Toto, I don't think we're in Kansas anymore
samdeanandbrolin:

peace-love-and-pizza:

too soon

it’s been 102 years

samdeanandbrolin:

peace-love-and-pizza:

too soon

it’s been 102 years

persnicketyqueerprincess:

Beautiful collection of straight boys interacting with a bisexual for hopefully the first time in their lives.

vorpalsuicide:

sellmysoulforrocknroll:

4gifs:

Puppy growing up, no hesitation on the second jump. [video]

Awww oh God sooo cute

Trust.

vorpalsuicide:

sellmysoulforrocknroll:

4gifs:

Puppy growing up, no hesitation on the second jump. [video]

Awww oh God sooo cute

Trust.

As for a movie with a non-white lead; if Marvel makes Thor 3 before it makes Black Panther, it will have made ten movies headlined by blond white men named Chris before it makes one movie headlined by someone who isn’t even white. (They can cast a black actor named Chris. That’s totally OK.)
Marvel Studios and diversity, everyone. (From here.)

kaywinnetleetam:

Jumping on a bandwagon, Part VI (Seriously the last one. I’ve already done my best possible, so here’s the last of what I had saved.)

pzychedelicious:

If you don’t know every single second of this song like the back of your hand then get out of my life

mjolnirismypenis:

mjolnirismypenis:

nomoreuturns:

rememberthehuntress:

songofages:

sugars-going-down:

achievementhugger:

thebabbagepatch:

ilacktact:

mycosmicreality:

adeyami:

US students will be able to shield themselves during school shootings with the latest in body armour, the Bodyguard Blanket
http://goo.gl/WwvECT
Are fucking kidding me? I have been sitting at home and constantly watching the news after the events of yesterday. For those of you who are wondering, I am a junior at REYNOLDS HIGH SCHOOL! I was there when the shooter kept running in the halls trying to open the doors and get in. I was there in the dark praying and crying while my librarian kept saying ” they’ll have to kill me before they touch my kids” I have known her for three years, her determination to keep us safe broke her heart. Seeing this, that little children need protection in school. Are we sending kids to a battlefield? I have three little brothers ranging from 5-10, and still people have the nerve to speak about the second amendment? Really? I can’t even type anymore. I’m so disgusted and frustrated. When will you realize that it’s important to have gun control? When a shooter is pointing a gun at your child? Is that when you’ll realize that guns aren’t something to be kept around. People say it’s a free country but honesty, this country is more oppressed and diseased than any other country.

Show me ONE instance where gun control and gun free zones prevented school shootings.



Let me tell you guys a story. In 1996, in a little town in Australia called Port Arthur, a gunman killed 35 and injured 23. This place was a tourist attraction, with plenty of visitors and locals going about their business. 35 people died.That’s 35 marriages, anniversaries, birthdays or uni degrees. 35 people left Port Arthur in body bags.At the time, we had a pretty conservative government, and the Prime Minister at the time (in hindsight) was kind of a dick. But within two weeks of the shooting, Howard instituted a massive reform and buyback of all firearms. 
But it must be a statistical flaw, you say, there weren’t that many massacres before 1996, right? No, WRONG. In the eighteen years leading up to Port Arthur, there had been 13 mass shootings. 
But April, you ask, this couldn’t possibly have worked could it? Wouldn’t it only have reduced the mass shootings? WRONG.Since 1996, there have been ZERO mass shootings. That’s right, ZERO. FUCKING ZILCH. There have been scattered homicides, however:
How many schools have been raided and children murdered? NONE.How many film buffs have been murdered in their seats? NONE.How many innocent lives have been lost to the barrel of a gun? NONE.
On top of this, homicides involving the use of guns, and youth suicide involving the use of guns has declined dramatically, by up to 60%
Australia, however much the environment tries to kill you, is a safe haven, and you can walk the streets with 99% assurance that you won’t fall victim to a drive by shooting.
Your move, America.

Okay, but if you plan  to kill someone, will the fact that guns are illegal stop you from getting one if you know you’re going to jail anyways?

