Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
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.
|
Is Virginia one of them?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
again, this implies that there will always be a higher death count simply by adding guns. A hypothesis that cannot be proven.
|
Likewise can you prove it would be lower?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
because people defending themselves have only the ability to fire random bullets which unerringly strike fleeing students.....every time.  |
I was referring to Cho.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
did they deserve to die then? and you also have evidence that resistance NEVER works?
|
Did they deserve to die? What are you talking about? No one
deserves to die, especially innocent people. We aren't talking about whether you or I think anyone deserves to die, though, we're talking about Cho and his likely decisions based on his intent. Based on his intent (which was covered again and again by media), he wanted to punish them for being "rich kids", being involved in "debauchery", and being "deceitful charlatans". It had everything to do with his narcissism and potential anti social disorder. He had a deep resentment for the student body and viewed himself as a Christ character. He believed that their behaviors and lifestyles warranted retribution. It tends to be personality types and attitudes like this that are common among school shooters, which is why it's important to this thread.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
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.
|
It wasn't the means to stop him but apprehend him that was most likely a concern. Some of those that defended themselves and others are alive and others are not. There's no necessary connection between resisting him and dying, though.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
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?
|
Fences and metal detectors are a really simple and effective method. I mean there's already campus police. Considering it could have saved 32 lives and many more injured (not sure as to an exact count on injured), I suspect it would have been a good investment.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
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?
|
I see wrongness in the mentality that more guns make people safe. The opposite is of course true. Had there been no guns on campus at all, had Cho not been armed, no one would have died.