Gun free zones...

desert dude · Dec 21, 2012

This editorial is written by William Bennett, which is unfortunate because he is a detestable, big government nanny. Never the less, this editorial is spot on.

"John Lott, economist and gun-rights advocate, has extensively studied mass shootings and reports that, with just one exception, the attack on U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson, Arizona, in 2011, every public shooting since 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns. The massacres at Sandy Hook Elementary, Columbine, Virginia Tech and the Century 16 movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, all took place in gun-free zones."

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/19/opinion/bennett-gun-rights/index.html?hpt=op_t1

NLXSK1 · Dec 21, 2012

If you try to insert logic into an argument you will just piss off the liberals.

desert dude · Dec 21, 2012

NLXSK1 said:
If you try to insert logic into an argument you will just piss off the liberals.

So true. It is all about "feelings".

All of you pot smokers are not allowed to own firearms. "They" feel it is a good law.

http://reason.com/blog/2012/12/21/the-new-york-times-says-smoking-pot-is-v#comments

Mindmelted · Dec 21, 2012

Bong in one hand gun in the other.....

canndo · Dec 21, 2012

NLXSK1 said:
If you try to insert logic into an argument you will just piss off the liberals.

I think that some of us will welcome any sort of logic that you folks can muster

canndo · Dec 21, 2012

desert dude said:
So true. It is all about "feelings".

All of you pot smokers are not allowed to own firearms. "They" feel it is a good law.

http://reason.com/blog/2012/12/21/the-new-york-times-says-smoking-pot-is-v#comments

This "liberals work out of feelings" is an old and haggard pill Conservatives take every morning to sooth their own emotional view of the world.

TroncoChe · Dec 21, 2012

[video=youtube;V3HQopc0jog]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3HQopc0jog[/video]

NoDrama · Dec 21, 2012

Why do people dial 911? So the guys with GUNS will show up and save the day.

desert dude · Dec 21, 2012

canndo said:
I think that some of us will welcome any sort of logic that you folks can muster

How do you answer Lott's facts? Every mass shooting since 1950, except the Gifford's shooting, happened in a gun free zone. Is that just a coincidence? If it is not just coincidental then perhaps gun free zones are a magnet for crazy people intent on mass murder? It is "logical" to suggest that gun free zones might be a bad idea?

canndo · Dec 21, 2012

NoDrama said:
Why do people dial 911? So the guys with GUNS will show up and save the day.

Really? That guy with a heart attack wants someone with a gun to show up?

canndo · Dec 21, 2012

desert dude said:
How do you answer Lott's facts? Every mass shooting since 1950, except the Gifford's shooting, happened in a gun free zone. Is that just a coincidence? If it is not just coincidental then perhaps gun free zones are a magnet for crazy people intent on mass murder? It is "logical" to suggest that gun free zones might be a bad idea?

EVERY one? are you certain of that? I thought we wanted to talk logic - are you claiming causality here?

canndo · Dec 21, 2012

TroncoChe said:
[video=youtube;V3HQopc0jog]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3HQopc0jog[/video]

The "leftists and the tyrants". This guy is talking about how laws don't really affect anything. But he presumes that guns are ever present, that they simply appear. His is the same sort of distorted logic that the right finds so compelling. He manges to combine "common" crime with mass shootings because it is convenient to his "logic"

Finally, if he is so sure that legislation will "do nothing" then why is he worried about anti-gun legislation at all? It will surely not affect him.

TroncoChe · Dec 21, 2012

canndo said:
The "leftists and the tyrants". This guy is talking about how laws don't really affect anything. But he presumes that guns are ever present, that they simply appear. His is the same sort of distorted logic that the right finds so compelling. He manges to combine "common" crime with mass shootings because it is convenient to his "logic"

Finally, if he is so sure that legislation will "do nothing" then why is he worried about anti-gun legislation at all? It will surely not affect him.

By "the right", do you mean republicans? Because if you do, they are leftist. They want to steal money and use it for something different then what you want or what you would call a democrat.

When dealing with criminals, laws do not affect them. How many laws did the school shooter break? So now, since criminals aren't law abiding, you want to take guns away from people who do obey laws. Sounds logical to me, NOT. He also never said guns just appear. Your using fallacy's to discredit what he is saying and putting words in his mouth. And now you want to be so pragmatic and create a difference between "common crime" and mass shootings lol. Talk about distorted logic. Finally, he is worried about gun laws for the same reason I am, the government doesn't have a right to restrict my gun owner ship in the first place. Government is killing innocent people right now and you don't seem to care. Stop trying to force what you believe on other people. If you don't believe in guns, don't own one.

canndo · Dec 21, 2012

TroncoChe said:
By "the right", do you mean republicans? Because if you do, they are leftist. They want to steal money and use it for something different then what you would call leftist.

