|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On December 20 2012 07:57 RedFury wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 07:34 heliusx wrote:On December 20 2012 07:24 RedFury wrote:
For many things like?
Really? There are plenty of recreational and legitimate uses for firearms and you have a really uninformed and ignorant view if you believe they are only for killing humans.. Hunting, target practice, protection from animals, shooting competitions just to name a few. On December 20 2012 07:24 RedFury wrote:
And no you shouldn't be able to stab.
Yeah, you're right nothing completely and utterly retarded about requiring people to just die when they are attacked because Mr. RedFury in all his infinite wisdom and knowledge thinks it should be illegal to defend yourself with any weapons. You have to be trolling because I doubt the existence of any human being as ignorant as you presented yourself with that post. No troll at all. Basically you're justyfing all the violence that guns can cause (and don't throw shit stats that shows the opposite because they're just manipulated) with recreative uses? That's a poor argument. And about the aggression thing, yes you shouldn't make use of any weapon. It's easy to switch from the defender position to the aggressor's one. Anyway, that's purely in theory. On a more realistic note I would just say to put more restrictions on the access to guns, since it's a fact that shooting (not just mass killings) are more frequent on USA than most of other civilized countries.
Wow it's like you don't even remember what you just posted. You asked me what use does a gun have besides shooting humans and I gave you one. Next you're straw manning me about justifying gun violence with recreation? What a poor argument as you say.
|
On December 20 2012 08:01 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 07:57 RedFury wrote:On December 20 2012 07:34 heliusx wrote:On December 20 2012 07:24 RedFury wrote:
For many things like?
Really? There are plenty of recreational and legitimate uses for firearms and you have a really uninformed and ignorant view if you believe they are only for killing humans.. Hunting, target practice, protection from animals, shooting competitions just to name a few. On December 20 2012 07:24 RedFury wrote:
And no you shouldn't be able to stab.
Yeah, you're right nothing completely and utterly retarded about requiring people to just die when they are attacked because Mr. RedFury in all his infinite wisdom and knowledge thinks it should be illegal to defend yourself with any weapons. You have to be trolling because I doubt the existence of any human being as ignorant as you presented yourself with that post. No troll at all. Basically you're justyfing all the violence that guns can cause (and don't throw shit stats that shows the opposite because they're just manipulated) with recreative uses? That's a poor argument. And about the aggression thing, yes you shouldn't make use of any weapon. It's easy to switch from the defender position to the aggressor's one. Anyway, that's purely in theory. On a more realistic note I would just say to put more restrictions on the access to guns, since it's a fact that shooting (not just mass killings) are more frequent on USA than most of other civilized countries. Wow it's like you don't even remember what you just posted. You asked me what use does a gun have besides shooting humans and I gave you one. Next you're straw manning me about justifying gun violence with recreation? What a poor argument as you say.
Care to awnser my post as well?
And I mean an actual awnser, not just telling me that I have no idea, because the topic interests me and I want to know how you justify it.
|
Honestly just no. Knives are made to cut things and can be used to harm somebody, but guns are made to harm. They have no reason to exist other than killing.
[; if it´s an animal or person doesn´t matter. Do I eat meat? Yes, and it may be controversial (and kinda offtopic) i think animals should be hunted, beacause I love to eat meat, then again makes you wonder with the "new methods"]
So why would I need to carry a gun if I didn´t mean to kill or harm anybody? Selfdefense? Please that´s a pathetic answer! Lokk at europe, we don´t carry guns and we don´t have to. Sure tragedies happen, but would carring guns deny these from happening? I don´t think so. Easy access to guns means easy access to violences.
Bottom line: Gunes were made for violence to happen and they will be used for it!
P.S.: If you like guns it´s okay. Just shoot at targets and leave it at that. Or you know, become a hunter, although you'll only kill animals if you have to, not at will!
|
I wonder if they have spree killings in Liberia.
|
On December 20 2012 08:03 SilentchiLL wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 08:01 heliusx wrote:On December 20 2012 07:57 RedFury wrote:On December 20 2012 07:34 heliusx wrote:On December 20 2012 07:24 RedFury wrote:
For many things like?
