Originally posted by: loki8481
it's true. I mean, look at the VA shooting. he totally obtained his guns by illegal means.
oh wait...
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: loki8481
it's true. I mean, look at the VA shooting. he totally obtained his guns by illegal means.
oh wait...
its true. I mean, look at the VA shooting. he was totally carrying those guns legaly.
oh wait....
or lets try this.
its true. I mean, look at VA shooting. banning firearms from the campus sure did a good job stopping anyone from carrying firearms on campus and killing a bunch of people.
oh wait.....
and some percentage of the emotionally-fragile emo whiners that infest colleges today would successfully off themselves.
Originally posted by: jman19
Too bad that comic isn't true.
Originally posted by: DonVito
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: loki8481
it's true. I mean, look at the VA shooting. he totally obtained his guns by illegal means.
oh wait...
its true. I mean, look at the VA shooting. he was totally carrying those guns legaly.
oh wait....
or lets try this.
its true. I mean, look at VA shooting. banning firearms from the campus sure did a good job stopping anyone from carrying firearms on campus and killing a bunch of people.
oh wait.....
The point, IMO, is that this is a nuanced issue, and it isn't as simple as "gun nuts" vs. "gun grabbers." I am a gun owner, but I think it's ridiculous to argue, as some have, that allowing unlimited concealed carry on college campuses would yield a safer environment - instead, I'm quite sure it would mean that some percentage of the drunken fistfights that break out every weekend night on campus would escalate into fatal shootings, and some percentage of the emotionally-fragile emo whiners that infest colleges today would successfully off themselves.
If there's a positive change to be made to the gun laws following this incident, it seems to me it would be restricting gun purchases by people with documented histories of certain types of mental illness, particularly schizophrenia or other forms of psychosis.
Originally posted by: DonVito
All that cartoon has taught me (or, more precisely, reminded me) is that most political cartoons are about as funny as a bad car accident.
Originally posted by: jman19
Too bad that comic isn't true.
Originally posted by: DonVito
The point, IMO, is that this is a nuanced issue, and it isn't as simple as "gun nuts" vs. "gun grabbers." I am a gun owner, but I think it's ridiculous to argue, as some have, that allowing unlimited concealed carry on college campuses would yield a safer environment - instead, I'm quite sure it would mean that some percentage of the drunken fistfights that break out every weekend night on campus would escalate into fatal shootings, and some percentage of the emotionally-fragile emo whiners that infest colleges today would successfully off themselves.
If there's a positive change to be made to the gun laws following this incident, it seems to me it would be restricting gun purchases by people with documented histories of certain types of mental illness, particularly schizophrenia or other forms of psychosis.
Originally posted by: Aisengard
The anti-anti-gun people, or the 'gun nuts' as they are called, continue to completely miss the point entirely. In VA, this mentally disturbed man bought guns legally. In many other states, he would never have gotten his hands on a gun, reducing his chances DRASTICALLY of even trying to shoot up a school.
But of course all the gun nuts do is cover their ears and hold their guns ever so close and yell YOU AIN'T GON' TAKE MY GUNS NO SIRREEEE while level-minded individuals, well. Get killed.
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Secondly, whos to say people would carry and go to a party and get drunk? Your making some very far reaching assumptions.
......
Most people, believe it or not, who choose to CCW are pretty well grounded individuals. In other words, they wont carry a gun to a party, get drunk and get into a fight.
Originally posted by: Aisengard
The anti-anti-gun people, or the 'gun nuts' as they are called, continue to completely miss the point entirely. In VA, this mentally disturbed man bought guns legally. In many other states, he would never have gotten his hands on a gun, reducing his chances DRASTICALLY of even trying to shoot up a school.
But of course all the gun nuts do is cover their ears and hold their guns ever so close and yell YOU AIN'T GON' TAKE MY GUNS NO SIRREEEE while level-minded individuals, well. Get killed.
Law-abiding citizens are perfectly capable of killing people with guns.Originally posted by: Shivetya
Originally posted by: jman19
Too bad that comic isn't true.
and why not?
Which person in the the cartoon would be stopped by the law?
The physcopath or the law abiding citizen?
thanks for playing, you lose.
I find the suggestion that allowing everyone to carry guns on a college campus would reduce gun-related deaths to be fairly moronic. Alright, maybe someone would've been able to stop Cho, but at what cost? You have a load of young people carrying guns around on college campuses across the nation. Bad things are going to happen more frequently.Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: Aisengard
The anti-anti-gun people, or the 'gun nuts' as they are called, continue to completely miss the point entirely. In VA, this mentally disturbed man bought guns legally. In many other states, he would never have gotten his hands on a gun, reducing his chances DRASTICALLY of even trying to shoot up a school.
But of course all the gun nuts do is cover their ears and hold their guns ever so close and yell YOU AIN'T GON' TAKE MY GUNS NO SIRREEEE while level-minded individuals, well. Get killed.
And you keep missing the point that this happened in a gun free zone, maybe, just maybe if other people there were allowed to carry a firearm they would have stopped this guy before he killed 32 people.
Originally posted by: Shivetya
Originally posted by: jman19
Too bad that comic isn't true.
and why not?
Which person in the the cartoon would be stopped by the law?
The physcopath or the law abiding citizen?
thanks for playing, you lose.
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: jman19
Too bad that comic isn't true.
It's perfectly true, when a criminal wants to kill people they aren't going to care about gun control laws. Therefore the gun control laws more directly restrict people?s right to defend themselves.
Originally posted by: Enig101
Law-abiding citizens are perfectly capable of killing people with guns.Originally posted by: Shivetya
Originally posted by: jman19
Too bad that comic isn't true.
and why not?
Which person in the the cartoon would be stopped by the law?
The physcopath or the law abiding citizen?
thanks for playing, you lose.
I find the suggestion that allowing everyone to carry guns on a college campus would reduce gun-related deaths to be fairly moronic. Alright, maybe someone would've been able to stop Cho, but at what cost? You have a load of young people carrying guns around on college campuses across the nation. Bad things are going to happen more frequently.Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: Aisengard
The anti-anti-gun people, or the 'gun nuts' as they are called, continue to completely miss the point entirely. In VA, this mentally disturbed man bought guns legally. In many other states, he would never have gotten his hands on a gun, reducing his chances DRASTICALLY of even trying to shoot up a school.
But of course all the gun nuts do is cover their ears and hold their guns ever so close and yell YOU AIN'T GON' TAKE MY GUNS NO SIRREEEE while level-minded individuals, well. Get killed.
And you keep missing the point that this happened in a gun free zone, maybe, just maybe if other people there were allowed to carry a firearm they would have stopped this guy before he killed 32 people.
Laws are there to inhibit, not restrict entirely. No law enforcement can be that perfect without total loss of freedom.
Originally posted by: Enig101
Law-abiding citizens are perfectly capable of killing people with guns.Originally posted by: Shivetya
Originally posted by: jman19
Too bad that comic isn't true.
and why not?
Which person in the the cartoon would be stopped by the law?
The physcopath or the law abiding citizen?
thanks for playing, you lose.
I find the suggestion that allowing everyone to carry guns on a college campus would reduce gun-related deaths to be fairly moronic. Alright, maybe someone would've been able to stop Cho, but at what cost? You have a load of young people carrying guns around on college campuses across the nation. Bad things are going to happen more frequently.Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: Aisengard
The anti-anti-gun people, or the 'gun nuts' as they are called, continue to completely miss the point entirely. In VA, this mentally disturbed man bought guns legally. In many other states, he would never have gotten his hands on a gun, reducing his chances DRASTICALLY of even trying to shoot up a school.
But of course all the gun nuts do is cover their ears and hold their guns ever so close and yell YOU AIN'T GON' TAKE MY GUNS NO SIRREEEE while level-minded individuals, well. Get killed.
And you keep missing the point that this happened in a gun free zone, maybe, just maybe if other people there were allowed to carry a firearm they would have stopped this guy before he killed 32 people.
Laws are there to inhibit, not restrict entirely. No law enforcement can be that perfect without total loss of freedom.
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: loki8481
it's true. I mean, look at the VA shooting. he totally obtained his guns by illegal means.
oh wait...
its true. I mean, look at the VA shooting. he was totally carrying those guns legaly.
oh wait....
or lets try this.
its true. I mean, look at VA shooting. banning firearms from the campus sure did a good job stopping anyone from carrying firearms on campus and killing a bunch of people.
oh wait.....
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: loki8481
it's true. I mean, look at the VA shooting. he totally obtained his guns by illegal means.
oh wait...
its true. I mean, look at the VA shooting. he was totally carrying those guns legaly.
oh wait....
or lets try this.
its true. I mean, look at VA shooting. banning firearms from the campus sure did a good job stopping anyone from carrying firearms on campus and killing a bunch of people.
oh wait.....
And then there is that law about pointing a gun at someone...
And shooting at people...
And hitting the people you shoot at...
Those laws certainly protected the stu... oh wait.
Laws don't stop crimes people. They only define what a crime is and they don't come into play until after the deed is done.