Nutters I need Your Help !!!! Emergency !!
- Thread starter Live2Crawl
- Start date
Dave_Shotgun
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- Ford Nation! :)
You should inform your kid's teacher that the debate groups should have an even number of students in them, for it to be a fair debate. This is two students vs. thirty one? They will be outnumbered and their ideas will be covered up by the anti's yelling to ban assault rifles, because it was one that killed the Sandy Hook students. Another anti teacher pushing his/her agenda.
blackops21k
Regular
- Location
- Toronto, Ontario
...snip...
Assault weapon use in mass shootings is currently a hot topic and the events at Sandy Hook elementary are what are providing the impetus to pass assault weapon bans. First we need to understand the mentality of the shooter. They are almost always suicidal, depressed, and are looking to take as many people with them as possible. In fact 'body count' is often a motivating factor, with would be mass shooters studying previous incidents and trying to outdo them.
It is important to realize that when it comes to mass shootings like Sandy Hook or Aurora, the use of an assault weapon was not actually as integral to the shooter's plan as is made out to be.
First, the worst mass shooting, Virginia Tech, was carried out by a killer equipped with two handguns. These are not what we would term assault weapons and yet the shooter was able to inflict devastating casualties. Also Columbine was perpetrated when the previous 1994 Federal Assault Weapons ban was in place. The murderers again did not use rifles but instead relied on pistols.
At Aurora the shooter first opened fired with a standard pump shotgun - certainly not classed as an assault weapon - and hit a great number of his victims with it. He also fired a handgun as well and many of the casualties were caused by these two non assault weapons alone. The AR-15 that he carried in fact jammed during the attack and he had to resort to the other firearms.
At Sandy Hook, it is not widely reported but the killer had plenty of time in which to perpetrate his attack. He fired approximately 100 rounds in a 15 minute period. This translates to about 7 rounds a minute on average. Any operator of a firearm from a bolt action rifle, pump shotgun, revolver or semi-automatic pistol can easily load and discharge 7 rounds in a minute. In fact the killer reloaded his magazines often - in a matter of seconds - and did not use the full capacity of the rifle. It is not politically correct to say so, but if the killer had merely used the two pistols he brought or the shotgun in the car he could have done the same amount of mayhem. His use of assault weapons did not facilitate the attack as compared to using other non 'assault weapon'' firearms.
Thus the public's fixation with banning assault weapons to prevent mass shootings is puzzling: Most mass shooters do not use assault weapons and most casualties were not caused by assault weapons. The answer is simple: assault weapons are a stigmatized class of firearms that gun prohibitionists feel they are close to banning. They are pulling out all the stops in their attempt to ban an entire class of firearms. They hope that with one ban the public will be acclimated to further bans, including handguns, all semi-automatic firearms, accurate rifles (sniper rifles) and so on. Supporting an assault weapon ban is not conducive to preventing or mitigating mass shootings.
Assault weapon use in mass shootings is currently a hot topic and the events at Sandy Hook elementary are what are providing the impetus to pass assault weapon bans. First we need to understand the mentality of the shooter. They are almost always suicidal, depressed, and are looking to take as many people with them as possible. In fact 'body count' is often a motivating factor, with would be mass shooters studying previous incidents and trying to outdo them.
It is important to realize that when it comes to mass shootings like Sandy Hook or Aurora, the use of an assault weapon was not actually as integral to the shooter's plan as is made out to be.
First, the worst mass shooting, Virginia Tech, was carried out by a killer equipped with two handguns. These are not what we would term assault weapons and yet the shooter was able to inflict devastating casualties. Also Columbine was perpetrated when the previous 1994 Federal Assault Weapons ban was in place. The murderers again did not use rifles but instead relied on pistols.
At Aurora the shooter first opened fired with a standard pump shotgun - certainly not classed as an assault weapon - and hit a great number of his victims with it. He also fired a handgun as well and many of the casualties were caused by these two non assault weapons alone. The AR-15 that he carried in fact jammed during the attack and he had to resort to the other firearms.
