T1B

trev wrote:Can someone please tell me why the insane seem to be shooting up the schools like no other time in history? What is it about our society that is allowing it? Is it environmental? WTH is it? Why are we seeing it more than ever?

I see it as some sick, suicidal bastard wanting to go out in a blaze of glory... totally oblivious and unconcerned about the innocent he affects in the process.

Environmental? Only to the extent that the attention seeking, crazy fucker is copycatting previous atrocities and knows his name will get mentioned on CNN.

Another fucking coward, unable to deal with life, and wanting to cause as much carnage as possible before ending his own.

There's a special place in hell for these fuckers.

trev wrote:Can someone please tell me why the insane seem to be shooting up the schools like no other time in history? What is it about our society that is allowing it? Is it environmental? WTH is it? Why are we seeing it more than ever? I'm hoping Warren, dins , or KC scott has something to say on the subject. Somebody.

obviously someone wasn't putting out. how hard is it for you to understand that?

trev wrote:Can someone please tell me why the insane seem to be shooting up the schools like no other time in history? What is it about our society that is allowing it? Is it environmental? WTH is it? Why are we seeing it more than ever? I'm hoping Warren, dins , or KC scott has something to say on the subject. Somebody.

Well, for starters, it has only been in the last 80 or so years that the average person has been able to amass the kind of firepower needed to execute a good solid school shooting. Or McDonalds. Or Luby's. There have always been crazy people. They're just better armed than any time in our history.

Mustang wrote:Yeah, guys that hunt pheasants and deer really need to have their guns confiscated. Let's let the deer population explode further and have an even worse ecological mess on our hands. After all, it's more humane to hit deer with cars or have them starve or be disease ridden than to take them out with one shot. Brilliant.

As for gun control, oh that works wonders. No guns ownership is allowed in the city of Chicago and Washington DC. Let's all move there because the criminals aren't allowed to get guns and of course, they follow the rules don't they? All those murders in Chi/DC are just an illusion.....

Are you a hunter? You just said it that the deer would be more plentiful if man didn't shoot them. And they would get hit by cars. Man built the roads. Is that sinking in yet? No roads no dead deer. Is it sinking in yet?

Gun control couldn't happen overnight. But if you find yourself in a hole the first step is to quit digging. So stop passing out guns to people. Over time the guns would go away.

KC Scott wrote:Most of the countries that have cops at this training have banned handguns, if not all ownership of private arms. The irony though is that all have far more incidents of terrorism than we do here in the USA. A

If they have more terrorism it is because of government situations in those countries. We are talking about guns killing citizens and not terrrorism. Why didn't a private gun owner stop Tim McVeigh? They couldn't. So it's not the same thing. I am talking about the kind of shooting that took place at Northern Illinois. It was senseless and it didn't need to happen. Hello?

Yes and BSmack is right. Guns keep escelating and the incidents are becoming more and more dangerous to the general public. Anyone in their right mind can see it. If nobody had guns then nobody would need to have a gun. It's that easy. Like it is in most other countries. Stop thinking America is always right about everything.

Mace wrote:I suspect that more gunshot victims (from crimes) have been killed with Saturday Night Specials than any other type of firearm in the past 80 years. I'm not sure how much firepower you feel is needed to execute a "good solid school shooting" but I'm betting that a 6 shot revolver or a shotgun would be more than enough to make the evening news.

Mace

Maybe that would be enough to make the local evening news. But you sure as hell couldn't pull a Columbine or a Luby's style massacre with an old west style 6 shooter. The rate of fire was too damn slow. That's why all the really prolific shooters either carry multiple semi-automatic pistols weapons, military style assault weapons or both.

I'm sure as hell not trying to say that the answer to preventing mass shootings is as simplistic as banning guns. I'm just saying that the ready made capability to execute such an act has never been more available than right here in America during the latter half of the last century through the present day. And as such, you have to consider that as part of the equation. The alternative would be to posit that there were no people in our past predisposed to ever commit such a barbaric and savage act.

But seriously, I'm not for banning guns. Especially when my chances of getting killed in a mass shooting are infinitely less than my chances of getting hit by lightning or winning the Mega Millions jackpot.

Dan Vogel wrote:

Mustang wrote:Yeah, guys that hunt pheasants and deer really need to have their guns confiscated. Let's let the deer population explode further and have an even worse ecological mess on our hands. After all, it's more humane to hit deer with cars or have them starve or be disease ridden than to take them out with one shot. Brilliant.

As for gun control, oh that works wonders. No guns ownership is allowed in the city of Chicago and Washington DC. Let's all move there because the criminals aren't allowed to get guns and of course, they follow the rules don't they? All those murders in Chi/DC are just an illusion.....

Are you a hunter? You just said it that the deer would be more plentiful if man didn't shoot them. And they would get hit by cars. Man built the roads. Is that sinking in yet? No roads no dead deer. Is it sinking in yet?

Only you're ignorance.

Overpopulation of deer without human hunting being involved is solved by natural predators, and when those are not present it is solved by disease, starvation and death, as too many deer compete for too few food resources.

Gun control couldn't happen overnight. But if you find yourself in a hole the first step is to quit digging. So stop passing out guns to people. Over time the guns would go away.

And the prince would marry the princess and they would live happily ever after. The end.

You actually BELIEVE that concept would spread throughout the world and take hold, that everyone would destroy their weapons so that no more deer and people would die?

If your kids aren't fucked up yet, they soon will be.

trev wrote:Can someone please tell me why the insane seem to be shooting up the schools like no other time in history? What is it about our society that is allowing it? Is it environmental? WTH is it? Why are we seeing it more than ever? I'm hoping Warren, dins , or KC scott has something to say on the subject. Somebody.

Atribute to the "copycat" syndrome. Omaha mall, Colorado church, NIU in the past months - Hell in the 90's it was Post offices.
An article I read this weekend said many that would normally just off themselves, read the press coverage and decide to go out in a blaze of glory instead.

There's no rhyme or reason for senseless violenence, only the availability to counter it quickly.

Just as a board needs its tards, a society needs pumpkinheads like Dan. SOMEONE has to be there to sate mvscal's lust - consent or no. If mvscal's phallus doesn't drip blood on Dan's bedroom carpet, the carpet cleaner doesn't get work. If Dan's kids grow up without having witnessed weekly scenes of pillage and degenerate consensual behavior...then what do the poor psychologists do? Examine each other? If Dan's wife's fun gully doesn't get layered with alluvual soils, then the euro bidet salesman doesn't get a foot in the door, etc.

BSmack wrote: But you sure as hell couldn't pull a Columbine or a Luby's style massacre with an old west style 6 shooter. The rate of fire was too damn slow. That's why all the really prolific shooters either carry multiple semi-automatic pistols weapons, military style assault weapons or both.

I was gpoing to mention Charles Whitman, who dropped quite a few at UT (sup' Vogel X) back in 1966 with a bolt action Remington 700 but further research showed he bought an M1 that day along with a sawed off 12ga. and 3 pistols.

Still, the big picture remains that we are a country of guns, and the only thing the assault weapon and large mag ban (Sup' Brady bill) did was increase both supply and demand. Those in the itty bitty brain community that think A.) we will rewrite the constitution B.) The guns will "disappear" over time C.) No new guns would flow into the country are swallowing the liberal utopian kool aid.

For those really concerned about the possible victimization by gun related violence, I'd suggest renouncing your citizenship and heading to a non-gun country.

KC Scott wrote:

BSmack wrote: But you sure as hell couldn't pull a Columbine or a Luby's style massacre with an old west style 6 shooter. The rate of fire was too damn slow. That's why all the really prolific shooters either carry multiple semi-automatic pistols weapons, military style assault weapons or both.

I was gpoing to mention Charles Whitman, who dropped quite a few at UT (sup' Vogel X) back in 1966 with a bolt action Remington 700 but further research showed he bought an M1 that day along with a sawed off 12ga. and 3 pistols.

Whitman was also a well trained marksman who did something that is rather rare for insane mass shooters. He concealed himself.

Still, the big picture remains that we are a country of guns, and the only thing the assault weapon and large mag ban (Sup' Brady bill) did was increase both supply and demand. Those in the itty bitty brain community that think A.) we will rewrite the constitution B.) The guns will "disappear" over time C.) No new guns would flow into the country are swallowing the liberal utopian kool aid.

For those really concerned about the possible victimization by gun related violence, I'd suggest renouncing your citizenship and heading to a non-gun country.

IMO, the occasional criminal act is the price of living in a free society. Should we ever get to a point in our history where there is no crime, you can rest assured that there will be no liberty. So no, I'm no Dan Vogel on this issue. But you certainly have to take the proliferation of weapons capable of high rates of fire into account when asking why there are so many mass shootings relative to say 1808.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:You guys are fucking IDIOTS to be pissing of Dan like this. The guy has got some serious pull with the feds. Legions of slick-haired dudes in black suits and Matrix sunglasses are still showing up at my front door step and hiding behind garbage cans, just watching my every fucking move. I regret the day I plowed the rectum of D-Vogel's wife.

What really sealed your fate was when you made her suck your black cock!

BSmack wrote:But you certainly have to take the proliferation of weapons capable of high rates of fire into account when asking why there are so many mass shootings relative to say 1808.

I suppose you do, if you're a nanny-state liberal.


How about we consider that Big Brother wasn't such a factor in previous generations, and there were more people with sidearms than today. More guns = more deterrent.

And before you spew some more left wing whacko, anti-Constitution, nanny-state mistruths, educate yourself. In the United States, the counties with the highest rates of gun ownership have the lowest crime rates. Period. It's not some vague trend, it's a carved-in-stone fact.



Your "faster rate of fire" line is complete bullshit, and can be disproven with facts (which btw was spoken like a person who is truly ignorant about firearms and their history). Whereas my point is fully supported by facts/statistics.


BTW - "mass shootings" are a phenomenon that's only proliferated in the last 20-30 years, save for very rare examples. So, would you care to fill me in on all the technological advances and major breakthroughs in firearm technology since then?


I'll save you the trouble -- there hasn't been any. Guns haven't changed in decades. But people's ability to arm and protect themselves has decreased over that period. Leave it to Big Brother to unleash a flood of unintended consequences when he tries to micromanage peoples' lives.

My compact, concealable .32 Auto was first made in 1929. It's rate of fire is no different from any pistol you can buy today. My .45 Auto was first designed and built in 1911. Guess what? It fires the exact same ammunition at the same rate as the .45's you buy today.

trev wrote:Can someone please tell me why the insane seem to be shooting up the schools like no other time in history? What is it about our society that is allowing it? Is it environmental? WTH is it? Why are we seeing it more than ever? I'm hoping Warren, dins , or KC scott has something to say on the subject. Somebody.

Possibly they want to be on the tube 24/7.

That and as long as they keep to gun control states, they don't need to worry about anyone shooting back.

mvscal wrote:

Dan Vogel wrote:Gun control couldn't happen overnight.

Why do you hate self defense, pussy?

Simply because he is a fucking pussy that doesn't understand that he wouldn't even have the right to spew his childish ignorance on this board without the firepower and the men that use it.

That and he's pissed off about his medicaid not covering his estrogen injections anymore.

Dinsdale wrote:

BSmack wrote:But you certainly have to take the proliferation of weapons capable of high rates of fire into account when asking why there are so many mass shootings relative to say 1808.

I suppose you do, if you're a nanny-state liberal.

You don't have to be a nanny stater to recognize that PART of the reason we have more mass shootings today is because we have better weaponry.

How about we consider that Big Brother wasn't such a factor in previous generations, and there were more people with sidearms than today. More guns = more deterrent.

Or perhaps the population wasn't as dense back in the day? Fewer people, fewer targets.

Or maybe we don't have appropriate outlets for ALL the homicidal maniacs in our society? Back in the day, you could join the calvary and kill Indians and be a fucking hero. Nowadays, there's that pesky Geneva Convention.

Perhaps the fact that we're loathe to institutionalize crazy people has something to do with it?

Or maybe the proliferation of instant mass media and the attendant hype makes the possibility of getting your 15 minutes by shooting up a classroom attractive to the mentally imbalanced?

And before you spew some more left wing whacko, anti-Constitution, nanny-state mistruths, educate yourself. In the United States, the counties with the highest rates of gun ownership have the lowest crime rates. Period. It's not some vague trend, it's a carved-in-stone fact.

Go fuck yourself if you think I'm for banning guns. Seriously, do you even bother to READ before you reply?

Your "faster rate of fire" line is complete bullshit, and can be disproven with facts (which btw was spoken like a person who is truly ignorant about firearms and their history). Whereas my point is fully supported by facts/statistics.

None of which you ever take the time to cite.

But that's OK, I'm sure an AK-47 and a Colt Peacemaker stack up about evenly.

BTW - "mass shootings" are a phenomenon that's only proliferated in the last 20-30 years, save for very rare examples. So, would you care to fill me in on all the technological advances and major breakthroughs in firearm technology since then?

I'll save you the trouble -- there hasn't been any. Guns haven't changed in decades. But people's ability to arm and protect themselves has decreased over that period. Leave it to Big Brother to unleash a flood of unintended consequences when he tries to micromanage peoples' lives.

My compact, concealable .32 Auto was first made in 1929. It's rate of fire is no different from any pistol you can buy today. My .45 Auto was first designed and built in 1911. Guess what? It fires the exact same ammunition at the same rate as the .45's you buy today.

Christ, nuance is lost on you. Allow me to refresh your obviously deficient memory.

BSmack wrote:Well, for starters, it has only been in the last 80 or so years that the average person has been able to amass the kind of firepower needed to execute a good solid school shooting. Or McDonalds. Or Luby's. There have always been crazy people. They're just better armed than any time in our history.

A smart person would have assumed that I was leaving room for other factors of causation.

You may commence spell checking.

BSmack wrote:A smart person would have assumed that I was leaving room for other factors of causation.

A smart person would realize I was saying your "more firepower" "causation" is complete crap, and a smart person could see that the two are not corrolated in any way shape or form.


Autoloading handguns became available in 1897 (and a friend has an 1897, in the original box it came in... wayyyy cool. Has an example of pretty much every other historic Colt, too). Why don't you hook up a link that shows a sudden spike in random mass shootings beginning in 1897.

Kalashnikovs came around in 1947. I suppose you have a chart that shows a marked increase in random mass shootings beginning then?

The early shooter that gets the attention was the Whitman deal of 1966. The "firepower" he used wasn't a whole hell of a lot more than that of the last century, save for rangier bullets (and RACK Whitman for his fine taste in scopes -- A Leupold unit from my Beaverton homies... who I know). And actually, a bolt-action is generally going to have a slower rate of fire than the lever-actions that were prominent through much of the 19th century.


What this boils down to, is your misguided and uninformed thoughts on increased firepower are absolute hogwash.

Diogenes wrote:

trev wrote:Can someone please tell me why the insane seem to be shooting up the schools like no other time in history? What is it about our society that is allowing it? Is it environmental? WTH is it? Why are we seeing it more than ever? I'm hoping Warren, dins , or KC scott has something to say on the subject. Somebody.

Possibly they want to be on the tube 24/7.

That and as long as they keep to gun control states, they don't need to worry about anyone shooting back.

You mean as opposed to all those states that do allow guns on school campuses?

Yeah, I suppose you're right.

mvscal wrote:

Dan Vogel wrote:Gun control couldn't happen overnight.

Why do you hate self defense, pussy?

But if he had been a gun owner, you wouldn't have been able to so easily violate the entire Vogel family.

The way it is, it's a win-win.

Dinsdale wrote:

BSmack wrote:A smart person would have assumed that I was leaving room for other factors of causation.

A smart person would realize I was saying your "more firepower" "causation" is complete crap, and a smart person could see that the two are not corrolated in any way shape or form.

You mean other than the fact that Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold wouldn't have been much of a news story had they busted into a one room schoolhouse with a muzzle loader and a powder horn?

Mister Bushice wrote:

Dan Vogel wrote:

Mustang wrote:Yeah, guys that hunt pheasants and deer really need to have their guns confiscated. Let's let the deer population explode further and have an even worse ecological mess on our hands. After all, it's more humane to hit deer with cars or have them starve or be disease ridden than to take them out with one shot. Brilliant.

As for gun control, oh that works wonders. No guns ownership is allowed in the city of Chicago and Washington DC. Let's all move there because the criminals aren't allowed to get guns and of course, they follow the rules don't they? All those murders in Chi/DC are just an illusion.....

Are you a hunter? You just said it that the deer would be more plentiful if man didn't shoot them. And they would get hit by cars. Man built the roads. Is that sinking in yet? No roads no dead deer. Is it sinking in yet?

Only you're ignorance.

Overpopulation of deer without human hunting being involved is solved by natural predators, and when those are not present it is solved by disease, starvation and death, as too many deer compete for too few food resources.

Thanks, MB. Just to take it a step further, deer are already way too plentiful because there aren't enough natural predators/hunters. This may come as a shock, but you can have too many animals. Know what they devour? Young vegetation. Think outside the box for a second......all that young vegetation gets eaten.........old trees eventually die.....nothing to take it's place. Oh, but all the pretty deer flourish. Yea! Well, until the food's all gone and they starve. No roads? Wow.....if that's the case, how do we get around.

And I don't hunt much. Sitting quiet in a blind, freezing at 6 am is boring to me. Would rather walk through a field and shoot game birds. Nothing wrong with providing yourself/family food. Sure, I could get it all at the store. Same with my garden. Don't really need it but like growing my own. My guitars? All that music I create could be bought at the store, too. The girlfriend knits scarves/hats/sweaters. She could buy all that at the store but likes to do it herself. I could go on...

BSmack wrote: You mean other than the fact that Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold wouldn't have been much of a news story had they busted into a one room schoolhouse with a muzzle loader and a powder horn?

If you miss the field goal, move the goalposts, eh?

AGAIN -- provide a link to the sudden spike in school shootings beggining in 1897. That's when autoloaders became available.

And how did you go from "80 years ago" to freaking muzzleloaders? Damn, talk about trying to change the subject to try and spin out of completely ignorant and inaccurate statements.

Most of the shooting done at Columbine was with shotguns. Guess what? That's not a new technology, believe it or not.

The deadliest school attack in American history wasn't done with any guns anyway, dipshit.

Dins,

Are you REALLY trying to argue that technology has not aided and abetted our ability to kill each other off in more spectacular and efficient ways?

Unfuck yourself and get back to me.

That's exactly what he is saying. These fukking whack jobs that go on shooting sprees generally do so with non automatic weapons. Shotguns, rifles handguns, all of which, as dims has been trying to tell you, were around the entire 20th century.

What is different? Well, I think a big part is the 24/7 news circus that replays this shit adnauseum (sp). Also, these fukkers know that they are gonna be the only ones packing.

