DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: BSB on April 16, 2012, 03:20:07 PM
-
Virginia Tech marks 5 years since campus massacre
The Associated Press
8:38 AM EST April 16, 2012
Students were headed to class Monday at Virginia Tech, the first year the school hasn't suspended instruction to mark the anniversary of a 2007 rampage that left 32 people and the gunman dead.
The massacre was the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history.
Provost Mark McNamee, who chaired a committee that planned memorial events in the years after the shooting, said the return to classes reflects the lives of those slain.
http://news.mobile.msn.com/en-us/articles.aspx?afid=1&aid=47058267 (http://news.mobile.msn.com/en-us/articles.aspx?afid=1&aid=47058267)
-
Just imagine the lives what might have been saved, if there wasn't the legal restriction that a teacher couldn't have been a CCW holder, while on campus. Tragic indeed
-
Why has nothing like this happened in Spain or Japan?
No guns in the hands of nutcases.
-
So, now a gun in the hands of a teacher, trained to use one = gun nut??
Wow....what little regard you have for your own profession
-
Ha ha, yeah, the answer is arm the teachers. You're a real head case sirs.
BSB
-
Speaking of headcases, not so surprising how you'd take my comment completely out of context. I guess you have to do, what you have to do. Sad, even pathetic, but.....you've got consistency working in your favor, I suppose
-
Why has nothing like this happened in Spain or Japan?
Nor in Switzerland which has one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world?
-
d'oh ;)
-
The Swiss are not a bunch of doofuses like the NRA membership and other assorted gun nuts.
People in Switzerland do not go to school packing arms as silly sirs wants people to do here, for example.
-
The Swiss keep a rifle in their house as part of their national defense strategy. The United States abdicated to the federal government control of its military long, long, ago. The whole reason for the second amendment was to get the anti-federalists to support the constitution. The federalists promised the right to bear arms amendment to assuage fears of a centrally controlled standing Army. The amendment wasn't designed for gun-nuts like sirs so they can spend their days going into men's rooms, taking out their weapon, fondling it in hopes another gun-nut will come over and admire it.
BSB
-
Ahhhh. So THAT is what he does with his guns.
-
It's just got be eating away at B, (amd apparently Xo as well) how this so called "gun nut" somehow manages to do absolutely nothing, out of supporting the right to own a firearm, that would qualify such an asanine claim. Notice the proficiency of garbage they both have to make up. Hey, if that's how he & Xo can make themselves happy, who am I to get in their way ;D
Here's a hint gents...supporting the right to own a firearm doesn't, and never has, equaled the asanine notion that sirs requires everyone, including teachers, to be armed. You both seem to be perfecting that strawman of a deflection. It really is unbecoming
-
got doubts a armed teacher is a good idea. remember it`s means bringing an armed adult to school which is cleared by the state and the state doesn`t have the best record putting safe teachers in schools.
-
The Swiss keep a rifle in their house as part of their national defense strategy.
Diversion Alert!
Doesn't matter.
Fact remains Swiss have high percentage of guns.
If guns kill people, then pencils misspell words,
matches cause arson, cars make people drive drunk,
and spoons make you fat.
-
sirs claims that the Virginia massacre would have been prevented if only Virginia had permitted teachers and students to take their guns to class.
The problem was not caused by a ban on students and teachers packing heat, it was that this crazy Korean guy was allowed to own a gun and buy ammo, and on the campus, where he demonstrated his Constitutional Right to Bear Arms.
-
The UK which has strict gun laws has a worse rate for all types of violence than the U.S.
Leave my constitutional rights alone control freak!
-
sirs claims that the Virginia massacre would have been prevented if only Virginia had permitted teachers and students to take their guns to class.
Do you ever tire of being dishonest?? I realize when you and B get desperate, your rhetoric really starts to flail, but good gravy. I NEVER claimed it "would" have been prevented. I made it crystal clear there was a much greater possibility that it MIGHT have been prevented, had some teachers CHOSEN (not required, as that's yet another dishonest tact you've tried) to train to legally carry a concealed weapon, and that the laws would have allowed them to carry on campus
The problem was not caused by a ban on students and teachers packing heat, it was that this crazy Korean guy was allowed to own a gun and buy ammo, and on the campus, where he demonstrated his Constitutional Right to Bear Arms.
And the constitutional right for a teacher to possess the same right MIGHT have prevented such a massacre by the "crazy Korean guy", was a distinct plausible solution to the problem, since the Constitutional right to bear arms will never be abolished.
-
since the Constitutional right to bear arms will never be abolished.
You are correct SIRS since only 26% of Americans - a record low - favor a handgun ban!
Ya see the American People don't agree with the control freaks and fringe lefties.
They try to portray us as the "nuts", but reality says they are on the fringe.
-
Notice 2 things here C.....
1) the person who broke the law was Seung-Hui Cho, by bringing the firearm onto campus. In other words, the law abiding citizens were severely disadvantaged, by not being allowed to, those with CCW's. It was like a Fox to a henhouse. More of the same attempted bans, would allow more of the same opportunities that Cho had, that Klebold had, that any number of other murdereres had
2) it really would be inspiring to see how bSb or xO define "gun nut". They keep tossing the term out, kinda like how the left will often yell "racist" when Obama is being criticized. Like a knee jerk reaction, that's erroneously designed to try and put their opponent on te defensive. If a "gun nut" is simply someone who supports the Bill of Rights, especially the 2nd amendment, they've managed to mutate the term "nut", much like the mutation to the term "fair"
-
A gun nut is someone who never hunts and owns a rifle.
A gun nut is someone that carries a pistol around while serving as a "pretend cop" like Zimmerman.
A gun nut is anyone that has more pistols than hands.
-
A gun nut is someone who never hunts and owns a rifle.
In other words, someone who merely supports and exercises their Consitutional 2nd amendment right to own a rifle. So, obviously you're a word nut for the use of words, and in exercising your 1st amendment rights. Glad we got that cleared up
A gun nut is someone that carries a pistol around while serving as a "pretend cop" like Zimmerman.
Again, another example of someone simply legally exercising their rights unders the laws of Florida and of the U.S.
A gun nut is anyone that has more pistols than hands.
This is my favorite ;D Last I checked, folks collect all sorts of things. I guess anyone that collects anything is apparently a "nut". I'm a mug nut and baseball cap nut myself, but since I only have 2 pistols, I guess that takes me off xO's parameters for being a gun nut
-
ya see SIRS thats the typical tactic of the Left
up is down and down is up
The vast majority of Americans support gun ownership
But then the Left calls us the "nuts"
Just like the photo below shows their twisted reality.
(http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y273/ItsZep/Politics/bb9b8152.jpg)
-
When you buy a gun, you put another dangerous gun into the huge pool of weapons in this country, where they will be used in crimes, will kill people in accidents, and make this country more dangerous for everyone, including you.
The fewer guns are in circulation, the safer we all are from being shot.
-
The fewer guns are in circulation, the safer we all are from being shot.
The UK which has strict gun laws has a worse rate for all types of violence than the U.S.
Your logic also does not follow with the Swiss who have high gun ownership.
Matches don't cause arson.
-
When you buy a gun, you put another dangerous gun into the huge pool of weapons in this country, where they will be used in crimes, will kill people in accidents, and make this country more dangerous for everyone, including you.
Sorry....the 2nd amendment of the Constitution trumps your paranoia
But by all means, the mechanisms for amending the Constitution are right there, black and white. Good luck with that
The fewer guns are in circulation, the safer we all are from being shot.
From the law abiding folks perhaps. Then again, those aren't the folks you really should be paranoid about
-
When you sell a gun, where does it go? The more guns are in circulation, the price for each gun goes down, because the greater the supply, the less the demand.
When you own 20 guns and you bite the big one, those guns are going somewhere. You are not going to take those guns through the Pearly Gates. Each will be inherited, sold or stolen.
20 guns pose a twentyfold increase in the probability that the gun will kill someone.
The more guns there are in this country, the greater the chance for accidental or intentional gun deaths.
-
Sorry....the 2nd amendment of the Constitution still trumps your what might paranoia.
I can just as easily opine that those "20guns" could go into the hands of a training center, or by use for law enforcement, if donated, or handed down to other family members who are equally responsible in supporting safe firearms use. Thus could then deduce that the more guns there are, the more gun safety that may be facilitated, and more crimes & death prevented
The "dead writers" (per bSb) put in place the mechanisms for amending the Constitution, if you find it so vulgar. Good luck with that.
-
Define a gun nut?
A gun nut is a whacko who packs iron on a leisurely weekend trip with friends up into mountains and pretends it has something to do with an amendment to the Constitution.
BSB
-
I guess that excludes me, since that wasn't my reason for having one. Any other examples? Or are you left with simply anyone that doesn't agree with your mutated definition of nut
-
Define a gun nut? A gun nut is a whacko who packs iron on a leisurely weekend trip with friends up into mountains and pretends it has something to do with an amendment to the Constitution.
BSB
Define a control freak whackjob?
A control freak is a whacko who thinks they always know better what
best for everybody else, it pisses them off that people dont give a rats ass
what they think is best, they cant stand to just allow people to do their own thing,
they wanna control your washing machines, your lightbulbs, your dishwasher,
the cars you drive, what we eat, whether you can own a gun, and decide what part of
the constitution they wish to enforce.... it's the pinnacle of arrogance and mental disorder.
-
I can work with that definition 8)
-
I can work with the definition that you are a species of gun nut. The more guns you put into circulation, the more dangerous a country this will be.
-
Making you an apparent species of word nut. As such your egregiously flawed opinion on this matter is again, duly noted
-
When you buy a gun, you put another dangerous gun into the huge pool of weapons in this country, where they will be used in crimes, will kill people in accidents, and make this country more dangerous for everyone, including you.
The fewer guns are in circulation, the safer we all are from being shot.
Isn't the exact opposite of our experience in the last two decades?
Crime rates generally falling -coincident with record levels of gun ownership.
Imagine that I found a way to make all honest, law abideing and trustworthy persons turn in their guns, but didn't have a way to decrease the number of guns in the hands of the less honest, I think this sort of measure would decrease the guns in circulation more than 95% and increase public safety not at all.
I take the poi9nt Sirs makes diffrently. The crazy guy with a gun wants to make a massacre in Texas or in Norway or Scotland , he makes a beeline twards the gathering of the unarmed.
-
Define a gun nut?
A gun nut is a whacko who packs iron on a leisurely weekend trip with friends up into mountains and pretends it has something to do with an amendment to the Constitution.
BSB
Are bear extinct in these mountains?
Or are Rabid animals so unlikly that the gun is totally without justifacation?
-
Someone who lives in a city or a suburb is very unlikely to be threatened by rabid wildlife. Lightning rods would be a better bet at keeping such people safe.
If I were hiking across Alaska or some other wilderness area, I think a gun would be useful. But I hardly think I would need a gun collection. One rifle, one pistol and one shotgun would clearly suffice. But pepper spray and a taser might also be effective.
-
"Are bear extinct in these mountains?"
Brown bear or black bear? I've done a lot of hiking in black bear country and never felt a need to carry a gun. Brown bear is a whole other thing and I would carry without question and urge any hiking partners to do the same. In fact I wouldn't hike with them if they weren't carrying something very powerful.
One of these would do it and not break your arm in as many places as a 454 casull.http://www.reedercustomguns.com/revolvers/images/455AEcolor.jpg (http://www.reedercustomguns.com/revolvers/images/455AEcolor.jpg)
BSB
-
I am not an expert on bears. Bears that present no danger would require no protection against them.
I mentioned Alaska, specifically. There are ample numbers of dangerous bears in Alaska. I think everyone acknowledges this.
-
How about snakes?
Anyone that shoots a wild anaconda in Everglades park is doing a public service .
Brown bear are very scarce in the south and east.
Black bear are common in some places , but are less dangerous to people than feral dogs or hogs.
-
I agree that we do not need exotic snakes, especially huge ones, in this country. I am all for people eliminating them from everywhere except zoos.
I don't think that anacondas are a major threat to humans, but they eat beneficial species, and wreck the ecology.
Poisonous snakes are certainly a bigger threat than boas and anacondas.
One of my colleagues had a problem with some kids breaking into his home, so we cut out some pictures of dangerous snakes, boas and anacondas, and made posters that we put in his windows. Danger! Snakes! and put some issues of Reptiles magazine in sight through the windows.
There were no more break ins.