At Sandy Hook, it is not widely reported but the killer had plenty of time in which to perpetrate his attack. He fired approximately 100 rounds in a 15 minute period. This translates to about 7 rounds a minute on average. Any operator of a firearm from a bolt action rifle, pump shotgun, revolver or semi-automatic pistol can easily load and discharge 7 rounds in a minute. In fact the killer reloaded his magazines often - in a matter of seconds - and did not use the full capacity of the rifle. It is not politically correct to say so, but if the killer had merely used the two pistols he brought or the shotgun in the car he could have done the same amount of mayhem. His use of assault weapons did not facilitate the attack as compared to using other non 'assault weapon'' firearms.
Thus the public's fixation with banning assault weapons to prevent mass shootings is puzzling: Most mass shooters do not use assault weapons and most casualties were not caused by assault weapons. The answer is simple: assault weapons are a stigmatized class of firearms that gun prohibitionists feel they are close to banning. They are pulling out all the stops in their attempt to ban an entire class of firearms. They hope that with one ban the public will be acclimated to further bans, including handguns, all semi-automatic firearms, accurate rifles (sniper rifles) and so on. Supporting an assault weapon ban is not conducive to preventing or mitigating mass shootings.
Witness the brainwashing of our next generation. When kids at this age have to research and debate a position, the whole exercise ingrains those arguments in their minds. They will google all the anti-gun talking points and the virus will spread. So the entire class (except two students) will now have these dumb anti-gun arguments cemented in their formative, developing brains. Multiply this by every public school, and we can expect registration and confiscation in our next generation's lifetime, if not in ours.
I think the best way to fight it is to make a formal complaint with the principal. The public school system is mandated to provide a learning environment that tolerates and respects diverse traditions -- it explicitly opposes making any student feel marginalized or discriminated against. Use that.
Your daughter belongs to a family where legal firearms ownership is central to the family's traditions and way of life. She feels that her family's traditions and way of life are being attacked and discriminated against. At this young age, a debate about banning "assault rifles" is really a debate about banning guns. You are outraged, both as a parent and as a responsible firearms owner. I would demand a meeting with this teacher and the principle. From there take notes from Stormbringer's playbook. Also, since it's 33 vs 2, maybe even the field by letting you have 20 minutes with the students talking about firearms?
I think the best way to fight it is to make a formal complaint with the principal. The public school system is mandated to provide a learning environment that tolerates and respects diverse traditions -- it explicitly opposes making any student feel marginalized or discriminated against. Use that.
Your daughter belongs to a family where legal firearms ownership is central to the family's traditions and way of life. She feels that her family's traditions and way of life are being attacked and discriminated against. At this young age, a debate about banning "assault rifles" is really a debate about banning guns. You are outraged, both as a parent and as a responsible firearms owner. I would demand a meeting with this teacher and the principle. From there take notes from Stormbringer's playbook. Also, since it's 33 vs 2, maybe even the field by letting you have 20 minutes with the students talking about firearms?
Service rifle competitions require "assault rifles" be used by citizens. I have heard that the service rifle organizations in Canada were set up as a result of the war of 1812 (the picture on the ORA logo alone or a 1812 soldier with musket alone should be proof enough). If we didn't have a citizen militia capable of knowing marksmanship and rifle skills and drills, we'd all be american anyhow and have the 2nd amendment anyway. Assault rifles for canucks whether the teacher likes it or not.
PM in detail sent.
PM in detail sent.
a proper debate would have been to divide the class down the center and have opposing sides . this is not a debate and the anti crowd has the teacher rooting for them . it sounds more like bullying than a debate . i would raise a lot of dust over this as it is too important to gloss over .it is a wonderful opportunity to demonstrate to your daughter how to stand up to the world .she will learn a valuable lesson but she needs you to stand with her . best of luck and keep us informed .
Just in case these threads don't get merged and the OP is favouring one over the other, here's my posts from the one in the black rifle forum;
Hope that helps.
Hope that helps.
Were this done like that in the first place it would have been more fair. However this is already gone too far and now his daughter is highly likely to be bullied and ridiculed for her beliefs. At the very least I'd shut it down entirely for now and request that a new format of equal debate be approached later in the year after this has cooled off. That's if this topic even has relevance to the class and civil debate should be had.
There is her argument right there. ^^^ She should go on the offensive and ask the teacher and the other group to define an assault rifle. When they are all done, she should read her definition. Do they really know what they are talking about? You can't go forward until you agree on the definition. It could be turned into a teachable moment- by your daughter since the teacher isn't ready to step up and do it. That was not cool- isolating your daughter like that.
Some excellent points made so far.
I think TrinityAngel or Stormbringer would be of great help here due to their own experience with schools, teachers and the subject at hand. Both are very cool headed and intelligent as well, something required in this situation.
I think TrinityAngel or Stormbringer would be of great help here due to their own experience with schools, teachers and the subject at hand. Both are very cool headed and intelligent as well, something required in this situation.
Since your daughter is 13, something like this might inspire both her and the debate. 
This is 13-year-old Katelyn Francis, who was recently featured in an NRA Women's Network video.
3-Gun Shooting:
[video=facebook;4353931599435]https://www.facebook.com/video/embed?video_id=4353931599435[/video]
NRA Interview:
This is 13-year-old Katelyn Francis, who was recently featured in an NRA Women's Network video. 3-Gun Shooting:
[video=facebook;4353931599435]https://www.facebook.com/video/embed?video_id=4353931599435[/video]
NRA Interview:
The best way to win this debate is to question where the idea of a ban is coming from? Is it wise to base a ban (i.e. law) on emotion or fact? The fact is, using an event such as the recent school shooting as a catalyst speaks of emotion. The fact that an overwhelming majority of the class is in favour of a ban (as evidenced by almost the whole class going to that side of the room) is clear indication that this is an emotionally charged issue, fuelled by a media and administration with an agenda.
In fact, just by asking the students to pick a position is proof enough that the teacher himself is biased! In a true debate, students should not be given an opportunity to choose their position. Divide the class in half, even numbers and odd numbers. Evens get one topic, odds the other. Then ask them to go home and do their research. Instead, you have the situation your daughter is now in.
In fact, just by asking the students to pick a position is proof enough that the teacher himself is biased! In a true debate, students should not be given an opportunity to choose their position. Divide the class in half, even numbers and odd numbers. Evens get one topic, odds the other. Then ask them to go home and do their research. Instead, you have the situation your daughter is now in.
Lord Vader
New member
- Location
- Calgary, AB
If this was my daughter's school I would be heavily opposed to them even considering "teaching" something like this in class. I can not understand how this could be part of the curriculum. I would not permit this in her (their) class. They have much better things to learn about then the agenda of an anti-gun teacher.
I'll have a stab at this.
Is an assault rifle evil?
No, how can an inanimate object be evil? The answer is of course it can not be. Can an assault rifle be morally wrong? Well it all depends whose carrying it, if it is Policeman or Soldier then our perception is that it is an instrument of good. Especially if that soldier is defending us or the policemen is protecting us. Then the rifle is being used in a just and moral way, the key word is used. The operator is the one who dictates the use of the rifle not the rifle itself.
If a murderer is using an assault rifle to kill for money or to threaten then it is being used for immoral purposes, however if the murderer was using a knife would you say an evil knife, the answer is undoubtedly not. The actions of the individual is evil not the tool.
An assault rifle or any firearm is morally neutral, it is designed to fire a projectile it is what the operator fires that projectile at and in what context, that leads to if the purpose was evil or good.
Having shown that assault rifles are not inherently evil the second part of the question arises should they be banned.
Well if we overlook that they are banned in Canada already and anyone who posses a firearm of any kind without a license is breaking the law.
The short answer is no they should not be banned.
To date in Canada no civilian owned assault rifle has ever been used in a homicide infact in Canada knives are the number one weapon of choice for murder.
Why should assault rifles not be banned specifically?
Well this boils down to freedom and responsibility. We have already shown that an assault rifle or any firearm is not intrinsically good or evil but rather the operator of the firearm decides moral imperative. So really we are saying that an assault rifle should be banned because a criminal or insane person may misuse it.
This is a very dangerous precedent, when we start banning and restricting things because of the possible misuse by the worst in society we allow the worst in society to dictate our freedoms and liberties.
We do not limit cars to 110kph or have them only operate if you are sober. Yet drunk drivers and speeders have killed many more people in Canada in the last 50 years than all firearms let alone assault rifles.
We haven't done this to cars because as a society we believe in freedom and liberty and personal responsibility. We punish people who break the law and we restrict their freedom and liberty, we do not punish people or restrict the freedoms of innocent people because of the actions of the insane and criminal.
Does anyone need an assault rifle?
Well that is down to the individual, everybody has different needs and wants. Our society is based on want not need. Free citizens that are law abiding should be allowed to want an assault rifle and acquire it. If they break the law they should be punished but until that day they should be shown the respect and freedoms of any other member of society.
Millions of Canadians are trusted to use firearms in Canada everyday and they do it without killing,threatening or injuring anyone. We as a society should respect that, we may not individually want or need an assault rifle, we may not understand somebody else's want or need for it but we don't have to. We just have to remember that we have wants and needs that others might not understand and the object of our wants and needs could be misused by the criminal and insane. We would want the ones responsible for this misuse to be punished and restricted not us for owning a similar piece of property.
We don't do it with cars, we don't do it with knives, we don't do it with alcohol, we don't do it with bats and we shouldn't do it with guns.
Or something like that
Is an assault rifle evil?
No, how can an inanimate object be evil? The answer is of course it can not be. Can an assault rifle be morally wrong? Well it all depends whose carrying it, if it is Policeman or Soldier then our perception is that it is an instrument of good. Especially if that soldier is defending us or the policemen is protecting us. Then the rifle is being used in a just and moral way, the key word is used. The operator is the one who dictates the use of the rifle not the rifle itself.
If a murderer is using an assault rifle to kill for money or to threaten then it is being used for immoral purposes, however if the murderer was using a knife would you say an evil knife, the answer is undoubtedly not. The actions of the individual is evil not the tool.
An assault rifle or any firearm is morally neutral, it is designed to fire a projectile it is what the operator fires that projectile at and in what context, that leads to if the purpose was evil or good.
Having shown that assault rifles are not inherently evil the second part of the question arises should they be banned.
Well if we overlook that they are banned in Canada already and anyone who posses a firearm of any kind without a license is breaking the law.
The short answer is no they should not be banned.
To date in Canada no civilian owned assault rifle has ever been used in a homicide infact in Canada knives are the number one weapon of choice for murder.
Why should assault rifles not be banned specifically?
Well this boils down to freedom and responsibility. We have already shown that an assault rifle or any firearm is not intrinsically good or evil but rather the operator of the firearm decides moral imperative. So really we are saying that an assault rifle should be banned because a criminal or insane person may misuse it.
This is a very dangerous precedent, when we start banning and restricting things because of the possible misuse by the worst in society we allow the worst in society to dictate our freedoms and liberties.
We do not limit cars to 110kph or have them only operate if you are sober. Yet drunk drivers and speeders have killed many more people in Canada in the last 50 years than all firearms let alone assault rifles.
We haven't done this to cars because as a society we believe in freedom and liberty and personal responsibility. We punish people who break the law and we restrict their freedom and liberty, we do not punish people or restrict the freedoms of innocent people because of the actions of the insane and criminal.
Does anyone need an assault rifle?
Well that is down to the individual, everybody has different needs and wants. Our society is based on want not need. Free citizens that are law abiding should be allowed to want an assault rifle and acquire it. If they break the law they should be punished but until that day they should be shown the respect and freedoms of any other member of society.
Millions of Canadians are trusted to use firearms in Canada everyday and they do it without killing,threatening or injuring anyone. We as a society should respect that, we may not individually want or need an assault rifle, we may not understand somebody else's want or need for it but we don't have to. We just have to remember that we have wants and needs that others might not understand and the object of our wants and needs could be misused by the criminal and insane. We would want the ones responsible for this misuse to be punished and restricted not us for owning a similar piece of property.
We don't do it with cars, we don't do it with knives, we don't do it with alcohol, we don't do it with bats and we shouldn't do it with guns.
Or something like that
Last edited:
Yea im shocked the teacher is having this with the kids. Let alone with the teacher being such a large influence on the kids, for the teacher to share their own view on the topic... Their job is to teach fact. To give the children the ability to make their own informed descisions....
In lieu of attacking the teacher, I see this as an opportunity to educate. But I'd still show up for this debate if you could because I know there is a high chance the teacher will skew the results. I know this, because I've witnessed it.
So: First off, there are people who don't own, use, touched or even seen a gun and these people are telling people who do own and use guns how their guns work. People like your teacher. She so smart, she's telling you what to think about something that she knows very little about.
The word assault rifle actually doesn't make much sense because there are lots of different guns made in various calibres and designs. Some fit in the wikipedia definition and some don't. Also, militaries doesn't simply use their standard service rifles for assaulting which is a very narrow duty. If that doesn't make sense, join the military or study military tactics and you'll understand it more. The word assault rifle is a word the news channels used because it has an action word in it. Assault. It sounds mean and exciting so you pay attention to the news and the more people listen to your news channel, the more famous and popular you are. Where did they come up with the word? Probably the German sturmgewehr which means the same thing and what most dictionary sources use as a definition. What the teacher is probably is saying is military rifles with:
Select fire
High capacity magazines
Pistol grip
Black paint
And military full metal jacket bullets
Select fire means the gun can shoot bullets automatically, or semi automatically. Automatic works by continuously shooting bullets when you press the trigger until you let go of the trigger or until you have no more bullets in the magazine. Semiautomatic works by one bullet every trigger pull. By law, this is already illegal in Canada and the USA. Semiautomatic only firearms are legal though, but in Canada, are already limited to 5 rounds for long guns, and 10 rounds for pistols. So our semiautomatic rifles already use 5 round magazines, but the Dawson College shooter had only low capacity magazines and still 20 people got hurt. But he had a semiautomatic firearm so that must make it evil, right? Doesn't matter because he still had to reload his gun anyways. The more you shoot, the more you reload and you can only carry so much on you. With mag fed guns, you actually carry less in terms of weight to weight.
Then you make proper aimed shots in order to hit anything, but at he was so close to them and the students were armed with nothing. Someone who uses firearms knows that semiautomatic doesn't make a gun more deadly or accurate. In fact, due to the the way they function, the bullets tend to be weaker and the extra moving parts make it less accurate. That's why you see in pictures, military snipers, precision shooters, and hunters tend to use bolt action rifles instead. But this is debatable because it really goes in to engineering, physics and mathematics as it talks about bullet types, weight, gun powder, environment and all the things involved with enthusiast level shooting. Does that sound like hilly billy stuff to you?(Don't put that in, but maybe reword it because I hate how every "enlightened" anti thinks gun owners are retarded rednecks yet most can't even tell you what pythagorean thereom is).
Now then the black paint and the pistol grip must make it evil, right? Guns can come in all kinds of colours. Even pink. Colour is colour. Black is just the cheapest and quickest. The pistol grip is an ergonomic feature from the beginning, or a way to actually use the gun. The pistol grip probably has the least to do with controlling a gun well. It's mostly the shooter and the stock. If your teacher shot a pistol grip gun, she'll find lousy it is actually. The stock connects the shooter to the gun in the most motionless way, and allows proper sight picture. If this doesn't make sense, then you don't know anything about shooting guns properly as this is one of the first things you learn. Automatic and semiautomatic military rifles did exist in the "conventional layout" (Garand, M14, Ljungman AGs, Rashid, SKS, etc. etc) but they changed not because it was more controllable, but because firearm design moved away from one piece stocks as they were harder and more expensive to manufacture. You can take practically any modern military rifle today and build it in to a hunter style stock and there will be very little difference in function. Don't believe, (cue mini14 pic and challenge the teachers knowledge about firearms. her experience. MAKE HER FEEL DUMB AND UNSURE. Rip her down to bits. Liberals think their smart and attack this)
If that isn't evil then it must be the evil military bullets designed to kill humans. I guess know one has ever told you about the bullets civilians can buy to kill BEARS. Incapacitate a 170lbs human or KILL a 800LBS BEAR. Ask the students which is more deadly. The military bullets used by NATO tend to be 5.56x45mm or the civilian version .223. Hunters have access to .308(modern military bullet), .30-06 (WW2 military bullet) and 3 1/2 inch magnum slugs (show picture of difference). All the bullets are found in single, lever, pump, and semi automatic actions. All are rated higher than the .223 when it comes to hunting. So how does this small bullet fired by these evil looking guns is deadlier? The full metal jacket? Nope. Full metal jacket is a bullet completely covered in a jacket of metal. Why? FMJ is in compliance with the 1899 Hague convention for a bullet that doesn't flatten or expand easily in humans. What does that mean? The bullet is in one of the least damaging designs a bullet could take. Civilians already have deadlier bullets like hollow points and soft points so hunters can make a fast kill. But there is still pro and cons for each that is a whole book into itself that is more complex than pointing at at something and saying this bad, and this good. Simply put, just because the military uses it, doesn't mean it's always more evil, dangerous or deadly.
So, assault rifles are not that deady and the term doesnt make much sense as there's no real definition and the definition of such rifles are already banned. So what makes them evil? Nothing. Firearms are machines that are incapable of thought or influence. They are no more evil than your scissors are evil. They are objects. Not people or monsters. Yes, they are dangerous. ALL OF THEM ARE. No one firearm is safer than the other. That is why they require respect and safety and the only way to TRULY understand that is to handle one. Firearms are just machines built by people, controlled by people. If you pick up a gun and think death and destruction, realize this, YOU thought that. Which is more evil? The inanimate object made of metal, or the teacher who feels nothing when she pumps pollution in to the atmosphere when she drives or turns the heat on because it's too cold.
Mix and match this, alter and fix whatever you want. These are my basic points that I modify, when I'm in debates. Add pics or whatever for debate.
EDIT. Oh yea, highlight banning guns is a cosmetic fix to real problem. PEOPLE. But it's the hardest one to do without sacrificing all freedoms. We, people, are not safe, were safe or ever will be safe (even with all our freedoms given. meteor hits planet or st. helens erupts, etc). So, do you want to have ice cream or be placed in a plastic ball where you are fed what someone else tells you, think what someone else tells you, go, work, play, etc etc. I have a few ideas why people are the way they are, but I'm not a psychologist so I guess I'm not qualified to have an input.
So: First off, there are people who don't own, use, touched or even seen a gun and these people are telling people who do own and use guns how their guns work. People like your teacher. She so smart, she's telling you what to think about something that she knows very little about.
The word assault rifle actually doesn't make much sense because there are lots of different guns made in various calibres and designs. Some fit in the wikipedia definition and some don't. Also, militaries doesn't simply use their standard service rifles for assaulting which is a very narrow duty. If that doesn't make sense, join the military or study military tactics and you'll understand it more. The word assault rifle is a word the news channels used because it has an action word in it. Assault. It sounds mean and exciting so you pay attention to the news and the more people listen to your news channel, the more famous and popular you are. Where did they come up with the word? Probably the German sturmgewehr which means the same thing and what most dictionary sources use as a definition. What the teacher is probably is saying is military rifles with:
Select fire
High capacity magazines
Pistol grip
Black paint
And military full metal jacket bullets
Select fire means the gun can shoot bullets automatically, or semi automatically. Automatic works by continuously shooting bullets when you press the trigger until you let go of the trigger or until you have no more bullets in the magazine. Semiautomatic works by one bullet every trigger pull. By law, this is already illegal in Canada and the USA. Semiautomatic only firearms are legal though, but in Canada, are already limited to 5 rounds for long guns, and 10 rounds for pistols. So our semiautomatic rifles already use 5 round magazines, but the Dawson College shooter had only low capacity magazines and still 20 people got hurt. But he had a semiautomatic firearm so that must make it evil, right? Doesn't matter because he still had to reload his gun anyways. The more you shoot, the more you reload and you can only carry so much on you. With mag fed guns, you actually carry less in terms of weight to weight.
Then you make proper aimed shots in order to hit anything, but at he was so close to them and the students were armed with nothing. Someone who uses firearms knows that semiautomatic doesn't make a gun more deadly or accurate. In fact, due to the the way they function, the bullets tend to be weaker and the extra moving parts make it less accurate. That's why you see in pictures, military snipers, precision shooters, and hunters tend to use bolt action rifles instead. But this is debatable because it really goes in to engineering, physics and mathematics as it talks about bullet types, weight, gun powder, environment and all the things involved with enthusiast level shooting. Does that sound like hilly billy stuff to you?(Don't put that in, but maybe reword it because I hate how every "enlightened" anti thinks gun owners are retarded rednecks yet most can't even tell you what pythagorean thereom is).
Now then the black paint and the pistol grip must make it evil, right? Guns can come in all kinds of colours. Even pink. Colour is colour. Black is just the cheapest and quickest. The pistol grip is an ergonomic feature from the beginning, or a way to actually use the gun. The pistol grip probably has the least to do with controlling a gun well. It's mostly the shooter and the stock. If your teacher shot a pistol grip gun, she'll find lousy it is actually. The stock connects the shooter to the gun in the most motionless way, and allows proper sight picture. If this doesn't make sense, then you don't know anything about shooting guns properly as this is one of the first things you learn. Automatic and semiautomatic military rifles did exist in the "conventional layout" (Garand, M14, Ljungman AGs, Rashid, SKS, etc. etc) but they changed not because it was more controllable, but because firearm design moved away from one piece stocks as they were harder and more expensive to manufacture. You can take practically any modern military rifle today and build it in to a hunter style stock and there will be very little difference in function. Don't believe, (cue mini14 pic and challenge the teachers knowledge about firearms. her experience. MAKE HER FEEL DUMB AND UNSURE. Rip her down to bits. Liberals think their smart and attack this)
If that isn't evil then it must be the evil military bullets designed to kill humans. I guess know one has ever told you about the bullets civilians can buy to kill BEARS. Incapacitate a 170lbs human or KILL a 800LBS BEAR. Ask the students which is more deadly. The military bullets used by NATO tend to be 5.56x45mm or the civilian version .223. Hunters have access to .308(modern military bullet), .30-06 (WW2 military bullet) and 3 1/2 inch magnum slugs (show picture of difference). All the bullets are found in single, lever, pump, and semi automatic actions. All are rated higher than the .223 when it comes to hunting. So how does this small bullet fired by these evil looking guns is deadlier? The full metal jacket? Nope. Full metal jacket is a bullet completely covered in a jacket of metal. Why? FMJ is in compliance with the 1899 Hague convention for a bullet that doesn't flatten or expand easily in humans. What does that mean? The bullet is in one of the least damaging designs a bullet could take. Civilians already have deadlier bullets like hollow points and soft points so hunters can make a fast kill. But there is still pro and cons for each that is a whole book into itself that is more complex than pointing at at something and saying this bad, and this good. Simply put, just because the military uses it, doesn't mean it's always more evil, dangerous or deadly.
So, assault rifles are not that deady and the term doesnt make much sense as there's no real definition and the definition of such rifles are already banned. So what makes them evil? Nothing. Firearms are machines that are incapable of thought or influence. They are no more evil than your scissors are evil. They are objects. Not people or monsters. Yes, they are dangerous. ALL OF THEM ARE. No one firearm is safer than the other. That is why they require respect and safety and the only way to TRULY understand that is to handle one. Firearms are just machines built by people, controlled by people. If you pick up a gun and think death and destruction, realize this, YOU thought that. Which is more evil? The inanimate object made of metal, or the teacher who feels nothing when she pumps pollution in to the atmosphere when she drives or turns the heat on because it's too cold.
Mix and match this, alter and fix whatever you want. These are my basic points that I modify, when I'm in debates. Add pics or whatever for debate.
EDIT. Oh yea, highlight banning guns is a cosmetic fix to real problem. PEOPLE. But it's the hardest one to do without sacrificing all freedoms. We, people, are not safe, were safe or ever will be safe (even with all our freedoms given. meteor hits planet or st. helens erupts, etc). So, do you want to have ice cream or be placed in a plastic ball where you are fed what someone else tells you, think what someone else tells you, go, work, play, etc etc. I have a few ideas why people are the way they are, but I'm not a psychologist so I guess I'm not qualified to have an input.
Last edited:
