Interesting 2005 Article about Virginia Tech

[quade 3]

Getting pretty close to the "personal attack" limit on calling people "drunk" so . . . guys . . . ya wanna back off that a bit?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[craddock 0]

If asking someone a serious question wondering if they are drunk,which is completely legal to be, is considered a Personal Attack...then Ban me already. WTF

That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Getting pretty close to the "personal attack" limit on calling people "drunk" so . . . guys . . . ya wanna back off that a bit?

I guess we'd have to determine your use of the word "drunk", but to me that doesn't make logical sense.

Assuming 1 hypothethical poster per thread (let's call him "DrunkyBV" to shorten the title), aren't the odds at least 50/50 that when DrunkyBV writes a non-sequitor he might be drinking a little? In fact, aren't they even more than 50/50 since DrunkyBV tends to post coherently, or least when the non-sequitors occur they tend to be blatantly digression to one or two pet topics?

Of course, this is all hypothetical.

But, that would be about as much as a direct personal attack than obliquely comparing all licensed and responsible gun owners to a slightly unsettled, but heroic movie character that went a little too far.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[narcimund 0]

Quote

Getting pretty close to the "personal attack" limit on calling people "drunk" so . . . guys . . . ya wanna back off that a bit?

Fine. I apologize for the offhanded "drunk" comment. It wasn't very nice. But personally, if I'd written his post I'd WANT such an excuse. Billvon's response is slippery, nonsensical, emotional, and ridiculous.

There are already no barriers to Bad Guys bringing guns onto a campus. Good Guys leave theirs at home. That's a bad combo.

Short of preventing Bad Guys from arming themselves which just isn't possible, the next best adjustment is to let people defend themselves.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[Douva 0]

Quote

>Allowing concealed permit holders to legally bring their guns onto
>school property doesn't lead to "more disturbed people like Cho" carrying
>guns unless they have permits.

If what you said were valid, then there would have been no massacre, since Cho, lacking a permit, would not have brought his gun on campus.

Which is beside the point anyway. When more guns are available, more "good" people get them and more "bad" people get them. The "good" people get them legally, going through whatever paperwork/training is required, and they obey the laws on where/when to carry them. The "bad" people don't. So any simplistic solution that involves increasing (or decreasing) the number of weapons around isn't going to solve the problem - despite extremists on both sides calling for just that.

Calling for more guns to solve this problem is like calling for passenger parachutes to solve the problem of midair collisions between airliners. You can make up scenarios all you like about how the people would parachute to safety (and we all like parachutes so it's a fun, cool idea) but it's a lot more effective to avoid the collision to begin with.

I don't think anybody is calling for MORE guns. What we're calling for it the right for people who already have a proven track record of carrying concealed firearms without incident--current concealed handgun license holders--to be allowed to carry on college campuses, the same way they do everywhere else. CHL holders aren't causing problems outside of college campuses, and they won't causes problems on college campuses. If a shooting breaks out, they may or may not die, and they may or may not be able to stop it, but at least they won't be left helpless because their guns are across the street in their cars.

I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I don't think anybody is calling for MORE guns.

I just do see how all you gun nuts think that if every new college student is issued a loaded and cocked gun and a 5th of rum, and requiring them to walk about campus with it pointed at the closest pedestrian is going to result in time travel back to this incident and eliminate young Cho with careful and sensitive anti-smoking and global warming sensitivity counseling.

You NRA-types (and your ilk) just totally don't get it.

EVOLVE

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[quade 3]

Quote

Quote

Getting pretty close to the "personal attack" limit on calling people "drunk" so . . . guys . . . ya wanna back off that a bit?

I guess we'd have to determine your use of the word "drunk", but to me that doesn't make logical sense.

Assuming 1 hypothethical poster per thread (let's call him "DrunkyBV" to shorten the title), aren't the odds at least 50/50 that when DrunkyBV writes a non-sequitor he might be drinking a little? In fact, aren't they even more than 50/50 since DrunkyBV tends to post coherently, or least when the non-sequitors occur they tend to be blatantly digression to one or two pet topics?

Of course, this is all hypothetical.

But, that would be about as much as a direct personal attack than obliquely comparing all licensed and responsible gun owners to a slightly unsettled, but heroic movie character that went a little too far.

Ok . . . that was funny.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Amazon 7]

I have avoided posting because I would have already been banned.

[quade 3]

Quote

What we're calling for it the right for people who already have a proven track record of carrying concealed firearms without incident--current concealed handgun license holders--to be allowed to carry on college campuses, the same way they do everywhere else.

OH! What a great idea and I also thought up a great way to tell the "good guys" from the "bad guys" by the cops when they arrive on the scene of a shootout!

Anybody who is packing heat for the protection of all the rest of us will be fully deputized as the "Citizens' Auxiliary Police". We give them brown shirts, snappy black pants and jack boots too!

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[narcimund 0]

Quote

OH! What a great idea and I also thought up a great way to tell the "good guys" from the "bad guys" by the cops when they arrive on the scene of a shootout!

Anybody who is packing heat for the protection of all the rest of us will be fully deputized as the "Citizens' Auxiliary Police". We give them brown shirts, snappy black pants and jack boots too!

You're really not representing the anti-concealed-carry argument very well. In fact, this is really a stupid approach. "Jack boots"???

And it's not necessary for police to know the difference between Good Guys and Bad Guys. That's what DAs and courts are for.

It's only necessary for police to know the difference between People Who Need To Be Shot Immediately and People Who Do Not Need To Be Shot.

Good Guys put their guns down and don't need to be shot.

But even so, Good Guys who defend themselves are knowingly taking a chance that police will mistake them for Bad Guys. That's their right and it's better odds than just soaking up the Bad Guy's bullets.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[Axe_Murderer 0]

Quote

Quote

OH! What a great idea and I also thought up a great way to tell the "good guys" from the "bad guys" by the cops when they arrive on the scene of a shootout!

Anybody who is packing heat for the protection of all the rest of us will be fully deputized as the "Citizens' Auxiliary Police". We give them brown shirts, snappy black pants and jack boots too!

You're really not representing the anti-concealed-carry argument very well. In fact, this is really a stupid approach. "Jack boots"???

And it's not necessary for police to know the difference between Good Guys and Bad Guys. That's what DAs and courts are for.

It's only necessary for police to know the difference between People Who Need To Be Shot Immediately and People Who Do Not Need To Be Shot.

Good Guys put their guns down and don't need to be shot.

But even so, Good Guys who defend themselves are knowingly taking a chance that police will mistake them for Bad Guys. That's their right and it's better odds than just soaking up the Bad Guy's bullets.

some of the pro-gun posts on here are priceless

It never ceases to make me laugh when yet again we have a gun massacre in the news and all the pro gun people come out defending their corner, nothing BUT NOTHING will make them want to give up their guns. It's just "tough shit" to the innocents who die in the gun massacres because they need their guns !!! and will argue to the cows come home that they should be allowed to keep their guns

how long till the next massacre? i predict 6 months? this one was a bit late by my reconing

[quade 3]

It all starts with a sense of entitlement.

It evolves into brown shirts.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[narcimund 0]

Quote

It all starts with a sense of entitlement.

It evolves into brown shirts.

No, it all starts with a complete failure of logical thought...

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[quade 3]

Ok, here's the logical thought.

Some people just like guns.

I get that. People want them for various reasons. Some reasons actually -do- make sense. Some of the reasons don't make sense at all.

I LIKE the idea of people being able to have guns to hunt, target shooting and even home protection.

I DISLIKE the idea of untrained non-professionals having guns in certain places; airliners, any place where people congregate and have heated discussions such as bars, schools and workplaces.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Which is beside the point anyway. When more guns are available, more "good" people get them and more "bad" people get them. The "good" people get them legally, going through whatever paperwork/training is required, and they obey the laws on where/when to carry them. The "bad" people don't. So any simplistic solution that involves increasing (or decreasing) the number of weapons around isn't going to solve the problem

The "bad" people already have them.

Removing the campus gun ban only increases the supply of "good" people. From 0.

Since stupid math has been prevelant in this thread: 1/0 is infinite. Any addition to the denominator will decrease the ratio of killers to protectors. And therefore is a good thing.

Good luck refuting that proof.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

It all starts with a sense of entitlement.

It evolves into brown shirts.

brown pants, red shirts

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Douva 0]

Quote

Ok, here's the logical thought.

Some people just like guns.

I get that. People want them for various reasons. Some reasons actually -do- make sense. Some of the reasons don't make sense at all.

I LIKE the idea of people being able to have guns to hunt, target shooting and even home protection.

I DISLIKE the idea of untrained non-professionals having guns in certain places; airliners, any place where people congregate and have heated discussions such as bars, schools and workplaces.

I may catch some flack for this from my fellow pro-gun crowd; however, I actually agree with you on one point--I support the prohibition most states place on carrying guns in bars. I've seen statistics that suggest that MOST of the "wild west" shootouts of the 1800s were alcohol induced.

However, I vehemently disagree with your position on guns in schools and the workplace. In those situations where people's judgement is not chemically impaired, I fully support the right of those people with concealed handgun licenses to carry their concealed weapons.

I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

It evolves into brown shirts.

Oh Come on Quade... ...



sheesh.. dont forget the friggin brown shorts too.

[narcimund 0]

Quote

Ok, here's the logical thought.

Some people just like guns.

I get that. People want them for various reasons. Some reasons actually -do- make sense. Some of the reasons don't make sense at all.

I LIKE the idea of people being able to have guns to hunt, target shooting and even home protection.

I DISLIKE the idea of untrained non-professionals having guns in certain places; airliners, any place where people congregate and have heated discussions such as bars, schools and workplaces.

LIKES and DISLIKES have little to do with logical thought, Quade. These feelings help you choose which outcome you want. Logical thought is used to get you there.

If we agree that minimizing innocent victims is the outcome we're going to aim for, the question is which policy will get us there.

Notice that doesn't mean which one makes you feel warm and cuddly. It doesn't mean which one feels right.

It means pick the one will work best.

Logical thought answers these questions of reality far more reliably than your feelings do.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[Casurf1978 0]

Quote

I may catch some flack for this from my fellow pro-gun crowd; however, I actually agree with you on one point--I support the prohibition most states place on carrying guns in bars. I've seen statistics that suggest that MOST of the "wild west" shootouts of the 1800s were alcohol induced.

I agree with you here. Alcohol + guns is a bad idea. I have no problems with security carrying weapons but CCW in a bar, that is a recipe for disaster. I live by a pier is So Cal and every Friday and Sat night there are at least 5+ arrests or bar fights.

Quote

However, I vehemently disagree with your position on guns in schools and the workplace. In those situations where people's judgement is not chemically impaired, I fully support the right of those people with concealed handgun licenses to carry their concealed weapons.

In the workplace IMO it's up to the owner. Both sides have made good arguments about CCW in schools I would be willing to allow it if more stringent back ground checks are in place both for obtaining a weapon and getting a CCW permit. Cho should not have legall obtained those weapons. In 2005 a court deemed him to be a danger to himself and others. Why wasn't that available during the back ground check. Also why didn't authorities or the school monitor Cho between 2005 and 2007. Hopefully some good will come out of this tragedy rather than both sides pointing fingers and coming up with ridiculous laws.

[Douva 0]

Quote

Quote

I may catch some flack for this from my fellow pro-gun crowd; however, I actually agree with you on one point--I support the prohibition most states place on carrying guns in bars. I've seen statistics that suggest that MOST of the "wild west" shootouts of the 1800s were alcohol induced.

I agree with you here. Alcohol + guns is a bad idea. I have no problems with security carrying weapons but CCW in a bar, that is a recipe for disaster. I live by a pier is So Cal and every Friday and Sat night there are at least 5+ arrests or bar fights.

Quote

However, I vehemently disagree with your position on guns in schools and the workplace. In those situations where people's judgement is not chemically impaired, I fully support the right of those people with concealed handgun licenses to carry their concealed weapons.

In the workplace IMO it's up to the owner. Both sides have made good arguments about CCW in schools I would be willing to allow it if more stringent back ground checks are in place both for obtaining a weapon and getting a CCW permit. Cho should not have legall obtained those weapons. In 2005 a court deemed him to be a danger to himself and others. Why wasn't that available during the back ground check. Also why didn't authorities or the school monitor Cho between 2005 and 2007. Hopefully some good will come out of this tragedy rather than both sides pointing fingers and coming up with ridiculous laws.

This wasn't just one psychiatrist's or therapist's opinion; this was a declaration by a court of law. The laws should be ammended to include that kind of court declaration in federal background checks. In my opinion, someone who has been declared a danger by a court of law should not be able to purchase a firearm until declared "safe" by a court of law.

I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

[PWScottIV 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

There is NO reason to carry a gun to class.

I can think of 32 people who might disagree.

Exactly. If only one person in each of those classrooms had carried, then the death toll would have been WAY less.

I guess we'd have to determine your use of the word "WAY", but to me that doesn't make logical sense.

Assuming 1 legal carrying class member per class room (let's call him "Rambo" to shorten the title), aren't the odds at least 50/50 that the crazed gunman kills Rambo before Rambo can kill the crazed gunman? In fact, aren't they even less than 50/50 since the crazed gunman already has his weapon drawn and ready to fire?

Further, Rambo can't really even draw his weapon until he realizes the crazed gunman is a real threat. In fact, Rambo probably won't even recognize the threat until the first shot by the crazed gunman is fired.

No, with several other "targets", the gunman would have to be lucky enough to hit "rambo" first, without knowing who had the gun, it would be unlikely... The gunman would make a much better target than someone in a crowded classroom. If it was 1on1, then you're correct, but it's not, because, there's also the other "rambos" from the other classrooms that are going to be coming at him from all directions.

Gravity Waits for No One.

[PWScottIV 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

There is NO reason to carry a gun to class.

I can think of 32 people who might disagree.

Exactly. If only one person in each of those classrooms had carried, then the death toll would have been WAY less. I guess the only problem is not knowing if someone is going to indiscriminately shoot someone because they have a bad day... Especially considering that someone young hasn't had enough time to prove that they might be a danger to others. That would be the problem with most people carrying guns... There might be very few massacres, but there might be many "small" incidents that would eclipse one massacre, because of the easy accessibility... Who knows?!

Well, there are already thousands of twenty-one-year-olds (the age limit for concealed carry in most states) carrying concealed handguns outside of college campuses, and this hasn't lead to a rash of incidents, so why should we assume it would lead to problems on college campuses?

OK, it was just a hypothesis, but sounds like you know a lot more than I do about who's actually carrying these days, so you're point is probably very valid.

Gravity Waits for No One.

[PWScottIV 0]

Quote

>If only one person in each of those classrooms had carried, then the
>death toll would have been WAY less.

Right. And if more disturbed students like Cho carried guns, this would happen WAY more often in schools across the country. Like I've said, the "guns will solve our problems" approach makes as little sense as the "guns cause our problems" angle.

Yeah, that was my argument... If more "random" people carried guns, would it be more likely to have incidents... Kinda difficult to prove that one way or the other.

Gravity Waits for No One.

[willard 0]

I may be wrong (have been before) but I think the ACLU stepped in at one point and prevented mental health records from being disclosed.