Really? There are plenty of recreational and legitimate uses for firearms and you have a really uninformed and ignorant view if you believe they are only for killing humans.. Hunting, target practice, protection from animals, shooting competitions just to name a few. On December 20 2012 07:24 RedFury wrote:
And no you shouldn't be able to stab.
Yeah, you're right nothing completely and utterly retarded about requiring people to just die when they are attacked because Mr. RedFury in all his infinite wisdom and knowledge thinks it should be illegal to defend yourself with any weapons. You have to be trolling because I doubt the existence of any human being as ignorant as you presented yourself with that post. No troll at all. Basically you're justyfing all the violence that guns can cause (and don't throw shit stats that shows the opposite because they're just manipulated) with recreative uses? That's a poor argument. And about the aggression thing, yes you shouldn't make use of any weapon. It's easy to switch from the defender position to the aggressor's one. Anyway, that's purely in theory. On a more realistic note I would just say to put more restrictions on the access to guns, since it's a fact that shooting (not just mass killings) are more frequent on USA than most of other civilized countries. Wow it's like you don't even remember what you just posted. You asked me what use does a gun have besides shooting humans and I gave you one. Next you're straw manning me about justifying gun violence with recreation? What a poor argument as you say. Care to awnser my post as well? And I mean an actual awnser, not just telling me that I have no idea, because the topic interests me and I want to know how you justify it.
No, I'm not going to type my opinions out to people who use straw man arguments against me. I've typed my opinions on the issue at least 30 times in the last 100 pages and have no intention of doing it again because someone is too lazy to read my stance before posting and accusing me of justifying firearms with recreational shooting.
|
Australia8532 Posts
On December 20 2012 08:09 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 08:03 SilentchiLL wrote:On December 20 2012 08:01 heliusx wrote:On December 20 2012 07:57 RedFury wrote:On December 20 2012 07:34 heliusx wrote:On December 20 2012 07:24 RedFury wrote:
For many things like?
Really? There are plenty of recreational and legitimate uses for firearms and you have a really uninformed and ignorant view if you believe they are only for killing humans.. Hunting, target practice, protection from animals, shooting competitions just to name a few. On December 20 2012 07:24 RedFury wrote:
And no you shouldn't be able to stab.
Yeah, you're right nothing completely and utterly retarded about requiring people to just die when they are attacked because Mr. RedFury in all his infinite wisdom and knowledge thinks it should be illegal to defend yourself with any weapons. You have to be trolling because I doubt the existence of any human being as ignorant as you presented yourself with that post. No troll at all. Basically you're justyfing all the violence that guns can cause (and don't throw shit stats that shows the opposite because they're just manipulated) with recreative uses? That's a poor argument. And about the aggression thing, yes you shouldn't make use of any weapon. It's easy to switch from the defender position to the aggressor's one. Anyway, that's purely in theory. On a more realistic note I would just say to put more restrictions on the access to guns, since it's a fact that shooting (not just mass killings) are more frequent on USA than most of other civilized countries. Wow it's like you don't even remember what you just posted. You asked me what use does a gun have besides shooting humans and I gave you one. Next you're straw manning me about justifying gun violence with recreation? What a poor argument as you say. Care to awnser my post as well? And I mean an actual awnser, not just telling me that I have no idea, because the topic interests me and I want to know how you justify it. No, I'm not going to type my opinions out to people who use straw man arguments against me. I've typed my opinions on the issue at least 30 times in the last 100 pages and have no intention of doing it again because someone is too lazy to read my stance before posting and accusing me of justifying firearms with recreational shooting.
Fair enough. Do you think the US is then a more violent nation than others? Compared to most Western nations, they have a relatively high murder rate, so would this be a cultural problem?
|
On December 20 2012 08:01 heliusx wrote:
Wow it's like you don't even remember what you just posted. You asked me what use does a gun have besides shooting humans and I gave you one. Next you're straw manning me about justifying gun violence with recreation? What a poor argument as you say.
No, you just don't get it. My question was rhetoric, since I am aware that guns may have other uses. However, as a matter of principle, I don't think that none of them justify the fact that people can carry guns with such ease.
Do you think hunting is not popular in my country? Fact is that in those communities who is diffused the use of rifles for hunting it's not rare that quarrels end up in someone shooting and maybe killing the other one.
The gun is indeed just a mean for violence, however it's a mean that fuels the cult of violence and thus its use must be restricted as much as possible.
|
On December 20 2012 08:14 bkrow wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 08:09 heliusx wrote:On December 20 2012 08:03 SilentchiLL wrote:On December 20 2012 08:01 heliusx wrote:On December 20 2012 07:57 RedFury wrote:On December 20 2012 07:34 heliusx wrote:On December 20 2012 07:24 RedFury wrote:
For many things like?
Really? There are plenty of recreational and legitimate uses for firearms and you have a really uninformed and ignorant view if you believe they are only for killing humans.. Hunting, target practice, protection from animals, shooting competitions just to name a few. On December 20 2012 07:24 RedFury wrote:
And no you shouldn't be able to stab.
Yeah, you're right nothing completely and utterly retarded about requiring people to just die when they are attacked because Mr. RedFury in all his infinite wisdom and knowledge thinks it should be illegal to defend yourself with any weapons. You have to be trolling because I doubt the existence of any human being as ignorant as you presented yourself with that post. No troll at all. Basically you're justyfing all the violence that guns can cause (and don't throw shit stats that shows the opposite because they're just manipulated) with recreative uses? That's a poor argument. And about the aggression thing, yes you shouldn't make use of any weapon. It's easy to switch from the defender position to the aggressor's one. Anyway, that's purely in theory. On a more realistic note I would just say to put more restrictions on the access to guns, since it's a fact that shooting (not just mass killings) are more frequent on USA than most of other civilized countries. Wow it's like you don't even remember what you just posted. You asked me what use does a gun have besides shooting humans and I gave you one. Next you're straw manning me about justifying gun violence with recreation? What a poor argument as you say. Care to awnser my post as well? And I mean an actual awnser, not just telling me that I have no idea, because the topic interests me and I want to know how you justify it. No, I'm not going to type my opinions out to people who use straw man arguments against me. I've typed my opinions on the issue at least 30times in the last 100 pages and have no intention of doing it again because someone is too lazy to read my stance before posting and accusing me of justifying firearms with recreational shooting. Fair enough. Do you think the US is then a more violent nation than others? Compared to most Western nations, they have a relatively high murder rate, so would this be a cultural problem?
Stats don't really lie in this case, the numbers are higher than almost all first world countries. I don't really know, I suppose it's a combination of repressed minorities, economic issues, and culture. A large portion of violent crime is minorities shooting each other. Certain ethnicities commit a very large percent of crimes, especially when you take into account the percent of the total population these groups are. Black on black and mexican on mexican crime is huge.
|
I full on support this idea, and think that it would be one of the biggest solutions to problems like this Conn. fucker:
http://www.statesman.com/news/news/state-regional-govt-politics/connecticut-school-massacre-could-drive-through-te/nTZbB/
Perry, who has a handgun permit and is a frequent recreational target shooter, ramped up the debate Monday by advocating for teachers and school administrators to be allowed to carry properly licensed handguns.
“You should be able to carry your handgun anywhere in this state,” Perry said at a tea party event in North Richland Hills. He qualified that statement by saying the decision should be local and that private property should continue to be allowed to impose their own restrictions.
In recent weeks, before the Connecticut shooting, House and Senate members were discussing a variety of gun bills — including the campus-carry measure, allowing handgun licensees to carry their guns into private parking lots at plants and job sites, even a proposal to allow the open-carrying of firearms. Most are still in the discussion stage, though legislation is expected to be filed soon on all those measures.
tbh, I don't think I would put my kids in public school (or private) if they don't have some armed teachers and administrators. if you're not willing to fight (and possibly kill) to protect my child than why would I ever put my child in your control?
|
Superfan, you give the other side way too much ammunition -_-
|
On December 20 2012 08:25 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Superfan, you give the other side way too much ammunition -_-
punny.
but in all seriousness, I don't think it's a coincidence that the vast majority of these mass shootings happen in "gun-free zones"
|
On December 20 2012 08:24 sc2superfan101 wrote:I full on support this idea, and think that it would be one of the biggest solutions to problems like this Conn. fucker: http://www.statesman.com/news/news/state-regional-govt-politics/connecticut-school-massacre-could-drive-through-te/nTZbB/Show nested quote +Perry, who has a handgun permit and is a frequent recreational target shooter, ramped up the debate Monday by advocating for teachers and school administrators to be allowed to carry properly licensed handguns.
“You should be able to carry your handgun anywhere in this state,” Perry said at a tea party event in North Richland Hills. He qualified that statement by saying the decision should be local and that private property should continue to be allowed to impose their own restrictions.
In recent weeks, before the Connecticut shooting, House and Senate members were discussing a variety of gun bills — including the campus-carry measure, allowing handgun licensees to carry their guns into private parking lots at plants and job sites, even a proposal to allow the open-carrying of firearms. Most are still in the discussion stage, though legislation is expected to be filed soon on all those measures. tbh, I don't think I would put my kids in public school (or private) if they don't have some armed teachers and administrators. if you're not willing to kill to protect my child than why would I ever put my child in your control?
Arming teachers is absurd. Putting armed police in all schools just like most high schools recently have been doing will serve the same purpose without the insanity of having guns in a class room.
|
Canada11363 Posts
Arming teacher? No thanks. I'd quit and find another profession. If it really is so bad that teachers need to carry arms, then something is seriously wrong. Might as well pass out the bullet proof vests and roll out the barb wire, post snipers and build a watchtower.
|
On December 20 2012 08:27 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 08:24 sc2superfan101 wrote:I full on support this idea, and think that it would be one of the biggest solutions to problems like this Conn. fucker: http://www.statesman.com/news/news/state-regional-govt-politics/connecticut-school-massacre-could-drive-through-te/nTZbB/Perry, who has a handgun permit and is a frequent recreational target shooter, ramped up the debate Monday by advocating for teachers and school administrators to be allowed to carry properly licensed handguns.
“You should be able to carry your handgun anywhere in this state,” Perry said at a tea party event in North Richland Hills. He qualified that statement by saying the decision should be local and that private property should continue to be allowed to impose their own restrictions.
In recent weeks, before the Connecticut shooting, House and Senate members were discussing a variety of gun bills — including the campus-carry measure, allowing handgun licensees to carry their guns into private parking lots at plants and job sites, even a proposal to allow the open-carrying of firearms. Most are still in the discussion stage, though legislation is expected to be filed soon on all those measures. tbh, I don't think I would put my kids in public school (or private) if they don't have some armed teachers and administrators. if you're not willing to kill to protect my child than why would I ever put my child in your control? Arming teachers is absurd. Putting armed police in all schools just like most high schools recently have been doing will serve the same purpose without the insanity of having guns in a class room.
why is it absurd, and how is having a gun in a classroom insanity?
(and why is a cop more legitimate than a teacher as a protector of children? especially when cops aren't even there to protect you)
|
Australia8532 Posts
On December 20 2012 08:38 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 08:27 heliusx wrote:On December 20 2012 08:24 sc2superfan101 wrote:I full on support this idea, and think that it would be one of the biggest solutions to problems like this Conn. fucker: http://www.statesman.com/news/news/state-regional-govt-politics/connecticut-school-massacre-could-drive-through-te/nTZbB/Perry, who has a handgun permit and is a frequent recreational target shooter, ramped up the debate Monday by advocating for teachers and school administrators to be allowed to carry properly licensed handguns.
“You should be able to carry your handgun anywhere in this state,” Perry said at a tea party event in North Richland Hills. He qualified that statement by saying the decision should be local and that private property should continue to be allowed to impose their own restrictions.
In recent weeks, before the Connecticut shooting, House and Senate members were discussing a variety of gun bills — including the campus-carry measure, allowing handgun licensees to carry their guns into private parking lots at plants and job sites, even a proposal to allow the open-carrying of firearms. Most are still in the discussion stage, though legislation is expected to be filed soon on all those measures. tbh, I don't think I would put my kids in public school (or private) if they don't have some armed teachers and administrators. if you're not willing to kill to protect my child than why would I ever put my child in your control? Arming teachers is absurd. Putting armed police in all schools just like most high schools recently have been doing will serve the same purpose without the insanity of having guns in a class room. why is it absurd, and how is having a gun in a classroom insanity? (and why is a cop more legitimate than a teacher as a protector of children? especially when cops aren't even there to protect you)
You honestly don't see any argument as to why a policeman.. trained and educated.. is more legitimate than a teacher, as a protector of children? What sort of bad experience with police have you had?
|
Teachers shouldn't be forced to carry guns, but they should be allowed to.
It's the fact that shooters know schools are an area where guns are forbidden that makes them a target. If the odds of running into an armed teacher are the same as running into someone armed at a mall or anywhere else, it provides a disincentive to target schools at all.
Police carry guns because they need to protect citizens.
Military carry guns because they need to protect their nation.
Armored car personnel carry guns because they need to protect the valuables they carry.
Teachers are forbidden from carrying guns... because we don't want children protected?
|
On December 20 2012 08:09 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 08:03 SilentchiLL wrote:On December 20 2012 08:01 heliusx wrote:On December 20 2012 07:57 RedFury wrote:On December 20 2012 07:34 heliusx wrote:On December 20 2012 07:24 RedFury wrote:
For many things like?
Really? There are plenty of recreational and legitimate uses for firearms and you have a really uninformed and ignorant view if you believe they are only for killing humans.. Hunting, target practice, protection from animals, shooting competitions just to name a few. On December 20 2012 07:24 RedFury wrote:
And no you shouldn't be able to stab.
Yeah, you're right nothing completely and utterly retarded about requiring people to just die when they are attacked because Mr. RedFury in all his infinite wisdom and knowledge thinks it should be illegal to defend yourself with any weapons. You have to be trolling because I doubt the existence of any human being as ignorant as you presented yourself with that post. No troll at all. Basically you're justyfing all the violence that guns can cause (and don't throw shit stats that shows the opposite because they're just manipulated) with recreative uses? That's a poor argument. And about the aggression thing, yes you shouldn't make use of any weapon. It's easy to switch from the defender position to the aggressor's one. Anyway, that's purely in theory. On a more realistic note I would just say to put more restrictions on the access to guns, since it's a fact that shooting (not just mass killings) are more frequent on USA than most of other civilized countries. Wow it's like you don't even remember what you just posted. You asked me what use does a gun have besides shooting humans and I gave you one. Next you're straw manning me about justifying gun violence with recreation? What a poor argument as you say. Care to awnser my post as well? And I mean an actual awnser, not just telling me that I have no idea, because the topic interests me and I want to know how you justify it. No, I'm not going to type my opinions out to people who use straw man arguments against me. I've typed my opinions on the issue at least 30 times in the last 100 pages and have no intention of doing it again because someone is too lazy to read my stance before posting and accusing me of justifying firearms with recreational shooting.
I didn't, it was an example.
The question is, how DO you justify it if you take the price you have to pay for it into account?
Because it doesn't matter how many nice guys with guns exists, that price (lifes of innocent people) still exists.
|
On December 20 2012 07:56 SilentchiLL wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 07:49 heliusx wrote:On December 20 2012 07:44 Hryul wrote:On December 20 2012 07:34 heliusx wrote:On December 20 2012 07:24 RedFury wrote:
For many things like?
Really? There are plenty of recreational and legitimate uses for firearms and you have a really uninformed and ignorant view if you believe they are only for killing humans.. Hunting, target practice, protection from animals, shooting competitions just to name a few. On December 20 2012 07:24 RedFury wrote:
And no you shouldn't be able to stab.
Yeah, you're right nothing completely and utterly retarded about requiring people to just die when they are attacked because Mr. RedFury in all his infinite wisdom and knowledge thinks it should be illegal to defend yourself with any weapons. You have to be trolling because I doubt the existence of any human being as ignorant as you presented yourself with that post. I have the impression that there is a connection between the two bolded parts. And to name a few. Those are all the things I can think off. And for none of these you need a pumpgun. (pump action shotgun w/e) Good luck shooting skeet or hunting small birds without a shotgun. My point isn't about how many shooting sports there are as you are trying to steer the discussion into for some reason it's about the fact that there are legitimate uses for firearms besides shooting humans. You're getting increasingly desperate in your attempts to retort peoples posts. Shouldn't the question be if the chance to shoot at animals or take part in shooting competitions is worth the backlash? To be honest I'd rather have a country without shooting tournaments than a country with 20 dead children more. EDIT: Hryul ninja'd me, guess we had the same thought.
Banning guns wont do fuck all in the US. There are so many that even with buy back programs and the whole 9 yards the criminals will still have guns. Less than 1% of crimes are done with legal weapons anyways. There are neighbourhoods with abandoned houses where gangs will leave a weapon under a certain tile or somewhere else hidden where a member can go grab the gun when needed.
The worst school massacre were done with explosives btw not guns.
Trying to limit the amount of bullets per magazine is really difficult. On the SKS the magazine is limited to 5 by a small piece of metal you can grind out taking it up to 7 or 10 I can't remember the number tbh. Even the speedloading strips that are sold are intended to have the full magazine so they hold more than the magazine can hold so you always have a couple left over if you fill up the strip.
In a hypothetical civil war in the US I would argue it wouldn't be entirely one sided. The US military is heavily reliant on it's technology and on it's air force for cover which it can't use in cities because of killing civilians isn't how you beat an insurgency. I would be amazed if the military didn't have parts splinter off and fight with the rebels like in nearly every other revolution/coup. Also the US has massive borders it can't properly defend now without a civil war raging in the country. It's not a stretch to imagine RPGs filtering up from Mexico along with the drugs that already flow up. I already went over how tanks are useless in cities so I won't bother again. Obviously the battles would have to be waged guerilla style like the IRA.
I don't think fighting a civil war is a good reason to own guns but there's a reason they are clearly playing a major role in the revolutions in the Middle East.
|
On December 20 2012 08:45 bkrow wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 08:38 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 20 2012 08:27 heliusx wrote:On December 20 2012 08:24 sc2superfan101 wrote:I full on support this idea, and think that it would be one of the biggest solutions to problems like this Conn. fucker: http://www.statesman.com/news/news/state-regional-govt-politics/connecticut-school-massacre-could-drive-through-te/nTZbB/Perry, who has a handgun permit and is a frequent recreational target shooter, ramped up the debate Monday by advocating for teachers and school administrators to be allowed to carry properly licensed handguns.
“You should be able to carry your handgun anywhere in this state,” Perry said at a tea party event in North Richland Hills. He qualified that statement by saying the decision should be local and that private property should continue to be allowed to impose their own restrictions.
In recent weeks, before the Connecticut shooting, House and Senate members were discussing a variety of gun bills — including the campus-carry measure, allowing handgun licensees to carry their guns into private parking lots at plants and job sites, even a proposal to allow the open-carrying of firearms. Most are still in the discussion stage, though legislation is expected to be filed soon on all those measures. tbh, I don't think I would put my kids in public school (or private) if they don't have some armed teachers and administrators. if you're not willing to kill to protect my child than why would I ever put my child in your control? Arming teachers is absurd. Putting armed police in all schools just like most high schools recently have been doing will serve the same purpose without the insanity of having guns in a class room. why is it absurd, and how is having a gun in a classroom insanity? (and why is a cop more legitimate than a teacher as a protector of children? especially when cops aren't even there to protect you) You honestly don't see any argument as to why a policeman.. trained and educated.. is more legitimate than a teacher, as a protector of children? What sort of bad experience with police have you had?
I would say that teachers and administrators who carry guns on campus should go through gun safety courses every year and also have to attend an annual emergency situation training.
as for cops; unlike a lot of people my age, I love cops. they are almost universally good people who will always do their best to keep you safe. however, contrary to popular belief, their job is not to protect, but to enforce the law. protection is the responsibility of the citizens. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
also we already pay teachers and administrators to be there, paying a cop to be at every single school would cost.... a lot of money. if you could just give the teachers and admins who carry guns a small raise, you would not only have multiple layers of protection (cops at the school, teachers in the classroom, admins in the office) but you would also know 100% going into a school that there are armed people there, and that you can never know if that middle-aged woman you just walked past is packing heat.
I think there is a reason why "gun-free zones" get attacked by mass murderers and police stations generally don't.
|
With education budgets facing cuts along with a burgeoning labor shortage in teaching, where does this all get paid for?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
