kallend 2,027
kallend 2,027
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote
No-one has suggested preventing stable law abiding citizens from getting guns.
You have, on countless times. .
Really? Link, please.
you're perfectly capable of searching yourself. And since you wrote them, it's not even necessary to search.
TRANSLATION, you are talking through your ass and know you can't find one.
sounds like a good poll to open up - who is talking out of his ass - Kallend and his claim that he's not looking to eliminate gun and privacy rights, or everyone else here?
.
So you still can't find any post to back up your claim, so you try to change the claim now your first one has proven to be untrue.
No-one has suggested preventing stable law abiding citizens from getting guns.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
kallend 2,027
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote
No-one has suggested preventing stable law abiding citizens from getting guns.
You have, on countless times. .
Really? Link, please.
you're perfectly capable of searching yourself. And since you wrote them, it's not even necessary to search.
TRANSLATION, you are talking through your ass and know you can't find one.
I don't care what you have posted in the past about gun ownership.
Could you please anwser my question about gun free zones, such as the ones we have on many college campuses?
I wouldn't expect you to be evading my question Professor, especially after calling Strawman on my earlier post.
If you don't like being called on your strawman, don't post one.
If you don't care what I post about gun ownership, why do you respond to my posts?
The best outcome at VT would have been for Cho to have been unable to walk into a gun store and buy guns and ammo.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
mnealtx 0
QuoteNo-one has suggested preventing stable law abiding citizens from getting guns.
No, you just want to make it so intrusive and onerous that they give up on their own.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
DougH 270
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote
No-one has suggested preventing stable law abiding citizens from getting guns.
You have, on countless times. .
Really? Link, please.
you're perfectly capable of searching yourself. And since you wrote them, it's not even necessary to search.
TRANSLATION, you are talking through your ass and know you can't find one.
I don't care what you have posted in the past about gun ownership.
Could you please anwser my question about gun free zones, such as the ones we have on many college campuses?
I wouldn't expect you to be evading my question Professor, especially after calling Strawman on my earlier post.
If you don't like being called on your strawman, don't post one.
If you don't care what I post about gun ownership, why do you respond to my posts?
If you want to be evasive and fall back on declaring a question or path of discussion irrelevant, "STRAWMAN STRAWMAN", be my guest. It really isn't adding to the conversation, and it doesn't reflect well on your ability to have a constructive two-sided conversation.
I responded to your post because you referenced Cho and his ability to get weapons.
Quote
The best outcome at VT would have been for Cho to have been unable to walk into a gun store and buy guns and ammo.
I agree 100%, I wish he wasn't able to get weapons either. But he was, and the break down of the gun control laws already on the books at the time was mostly related to failures of the mental health system and the university, not the gun control laws themselves.
Even if Cho was denied the purchase by the gunstore and the existing gunlaws he could have made a straw purchase, or he could have gotten the guns from a relative (the Columbine shooters couldn't legally own guns and that didn't stop them).
I can not think of a combination of gun control laws that would guarantee that unstable individuals who are determined to committ mass murder are unable to use guns to do so, short of banning all private ownership of guns and removing all guns from society.
So getting back to my question, which I don't know why you are so reluctant to anwser...
Could you please anwser my question about gun free zones, such as the ones we have on many college campuses?
That was my question, are you going to anwser it?
If a gunman entered one of your lecture halls would you rather have a lecture hall full of unarmed students, or would you rather have some legal concealed carry permit holders in the class?
"The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall"
=P
=P
kallend 2,027
Quote
Could you please anwser my question about gun free zones, such as the ones we have on many college campuses?
That was my question, are you going to anwser it?
Easy, Cho's guns should not have been allowed on the VT campus, then there would have been no shooting at all and no one dead. Cho should never have been allowed to buy guns.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
kallend 2,027
QuoteQuoteNo-one has suggested preventing stable law abiding citizens from getting guns.
No, you just want to make it so intrusive and onerous that they give up on their own.
