Why do you think he didn't want to attend school?
Why do you think he didn't want to attend school?
I just realized I've been posting here way too long. The first time I saw you mentioning him he was 10.
I find this to a curious assumption. I think it would depend on the president, the current social climate and the reason. And even then I would expect some gun owners to resist. A healthy percentage, if not a majority, in fact.
Welcome back!
Higher capacity magazines don't have to be changed as often, so yes, having 30 round clips is a much more efficient deterrent.
We had a magazine size ban on new purchases from Bill Clinton but it expired. I bought 2 25 round clips for a .22LR that were current inventory and still legally available to buy. They connect together and I have 50 rounds quickly available. Of course, a .22LR is more of a recreational gun than anything, and not a very good gun to hold off mobs, but it demonstrates the point. I could have 6 clips holding 150 bullets instead of 15 clips holding 150 bullets and requiring 2.5x the amount of clip changing.
I do think new sales of AR-15's and the sort will be outlawed eventually. But, as others have pointed out, a handgun is probably more efficient in a school shooting than an "assault rifle", so nothing would change. IMO we need to spend the $9 or $10 billion or whatever to put a police officer in every school (90,000 schools x $100,000 total per officer, plus gear and a squad car). That would be a great place to start.
I don't know any gun owner in real life, so I could be wrong. Describe a scenario where the majority of gun owners you know would not support martial law. Who's the President, what's the current social climate, what's the pretext?
In what situation? A good deterrent in one situation can be completely ineffective in another. So, I am curious which situations you are preparing for, where 30 is much more effective than 10.
franklin said:
Well, some schools will need multiple officers (my kids high school has two physically distinct campuses).
More importantly, this latest shooting took place over 6 minutes. How many lives could a police presence have realistically saved?
Most scenarios tbh.
Martial law would entail the severe restriction of freedoms and privileges. It could be due to mass attacks, gun confiscation, a plague...many gun owners have a self reliant streak a mile long and would resent the curfews imposed. Some would fight back. See the increasing number of militias.
Keep in mind that gun owners do not exist in a vacuum. They are subject to the social perceptions and opinions of their local communities.
For example in the mountain west there is a decided pro LEO but anti gov. streak. (See The Bundys and the Idaho militias)
Where as in many poor inner cities communities there is a healthy anti LEO presence.
Gun owners come from across most of the ideological spectrum and as such they will be divided along the spectrum depending on the issue.
Now, let's say the martial law was imposed due to the invasion of a foreign country. Then I assume that most gun owners would be in support to various degrees.
I'm not preparing for anything. I simply stated a very obvious fact.
You know there is no answer to that question. He could be in the right place at the right time or not. But you don't think the presence of an officer alone would be a good deterrent? What about having multiple officers or even volunteers that have to pass a background check and psych evaluation?
do sth America. sick of this **** happening over and over.
It will happen again and again and again.
It will happen again and again and again.
Not advocating for it but it is something I have heard.
Place up to 3 armed vets in every school.