Let's see... "immediately fire back... at much less costs than guards..."
1. "counter puncher" i.e. "eye for an eye" i.e. "get even"...
AND
2. "save money!"
What's not to like???
....immediately fire back if a savage sicko came to a school with bad intentions. Highly trained teachers would also serve as a deterrent to the cowards that do this. Far more assets at much less cost than guards. A “gun free” school is a magnet for bad people. ATTACKS WOULD END!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 22, 2018
11 comments:
I'm going to start a company that makes body armor and concealed holsters for children.
Good because backpacks are already taken:
http://www.homeselfdefenseproducts.com/pink-bulletproof-backpack
Paybacks are hell...
Well don't the new silencers -- less recoil, noise -- make it easier now for kids to handle guns?
Why not lower the age requirement to buy guns from the current 18 yrs old to 13-14, the age when the kids enter high school?
Save manpower, too! What's not to like? ;)
Don’t give em any ideas...
Sure would expand gun sales and start 'em young.
Disclosure: I got my first gun (single shot .22 rifle) at age ten (birthday) and by my teenage years had amassed a gun collection including rifles, pistols and shotguns. I was an NRA member and achieved the rank of expert marksman. I fitted my .22 single shot with a peep sight.
It was a good experience overall.
But making unsupervised firearms available to all at this age might not be such great idea from my experience. A few just can't handle responsibility, even with training. There are always some wildcards in the human deck.
Oh, and at age 8 IIRC I got a BB gun.
The one that I never understood was Chris Kyle thinking it was a good idea to take PTSD disabled veterans out shooting as some sort of therapeutic activity....
Americans have had guns since the inception of the republic but, as far as I can gather, were not offing each other in these numbers until relatively recently. Forgive me for being terribly un-PC, but the guns don't seem to be the problem, although why anyone should want a weapon that special forces commandoes use says something about the individuals and, in any case should be banned because there is no legitimate reason why anyone should want a gun designed for grunting apes like Chuck Norris and Sylvester Stallone characters. Something else seems to be at play. Some link it to the enormous amounts of highly damaging prescription drugs that are given out like sweets. There may be something in that: everybody who has gone on a rampage seems to have been on some extremely strong and mind-bending medication that has sent them bananas.
There's nothing wrong with guns. There are swathes of rural America without adequate policing - because the US has run out of money - and people need to defend themselves. If one were to investigate gun crime in police-free rural America, it's likely that the gun crime rate would be substantially lower than the average. In urban settings where psychiatrists are rife, peddling their gibberish, mind-bending medication is to be found in such gigantic quantities it's easy to mistake a psychiatrist for Pablo Escobar. There's a lot to be said for rural life - except that it's bloody horrible.
An American single payer system would be the death of mind-bending drugs. Another reason big pharma doesn't like the idea. To keep up their profit margins, kids need to be blown to bits. US psychiatrists should have a bonus scheme: for every hundred bottles of prozac consumed, you will be generously awarded an Ar-15 as a loyalty gift.
Less cost? A dead teacher costs more than a dead guard.
Actually, if you want more armed defenses of schools, drones make a lot more sense, don't they?
Post a Comment