When dealing with criminals, laws do not affect them. How many laws did the school shooter break? So now, since criminals aren't law abiding, you want to take guns away from people who do obey laws. Sounds logical to me, NOT. He also never said guns just appear. Your using fallacy's to discredit what he is saying and putting words in his mouth. And now you want to be so pragmatic and create a difference between "common crime" and mass shootings lol. Talk about distorted logic. Finally, he is worried about gun laws for the same reason I am, the government doesn't have a right to restrict my gun owner ship in the first place. Government is killing innocent people right now and you don't seem to care. Stop trying to force what you believe on other people. If you don't believe in guns, don't own one.

Start by getting real here, this "only law abiding citizens would be harmed" stuff is crap. Not one in ten gun owners would turn in their weapons were they to be made illegal in the morning. No, he didn't SAY guns just appear but he holds that to be the case. He doesn't see that if laws were enacted regulating the gun manufacturers, then those laws would be obeyed. We happen to be talking not about "violent crime" in the theoretical here but the mass shooting of children. The speaker bounces from the theoretical to the specific - hardly logical.

Actually, the government has established that it has a right to regulate your ownership of firearms, and, as I said, it certainly has the right to regulate the manufacturers of said firearms. Should the law state that 100 round magazines are illegal to manufacture, there will soon be far fewer of them in existence. Which "innocent" people is this government "right now" killing?

I am certain that at least a percentage of those children and their parents "didn't believe in guns", but they were affected anyway.

TroncoChe · Dec 21, 2012

canndo said:
Start by getting real here, this "only law abiding citizens would be harmed" stuff is crap. Not one in ten gun owners would turn in their weapons were they to be made illegal in the morning..

I agree and nor should they, but since there would be a law against guns, men with guns would come and take away guns.

canndo said:
No, he didn't SAY guns just appear but he holds that to be the case. He doesn't see that if laws were enacted regulating the gun manufacturers, then those laws would be obeyed. We happen to be talking not about "violent crime" in the theoretical here but the mass shooting of children. The speaker bounces from the theoretical to the specific - hardly logical.

People like you always talk about how many guns in the US there are, but now you want to act like there are not a lot of guns while you walk around in the public. There are already regulations regulating gun manufacturers, but that isn't enough for you. Hasn't stopped anything. When someone walks into a gun free zone with a black powder musket, you will just want to ban that next.

canndo said:
Actually, the government has established that it has a right to regulate your ownership of firearms, and, as I said, it certainly has the right to regulate the manufacturers of said firearms. Should the law state that 100 round magazines are illegal to manufacture, there will soon be far fewer of them in existence. Which "innocent" people is this government "right now" killing?

And how did the government establish the rights they have over it's citizens? By using guns and force lol. Can't wait to see what they will establish when the public doesn't have guns. If you want to know who the innocent people the government is killing, go down town and check it out, or go to mexico where they sell guns to drug cartels, or the many country's they sell guns to rebel fighters or any of the country's we are fighting in. But you don't want to make that connection because you think government is here to help you.

UncleBuck · Dec 21, 2012

Mindmelted said:
Bong in one hand gun in the other.....

bong in one hole, hand gun in the other hole?

UncleBuck · Dec 21, 2012

desert dude said:
How do you answer Lott's facts? Every mass shooting since 1950, except the Gifford's shooting, happened in a gun free zone. Is that just a coincidence? If it is not just coincidental then perhaps gun free zones are a magnet for crazy people intent on mass murder? It is "logical" to suggest that gun free zones might be a bad idea?

except that it's not a fact, you stupid fucking idiot.

unless, of course, luby's restaurants in texas are gun free zones.

dipshit.

UncleBuck · Dec 21, 2012

there were people with guns at the gabby giffords massacre, how come that didn't stop the massacre?

:dunce:

desert dude · Dec 21, 2012

canndo said:
EVERY one? are you certain of that? I thought we wanted to talk logic - are you claiming causality here?

Yes, every mass shooting since 1950, except one, happened in a gun free zone. That is what John Lott's research shows.

Causality?... Maybe. Correlation?... Most assuredly.

desert dude · Dec 21, 2012

canndo said:
Start by getting real here, this "only law abiding citizens would be harmed" stuff is crap. Not one in ten gun owners would turn in their weapons were they to be made illegal in the morning. No, he didn't SAY guns just appear but he holds that to be the case. He doesn't see that if laws were enacted regulating the gun manufacturers, then those laws would be obeyed. We happen to be talking not about "violent crime" in the theoretical here but the mass shooting of children. The speaker bounces from the theoretical to the specific - hardly logical.

Actually, the government has established that it has a right to regulate your ownership of firearms, and, as I said, it certainly has the right to regulate the manufacturers of said firearms. Should the law state that 100 round magazines are illegal to manufacture, there will soon be far fewer of them in existence. Which "innocent" people is this government "right now" killing?

I am certain that at least a percentage of those children and their parents "didn't believe in guns", but they were affected anyway.

In my world, one is "harmed" when transformed into a criminal, hence "law abiding citizens would indeed be harmed".

Gun free zones...

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads