Jagang said:
How would that have helped VT? What about Cho would allow you to stop him from getting a gun? The students said he was quiet, and an odd fellow. Ok… so what?
Cho had been evaluated mentally more than once, being put under detention orders and being evaluated as presenting “an imminent danger to himself as a result of mental illness” and some new laws (HR 2640) and gun control provisions would call for a more comprehensive database that provides better mental health info to those running background checks for weapon purchases.
That is just one example.
You probably should read up on those types of things before calling people idiots for being pro-gun control, because I’m fairly certain you haven’t based on your post.
Ok, so he would have gotten a gun illegally instead, I’m confused as to how that would have changed anything?
Kno said:
Jagang said:
Really, the stupidest thing about that, is the fact that guns weren’t allowed on campus in the first place. If the students (legally responsible adults in a higher education institution) were allowed the basic right to life (a means to defend themselves against people who want to take it away), then this would NOT have been the biggest school shooting in America. Assuming that Cho would have even TRIED with students able to defend themselves, he would have MAYBE shot two people before he was taken down, and that would have been the end of that. But of course not, we’d rather have laws intended to protect that in reality make it easier to be victims.
So, your answer to school shootings is arm the students? LOL
So instead of 32 people being killed in one sitting we’d have more than that per year, every year, being shot because someone got pissed over a bad grade or caught their girl cheating and just happened to have the strap handy.
WTF is this, the Wild West?
Yeah, because people are always getting stabbed in college due to a student being pissed over a bad grade . And of course, the only people with girlfriends who cheat go to college, so obviously giving college kids a chance to defend themselves would also increase deaths of cheating girlfriends…
The Wild West? LOL. I don’t recall saying the police should be abolished. Anyone who would fire a gun at someone on a whim in front of other people who have guns (meaning he would be dead when he shot) would just as easily injure/kill them in a different way on a whim.
Luckily, history exists for people who can’t understand theoretically the concept of why relaxing gun control laws is a good thing.
Interesting facts taken from Wikipedia (which has its sources listed if you want to check them):
Wikipedia Article (Gun Politics) said:
* New Jersey adopted what sponsors described as “the most stringent gun law” in the nation in 1966; two years later, the murder rate was up 46% and the reported robbery rate had nearly doubled.
* In 1968, Hawaii imposed a series of increasingly harsh measures, and its murder rate tripled from a low of 2.4 per 100,000 in 1968 to 7.2 by 1977.
* In 1976, Washington, D.C., enacted one of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation. Since then, the city’s murder rate has risen 134% while the national murder rate has dropped 2%.
In addition:
* Over 50% of American households own guns, despite government statistics showing the number is approximately 35%, because guns not listed on any government roll were not counted during the gathering of data.[91]
* Evanston, Illinois, a Chicago suburb of 75,000 residents, became the largest town to ban handgun ownership in September 1982 but experienced no decline in violent crime.
* Among the 15 states with the highest homicide rates, 10 have restrictive or very restrictive gun laws.[92]
* Twenty percent of U.S. homicides occur in four cities with just 6% of the population
Jagang said:
Ok, so he would have gotten a gun illegally instead, I’m confused as to how that would have changed anything?
The fact you had no idea Cho was mentally detained twice shows you’re uninformed, but let’s gloss over that fact shall we and pretend buying a Glock 19 and hollow tips on the street is as easy as ordering pizza just because you can Google a few Libertarian talking-point articles. It really isn’t that simple.
Fact is he bought his gun legally, which he wouldn’t have been able to do had his background been clearer. This is fact. What he would have done beyond that point is SPECULATION.
Even some of the original delegates that helped frame the Constitution suggested a right to bear arms EXCEPT “unless for crimes committed, or a real danger of public injury from individuals”...which this case falls under.
Plus 13 of the last 16 notable school shootings have been in Jr. High or High Schools…so unless you’re advocating arming 14 year olds, your point is moot.
