We need better gun control in this country..

[mrescape43]

Gun control wouldn't help anything. Guns don't kill people! People kill people!

[carter08]

Originally posted by mrescape43
Gun control wouldn't help anything. Guns don't kill people! People kill people!

actually, guns do kill

if it was people, then if i pointed my finger at you and said "bang", you would die

[bobcat1]

Carter, don't don't don't speak or write or type anything like that again. :rolleyes: I mean just don't. It makes you look real stupid. :dispntd: :dispntd:

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by carter08
actually, guns do kill

if it was people, then if i pointed my finger at you and said "bang", you would die lmao

[mrescape43]

Originally posted by carter08
actually, guns do kill

if it was people, then if i pointed my finger at you and said "bang", you would die

Hey Einstein if he wanted a gun bad enough he would have gotten it with or without gun control. Don't blame firearms for insanity. I hope that you can differentiate between the two!

[carter08]

Originally posted by bobcat1
Carter, don't don't don't speak or write or type anything like that again. :rolleyes: I mean just don't. It makes you look real stupid. :dispntd: :dispntd:

:(

but seriously

tougher gun control laws are needed

in the wrong hands, guns contribute to the killing of people. Aiding in murder.

There need to be more restrictions on who gets guns and there needs to be something done to stem the sale of firearms on the black market

[sinton66]

Originally posted by carter08
actually, guns do kill

if it was people, then if i pointed my finger at you and said "bang", you would die

No gun EVER pulled its own trigger. That takes a human. If you pull my finger, you might think you're dying.:D

[bobcat1]

Do you not know how easy criminals can buy guns now from illegal sources? They will still be in criminals hands if they take them from us. Had everyone at that school been carrying a gun, that idiot wouldn't have got maybe one or two killed before he bit the big one.

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by sinton66
No gun EVER pulled its own trigger. That takes a human. If you pull my finger, you might think you're dying.:D correct and the vt killer who was found clinically insane in 2005 managed to buy two handguns LEGALLY? again not against gun control but that worries me

[Keith7]

ya people with mental health problems need to be able to buy guns..

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by Keith7
ya people with mental health problems need to be able to buy guns.. that concerns me. i thought the background check monitored this? hell im not proficient in what the "check" monitors but had he got the guns illegally i'd say well, yeah, its to be expected. but this dude was INSANE!! what the deuce! did anyone hear this guy talk on those tapes

[bobcat1]

That was funny right there S66. LMAO. Let me tell you gun control activists what I think. I think you need to go hug a tree, save a whale, or watch out for a spotted owl or fur seal. You have a hell of a lot better chance of solving those things than you ever do of taking our guns. And you can take that and bank it.:mad:

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by bobcat1
That was funny right there S66. LMAO. Let me tell you gun control activists what I think. I think you need to go hug a tree, save a whale, or watch out for a spotted owl or fur seal. You have a hell of a lot better chance of solving those things than you ever do of taking our guns. And you can take that and bank it.:mad: im not against gun elimination but your response to them is as ignorant as some of their statements, does the thought of an alternative opinion anger you?

[bobcat1]

Originally posted by DDBooger
im not against gun elimination but your response to them is as ignorant as some of their statements, does the thought of an alternative opinion anger you? Actually Double Deep Booger, it doesn't. I just stated a fact about the way I feel. I guess that makes you ignorant too, now doesn't it. Does that anger you?

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by bobcat1
Actually Double Deep Booger, it doesn't. I just stated a fact about the way I feel. I guess that makes you ignorant too, now doesn't it. Does that anger you? well kneel and BOBcat it sure does suggest your ignorance when you allign all who disagree with your feelings into a nice convenient narrow point of view such as huggin trees and saving animals! what a scary concept ;) or opinion labeled a personal fact!

[sinton66]

Originally posted by DDBooger
that concerns me. i thought the background check monitored this? hell im not proficient in what the "check" monitors but had he got the guns illegally i'd say well, yeah, its to be expected. but this dude was INSANE!! what the deuce! did anyone hear this guy talk on those tapes

Actually, according to what I heard on the radio, he was held for testing and passed the test, so the judge removed his order.

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by sinton66
Actually, according to what I heard on the radio, he was held for testing and passed the test, so the judge removed his order. i've dealt with the 8 floor at mem. hosp in corpus while trying to commit some kids at a place I worked. terms for dismissal are ridiculous and some times come down to available beds. this kids stretch of deviance was clear. shame he fell through the crack

[bobcat1]

Hey I can't help if their fantasy world of gun control will never exist. I liken them to day dreamers. Our constitution gives us the right to keep and bear arms. I don't see that changing. Do you Mr Intelligence?

[Keith7]

Originally posted by bobcat1
Hey I can't help if there fantasy world of gun control will never exist. I liken them to day dreamers. Our constitution gives us the right to keep and bear arms. I don't see that changing. Do you Mr Intelligence?

I like how offended you get over someone questioning your intellegence and your precious gun rights..

the gun amendment is one that has needed revision for many years.. it was enacted during a time when america was young and law enforcment was at a minimum.. People needed guns back then to help protect themselves and their family.. We no longer have indians, and we have one of the better justice systems in the world.. we don't need guns

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by bobcat1
Hey I can't help if there fantasy world of gun control will never exist. I liken them to day dreamers. Our constitution gives us the right to keep and bear arms. I don't see that changing. Do you Mr Intelligence? i don't want gun elimination, i have 5 myself and enjoy using them responsibly, if I had time i'd get licensed. but I enjoy hearing others opinions when they do it with respect of mine. im not gonna make fun of someone for hugging a tree but I admire there will to do their part in something they believe! but don't for a instant believe that legislation won't begin to limit how these guns are bought. POLITICS has a funny way of making us believers of the unbelievable. mr intelligence? haha thats the first time i've been called a name and was proud of it! ;) I'm opinionated but I agree with you in the sense that I don't think eliminating guns is the answer.

[carter08]

Originally posted by bobcat1
That was funny right there S66. LMAO. Let me tell you gun control activists what I think. I think you need to go hug a tree, save a whale, or watch out for a spotted owl or fur seal. You have a hell of a lot better chance of solving those things than you ever do of taking our guns. And you can take that and bank it.:mad:

I don't want to take your guns

I want tougher laws for anyone planning on buying guns in the future

[bobcat1]

Originally posted by Keith7
I like how offended you get over someone questioning your intellegence and your precious gun rights..

the gun amendment is one that has needed revision for many years.. it was enacted during a time when america was young and law enforcment was at a minimum.. People needed guns back then to help protect themselves and their family.. We no longer have indians, and we have one of the better justice systems in the world.. we don't need guns

Oh Okay, you're right. We will tell all that have guns illegally to lay them down by threatening them with court action. Let's think about that. If no one had access to guns and this guy had one illegally, would he have killed himself? Probably not. Grow up and get real.

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by carter08
I don't want to take your guns

I want tougher laws for anyone planning on buying guns in the future i believe in this VT case HIPPA is what stands in the way of his mental history being assessed by background checks. HIPPA is the bureau that protects all of our medical history mental and physical. in other words if a kid I monitored at a treatment center became a famous athlete and I revealed his problems as a child I face large fines and possible jail time.

[sinton66]

Originally posted by DDBooger
i've dealt with the 8 floor at mem. hosp in corpus while trying to commit some kids at a place I worked. terms for dismissal are ridiculous and some times come down to available beds. this kids stretch of deviance was clear. shame he fell through the crack

A Judge can't hold people for future crimes they "might" commit. They can only go by the testimony of the current "experts". Counseling was recommended, but he refused it. Since he was already 18, the college couldn't even legally contact his parents about it because of his right to privacy.

[Keith7]

Originally posted by bobcat1
Oh Okay, you're right. We will tell all that have guns illegally to lay them down by threatening them with court action. Let's think about that. If no one had access to guns and this guy had one illegally, would he have killed himself? Probably not. Grow up and get real.

I don't know how to reply to this arguement, mainly because it makes no sense!? :confused:

anyways go to cnn.com and watch the video of the shooter and tell me that that is a person who needs a gun

[bobcat1]

Originally posted by DDBooger
i don't want gun elimination, i have 5 myself and enjoy using them responsibly
I'm opinionated but I agree with you in the sense that I don't think eliminating guns is the answer. 2 statements you made tonight that made sense. :clap:

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by bobcat1
2 statements you made tonight that made sense. :clap: or rather you agreed with ;) in my opinion which isn't confused as personal fact! i made perfect sense lol hey bud you are a diehard, no problem.

