of it, is because guns have saved innocent lives, self-defense, recreational use, and amendments of the bill of rights are hard to question.
I do not own a gun, I do not hunt, I do not plan to ever own a gun. But I think the second amendment should keep it's place.
Though I DO think they should be doing thorough background checks and mental stability checks on those who wish to purchase guns or parts of guns, and magical a.dminister them to those who are not criminals, sane, and not emotionally damaged.

All in all, I agree that certain people shouldn't have access to guns. But it should be made harder, not illegal, to actually get them.
But don't let a few bad eggs ruin it for the rest of them.

#135 to #118 - magneticmonopole

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(12/23/2012) [-]

I'm not talking about banning guns either, just introducing tougher laws on who should have a gun and why they actually need it. If you shoot for sport, hunt, live on a farm then sure you need a gun. But if you are none of these... why do you need one?

#141 to #135 - BerwindTwentyFour

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(12/23/2012) [-]

*late comment* fell asleep earlier than usual last night

Other than self defense I wouldn't know.

#52 - tyroneisanigger

Reply +8 123456789123345869

(12/23/2012) [-]

The NRA is now calling for armed officers in schools now, I kind of think that's a fairly good idea.

#56 to #52 - EvilSquiggly

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(12/23/2012) [-]

I have a few armed officers in my school. Makes me feel safe.

C:

#60 to #52 - augustusxxiv

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(12/23/2012) [-]

As a Sandy Hook parent said, he doesn't want OK Corral gunfights to occur in schools.

#70 to #60 - misledzach

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(12/23/2012) [-]

So they only want the criminal with a gun shooting in a school. Sounds like great logic.

#67 to #60 - Keleth

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(12/23/2012) [-]

criminals will VERY rarely do **** if someone else as a gun. criminals are pussies and only go after the weak.

#77 to #67 - angelusprimus

Reply +3 123456789123345869

(12/23/2012) [-]

Yeaj. Except people who do school shootings are not criminals.
they are mentally disturbed people. Or some sort of fanatic. You think someone like Anders Breivik would slow down because there are armed people?
On a small scale that seems like a good solution. Except it creates as many problems as it solves.
Distubed kid taking a gun from a distracted guard (and if you think all guards would always be full of atention I have a nice plot in Narnia you could buy) and shooting up people who drive him crazy becomes a possibility.
Then there are possible shootouts, and since, large and large, those people would not be professional SWAT level people who know how to act in crowded shooting situations body count will generally go up.
Every bank in USA has armed guards. And there are between 6000 and 7000 bank robberies a year. Thats aruond 16 a DAY.
You really think a determined shooter would be slowed down by Bob the Guard with his gun?

This is a complex question that can only be solved by combination of education, regulation and better mental health care.
NRA's "solution" of more guns would just make things worse in long run.

#131 to #77 - Keleth

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(12/23/2012) [-]

there should never be "shootouts" if you can't hit your target on the first shot, and have NO collateral damage, you should not own a weapon and your an idiot. you don't ******* spray and pray from the hip. i can hit bulleye 6/6 times with my revolver at around 20 yards out. granted i need a second or two to line that shot up, but as long as he isn't pointing his gun at me, im going for it.

#132 to #131 - angelusprimus

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(12/23/2012) [-]

That's nice. I can also hit a target very well in the shooting gallery.
I have time to aim, relax , hold gun properly with both hands and firmly squeeze the trigger.
Though, I also have advantage of not being shot at, target not moving, not being surrounded by screaming children who are also running around, I am not riding an adrenaline high and I have expected to be shooting.
I'm going to go on a limb and guess you never were in actually dangerous situation, and are not aware just how different they are from ideal conditions under which you shoot and hit at 20 yards.

#142 to #132 - Keleth

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(12/23/2012) [-]

k. ill just sit back and watch kids get shot...thats so much better right?

#143 to #142 - angelusprimus

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(12/24/2012) [-]

No, you should help with getting real solutions instead of supporting half solutions that will not help.
Armed men in schools will be as effective as armed men in banks. (repeating 18 robbed every day)
Instead limited access to assault weapons (damnit even Ronald Reagan supported THAT), better education about weapons and better help for mentally disturbed people, acctually WILL make a difference.
People love simple solutions. And armed people in schools seem like a good simple solution. its simple, but its not good.

#145 to #143 - Keleth

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(12/24/2012) [-]

limit access to assault rifles? VERY few shootings use an assault rifle. There will never be a solution to violence. new tools will always come out, and evil people will always get their hands on them. if murder is in your heart, nothing will stop you.

People will always rob banks. people will always want money. guns will ALWAYS exist. criminals will ALWAYS have guns. Im happy with how the laws are. the guy who shot up the school only got a gun because he KILLED HIS MOTHER AND STOLE IT. gun laws stopped him from purchasing one.but he wanted to kill. and thats all that matters. he would have done anything to get his hand on a gun.

#146 to #145 - angelusprimus

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(12/24/2012) [-]

Limited access to higher grade weapons means limiting number of victims.

People say that he could have done this with a knife. No, he could have attacked the school with a knife, but he couldn't have killed 30 people.

You take assault weapons of the easy access shelves and make sure anyone who wants to buy them has to go through security and mental check, and you LOWER the chance that next maniac will have one. Eliminate it? No. Lower it? Yes.

Weapons don't kill people, but they do make it easy. So we don't have to make it easy on mentally disturbed homocidal people to get one.

If I want to buy, lets say, AK-47 now that they are not being made anymore and I want it for my collection, I'll gladly let them check my history and mental status. I have nothing to hide and nothing to fear. And in the end, I'll have AK-47.

If it was like that, would he have gotten weapons? Maybe, maybe his mom would not want to bother with security and would have gotten herself only bolt action weapons with small clips and number of victims would have been smaller. Maybe she would and it would have been same.

Sane responsible citizens have every right to own weapons. But we don't have to make it EASY on criminals and mentally disturbed people.

#111 to #77 - captnpl

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(12/23/2012) [-]

Most of the school shooters shot themselves immediately after being confronted by an armed policeman.

#73 to #67 - Katzie

Reply -2 123456789123345869

(12/23/2012) [-]

Criminals will very rarely do **** if nobody has a gun. Almost nobody wants to hurt a kid, so it's unlikely anyone will get shot if there's no reason for the criminal to start shooting.

#78 to #52 - sketchE

Reply +1 123456789123345869

(12/23/2012) [-]

already the case in alaska we have 2 stationed at every school in the ASD hear of any school shootings in alaska?

#85 to #78 - abcdoremi **User deleted account**

+1 123456789123345869

has deleted their comment [-]

#87 to #85 - sketchE

Reply -1 123456789123345869

(12/23/2012) [-]

to an extent yeah but we do have a ton of assholes. we just keep the worst people in mountain view. also a little proof that an armed society is a polite society. you dont need a concealed carry permit up here

#88 to #87 - abcdoremi **User deleted account**

0 123456789123345869

has deleted their comment [-]

#89 to #88 - sketchE

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(12/23/2012) [-]

yeah we do have some people that are too proud of it though. a lot of people come into my store and just go on about it

#90 to #89 - abcdoremi **User deleted account**

0 123456789123345869

has deleted their comment [-]

#91 to #90 - sketchE

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(12/23/2012) [-]

yep

#112 to #52 - baditch

Reply +1 123456789123345869

(12/23/2012) [-]

I just don't think that's good for the atmosphere. My school (public school) is pretty laid back, and we have maybe one fight a year. There are few cameras and no metal detectors or anything. My friend's school on the other hand has metal detectors, cameras, bag checks, and a bunch of other security measures. Practically everyone in that school is an asshole. I think that if students can feel more comfortable in their school, it creates an infinitely better environment, and there is much less chance of an incident. I feel like installing armed security guards in school is a bad idea just because we are encouraging violence as a society just by acknowledging it. This is just my opinion. Feel free to thumb me down if i'm wrong and i'll shut up.

#96 to #52 - magneticmonopole

Reply +3 123456789123345869

(12/23/2012) [-]

Do you honestly want to live in a society where you NEED guards at schools. Think about that will you.

#128 to #52 - nightstar

Reply +3 123456789123345869

(12/23/2012) [-]

The NRA is a lobby.

They want to put armed guard in schools.

They, or members they have, would be paid to train the guards.
They, or members they have, would get paid to supply the guns.

The NRA is looking out for itself. as everyone does.

#55 to #52 - mynameisnightwolf

Reply +6 123456789123345869

(12/23/2012) [-]