The Uvalde school had a gun protecting it. As did Parkland.Neo » 11 Jun 2022, 1:18 pm » wrote: ↑ They won't make any difference. As high profile targets can attest, the only thing that can stop a determined shooter is equal and opposing forces. Ending gun free zones would be more helpful than any other deterrent. At least post that gun free zones are guarded by undercover men with guns.
I wouldn't trust today's teacher to potty train a dog unless I was OK with a gender confused pooch. No, arming teachers isn't the solution unless they volunteer and go through extensive training. Think virtual classroom are the solution. Too few excellent teachers to get a result if they are limited to a hundred kids a week. Exceptional teachers should be delivering lessons to hundreds of thousands of kids, the suboptimal staff could be retained for individual coaching and virtual paperwork.Pastafarian » 11 Jun 2022, 1:24 pm » wrote: ↑ The Uvalde school had a gun protecting it. As did Parkland.
Laws against guns do make a difference as we’ve seen all over the western world. Less deaths and less violence bcuz of less gun ownership.
We are the only civilized nation with daily mass shootings.
One more thing, y’all hate teachers but you want them risking their lives to protect your brats? **** off.
Calm down and explain why that is relevant.Blackvegetable » 11 Jun 2022, 1:23 pm » wrote: ↑ For which weapon, and purpose, was the round SPECIFICALLY developed, and by whom?
I’ll decide when it is enough.
Already did.
And it was debunked.
Already posted you are wrong on that count.Blackvegetable » 11 Jun 2022, 1:18 pm » wrote: ↑ So what?
the round is what it is.
It is no good for shooting anything you want to eat.
No, it wasn't.
Have you ever eaten anything you shot?
Growing up, my family raised 70% our own food including poultry of 3 kinds, chickens, ducks, geese. family raised rabbits we ate but before butchered we children would treat as pets.
Yes.
Soe people disagree with you:Blackvegetable » 11 Jun 2022, 1:18 pm » wrote: ↑ So what?
the round is what it is.
It is no good for shooting anything you want to eat.
Why would you choose a rifle for this purpose, unreliable past the range of a deer slug from a shotgun?Huey » 11 Jun 2022, 1:59 pm » wrote: ↑ Soe people disagree with you:
223/5.56 as a deer hunting caliber. While shots should still be limited to ranges maxing out at around 100 yards (the small bullet just sheds too much energy beyond that range), hunters can now feel confident in taking their rifles afield during deer season.
https://www.realtree.com/brow-tines-and ... deer-rifle
Accept your loss.
And did you gut shoot it and watch it run around before dying?
I didn’t say I would. I some people disagree with you. You are wrong.Blackvegetable » 11 Jun 2022, 2:11 pm » wrote: ↑ Why would you choose a rifle for this purpose, unreliable past the range of a deer slug from a shotgun?
Describe how a mountain lion, wolves, bears, predators take down their meal as you intellectually behave like you are anything more than just a predator yourself?Blackvegetable » 11 Jun 2022, 2:12 pm » wrote: ↑ And did you gut shoot it and watch it run around before dying?
Why do I get the sense that you hunt like you grill?
I grill like this:Blackvegetable » 11 Jun 2022, 2:12 pm » wrote: ↑ And did you gut shoot it and watch it run around before dying?
Why do I get the sense that you hunt like you grill?
That's exactly the point.Huey » 11 Jun 2022, 2:16 pm » wrote: ↑ I didn’t say I would. I some people disagree with you. You are wrong.
More people hunt deer with 556 than you think. Your influencers have led you dine the wrong path. Anything much bigger than a deer, not so much. It just not the all powerful round you make it out to be.Blackvegetable » 11 Jun 2022, 2:18 pm » wrote: ↑ That's exactly the point.
Technically, you can hunt deer with a pitchfork, but it remains a **** pitchfork.