[bobcat1]

Originally posted by Keith7
I don't know how to reply to this arguement, mainly because it makes no sense!? :confused:

anyways go to cnn.com and watch the video of the shooter and tell me that that is a person who needs a gun I agree he didn't need a gun but you are missing the point. Had he wanted it bad enough and it appears he did, he would have got one no matter what the laws read. Now do you get it?

[Emerson1]

Originally posted by Keith7
I don't know how to reply to this arguement, mainly because it makes no sense!? :confused:

anyways go to cnn.com and watch the video of the shooter and tell me that that is a person who needs a gun

How is someone supposed to decide if someone needs a gun or not? I haven't read through the thread yet, but I would like to know what you think should be changed about it. How would you decide on who gets a gun and who doesn't?

[Keith7]

Originally posted by bobcat1
I agree he didn't need a gun but you are missing the point. Had he wanted it bad enough and it appears he did, he would have got one no matter what the laws read. Now do you get it?

ya you are right.. but over time less and less guns would be available and they would be harder for people to get.. this is different than the war on drugs because the common person can produce drugs rather it be by growing or manufactoring the drug.. as for making guns, this is a task that is very hard to do, thus making a black market for guns something that would not do so well, esp. if cops were dedicated to fighting it..

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by Emerson1
How is someone supposed to decide if someone needs a gun or not? I haven't read through the thread yet, but I would like to know what you think should be changed about it. How would you decide on who gets a gun and who doesn't? the mentally ill thing worries me, don't know if HIPPA allows it as a measure for that decision. it would make sense huh?

[sinton66]

Originally posted by Keith7
I don't know how to reply to this arguement, mainly because it makes no sense!? :confused:

anyways go to cnn.com and watch the video of the shooter and tell me that that is a person who needs a gun

Hindsight is ALWAYS 20/20, Keith. We can sit here NOW and spout dozens of examples of people that shouldn't have had a gun. Hindsight won't solve that. Hysteria won't solve that. More laws won't solve that. Only deterrants will solve it.

[Keith7]

Originally posted by Emerson1
How is someone supposed to decide if someone needs a gun or not? I haven't read through the thread yet, but I would like to know what you think should be changed about it. How would you decide on who gets a gun and who doesn't?

extend the waiting period, have more extensive background checks, possable drug tests, raise the age limit on buying guns, there are many ways to help restrict people from certain people from buying guns

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by sinton66
Only deterrants will solve it. thats speculative. taking a gander at our prisons, deterrence has not curtailed crime! there are many opinions on what solves what, one as credible as the next. who knows :thinking:

[shankbear]

There is simply no way to keep nutcases like this guy from gunning people down. Criminally deranged minds will get weapons either legally or illegally. If anybody thinks that raising ages to purchase or extending waiting periods, they are simple, naive or both. The criminal mind will not be deterred. A bullet from another gun is the only thing these wackos understand.

[bobcat1]

Originally posted by Keith7
extend the waiting period, have more extensive background checks, possable drug tests, raise the age limit on buying guns, there are many ways to help restrict people from certain people from buying guns Again with all that in place the nutjobs would still get their gun when they wanted it just like a junkie is gonna get their drugs and no amount of legislation would stop it from happening.

[Gobbla2001]

Originally posted by Keith7
extend the waiting period, have more extensive background checks, possable drug tests, raise the age limit on buying guns, there are many ways to help restrict people from certain people from buying guns

the VA shooter... what would have come up on his background that would have red-flagged him???

same with the shooter at the UT tower... he was ex-military... why not let him have a gun?

the background checks are extensive enough... if we get anymore extensive it would be a horrible system of judging who gets a gun and who doesn't...

[Emerson1]

So you would just be delaying the people who were gonna use them for the right reason. If Chofing ming ding was gonna have to wait 2 months to get his gun, it probably wouldn't of been that hard for him to get one off the street from a guy selling them in the back of his car. No gun laws will prevent them from getting in the wrong person's hand

[Gobbla2001]

Originally posted by DDBooger
taking a gander at our prisons, deterrence has not curtailed crime!

but wouldn't you say if we got rid of that deterrence that crime would be larger?

