T1B

Spring Wake!

I'm calling crazed ex-GI whose experiences in Iraq drove him so far over the edge that...he couldn't readjust to civilian life.

Yes, it's Cheney's fault. And Wolfowitz and his AIPAC handlers.

If more citizens were armed, we could see a reduction of these types of premeditated psyco attacks . . .

HOWEVER,

We would see a rise in emotionally-fueled, heat of the moment shootings where people who lose control find themselves with a gun in their hands. Bar fights would turn into bar shootings. Wife-beatings turn to wife-shootings. Road rage turns to road shootings.

Q, West Coast Style wrote: We would see a rise in emotionally-fueled, heat of the moment shootings where people who lose control find themselves with a gun in their hands. Bar fights would turn into bar shootings. Wife-beatings turn to wife-shootings. Road rage turns to road shootings.

Shame on you. The stats for ther very state in which you live render your statement complete bullshit.

The societal micro-managers just hate it that one of their pet causes can be shot down so easily with facts.

LTS TRN 2 wrote:Spring Wake!

I'm calling crazed ex-GI whose experiences in Iraq drove him so far over the edge that...he couldn't readjust to civilian life.

Yes, it's Cheney's fault. And Wolfowitz and his AIPAC handlers.

Notice your last two threads ended up in a certain forum for tards like youself?

Go ahead and look. I think YOU know what forum that is... right?

AP is reporting that the number of fatalities is up to 31.

This wont be good for Recruiting.

Cicero wrote:AP is reporting that the number of fatalities is up to 31.

This wont be good for Recruiting.

Nonsense. There's that many more openings.

LTS TRN 2 wrote:Spring Wake!

I'm calling crazed ex-GI whose experiences in Iraq drove him so far over the edge that...he couldn't readjust to civilian life.

Yes, it's Cheney's fault. And Wolfowitz and his AIPAC handlers.

Whose choir are you preaching to, buddy?

The administration you love to hate to the point of unhealthy obsession is going to go down as one of the worst of our time. We already KNOW this. This isn't exactly cutting edge stuff from you.

Enough already. Just kill yourself. You serve no purpose on this board or in life, you stammering, plagarizing fuck.

Like Chris Rock said....if bullets cost 5 grand apiece gun violence would virtually disappear.

Voice of Reason wrote:

Q, West Coast Style wrote:Any info on the shooter yet?

I'm gonna say, white, male, middle class, freshman. No girlfriend.

Asian Male, according to the earliest reports.

Probably some dumb fuck engineering student having a tough time with his exams and a recent break up with his girlfriend decided to exact revenge on his meany professor and the students who made fun of his pocketless jeans.

Mister Bushice wrote:He probably turned his wrist watch in to handgun.

I dont get it.

jtr wrote:

Mister Bushice wrote:He probably turned his wrist watch in to handgun.

I dont get it.

I know you don't. Clue: Think Reggie.

WolverineSteve wrote:Like Chris Rock said....if bullets cost 5 grand apiece gun violence would virtually disappear.

no. robberies of those expensive bullets would rise.

jtr wrote:I dont get it.

Still? Break out the credit card and roll on out to vegas. It might be the only way.

What all the advocates of gun control seem to be missing if the fact the NO guns are permitted on campus. Protecting the citizens from gun violence by taking the guns away responsible adults did not work. The rampaging gook that did not follow this rule must have been comforted by the knowledge that the law-abiding faculty, staff, and students were completely helpless.

Before either side, right or left, reacts with too much fervor, it might be good to remind them all that these shootings, while tragic, are still, statistically, a rare occurance.

Sincerely,

Plance crashes and shark attacks.

Toddowen wrote: By this same argument, if more of their peers had guns, that would make it that much more likely that the students who died today would have died years ago in the crossfire of some GTA video game addicted Jeremys'.

You wanna cite some statistics to back that up?

Actually, I guess "want" has nothing to do with it...

Years and years and millions of examples of FACTS tell us that you're wrong. I can cite them if you like, but I'm currently too busy being amazed at the level of dumbfuckery that's abounding here...first, I thought just about every man, woman, and child in this country had at least a minimal working knowledge of gun ownership vs violent crime figures(quite losided), and I figured that at the very least someone who actually commented on the subject might have at least a clue as to what they were talking about...which you CLEARLY don't.



Where are all of these gun crimes committed by concealed carry permitees that you speak of?


Your entire premise is a complete lie, which anyone with any knowledge of the subject would get a hearty laugh out of.

It just isn't true, you Haters-Of-America. Lying to make your point makes you an idiot.


And these events were spread out over the span of two hours? Campus security should be held liable for negligence. As should the local police...that is unfathomable. I couldn't quite fly across the country with gun-in-hand to stop the threat from the West Coast...but pretty close.

Q, West Coast Style wrote:Before either side, right or left, reacts with too much fervor, it might be good to remind them all that these shootings, while tragic, are still, statistically, a rare occurance.

Sincerely,

Plance crashes and shark attacks.

But a much more common occurance than terrorist attacks....by a huge multiplier. Yet, the meek are willing to give up civil rights over one attack...ponderous. And are willing to spend billions, and cheer on the deaths of thousands of Americans over it.


If airline pilots carried guns...you do the math.

Let's say everyone on that campus is packing - does that automatically make them capable of cheating Chuckie Darwin?

As voices on the topic often resound - guns don't kill (or protect intelligently), people do.

stuckinia wrote:What all the advocates of gun control seem to be missing if the fact the NO guns are permitted on campus. Protecting the citizens from gun violence by taking the guns away responsible adults did not work. The rampaging gook that did not follow this rule must have been comforted by the knowledge that the law-abiding faculty, staff, and students were completely helpless.

No, the dumb idea is that this "rampaging gook" would have given a shit if anybody else had a gun or not. He was knowlingly going on a murder spree and planning to die, himself, at the end of it. If it was legal for other students to have guns on campus with them, the same shit would have gone down.

Fuck, it very well might have been worse, as nobody at the time would have known for sure that Jimmy down the hall with his glock out was the guy on the spree in the first place.

Dinsdale wrote:
You wanna cite some statistics to back that up?

Actually, I guess "want" has nothing to do with it...

Years and years and millions of examples of FACTS tell us that you're wrong. I can cite them if you like, but I'm currently too busy being amazed at the level of dumbfuckery that's abounding here...first, I thought just about every man, woman, and child in this country had at least a minimal working knowledge of gun ownership vs violent crime figures(quite losided), and I figured that at the very least someone who actually commented on the subject might have at least a clue as to what they were talking about...which you CLEARLY don't.

Way to KYOA.

Dinsdale wrote: "Wanna cite some statistics?"

"I know I could but I'm just too busy"
(meaning of course that I really don't have shit)

PSUFAN wrote:

I see. A Law would have made a difference.

A law stopping citizens who obey the law, you know the ones who dont go crazy and shoot shit up, from having guns had no effect on this?

Maybe it did effect it. Maybe it didnt.

We will never know because the citizens were stripped of their right to protect themselves. Maybe we can ask the dead if they owned a gun permit and couldve protected themselves.


*Edit*
The irony is they didnt put the law into place because they were afraid of this happening
*Edit*

stuckinia wrote:

Voice of Reason wrote:

Q, West Coast Style wrote:Any info on the shooter yet?

I'm gonna say, white, male, middle class, freshman. No girlfriend.

Asian Male, according to the earliest reports.

Probably some dumb fuck engineering student having a tough time with his exams and a recent break up with his girlfriend decided to exact revenge on his meany professor and the students who made fun of his pocketless jeans.

Okay, the disgruntled GI prediction is simply a plausible first guess. If so, it certainly WOULD be on the Chimp and his consortium. But in these initial sorts-stunned moments of wondering, let's toss out a few more:

--disgruntled doctoral?...naw, too many victims.

--generic Columbine-style satanist called to action?....hmmm...possible, but wtf?

--simmering Asian geek turns all those "pencil-dick" jokes into a Great Jade Sword Of Revenge?......naw., way too much firepower and commando-like preparation.

--White Supremicist says No More to "mud-mixing"?....possible.

Toddowen wrote:I think putting a gun in the hands of just 25% of the people around here would result in a huge rise in crime.

I've got two lethal wepons I carry every day. You just gotta know when to use them.



Sin,

Mr T wrote:

PSUFAN wrote:

I see. A Law would have made a difference.

A law stopping citizens who obey the law, you know the ones who dont go crazy and shoot shit up, from having guns had no effect on this?

Maybe it did effect it. Maybe it didnt.

We will never know because the citizens were stripped of their right to protect themselves. Maybe we can ask the dead if they owned a gun permit and couldve protected themselves

Or we could ask them if they would have shot some other innocent bystander or two or three or gotten themselves even more likely killed in the panic or ifmaybe they didn't get high and drunk one day and their girlfriend dumps them and then the teacher gives him a 'D' and he decides to shoot his roommate from playing the Crash Test Dummies on a contnuous loop (probably justified). Or who knows, if everyone is packing we wouldn't get one nutjob killing 31 people, instead we get 100 cases of shooting incidents with 15 dea and 85 injured.

See You Next Wednesday wrote:

Mr T wrote:

PSUFAN wrote:

I see. A Law would have made a difference.

A law stopping citizens who obey the law, you know the ones who dont go crazy and shoot shit up, from having guns had no effect on this?

Maybe it did effect it. Maybe it didnt.

We will never know because the citizens were stripped of their right to protect themselves. Maybe we can ask the dead if they owned a gun permit and couldve protected themselves

Or we could ask them if they would have shot some other innocent bystander or two or three or gotten themselves even more likely killed in the panic or ifmaybe they didn't get high and drunk one day and their girlfriend dumps them and then the teacher gives him a 'D' and he decides to shoot his roommate from playing the Crash Test Dummies on a contnuous loop (probably justified). Or who knows, if everyone is packing we wouldn't get one nutjob killing 31 people, instead we get 100 cases of shooting incidents with 15 dea and 85 injured.

Or maybe we could ask someone who's been involved in one of these massacres. If only there were such a person...

Wikipedia wrote:It should be noted that many of the patrons, such as Suzanna Hupp, had firearms in their vehicles but by law were not allowed to carry them on their person. Survivors and family of the victims, with the help of the media, were successful in moving lawmakers to consider the concept of conceal carry permits for citizens. As a direct result of this massacre, in 1995 Texas lawmakers, led by Suzanna Gratia Hupp (whose parents were both killed in the massacre), passed a law after the veto of former Governor Ann Richards that allowed Texas citizens to obtain a concealed carry handgun permit in part as a reaction against the massacre. Soon after, many states considered similar weapon permits for citizens.

Then Wikipedia wrote:Hupp testified across the country in support of concealed-handgun laws. She said that had there been a second chance to prevent the slaughter, she would have violated the Texas law and carried the handgun inside her purse into the restaurant.

Oh really, Mikey.


I'll tell you what...one-time offer...you can go back and edit in an apology, or you can enjoy the view as your head flies over the centerfield fence.


No, really, I was being sincere -- I truly didn't realize that the complete fucking ignorance on this subject was so widespread. I really didn't.


Educate yourselves, you complete fucking naby-pamby tards. Then when you're done, come on over and pry it from my cold, dead fingers...I'd recommend packing a lunch.

Voice of Reason wrote:Fuck, it very well might have been worse, as nobody at the time would have known for sure that Jimmy down the hall with his glock out was the guy on the spree in the first place.

I am sure someone could have figured out that the dude firing rounds into students laying on the floor was up to no good. Some of the good ol' boys at Tech have more respect for and better control of their firearms than the local cops.

Dinsdale wrote:Oh really, Mikey.


I'll tell you what...one-time offer...you can go back and edit in an apology, or you can enjoy the view as your head flies over the centerfield fence.


No, really, I was being sincere -- I truly didn't realize that the complete fucking ignorance on this subject was so widespread. I really didn't.


Educate yourselves, you complete fucking naby-pamby tards. Then when you're done, come on over and pry it from my cold, dead fingers...I'd recommend packing a lunch.

Really. And triple spacing your posts makes you seem really smart, right?


The statistics on this issue are highly manipulated by both sides. Some famous guy with wild hair once said something relevant about lies and statistics, I think.


But for you to come in here claiming that you have the definitive answer, and it's so obvious that you don't need anything...anything...to back it up...



Well, all the triple spacing in the world won't cover for that level of bullshit.


I'll have to admit, though, that it's pretty much par for your course.

Headhunter wrote:

See You Next Wednesday wrote:

Mr T wrote: A law stopping citizens who obey the law, you know the ones who dont go crazy and shoot shit up, from having guns had no effect on this?

Maybe it did effect it. Maybe it didnt.

We will never know because the citizens were stripped of their right to protect themselves. Maybe we can ask the dead if they owned a gun permit and couldve protected themselves

Or we could ask them if they would have shot some other innocent bystander or two or three or gotten themselves even more likely killed in the panic or ifmaybe they didn't get high and drunk one day and their girlfriend dumps them and then the teacher gives him a 'D' and he decides to shoot his roommate from playing the Crash Test Dummies on a contnuous loop (probably justified). Or who knows, if everyone is packing we wouldn't get one nutjob killing 31 people, instead we get 100 cases of shooting incidents with 15 dea and 85 injured.

