Something like 1/3 of them are ed up mentally. Not that you or the NRA would mind.
The solution is obvious: we should use every strawman and misconception imaginable to our advantage when trying to win a point. We should not state a goal, just comment on how bad things are and how they have to change. We should not be bothered with knowing laws or facts, that's not our problem. We should just pick a side and talk.
I didn't know that if something wasn't a designated gun free zone I should prepare for a mass shooting to occur.
it's the opposite, shootings occur in places where people have been disarmed and gun free zones
But Wild Cobra just said grocery stores and movie theaters weren't gun free zones?
Hm, an Arizona parking lot is a gun free zone?
You really think you can legislate against crazies?
Thats crazy.
No, there was a guy there with a CCW who arrived after the shooting stopped, but did help detain the suspect. What didn't happen was a methodical, systematic killing of everyone there followed by a suicide.
Well, there is a distinct possibility that at least some of these perpetrators would have been ins utionalized using the past mental health models. I'm not sure if it was explicit legislation that unleashed all the crazies. I'll have to look it up. The powers that be not investigating that possible angle would be crazy.
Dude dropped his magazine. He probably wasn't finished. It's a distinction without significance anyway. It was a shooting that didn't happen in a gun free zone. m>s's argument was that they all happen in gun free zones. It was in error. I'm not going to start a whole thing here. It happened.
I don't see where mavs>spurs said all shootings happen in gun free zones.
Shootings have happened in gun free zones. Many of them in fact. The one that led to this thread being created happened in a gun-free zone. Columbine was a gun free zone. Va-Tech killing was a gun-free zone.
You seem to get off on building strawmen to attack.
If laws were infinitely restrictive, no crimes would occur.
Quite the contrary. He said they attack in gun free zones. I provided an example where one did not.
That's it.
It's a fact. One you can 't change. If you want to make this about me again, that's your choice.
Well, you can fight that straw man if you like. It certainly was not what I proposed.
They do attack in gun free zones. It's not an exclusive statement, regardless how you would like to make it so. I am more than certain m>s knows there have been attacks in the public as well.
You proposed some Minority Report style solution that takes known criminals and goes back in time to put them in ins utions. That's a working solution right there. My response is at least as sensible as your statement about "if this guy were locked up, he couldn't have committed the crime".
Do you think all autistic people should be ins utionalized? How about all people will wild looking eyes? How about people who've read Catcher in the Rye? John Lennon might still be alive.
I simply presented one. It happened. You still can't change that fact. I don't know why you're still going on about it. Oh, it's about me now. OK.
I did nothing of the sort. That's about as bad an inference as could be drawn form an observation about past mental health practices that were actually followed in this country.
That's a lot of straw for one post.Do you think all autistic people should be ins utionalized? How about all people will wild looking eyes? How about people who've read Catcher in the Rye? John Lennon might still be alive.
You make a strawman and attack it then pretend to be the victim. lol
I'm really not trying to make it about you, but you insist on building strawmen.
When someone decides to kill you cannot simply move your chess pieces back and say "if I made this move instead... that piece couldn't take my queen". Life develops just as a chess game develops, and you live with the results and try to do better next time. So if you're saying that, in the future, we should more closely examine the needs of the autistic and those with other mental issues, you're right, but who's going to pay? We cannot just pour more money we don't have into treatments for people just so millions of people don't pose a risk. What then when the perp isn't mentally unstable?
And should we push for a gestapo like home to home search for mentally unstable people? If they don't seek help, how are we to know of them?
The cold truth is that this nation is ed and un able. The best remedy for your personal safety is to get a gun and get accustomed to using it. If you are one of those who refuse, you are just hoping useless politicians who cannot balance a budget will find a way to fix society.
they'd rather go on vacation on the edge of the fiscal cliff than actually fix . it's going to destroy us, and it's by design while they pretend to point the finger at eachother. people who genuinely trust in the government and rely on them for protection crack me up. especially those who trash trickle down economics (which actually is stupid) but then go and parade trickle down government like if they support the system enough it's going to really care about them and be their savior. just plain stupid.
understand this people..the government wants to take your guns so that they can rape you even harder with impunity..never at ANY point in history have good things followed disarmament of a people..it's ALWAYS the opposite. hitler, mao, stalin in recent times, there are many more examples throughout history. the end result of disarmament is tyranny, genocide, and mass killing of political dissidents. these people want a one world government..and you liberals are their little puppets. guns make you safer and the government knows that..homicide rates in unarmed chicago and ny are among the highest in the nation. ask britain what happened after disarmament. this is the same administration who got caught shipping guns into mexico to blame the 2nd amendment. wake the f up.
I could never be a victim of anything you did.
I didn't, but you sure did. Did you feel you had to escalate a straw war or something?I'm really not trying to make it about you, but you insist on building strawmen.
Who's going to pay for all the police in every school in America? How much will that cost? Does anyone even have a figure?When someone decides to kill you cannot simply move your chess pieces back and say "if I made this move instead... that piece couldn't take my queen". Life develops just as a chess game develops, and you live with the results and try to do better next time. So if you're saying that, in the future, we should more closely examine the needs of the autistic and those with other mental issues, you're right, but who's going to pay? We cannot just pour more money we don't have into treatments for people just so millions of people don't pose a risk. What then when the perp isn't mentally unstable?
There's the straw man again. You've made far more than I in this thread.And should we push for a gestapo like home to home search for mentally unstable people? If they don't seek help, how are we to know of them?
I simply don't think the only answer is more guns.The cold truth is that this nation is ed and un able. The best remedy for your personal safety is to get a gun and get accustomed to using it. If you are one of those who refuse, you are just hoping useless politicians who cannot balance a budget will find a way to fix society.
We're not going to be disarmed, Alex.
Maybe we should just live with the fact that there's crazies out there, and that sometimes like this happens. You know, like its been since pretty much forever. Sure, sucks if its your kid or somebody in your family, but the odds, as small as they might be, are always there.
Some might disagree/be scared less with making these kind of tradeoffs, but militarizing schools like we militarized airports? No thanks.
The point is, if it is a gun free zone, there is zero chance of a law abiding citizen there to stop it from being worse, once it starts.
I agree. the TSA, they are out of control. The schools that tighten policies, especiall zero ttolerance policies are out of control.
What ever happened to reasonable? If the law deems an individual is responsible enough to carry concealed, then what's wrong with trusting them to help protect our kinds?
This armed guard thing though... No way. Do we really want to instill that fear of others on our children?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote