kallend 2,027 #101 April 29, 2007 QuoteQuoteDo you think Cho Seung-Hui's guns had been used in a crime prior to his killing 32 people with them? No so whats your point? Think about it.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #102 April 29, 2007 QuoteQuoteDo you think Cho Seung-Hui's guns had been used in a crime prior to his killing 32 people with them? No so whats your point? That in this example you're wrong at least 31 times.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DFWAJG 4 #103 April 29, 2007 it's not so much about the weapon. If someone wants to kill someone, they are going to do it no matter what the weapon. I work in prisons. Prisoners have turned styrofoam cups and toilet paper into weapons. Keep in mind, the terrorists didn't need a nuclear bomb to cause mass destruction in NYC. All they needed to do was hijack an airplane. Anything can be used as a weapon. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lindsey 0 #104 April 29, 2007 QuoteThese types of situations should emphasize the need for parity and better resources for the mentally ill. When Reagan closed down all of the state institutions, he didn't open any althernatives for those in need of treatment. Most of those people died, the others cross-institutuinalized into the prison system. the others are wondering on the streets, homeless and suffering from their illness. Deinstitutionalization. I remember that transition very well. While it wasn't good that people were locked away in mental institutions for years, what followed hasn't ensured appropriate care for many of the people who need it. There are some intensive community programs that do a pretty good job, but those programs aren't widespread, so the majority are just SOL. Wouldn't it be nice if people's families would bear a little responsibiltiy? In most cases, unfortunately, they don't, and people with serious mental illness find themselves wandering (not wondering, lol...well maybe that too...) the streets or in prison. I wonder where we pay more for them...in prisons or in long-term mental institutions. I have to add, though, back in my social work years, I worked for one of those intensive community programs. One of our patients (or consumers as they were referred to) with schizophrenia, who was given as much support as was possible without institutionalization, murdered someone with a knife. Those incidents are much less common, though, when people have supports than when they don't I'd bet. linz-- A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #105 April 30, 2007 Quoteit's not so much about the weapon. If someone wants to kill someone, they are going to do it no matter what the weapon. I work in prisons. Prisoners have turned styrofoam cups and toilet paper into weapons. Keep in mind, the terrorists didn't need a nuclear bomb to cause mass destruction in NYC. All they needed to do was hijack an airplane. Anything can be used as a weapon. The old "if we don't allow guns then they'll just use something else" argument. Might as well let all the prisoners have guns then, I suppose.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ExAFO 0 #106 April 30, 2007 Quote The old "if we don't allow guns then they'll just use something else" argument. Might as well let all the prisoners have guns then, I suppose. This is not going to work. Professor, you're in the mindset grown from spending many years in the UK. We're not going to change your opinion. We don't try to anymore. But the flipside is that you're not going to change our opinions, and your right to import UK style laws is suspect at best. We fought a war 230+ years ago because we disliked UK laws.Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #107 April 30, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteYou know what fucks me off about your opinions John? You're so commited to your opinion you completly fuck off everybody else who disagree's with you, like some fat selfish cnut in the play ground, protecting his sweeties and status. As you do, when people put out opinions you don't like.. such as keeping their LEGAL guns that have NEVER been used in a crime? Do you think Cho Seung-Hui's guns had been used in a crime prior to his killing 32 people with them? Do you think pilot students had been involved in a plot to destroy building by crashing airliners into them before 9/11? Let's get rid of the pilots!! Makes equally as much sense...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #108 April 30, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteYou know what fucks me off about your opinions John? You're so commited to your opinion you completly fuck off everybody else who disagree's with you, like some fat selfish cnut in the play ground, protecting his sweeties and status. As you do, when people put out opinions you don't like.. such as keeping their LEGAL guns that have NEVER been used in a crime? Do you think Cho Seung-Hui's guns had been used in a crime prior to his killing 32 people with them? Do you think pilot students had been involved in a plot to destroy building by crashing airliners into them before 9/11? Let's get rid of the pilots!! Makes equally as much sense... Non sequitur. Have you heard of "context"? The highlighted text was YOUR silly statement in the first place.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #109 April 30, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteYou know what fucks me off about your opinions John? You're so commited to your opinion you completly fuck off everybody else who disagree's with you, like some fat selfish cnut in the play ground, protecting his sweeties and status. As you do, when people put out opinions you don't like.. such as keeping their LEGAL guns that have NEVER been used in a crime? Do you think Cho Seung-Hui's guns had been used in a crime prior to his killing 32 people with them? Do you think pilot students had been involved in a plot to destroy building by crashing airliners into them before 9/11? Let's get rid of the pilots!! Makes equally as much sense... Non sequitur. Have you heard of "context"? The highlighted text was YOUR silly statement in the first place. You're right... my context was wrong... We need to get rid of the AIRPLANES... since you keep wanting to blame the TOOL for the action of the USER...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #110 April 30, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteYou know what fucks me off about your opinions John? You're so commited to your opinion you completly fuck off everybody else who disagree's with you, like some fat selfish cnut in the play ground, protecting his sweeties and status. As you do, when people put out opinions you don't like.. such as keeping their LEGAL guns that have NEVER been used in a crime? Do you think Cho Seung-Hui's guns had been used in a crime prior to his killing 32 people with them? Do you think pilot students had been involved in a plot to destroy building by crashing airliners into them before 9/11? Let's get rid of the pilots!! Makes equally as much sense... Non sequitur. Have you heard of "context"? The highlighted text was YOUR silly statement in the first place. You're right... my context was wrong... We need to get rid of the AIRPLANES... since you keep wanting to blame the TOOL for the action of the USER... So you agree that your logic is idiotic. Fine.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ExAFO 0 #111 April 30, 2007 Professor, the fact remains that I have neither committed nor ever intend to commit any crime with my firearms. Therefore, there is no justification for taking away the right to possess them granted me by the Constitution. Taken to its conclusion, your logic would require the confiscation of crop dusting aircraft, Ammonium Nitrate (sp?) fertilizer, Diesel fuel, Ryder Trucks, pickaxes, sledgehammers, swiss army knives, pepper spray, and dogs other than tiny lap dogs....because all of the preceding could be misused to cause death of another.Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #112 April 30, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Do you think Cho Seung-Hui's guns had been used in a crime prior to his killing 32 people with them? Do you think pilot students had been involved in a plot to destroy building by crashing airliners into them before 9/11? Let's get rid of the pilots!! Makes equally as much sense... Non sequitur. Have you heard of "context"? The highlighted text was YOUR silly statement in the first place. You're right... my context was wrong... We need to get rid of the AIRPLANES... since you keep wanting to blame the TOOL for the action of the USER... So you agree that your logic is idiotic. Fine. No..but I agree that YOURS is....as my example shows. Wait, I know... let's make the human body a "no bullet zone" - that'll make those criminals think twice about shooting someone!! Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bexren76 0 #113 April 30, 2007 If it helps at all I can tell assuredly you that I am pretty happy not to carry a gun and so are all me pals here in Blighty..............most of us look upon SO19 (armed response police) with some degree of sympathy especially since the poor buggers are pretty much suspended and investigated every time they DO shoot someone. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #114 April 30, 2007 Stricter gun control will do nothing to solve anything except delay the guy who thinks he needs a gun to solve his problems and has to wait a while to get one through normal channels or find out he can't get one that way. During that wait time, he MAY decide that his initial plan is not a good one and just go beat the shit out of his intended victim. Otherwise it's off to the Black Market to obtain the tools necessary to carry out his plan. I get a kick out of the Gun Control crowd...they want to restrict the legitimate users while the crooks continue on business-as-usual. My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #115 April 30, 2007 QuoteI get a kick out of the Gun Control crowd...they want to restrict the legitimate users while the crooks continue on business-as-usual. 'zackly!!!Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #116 April 30, 2007 QuoteDo you think Cho Seung-Hui's guns had been used in a crime prior to his killing 32 people with them? We've been over this - we KNOW absolutely that the guns were used in a crime - the defacement of the serials. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #117 April 30, 2007 QuoteQuoteDo you think Cho Seung-Hui's guns had been used in a crime prior to his killing 32 people with them? No, so whats your point? He doesn't like to come right out and state his point, because then someone might criticize him, and he might have to defend his point. He prefers to hide behind innuendo and non-answers... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #118 April 30, 2007 QuoteQuoteDo you think Cho Seung-Hui's guns had been used in a crime prior to his killing 32 people with them? We've been over this - we KNOW absolutely that the guns were used in a crime - the defacement of the serials. I expect he drove over the speed limit too.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #119 April 30, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteDo you think Cho Seung-Hui's guns had been used in a crime prior to his killing 32 people with them? No, so whats your point? He doesn't like to come right out and state his point, because then someone might criticize him, and he might have to defend his point. He prefers to hide behind innuendo and non-answers... If you read the post in the context of the one it was "in reply to", the point is obvious to anyone who cares to think about it and doesn't wear blinkers.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #120 April 30, 2007 >like some fat selfish cnut . . . Your last warning. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #121 May 1, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteDo you think Cho Seung-Hui's guns had been used in a crime prior to his killing 32 people with them? We've been over this - we KNOW absolutely that the guns were used in a crime - the defacement of the serials. I expect he drove over the speed limit too. You consider speeding and marking firearms untraceable to be equilvient crimes? DUI and fatality hit and runs are the proper analogs. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ExAFO 0 #122 May 1, 2007 How many times must it be said?: Gun control laws WILL NEVER EFFECTIVELY DISARM PREDATORY CRIMINALS. It only creates defenseless prey. Police have no affirmative obligation to protect any one individual. <--The Supreme Court said that. Chicago is not safe in some areas. It is this way because of laws disarming people who seek only to defend themselves in a strictly reactive manner.Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
likearock 2 #123 May 1, 2007 QuoteHow many times must it be said?: Gun control laws WILL NEVER EFFECTIVELY DISARM PREDATORY CRIMINALS. I agree with that. There is much truth to the saying "Outlaw guns, and only outlaws will have guns." However, since this discussion is primarily about mass shootings like VT, shouldn't we be asking ourselves if the perpetrators of indiscriminate mass shootings typically fit the profile of "predatory criminals"? Many of them, including Cho, don't have a prior criminal record. Would Cho have gotten those guns illegally if he wasn't able to legally? Perhaps yes, perhaps no, But if no, then just maybe he would have expressed his sickness in a less lethal way. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #124 May 1, 2007 QuoteDo you think Cho Seung-Hui's guns had been used in a crime prior to his killing 32 people with them? What's your point? Do you believe that guns should be confiscated from all law-abiding people because of what a few of them might do someday in the future? Why do you play these silly games with innuendo? You're a college professor whose job it is to explain ideas to people. And yet here, you don't seem to be willing to just come right out and say what you actually mean. What's with that? What are you afraid of? And to add to your confusion, about once a year you express your support for the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. So once again we find you seeming to want to ban gun ownership, in contradiction of other statements you've made. Explain yourself! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #125 May 1, 2007 QuoteWhy do you play these silly games with innuendo? You're a college professor whose job it is to explain ideas to people. And yet here, you don't seem to be willing to just come right out and say what you actually mean. What's with that? What are you afraid of? It's a lot like Cheney and the whole 'was there WMDs' thing. It's really hard for some people to back down. Even when the facts say otherwise. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
