VA Tech shooting and politics (THIS IS THE THREAD FOR TALK OF "gun control", ETC)

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by pigglet

What's the law on having a handgun locked in your glove compartment? Anyone?

depends on your state of residence.

[smooth]

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

I would normally believe that nobody is capable of this kind of deluded thought......

Linky

[mirevolver]

Originally Posted by archetypal fool

In all honesty, I doubt there's a correlation between a school's performance and school-related violence. This guy didn't do this because VT isn't the number one university school in America, and the Columbine kids didn't go ballistic because their school wasn't an A+ school. These are psychopathic, mentally unbalanced people who commit these kinds of crimes. The human brain is an incredibly complex machine which is fundamentally disturbed by "being bumped" or "being picked on". Most people get by with time, etc, but not these people. I believe these kinds of people are ticking time bombs, and they would be just as likely to do these kinds of things at the meanest "ghetto" school as they would at Harvard Law.

And the only reason we hear about these is because of where they happened. We often don't hear about this at the meanest "ghetto" schools because the kids there are more likely to get killed in gang related violence on the streets outside the school. Inside the schools, the security is almost at the level of a prison.

If this guy at VA Tech saw his girlfriend with another guy at an off campus bar and then shot up the bar, it probably would never have made national news. Instead this happens in the classroom and the whole world sees it, then follow the typical reactions of; guns, video games, TV, music all being the problem. In the following months we'll get the typical news stories about how this guy liked to play first-person shooter games, or listened to eminem, or saw the movie grindhouse.

So before the typical calls of "more gun control," "ban video games," and "more censorship," perhaps we should look for the root problem. At this point it's looking like this guy had some jealousy issues, combined with a lack of friends. If this was at a high school, people would already be demanding the heads of the school's administration and counseling staff. But with this being at a university where the staff isn't supposed to keep records of every student's personal problems. So what do we do? Have congress pass a law telling everybody to be sensitive to everyone else's feelings? That would quickly make the list of most useless laws.

Originally Posted by smooth

I had a long post but I didn't hit reply for a long time and the forum logged me out. Rather than type it out, I actually went and read your quote. Imagine my surprise when I noticed what you left out, here is the portion in it's entirety:



So I'm curious, WHY would you leave out the rest of the sentence...other than it directly undermines your argument. And if that's how you'd like to proceed, I'm not going to participate in discussing things with you.

You not only misuse information due to a lack of knowledge, you're willing to clip relevent information out from your own sources in order to support a point that isn't being made by the source itself!

Yeah, that's probably just as bad as telling someone to stop arguing because you can't think of anyone who might follow the same line of thinking.

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by shakran

I'm glad you know how to use an RPG. Most people don't. Would you be comfortable if I were running around with one? What about your next door neighbor. Would you want him patrolling his yard with an RPG? Seems kinda insane doesn't it? Letting the guy next door to you have something that could blow up your house if he screws up with it?

Perhaps you would be fine with a populace armed with devastating weapons. Fortunately, saner ideas are likely to prevail.

Here is the thing though....Every weapon has it's purpose. Would I question the rationale of someone patrolling his backyard with an RPG? Damn straight. Would I question that same individual if the LA Riots were in his backyard? Probably not, except to ask if he had another one. That doesn't mean that he shouldn't be allowed to own one though, so long as he didn't become irresponsible with it or show irresponsibility. You folks are basically telling people that they can't own something because they MIGHT commit a crime. That's like saying we should remove peoples vocal chords because they MIGHT yell fire in a theatre.

[Rekna]

For the progun advocates here other than dk do you also feel you should be able to own RPGs, submachine guns, and other high damage imprecise weapons?

In Iraq if you own an RPG you are a Terrorist in the US you are a NRA member.....

[samcol]

Originally Posted by shakran

I'm glad you know how to use an RPG. Most people don't. Would you be comfortable if I were running around with one? What about your next door neighbor. Would you want him patrolling his yard with an RPG? Seems kinda insane doesn't it? Letting the guy next door to you have something that could blow up your house if he screws up with it?

Perhaps you would be fine with a populace armed with devastating weapons. Fortunately, saner ideas are likely to prevail.

Most Americans could have an RPG sitting in their closest and it would never see the light of day. Most American's have the ability to own or do own firearms. How often do you see them patrolling around the neighborbhood with them? The 'what if's" in this thread are getting totally ridiculous.

[shakran]

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

Here is the thing though....Every weapon has it's purpose. Would I question the rationale of someone patrolling his backyard with an RPG? Damn straight.

Oh no. No no. You're not getting away with that. You want to believe the 2nd guarantees the right to keep and bear arms, then you have to accept it when people bear the arms that they keep. He's bearing the RPG when he's patrolling his yard with it. We're not gonna have the "whatever dksuddeth says goes" version of the 2nd here.

Either you believe the 2nd gives only militias the right to weapons, or you believe that it gives everyone the right to weapons. Either way, there is no distinction between the "keep" part and the "bear" part. Whoever is allowed to keep arms, is also allowed to bear them.

If you're going to tell me that your neighbor has the right to acquire and own an RPG, then he definitely has the right to bear it when he's walking around his yard. If you don't like that scenario, then may I suggest you take another look at the "well regulated militia" portion of the 2nd.

[smooth]

Originally Posted by mirevolver

And the only reason we hear about these is because of where they happened. We often don't hear about this at the meanest "ghetto" schools because the kids there are more likely to get killed in gang related violence on the streets outside the school. Inside the schools, the security is almost at the level of a prison.

If this guy at VA Tech saw his girlfriend with another guy at an off campus bar and then shot up the bar, it probably would never have made national news. Instead this happens in the classroom and the whole world sees it, then follow the typical reactions of; guns, video games, TV, music all being the problem. In the following months we'll get the typical news stories about how this guy liked to play first-person shooter games, or listened to eminem, or saw the movie grindhouse.

So before the typical calls of "more gun control," "ban video games," and "more censorship," perhaps we should look for the root problem. At this point it's looking like this guy had some jealousy issues, combined with a lack of friends. If this was at a high school, people would already be demanding the heads of the school's administration and counseling staff. But with this being at a university where the staff isn't supposed to keep records of every student's personal problems. So what do we do? Have congress pass a law telling everybody to be sensitive to everyone else's feelings? That would quickly make the list of most useless laws.



Yeah, that's probably just as bad as telling someone to stop arguing because you can't think of anyone who might follow the same line of thinking.

No, you are WRONG. You misread the data, misunderstood what you read, and then misquoted it to support your position.

I deal with this data, am well-versed with it, know what I'm talking about, have statistical training, outlined how wrong you were, and yet you still just keep arguing rather than admitting you are FACTUALLY WRONG.

Seriously, you would at least leave with some semblence of respect if you just demonstrated you had enough intelligence to understand when you are wrong when it's been clearly pointed out to you.

Why is it so hard for you to understand that ONE measure of aggravated assault in the US is comparable to HALF the rate of ALL the measures of assault Canada uses (even "non-violent" assault, unless you think that assault without weapons that doesn't result in bodily harm is violent?)

That means to be a fair comparison you'd have to compile ALL the reports of every kind of assault every reported to police in the US. There's a reason why we don't use those numbers in our official data....we'd be ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE ABOVE THE REST OF THE WORLD.

seriously, now you're crossing the line from ignorant to unintelligent.
I tried to warn you politely before that you were mishandling the data, but since you persist in digging your heels in, there you go...my opinion is you lack comprehension skills.

[shakran]

Originally Posted by samcol

Most Americans could have an RPG sitting in their closest and it would never see the light of day. Most American's have the ability to own or do own firearms. How often do you see them patrolling around the neighborbhood with them? The 'what if's" in this thread are getting totally ridiculous.

Most Americans will never have the opportunity to defend themselves with a weapon. By your logic that means this entire discussion is moot, and it's OK to ban guns, because if something isn't likely to happen we don't need to think about it.

[Willravel]

I wouldn't want trained military personnel with weapons of that (RPG, submachine gun) destructive force, let alone a civilian. How many civilian deaths have there been in Iraq in the past 4 years? How many deaths and injuries due to friendly fire? Think about it.

I simply extend that philosophy to handguns and rifles. I don't trust anyone with a weapon of that power. People make mistakes, and if anyone ever accidentally killed my daughter, I'd lose my reason to be a pacifist. I'd rather live in a world with the goal of peace instead of the world with the goal of safety.

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by shakran

Oh no. No no. You're not getting away with that. You want to believe the 2nd guarantees the right to keep and bear arms, then you have to accept it when people bear the arms that they keep. He's bearing the RPG when he's patrolling his yard with it. We're not gonna have the "whatever dksuddeth says goes" version of the 2nd here.

Read very carefully what you asked me. You asked about him patrolling his back yard. You did NOT ask about him owning one. I responded with having NO PROBLEM of him owning one, as long as he wasn't walking aimlessly around with it WITHOUT a necessary purpose.

Originally Posted by shakran

Either you believe the 2nd gives only militias the right to weapons, or you believe that it gives everyone the right to weapons. Either way, there is no distinction between the "keep" part and the "bear" part. Whoever is allowed to keep arms, is also allowed to bear them.

If you're going to tell me that your neighbor has the right to acquire and own an RPG, then he definitely has the right to bear it when he's walking around his yard. If you don't like that scenario, then may I suggest you take another look at the "well regulated militia" portion of the 2nd.

Just like us in the military, we did not patrol our secured perimeter with a tank or a harrier. We DID patrol it with machine guns and handguns and had RPGs and grenades in our armory. It is nothing different in a civilian aspect either. Trying to pin me in a corner with my own words isn't going to work so long as you use my correct words and not yours.

[mirevolver]

Originally Posted by smooth

No, you are WRONG. You misread the data, misunderstood what you read, and then misquoted it to support your position.

I deal with this data, am well-versed with it, know what I'm talking about, have statistical training, outlined how wrong you were, and yet you still just keep arguing rather than admitting you are FACTUALLY WRONG.

Seriously, you would at least leave with some semblence of respect if you just demonstrated you had enough intelligence to understand when you are wrong when it's been clearly pointed out to you.

Why is it so hard for you to understand that ONE measure of aggravated assault in the US is comparable to ALL the measures of assault Canada uses (even "non-violent" assault, unless you think that assault without weapons that doesn't result in bodily harm is violent?)

seriously, now you're crossing the line from ignorant to unintelligent.
I tried to warn you politely before that you were mishandling the data, but since you persist in digging your heels in, there you go...my opinion is you lack comprehension skills.

Really?

Originally Posted by smooth

I really don't understand the basis of your argument, mirevolver, but I think you should stop making it.

Yes, that was an excellent explanation as to how you were well versed in statistical data and how much training you have. I can clearly see how I erred.

You could have perhaps presented evidence that a school dropout rate is unrelated to school violence. Or made a presentation in a manner other than I think you're wrong so stop speaking. And I would not have gone and presented obviously flawed evidence to see how far you would run with it.

Now before this threadjack goes any further, I would suggest returning to civil debate.

[jorgelito]

I don't think it's entirely out of the realm of discussion to suggest that students carrying arms at school would be disastrous. I think it's possible, but we simply do not know. I think it could have a deterrent effect, who knows?

It's really rude for people to tell others to stop participating in this discussion just because they don't agree with the opinions out here. We don't have to agree but at least keep it civil.

The thing I fear most is the media and public panicking and running away with this incident and creating and cultivating a culture of fear where we need the government to step in and protect us from each other. I'm not so sure running into the arms of the nanny state is a good idea.

Someone wanted to talk about root cause behind these shootings. Well I think it's because people stop taking responsibility and accountability for themselves. Everyone has problems, now they have this syndrome or need this drug or can't (or won't) take a job or their girlfriend broke up with them or someone picked on them when they were little; the excuse drag on forever. This "lashing" out is simply inexcusable and does not need to be pandered to.

In the end, I really do think this is far less about guns or gun control than a deeper syndromic fight between taking responsibility for oneself or blaming others for everything in life.

[ubertuber]

Guys, let's keep this a little more civil. Keep it focused on the facts, not each other.

[samcol]

Originally Posted by shakran

Most Americans will never have the opportunity to defend themselves with a weapon. By your logic that means this entire discussion is moot, and it's OK to ban guns, because if something isn't likely to happen we don't need to think about it.

No, your logic is that you see RPG's commonly parading around the streets and you equate that to gun ownership. I know you don't see that happening.

I have no clue how you imply that it's ok to ban guns from what I said.

'Because someone never has the opportunity to defend themselves with a weapon it's OK to ban guns?' You are drawing a conclusion out of thin air.

[shakran]

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

Read very carefully what you asked me. You asked about him patrolling his back yard. You did NOT ask about him owning one. I responded with having NO PROBLEM of him owning one, as long as he wasn't walking aimlessly around with it WITHOUT a necessary purpose.

I did. I know what I asked you. The 2nd says "keep and bear arms" not "keep arms in the closet." He has the right to carry his gun around if you believe he has the right to have a gun at all. You don't get to define when it's OK to carry the gun. If he wants to patrol his yard with it, he can. If he wants to patrol the sidewalk with it, he can. As I said before, if you don't like it, then I suggest you take to heart the concept that only a well organized militia has the right to keep and bear arms. After all, if we went with that standard, then you wouldn't have to worry about what your neighbor was doing with his RPG.

Just like us in the military, we did not patrol our secured perimeter with a tank or a harrier. We DID patrol it with machine guns and handguns and had RPGs and grenades in our armory. It is nothing different in a civilian aspect either. Trying to pin me in a corner with my own words isn't going to work so long as you use my correct words and not yours.

The 2nd says "ARMS." It does not restrict what arms those are. If you have the right to carry a gun, then you have the right to carry a knife, a sword, an RPG, a nuke. . anything. The 2nd does not restrict WHERE you are allowed to carry it.

You do not get to completely rewrite the 2nd to suit yourself. You cannot go against the words in the 2nd. While I will admit that the "well regulated militia" part is open to interpretation as to what constitutes the well regulated militia, the "keep AND bear arms" part is quite clear. If you get to keep a gun, you get to bear it. It does not say "keep and bear arms as long as you are not patrolling somewhere that dksuddeth doesn't like."

[samcol]

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

Read very carefully what you asked me. You asked about him patrolling his back yard. You did NOT ask about him owning one. I responded with having NO PROBLEM of him owning one, as long as he wasn't walking aimlessly around with it WITHOUT a necessary purpose.

Just like us in the military, we did not patrol our secured perimeter with a tank or a harrier. We DID patrol it with machine guns and handguns and had RPGs and grenades in our armory. It is nothing different in a civilian aspect either. Trying to pin me in a corner with my own words isn't going to work so long as you use my correct words and not yours.

The only thing left for the anti-gun crowd is to strawman. Strolling around with an RPG in a threatening way is crimminal. They need to stop equating that to gun ownership for crying out loud.

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by samcol

The only thing left for the anti-gun crowd is to strawman. Strolling around with an RPG in a threatening way is crimminal. They need to stop equating that to gun ownership for crying out loud.

Define 'arms'.

[smooth]

Originally Posted by ubertuber

Guys, let's keep this a little more civil. Keep it focused on the facts, not each other.

I tried. But I've posted this three times now:

"Why is it so hard for you to understand that ONE measure of aggravated assault in the US is comparable to ALL the measures of assault Canada uses (even "non-violent" assault, unless you think that assault without weapons that doesn't result in bodily harm is violent?)"

And he argues that I haven't presented any data to support my position that he was misunderstanding the data. The fact that he sliced the quote is the basis of my assertion that he mishandled the data.

I understand the mods' jobs of keeping flames down...but fair debating REQUIRES that people assess the data accurately. After it's positively shown that someone isn't doing so, what recourse does one have? Report the post?


Seriously...perhaps you can use your mod voice and explain in a less flamboyant fashion how it's simply apples and marbles to compare ONE type of violent assault against ALL types of assault? It's right there in his own quote...what kind of standard is this that allows slipshod analysis at the expense of me being gentle with him after repeated attempts to be reasonable?

[samcol]

Originally Posted by willravel

Define 'arms'.

I think it's pretty crazy to bring the idea of RPG's and nuclear warheads into a debate that should be about the idea of professors and students having the ability to carry a handgun. It's like you're grabbing for the most improbable circumstances and using them as the basis for your argument.

[shakran]

Originally Posted by samcol

I think it's pretty crazy to bring the idea of RPG's and nuclear warheads into a debate that should be about the idea of professors and students having the ability to carry a handgun. It's like you're grabbing for the most improbable circumstances and using them as the basis for your argument.

Stop dodging the question. Define "arms."

[smooth]

Originally Posted by jorgelito

I don't think it's entirely out of the realm of discussion to suggest that students carrying arms at school would be disastrous. I think it's possible, but we simply do not know. I think it could have a deterrent effect, who knows?

It's really rude for people to tell others to stop participating in this discussion just because they don't agree with the opinions out here. We don't have to agree but at least keep it civil.

Whatever dude. I didn't tell him to stop participating in the discussion. IN FACT, I said I valued his OPINION, but that he needed to stop MISUSING stats that don't support his position! READING COMPREHENSION people. wtf

[shakran]

Originally Posted by smooth

Whatever dude. I didn't tell him to stop participating in the discussion. IN FACT, I said I valued his OPINION, but that he needed to stop MISUSING stats that don't support his position! READING COMPREHENSION people. wtf

you need to cool down. Insulting everyone is only going to piss people off and guarantee that they don't pay attention to what you want them to understand. You talk about fair debating in an attempt to defend your calling people stupid. That's possibly the most hypocritical thing I've read on these forums in a long time. Be nice. If you can't be nice, may I suggest you cool off away from this thread for awhile, because you're not going to convince anyone of anything until you can post in a civil manner.

[samcol]

Originally Posted by shakran

Stop dodging the question. Define "arms."

You win. A nuclear warhead shouldn't be carried into a university classroom for self defense.

Can we get back to how insane it would be for trained professors or students to carry firearms?

[smooth]

Originally Posted by shakran

you need to cool down. Insulting everyone is only going to piss people off and guarantee that they don't pay attention to what you want them to understand. You talk about fair debating in an attempt to defend your calling people stupid. That's possibly the most hypocritical thing I've read on these forums in a long time. Be nice. If you can't be nice, may I suggest you cool off away from this thread for awhile, because you're not going to convince anyone of anything until you can post in a civil manner.

I really don't care.
I posted evidence three times.
I filled in the rest of his own quote.
He left out the portion that undermines the point he tried to make with the first half of the sentence.

That's DUMB.
INTELLIGENT would be oh, let me go re-read that evidence.

Then someone else comes along and MISQUOTES what I said.
I never told anyone to stop participating in the discussion.
That's DUMB.

I'm calm, and if it's insulting to some people (and I only insulted TWO people, for specific reasons, not "everyone") and it means they don't learn anything, so be it because they evidently don't have the capacity to understand simple English.

And if you think it's hypocritical to call people dumb when they aren't demonstrating simple 8th grade reading skills, then so be it as well.

The best thing that could happen to me is for someone to dismantle my account because I could use my talents elsewhere rather than get drug into conversations with unintelligent people.

A lack of knowledge is not dumb, an unwillingness and inability to read simple English is when someone spells t out for you in simple terms.

[shakran]

Originally Posted by samcol

You win. A nuclear warhead shouldn't be carried into a university classroom for self defense.

Can we get back to how insane it would be for trained professors or students to carry firearms?

We won't have much to discuss there because I agree. But then I think it's insane for the populace as a whole to be running around packing heat.

[ubertuber]

We're skirting the line very closely here folks. Talk facts, not persons (at least, not each other). Have faith in your fellow TFPers to read the arguments closely and decide what is persuasive. AND GET THIS THREAD BACK ON TRACK! It was so good for a while...

[smooth]

Originally Posted by samcol

You win. A nuclear warhead shouldn't be carried into a university classroom for self defense.

Can we get back to how insane it would be for trained professors or students to carry firearms?

LMAO, evidently both sides have 'em
I have no idea why they drug you down that path, or why you and I went down it. I thought it was a waste of time when you started....

[Willravel]

I'd hate to see this thread closed. We've seen so many threads like this die, but a few have survived. It'd be nice if this were the latter.

[smooth]

I apologize to mirevolver, jorgelito, shakran, ubertuber...you four in particular.
Anyone else that may have been turned off by me turning into a raving asshole, I'm sorry too.

I respect a lot of people on these forums, and I even wrote earlier that I didn't have a problem with the opinions of mirevolver...I never meant to turn personal like that.

I'm dealing with some hefty personal shit right now, and it's no excuse or justification, but it provides context.

I'm sorry and I'm taking a break.

[ubertuber]

Take care of yourself smooth...

And will: I've got faith!

[shakran]

Originally Posted by smooth

I apologize to mirevolver, jorgelito, shakran, ubertuber...you four in particular.
Anyone else that may have been turned off by me turning into a raving asshole, I'm sorry too.

Hey, we're cool. Everyone's an asshole sometimes, but not everyone has the guts to own up to it. Hope things get better for ya.

[Rekna]

Ok Lets get this back on track.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,266596,00.html

Accidental Secret Service Shooting at White House Injures Two Officers

Tuesday, April 17, 2007

* E-MAIL STORY
* PRINTER FRIENDLY VERSION

WASHINGTON — Two Secret Service officers were injured in an accidental shooting Tuesday at the White House.

The incident occurred in a security booth at the southwest gate.

Secret Service spokeswoman Kim Bruce said one officer was injured in the leg and the other received a shrapnel wound in his face. She said the injuries appeared to be non-life threatening and that both officers were taken to nearby George Washington University Hospital.

The gun involved was a service-issued weapon, she said. She said the Secret Service Office of Inspection would conduct a review.

In a separate incident, Lafayette Park along Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House was closed because of a suspicious package, the Secret Service said. There was a security clampdown at the White House because of both incidents.

These men are the secret service and even they have accidental discharges. Now what will happen if we put guns in the hands of students on campus? Do I need to remind anyone that college students are the primary group of people that binge drink?

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by ubertuber

And will: I've got faith!

You know who else gotta have faith?


Getting back....

Rekna, that's an interesting article, and it's really damning for those who seem to be hell bent on arming every man, woman and child.

[jorgelito]

Smooth, while I appreciate the apology I didn't really require one, but thank you.

I really enjoy your posts usually as I find them to be challenging and thought provoking. What I'm trying to say is, it's cool man, no worries mate. I hope you stick around man and keep contributing. Best of luck to you and dealing with your stuff. Take care.

Originally Posted by smooth

I apologize to mirevolver, jorgelito, shakran, ubertuber...you four in particular.
Anyone else that may have been turned off by me turning into a raving asshole, I'm sorry too.

I respect a lot of people on these forums, and I even wrote earlier that I didn't have a problem with the opinions of mirevolver...I never meant to turn personal like that.

I'm dealing with some hefty personal shit right now, and it's no excuse or justification, but it provides context.

I'm sorry and I'm taking a break.

[scout]

This RPG/automatic assault weapon argument is rather pointless because under current gun laws one no one can own these weapons unless you have a special permit that is typically reserved for gun/arms dealers and then only a select few of those actually deals in these types of weapons and they have been investigated and placed under intense scrutiny. So to answer the question, if my neighbor owns one of these weapons I wouldn't worry in the least. I'm more concerned about Joe Blow down the road that has an illegally acquired .22 hunting rifle. The amount of crime that is committed by someone with a class 4 permit {i believe it's a class 4, someone correct me if I'm wrong} is virtually non-existent while the amount of crime committed by someone without any permits or that has illegally acquired a weapon is virtually almost all the crime that is ever committed.

[pig]

i'd like to ask a few quick questions about this thing with smooth and mirevolver, and if the modding is going to be public from here on out, then i'll ask them publicly.

1. what happened to all the talk a few months ago about tfp opening up and people being able to call a spade a spade? i recall at least two long threads where people were bitching and lamenting that we had to put the kid gloves on. it seems to me that those sentiments are almost like little bubbles that erupt, and then everyone returns to beating around the bush instead of directly expressing what they think.

2. if i were smooth, i'd have been pissed too. if i understand correctly, he called someone out for misusing their own statistical data. instead of admitting he was wrong, mirevolver said that he basically intentionally misused the data just to fuck with smooth / the rest of the discussion? wtf? on one hand, who gives a flying shit? this is online discussion, blahblahblah. but if we're all about the evolution of philosophy and discussion...shouldn't we at least pretend to be having some openness and honesty in this shit? the only distinction i draw with smooth is making the claim the mirevolver is DUMB, which he clearly isn't. i would say just being intentionally obtuse. i mean, its like an advertisement for host or something.

i'm not really trying to attack mirevolver too much here, but to the extent that i have to call this situation out in order to make the point and ask the questions, i am i suppose. if that's a problem, pm me or mod my post or whatever is necessary.

as for the rest of this thread: the last thing i want (no offense dk, debaser and other military guys) is a marine just back from combat, potentially with ptsd, walking around my neighborhood with a fucking rpg. look, keep handguns and shotguns and rifles in your house. i personally have no problem with them being in your car; although i do think you should have to have a permit for it. but the stretch from there to the college environment is just fucking up your side of the argument. its as though you want to convince people that are moderate on this that you are, in fact, fucking insane when it comes to guns. as pointed out earlier by smooth, you've actually got some potential common ground with two of the more "left" members of this board...including fucking roach, and instead of working on general gun control ideas, you're breaking out this notion that people are going to be able to effectively concentrate in lecture with everyone having a pistol on their leg. or that a professor will feel comfortable in front of 250 kids, any one of whom might have a pistol in his backpack. let me know how that works out. tell you what, how about take your family for a walk around the greek houses after the first homecoming game on a campus where people are locked and loaded? see how much safer you feel with your kids hanging out because these kids might save you from a robber or something.

[scout]

Originally Posted by pigglet

as for the rest of this thread: the last thing i want (no offense dk, debaser and other military guys) is a marine just back from combat, potentially with ptsd, walking around my neighborhood with a fucking rpg.

I don't think you have anything to worry about as it's just as illegal for a "Marine just back from combat, potentially with a ptsd" to own a RPG as it is for you yourself to own own one. It is also illegal for just anyone to own a automatic weapon.

On a completely different note but along these same thoughts, some of our pro gun control crowd needs to brush up on current gun laws. Over 99.9% of the objections that have arose and state pro gun control reasons are already illegal but for whatever reason keep getting hashed and rehashed over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

One thing I'm curious about is how it can be legal for a green card holder to buy weapons, especially with our current concerns about terrorism. I think this policy should be at the forefront of the debate rather than gun ownership as a whole.
In light of all the information coming out about the shooter another noteworthy question that needs to be answered is was this gentleman ever under the care of a doctor for psych reasons. This is one of the questions you have to answer on your paperwork when you legally purchase a firearm. We know that he was supposedly referred to counseling for some his writings. As more information comes out it seems perhaps someone could have blown the whistle on this whacko long before he committed this atrocity.

[pig]

scout: on the rpg thing, i'm not saying its currently legal; i'm just saying its come up in the thread, and i think arguing for that as a personal possession item is something i'm pretty much abso-fucking-lutely against. as for the rest, i agree with your points about this guy in general and have wondered the same things. we'll see what comes out.

[archetypal fool]

Originally Posted by scout

As more information comes out it seems perhaps someone could have blown the whistle on this whacko long before he committed this atrocity.

His creative writing professor said she informed not only the administration, but also the authorities about the disturbing things he was writing, so I figure at least she tried to do something. I's likely everyone else probably dismissed it and just referred him to counseling, although it's doubted that he actually went to any sessions.