Radical Islamic terror strikes Utah High School

a reply to: Xcalibur254


That is the point, I believe. Despite this would-be bomber's incompetence/inexperience, not everybody is like him. How many of these would-be attackers have parents that work at construction sites/coal mines/industrial/etc? Plenty of explosives there.

How many of these kids have ever gone target shooting or seen a simple YouTube video? Binary explosives are legal and easy to acquire (although I'm unsure how dangerous they'd be as an IED, my guess is moderately)

How about Gasoline? Incendiaries?

Wasn't Oklahama City just a bunch of fertilizer?

Hydrogen peroxide? (listed by the ATF as a potential bomb-making chemical) Salt peter? (also listed as potential bomb-making chemical) How about Sodium? Or house hold cleaners?

And that is just explosives.

Now lets look at the type of BS Europe/Australia has to deal with: Machetes, knives, vehicle attacks, fire attacks, chemicals, blunt objects, mob violence/riots, etc. I just read an article today from France where a man was scalped. I mean come on. Europe and major US cities are the poster-children against gun control. Like all forms of socialist nonsense, it is a thoroughly discredited yet oft-pushed nightmare that continues to fester up to the surface every couple decades.

I personally see no reason to permit the far-left to set us back to the caveman days of clubs & stones for defense, when we have access (and many of us already own) high quality modern weaponry.

These weapons are the only tools that can effectively challenge deadly attackers. That is the best and only rationale I need to justify my ownership of multiple types of these weapons.

a reply to: neo96

How many kids start hunting or shooting at a young age?

How many kids start manufacturing and detonating IEDs at a young age?

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan


He implies that arguing about gun control is missing the actual picture:

In which case I agree.

why are kids hell bent on killing each other at school?

Damn good question. Kids are screwed up to start with. Excess hormones. Peer pressure and the such. Hell I wouldn't want to go back to That time. Why do some crack? That's the $100,000 question.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

How many kids start manufacturing and detonating IEDs at a young age?

A snip load.

You should check out YouTube some time.

They archive it.

originally posted by: Stevenjames15
a reply to: JBurns

Good post Ruskie! This is fake news. Propaganda provided by Mother Russia herself. Whats the weather like over there?

What was that?

The thing is...im finding search results back in 2015 as well. Was there a prior incident?

a reply to: Krakatoa

There are definitely bad parents out there, but when the discussion turns to more closely monitoring and regulating parental behavior, I hear “mah freedom to raise mah kid any way ah want!” It’s a difficult subject to tackle, no doubt.

a reply to: Krakatoa

So many people have short-sighted goals. They advocate treating the symptom while the underlying disease goes merrily along.

And relinquishing their freedoms while doing so.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Krakatoa

So many people have short-sighted goals. They advocate treating the symptom while the underlying disease goes merrily along.

And relinquishing their freedoms while doing so.

And advocating for us to relinquish ours along the way.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: neo96

How many kids start hunting or shooting at a young age?

I started before puberty.

How many kids start manufacturing and detonating IEDs at a young age?

Again I did. Mailboxes in the area weren't safe. Ah the good ole days. That was for chuckles though. Not to hurt anyone.

a reply to: Xcalibur254


My girls started hunting around 10 years old. Same age I purchased their first .22 LR rifles for them. The same rifles they were allowed to keep in their rooms once they demonstrated solid gun safety and personal responsbility.
(of course they weren't allowed to keep the ammo too, but that isn't the point. Ammo was and is far easier to acquire than an actual firearm. The fact they DIDN'T go behind my back and get ammo is a whole other level of trust)

a reply to: JBurns

Sadly, once again, the teachers and students were entirely at the mercy of this terrorist. Thank GOD he was incompetent. Otherwise, the teachers/students would've ONCE AGAIN had to sit there at the mercy of a deranged killer.

As opposed to what? I think you're trying to get too much mileage out of this story. Are you saying that an armed teacher would have stopped a bomb? I haven't read the story but assuming that everything is on the up and up, I don't see where a gun would have stopped anything that occurred.

