Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
Do you notice how you're vague here? That's intentional. Do you have anything to cite?
|
yeah, in fact I do.
handgunlaw.us, opencarry.org
In any state, except vermont and alaska, it requires an average of an 8 hour training course and a range qualifier, background check, fingerprinting, and a sometimes sizable 'fee'(unconstitutional, btw) to acquire a concealed weapons license. SOME states require a license with the same training requirements to carry openly. california is not one of them FYI.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
I'd rather have no one die, but this thread isn't about gun bans. I'd rather have 32 die than a reasonably higher death count, yes. The idea is to have as little injuries and fatalities as possible, after all.
|
again, this implies that there will always be a higher death count simply by adding guns. A hypothesis that cannot be proven.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
You'd rather have these people murdered by idiots who were trying to be Rambo and have no concept of real consequences, but that has nothing to do with anything so maybe it's time to tone down the weak appeal to emotion fallacies. Cho taking cover wouldn't have prevented people from fleeing, and those fleeing people would have been hit.
|
because people defending themselves have only the ability to fire random bullets which unerringly strike fleeing students.....every time.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
He's concerned with killing fellow students that he feels are somehow deserving of death. That had nothing to do with police. Of course he wanted to kill without resistance, but assuming he would have stopped because of resistance from those he was trying to kill runs counter to reason.
|
did they deserve to die then? and you also have evidence that resistance NEVER works?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
You do know people tried to stop him, right? Two professors held doors shut, and there were unconfirmed reports of people trying to fight back. He didn't stop and shoot himself because of any of that. He shot himself to prevent incarceration.
|
which really means he stopped and took his own life when people who had the real means to stop him showed up. i.e. people with guns. otherwise, those that tried to fight back unarmed still died, unarmed and basically defenseless.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
Are you really going to joke about this? What does that tell you about your feelings concerning victims? They should be armed, but because they weren't you make fun?
|
i'm making jokes about your 'wish' that there was a better way to enforce a no guns policy. tell us will, how does a no guns policy get better enforced? They should be armed, but they aren't because others who are in no danger on a campus make rules and laws that impact those that ARE in danger on a campus, you don't see the wrongness in that?