Home Forums Gamescan Chat42 About
* Login   * Register * FAQ    * Search
It is currently Thu 03-28-2024 1:29PM

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 79 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri 10-19-2007 9:08PM 
Offline
Brigadier General
User avatar

Joined: Mon 07-26-2004 3:11PM
Posts: 1420

Source: VPN
berto wrote:
I don't think some people are equipped to carry weapons that could potentially get them. I like the idea of concealed carrying but I'm not objected to the laws that people have to follow.
I like the laws of background checks. I don't like the useless laws, mainly not being able to carry on school when you can carry across the street. They are both in the same zip code and there really is no difference as far as carrying goes. If it stays concealed out in public, it can stay concealed in school.

berto wrote:
They know for a fact? If they are breaking the law, who is to say that someone else might be as well?

Sorry, They no that no law abiding student is carrying and they correctly assume that most students are law abiding when it comes to concealed carry and are not carrying. Also if campus concealed carry was legal, then that "someone else" you refer to wouldn't be breaking the unjust law.


berto wrote:
You separate this sentence and the following.

I do line by line. That way my response makes more sense to the readers because they haven't forgotten what you wrote ten sentences ago.

berto wrote:
I don't have a _good_ solution to the problem, but obviously your solution isn't all that dandy as well seeing as how you have gotten nowhere with your arguments as far as the law goes. Just because you have a solution doesn't make it a good one.

Problem: Robber/attacker/madman/whoever comes up to you and begins to attack you
Solution: Pull out gun and shoot Robber/attacker/madman/whoever until attack ceases.

Seems like a good solution to me. I don't know what you mean "as far as the law goes." I'm merely stating that the law should be changed to allow people the opportunity to utilize this solution wherever they need it.

berto wrote:
Where did I say carrying a gun changed your probability of death in this quoted statement? I know that all attacks are independent and I was simply making the point that not all people react the same or have the capability to do so. You simply read into the last sentence way too much.

I agree that not all people react the same as long as you don't advocate banning a right for everyone just because a few don't react correctly.

berto wrote:
When did I ever say my point was that you never have time to fight back? I proposed a situation where you might not and he proposed one where the person was able to. How does this make me wrong?

It doesn't so long as you don't advocate banning guns from every situation because of the exceptions.

berto wrote:
Never said I did. I also liked how you used the word _usually_ in that last sentence.

I'm glad you noticed. I used "usually" because there is no discrete level of training that will make you proficient in guns. There are some that have never shot but will be able to stop an attack the first time and sometimes it is the opposite. Not everyone with a gun trains as hard as the next guy but then again not everyone is as intelligent as the next guy and I don't see anyone calling for the banning of free speech.

Agentzak wrote:
Actually they can. The second amendment guarantees that right to all. That's the tricky thing with civil rights, you have to give them to everyone, otherwise they would be privileges and not rights.


berto wrote:
I think this law is in place because sometimes, and you might not agree with me here but try it out, is that accidents happen.
I was on the fence about this a few years ago and thought about how someone could get shot just because the guy sitting behind him crossed his legs and the trigger snagged. Two things convinced me otherwise.

1)plenty of cops do it everyday, everywhere without a problem.
2)If you were to cause an accident you would be guilty of manslaughter because of your negligence which carries a hefty sentence. It is in your very best interest to guarantee those accidents don't happen.

berto wrote:
The school is liable if anything were to happen, especially with this sue-happy country.
If they are so liable why has no school ever been sued for on campus shootings? If the state lawmakers make it legal to carry on campus, the school would have nothing to do with the decision.

berto wrote:
Yeah, you STILL (I say still 'cause it can happen to anyone anywhere) have the possibility of still being gunned down, but at least you don't have the possibility of a student dying by mishap.

So you're ok living with the more likely possibility of being gunned down as long as the less likely possibility of a student dying by mishap is avoided. There was someone gunned down just last week clicky and there were a few back in April too I think. I don't recall too many students dying by mishap though. It can't be because there is no guns in schools. There are many states that allow it (also in MO if you're just dropping off kids) so it can't be that. Well I don't really recall too many people in general dying because of a mishap due to concealed carry.

berto wrote:
I honestly don't think all that will happen if you shoot a robber who was clearly threatening your life.


Sorry, I thought you were talking about people with concealed carry permits committing other types of criminals acts, like out robbing people. Shooting a robber who was clearly threatening your life would fall under the defense of justification law (RSMO 563.031) and would not be considered a criminal act.

_________________
Don't do drugs because if you do drugs you'll go to prison, and drugs are really expensive in prison.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
    
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun 10-21-2007 7:27PM 
Offline
Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Tue 04-12-2005 9:19PM
Posts: 821
Location: GBH

Source: MST Wireless
What in the world happened with leaving responsibility in the hands of the individual? Our country is based on this idea, and it makes me crazy that people are out there trying to take away my rights because of the actions of an extremely small fraction of the population.

_________________
"You talk to God, you're religious. God talks to you, you're psychotic."


Top
 Profile  
    
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon 10-22-2007 10:01AM 
Offline
Brigadier General
User avatar

Joined: Fri 01-24-2003 7:13PM
Posts: 1652
Location: down the hill

Source: MST Wireless
berto wrote:
Agentzak wrote:
I would love to see you explain to Suzanna Hupp that carrying guns is not a good solution but you don't have any solution at all. Keep in mind that
1) Both of her parents (and 21 other people) were shot point blank while they were eating at Luby's. She got to watch them die.
2) Her handgun was out in the truck as Texas law forbid her from carrying it inside.
Since you have no solution to the problem how about allowing the rest of us that have a rather good solution to use it. I'm not advocating that everyone should carry a gun because the beauty is that not everyone need to. By simply allowing concealed permit holders to carry on campus, which isn't a far stretch because they carry all over Rolla safely anyway, the odds will not be in the criminal's favor anymore.


I don't have a _good_ solution to the problem, but obviously your solution isn't all that dandy as well seeing as how you have gotten nowhere with your arguments as far as the law goes. Just because you have a solution doesn't make it a good one.


He's getting nowhere with his arguments because he's arguing with an idiot.


Some other recent examples of a normal joe shooting to save his/her life. Keep in mind that only about 2-4% of gun-saves-a-life incidents actually involve firing a shot. I had about five times this many links, but a lot of news sites archive the stories after a day or two. These are all from the past couple of weeks.

link

link

link

link

link

link

link

link

link

link

link

link

link

link

link



Yeah, I keep up with these things. These are very, very common. You know what is NOT common? To hear of someone trying to fight back with a gun, and getting hurt because of it. It's particularly sad to hear of those events, I recall two this year. How about you post some links to news stories where someone with a gun fought back and didn't come out on top? Keep it limited to this month, please (or at least this year).

_________________
heretic^ stars as Samuel Jackson in the summer's newest thriller: Owls on a Forum!

http://web.umr.edu/~ikellogg/heretic%5E-owls.gif


Last edited by the naked prophet on Mon 10-22-2007 3:51PM, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
    
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon 10-22-2007 10:24AM 
Offline
Brigadier General
User avatar

Joined: Fri 07-08-2005 7:47PM
Posts: 1106
Location: Quad

Source: RC I
the naked prophet wrote:
berto wrote:
Agentzak wrote:
I would love to see you explain to Suzanna Hupp that carrying guns is not a good solution but you don't have any solution at all. Keep in mind that
1) Both of her parents (and 21 other people) were shot point blank while they were eating at Luby's. She got to watch them die.
2) Her handgun was out in the truck as Texas law forbid her from carrying it inside.
Since you have no solution to the problem how about allowing the rest of us that have a rather good solution to use it. I'm not advocating that everyone should carry a gun because the beauty is that not everyone need to. By simply allowing concealed permit holders to carry on campus, which isn't a far stretch because they carry all over Rolla safely anyway, the odds will not be in the criminal's favor anymore.


I don't have a _good_ solution to the problem, but obviously your solution isn't all that dandy as well seeing as how you have gotten nowhere with your arguments as far as the law goes. Just because you have a solution doesn't make it a good one.


He's getting nowhere with his arguments because he's arguing with an idiot.


Some other recent examples of a normal joe shooting to save his/her life. Keep in mind that only about 2-4% of gun-saves-a-life incidents actually involve firing a shot. I had about five times this many links, but a lot of news sites archive the stories after a day or two. These are all from the past couple of weeks.

http://www.nbc10.com/news/14368082/deta ... =mainclick

http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs. ... /1001/news

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent ... f026d.html

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/335 ... ource=mypi

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent ... 97696.html

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime_f ... goes_.html

http://www.woodtv.com/Global/story.asp? ... 6&nav=0Rce

http://www.star-telegram.com/news/story/256689.html

http://www.wfsb.com/news/14268769/detail.html

http://www.timesdispatch.com/cva/ric/op ... -0007.html

http://www.wilsoncountynews.com/default ... ws&he=.com

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/ar ... 1409/METRO

http://www.localnews8.com/Global/story.asp?S=7154784

http://www.kgw.com/news-local/stories/k ... ceedc.html

http://www.wlbt.com/Global/story.asp?S=7144543&nav=2CSf



Yeah, I keep up with these things. These are very, very common. You know what is NOT common? To hear of someone trying to fight back with a gun, and getting hurt because of it. It's particularly sad to hear of those events, I recall two this year. How about you post some links to news stories where someone with a gun fought back and didn't come out on top? Keep it limited to this month, please (or at least this year).


lol i love how kids flame during debating. i wasn't talking about his argument with me, i was talking about as far as changing the law goes. but next time you feel like using the word idiot, you might want to aim it your way.


Top
 Profile  
    
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon 10-22-2007 11:11AM 
Offline
Lieutenant General
User avatar

Joined: Mon 11-17-2003 12:27AM
Posts: 3128
Location: The Bat Cave

Source: VPN
berto wrote:
lol i love how kids flame during debating. i wasn't talking about his argument with me, i was talking about as far as changing the law goes. but next time you feel like using the word idiot, you might want to aim it your way.


And there it is. Flaming isn't so bad, but you should have a point to back up your flame. I have to believe that you realize you are wrong, because you don't even attempt to address his point. That you just dismiss his point, because he said something that hurt your feelings, indicates to me that you must realize your "point" was nonexistent, but you won't be a big enough person to admit it....

_________________
Carney Institute of Technology

Why not outlaw MURDER instead of trying to outlaw guns?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
    
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon 10-22-2007 12:02PM 
Offline
Brigadier General
User avatar

Joined: Fri 07-08-2005 7:47PM
Posts: 1106
Location: Quad

Source: RC I
jthxv wrote:
berto wrote:
lol i love how kids flame during debating. i wasn't talking about his argument with me, i was talking about as far as changing the law goes. but next time you feel like using the word idiot, you might want to aim it your way.


And there it is. Flaming isn't so bad, but you should have a point to back up your flame. I have to believe that you realize you are wrong, because you don't even attempt to address his point. That you just dismiss his point, because he said something that hurt your feelings, indicates to me that you must realize your "point" was nonexistent, but you won't be a big enough person to admit it....


Actually, it is quite the opposite. I was willing to declare loss with AgentZak because of the fact that he was able to present examples and I am too lazy to look them up. I was going to put this in my last post but forgot to. In no way am I against concealed carrying and I see most of the points although I don't agree with all of them for my own personal reasons. But having to insult somebody while making a point doesn't seem to show rationale. If you can't be rational when simply debating, why should I believe you can when you are carrying a weapon? My main point was to say that with allowing anyone that feels the need to carry guns wherever they want and however they wish, there are going to be cons with the pros that people mention. This is my point because most of these people seem to think their solution will solve every single problem with violence or at least that is the impression I am getting and if people honestly believe this, I think some people need to open their minds a little.

PS, no one here has ever 'hurt my feelings'. I simply didn't address his point because I didn't care to. As far as I am concerned, it was Agentzak 1 and berto 0 before he even posted.


Top
 Profile  
    
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon 10-22-2007 12:05PM 
Offline
Brigadier General
User avatar

Joined: Mon 07-26-2004 3:11PM
Posts: 1420

Source: Fulton Hall
berto wrote:
i wasn't talking about his argument with me, i was talking about as far as changing the law goes.


I'm not sure what you mean about "as far as changing the law goes." If you are saying that I am wrong because the law says otherwise, I would argue that there are such things as unjust laws. Suzanna Hupp has stated that it was a stupid law. Martin Luther King Jr. fought against stupid laws and the law that prevents students from carrying on campus is, everyone together now, a stupid law and therefore it should be changed.

If you were talking about something totally different in regards to the law, please explain.

_________________
Don't do drugs because if you do drugs you'll go to prison, and drugs are really expensive in prison.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
    
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon 10-22-2007 12:05PM 
Offline
Brigadier General
User avatar

Joined: Fri 01-24-2003 7:13PM
Posts: 1652
Location: down the hill

Source: MST Wireless
Let's see... you don't have a solution, he has a solution that has been PROVEN by decades of experience to work. Yet you insist that his arguments are getting nowhere. All your points are being countered, yet all you can do is flame.

Yeah, I called you an idiot - and quite rationally (an idiot is someone who cannot reason normally). Because you have nothing to your position - or if you do, you can't articulate it. I didn't flame, I actually provided information to counter your baseless assertions. You, in fact, did flame - your reply was nothing but an insult, with no information, and no discussion or debate relating to the information I provided (or at all, for that matter).

You're doing it wrong. Try again.

_________________
heretic^ stars as Samuel Jackson in the summer's newest thriller: Owls on a Forum!

http://web.umr.edu/~ikellogg/heretic%5E-owls.gif


Top
 Profile  
    
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon 10-22-2007 12:12PM 
Offline
Brigadier General
User avatar

Joined: Fri 07-08-2005 7:47PM
Posts: 1106
Location: Quad

Source: RC I
Agentzak wrote:
berto wrote:
i wasn't talking about his argument with me, i was talking about as far as changing the law goes.


I'm not sure what you mean about "as far as changing the law goes." If you are saying that I am wrong because the law says otherwise, I would argue that there are such things as unjust laws. Suzanna Hupp has stated that it was a stupid law. Martin Luther King Jr. fought against stupid laws and the law that prevents students from carrying on campus is, everyone together now, a stupid law and therefore it should be changed.

If you were talking about something totally different in regards to the law, please explain.


I'm glad you brought MLK into it because he did fight against stupid laws... and those laws were changed. I do agree that there are unjust laws but something is wrong with your logic or problems arise from your solution because if the solution is so obviously correct, should the law not have changed by now? How long have people been fighting this?

the naked prophet wrote:
Let's see... you don't have a solution, he has a solution that has been PROVEN by decades of experience to work. Yet you insist that his arguments are getting nowhere. All your points are being countered, yet all you can do is flame.

Yeah, I called you an idiot - and quite rationally (an idiot is someone who cannot reason normally). Because you have nothing to your position - or if you do, you can't articulate it. I didn't flame, I actually provided information to counter your baseless assertions. You, in fact, did flame - your reply was nothing but an insult, with no information, and no discussion or debate relating to the information I provided (or at all, for that matter).

You're doing it wrong. Try again.


My reasoning skills are perfectly fine, but when you burst in by calling me an idiot, I simply don't feel the need to do anything but flame you. And yes, your post was a flame because of the fact that you felt it necessary to insult me when you don't even know me (which I do believe is a flame). And if you read in my last post, it would tell you why I didn't respond to any of your examples.


Top
 Profile  
    
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon 10-22-2007 12:25PM 
Offline
Major
User avatar

Joined: Fri 02-03-2006 12:00PM
Posts: 477

Source: VPN
Have we suddenly turned the gun control debate into a what-defines-an-idiot-and-who-qualifies-as-one debate? Hmm...

_________________
Visit my handmade jewelry blog!

http://designsbykathryn.blogspot.com/

Feel free to leave me a comment or send me a message!


Top
 Profile  
    
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon 10-22-2007 2:05PM 
Offline
Brigadier General
User avatar

Joined: Fri 01-24-2003 7:13PM
Posts: 1652
Location: down the hill

Source: MST Wireless
Could be. Seems like he's not responding to any of the actual points. I guess I just gave him something else he'd rather talk about.

_________________
heretic^ stars as Samuel Jackson in the summer's newest thriller: Owls on a Forum!

http://web.umr.edu/~ikellogg/heretic%5E-owls.gif


Top
 Profile  
    
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon 10-22-2007 2:37PM 
Offline
Brigadier General
User avatar

Joined: Mon 07-26-2004 3:11PM
Posts: 1420

Source: VPN
berto wrote:
if the solution is so obviously correct, should the law not have changed by now? How long have people been fighting this?


Wellllll, at first there were no laws against carry at all, then the civil war came around and white people suddenly had to come up with ways to stop black people from having guns. We went through all of this trouble to ensure the second amendment clearly gave all Americans the right. So someone came up with the idea that the second amendment only applied to the federal government and states could do whatever the fuck they wanted. Think if we had done that to the other amendments. Let's have states limit free speech and that 5th amendment right to remain silent? Speak up or you are going to jail. Obviously not the best idea, someone came up with the bullshit oozing argument that the second amendment was a collective right that gave the government the right to organize and arm a militia. [sarcasm]Holy shit, after winning a war against an oppressive government, we better make sure that our government always has the right to be armed![/sarcasm] It's bullshit but back in those days no one cared because it kept black people from having guns. Besides, it's not like white cops were going to arrest white people for it. In MO the first concealed carry law was passed in the 1870s and up until the 1960s, no white person was ever arrested for simply concealed carry. If a white person was arrested for other stuff, they'd tack on the concealed charge, but never concealed carry alone.

Now let's fast forward to modern day. Say you happen to be Dianne Feinstein, democratic senator of California since 1992 and former mayor of San Francisco. Let's also say that you applied for and received a concealed carry permit due to your political connections. Let's also say that you ride around in bulletproof limos with a few bodyguards that always carry automatic weapons that are definitely illegal for regular joe citizen to own. Let's also say that your past campaign contributions are a little shady. As a senator, do you have any motivation whatsoever to even let joe citizen own a bb gun? Um, fuck no! Government officials like to break laws left and right and the second amendment is there to ensure that they don't round us up and exterminate us

"In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents were rounded up and exterminated.

"In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians were rounded up and exterminated.

"China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents were rounded up and exterminated.

"Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians were rounded up and exterminated.

"Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians were rounded up and exterminated.

"Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million 'educated' people were rounded up and exterminated."

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.


[sarcasm]See gun control does work![/sarcasm]

_________________
Don't do drugs because if you do drugs you'll go to prison, and drugs are really expensive in prison.


Last edited by Agentzak on Mon 10-22-2007 2:54PM, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile E-mail  
    
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon 10-22-2007 2:39PM 
Offline
Major General
User avatar

Joined: Mon 08-08-2005 5:09PM
Posts: 2337
Location: STL

Source: Beta Sigma Psi
God...fix that damn link. It's throwing my forum reading off.

_________________
"This is not my sig", it said. - I looked at it suspiciously; Who's sig was it, then?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
    
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon 10-22-2007 2:52PM 
Offline
Brigadier General
User avatar

Joined: Mon 07-26-2004 3:11PM
Posts: 1420

Source: VPN
What's wrong with the link? Here it is again if the other one doesn't work.

clicky

_________________
Don't do drugs because if you do drugs you'll go to prison, and drugs are really expensive in prison.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
    
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon 10-22-2007 3:49PM 
Offline
Brigadier General
User avatar

Joined: Fri 01-24-2003 7:13PM
Posts: 1652
Location: down the hill

Source: MST Wireless
Chankster wrote:
God...fix that damn link. It's throwing my forum reading off.


I thought it was too, but the screen was that wide even before I posted that.

I'll try to fix it and see if it works.

_________________
heretic^ stars as Samuel Jackson in the summer's newest thriller: Owls on a Forum!

http://web.umr.edu/~ikellogg/heretic%5E-owls.gif


Top
 Profile  
    
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 79 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group