Guns aren’t illegal in Australia, only some are. Those that plan to kill people, usually use weapons like knives and such. It’s easier to get a gun say for hunting, protecting your farm etc.
Here’s just some of the things:
a federal ban on the importation of “all semi-automatic self-loading and pump action longarms, and all parts, including magazines, for such firearms, included in Licence Category D, and control of the importation of those firearms included in Licence Category C.”  The sale, resale, transfer, ownership, manufacture, and use of such firearms would also be banned by the states and territories, other than in exceptional circumstances (relating to military or law enforcement purposes and occupational categories, depending on the category of the firearm);[23]
standard categories of firearms, including the two largely prohibited categories (C and D), which include certain semiautomatic and self-loading rifles and shotguns, and a restricted category for handguns (category H);[24]
a requirement for a separate permit for the acquisition of every firearm, with a twenty-eight-day waiting period applying to the issuing of such permits,[25] and the establishment of a nationwide firearms registration system;[26]
a uniform requirement for all firearms sales to be conducted only by or through licensed firearms dealers, and certain minimum principles that would underpin rules relating to the recording of firearms transactions by dealers and right of inspection by police;[27]
restrictions on the quantity of ammunition that may be purchased in a given period and a requirement that dealers only sell ammunition for firearms for which the purchaser is licensed;[28]
ensuring that “personal protection” would not be regarded as a “genuine reason” for owning, possessing, or using a firearm under the laws of the states and territories;[29]
standardized classifications to define a “genuine reason” that an applicant must show for owning, possessing, or using a firearm, including reasons relating to sport shooting, recreational shooting/hunting, collecting, and occupational requirements  (additional requirements of showing a genuine need for the particular type of firearm and securing related approvals would be added for firearms in categories B, C, D, and H);[30]
in addition to the demonstration of a “genuine reason,” other basic requirements would apply for the issuing of firearms licenses, specifically that the applicant must be aged eighteen years or over, be a “fit and proper person,” be able to prove his or her identity, and undertake adequate safety training[31] (safety training courses would be subject to accreditation and be “comprehensive and standardised across Australia for all licence categories”);[32]
firearms licenses would be required to bear a photograph of the licensee, be endorsed with a category of firearm, include the holder’s address, be issued after a waiting period of not less than twenty-eight days, be issued for a period of no more than five years, and contain a reminder of safe storage responsibilities;[33]
licenses would only be issued subject to undertakings to comply with storage requirements and following an inspection by licensing authorities of the licensee’s storage facilities;[34]
minimum standards for the refusal or cancellation of licenses, including criminal convictions for violent offenses in the past five years, unsafe storage of firearms, failure to notify of a change of address, and “reliable evidence of a mental or physical condition which would render the applicant unsuitable for owning, possessing or using a firearm”;[35] 

I feel like every single person should watch “Bowling for Columbine” at least once before engaging in this discussion, because it tries to answer the question why the U.S. has more school shootings than the rest of the world combined. And man that movie is like 12 years old the school shootings have escalated since then and still U.S. legislators have learned zilch.

ALL OF THIS.
Also, in case someone wants to pull the “well, if they don’t have access to guns, they’ll just find another way to kill people” card:
You’re right.
Bet you didn’t expect that, did you?
But seriously, you’re right: since nation-wide gun control was implemented in 1996, there have been three mass killings on Australian soil.
Yep, you read right: three. Since 1996, we have had had three mass killings; that’s three over 18 years. The weapon of choice for all three of them? Fire. On June 23, 2000, the Childers Palace backpackers hostel was burned down, killing 15 people; on February 7, 2009, an arsonist started the Churchill bush-fires, contributing to some of the worst bush-fires* in Australian recorded history and killing 10 people; and on November 18, 2011, the Quakers Hill nursing home was burned down, killing 11 people.
* February 7, 2009 is known as Black Saturday in Australia, due to the number of bush-fires that were sparked across the state of Victoria; 173 people were killed, and 414 were injured.
So, three mass killings over 18 years. Is that it? Yes. That’s it. So yeah, technically, if someone really wants to kill people, they’ll find a way. But without the immediacy and the instant gratification of a gun, people are much, much less likely to commit mass murder. And to all those people out there who agree with this statement:
People die because of violent methods other than guns all the time, so we shouldn’t bother trying to control guns.
please consider this statement:
People die because of all sorts of cancers all the time, so we shouldn’t bother trying to find a cure for bone cancer.
Does that statement sound reasonable to you? Do you think we should stop trying to find a cure for bone cancer just because there are other cancers out there that kill people? No? Well, you used the exact same argument to try and justify your anti-gun control stance. Seriously. Look at the wording of each sentence; practically identical. Just because people die because of many violent methods doesn’t mean you don’t bother trying to stop one; you stop that one method, and work to stop every other method along with it.
But back to Australia.
We have, technically, had one mass shooting following the introduction of nation-wide gun control, although it doesn’t qualify as a mass killing.* At Monash University on October 21, 2002, a student killed two people and injured five more using handguns he had legally obtained as part of the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia. But guess what happened after this incident?
* A mass killing is defined as the deaths of four people during a particular event, with no cooling-off period between the killings.
Our then-conservative national government and then-dick of a prime minister actually looked at the national gun ownership laws and regulations made in 1996 and made them tougher. Not only that, but our state governments also made the state gun ownership laws and regulations tougher. They instituted additional gun buy-back schemes, they offered monetary compensation to sporting shooters to lay-off competitive shooting, they cracked down even harder on gun misuse and gun trafficking, and they posed additional limits on the maximum calibre, maximum magazine capacity, and minimum muzzle length of handguns. They got guns out of the community, made it harder to get your hands on a gun, and made sure the guns that were left were less horrifyingly dangerous. And since then?
No mass shootings.
Not a one.
In nearly 12 years, we haven’t had a single mass shooting.
In the same time-frame that we’re working with here in Australia (since we instituted our first round of gun control legislation in 1996, so 18 years), the US has had over 80 mass killings (four people or more killed), the majority of which are attributable to gun use. And guess how much gun control you guys have tried?
In 1998, the permanent provisions of the Brady Law were put into effect,  meaning people had to wait for a criminal history check to clear before they could purchase a gun at a gun store. This is largely useless, because a) many criminal history checks aren’t processed properly, b) not having a criminal history doesn’t mean you’re not an entitled prick with an axe to grind, and c) the law can be side-stepped completely by buying your guns online or at a gun show.
In 2004, US Congress - and this cracks me up* - actually allowed the ban on magazines holding 10+ rounds to expire, allowing guns to hold - and to fire - more rounds, so those pricks with an axe to grind who had side-stepped their criminal history checks could now fire more bullets into their victims.
* Nope, that’s not right. What was the phrase I was after? Oh right: this horrifies me.
In 2008, the US Supreme Court dismissed a handgun ban in Washington DC. The US seat of political power. Where there’s politicians and foreign dignitaries and, y’know, the President of the United States. And they thought it was a good idea to just let handguns be toted around by any old civilian. The Supreme Court cited the Second Amendment as justification for their ruling, which…don’t even get me started on that stupid, grammatically incorrect relic of a bygone age.
In 2013, a bipartisan gun control plan that included expanded background checks for all gun owners, as well as bans on some semi-automatic rifles and high-capacity magazines came before the Senate…and was rejected. I…don’t even have words.
So, to recap: in the same 18 year span in which Australia managed to implement and then tighten their gun control legislation, with an end result of zero mass killings via gun use, the US not only didn’t improve their gun control legislation, you guys went backwards. You can’t say that gun control won’t work in the US because you haven’t actually tried any.
I’m not a gun abolitionist. No, really, I’m not. I think guns do have their place in society. I think the armed forces and police force of a nation need to be armed, at least part of the time. I have friends in the US who live nearly an hour away from the nearest police presence, who think that having a hunting rifle or shotgun in the home is their best option for defending themselves in an emergency, while they wait for police to arrive…and I agree, that’s a totally valid use for those types of guns. I know people use hunting rifles and shotguns to hunt game, or to scare off animals attacking their livestock, and those are valid reasons, too. Heck, even sporting shooters have a valid reason for using guns during their competitions.
But I don’t think the place of an automatic or semi-automatic handgun or rifle is in the hands of a civilian, kept in their home “just in case”, in the middle of suburbia or in a city. I don’t think a civilian should be able to walk into a gun show or click on a link and be able to buy automatic or semi-automatic weaponry, along with enough ammunition to level a town.
I’m not a gun abolitionist. I’m an advocate of gun control. I respect guns, I respect what they can do, and I respect the fact that not everyone can be trusted to responsibly own or use a gun. And I value the life of a person over the right of anybody to own a gun. Put your money where your mouth is, USA: if little old Australia can enact gun control, why can’t the “greatest country on Earth”?

