• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Horrifying Details Emerge in Hearing on Virginia Tech Murder

You don't understand. There are gun rights people(I am one), gun users, and gun nuts.
 
Redress said:
You don't understand. There are gun rights people(I am one), gun users, and gun nuts.
Click to expand...


Well, as best I can understand what you're saying, you seem to classify anyone with a carry permit and the willingness to act in defense of others, a "gun nut". If it is not so, then please clarify.

G.
 
Government-enforced helplessness (aka "gun control") kills. Big time. :x
 
Let me take a wild guess and assume that RinNYC, Redress and TNE would all have been "okay with it", if an armed campus security officer had walked in, seen what was going on, taken careful aim, and shot the perp in the act, saving the victim?

If so, explain how this differs from a lawfully armed citizen doing the same thing?

Don't say training and experience. I've been a cop; I was not impressed with most cop's gun skills.


G.
 
RightinNYC said:
lol, no. I dismissed it because it's ****ty data that doesn't prove anything. It's like comparing the number of people who go bankrupt in NY to the number of people who miss a credit card payment in CA and using that to draw conclusions about which state has more bankruptcies.



My bad, I forgot that two individual incidents on one side automatically outweigh hypothetical information about a policy that doesn't actually exist, despite the total lack of evidence that said hypothetical policy would have actually impacted either event.
Click to expand...


Spin it any way you want bud. I've supported my points with facts, and you haven't.

G.
 
Goshin said:
Well, as best I can understand what you're saying, you seem to classify anyone with a carry permit and the willingness to act in defense of others, a "gun nut". If it is not so, then please clarify.

G.
Click to expand...

No, not a willingness, an eagerness.
 
Goshin said:
Let me take a wild guess and assume that RinNYC, Redress and TNE would all have been "okay with it", if an armed campus security officer had walked in, seen what was going on, taken careful aim, and shot the perp in the act, saving the victim?

If so, explain how this differs from a lawfully armed citizen doing the same thing?

Don't say training and experience. I've been a cop; I was not impressed with most cop's gun skills.


G.
Click to expand...

You're missing the point by miles now.

I would have been 100% okay with it if an armed citizen had walked in, seen what was going on, taken careful aim, and shot the perp in the act, saving the victim. However, I think it's logical to conclude that a policy allowing that to happen in that case would also result in a number of excess deaths in other situations that would be larger than the one death prevented here.

Nobody is worried about experience and trained private citizens doing stupid ****. What we're concerned about is your average retard redneck 19 year old college kid who drinks a 30-rack of natty ice on most tuesday mornings doing stupid ****.
 
Okay, I've taken a deep breath and calmed down a bit.

I apologize if I bit anyone's head off.


This is a subject I am passionate about. As a former LE officer, violent crime is a huge reality to me; the inability of the police to intervene very often, ditto; therefore my position follows obviously from my experiences and viewpoint.

My own experiences with lawfully armed citizens have been very positive for the most part. Many of the private citizens I've known had more and better training and skills than many cops I've known.

I see armed citizens as a positive, as a "second chance" for people like this poor girl to maybe survive a horrific assault by an evil scumbag.

I understand that some don't agree with me. I think that if you examined the facts calmly and without bias, and if you understood the quality of many armed citizens, I at least hope you might change your mind.

I've simply known too many people who died for lack of someone to defend them, or the means to defend their self, and this troubles me always.

G.
 
Redress said:
No, not a willingness, an eagerness.
Click to expand...


Redress, as I said, self-defense and defense of others is a subject I am passionate about, because of my life experiences.

If I came across as eager to be involved in such a situation, where I might have to shoot some perp, then I expressed myself poorly.

I have seen enough crap to last me a lifetime, believe me. If I live out my days and never find myself in a situation where I have to pull a gun again, that will suit me very well.

It is the attitude that lawfully armed citizens, with permits and training, are more of a danger to innocents than crazy scumbags like this decapitator, that causes me to get a bit upset. I've posted information that is available to anyone who looks for it, demonstrating that accidental gun deaths are a small risk, and defensive gun uses (even by the most conservative, government-sponsored studies) are far more common than accidental deaths... well the continued resistance to what seems to me to be self-evident is baffling.

States that have instituted easy-to-get "shall issue" concealed carry permits have experienced a decline in violent crime, and typically no increase in accidental shootings, despite dramatically increasing the number of lawfully concealed weapons in public places.

In the face of this evidence, can you explain your position to me as something other than just opinion or gut-feelings?

G.
 
RightinNYC said:
You're missing the point by miles now.

I would have been 100% okay with it if an armed citizen had walked in, seen what was going on, taken careful aim, and shot the perp in the act, saving the victim. However, I think it's logical to conclude that a policy allowing that to happen in that case would also result in a number of excess deaths in other situations that would be larger than the one death prevented here.

Nobody is worried about experience and trained private citizens doing stupid ****. What we're concerned about is your average retard redneck 19 year old college kid who drinks a 30-rack of natty ice on most tuesday mornings doing stupid ****.
Click to expand...

To my knowlege most states do not allow someone under 21 to have a carry permit. It is so in my state, and I believe in most.

Most states either don't allow carrying into a bar, or have laws against carrying while intoxicated.

From my research on the subject, lawful permit holders have an excellent record of obeying the law, including such restrictions as mentioned. The assumption that more people carrying guns lawfully, results in more accidental deaths, simply isn't supported by available statistics.

Regrettably, the same cannot be said of criminals and crazies, who ignore existing gun laws with depressing regularly and slaughter large numbers of innocents in no-gun-zones.


G.
 
Last edited:
Goshin said:
States that have instituted easy-to-get "shall issue" concealed carry permits have experienced a decline in violent crime, and typically no increase in accidental shootings, despite dramatically increasing the number of lawfully concealed weapons in public places.

In the face of this evidence, can you explain your position to me as something other than just opinion or gut-feelings?

G.
Click to expand...

Again, this is a completely different issue. I am a proponent of shall-issue laws. I think it's idiotic that I can't own a handgun in NYC for defense. However, I believe that even though possession of guns by trained and responsible citizens may be a net positive in the majority of scenarios, there are a few particular settings where it may not be. I think that college campuses are one of those few places, due to their peculiar characteristics (namely the fact that they're populated by a whole bunch of young kids getting ****ed up and doing insanely stupid **** 24/7).

Let me turn the question back on you - do you believe that there are no places at all where gun possession should be banned? Courthouses? Congress? Sporting events?
 
Goshin said:
Redress, as I said, self-defense and defense of others is a subject I am passionate about, because of my life experiences.

If I came across as eager to be involved in such a situation, where I might have to shoot some perp, then I expressed myself poorly.

I have seen enough crap to last me a lifetime, believe me. If I live out my days and never find myself in a situation where I have to pull a gun again, that will suit me very well.

It is the attitude that lawfully armed citizens, with permits and training, are more of a danger to innocents than crazy scumbags like this decapitator, that causes me to get a bit upset. I've posted information that is available to anyone who looks for it, demonstrating that accidental gun deaths are a small risk, and defensive gun uses (even by the most conservative, government-sponsored studies) are far more common than accidental deaths... well the continued resistance to what seems to me to be self-evident is baffling.

States that have instituted easy-to-get "shall issue" concealed carry permits have experienced a decline in violent crime, and typically no increase in accidental shootings, despite dramatically increasing the number of lawfully concealed weapons in public places.

In the face of this evidence, can you explain your position to me as something other than just opinion or gut-feelings?

G.
Click to expand...

Goshin;

I'm a pretty liberal fella, so I feel REALLY guilty saying this, but I am a fan of your posts. So please stop being nice and making good points so I can hate you!

Sincerely,

- Me
 
Goshin said:
To my knowlege most states do not allow someone under 21 to have a carry permit. It is so in my state, and I believe in most.


Most states either don't allow carrying into a bar, or have laws against carrying while intoxicated.
Click to expand...

Wait - so you think that bans on gun possession are always terrible ideas because they don't allow people to protect themselves in dangerous situations, but are okay with laws that ban gun possession in bars, a place where there are ****tons of dangerous situations?

Seems like the only difference between your position and mine is the list of places we'd ban them.

Regrettably, the same cannot be said of criminals and crazies, who ignore existing gun laws with depressing regularly and slaughter large numbers of innocents in no-gun-zones.
Click to expand...

But it's okay if they die in a bar?
 
RightinNYC said:
Again, this is a completely different issue. I am a proponent of shall-issue laws. I think it's idiotic that I can't own a handgun in NYC for defense. However, I believe that even though possession of guns by trained and responsible citizens may be a net positive in the majority of scenarios, there are a few particular settings where it may not be. I think that college campuses are one of those few places, due to their peculiar characteristics (namely the fact that they're populated by a whole bunch of young kids getting ****ed up and doing insanely stupid **** 24/7).

Let me turn the question back on you - do you believe that there are no places at all where gun possession should be banned? Courthouses? Congress? Sporting events?
Click to expand...


Ah; okay, I see where you stand on this better now. Thank you for clarifying your position.

Of course I agree there are places where carrying must be banned. Inside the jailhouse being one obvious one! :rofl

Courthouses...wouldn't do to have the victim's family armed in the same room as the accused.

Congress? Hm. Considering how a lot of people feel about certain politicians, I could understand that one too.

Where we differ, I suppose, is in what places should have such bans, or under what set of principles we determine whether X location should be no-guns or not. Based on my viewpoint of the armed citizenry, it is my opinion that no-gun-zones should only be created where there are compelling and overriding reasons why they must be no-carry...such as visitors at the jailhouse... and that otherwise places should be open to lawful carry.

Such places that are designated as no-carry really ought to have a much higher level of security than is typical on college campuses. Let's face it, there's a lot of crime on campuses (campi?) than never makes the news. Some colleges are practically happy-hunting grounds for rapists. IF they're going to be no-lawful-carry zones, then they need WAY more security. I say this as a father too. ;)

OK then?



Addendum:


RightinNYC said:
Wait - so you think that bans on gun possession are always terrible ideas because they don't allow people to protect themselves in dangerous situations, but are okay with laws that ban gun possession in bars, a place where there are ****tons of dangerous situations?

Seems like the only difference between your position and mine is the list of places we'd ban them.



But it's okay if they die in a bar?
Click to expand...

No, I'm actually not okay with that law, and I'm working with a grassroots organization to change it in my state. I'd prefer to see a law against carrying while intoxicated, just as we have with driving vehicles.




G.
 
Goshin said:
Ah; okay, I see where you stand on this better now. Thank you for clarifying your position.

Of course I agree there are places where carrying must be banned. Inside the jailhouse being one obvious one! :rofl

Courthouses...wouldn't do to have the victim's family armed in the same room as the accused.

Congress? Hm. Considering how a lot of people feel about certain politicians, I could understand that one too.

Where we differ, I suppose, is in what places should have such bans, or under what set of principles we determine whether X location should be no-guns or not. Based on my viewpoint of the armed citizenry, it is my opinion that no-gun-zones should only be created where there are compelling and overriding reasons why they must be no-carry...such as visitors at the jailhouse... and that otherwise places should be open to lawful carry.

Such places that are designated as no-carry really ought to have a much higher level of security than is typical on college campuses. Let's face it, there's a lot of crime on campuses (campi?) than never makes the news. Some colleges are practically happy-hunting grounds for rapists. IF they're going to be no-lawful-carry zones, then they need WAY more security. I say this as a father too. ;)

OK then?



Addendum:




No, I'm actually not okay with that law, and I'm working with a grassroots organization to change it in my state. I'd prefer to see a law against carrying while intoxicated, just as we have with driving vehicles.




G.
Click to expand...

See, this is where we differ. I think that the right to bear arms is fine and all, but there are places it is not appropriate. School being one of those places, for any number of reasons, but the main one is that kids of the age to be attending school are not all that bright about some things. Guns in school would cause alot more problems than they could ever hope to solve.

If there are crime problems at schools, how about giving a bunch of drunk/stoned partiers guns, we actually hire more security? Guns in the hands of civilians is rarely a realistic solution to a problem.
 
Lot's of sheep with no sheepdog - the wolf attacks.

Gun or no gun, I wish I had been there; I would have stopped that f*ck.
 
Redress said:
See, this is where we differ. I think that the right to bear arms is fine and all, but there are places it is not appropriate. School being one of those places, for any number of reasons, but the main one is that kids of the age to be attending school are not all that bright about some things. Guns in school would cause alot more problems than they could ever hope to solve.

If there are crime problems at schools, how about giving a bunch of drunk/stoned partiers guns, we actually hire more security? Guns in the hands of civilians is rarely a realistic solution to a problem.
Click to expand...


Obviously I disagree with your final statment strongly.

I'm not in favor of handing out pistols to teenage party animals. (Typically you have to be 21 to get a carry permit anyway.) However, teenage party animals are not the only denizens of universities. There are older students such as grad students and people who have finished a tour in the military, going to college on GI benefits. There are professors, administrators and maintenance men.

I could bring up the fact that we're talking about college students who are theoretically adults here, and the same age as most soldiers...but the extended adolescence that so many adult "kids" enjoy these days is an issue for a different thread.

IF colleges are going to be citizen-disarmament zones, a point I do not concede but will discuss, then yes they should have FAR more serious security than any presently do.

There's that little problem of money. Most places have token security, that is more about avoiding liability than actually preventing crime. Serious security that would actually be effective would cost a heck of a lot of money.... tuition would be far more expensive. Fewer people could afford to attend "Security U".

Allowing responsible adults with carry permits in should have no monetary cost, and according to the studies I've cited about accidental shootings that "cost" is highly improbable also. Again, I'm not talking about arming 19yo potheads, but responsible adults over 21, willing to go through the training and certification to obtain a permit.

G.
 
Last edited:
Ethereal said:
Lot's of sheep with no sheepdog - the wolf attacks.

Gun or no gun, I wish I had been there; I would have stopped that f*ck.
Click to expand...

I doubt that sheepdogs would have deterred this guy from anything. He's obviously insane.
 
RightinNYC said:
I doubt that sheepdogs would have deterred this guy from anything. He's obviously insane.
Click to expand...

I've dealt with violently insane people before. A sufficiently forceful blow to the brainpan puts them down just like anybody else.

Sheepdogs in this context would refer to those who would defend others, no matter whether they were cops, security or private citizens. The distinguishing characteristic of the human "sheepdog" is that he ain't just barking, he'll bite too. :rofl
 
RightinNYC said:
I doubt that sheepdogs would have deterred this guy from anything. He's obviously insane.
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about deterence. I'm talking about stopping him in the act. These people acted like sheep; I would have done something. That's the difference between the sheep and the sheepdogs.
 
Goshin said:
Obviously I disagree with your final statment strongly.

I'm not in favor of handing out pistols to teenage party animals. (Typically you have to be 21 to get a carry permit anyway.) However, teenage party animals are not the only denizens of universities. There are older students such as grad students and people who have finished a tour in the military, going to college on GI benefits. There are professors, administrators and maintenance men.

I could bring up the fact that we're talking about college students who are theoretically adults here, and the same age as most soldiers...but the extended adolescence that so many adult "kids" enjoy these days is an issue for a different thread.

IF colleges are going to be citizen-disarmament zones, a point I do not concede but will discuss, then yes they should have FAR more serious security than any presently do.

There's that little problem of money. Most places have token security, that is more about avoiding liability than actually preventing crime. Serious security that would actually be effective would cost a heck of a lot of money.... tuition would be far more expensive. Fewer people could afford to attend "Security U".

Allowing responsible adults with carry permits in should have no monetary cost, and according to the studies I've cited about accidental shootings that "cost" is highly improbable also. Again, I'm not talking about arming 19yo potheads, but responsible adults over 21, willing to go through the training and certification to obtain a permit.

G.
Click to expand...

Goshin, 21 is, if anything, worse than 19. Those are the kids running to the package store for the 19 year olds. You also have not shown any real likelihood that these kids would reduce the number of school murders, or rapes, or anything.

What I find sad is when a tragedy like this happens, there are always some gun nuts trying to use it to promote the idea that somehow guns would protect people from random murderers. The reality is that while sad, these on campus murders are incredibly rare. Random bad things happen to people, but we should not make policy based on them
 
Redress said:
Goshin, 21 is, if anything, worse than 19. Those are the kids running to the package store for the 19 year olds. You also have not shown any real likelihood that these kids would reduce the number of school murders, or rapes, or anything.

What I find sad is when a tragedy like this happens, there are always some gun nuts trying to use it to promote the idea that somehow guns would protect people from random murderers. The reality is that while sad, these on campus murders are incredibly rare. Random bad things happen to people, but we should not make policy based on them
Click to expand...

I am sorry you have such a low opinion of people who are theoretically responsible adults. If indeed none of them can be trusted to act responsibly, as you imply, why do we allow them to buy alcohol or drive cars? Neither is essential to college life, and the former actually an impediment. Perhaps we should raise drinking age to 25 and ban all alcohol and cars on college campus. Based on my last visit to a university, I think walking amongst all the teenage drivers was far more dangerous than anything else I'd done that week.

It's a serious question. If no 21 yr old can be trusted with a gun because they are so irresponsible with alcohol, why do we allow them to buy booze?? Why do we let them own and drive cars, which are involved in more annual deaths than guns??

Consistency? Lacking I think, with all due respect.

G.

Edited to add:

What I find sad is when a tragedy like this happens, there are always some gun nuts trying to use it to promote the idea that somehow guns would protect people from random murderers.
Click to expand...

I wonder if you would do me the courtesy of assuming I actually wish people to be safer, even if our methodologies differ, and if you would refrain from implying I am a "gun nut" simply because we disagree. I would appreciate it.
 
Last edited:
Goshin said:
I am sorry you have such a low opinion of people who are theoretically responsible adults. If indeed none of them can be trusted to act responsibly, as you imply, why do we allow them to buy alcohol or drive cars? Neither is essential to college life, and the former actually an impediment. Perhaps we should raise drinking age to 25 and ban all alcohol and cars on college campus. Based on my last visit to a university, I think walking amongst all the teenage drivers was far more dangerous than anything else I'd done that week.

It's a serious question. If no 21 yr old can be trusted with a gun because they are so irresponsible with alcohol, why do we allow them to buy booze?? Why do we let them own and drive cars, which are involved in more annual deaths than guns??

Consistency? Lacking I think, with all due respect.

G.

Edited to add:



I wonder if you would do me the courtesy of assuming I actually wish people to be safer, even if our methodologies differ, and if you would refrain from implying I am a "gun nut" simply because we disagree. I would appreciate it.
Click to expand...

Goshin, I am not implying no 21 year old is responsible. I think that enough are that if you put large numbers of them in a small area(Michigan State near where I live has over 50 k students), and let them carry concealed weapons, bad things will result. The problem would outweigh the benefit, I suspect by an order of magnitude. It only takes one or 2, and with as many as you have at a college campus, trouble would be all too likely.

As I mentioned, I live near Michigan State. Here is a link to an article for you to read: The State News: Cedar Fest a mess. This was an attempt to revive a longstanding MSU traditional party that has resulted in arrests, fires, and police in riot gear most every year for as long as I can remember. A fairly large portion of the people at these parties are over 21.
 
Redress, while I see the point you are trying to make, I think you're not taking all factors into account.

One would be that stats indicate permit holders are far more law abiding than the average person. There are a number of reasons for this: you have to have a very clean record to get a permit at all, and you have to keep it very clean if you want to keep your permit. The kind of people who care enough to jump through the hoops and get a permit are probably not going to be the stereotypical party animals.

Again I ask why this behavior is tolerated on college campii? Why is alcohol allowed if it causes such problems? If you wish to ban guns from campus on the unproven assumption that it would create problems, why not ban alcohol or raise the drinking age to 25 or 30 when booze is proven to be a huge college problem??


--- I didn't realize how late it was. I have got to go to bed, sorry.
More debateage tomorrow. :rofl


G.
 
At the very least, I agree with Goshin regarding the paralysis and cowardess of those present. I would never have allowed this girl to be decapitated before my very eyes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom