@chaplainDMK: The M16 is manufactured specifically for military use. Again, it is important to recognize and distinguish between M16s and civilian rifles when you talk about legality of purchase and ownership.
Explain the difference apart from designation.
I'm not even familiar with the Colt AR receiver function, but I can tell you there are likely a lot of difference between a true military M16/M4 and a civilian AR-15.
And the funny thing is, some states (and provinces in Canada) have effectively banned the AR-15, but ignore equally powerful (or more powerful) full blown assault rifles (like the M14) because of a knee-jerk reaction to AR's being used in spree killings.
An M14 can be equipped with a 20-shot magazine and is far easier to modify into fully auto than an AR. And an M14 is 7.62 calibre, while the AR is 5.56. The 7.62 round will do far more damage.
Read how stubborn and disrespectful gun owners can be. I can't believe that in Texas people can walk around with "long arms" openly. Can you imagine walking into a Starbucks and everyone is sitting there with ak47's and other high powered assault rifles strapped to there backs.
It's not very family friendly.
Why the need to carry these kinds of gun around in public what are these guys afraid of?
"Can you imagine walking into a Starbucks and everyone is sitting there with ak47's and other high powered assault rifles strapped to there backs."
No, but luckily here in the US assault rifles are effectively banned.
Well, they mustn't be automatic. You can still carry a semi-automatic variant of a M16 or an AK-47 around. You can carry an M1 Garand if you so wish. All of those guns can punch a hole through a wall and kill someone on the other side, so ye.
No, a civilian can't buy an M-16. They are effectively banned for civilian ownership.
Anyway, what you posted has no bearing on my post.
So, the Colt AR-15 is significantly different from an M-16? :)
Some Colt AR-15s are M-16s. However, M-16s are military-grade assault rifles. They are effectively banned from civilian ownership in the US, regardless of the variant.
The Colt AR-15 is a semi-automatic variant of the M16 specified for "civilian use". Apart from a few states (California IIRC) they are perfectly legal and in all aspects identical to the military M16, except that they don't have fully automatic or burst fire capacity (though it's pretty easy to get a conversion kit for that actually).
Don't go mumbo jumbo on me because there's a bunch of non Colt built AR-15's, I'm talking about the Colt manufactured AR-15, which is a semi-automatic M16 for civilian use.
P.S: I just remembered you can get an AR-15 variant that chambers the .50 cal Beowulf round, a round that has similar stopping power to the .458 SOCOM round that US Special Forces designed specifically because 5,56x45 NATO doesn't have the stopping power to kill things in one shot. *MURICAAAHHHH!*
No. The M-16 is a variant of the AR-15, not the other way around.
"I'm talking about the Colt manufactured AR-15, which is a semi-automatic M16 for civilian use."
No, it's not. The weapons are very similar, but civilians are effectively banned from owning M-16s in the US. You can buy a rifle that looks similar to an M-16, and in some ways functions alike, but that doesn't mean that you can buy an M-16.
The M16 is a variant of the original ArmaLite AR-15, the current Colt AR-15 is a version of the M16.
No, they are identical apart from having no fully automatic firing capability. There's a few bits utterly changed in the AR-15 to prevent easy conversion to fully automatic or burst fire capacity, but that has no effect on the accuracy, lethality or handling of the rifle. You can more or less interchange just about anything between an M16 and an AR-15, though it's illegal to put M16 parts into a civilian AR-15. Otherwise you have the M16 in semi-automatic fire mode if you have an AR-15.
And you are really grasping at straws here, both the M16 and AR-15 (if the AR-15 has the same barrel length and is a 5,56x45mm version) will fire a bullet with the same muzzle velocity and accuracy and will handle identically.
This is the same moron that argued with me for about 5 pages about how you didnt need a Google+ account to sign up for youtube, when you did.
I agree with concealed carry permits and don't think anyone has a right to ask them to leave their store as long as they're concealed. Idk how they would know unless someone came out and asked you or you pulled your weapon out in the store.
Now as to the nuts carrying long guns into a restaurant just because they can................I agree. They are dickless losers.
This is America, and we're fortunately not to that point yet where carrying long guns into restaurants are needed just to feel safe. Maybe after the inevitable oil bust/civil wars/general collapse of society, but now, no.
You don't think that a property owner has the right to choose who carries what weapons on his own property? WTF?
You said that no one has the right to ask someone carrying concealed to leave? Why?
In a municipality where it is allowed, no, that would be a violation of their 2nd Amendment rights. I've known several people that concealed carried and it never bothered me.
Now to the nuts carrying long guns into a restaurant, I would turn around once I saw them and go to another restaurant. Maybe they're not "gun nuts" that are going to go postal, but you have to be atleast a little insane to think that's OK in America.
Concealed carry = OK
Long guns strapped over your shoulder while eating at a restaurant/store = not OK
No. It doesn't work like that. The business owner has every right to disallow firearms on their property and to demand that you leave if you do bring a firearm in. Just like you have a right to free speech, but you do not have the right to walk into a diner, sit there and start calling the guy at the table next to you a "motherless cocksucker". Well, you do have that right, and the business has the right to eject you for doing so.
@chaplainDMK: The M16 is manufactured specifically for military use. Again, it is important to recognize and distinguish between M16s and civilian rifles when you talk about legality of purchase and ownership.
Explain the difference apart from designation.
There are differences in the trigger, bolt carrier, etc.. The M-16 is select fire, while a civilian AR is semi-auto. The M-16 is built and distributed to military, while civilian ARs are not. Those are a few differences.
The difference in the trigger mechanism is what I outlined earlier, it's there to make it harder to convert to select fire.
Same for the bolt carrier, though plenty of AR-15 variants sold have a bolt carrier suited for automatic fire.
When you pull the trigger on a 5,56mm AR-15 and a M16 you will get the same effect, same accuracy, same everything. The only difference will be that the M16 will have select fire.
@foxhound_fox said:
@chaplainDMK said:
@thegerg said:
@chaplainDMK: The M16 is manufactured specifically for military use. Again, it is important to recognize and distinguish between M16s and civilian rifles when you talk about legality of purchase and ownership.
Explain the difference apart from designation.
I'm not even familiar with the Colt AR receiver function, but I can tell you there are likely a lot of difference between a true military M16/M4 and a civilian AR-15.
And the funny thing is, some states (and provinces in Canada) have effectively banned the AR-15, but ignore equally powerful (or more powerful) full blown assault rifles (like the M14) because of a knee-jerk reaction to AR's being used in spree killings.
An M14 can be equipped with a 20-shot magazine and is far easier to modify into fully auto than an AR. And an M14 is 7.62 calibre, while the AR is 5.56. The 7.62 round will do far more damage.
The "classic" Colt AR-15 will have an almost identical reciever to the M16, the differences are mainly there to prevent interchangeability between the weapons and to prevent easy select fire modification. Though there are a load of AR-15 variants and various receivers for the gun with varying degrees of interchangeability.
Precisely. Though the M14 is technically a battle rifle that fires full blown 7,62x51mm rifle rounds. Assault rifles use intermediate cartridges like the 7,62x39mm used in the AK-47 or 5,56x45mm in the M16. Though you can actually get the AR-15 in all manner of calibers, like I previously pointed out you have the "Beowulf" AR-15 that uses a cartridge with similar capacity to the .458 SOCOM that US Special Forces designed because 5,56x45mm lacks stopping power. Fun fact, the cartridge was mainly designed to allow vehicle checkpoint guards to shoot through glass and doors at short range, at any real range the cartridges lethality quickly falls off so it's not good at hunting where it usually just maims large game because of the slow speed of the bullet.
You said assault rifles are effectively banned, I pointed out that you could buy AK-47s and M16s in basically any gun store. Though you had to get all complicsted claiming the AR-15 is significantly different to the M16.
In the end my point stands, your falls. You can get assault rifles in the US easily.
@Boddicker: why? They're not actually enforcing any ban
Because 2nd amendment bro! America!
It has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment. If they had asked people not to bring long guns into their stores in municipalities where that's allowed I would have had no problem with that and would have agreed with them. It's that they lumped ALL guns together including concealed carry is the reason they've lost my business.
I hardly shop at Target anyways. I'm more of a Wal-Mart kind of guy. What's that? Everything in the store is made in China? God Damnit!!!!!!
You said assault rifles are effectively banned, I pointed out that you could buy AK-47s and M16s in basically any gun store. Though you had to get all complicsted claiming the AR-15 is significantly different to the M16.
In the end my point stands, your falls. You can get assault rifles in the US easily.
"Though you had to get all complicsted claiming the AR-15 is significantly different to the M16."
Cut the bullshit, stick to the facts. I never claimed that.
"In the end my point stands, your falls."
My point is that your average civilian can not buy an M-16. That is a fact. My point does not fail.
So what's the point here. The AR-15 is basically an M16, yet it's still somehow important that a civilian cannot buy the M16 directly, even though they can buy the AR-15 which is basically the same thing. Basically your problem is that I said you can buy the M16, by which I was implying the Colt AR-15, which is identical to the M16, and instead of focusing on what I tried to point out, e.g. you can buy an assault rifle in the US, you focus on the fact I said M16 instead of AR-15.
You said assault rifles are effectively banned, I pointed out that you could buy AK-47s and M16s in basically any gun store. Though you had to get all complicsted claiming the AR-15 is significantly different to the M16.
In the end my point stands, your falls. You can get assault rifles in the US easily.
"Though you had to get all complicsted claiming the AR-15 is significantly different to the M16."
Cut the bullshit, stick to the facts. I never claimed that.
"In the end my point stands, your falls."
My point is that your average civilian can not buy an M-16. That is a fact. My point does not fail.
So what's the point here. The AR-15 is basically an M16, yet it's still somehow important that a civilian cannot buy the M16 directly, even though they can buy the AR-15 which is basically the same thing. Basically your problem is that I said you can buy the M16, by which I was implying the Colt AR-15, which is identical to the M16, and instead of focusing on what I tried to point out, e.g. you can buy an assault rifle in the US, you focus on the fact I said M16 instead of AR-15.
"So what's the point here."
Read the post that you quoted. The answer to this question is in black and white.
"the Colt AR-15, which is identical to the M16"
We've been over this, it's not identical.
Read your original post, you claimed assault rifles are effectively banned in the US. They are not.
And I've pointed out a hundred times how the M16 and the Colt AR-15 are identical, all you keep saying is "M16 is military grade". You have not put forward a single way in the which the two weapons are significantly different, apart from select fire mode which I pointed out at the start of my argument.
You said assault rifles are effectively banned, I pointed out that you could buy AK-47s and M16s in basically any gun store. Though you had to get all complicsted claiming the AR-15 is significantly different to the M16.
In the end my point stands, your falls. You can get assault rifles in the US easily.
"Though you had to get all complicsted claiming the AR-15 is significantly different to the M16."
Cut the bullshit, stick to the facts. I never claimed that.
"In the end my point stands, your falls."
My point is that your average civilian can not buy an M-16. That is a fact. My point does not fail.
So what's the point here. The AR-15 is basically an M16, yet it's still somehow important that a civilian cannot buy the M16 directly, even though they can buy the AR-15 which is basically the same thing. Basically your problem is that I said you can buy the M16, by which I was implying the Colt AR-15, which is identical to the M16, and instead of focusing on what I tried to point out, e.g. you can buy an assault rifle in the US, you focus on the fact I said M16 instead of AR-15.
"So what's the point here."
Read the post that you quoted. The answer to this question is in black and white.
"the Colt AR-15, which is identical to the M16"
We've been over this, it's not identical.
Read your original post, you claimed assault rifles are effectively banned in the US. They are not.
And I've pointed out a hundred times how the M16 and the Colt AR-15 are identical, all you keep saying is "M16 is military grade". You have not put forward a single way in the which the two weapons are significantly different, apart from select fire mode which I pointed out at the start of my argument.
"And I've pointed out a hundred times how the M16 and the Colt AR-15 are identical"
An M-16 and a civilian AR are not identical. We've been over this. There are differences in the trigger, bolt carrier, etc.. Cut the bullshit, stick to the facts. Two rifles being quite similar does not mean that they are identical.
"Read your original post, you claimed assault rifles are effectively banned in the US. They are not."
Such weapons are effectively (that doesn't mean entirely) banned from civilian ownership in the US. One can't simply walk into a gun shop or gun show and buy an assault rifle. They may be able to buy a semi-auto AR or AK, but not an assault rifle.
So you'll nitpick at the precise definition of assault rifles for the argument. I guess that really does make a huge difference in the lethality of the two guns right?
Im just wondering. How does telling people they cant casually walk into a mall on their backs will prevent shooting rampages? Someone who wakes up in the morning, drive their car to the nearest mall to deliberately shoot as many people as they can with their assault rifle isnt going to care about the rules. There is literally nothing stopping a person going on a shooting spree in the United States.
There are also people who are willing to commit a crime by using a gun. Do you think a criminal looking to rob a store is going to care any other law? Someone who is a convicted felon who have a firearm would have gotten it from the black market or someone else bought it for them. People in the criminal world isnt going to care about gun control laws, it would just mean its better for them because people are less likely to be armed in public places.
@chaplainDMK: The M16 is manufactured specifically for military use. Again, it is important to recognize and distinguish between M16s and civilian rifles when you talk about legality of purchase and ownership.
Explain the difference apart from designation.
I'm not even familiar with the Colt AR receiver function, but I can tell you there are likely a lot of difference between a true military M16/M4 and a civilian AR-15.
And the funny thing is, some states (and provinces in Canada) have effectively banned the AR-15, but ignore equally powerful (or more powerful) full blown assault rifles (like the M14) because of a knee-jerk reaction to AR's being used in spree killings.
An M14 can be equipped with a 20-shot magazine and is far easier to modify into fully auto than an AR. And an M14 is 7.62 calibre, while the AR is 5.56. The 7.62 round will do far more damage.
While the 7.62x51 NATO round is much more powerful than the 5.56x45 NATO round, it's recoil is considerable in comparison to the 5.56 which feels like nothing. This means that a shooter can shoot faster and more accurately with a rifle chambered in 5.56 over 7.62 and shooting 7.62 on full auto is about as smart as throwing a dart at the bullseye like your trying to throw a 102 mph fastball. The sacrifice with 5.56 is a shorter effective range and a lighter bullet that has less drop, hence, better accuracy at short-medium distance. The M14/M1A mags can only carry 20 rounds while the M16/AR15 platform regularly is loaded with 30 round mags.
The 5.56 is the more well rounded round as it's cheaper, lighter, smaller, and faster than the 7.62 and that's why every major military on the planet uses it over the 7.62... but it still sucks.
@Jd1680a: it's America not Iraq there is no need to walk around with high powered long arms hanging off your back.
Are you aware the 2nd Amendment legally allows people carry double axes, swords, maces, bow and arrows?
In America we got a problem of people going into a public place and shoot innocent at random. What if James Holmes came to a movie theater with five other people with high power rifles? Do you think the outcome would be different?
The idea of not letting people carry a gun into a store or mall is going to prevent a shooting spree is absurd.
@Jd1680a: it's America not Iraq there is no need to walk around with high powered long arms hanging off your back.
Are you aware the 2nd Amendment legally allows people carry double axes, swords, maces, bow and arrows?
In America we got a problem of people going into a public place and shoot innocent at random. What if James Holmes came to a movie theater with five other people with high power rifles? Do you think the outcome would be different?
The idea of not letting people carry a gun into a store or mall is going to prevent a shooting spree is absurd.
I don't think that's really the reason target is asking people not to bring in weapons
@chaplainDMK: The M16 is manufactured specifically for military use. Again, it is important to recognize and distinguish between M16s and civilian rifles when you talk about legality of purchase and ownership.
Explain the difference apart from designation.
I'm not even familiar with the Colt AR receiver function, but I can tell you there are likely a lot of difference between a true military M16/M4 and a civilian AR-15.
And the funny thing is, some states (and provinces in Canada) have effectively banned the AR-15, but ignore equally powerful (or more powerful) full blown assault rifles (like the M14) because of a knee-jerk reaction to AR's being used in spree killings.
An M14 can be equipped with a 20-shot magazine and is far easier to modify into fully auto than an AR. And an M14 is 7.62 calibre, while the AR is 5.56. The 7.62 round will do far more damage.
While the 7.62x51 NATO round is much more powerful than the 5.56x45 NATO round, it's recoil is considerable in comparison to the 5.56 which feels like nothing. This means that a shooter can shoot faster and more accurately with a rifle chambered in 5.56 over 7.62 and shooting 7.62 on full auto is about as smart as throwing a dart at the bullseye like your trying to throw a 102 mph fastball. The sacrifice with 5.56 is a shorter effective range and a lighter bullet that has less drop, hence, better accuracy at short-medium distance. The M14/M1A mags can only carry 20 rounds while the M16/AR15 platform regularly is loaded with 30 round mags.
The 5.56 is the more well rounded round as it's cheaper, lighter, smaller, and faster than the 7.62 and that's why every major military on the planet uses it over the 7.62... but it still sucks.
