Outcomes of Florida

Instead of picking a side of gun control and creating more heat than there needs to be, can we all just agree that there needs to be more restrictions on guns? Or if not restrictions, more armed people.

One of 3 things will come out of this spark of debate for gun control:
>The federal government will enforce armed security guards and/or teachers on all school campuses nationally.
>States slowly one by one will enforce more protection on school campuses.
And last but not least, the most likely outcome;
>Federal government will enforce harsher background checks, tell the American people they've done all they can, most will forget, and then the next 20+ death mass shooting will happen, rinse and repeat.

Other urls found in this thread:


>that there needs to be more restrictions on guns?

>Instead of picking a side of gun control
>can we all just agree that there needs to be more restrictions on guns?
>1 post by this ID

Maybe the kids that got shot deserved it? Ever think of that as an option? Huh? Mr genius

Anders did what he did in a place with firearm restrictions.

Most people can pass background checks (US has) and licensing.

You can't predict who'll go crazy.

The problem is that we don't have ethnostates. As it stands, we need looser gun laws to defend ourselves properly from non-whites like Cruz

I don't agree with more restrictions either, but it's a solution between being completely against it and completely for it, so it's valid for the point I'm trying to get across.

This is a fact:
>Guns have been here for the entire history of this country
>the mass shootings have only been a problem for the past 20 years
So obviously guns are not the issue, but the society we live in.

The FBI needs to be replaced with a better agency.

How is it that after 9-11 most other agencies were re-structured but somehow the FBI wasn't?

If there were more security guards, or at least just the principal with a fucking macarov, try to guess how many lives would be saved. I'd think there'd at least be less than 17.

>restrictions on guns
No, but you can restrict who can get them.
>muh slippery slope
Cram a federal voter ID system in with a 2 week waiting list, and I'm on board. 2 threads earlier today covered that shit nicely.
Trump will introduce it, and it'll happen.


>it's a solution between being completely against it and completely for it
sounds like a win for the anti-gunners and not the pro 2A crowd. choke on a dick, call your rep and demand that we care about our school's security half as much as we care about some old decrepit politican's security.

The solution is nothing changes on gun rules. A society so fractured is not going to get better without the tools to enact change, and massacres will still happen. Look at Europe.

Just blame creepy Joe Biden and his "gun free zones".



Makarov is a damn good gun.

Check in a history textbook, essentially every decision made by the federal government has occurred following protest or revolt. With the backlash on guns I expect the same solution with this. It's inevitable that all the govt will do is slap a band-aid on this situation, but think about this equation:
event + revolt = inevitable change

Hell yeah, but not as fast as an AR-15.

There is no gun control worry, they will not ban weapons. The militia act of 1903 puts this whole shitshow to rest. It cannot be repealed.

Florida-hoaxists get out
What would the governments purpose even be...

the left 'protest' and 'revolt' after every school shooting. Nothing ever happens

Democrats should not be allowed to own guns.

>Instead of picking a side
>*picks side*
Someone derail this thread for me please

>too stupid to grasp the situation
ok for you you dummy, they want idiots like you to get on the emotion train and ignore all gun related facts

Yes, but there's always one special shooting that somehow brings special attention to it. There was always small revolts in slavery until the Civil War, there was always small revolts until we declared our independence. Even if gun control is enacted (which it wont) it wont be as important as those, but this shit is going to blow eventually, as does every other political idea in US history

??? My point is that nonstop fighting will get us nowhere, and that we need to find a compromise.
Learn to read

learn to think! other poster is right; you are a stupid bait poster who has no concept of logic

I'm gonna take this bait, but you never answered my question.
What was the governments motive for Sandy Hook and Florida?

whoho you stupidity reached a new level, I answered it specially for you dummy

>unrelated image
>saying the Jews like to cause trouble for no reason?

I just realized that when you didn't understand it the first time, there is no point in repeating it; so simpler for you: they want to take guns away from the people and doing so by getting people emotional so they ignore all gun facts and think banning guns will solve the problem...
have you ever researched how many knife related mass killings occur? pretty sure your solution will be a knife ban....

Wait. Did you just say not to pick a side then in your very next sentence say we need to agree on more restrictions? What the fuck nigger?

can you even read or are you some bot? the image isn't jew related
but I see you don't understand what is happening; it is a tactic to sage all shill threads and post truth bombs :)

i honestly hope for your death and hate everything about you.

checked digits of truth!

No I said we could go 2 routes, and these 2 routes are the only way change will happen for the good. Even if you don't want change, everyone wants more safety officers.
more restrictions
more safety officers
What the fuck is so hard to understand about that? Did 75% of the people in this thread read 2 sentences of my OP??

good argument, way to represent your side user.

checked again! kek doesn't like OP fag

First off, every shooting post 2008 that hits major media is orchestrated with the intent of disarming the population.

Second, if you really want to stop shootngs, why don't we hire some of the thousands unemployed, trained veterans to protect our schools? Why not allow able bodied staff in our schools to concealed carry? Why is someone able to walk in with a gun in the first place and meet zero resistance?

Better yet, lets answer this question. Why did school shootings become popular only in the recent decade? Why were we not hearing of shootings in the post ww2 generation? Maybe there is actually some kind of decadence that plagues our society? Maybe "bullying" is just a giant scapegoat for the REAL problem that causes shootings?

funny how niggers get on social media after a shooting and start saying :
>white people be crazy, you don't see niggas doin this sheeit.

>hire some of the thousands unemployed, trained veterans to protect our schools

that would be a smart idea...don't know why but it seems shooters are attracted to gun free zones....no idea why *sarcasmhint (for the dummy)

I think it could help, but not every school can afford that. Also, if someone is hellbent on killing, they're gonna kill, security officer or gun ban be damned.

That's a good point, that would be great work for the unemployed veterans. The thing is, it's unrealistic. The government wont waste their time rallying up thousands of unemployed veterans, I don't think theyd even bother making it a respected position. In my state, some staff does carry conceal, but we need to make it national.
For your third point, it's because of the technology age, nobody really cares about things happening so fast if they can only protest against it a few months later when the govt actually recieves the message

If a school or business can't afford to keep their students or customers safe, they shouldn't be allowed to operate.
Was this not established following the Great Train Wreck of 1918?



That should be applied, but it isn't. Most schools I would guess have zero preparedness for an event like a shooting.