I think anyone would believe that, and if not, are in denial...

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by Gobbla2001
but wouldn't you say if we got rid of that deterrence that crime would be larger?

I think anyone would believe that, and if not, are in denial... didn't say ridding it, but considering alternatives be it harsher or milder. adjustments. WHY is deterrence failing. its a big issue in criminal justice classes. i took criminalogy as a part of my sociology coursework and lots of interesting perspectives on the subject

[Keith7]

the threat of other people having guns didn't seem to make this shooter think twice about what he did.. what makes people think it will in the future?

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by Keith7
the threat of other people having guns didn't seem to make this shooter think twice about what he did.. what makes people think it will in the future? it won't until confronted. these kind of killers are expecting to die. having a gun deters a criminal with intent to live!

[Gobbla2001]

Originally posted by Keith7
the threat of other people having guns didn't seem to make this shooter think twice about what he did.. what makes people think it will in the future?


gunning people like this down will make a handful think twice...

the dumbasses are gunna be dumbasses either way... but we gotta have a few level-heads out there packin' so we can put 'em down before they get too ape-chit...

[Emerson1]

Originally posted by Keith7
the threat of other people having guns didn't seem to make this shooter think twice about what he did.. what makes people think it will in the future?
What threat of other people having guns? It's probably illegal for someone to carry a handgun on a college campus? He knew no one he was gonna confront would be armed. Guns laws helped him out.

[bobcat1]

I pose this question to you. If 10 men in that room would have had guns, and Hop Sing knew it, would he have still done it?

[Keith7]

Originally posted by bobcat1
I pose this question to you. If 10 men in that room would have had guns, and Hop Sing knew it, would he have still done it?

probably.. he committed suicide in the end, he wasn't scared of dieing..

[sinton66]

Originally posted by Keith7
the threat of other people having guns didn't seem to make this shooter think twice about what he did.. what makes people think it will in the future?

That's BULL, Keith. Why didn't he kick in the door of the Police Station and open fire? Because the Police Staion is NOT a "gun-free" zone. He did what he did because he knew he would not be challenged by anyone.

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by bobcat1
I pose this question to you. If 10 men in that room would have had guns, and Hop Sing knew it, would he have still done it? yes, his intentions were to die. hell it may have been a fantasy of his to knock off armed "enemy" in his head. enemy being the people he named in his mini-manifesto

[Gobbla2001]

Originally posted by bobcat1
I pose this question to you. If 10 men in that room would have had guns, and Hop Sing knew it, would he have still done it?

people are crazy enough... some of these people just don't give a chit (obviously)... how do you respect your own life if you do not respect the lives of others? dumbasses will be dumbasses...

[mistanice]

This piece is a little old, but still hits the mark for me.

The tragic school shooting in Littleton, Colorado forces us to ask once again: What is going on in our schools? When the 15 killed in Littleton are added to those in Pearl, Mississippi; West Paducah, Kentucky; Jonesboro, Arkansas; and Springfield, Oregon, the total stands at a staggering 29, with scores injured.

These mindless acts of mayhem have captured the public imagination because the killers don't fit the profile of a typical school-yard thug. First, the killers were middle-class boys from small-town or suburban America. Second, their average age was 15. Third, by all accounts the boys were good students, indeed, they all seemed rather nerdish. Fourth, the shootings had nothing to do with drugs or traditional gangs.

In attempting to explain why this is happening, sociologists and educators have advanced several possible causes. Some think that the shootings are a consequence of America's "gun-crazed" culture. Others blame Hollywood, video games and the Internet for their gratuitous glorification of violence. And yet, we seem to be missing the obvious. The shootings have one thing in common: they all took place at school. The boys didn't kill on the weekend, they didn't kill after school, and they didn't shoot up the local Dairy Queen.

So what's happening? Why are America's adolescent boys so angry, and why are they expressing their anger through mindless acts of violence?

That they all killed at school is a fact worth pondering. The explanation for all these shootings might very well be found in the destruction of the minds and souls of America's young people by an education establishment bent on using our children as guinea pigs for their bizarre experiments in schooling. The fact of the matter is that most of our public schools today are intellectual and moral wastelands.

As a college professor, I meet hundreds of current and recently graduated high school students every year. I am struck by four factors: first, students don't believe in very much and are unwilling to make moral judgments; second, they have artificially inflated opinions of themselves and are unwilling to tolerate criticism; third, they are poorly educated; and finally, they hated their high school experience. The result is an explosive mixture of nihilism, narcissism, ignorance, and resentment.

Though the schools do not teach ethics as part of the regular curriculum, the moral ethos of our education system is dominated by the anti-principle of moral relativism. The one sure thing that a college professor can expect from new students is that they do not believe in moral absolutes; they are unwilling to judge morally the opinions or actions of others, even when they disagree with them. Beginning in elementary school, students are taught that all lifestyles are equal and that they should not discriminate between them. What this means most of all is: "Do your own thing" and don't judge me.

Related to moral relativism but incorporated more systematically into the curriculum is the dogma that children should be constantly told how good they are. Positive reinforcement for deeds well done has been transformed by the education establishment into indiscriminate praise so that children will "feel good" about themselves regardless of whether their ideas or actions are praiseworthy or not. The problem with this binge in juvenile "self-love" is that children with unjustifiably high opinions of themselves are becoming aggressive and even violent when confronted with criticism or teasing.

But we must look deeper. The crisis of our schools is at heart a philosophical issue.

The precipitous rise in school violence over the course of the last decade runs directly parallel with the rise of "Progressive" theories of education. Progressive education rejects traditional schooling, which emphasizes learning a body of pre-established information. Progressive education replaces that with a child-centered approach that emphasizes a child's self-expression and spontaneous impulses. Progressivism holds that children do not learn by thinking but rather by feeling and doing. Teachers should not be authoritarian, and they should always praise children for their unique and inventive answers regardless of whether they are right or wrong. Knowledge (e.g., the rules of grammar and mathematics, and the facts of science and history) is explicitly not the goal of Progressive education.

When I talk to high school students they tell me, virtually to a person, the same thing: that high school is boring and unchallenging. It's not that they don't want to learn or that they find subjects such as algebra or history intrinsically boring; in fact, it's quite the opposite. When I press a little deeper, I learn that for most students the problem is that they have teachers who aren't particularly good at what they do: the teachers don't seem to know their subjects very well and they don't have a passion for teaching.

Dissuaded from making moral distinctions, fed a daily diet of an "I'm okay, you're okay" philosophy, denied logic, knowledge and truth, and driven by unknown fears and anxieties, today's young people are left with nothing but their untutored "feelings" and "emotions" as their guides through the trials and tribulations of adolescence. Thus we should not be surprised when they respond with outbursts of rage and acts of violence when things don't go their way.

The education establishment has responded to this crisis by turning our schools into something more akin to prisons than places of learning. Barbed wire, metal detectors, identification cards, closed-circuit television monitors, and guards are common features of today's school. Worse yet, the school system treats our young people in the same way that the penal system treats its prison population. A good many schools in this country are simply providing day-care for teenagers and in the worst schools they are providing incarceration. Class time is more like a prison lockup.

If Americans want to stop school-yard violence and address the social pathologies that increasingly afflict our young, if they want to turn our schools into serious places of learning, they should abandon their deadly experiment in Progressive education and restore a curriculum that emphasizes reason over emotions, knowledge over feelings, moral judgment over moral agnosticism, and self-control over self-expression.

[Gobbla2001]

Originally posted by Keith7
probably.. he committed suicide in the end, he wasn't scared of dieing..

he was scared of droppin' the soap

[bobcat1]

Why did he take his own life instead of shooting it out with armed police then?

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by sinton66
That's BULL, Keith. Why didn't he kick in the door of the Police Station and open fire? Because the Police Staion is NOT a "gun-free" zone. He did what he did because he knew he would not be challenged by anyone. don't agree, his intention wasn't on getting in a shootout, but maximizing his kill ratio. why go into a police station and where if lucky you'll get the guy at the front then get shellacked. in a school, as apparent by what happened two days ago he knocked off 32 people and then himself. dying was not an issue

[sinton66]

Ask Al Gore, the craziness is BOUND to be tied to global-warming.

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by bobcat1
Why did he take his own life instead of shooting it out with armed police then? youtube it, he tells us! he had specific aims and a specific enemy. THE RICH. as absurd as it sounds and as crazy as he was, his intentions were clear

[DU_stud04]

Originally posted by bobcat1
I pose this question to you. If 10 men in that room would have had guns, and Hop Sing knew it, would he have still done it? why not? he is still going to kill himself at the end right? we just dont know.

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by sinton66
Ask Al Gore, the craziness is BOUND to be tied to global-warming. lmao, bit of a stretch

[sinton66]

Originally posted by DDBooger
don't agree, his intention wasn't on getting in a shootout, but maximizing his kill ratio. why go into a police station and where if lucky you'll get the guy at the front then get shellacked. in a school, as apparent by what happened two days ago he knocked off 32 people and then himself. dying was not an issue

But if your intention is to kill as many as possible, you would choose a setting that would ALLOW that unchallenged, no?

[bobcat1]

Originally posted by sinton66
But if your intention is to kill as many as possible, you would choose a setting that would ALLOW that unchallenged, no?
ZACTLY! and as Gobbla said soap droppage could have factored in. :p

[mistanice]

what do you think ...

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=104

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by sinton66
But if your intention is to kill as many as possible, you would choose a setting that would ALLOW that unchallenged, no? well take a listen to him, does he say that? or does he state his anger at those very people. trying to understand his motives and lending common sense to a maniac is a guessing game. but the police argument doesn't fit in this case imo. the police were not his target. those who "crap on him and make fun of him" were. I'm presuming he meant his classmates and from the sounds of his description that sound about right

[DDBooger]

his actions were premeditated and his intent was to teach us a lesson. his silence while he lived is getting shouted REAL LOUD now. damn all the news channels are nothing BUT VT. this guy was very intuitive of what he was doing prior. sending that tape, pics and letters is eerie

[sinton66]

Originally posted by DDBooger
well take a listen to him, does he say that? or does he state his anger at those very people. trying to understand his motives and lending common sense to a maniac is a guessing game. but the police argument doesn't fit in this case imo. the police were not his target. those who "crap on him and make fun of him" were. I'm presuming he meant his classmates and from the sounds of his description that sound about right

I understand all that, but if he had prior certain knowledge that one or two people (if not one in ten) in that building would be armed and trained to use them, he most likely would have chosen different geography for his "revenge".

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by sinton66
I understand all that, but if he had prior certain knowledge that one or two people (if not one in ten) in that building would be armed and trained to use them, he most likely would have chosen different geography for his "revenge". lol if he had prior knowledge guess who he'd kill first! not rocket science! seriously though s66, no need to justify it to me. i agree in having guns, just don't agree with your argument. his intentions were clear, don't think prior knowledge would have stopped him, and may have even presented a larger prize for a man of this cynicism. i only wish he would have been caught and forced to serve some time. unfortunately a defense lawyer would have easily got him off with insanity so. who knows. that sob deserves pain, more than he felt he was being subjected too, which being a schizophrenic was probably substantial. lol the walls probably talked mess to him.

[sinton66]

Yes, but, if as it appears his purpose was to make an "impact" and shock and horrify the world as a "lesson", he'd have to consider the possibly of that being cut short of reaching his objective by someone who could and would shoot back.

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by sinton66
Yes, but, if as it appears his purpose was to make an "impact" and shock and horrify the world as a "lesson", he'd have to consider the possibly of that being cut short of reaching his objective by someone who could and would shoot back. again, purely speculative and analyzing a maniac which neither you or me are qualified to do. "I" can see the logic in your statement, question is could he? our opinions will vary but comparing criminals with intent on living and those with homicidal/suicidal ideations creates a huge gap. funny thing is, the ladder is normally the more intelligent. hence why they make a bigger "impact"

[sinton66]

Originally posted by DDBooger
again, purely speculative and analyzing a maniac which neither you or me are qualified to do. "I" can see the logic in your statement, question is could he? our opinions will vary but comparing criminals with intent on living and those with homicidal/suicidal ideations creates a huge gap. funny thing is, the ladder is normally the more intelligent. hence why they make a bigger "impact"

Not so "speculative". He obviously engaged in meticulous planning. He may well have been insane, but as you observed, there is nothing to indicate he was stupid. Regardless of HIS thought process, the facts could have taken a very different turn if he had been shot by somebody in that building right after the first two or three he fired.

The tower shooting at UT could have been much worse than it was if not for a few citizens grabbing their rifles from their gunracks in their pickups and shooting back at the perp. The cops at the time only had pistols and shotguns which were worthless against the shooter's vantage point. Those few citizens probably saved a number of lives.

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by sinton66
Not so "speculative". He obviously engaged in meticulous planning. He may well have been insane, but as you observed, there is nothing to indicate he was stupid. Regardless of HIS thought process, the facts could have taken a very different turn if he had been shot by somebody in that building right after the first two or three he fired.

The tower shooting at UT could have been much worse than it was if not for a few citizens grabbing their rifles from their gunracks in their pickups and shooting back at the perp. The cops at the time only had pistols and shotguns which were worthless against the shooter's vantage point. Those few citizens probably saved a number of lives. well we just weren't meant to agree on this. when death is the final scene of there madness i think insinuating deterence would prevent it is incorrect, minimize it, certainly, assured of it, nope, increase the chances yup. lol speculative, get what I mean. there are no assurances just what ifs. no matter how loose gun laws can become, i don't see them ever being allowed in schools. a killer like this is hardly different from a terrorist. there aim is to terrorize by not only killing but making the rest of the population talk about it as we are. despite the morbidity of this act, he was successful. sux:mad:

[bobcat1]

Originally posted by DDBooger
funny thing is, the ladder is normally the more intelligent. hence why they make a bigger "impact"
Now a dang "Ladder" is more intelligent and make a bigger impact. I don't know about that statement. :p ;) :D

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by bobcat1
Now a dang "Ladder" is more intelligent and make a bigger impact. I don't know about that statement. :p ;) :D lmao damn spell checks

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by DDBooger
well we just weren't meant to agree on this. when death is the final scene of there madness i think insinuating deterence would prevent it is incorrect, minimize it, certainly, assured of it, nope, increase the chances yup. lol speculative, get what I mean. there are no assurances just what ifs. no matter how loose gun laws can become, i don't see them ever being allowed in schools. a killer like this is hardly different from a terrorist. there aim is to terrorize by not only killing but making the rest of the population talk about it as we are. despite the morbidity of this act, he was successful. sux:mad:

Hypothetical arguement.

Guy walks in starts shooting. Guys shoot back kill the creep.
less people die.

Get back to me when the dead guy gets up and starts shooting again.

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
Hypothetical arguement.

Guy walks in starts shooting. Guys shoot back kill the creep.
less people die.

Get back to me when the dead guy gets up and starts shooting again. well according to that guys manifesto it didn't matter to him! lol like i said, of course it could save lives, does it deter, not in the case of a person with intent to die. im not arguing lives could be saved, im just saying guns won't necessarily deter a self destructive individual. his survival does not play on his conscience does it?

[sinton66]

Originally posted by DDBooger
well we just weren't meant to agree on this. when death is the final scene of there madness i think insinuating deterence would prevent it is incorrect, minimize it, certainly, assured of it, nope, increase the chances yup. lol speculative, get what I mean. there are no assurances just what ifs. no matter how loose gun laws can become, i don't see them ever being allowed in schools. a killer like this is hardly different from a terrorist. there aim is to terrorize by not only killing but making the rest of the population talk about it as we are. despite the morbidity of this act, he was successful. sux:mad:

Actually, we're not that far apart in our opinion. My point was a bit subtle perhaps. I agree that the guy intended to die in the end and would have carried out some kind of violent attack to achieve his "lesson" objective before his death. "Before his death" is the key here. The simple possibility of that being cut short of his objective would most likely have have forced him to change his plans (not abandon them). He may have resorted to a chest pack bomb instead or picked a different location to do his thing. I didn't intend to imply that carry permits would have prevented the attack altogether. That's the subtle difference here. I was saying that he would have acted differently than he did and the circumstances would have changed.

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by DDBooger
well according to that guys manifesto it didn't matter to him! lol like i said, of course it could save lives, does it deter, not in the case of a person with intent to die. im not arguing lives could be saved, im just saying guns won't necessarily deter a self destructive individual. his survival does not play on his conscience does it?

But it does deter the average thug.

Direct quote from guys in the joint was who would they rather face a policeman or a civvy with a gun. They all said the policeman.

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
But it does deter the average thug. agree to an extent, then again if one doesn't know you are carrying and puts the gun to your head, good luck getting it out before he kills ya. its a catch 22. but like i've said before i'll take the odds over none at all


Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
Direct quote from guys in the joint was who would they rather face a policeman or a civvy with a gun. They all said the policeman. could you produce the study that suggests this, or is this the fallacy of dramatic instance? im not a criminalogist, but thats interesting if true.

[mistanice]

Originally posted by DDBooger
agree to an extent, then again if one doesn't know you are carrying and puts the gun to your head, good luck getting it out before he kills ya. its a catch 22. but like i've said before i'll take the odds over none at all

could you produce the study that suggests this, or is this the fallacy of dramatic instance? im not a criminalogist, but thats interesting if true.

how many fallacies are there?

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by mistanice
how many fallacies are there? according to social sciences if i remember correctly 8? dunno, would have to go look at my notes :) lol

[DDBooger]

i was close, its 9

[whtfbplaya]

How about someone that knows how makes a poll about all this.

[Keith7]

Originally posted by whtfbplaya
How about someone that knows how makes a poll about all this.

I don't think you have to be a genius to know who would win a poll considering where the majority of the posters come from..

this thread was simply made for discussion on points for and against better gun control

[mistanice]

Originally posted by DDBooger
i was close, its 9

i found this.

We like to think that we speak logically all the time, but we are aware that we sometimes use illogical means to persuade others of our point of view. In the heat of an impassioned argument, or when we are afraid our disputant has a stronger case, or when we don't quite have all the facts we'd like to have, we are prone to engage in faulty processes of reasoning, using arguments we hope will appear sound.

Such defective arguments are called fallacies by philosophers who, starting with Aristotle, have catalogued and classified these fallacious arguments. There are now over 125 separate fallacies, most with their own impressive-sounding names, many of them in Latin.

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by mistanice
i found this.

We like to think that we speak logically all the time, but we are aware that we sometimes use illogical means to persuade others of our point of view. In the heat of an impassioned argument, or when we are afraid our disputant has a stronger case, or when we don't quite have all the facts we'd like to have, we are prone to engage in faulty processes of reasoning, using arguments we hope will appear sound.

Such defective arguments are called fallacies by philosophers who, starting with Aristotle, have catalogued and classified these fallacious arguments. There are now over 125 separate fallacies, most with their own impressive-sounding names, many of them in Latin. thats cool but philosophers were part of the reason sociology came about. philosphy never tested its assertions. and in social sciences according to Robert Lauer there are 9.
fallacy of:
dramatic instance
retrospective determinism
misplaced concreteness
personal attack(lots of that round here lol)
appeal to prejudice
circular reasoning
authority
composition
non sequitur

[mistanice]

It's weird how Cho went from building 32 to building 132 and killed 32 people.

[espn1]

Ever wonder why there are no problems at NRA Conventions or Gun Shows? When I was in High School alot of us used to carry guns in our pickups. There were never any problems. We even used to look at a few of them in AG (FFA). I'd be willing to bet that most of the people committing these crimes were never around guns as children.

[Ingleside Fan]

Originally posted by espn1
Ever wonder why there are no problems at NRA Conventions or Gun Shows? When I was in High School alot of us used to carry guns in our pickups. There were never any problems. We even used to look at a few of them in AG (FFA). I'd be willing to bet that most of the people committing these crimes were never around guns as children.

Used to carry guns in your truck? I still do!:D

[Darren]

Originally posted by DDBooger
thats cool but philosophers were part of the reason sociology came about. philosphy never tested its assertions. and in social sciences according to Robert Lauer there are 9.
fallacy of:
dramatic instance
retrospective determinism
misplaced concreteness
personal attack(lots of that round here lol)
appeal to prejudice
circular reasoning
authority
composition
non sequitur

?Que?

[cdlvj]

Originally posted by Keith7
so instead of taking away guns from people.. really we should just get everyone a psychiatrist??

You may have hit the nail on the head. The one common thread among all of these idiots and this goes back to Stockton, CA ( I believe in late 80's) is that they have all been taking a legally prescribed drug (Prozac or similar).

I don't think there is one instance for the past 25 years where the perpertrater has not been treated, and this last one is no exception.

This stuff is dispensed like candy.