• 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!

Texas poised to pass bill allowing guns on campus

American said:
Looks like you can't explain what you wrote.
Click to expand...

I think I have several times, your joke aside. A weapon is nothing more than a tool. Many people use all kinds of tools improperly, and a gun is no different.
 
Boo Radley said:
Any unbiased person reading. ;)
Click to expand...


Really? like you? :lamo



You have seen the numbers right? A fair number of people do accidently shoot themselves, and commit suicde, together showing a good number hurting themselves with guns. So, you're not really thinking your comment through at all.
Click to expand...


I am not rehashing your hoplophobia again. It has been shown that more people hurt themselves with other items. It's an inconvienent truth for you, so you ignore it.


Next time a school gets shot up, you be proud you stand against folks being able to defend themselves while offering nothing to protect them. You serve your school well.


boring. :2wave:
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
there are over 40 million guns right now in the US. you would need to show that you would be increasing the odds, when it is clear, legally armed populaces show no such rise as you claim.
Click to expand...

Dude, you're barking up the wrong tree. I've wanted that since like page 3 or something. Never got it. I keep being told it's a risk, but that risk is never quantified. Never once has it been told to me just how much above baseline my risks of injury and death are with students on my campus capable for carrying guns. It's insignificant, and that's what he's rallying against. Keeps saying "risk", but the truth is that the actual numbers are insignificant; the probabilities are all very low. So there is no real increase in risk to me. If there's not a real increase in risk, I don't see how one can logically argue for government force to be used against the free exercise of rights. It's baffling. But that's what it is in the end; baffling.

The government is restricted, not the People. The People have the right to keep and bear arms, if the government wants to encroach upon this; it must deliver proof (and even then it may not even matter). That's the end all be all of this topic. Restriction of rights cannot be based on personal feelings or opinions. They must be based on measureable fact.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
I am not rehashing your hoplophobia again. It has been shown that more people hurt themselves with other items. It's an inconvienent truth for you, so you ignore it.


Next time a school gets shot up, you be proud you stand against folks being able to defend themselves while offering nothing to protect them. You serve your school well.


boring. :2wave:
Click to expand...

Again, you miss the point. More or less by anything else means nothing to what I'm saying. You dispute me in no way by saying anything else is more or a risk.
 
Boo Radley said:
You have seen the numbers right? A fair number of people do accidently shoot themselves, and commit suicde, together showing a good number hurting themselves with guns. So, you're not really thinking your comment through at all.
Click to expand...

I don't believe you should add suicides into your stats. That's purposeful. Accidental, sure (the number still isn't up there with gravity); suicide no. That's a person's choice.
 
Ikari said:
Dude, you're barking up the wrong tree. I've wanted that since like page 3 or something. Never got it. I keep being told it's a risk, but that risk is never quantified. Never once has it been told to me just how much above baseline my risks of injury and death are with students on my campus capable for carrying guns. It's insignificant, and that's what he's rallying against. Keeps saying "risk", but the truth is that the actual numbers are insignificant; the probabilities are all very low. So there is no real increase in risk to me. If there's not a real increase in risk, I don't see how one can logically argue for government force to be used against the free exercise of rights. It's baffling. But that's what it is in the end; baffling.

The government is restricted, not the People. The People have the right to keep and bear arms, if the government wants to encroach upon this; it must deliver proof (and even then it may not even matter). That's the end all be all of this topic. Restriction of rights cannot be based on personal feelings or opinions. They must be based on measureable fact.
Click to expand...




we've shown his so many charts and statistics it's clear, he has no desire to debate, but instead is stuck in his ignorance, and prefers it that way.... Nothing anyone can do can convince Boo that his ramblings are anything but the Gospel itself. I hate getting sucked into his boring schtik.
 
Ikari said:
Dude, you're barking up the wrong tree. I've wanted that since like page 3 or something. Never got it. I keep being told it's a risk, but that risk is never quantified. Never once has it been told to me just how much above baseline my risks of injury and death are with students on my campus capable for carrying guns. It's insignificant, and that's what he's rallying against. Keeps saying "risk", but the truth is that the actual numbers are insignificant; the probabilities are all very low. So there is no real increase in risk to me. If there's not a real increase in risk, I don't see how one can logically argue for government force to be used against the free exercise of rights. It's baffling. But that's what it is in the end; baffling.

The government is restricted, not the People. The People have the right to keep and bear arms, if the government wants to encroach upon this; it must deliver proof (and even then it may not even matter). That's the end all be all of this topic. Restriction of rights cannot be based on personal feelings or opinions. They must be based on measureable fact.
Click to expand...

It's a simple logic problem. If you have only two cars on the road, there will be less accidents than if there are thousands, millions. If there are no guns on campus, there will be less accidents than if there are several, 100's, thousands. No one needs any reseach to know that. It's simple logic.
 
Boo Radley said:
Again, you miss the point. More or less by anything else means nothing to what I'm saying. You dispute me in no way by saying anything else is more or a risk.
Click to expand...



images



The boo radley shuffle.....
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
we've shown his so many charts and statistics it's clear, he has no desire to debate, but instead is stuck in his ignorance, and prefers it that way.... Nothing anyone can do can convince Boo that his ramblings are anything but the Gospel itself. I hate getting sucked into his boring schtik.
Click to expand...