America: We won’t take your guns away but we will take money out of your child’s public school education and put millions of it toward giving them shields to protect them against the guns we won’t take away.

I want to revise my statement because I just read more into this.  This isn’t paid for by the schools, the schools aren’t supplying these, they’re just supporting the sale of them.  The parents have to buy these for their children.  Which means that if you want to protect your child, you have to sink $1000 into one of these things.  So basically, if you’re struggling to get by, possibly a family in need of government assistance, or other scenario in which you are unable to afford $1000, your child is screwed.
To add onto this, there’s also a large debate going on in the US right now over the use of bulletproof vests in schools.  Again, looking further into it, some states are banning the use of vests (going so far as to fire teachers for wearing them and suspend students) and some are encouraging it.  I’ve even found stores that sell bulletproof bookbags for students to wear (and they make them all the way down to kindergarten sizes).
Not only is this not promoting less gun violence, BUT this is going to impact the children negatively.  These children are going to grow up suspecting and fearing EVERYONE, because who knows who’s going to pull a gun out of their ass and try to kill you.  These children are being treated as if they’re going to war every day.  I seriously found one article where someone was quoted as saying “It’s like you find life jackets on ships or planes in case they go down, it’s no different to having a seat belt in a car.” about bulletproof backpacks.  Are you fucking kidding me??  Am I the only person going “you wouldn’t need the seat belt if no one could get a car”?

mjolnirismypenis:

mjolnirismypenis:

nomoreuturns:

rememberthehuntress:

songofages:

sugars-going-down:

achievementhugger:

thebabbagepatch:

ilacktact:

mycosmicreality:

adeyami:

US students will be able to shield themselves during school shootings with the latest in body armour, the Bodyguard Blanket

http://goo.gl/WwvECT

Are fucking kidding me? I have been sitting at home and constantly watching the news after the events of yesterday. For those of you who are wondering, I am a junior at REYNOLDS HIGH SCHOOL! I was there when the shooter kept running in the halls trying to open the doors and get in. I was there in the dark praying and crying while my librarian kept saying ” they’ll have to kill me before they touch my kids” I have known her for three years, her determination to keep us safe broke her heart. Seeing this, that little children need protection in school. Are we sending kids to a battlefield? I have three little brothers ranging from 5-10, and still people have the nerve to speak about the second amendment? Really? I can’t even type anymore. I’m so disgusted and frustrated. When will you realize that it’s important to have gun control? When a shooter is pointing a gun at your child? Is that when you’ll realize that guns aren’t something to be kept around. People say it’s a free country but honesty, this country is more oppressed and diseased than any other country.

Show me ONE instance where gun control and gun free zones prevented school shootings.

image

Let me tell you guys a story.
In 1996, in a little town in Australia called Port Arthur, a gunman killed 35 and injured 23. This place was a tourist attraction, with plenty of visitors and locals going about their business. 
35 people died.That’s 35 marriages, anniversaries, birthdays or uni degrees. 35 people left Port Arthur in body bags.
At the time, we had a pretty conservative government, and the Prime Minister at the time (in hindsight) was kind of a dick. But within two weeks of the shooting, Howard instituted a massive reform and buyback of all firearms. 

But it must be a statistical flaw, you say, there weren’t that many massacres before 1996, right? No, WRONG. 
In the eighteen years leading up to Port Arthur, there had been 13 mass shootings. 

But April, you ask, this couldn’t possibly have worked could it? Wouldn’t it only have reduced the mass shootings? WRONG.
Since 1996, there have been ZERO mass shootings. That’s right, ZERO. FUCKING ZILCH. There have been scattered homicides, however:

How many schools have been raided and children murdered? NONE.
How many film buffs have been murdered in their seats? NONE.
How many innocent lives have been lost to the barrel of a gun? NONE.

On top of this, homicides involving the use of guns, and youth suicide involving the use of guns has declined dramatically, by up to 60%

Australia, however much the environment tries to kill you, is a safe haven, and you can walk the streets with 99% assurance that you won’t fall victim to a drive by shooting.

Your move, America.

Okay, but if you plan  to kill someone, will the fact that guns are illegal stop you from getting one if you know you’re going to jail anyways?

Guns aren’t illegal in Australia, only some are. Those that plan to kill people, usually use weapons like knives and such. It’s easier to get a gun say for hunting, protecting your farm etc.

Here’s just some of the things:

  • a federal ban on the importation of “all semi-automatic self-loading and pump action longarms, and all parts, including magazines, for such firearms, included in Licence Category D, and control of the importation of those firearms included in Licence Category C.”  The sale, resale, transfer, ownership, manufacture, and use of such firearms would also be banned by the states and territories, other than in exceptional circumstances (relating to military or law enforcement purposes and occupational categories, depending on the category of the firearm);[23]
  • standard categories of firearms, including the two largely prohibited categories (C and D), which include certain semiautomatic and self-loading rifles and shotguns, and a restricted category for handguns (category H);[24]
  • a requirement for a separate permit for the acquisition of every firearm, with a twenty-eight-day waiting period applying to the issuing of such permits,[25] and the establishment of a nationwide firearms registration system;[26]
  • a uniform requirement for all firearms sales to be conducted only by or through licensed firearms dealers, and certain minimum principles that would underpin rules relating to the recording of firearms transactions by dealers and right of inspection by police;[27]
  • restrictions on the quantity of ammunition that may be purchased in a given period and a requirement that dealers only sell ammunition for firearms for which the purchaser is licensed;[28]
  • ensuring that “personal protection” would not be regarded as a “genuine reason” for owning, possessing, or using a firearm under the laws of the states and territories;[29]
  • standardized classifications to define a “genuine reason” that an applicant must show for owning, possessing, or using a firearm, including reasons relating to sport shooting, recreational shooting/hunting, collecting, and occupational requirements  (additional requirements of showing a genuine need for the particular type of firearm and securing related approvals would be added for firearms in categories B, C, D, and H);[30]
  • in addition to the demonstration of a “genuine reason,” other basic requirements would apply for the issuing of firearms licenses, specifically that the applicant must be aged eighteen years or over, be a “fit and proper person,” be able to prove his or her identity, and undertake adequate safety training[31] (safety training courses would be subject to accreditation and be “comprehensive and standardised across Australia for all licence categories”);[32]
  • firearms licenses would be required to bear a photograph of the licensee, be endorsed with a category of firearm, include the holder’s address, be issued after a waiting period of not less than twenty-eight days, be issued for a period of no more than five years, and contain a reminder of safe storage responsibilities;[33]
  • licenses would only be issued subject to undertakings to comply with storage requirements and following an inspection by licensing authorities of the licensee’s storage facilities;[34]
  • minimum standards for the refusal or cancellation of licenses, including criminal convictions for violent offenses in the past five years, unsafe storage of firearms, failure to notify of a change of address, and “reliable evidence of a mental or physical condition which would render the applicant unsuitable for owning, possessing or using a firearm”;[35] 

I feel like every single person should watch “Bowling for Columbine” at least once before engaging in this discussion, because it tries to answer the question why the U.S. has more school shootings than the rest of the world combined. And man that movie is like 12 years old the school shootings have escalated since then and still U.S. legislators have learned zilch.

ALL OF THIS.

Also, in case someone wants to pull the “well, if they don’t have access to guns, they’ll just find another way to kill people” card:

You’re right.

Bet you didn’t expect that, did you?

But seriously, you’re right: since nation-wide gun control was implemented in 1996, there have been three mass killings on Australian soil.

Yep, you read right: three. Since 1996, we have had had three mass killings; that’s three over 18 years. The weapon of choice for all three of them? Fire. On June 23, 2000, the Childers Palace backpackers hostel was burned down, killing 15 people; on February 7, 2009, an arsonist started the Churchill bush-fires, contributing to some of the worst bush-fires* in Australian recorded history and killing 10 people; and on November 18, 2011, the Quakers Hill nursing home was burned down, killing 11 people.

* February 7, 2009 is known as Black Saturday in Australia, due to the number of bush-fires that were sparked across the state of Victoria; 173 people were killed, and 414 were injured.

So, three mass killings over 18 years. Is that it? Yes. That’s it. So yeah, technically, if someone really wants to kill people, they’ll find a way. But without the immediacy and the instant gratification of a gun, people are much, much less likely to commit mass murder. And to all those people out there who agree with this statement:

People die because of violent methods other than guns all the time, so we shouldn’t bother trying to control guns.

please consider this statement:

People die because of all sorts of cancers all the time, so we shouldn’t bother trying to find a cure for bone cancer.

Does that statement sound reasonable to you? Do you think we should stop trying to find a cure for bone cancer just because there are other cancers out there that kill people? No? Well, you used the exact same argument to try and justify your anti-gun control stance. Seriously. Look at the wording of each sentence; practically identical. Just because people die because of many violent methods doesn’t mean you don’t bother trying to stop one; you stop that one method, and work to stop every other method along with it.

But back to Australia.

We have, technically, had one mass shooting following the introduction of nation-wide gun control, although it doesn’t qualify as a mass killing.* At Monash University on October 21, 2002, a student killed two people and injured five more using handguns he had legally obtained as part of the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia. But guess what happened after this incident?

* A mass killing is defined as the deaths of four people during a particular event, with no cooling-off period between the killings.

Our then-conservative national government and then-dick of a prime minister actually looked at the national gun ownership laws and regulations made in 1996 and made them tougher. Not only that, but our state governments also made the state gun ownership laws and regulations tougher. They instituted additional gun buy-back schemes, they offered monetary compensation to sporting shooters to lay-off competitive shooting, they cracked down even harder on gun misuse and gun trafficking, and they posed additional limits on the maximum calibre, maximum magazine capacity, and minimum muzzle length of handguns. They got guns out of the community, made it harder to get your hands on a gun, and made sure the guns that were left were less horrifyingly dangerous. And since then?

No mass shootings.

Not a one.

In nearly 12 years, we haven’t had a single mass shooting.

In the same time-frame that we’re working with here in Australia (since we instituted our first round of gun control legislation in 1996, so 18 years), the US has had over 80 mass killings (four people or more killed), the majority of which are attributable to gun use. And guess how much gun control you guys have tried?

In 1998, the permanent provisions of the Brady Law were put into effect,  meaning people had to wait for a criminal history check to clear before they could purchase a gun at a gun store. This is largely useless, because a) many criminal history checks aren’t processed properly, b) not having a criminal history doesn’t mean you’re not an entitled prick with an axe to grind, and c) the law can be side-stepped completely by buying your guns online or at a gun show.

In 2004, US Congress - and this cracks me up* - actually allowed the ban on magazines holding 10+ rounds to expire, allowing guns to hold - and to fire - more rounds, so those pricks with an axe to grind who had side-stepped their criminal history checks could now fire more bullets into their victims.

* Nope, that’s not right. What was the phrase I was after? Oh right: this horrifies me.

In 2008, the US Supreme Court dismissed a handgun ban in Washington DC. The US seat of political power. Where there’s politicians and foreign dignitaries and, y’know, the President of the United States. And they thought it was a good idea to just let handguns be toted around by any old civilian. The Supreme Court cited the Second Amendment as justification for their ruling, which…don’t even get me started on that stupid, grammatically incorrect relic of a bygone age.

In 2013, a bipartisan gun control plan that included expanded background checks for all gun owners, as well as bans on some semi-automatic rifles and high-capacity magazines came before the Senate…and was rejected. I…don’t even have words.

So, to recap: in the same 18 year span in which Australia managed to implement and then tighten their gun control legislation, with an end result of zero mass killings via gun use, the US not only didn’t improve their gun control legislation, you guys went backwards. You can’t say that gun control won’t work in the US because you haven’t actually tried any.

I’m not a gun abolitionist. No, really, I’m not. I think guns do have their place in society. I think the armed forces and police force of a nation need to be armed, at least part of the time. I have friends in the US who live nearly an hour away from the nearest police presence, who think that having a hunting rifle or shotgun in the home is their best option for defending themselves in an emergency, while they wait for police to arrive…and I agree, that’s a totally valid use for those types of guns. I know people use hunting rifles and shotguns to hunt game, or to scare off animals attacking their livestock, and those are valid reasons, too. Heck, even sporting shooters have a valid reason for using guns during their competitions.

But I don’t think the place of an automatic or semi-automatic handgun or rifle is in the hands of a civilian, kept in their home “just in case”, in the middle of suburbia or in a city. I don’t think a civilian should be able to walk into a gun show or click on a link and be able to buy automatic or semi-automatic weaponry, along with enough ammunition to level a town.

I’m not a gun abolitionist. I’m an advocate of gun control. I respect guns, I respect what they can do, and I respect the fact that not everyone can be trusted to responsibly own or use a gun. And I value the life of a person over the right of anybody to own a gun. Put your money where your mouth is, USA: if little old Australia can enact gun control, why can’t the “greatest country on Earth”?

America: We won’t take your guns away but we will take money out of your child’s public school education and put millions of it toward giving them shields to protect them against the guns we won’t take away.

I want to revise my statement because I just read more into this.  This isn’t paid for by the schools, the schools aren’t supplying these, they’re just supporting the sale of them.  The parents have to buy these for their children.  Which means that if you want to protect your child, you have to sink $1000 into one of these things.  So basically, if you’re struggling to get by, possibly a family in need of government assistance, or other scenario in which you are unable to afford $1000, your child is screwed.

To add onto this, there’s also a large debate going on in the US right now over the use of bulletproof vests in schools.  Again, looking further into it, some states are banning the use of vests (going so far as to fire teachers for wearing them and suspend students) and some are encouraging it.  I’ve even found stores that sell bulletproof bookbags for students to wear (and they make them all the way down to kindergarten sizes).

Not only is this not promoting less gun violence, BUT this is going to impact the children negatively.  These children are going to grow up suspecting and fearing EVERYONE, because who knows who’s going to pull a gun out of their ass and try to kill you.  These children are being treated as if they’re going to war every day.  I seriously found one article where someone was quoted as saying “It’s like you find life jackets on ships or planes in case they go down, it’s no different to having a seat belt in a car.” about bulletproof backpacks.  Are you fucking kidding me??  Am I the only person going “you wouldn’t need the seat belt if no one could get a car”?

lesupernerd:

sixpenceee:

The artist behind this is Arthur Tress. 

MORE INFO

COMMON NIGHTMARES & THEIR MEANINGS

WHAT THE FUCK WHY ?!

I have this book.. I was like hang on I know that picture.

lucobutt:

Being in a Skype call with me

image