- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 10/2/17 at 9:20 am to LNCHBOX
quote:
You don't think he'd have scouted out a different position to inflict similar damage?
Sure he did clearly from the evidence shown. This was premeditated.
However if he couldn't use high rises as a staging point he would of have to go to the ground or a much lower viewpoint.
Perhaps even uncovered.
Posted on 10/2/17 at 9:21 am to terd ferguson
quote:
In the end you've given up your rights in exchange for nothing more than a false sense of security.
Posted on 10/2/17 at 9:21 am to 50_Tiger
quote:
Is this really unreasonable
I think reasonable effort was made for safety with having windows that don't open at least for the sake of this incident.
That clearly didn't prevent anything.
Honestly not much we can do to prevent this. I'm curious if the concert organizers could have done more but I don't see how.
This post was edited on 10/2/17 at 9:23 am
Posted on 10/2/17 at 9:21 am to LNCHBOX
Considering I lived 10 minutes from the FQ for 20 years of my life no.
Posted on 10/2/17 at 9:22 am to LNCHBOX
quote:I also have no issues with mass shootings through 38 years of my life, so with that logic, I could argue no one needs guns in places I go.
Why? Most places you go, people can already legally carry and you have no issues.
My kids' elementary school is a perfect example. I'm not saying I don't want anyone in their with guns. I don't want teachers or some kids' father picking his kid up to have guns at or around my kids in school if they're not very, very adequately trained on how to use those guns. I don't think that's asking for too much, at all.
Posted on 10/2/17 at 9:22 am to 50_Tiger
quote:
Considering I lived 10 minutes from the FQ for 20 years of my life no.
Then you're being willfully ignorant if you don't think just about any hotel along Canal or Poydras, or really anywhere in the area couldn't be used to take out a lot of people on any given day in this city.
Posted on 10/2/17 at 9:23 am to LNCHBOX
quote:
Then you're being willfully ignorant if you don't think just about any hotel along Canal or Poydras, or really anywhere in the area couldn't be used to take out a lot of people on any given day in this city.
Did you ignore my entire post? I clearly said Canal / Champions Square...
Posted on 10/2/17 at 9:24 am to shel311
quote:
I also have no issues with mass shootings through 38 years of my life, so with that logic, I could argue no one needs guns in places I go.
The obvious counter to that is maybe you haven't because you are places where people expect regular people to be armed.
quote:
I don't want teachers or some kids' father picking his kid up to have guns at or around my kids in school if they're not very, very adequately trained on how to use those guns. I don't think that's asking for too much, at all.
But you're cool with your kids going anywhere else where these supposedly untrained gun carriers are among them?
Posted on 10/2/17 at 9:24 am to 50_Tiger
quote:
Did you ignore my entire post? I clearly said Canal / Champions Square...
Those are not the only two lpaces many people are at any given moment in this city.
Posted on 10/2/17 at 9:25 am to Ingeniero
quote:military-style weapons = anything that is colored black
Define this for me
Posted on 10/2/17 at 9:25 am to LNCHBOX
quote:
Can you define this stupid term you keep using? Was it defined to people surveyed?
Pew didn't define it so, it was left to the people being surveyed.
As I wrote earlier, I'm not greeting dragged into that argument. We'd spend hours debating little details of an incredibly complex issue. Gray areas and exceptions abound.
Take the 94 ban, there was something like 20 named guns plus they had a list of characteristics of assault weapons and a gun couldn't have more than two of those characteristics. But you also had approximately 500 exemptions based on hunting and sporting purposes.
So what exactly are you expecting to do here? You want me to come up with some quick definition so you and others can poke a hundred holes in it?
I wrote earlier that there can be a common sense acknowledgment of what I refer to, but if you want me to quickly write up a concise definition or parameters that isn't possible and you know it.
This post was edited on 10/2/17 at 9:28 am
Posted on 10/2/17 at 9:26 am to Thib-a-doe Tiger
quote:
Gallup has done many polls that found half of the households in America legally own firearms. By that math, then finding 77% of non gun owners in agreement with you means that only about 38% of Americans agree with you.
(this is in reply to the OP, not you Thib)
Here's the poll showing results up to. 2016
So as of 2016, 39% of households in this country have a firearm (which I believe is skewed due to gun owners not wanting to reveal they actually own guns due to the recent anti-gun trend in this country). So if 69% of the adults in this country don't own a gun and 77% of those think "assault firearms" should be banned that's only 46.97%.
Still doesn't equal "Most Americans"
Posted on 10/2/17 at 9:26 am to fouldeliverer
quote:
Pew didn't define it so, it was left to the people being surveyed.
Shocking.
quote:
As I wrote earlier, I'm not greeting dragged into that argument.
Even less shocking.
Posted on 10/2/17 at 9:26 am to LNCHBOX
quote:No, what gave you that idea?
But you're cool with your kids going anywhere else where these supposedly untrained gun carriers are among them?
Posted on 10/2/17 at 9:28 am to LNCHBOX
Just ignore my reasons? Got it.
Posted on 10/2/17 at 9:29 am to fouldeliverer
quote:
Just ignore my reasons? Got it.
Without knowing what specifically they were OK with banning, your data is useless.
There's a reason you want to keep it as a catchall term.
Posted on 10/2/17 at 9:29 am to shel311
You've probably been in close proximity to someone carrying hundreds of times, and had no idea they were. The girl I'm dating didn't know I carried until she saw me take it off of my belt at home. That was a few weeks into it
Posted on 10/2/17 at 9:34 am to LNCHBOX
It's because they can't define what should be illegal. They just want something to be illegal.
Honestly, if you outlawed guns colored black, they'd think they accomplished great things
Honestly, if you outlawed guns colored black, they'd think they accomplished great things
Posted on 10/2/17 at 9:35 am to Hammertime
quote:I'm sure I have.
You've probably been in close proximity to someone carrying hundreds of times, and had no idea they were. The girl I'm dating didn't know I carried until she saw me take it off of my belt at home. That was a few weeks into it
I also live in Texas, an open carry state. And every time I'm in Kroger or wherever with my kids and I see someone with their gun out and in a holster for everyone to see(which they're ONLY doing as a "look at me" thing, but that's a different story) I can tell you in no uncertain terms that I feel less safe because I have no clue what kind of training that person has using a gun.
Page 8 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News