Jagang said:
Yeah, because people are always getting stabbed in college due to a student being pissed over a bad grade . And of course, the only people with girlfriends who cheat go to college, so obviously giving college kids a chance to defend themselves would also increase deaths of cheating girlfriends
Do you have any grasp on the psychology of firing a pistol and pulling out a knife and bludgeoning someone to death? I’m not saying simply having a weapon on you that can kill with the flick of a finger will turn anyone into a killer, but the instances of deadly consenquences from otherwise non-violent people due to the ease of use and finality of gunfire is well-documented and really common sense at this point.
Jagang said:The Wild West? LOL. I don’t recall saying the police should be abolished. Anyone who would fire a gun at someone on a whim in front of other people who have guns (meaning he would be dead when he shot) would just as easily injure/kill them in a different way on a whim.
Well, we’d have to repeal all concealed weapons laws…then you’re making a leap in logic that if we arm a classroom full of 20 year old college students with CONCEALED weapons, somehow they’d all become expert marxmen in a panic scenario which is laughable at best. The NYPD has a 17-20% “hit rate” when intentionally firing and they are TRAINED PROS.
What you would have is a campus full of fear, concern and doubt about who does and doesn’t have a gun tucked in their pants and thats surely what we need so 30,000 people can gain higher education…you know, in the off-chance a crazy who bought a gun legally shows up to do damage.
Jagang said:Luckily, history exists for people who can’t understand theoretically the concept of why relaxing gun control laws is a good thing.
Interesting facts taken from Wikipedia (which has its sources listed if you want to check them):
But then again, those MUST have just been flukes
Again, cherry-picking facts doesn’t make a point as;
A: all of these examples don’t discuss the PREVIOUS incline in violence that caused the laws to be enacted in the first place
B: nobody expects violent crime to stop or even fall neccesarily due to these laws, but hopefully it stops it from growing as exponentially as it could given no laws being in place
C: there is no factual evidence that when people are told they cannot have guns, they get angry and go shoot MORE people with illegal weapons…so how are you going to explain the increase in violence then? Who is to say DC’s murder rate wouldn’t have risen 256% had stricter laws not been introduced? Again, speculation.
These laws were enacted because people were GETTING VIOLENT with guns in those areas…it didn’t simply start AFTER THE LAWS BEGAN…“Oh they got gun laws now? Lets go shoot some motherfuckers!”...but you’re cherry-picking facts off of Wikipedia of all places for a chicken vs. egg scenario that you cannot prove.
People are getting MORE VIOLENT in general, and it isn’t BECAUSE of gun laws. The 2nd Amendment was put in place so the people were not at the mercy of a rogue government or oppressive force as we as freemen could keep a “well regulated militia”, ie: any person living in this country was expected to take up arms to defend it whereas now times have changed. You aren’t going to be asked to grab your musket and kill Redcoats, and if the day DOES come we as people need to defend our country in a hand-to-hand manner, I’m pretty sure some mentally unstable people, kids and felons not owning their own weapons isn’t going to cause us to lose…although I’m sure all these damn gun laws will get all the people in crime-ridden areas ITCHIN’ to shoot someone…cus, you know, apparently thats what gun laws do.
Fuck it I give up. Facts don’t do anything, continue to hold your narrow views. I just can’t understand why people abandon reason so easily. Rappers are extremely smart, and since the majority of them agree with your positions, I guess they must be correct.
Jagang said:Fuck it I give up. Facts don’t do anything, continue to hold your narrow views. I just can’t understand why people abandon reason so easily.
Bosoxfanpw7 said:
Are you using Fox News’ definition of facts?
i wouldnt really dispute jagang’s facts, as they seem reasonable. but most of them seem to be merely correlations, which dont prove anything. for example, to borrow from Freakonimics, upswings in crime usually coincide with an increase in police. what is going on here? its not that police are responsible for crime, its that the number of police are responding to the increase om crime.
so it would be reasonable to think that that stricter gun laws would tend to be enacted during upswings in violent crime. this doesnt mean that the gun laws are responsible for the increase in violent crime, though, simply that stricter gun laws arent very effective (in the short term) at decreasing crime.