There is one solution. Allow, make that encourage, non whack job folks to get CC permits and hope they use them. And get rid of the politically correct "gun free zone" bullshit.

smackaholic wrote:That's exactly what he is saying. These fukking whack jobs that go on shooting sprees generally do so with non automatic weapons. Shotguns, rifles handguns, all of which, as dims has been trying to tell you, were around the entire 20th century.

When did I ever reference automatic weapons? My initial post specifically referenced weapons available to the average citizen during the last 80 years. That obviously doesn't include fully auto weapons.

What is different? Well, I think a big part is the 24/7 news circus that replays this shit adnauseum (sp). Also, these fukkers know that they are gonna be the only ones packing.

There is one solution. Allow, make that encourage, non whack job folks to get CC permits and hope they use them. And get rid of the politically correct "gun free zone" bullshit.

If you ever figure out how to identify ONLY non crazy people, be sure to let us know. I know Rack Fu had to go through some heavy duty psych tests to get in the FBI. Should we require those for conceal and carry permits?

Shit, I thought you were AGAINST gun control?

Mace wrote:

BSmack wrote:Dins
Unfuck yourself and get back to me.

Being someone who is always trying to learn new things, I just gotta ask the question......how does one "unfuck yourself"? I mean, if you're fucked, it would seem to me that you're just fucked. How would you go about undoing it?

Mace

In Dins' case it likely means a long and painful surgical procedure, as he has been masturbating his ego for so long that it has fused to his hand.

smackaholic wrote:That's exactly what he is saying. These fukking whack jobs that go on shooting sprees generally do so with non automatic weapons. Shotguns, rifles handguns, all of which, as dims has been trying to tell you, were around the entire 20th century.

What is different? Well, I think a big part is the 24/7 news circus that replays this shit adnauseum (sp). Also, these fukkers know that they are gonna be the only ones packing.

Population growth, MTV and the " I wanna be somebody" mentality have quite a bit to do with it.

Mace wrote:

smackaholic wrote:That's exactly what he is saying. These fukking whack jobs that go on shooting sprees generally do so with non automatic weapons. Shotguns, rifles handguns, all of which, as dims has been trying to tell you, were around the entire 20th century.

What is different? Well, I think a big part is the 24/7 news circus that replays this shit adnauseum (sp). Also, these fukkers know that they are gonna be the only ones packing.

There is one solution. Allow, make that encourage, non whack job folks to get CC permits and hope they use them. And get rid of the politically correct "gun free zone" bullshit.

Are you serious? You think arming 20,000 students on a college campus is going to solve the problem?? If you truly believe that, then you might want to rethink your position. Speaking for myself when I was in college, I don't think mixing a concealed weapon and a couple of bottles of Mad Dog 20 20 would be such a great idea. Oh, and how exactly will you identify the "whack jobs" and keep them from having their own weapons? I think it's far better to keep college campuses and high schools gun free and then arrest anyone who violates the law....hopefully before they start shooting.

Mace

Exactly. A lot of people are saying, "well if everybody was carrying then none of the whack jobs would even be able to get started on their killing spree." Can you imagine...2,000 or so students on the quad, say 20% or 30% carrying, one crazy fucker pulls out a weapon and starts randomly shooting people. Then 600 people pull out their guns and start shooting at the first person they see brandishing a weapon. Yeah that would work out really well.

Mikey wrote:Exactly. A lot of people are saying, "well if everybody was carrying then none of the whack jobs would even be able to get started on their killing spree." Can you imagine...2,000 or so students on the quad, say 20% or 30% carrying, one crazy fucker pulls out a weapon and starts randomly shooting people. Then 600 people pull out their guns and start shooting at the first person they see brandishing a weapon. Yeah that would work out really well.

Never mind the number of alcohol related gun incidents one would see on a college campus. This experiment has been tried before and Coach Switzer can testify that it didn't work out very well.

mvscal wrote:

BSmack wrote:Never mind the number of alcohol related gun incidents one would see on a college campus.

And what, exactly, is that number?

Dorms are supposed to be, and usually are, gun free zones. So of course an actual number would be nothing more than speculation.

However, one needs only look at the few places on where guns have been prevalent on campus to get an inkling of how bad things could get.

Mikey wrote:Can you imagine...2,000 or so students on the quad, say 20% or 30% carrying, one crazy fucker pulls out a weapon and starts randomly shooting people. Then 600 people pull out their guns and start shooting at the first person they see brandishing a weapon. Yeah that would work out really well.

For the sake of discussion, let's just say that YOU were on the quad, and had a gun on you. Then, some crazy fucker pulls out a weapon (which obviously can happen, just like Northern Illinois and VT, and the "gun free zone" obviously means nothing to the crazy fucker), and starts firing.

Would YOU start randomly firing into the crowd, or as a responsible citizen, would you try and eliminate the threat and save innocent lives if you were able to?

Guess what? All those other responsible, concerned citizens would do the same thing you would do.

And before there's any more completely wild speculation as you nanny-staters are prone to do, bear in mind that hostory very strongly disagrees with you, and agrees with me.

Dinsdale wrote:And before there's any more completely wild speculation as you nanny-staters are prone to do, bear in mind that hostory very strongly disagrees with you, and agrees with me.

I don’t believe none of them hos.

Goober McTuber wrote:

Dinsdale wrote:And before there's any more completely wild speculation as you nanny-staters are prone to do, bear in mind that hostory very strongly disagrees with you, and agrees with me.

I don’t believe none of them hos.

You would if you watched the Hostery Channel.

Dinsdale wrote:

Mikey wrote:Can you imagine...2,000 or so students on the quad, say 20% or 30% carrying, one crazy fucker pulls out a weapon and starts randomly shooting people. Then 600 people pull out their guns and start shooting at the first person they see brandishing a weapon. Yeah that would work out really well.

For the sake of discussion, let's just say that YOU were on the quad, and had a gun on you. Then, some crazy fucker pulls out a weapon (which obviously can happen, just like Northern Illinois and VT, and the "gun free zone" obviously means nothing to the crazy fucker), and starts firing.

Would YOU start randomly firing into the crowd, or as a responsible citizen, would you try and eliminate the threat and save innocent lives if you were able to?

Guess what? All those other responsible, concerned citizens would do the same thing you would do.

And before there's any more completely wild speculation as you nanny-staters are prone to do, bear in mind that hostory very strongly disagrees with you, and agrees with me.

Yes, I'm sure that every armed person would calmly unholster their weapon and immediately indentify exactly where the shooting came from. Not a single person would make an erroneous assumption and shoot the wrong person because they were first one seen to have a weapon and assumed to be the perp. 600 people would target the actual perp and fire on him from a 360 degree circle accurately enough so that not a single innocent bystander would get hurt in the cross fire. If you actually believe that then you're a hell of a lot dumber than I ever gave you credit for.

And please. Link me to the hostory you claim so strongly agrees with you.

BSmack wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:

Dinsdale wrote:And before there's any more completely wild speculation as you nanny-staters are prone to do, bear in mind that hostory very strongly disagrees with you, and agrees with me.

I don’t believe none of them hos.

You would if you watched the Hostery Channel.

Everytime I tune into that channel, it's a rerun.

Hostery does repeat itself.

Mister Bushice wrote:Hostery does repeat itself.

Then again, so does Dins.

And so the circle completes.

If everybody had guns there, we'd have had 45 people shooting in all different directions because they didn't know who the original shooter was, they just looked up and saw a bunch of people firing off rounds like fuckin Tombstone. Then the amped up adrenaline rushing cops show up on the scene with assault rifles locked and loaded ready to mow down anyone who doesn't put their hands on the wall in the first .5 seconds that they are requested to.

That sounds like a much better situation.

