- 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
re: Reports of multiple fatalities at an Oregon Community College
Posted on 10/2/15 at 9:39 am to shel311
Posted on 10/2/15 at 9:39 am to shel311
quote:
not just anyone should be able to get a gun.
Not just anyone can get a gun... LEGALLY. I think that's where people are getting confused. You think criminals are going to follow the law?
quote:
Call me crazy, but if that's dividing the nation, we got much bigger issues than Obama and his agenda yesterday.
This administration has done nothing but try to divide... racially, socially, politically. It's their entire modus operandi.
1
Posted on 10/2/15 at 9:43 am to terd ferguson
quote:So your argument is since criminals won't follow the law, don't strengthen the law? Not sure I follow.
Not just anyone can get a gun... LEGALLY. I think that's where people are getting confused. You think criminals are going to follow the law?
quote:Yea, it makes more sense now.
This administration has done nothing but try to divide... racially, socially, politically. It's their entire modus operandi
Posted on 10/2/15 at 9:47 am to High C
When i was in the navy in san diego in 1984 i lived down the street where that guy shot up the mcdonalds. It is a sad thing this happened. They need to stop this kind of thing. Now...................
Posted on 10/2/15 at 9:50 am to shel311
They are criminals. They won't follow the law no matter how strict it is
Posted on 10/2/15 at 9:52 am to shel311
quote:
So your argument is since criminals won't follow the law, don't strengthen the law? Not sure I follow.
So your argument is to strengthen the laws regarding the rights of law abiding gun owners? Not sure I follow.
Let's start by making more gun free zones... because that seems to be working out well. They should just start calling those areas "targets".
Posted on 10/2/15 at 9:52 am to Hammertime
quote:So don't change the law, and just throw our hands up and say, "nothing we can do?" Is that the argument?
They are criminals. They won't follow the law no matter how strict it is
I'm 100% not being an a-hole, but that is basically what is insinuated when you say that.
I don't know the answer, and I don't know that more gun control will work either, but the "eh, nothing we can do about it." attitude is somehow better than attempting to fix it, I don't get that logic.
Posted on 10/2/15 at 9:54 am to stout
quote:
That's a great idea...well except for the fact their murder rate is pretty much the same as before the gun ban but their violent crime rate has steadily gone up since the ban.
you´re cherry picking again........
Posted on 10/2/15 at 9:54 am to shel311
quote:
So don't change the law, and just throw our hands up and say, "nothing we can do?" Is that the argument?
You allow people full access to the 2nd Amendment. Eliminate gun free zones and licenses for concealed carry. Allow every law abiding citizen to the right to carry a firearm (concealed or not) to protect himself and those around him.
The answer is DEFINITELY NOT taking away rights from gun owners that obey the laws. More restrictions do nothing to hinder the actions of a criminal.
Posted on 10/2/15 at 10:01 am to terd ferguson
quote:I don't now why people have this mythical belief that if every citizen could just carry a gun if they wanted, then when a shooting like this took place, 17 citizens would pull out their guns and handle the situation. That's not to say it would never happen, but I don't see how your plan wouldn't stop mass shootings any more than stricter gun laws on who can legally own guns.
You allow people full access to the 2nd Amendment. Eliminate gun free zones and licenses for concealed carry. Allow every law abiding citizen to the right to carry a firearm (concealed or not) to protect himself and those around him.
Posted on 10/2/15 at 10:02 am to terd ferguson
quote:
The answer is DEFINITELY NOT taking away rights from gun owners that obey the laws. More restrictions do nothing to hinder the actions of a criminal.
This. It is mind boggling the amount of people in this country that cannot grasp this very simple concept. It defies all logic and is very much a basic reasoning and common sense subject. How in the blue frick is creating more legislation for gun control going to prevent some twisted frick from carrying out terror?
This post was edited on 10/2/15 at 10:03 am
Posted on 10/2/15 at 10:03 am to shel311
quote:
I don't now why people have this mythical belief that if every citizen could just carry a gun if they wanted, then when a shooting like this took place, 17 citizens would pull out their guns and handle the situation. That's not to say it would never happen, but I don't see how your plan wouldn't stop mass shootings any more than stricter gun laws on who can legally own guns.
It's over your head. If your wife was a student in the area that this shooting took place, would you want to have a few other students in there that were CC'ing or just have everyone completely unarmed and swimming like the fish in a barrel they are? I'll answer that for you. You'd want someone CC'ing. You'd want to at least give those other students the chance at survival.
This post was edited on 10/2/15 at 10:06 am
Posted on 10/2/15 at 10:03 am to shel311
quote:
I don't see how your plan wouldn't stop mass shootings any more than stricter gun laws on who can legally own guns.
One gives you the ability to defend yourself and one takes it away... you don't see that?
This guy Chris Mintz supposedly charged the gunman and was shot in the process. You don't think he would have had a better chance at stopping this had he been armed? I sure as frick do.
This post was edited on 10/2/15 at 10:07 am
Posted on 10/2/15 at 10:07 am to dnm3305
quote:What have I said that would insinuate that I wouldn't want what you just said?
It's over your head. If your wife was a student in the area that this shooting took place, would you want to have a few other students in there that were CC'ing or just have everyone completely unarmed and swimming like the fish in a barrel they are? I'll answer that for you. You'd want someone CC'ing. You'd want to at least give those other students the chance at survival.
Funny you saying it went over my head without realizing that.
Posted on 10/2/15 at 10:08 am to terd ferguson
quote:I never said anything about taking everyone's guns away, so no, I don't see that based on what i've said.
One gives you the ability to defend yourself and one takes it away... you don't see that?
quote:Yes, I do. I never said he shouldn't have had a gun to do so either, have I?
This guy Chris Mintz supposedly charged the gunman and was shot in the process. You don't think he would have had a better chance at stopping this had he been armed? I sure as frick do
Posted on 10/2/15 at 10:10 am to shel311
quote:
but I don't see how your plan wouldn't stop mass shootings any more than stricter gun laws on who can legally own guns.
quote:
What have I said that would insinuate that I wouldn't want what you just said?
That.
Posted on 10/2/15 at 10:13 am to dnm3305
It doesn't say that, but ok.
I'll take the blame for miswording my overall point.
The 2 aren't mutually exclusive. I can say we should have stricter gun laws for who can have a gun, but that doesn't mean I think no one should have a gun or be able to defend themselves.
And to be honest, i was basically saying "my" idea AND his idea weren't going to stop mass shootings, so it wasn't really favoring one over the other. But I was using it to point out how I don't think his idea was the answer either.
I'll take the blame for miswording my overall point.
The 2 aren't mutually exclusive. I can say we should have stricter gun laws for who can have a gun, but that doesn't mean I think no one should have a gun or be able to defend themselves.
And to be honest, i was basically saying "my" idea AND his idea weren't going to stop mass shootings, so it wasn't really favoring one over the other. But I was using it to point out how I don't think his idea was the answer either.
Posted on 10/2/15 at 10:18 am to shel311
And to be honest, i was basically saying "my" idea AND his idea weren't going to stop mass shootings, so it wasn't really favoring one over the other. But I was using it to point out how I don't think his idea was the answer either.
I see. Well, my mistake.
I see. Well, my mistake.
Posted on 10/2/15 at 10:21 am to Dandy Lion
quote:
you´re cherry picking again........
What am I cherry picking? I posted stats before and after the gun bans in countries posters keep referencing.
At least I back up what I post unlike you. Refute what I have posted if can.
Posted on 10/2/15 at 10:23 am to shel311
Correct, subdue the problem by going after the root cause.....the people
Posted on 10/2/15 at 10:24 am to Jp1LSU
quote:
At this point if your against the reformation of the manufacturing, sale, and possession of firearms there is lots of blood on your hands. There is no logical argument that supports this entrenched political stance. I've yet to meet an intelligent person who thinks otherwise.
Are you intelligent enough to know why gunman choose "gun free zones"?
After this "reformation" you speak of, will criminals suddenly start obeying the law?
Page 44 of 50
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News