That kind of accuracy only matters out past 100 yards. In a spree killing situation, we are talking of distances less than 25. And it's not like you need a headshot to kill someone with a 7.62 round. Almost anywhere in the body will do. With that extra stopping power, you will also get more exit wounds and possible secondary injuries to other people. I've heard stories of 5.56 rounds getting slowed by heavy clothing at longer ranges.
@chaplainDMK: The M16 is manufactured specifically for military use. Again, it is important to recognize and distinguish between M16s and civilian rifles when you talk about legality of purchase and ownership.
Explain the difference apart from designation.
I'm not even familiar with the Colt AR receiver function, but I can tell you there are likely a lot of difference between a true military M16/M4 and a civilian AR-15.
And the funny thing is, some states (and provinces in Canada) have effectively banned the AR-15, but ignore equally powerful (or more powerful) full blown assault rifles (like the M14) because of a knee-jerk reaction to AR's being used in spree killings.
An M14 can be equipped with a 20-shot magazine and is far easier to modify into fully auto than an AR. And an M14 is 7.62 calibre, while the AR is 5.56. The 7.62 round will do far more damage.
While the 7.62x51 NATO round is much more powerful than the 5.56x45 NATO round, it's recoil is considerable in comparison to the 5.56 which feels like nothing. This means that a shooter can shoot faster and more accurately with a rifle chambered in 5.56 over 7.62 and shooting 7.62 on full auto is about as smart as throwing a dart at the bullseye like your trying to throw a 102 mph fastball. The sacrifice with 5.56 is a shorter effective range and a lighter bullet that has less drop, hence, better accuracy at short-medium distance. The M14/M1A mags can only carry 20 rounds while the M16/AR15 platform regularly is loaded with 30 round mags.
The 5.56 is the more well rounded round as it's cheaper, lighter, smaller, and faster than the 7.62 and that's why every major military on the planet uses it over the 7.62... but it still sucks.
That kind of accuracy only matters out past 100 yards. In a spree killing situation, we are talking of distances less than 25. And it's not like you need a headshot to kill someone with a 7.62 round. Almost anywhere in the body will do. With that extra stopping power, you will also get more exit wounds and possible secondary injuries to other people. I've heard stories of 5.56 rounds getting slowed by heavy clothing at longer ranges.
If a mass shooter is targeting people at distances of less than 25 yards, a rifle in 5.56 will be more efficient than 7.62. Again, a 7.62 is too powerful and recoil too heavy to be effective in those situations. Your forgetting that most of these mass shooters aren't accustomed to shooting and the top two choices are 5.56 and 9mm. Why? Because the recoil is so light.
@Jd1680a: it's America not Iraq there is no need to walk around with high powered long arms hanging off your back.
Are you aware the 2nd Amendment legally allows people carry double axes, swords, maces, bow and arrows?
In America we got a problem of people going into a public place and shoot innocent at random. What if James Holmes came to a movie theater with five other people with high power rifles? Do you think the outcome would be different?
The idea of not letting people carry a gun into a store or mall is going to prevent a shooting spree is absurd.
I wouldn't hinge your argument on preventing something so rare that it borders on the chances of getting struck by lightning.. If that is the case I can make argument on why we should drive tanks because car accidents claim more lives then anything remotely coming close to shooting sprees, though tragic they are..
So, can I or can't I bring my many assault rifles with high capacity magazines into Target while I do my shopping or not? Also, why would a store named after something used in shooting practice ban guns in the first place? Isn't that a conflict of interest?
So, can I or can't I bring my many assault rifles with high capacity magazines into Target while I do my shopping or not? Also, why would a store named after something used in shooting practice ban guns in the first place? Isn't that a conflict of interest?
From the Article:
Target spokesman Molly Snyder told the Wire that they are “requesting that people do not carry any firearms in our stores, including concealed carry. We will continue to follow local laws, however, concealed weapons are included in our position.” However, Target has no plans to actually enforce its request. The Wire asked Snyder if Target will ask a gun-toting customer to leave and she said: “Because this is a request and not a prohibition, we do not plan to communicate with our customers at this time.”
@sSubZerOo: "I wouldn't hinge your argument on preventing something so rare that it borders on the chances of getting struck by lightning"
I don't care how rare they are! Over two hundred school children have died in school shootings in the past 20 years alone, It shouldn't be happening at all let alone rarely and these shooting sprees happen in the US because guns are so widely and readily available and accepted in society.
@sSubZerOo: "I wouldn't hinge your argument on preventing something so rare that it borders on the chances of getting struck by lightning"
I don't care how rare they are! Over two hundred school children have died in school shootings in the past 20 years alone, It shouldn't be happening at all let alone rarely and these shooting sprees happen in the US because guns are so widely and readily available and accepted in society.
Are you aware of the purpose of the Second Amendment?
What might that be?
To be able to stage an armed insurrection against the United States government?
Clearly you don't understand the Second Amendment like a few other people here as well.
An unarmed populous is a vulnerable populous.
Read the decision in "District of Columbia v Heller".
What am I looking for in that decision? There's nothing in it that talks about the virtues of an "armed populous"
I think I was correct in my initial post that you believe (and I don't necessarily disagree) that the original purpose of the second amendment was to give the populous the ability to stage an armed insurrection. But given that, you're reducing the second amendment to a mere truism. Armed rebellion against the United States government is not only criminal but treasonous. Why then would it matter what the legal status of firearms is?
@sSubZerOo: "I wouldn't hinge your argument on preventing something so rare that it borders on the chances of getting struck by lightning"
I don't care how rare they are! Over two hundred school children have died in school shootings in the past 20 years alone, It shouldn't be happening at all let alone rarely and these shooting sprees happen in the US because guns are so widely and readily available and accepted in society.
Less then 300 kids have died in school shootings since 1980.. There are some 75+ million students k through college that attend school every year.. Your chances of getting killed in a school shooting is less then getting stuck by lightning.. If your going to flip out about a statistic like this, why the hell aren't you flipping out on things of equal fatality or far greater?? Sh!t happens, of course it shouldn't be happening, but your literally flipping out on something so small in the grand scheme of things compared to the much greater problems in society that claim far more lives.. This is the ridiculous part of these fvcking whole debates, we basically have people wanting to throw billions of dollars at this or create huge reform changes when we have more pressing problems that claim far more lives each year but are ignored.
@sSubZerOo: "I wouldn't hinge your argument on preventing something so rare that it borders on the chances of getting struck by lightning"
I don't care how rare they are! Over two hundred school children have died in school shootings in the past 20 years alone, It shouldn't be happening at all let alone rarely and these shooting sprees happen in the US because guns are so widely and readily available and accepted in society.
Since when is this thread about school shootings?
It isn't, but he is making his argument even worse because he is narrowing down a far smaller group of fatalities.. So low in fact I am willing to bet horse play during recess and full contact sports are going to rival those numbers.. Should we start banning those things too?
@sSubZerOo: "Less then 300 kids have died in school shootings since 1980.. There are some 75+ million students k through college that attend school every year"
Oh that's fine then is it? that in a supposedly civilised country less than 300 children have been shot and killed while in school since 1980, that's an acceptable number of deaths is it? Americans should be proud of that amount of deaths from school shootings should they? Only in America is this acceptable.
The whole it's so rare argument just shows you guys are in denial about your gun problem, you are are basically saying you want an increased rate of deaths from school shootings before you are willing to admit there is a problem, but as long as the rate of deaths caused by school shootings stays as it is then you guys are happy with that. And it's not just school shootings it's shootings in general add to that figure the number of deaths by firearms outside of school in the US and it's a whole different story.
There are other countries with high rates of gun ownership that all have relatively low rates of gun-related deaths and few school shootings. These countries "have it all" in the sense of having lots of gun ownership without the violent consequences.
" If your going to flip out about a statistic like this, why the hell aren't you flipping out on things of equal fatality or far greater"
This thread is about gun ownership in the US and open carry policies, which also leads to the subject of mass shootings it's inevitable that in a Gun thread focused on gun ownership in US that mass shootings will be brought up. I'm not going to start banging on about every possible way someone can die other than from guns.
So that's why I'm not "flipping out on things of equal fatality or far greater" if you want to make a thread about all the more common ways someone can die although a macabre subject I will participate.
"I am willing to bet horse play during recess and full contact sports are going to rival those numbers"
If a kid dies because of a freak accident in contact sports or horse play that's bad luck but because of the nature of these activities it unfortunately can happen. However there are no activities in schools that involve guns so the last thing you would expect is for any amount of children to be shot and killed while in school.
Log in to comment