Random Asshole wrote:If everybody had guns there, we'd have had 45 people shooting in all different directions because they didn't know who the original shooter was, they just looked up and saw a bunch of people firing off rounds like fuckin Tombstone. Then the amped up adrenaline rushing cops show up on the scene with assault rifles locked and loaded ready to mow down anyone who doesn't put their hands on the wall in the first .5 seconds that they are requested to.

That sounds like a much better situation.

A few situations like this could really bring down the cost of health care.

I see peoples' desire to live in a fantasy world is still quite strong.

Yup, I don't even see how anyone could ever even question the idea that if we just put up some big signs that say "no guns," the crazy whackjobs will take a hint, put down their guns, and join everyone in a rousing round of Kumbaya.

Yeah, that speaks well of your grip on reality.


How many of you really want to kill an innocent person (I almost said "innocent bystander," but no one deserves that mushy a softball)? So in this "on the quad" example, or any other similar scenario, you'd be willing to risk the lives of the innocent people you're trying to save, just for the sake of getting some rounds off?

Anyone with that mentality shouldn't have the nerve to label anyone else a "nutjob." And they also have no business carrying a gun. But believe it or not, the rest of the sane people have no desire to kill innocent people either, and certainly wouldn't risk hurting the people they're trying to help. And many/most of those people have the mental strength to not do so. If you don't feel you have the mental accumen to make this very simple judgement, then you have no business even owning a gun.

And where's these examples you're going to cite to prove your point? Oh... I see.

Since the UT/Whitman incident has been brought up.... the cops were freaking deputizing the law-abiding folks who pulled out their iron and started returning fire.

In WW2, there was a Japanese attack on the US Mainland that was repelled by those nutjobs exercising their 2nd Amendment Rights.

Dinsdale wrote:I see peoples' desire to live in a fantasy world is still quite strong.

Yup, I don't even see how anyone could ever even question the idea that if we just put up some big signs that say "no guns," the crazy whackjobs will take a hint, put down their guns, and join everyone in a rousing round of Kumbaya.

Yeah, that speaks well of your grip on reality.


How many of you really want to kill an innocent person (I almost said "innocent bystander," but no one deserves that mushy a softball)? So in this "on the quad" example, or any other similar scenario, you'd be willing to risk the lives of the innocent people you're trying to save, just for the sake of getting some rounds off?

Anyone with that mentality shouldn't have the nerve to label anyone else a "nutjob." And they also have no business carrying a gun. But believe it or not, the rest of the sane people have no desire to kill innocent people either, and certainly wouldn't risk hurting the people they're trying to help. And many/most of those people have the mental strength to not do so. If you don't feel you have the mental accumen to make this very simple judgement, then you have no business even owning a gun.

And where's these examples you're going to cite to prove your point? Oh... I see.

Since the UT/Whitman incident has been brought up.... the cops were freaking deputizing the law-abiding folks who pulled out their iron and started returning fire.

In WW2, there was a Japanese attack on the US Mainland that was repelled by those nutjobs exercising their 2nd Amendment Rights.

Talk about living in a fantasy world.

This pile of tripe is hardly worth responding to, but I'm going to anyway just to set the record straight. Nowhere did I say or even imply that I, or most "sane" people, have have any desire to kill innocent people. But you apparently want to arm everybody, or at least everybody who wants to carry a gun, and trust ALL of them - yes ALL of them - to act rationally in a life and death situation.

It would take only one or two people who *think* they [your words] have the mental accumen to make this very simple judgement [/your words] to lose it under stress and you immediately have multiplied the problem by several orders of magnitude. In your apparently ideal world whether or not you think somebody has any business owning a gun is not going to make a bit of difference in whether they do or not.

mvscal wrote:

Mikey wrote:But you apparently want to arm everybody, or at least everybody who wants to carry a gun, and trust ALL of them - yes ALL of them - to act rationally in a life and death situation.

Nobody requires your trust when making the decision of whether or not to arm themselves. It's none of your fucking business.

It sure as fuck is, whether you like it or not.