Print

[xboxbox451]

QUOTE(H8Wal-Mart)

You act like guns are to blame. The fact remains that if 1 student in the classrooms that were attacked were packing then less people would have lost their lives. You can say whatever else you want but you're avoiding the truth and you're letting the fact that you're scared to death of guns cloud your judgement. There are others out there that are not crazy, and are not afraid that could and would protect you and any others who are about to be harmed. VERY few people who own guns are looney, and the ones that aren't would protect the rest of the population. There is no other alternative. Get over yourself.

I'm no anti-gun advocate, though I don't feel issuing carrying permits to the students is the answer. Here's a scenario that would probably come about with such a practice.

Some person goes ballistic roaming the campus shooting others. Then you get, lets say three students from different parts of the campus rushing to the scene of the shooting with their guns blazing. Once they all arrive how will they know who's the shooter and who's the good samaritan? They might even start shooting each other out of confusion. Friendly fire anyone?

Now, if you have armed campus guards, you'll at least be able to differentiate the criminal from the protector by a uniform.

Anyhow, locking down and arming up cant be the solution. We'll all just wind up living Marshall Law. Though I dont know of a better solution.

[metaldevil]

QUOTE(CJLee89 @ Apr 17 2007, 10:15 PM)

What do you guys think about the shooting at Virginia Tech?

After the worldwide knowledge of Columbine (especially in the U.S.), it infuriates me that the students didn't "snap" as well and take down their attacker. A group that size could have suffered far fewer casualties had they acted in defiance of this madman.

I realize my comment will be torn apart ad nauseam (which is why I rarely post in this section), but understand that I fully blame Cho for the murders. I just believe that a lot of lives could have been saved if the students had chosen fight instead of flight.

[Arvarden]

Hindsight is wonderful gift, but I agree we should be more proactive when it comes to these situations.  

Bye.

 

[[H8]Wal-Mart]

QUOTE(metaldevil @ Apr 21 2007, 12:51 PM)

After the worldwide knowledge of Columbine (especially in the U.S.), it infuriates me that the students didn't "snap" as well and take down their attacker. A group that size could have suffered far fewer casualties had they acted in defiance of this madman.

I realize my comment will be torn apart ad nauseam (which is why I rarely post in this section), but understand that I fully blame Cho for the murders. I just believe that a lot of lives could have been saved if the students had chosen fight instead of flight.

That's what I was" attempting to advocate. Have you ever heard the old saying "bring a knife to a gun fight"? Well in this case instead of a knife it's a textbook. That's why I suggested that the instructors carry. Everyone seemed to think it was a poor idea, and even I do as somewhere in the 90 percent range of all college professors are extreme leftists. At any rate, if people knew that they were going to get smoked before they completed their "mission" then I think most would find another avenue of gaining this attention that they so desperately seek.

[pug_ster]

Looks like Gingrich blames on Liberals for the increasing violence while the crazed lunatic got guns thanks to the Conservatives' laxed gun laws.  

http://abcnews.go.co...tory?id=3067229

[[H8]Wal-Mart]

QUOTE(pug_ster @ Apr 23 2007, 03:12 PM)

Looks like Gingrich blames on Liberals for the increasing violence while the crazed lunatic got guns thanks to the Conservatives' laxed gun laws.  

http://abcnews.go.co...tory?id=3067229

You just attempted to slam Gingrich for blaming the liberals but then slammed the conservatives for the action. Hypocrite. If you'd have simply criticized Gingrich for making the VT shooting a partisan subject then you'd have been ok. Instead you accepted it as partisan but blamed the conservatives and your argument didn't hold water.

Gingrich simply spoke of violence in video games and such and then attempting to talk to youth about it is restricted due to liberalisms' hold on protecting their free speech even if it means leaving clarifications of morality out. He went on to say that now people tend to not carry guns due to liberalism.

"The potential GOP presidential contender commended President Bush's handling of Virginia Tech and touted "legitimate concealed carry" as his solution to last Monday's massacre.

"In states where people have been allowed to have concealed weapons," Gingrich said, "there have been incidents of this kind of killer who was stopped because, in fact, people who are law-abiding, people who are rational, and people who are responsible had the ability to stop them."

That's from your link. http://abcnews.go.co...tory?id=3067229

At the end of the day, it shouldn't have become partisan, but he's saying the same thing I've been saying. Whether you agree or not, he has a good point.

Edit: The EXACT thing you attempted to discredit his article with, he stated in the article. You'd know that if you actually read it.

"Gingrich also agreed for the need for more thorough background checks in gun purchases, in reference to states like Virginia not sharing mental health records with the federal database.

"I think that a person who is certified by a psychiatrist as potentially dangerous to others, that information should come up and that should block them from acquiring weapons," Gingrich said. Though he was quick to point out that "in the great cities of this country, where you have the most gun violence, it is by people breaking the law who manage to buy an illegal gun."