Or maybe we could ask someone who's been involved in one of these massacres. If only there were such a person...

Wikipedia wrote:It should be noted that many of the patrons, such as Suzanna Hupp, had firearms in their vehicles but by law were not allowed to carry them on their person. Survivors and family of the victims, with the help of the media, were successful in moving lawmakers to consider the concept of conceal carry permits for citizens. As a direct result of this massacre, in 1995 Texas lawmakers, led by Suzanna Gratia Hupp (whose parents were both killed in the massacre), passed a law after the veto of former Governor Ann Richards that allowed Texas citizens to obtain a concealed carry handgun permit in part as a reaction against the massacre. Soon after, many states considered similar weapon permits for citizens.

Then Wikipedia wrote:Hupp testified across the country in support of concealed-handgun laws. She said that had there been a second chance to prevent the slaughter, she would have violated the Texas law and carried the handgun inside her purse into the restaurant.

So what?

See You Next Wednesday wrote: Or we could ask them if they would have shot some other innocent bystander or two or three or gotten themselves even more likely killed in the panic or ifmaybe they didn't get high and drunk one day and their girlfriend dumps them and then the teacher gives him a 'D' and he decides to shoot his roommate from playing the Crash Test Dummies on a contnuous loop (probably justified). Or who knows, if everyone is packing we wouldn't get one nutjob killing 31 people, instead we get 100 cases of shooting incidents with 15 dea and 85 injured.

Never happen when I went to school and fire arms were legal then.

But anyway lets go back to what PSUFAN said.

PSUFAN wrote:

I see. A Law would have made a difference.

So we can all agree on that a law would have made no difference. If it would have made no difference then why ban them, thats what gets me about you fuckers. We all know there is always going to be a fucking crazy fucker ruining things for everybody. So why ban fire arms?

So what?


Someone who was a victim of a similar type of rampage left her gun in the car so she could continue to "obey" the law. She watched her folks gunned down in front of her.


She went on to be an advocate for conceal/carry laws, and also help a House of rep. seat in Texas for 10 years after the shooting.


Suffice it to say, I'll take her word on whether a gun would have helped her in that situation over someone who's never been near a situation like that.

Firearms shouldn't be banned for responsible, qualified owners.

Here's the main problem I have with NRA lobbyists and zealots: they're willing to torpedo honest efforts to keep firearms away from irresponsible, unqualified owners in an attempt to advance their cause. However, that doesn't advance their cause - it just makes them a part of what is wrong about firearms.

Nah Headhunter. I would rather sit at home and think people eat sunflowers and shit out rainbows.

If they were banned, no one would have fire arms and we could all be happy.

Just like with weed, its banned and I know no one here has smoked it. Thank god I havent. Thank you laws.

What part of "educate yourself" are you struggling with?

Sorry if I didn't directly cite stats...but I'm sooooo right, and you're sooo wrong, the onus is on the naysayers. It really is that much of a common-knowledge deal -- I don't have stats to verify that water is wet, either.


But if it helps you get started down the Road to Enlightenment, let's start with the fact that the state with the most permissive carry laws has the lowest rate of violent crime. And if you go down the list, you'll see that's not an anomality...it's a carved-in-stone theme.

You should feel adequately ignorant after that single read. If you horses need to be forced to drink as well as being led to the water...let me know. I gots hundreds of examples, if the one really obvious one wasn't enough to get you to shut up and start being American.

A report is saying that 2 hours went by between when the first shooting occurred and when students were notified via campus e-mail.

PSUFAN wrote:Firearms shouldn't be banned for responsible, qualified owners.

I agree.

So Ill say again....
So we can all agree on that a law would have made no difference. If it would have made no difference then why ban them, thats what gets me about you fuckers. We all know there is always going to be a fucking crazy fucker ruining things for everybody. So why ban fire arms?

Mr T wrote:

PSUFAN wrote:Firearms shouldn't be banned for responsible, qualified owners.

I agree.

So Ill say again....
So we can all agree on that a law would have made no difference. If it would have made no difference then why ban them, thats what gets me about you fuckers. We all know there is always going to be a fucking crazy fucker ruining things for everybody. So why ban fire arms?

I think the point here is simply that the firearm control issue had nothing to do with this particular shooting and, therefore, the topic should be left the fuck out of it.

I'm not for bans. I'm for...gasp...sensible regulations.

Dinsdale wrote: the onus is on the naysayers

RACK