But if we're going to be playing the what if game, imagine it had been an overheating cell phone and the teacher had a gun and shot the student thinking it was a bomb?

I'm all for people owning guns but arming teachers is a really bad, poorly thought out idea. There are over three and a half million teachers in the country. Imagine we went with a lower number proposed by Trump and armed 10%. That's 360k teachers with 360k guns. Think this through. Through sheer stupidity, carelessness, accidents and errors in judgement (and hell, malicious intent) — how many kids do you think would end up being shot by teachers?

It's good to look for solutions that aren't worse than the problem.

a reply to: intrepid


Yeah, the good old days of M 80's Ha ha

Before it was a federal offense to destroy or tamper with a mail box (at least if it was, it was never enforced then)

I seem to recall a practice of kids taking baseball bats to mail boxes too. I bet that practice ended once armored/anchored boxes become more common It took a few broken arms/hands/car windows before they finally learned

School shootings and mass causality terrorist attacks would also experience the same deterrent effect. With armed teachers/armed citizens (outside of schools), a criminal/terrorist never knows who is armed. They don't know who they have to keep an eye out for, and they never know if their intended victim(s) will be the one that facilitates their personal meeting with god. After a couple dozen moron criminals or deranged terrorists were stopped, the rest would quickly follow suit (or change tactics) because confrontation is what these cowards fear most.

They say a life is lost every 17 seconds in a mass shooting on average. Every 17 second of inaction is another addition to the death toll. Every 17 seconds a murderous psychopath goes unchallenge is another family that will have to experience the kind of loss and pain that no person should ever experience. And for what? All so some liberals can feel good about "hurting the RepubliCONs/NRA" ? At what cost? Their souls (that's a given)?

Gun control solves nothing. It simply ensures the intended victims will be unarmed whilst the psycho dead-set on claiming innocent lives will carry out their evil act regardless of the law.

And I point out, with 400,000,000 firearms in this country, any solution that requires even 10% of those to be eliminated is unfeasible and enters the realm of wishful thinking/dreaming not fact based solution.

a reply to: theantediluvian

I'm all for people owning guns but arming teachers is a really bad, poorly thought out idea.

Don't tell that to Floridians.

Cause they just passed that as a part of their shotgun approach that still won't hit the broad side of a barn.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: theantediluvian

I'm all for people owning guns but arming teachers is a really bad, poorly thought out idea.

Don't tell that to Floridians.

Cause they just passed that as a part of their shotgun approach that still won't hit the broad side of a barn.

Or a growing number of schools in Texas (where there has never been one of these mass shootings).

a reply to: Krakatoa

As much as I hate to admit this....

Charles Whitman

Still, I would rather teachers be given the option to carry so they can protect themselves and others.

a reply to: theantediluvian


ante, you are right that all teachers shouldn't be trusted in such a way (although I still trust them more than an armed attacker)

I think the Sheriff in Florida who is combining background checks/hand selected candidates/intensive training and deputizing said individuals is the answer. Obviously teachers/staff who are also "special deputies" or "reserve deputies" should and must be given compensation for the risk, increased training and increased responsibility.

And as usual, NO ONE would ever be forced to carry a firearm/weapon against their will. That is simply antithetical to the intent of the Second Amendment and the nature of a free country. But denying those who do wish to carry (and go through the training/sworn reserve programs) is also wrong

Not sure why all the debate on the "Why".

Islamic fundamentalism, or are we going with "Schoolplace violence" instead?

a reply to: JBurns

He was just making a clock.

You racist!

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan


I know you knew this...but figure if you are gonna ask a silly question, ill go ahead and answer it.

So more gun control would have affected this incident? Less gun control? I find the extrapolation to this silly.

Well of course you do.. It does not fit your agenda that guns are the reason for all bad things.

a reply to: theantediluvian

I don't think arming teachers is necessarily the right way to go, but I am amused that teachers can be trusted with our children's education but not with a firearm.