So you admit that I haven't suggested preventing stable law abiding citizens from getting guns. I guess that's progress. Maybe you can tell that to kelpdiver and rushmc, both of whom seem to have comprehension problems.
What I have suggested is only onerous for felons and loonies. Does that include you?
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
DougH 270
Quote
Easy, Cho's guns should not have been allowed on the VT campus, then there would have been no shooting at all and no one dead.
How do you propose 100% stop armed gunman from entering an open college campus? Rules banning something from a college campus do not actually stop the entry of the banned items from campus?
There was already a rule that banned firearms from the VT campus. Are you suprised that this rule didn't stop Cho from taking guns on campus where they were not allowed?
Quote
Cho should never have been allowed to buy guns
Do you agree that a determined Cho could have obtained guns even if he was denied legal purchase of them?
Please tell me how you stop some one from Cho from ever getting their hands on a gun? In my mind as long as there is private ownership of guns in this country a determined individual can allways obtain them.
Which brings me back to my original direction of questioning...
Fact: Cho shouldn't have been allowed to purchase a weapon under current state law, but failures in medical reporting contributed to the break down of the existing gun control system.
Fact: There were rules at VT which banned the possesion of weapons on campus.
Fact: All of Cho's victims were unarmed.
Fact: The police arived only after Cho shot himself, and died from the self inflicted wounds.
Opinion: Cho had over 200 extra rounds on him and could have killed many more students if he hadn't killed himself. The police response was not fast enough to protect the students killed.
You can wish, as I do, that Cho wasn't allowed to own a gun, and didn't have the ability to get on campus with weapons... that is what I wish happened but it isn't what happened.
This is the question:
Do you think legally armed students could have reduced the number of lives lost?
"The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall"
=P
=P
mnealtx 0
QuoteWhat I have suggested is only onerous for felons and loonies. Does that include you?
Restrictions on the size, number and storage of rocket motors are only onerous to criminals or loonies. Does that include you?
You get your own opinion but not your own facts, perfesser - the problems with your idea of requiring psych evals before purchase have been pointed out before, it IS onerous and it IS an expansion of existing law. Felons aren't affected by it because they don't get their guns from gunstores - you concentrate on the less than 1% while completely ignoring the other 99%.
You CLAIM to be for 'reasonable solutions' that in fact do NOTHING but create yet MORE obstacles to legal ownership while doing NOTHING to prevent the overwhelming majority of gun crimes or crime guns.
So, you get slim points for not QUITE calling for a ban, and a huge BULLSHIT flag for the rest of your arguments.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
mnealtx 0
QuoteHow do you propose 100% stop armed gunman from entering an open college campus?
Duh - "No Guns" signs, of course - EVERYONE knows that they're the most effective to keep a criminal from having guns where they're not allowed. /s
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
kallend 2,027
QuoteQuote
Easy, Cho's guns should not have been allowed on the VT campus, then there would have been no shooting at all and no one dead.
How do you propose 100% stop armed gunman from entering an open college campus? Rules banning something from a college campus do not actually stop the entry of the banned items from campus?
?
Maybe we should post you at the gate. You are clearly a macho guy and with your gun you can stop anything. I bet you even give advice to Chuck Norris?
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
DougH 270
QuoteQuoteQuote
Easy, Cho's guns should not have been allowed on the VT campus, then there would have been no shooting at all and no one dead.
How do you propose 100% stop armed gunman from entering an open college campus? Rules banning something from a college campus do not actually stop the entry of the banned items from campus?
?
Maybe we should post you at the gate. You are clearly a macho guy and with your gun you can stop anything. I bet you even give advice to Chuck Norris?
Would you like to anwser my question instead of making the conversation personal?
How do you stop weapons from getting on to an open college campus?
We could put me or Chuck Norris at the front gate, but that ignores the fact that most colleges don't have gates, they are open communities.
"The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall"
=P
=P
kallend 2,027
The best way to prevent mentally unstable people like Cho from going on shooting sprees is to make it very difficult for them to get guns. Despite a history of mental problems, Cho just bought a gun over the counter. That is ABSURD.
Your solution of turning a college campus into an armed camp is equally absurd.
Your solution of turning a college campus into an armed camp is equally absurd.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
DougH 270
QuoteThe best way to prevent mentally unstable people like Cho from going on shooting sprees is to make it very difficult for them to get guns. Despite a history of mental problems, Cho just bought a gun over the counter. That is ABSURD.
Your solution of turning a college campus into an armed camp is equally absurd.
His mental history was unreported as far as the gun control databases go and not on record. Was this a failure of gun control, or the medical profession and mental health establishment?
Same as Hassan. There was already a system in place that should have stopped Hassan before the Fort Hood shooting. The best designed systems fail.
I am not proposing a solution... I am proposing a question to you Professor.
I think the gunfree policy of VT resulted in a defenseless victim zone that did not improve students saftey in this circumstance. Do you think having legally armed students among the victems could have resulted in a better outcome?
How do you keep a determined armed gunman out of any open setting that can't be locked down with metal detectors at all points of entry?
"The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall"
=P
=P
DaVinci 0
QuoteSTRAWMAN.
No-one has suggested preventing stable law abiding citizens from getting guns.
But you have CONSISTENTLY avoided what standards you would like to see put into place.
And the CURRENT laws state that a person who is mentally unstable is not allowed to own a weapon.
What EXACTLY would you want to require as a screening? And would YOU be willing to go through the EXACT same process to get and keep your pilots license?
QuoteCho's guns should not have been allowed on the VT campus,
They were not allowed, but criminals often break laws.
QuoteMaybe we should post you at the gate. You are clearly a macho guy and with your gun you can stop anything. I bet you even give advice to Chuck Norris?
Maybe you could answer his questions instead of personal attacks?
Hey Doc... How many mass shootings happen at gun stores compared to places guns are not allowed?
QuoteThe best way to prevent mentally unstable people like Cho from going on shooting sprees is to make it very difficult for them to get guns. Despite a history of mental problems, Cho just bought a gun over the counter. That is ABSURD.
It is already illegal, and WAS already illegal when Cho bought his guns for people with a history of mental problems to own a gun.... Yet the State screwed up.
Maybe you could answer the questions instead of making personal attacks and tap dancing around?
Kennedy 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteDefine nutter, nutcase, and loonie.
Cho is a good example. Why would YOU have wanted him to be able to buy a gun with no difficulty?
He didn't ask for an example; he asked for a definition. If the best you can do is point them out by their actions, then you have no way of preventing them from getting guns. If they're not crazy until they shoot people, then how do you stop crazies from getting guns? (without banning everyone from getting them, that is)
So we're still waiting. Do you have anything to say about a definition? Can you post one, or post a link to a thread where you already have?
Or are you going to claim I'm not paying attention when it looks like you still haven't answered.
witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
Kennedy 0
QuoteQuoteAlso, I'm still trying to figure out where you stand, since you can't or won't link to a post or thread where you've clearly stated your position on individual gun rights.
That's because you don't pay attention.
Really? I'm not paying attention? Then can you please tell us where you answered the questions I've posed to your four times now?
QuoteSo what do you think about requiring registration of all firearms?
What do you think about storage requirements of private firearms kept on private property?
What do you think about limiting magazine capacity?
What do you think about private ownership of handguns?
What do you think about private ownership of military styled semi-auto rifles?
What do you think about private ownership of select-fire or full-auto firearms?
What do you think about concealed carry? Should it be banned, licensed, or unlicensed?
What do you think about open carry of firearms? Should it be banned, licensed, or unlicensed?
So have you answered and I'm not paying attention? Or are you full of shit?
witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
Also, I'm still trying to figure out where you stand, since you can't or won't link to a post or thread where you've clearly stated your position on individual gun rights.
That's because you don't pay attention.
I notice that no-one is able to back kelpdivers claim.
That's because it is bogus, false, untrue and a lie, all at the same time.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.