Bosoxfanpw7 said:
Are you using Fox News’ definition of facts?
i wouldnt really dispute jagang’s facts, as they seem reasonable. but most of them seem to be merely correlations, which dont prove anything. for example, to borrow from Freakonimics, upswings in crime usually coincide with an increase in police. what is going on here? its not that police are responsible for crime, its that the number of police are responding to the increase om crime.
so it would be reasonable to think that that stricter gun laws would tend to be enacted during upswings in violent crime. this doesnt mean that the gun laws are responsible for the increase in violent crime, though, simply that stricter gun laws arent very effective (in the short term) at decreasing crime.
Increased police presence coincide with increased crime rates because more crime gets reported because police are there to witness, respond to and document it. more to come on this…..
It has since been edited by the nerds who troll Wikipedia fighting edit-saavy evildoers, but, for the record:
HEY, don’t bring wikipedia’s reputability into this! They got some damn good info, while most vandalism and misinformation gets cleaned up within minutes.
If owning a gun prevents gun related crime, then why are there so many dead drug dealers, gang members, law enforcement officers, and upstanding gun owners???
Jagang said:Fuck it I give up. Facts don’t do anything, continue to hold your narrow views. I just can’t understand why people abandon reason so easily. Rappers are extremely smart, and since the majority of them agree with your positions, I guess they must be correct.
Formal Fallacy #1: Correlation does not imply causation (as pointed out by del preston).
Formal Fallacy #2: Ad hominem.
Your facts don’t prove anything, Kno just spanked you in the debate.
So, your answer to school shootings is arm the students? LOL
So instead of 32 people being killed in one sitting we’d have more than that per year, every year, being shot because someone got pissed over a bad grade or caught their girl cheating and just happened to have the strap handy.
WTF is this, the Wild West?
LMAO!!! That made me laugh so hard hahahahahahahahaha!
Wow. Saw the debates last night. Can someone say Political hit job?
George Stephenopolis is one of the Clintons’ running buddies, how in the fuck did he get to moderate this??? This was disgusting!!
He probably is, look at how ****ing successful he’s been. He saw an opportunity and sure as hell exploited it, talent and creativity be damned.
Theres a difference between someone like 50 Cent who can build an marketing empire and soulja boy who gets pimped out to make money for the big guns. Soulja boy is not smart
CNN.com readers react to Rev. Wright
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
Hundreds of CNN.com readers responded to the Rev. Wright’s statements
Readers commented on CNN.com stories, sent videos to iReport.com
What do you think? Send us your video comments
(CNN)—The Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s speeches to the NAACP and the National Press Club have inspired a passionate debate between CNN.com readers.
Readers posted hundreds of comments in response to CNN.com’s coverage of Wright, and many more responded to a post on the AC 360
Wow. What does Obama have to do to get for this Rev Wright shit to go away? Kill the man with his bare hands?? Burn his house down on national TV? He said he’s done with the brotha, what else can he do??
Jagang said on Apr 06, 2008:
artistKno said on Apr 06, 2008:
QN5_Fan said on Apr 06, 2008:
Bosoxfanpw7 said on Apr 06, 2008:
Dan Rather said on Apr 06, 2008:
Jagang said on Apr 06, 2008:
worm9103 said on Apr 06, 2008:
Bosoxfanpw7 said on Apr 06, 2008:
del preston said on Apr 06, 2008:
ill_spec said on Apr 06, 2008:
Inferno said on Apr 06, 2008:
ill_spec said on Apr 06, 2008:
I[AM]SMRT said on Apr 07, 2008:
Gregory Grammar said on Apr 08, 2008:
The Trashman said on Apr 08, 2008:
Bosoxfanpw7 said on Apr 08, 2008:
Inferno said on Apr 08, 2008:
ill_spec said on Apr 17, 2008:
Bosoxfanpw7 said on Apr 17, 2008:
IronGrrl said on Apr 23, 2008:
artistKno said on Apr 27, 2008:
Bosoxfanpw7 said on Apr 28, 2008:
see jane rhyme said on Apr 28, 2008:
Bosoxfanpw7 said on Apr 28, 2008:
deStructuralized said on Apr 28, 2008:
Bosoxfanpw7 said on Apr 29, 2008:
Bosoxfanpw7 said on Apr 29, 2008:
del preston said on Apr 29, 2008:
ill_spec said on Apr 29, 2008:
del preston said on Apr 29, 2008: