Yeah he was definitely like....gun free zone...thats the ticket! Definitely had nothing to do with the trend of shooting up schools because they represent the places these shooters were traumatized.

Don't let kids buy guns and you don't have to be concerned about police failures when they do crazy shit with said guns. The only thing that FOR SURE let this happen was that he got to buy those guns at 18 with minor paperwork.



Knee jerk....FUCKING YEARS OF THIS GOING ON....knee jerk.

Yea criminals obey laws right. Put a gun free zone sign that will stop them right? Let's take away and restrict guns that will work right, right?

Define criminal. Because he wasn't a criminal before he did this...only after.

In the eyes of the law he was a perfectly upright citizen when he purchased them because NO ONE ACTUALLY CHECKS WHAT PEOPLE ARE LIKE THAT BUY THEM.

Just pass a background check at 18....pretty simple criteria for any would-be school shooter. Laws are far too lax.

The point of gun free zones are so people know there is no reason for someone to have a gun in them so they can immediately call the police or intervene themselves if they so choose.

You call theme easy targets....I say any place is an easy target for someone trying to murder people without caring if they live at the end.

Trash post in general, but to address:

1. The so-called "trend" of shooting up schools has primarily been colleges, with a smattering of high schools mixed in. There's no trend of shooting up elementary schools. There's no evidence the shooter suffered any trauma at this school, and in fact he was killing indiscriminately. That's beyond unusual for and adult to do. In nearly all cases, they'd be angry at either students or staff at their high school.

2. The shooter was not a "kid". He was an adult. Done. This is not a question or a debate. The age of adulthood is 18. He had the right to vote, get conscripted, be called for jury duty, purchase firearms, and be sentenced to death. He. Was. An. Adult. Nobody is or was selling any firearms to kids. Go back to listening to Whoopi, chump, with that kind of line.

3. Stupid comments deserve the absolute derision they get, to be honest. If the shooter hadn't had a firearm, it would have been an explosive, or chlorine gas, or whatever else. Further, the fear over the "shooter" expressed by police is the height of cowardice. They were wearing body armor and trained extensively for this exact scenario. Meanwhile, an 18 year old who just purchased his first weapon, never had any shooting training, had no history of hunting, and who's grandparents did not allow guns in the home is supposed to take down teams of officers? Get real.

For the third time, go back to watching Whoopi, you clown.

good research will show everyone that when kids brought guns to schools there was very little shootings.
Nobody wants to die & authorities can't create street theatre if they know people will interpret it as real and fire back

guns solves both issues: psy ops + actual shootings simultaneously & helps balance power.

the issue still is that not anyone or everyone can get guns easily & that they threaten the power of the newest guns
which are the brand people are ignoring: 5g.
It's a double vote for physical guns but a no to the "stem of ghost guns"(military emf weaponry) which is all through out the schools.

Think the wrong thought about your beloved Gov? You can get microwaved! it's a brave brain washing new world.

This post was edited by lodd222 on Jun 1 2022 01:19am

1. Move the goal post all you want. Without knowing why he factually did it all we have is speculation. Deranged people don't have a limit for justifying their actions.

2. Pretty sure we've covered stupid laws lead to stupid outcomes. You don't mature til far past 18 so being "legally an adult" doesn't really mean shit when it comes to maturity. A bit like saying "I'm not legally speaking a sex offender as i've not been caught doing sex offender stuff." You're a fuckin adult when you can handle yourself and not do crazy shit like this.

3. Speculating he'd of used another weapon is as dumb as speculating there are mars nazis.

So a bank robber walks into a bank.
Subwoofer in the eyes of the law he was a perfectly upright citizen.

So a rapist jogging in a park
Subwoofer: Here we have a perfectly upright looking citizen jogging in the park, right up to the point where he ain't.....

Let's check 18 year old Salvador over here with a clean record, oh good you pass because we see you as an upright citizen here is your gun. Tell me more about them background checks sir?

This post was edited by addone on Jun 1 2022 01:31am

This might as well be a musket thread though. real guns are a thing of the past.
New guns are the cellphone tech the military got you to spend all your money on so they could use it as a way of microwaving anyone who isn't apart of the NWO 4th reich mask inc.

So technically you're all gun lovers and you like to sh00t up sch00ls. You've all been divided and conquered. Bot planet.

1. There is no moving of the goalpost. You attempted to attribute his motives to a "trend". That is false, there was no trend. You lied. Calling you out for lying is not moving the goalpost. It's pointing out that you lied. Because you lied. Would you care to retract your lie? Or simply leave it hanging that you lied?

2. No. 18 is an adult and carries 99% of all of both the benefits and responsibilities. The fact that you want to reclassify this adult as a child to make the random shooting execution of 19 prepubescent 5-10 year olds somehow less horrific is completely on you. You are attempting to minimize the responsibility of the adult who made a conscious and planned choice to do this, while maximizing the non-existant "responsibility" of the tool he chose. Even worse, you're ignoring entirely that he clearly purchased the weapon with the clear intent to do exactly as he did. He planned this, it was premeditated.

3. He carried out a premeditated attack on a target that had no measurable security or defense from such attack. I don't need to speculate what he'd do, because he did it. You're the person speculating that he wouldn't have done it if he'd had to switch tools, and that, frankly, is stupid.

Go back to Whoopi. Your thinking is too simplistic to understand what's being spoken about in the first place. You've directly stated that parents should not be allowed to defend their children, parents should be disarmed, police can be trusted, all on the back of police detaining parents and forcing them to listen to their children being executed. It's a very communist and authoritarian view. I'm curious how you'd feel if a shooter popped up at your workplace? Would you prefer to be helpless to act, or prepared to return fire? Now let's assume that the target of the shooter isn't you, it's your 5 year old daughter. She clearly can't return fire. But one of those teachers tried protecting her and was gunned down. And your daughter was killed anyway. Would you prefer to hail the dead teacher that failed to save your dead daughter as a "hero" or would you prefer that that teacher had been armed and put a bullet between that punk's eyes?

Trust the state, mate. While watching Whoopi. *tips hat*

This post was edited by InsaneBobb on Jun 1 2022 01:43am

Owning guns is not about fighting the military and you are stupid for thinking it is.

It's about fending off feds. These minions of the tyrannical federal government keep getting killed by people who have guns, which is why the government wants to ban them so badly.