Showing things that don't address what I'm saying has no meaning.
 
REV, stop missing the point.....damnit!!! :lol:
 
Boo Radley said:
Well, professionals in the field have, as they ahve stated that armed students would likely make things worse and not save anyone.
Click to expand...

Probably won't save anybody. But definitely doesn't make anything worse. And that's from measurement, not supposition like all you're assertions have been.
 
Boo Radley said:
It's a simple logic problem. If you have only two cars on the road, there will be less accidents than if there are thousands, millions. If there are no guns on campus, there will be less accidents than if there are several, 100's, thousands. No one needs any reseach to know that. It's simple logic.
Click to expand...



please remove all cars then from all campuses... as they are far more dangerous.


And the boo radley shuffle in 3-2-1........
 
Boo Radley said:
It's a simple logic problem. If you have only two cars on the road, there will be less accidents than if there are thousands, millions. If there are no guns on campus, there will be less accidents than if there are several, 100's, thousands. No one needs any reseach to know that. It's simple logic.
Click to expand...

Ok, but I'd like a number. If there are several 100's thousands (there won't be, that's one of your broken assumptions), how much more is the risk? What's my chance? If it's not significant, I'd much rather allow the exercise of the right. So what are we talking about here?
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
please remove all cars then from all campuses... as they are far more dangerous.


And the boo radley shuffle in 3-2-1........
Click to expand...

Removing cars from University would do ton's more to improve overall safety than banning guns! Most everyone drives a car, not everyone carries a gun (this is one of the places where Boo is failing in his assumptions). Hell one of my good friends, his mom is in a coma in the hospital because some jackass student at Penn State was late for a study meeting and flying through campus. She was crossing the street, he was flying around cars stopped at a stop sign, BAM! Now she's been in a coma for a few months, he ****ing fled back to India; that rich son of a bitch. And THAT is the highest risk to me, right there. Not a gun, not some small percentage of people on campus carrying a gun. Cars and stupid drivers, that's my main concern; that's my main probability of injury/death.
 
Boo Radley said:
It's a simple logic problem. If you have only two cars on the road, there will be less accidents than if there are thousands, millions. If there are no guns on campus, there will be less accidents than if there are several, 100's, thousands. No one needs any reseach to know that. It's simple logic.
Click to expand...

There are around 270 million guns in the US. Can you even make a percentage of how many of those guns have caused suicides,murders,serious injury or accidents? What would that be if you did a percentage?A percentage sign,period, a few dozen to a hundred zeros and a number?

Its like saying we should ban or severely restrict pencils because a few people were stabbed by pencils last year or we should ban or severely restrict glass bottles because a handful of people decided to throw Molotov cocktails. I think someone may have killed someone with a plastic yard flamingo lets ban or severely restrict those.


U.S. most armed country with 90 guns per 100 people | Reuters
U.S. citizens own 270 million of the world's 875 million known firearms, according to the Small Arms Survey 2007 by the Geneva-based Graduate Institute of International Studies.
 
Last edited:
Ikari said:
Probably won't save anybody. But definitely doesn't make anything worse. And that's from measurement, not supposition like all you're assertions have been.
Click to expand...

There is no measurement. Remember, ona alrge scale, guns have not been on campus. So we have no measurments to look at. Instead we have to do something radical, . . . think. ;)
 
Ikari said:
Removing cars from University would do ton's more to improve overall safety than banning guns! Most everyone drives a car, not everyone carries a gun (this is one of the places where Boo is failing in his assumptions). Hell one of my good friends, his mom is in a coma in the hospital because some jackass student at Penn State was late for a study meeting and flying through campus. She was crossing the street, he was flying around cars stopped at a stop sign, BAM! Now she's been in a coma for a few months, he ****ing fled back to India; that rich son of a bitch. And THAT is the highest risk to me, right there. Not a gun, not some small percentage of people on campus carrying a gun. Cars and stupid drivers, that's my main concern; that's my main probability of injury/death.
Click to expand...

They might. But cars have an actual purpose, and might well be argued a necessary risk as opposed to a needless risk.
 
jamesrage said:
There are around 270 million guns in the US. Can you even make a percentage of how many of those guns have caused suicides,murders,serious injury or accidents? What would that be if you did a percentage?A percentage sign,period, a few dozen to a hundred zeros and a number?

Its like saying we should ban or severely restrict pencils because a few people were stabbed by pencils last year or we should ban or severely restrict glass bottles because a handful of people decided to throw Molotov cocktails. I think someone may have killed someone with a plastic yard flamingo lets ban or severely restrict those.


U.S. most armed country with 90 guns per 100 people | Reuters
U.S. citizens own 270 million of the world's 875 million known firearms, according to the Small Arms Survey 2007 by the Geneva-based Graduate Institute of International Studies.
Click to expand...

I've given those numbers already. Hint, it wasn't zero. ;)
 
Boo Radley said:
They might. But cars have an actual purpose, and might well be argued a necessary risk as opposed to a needless risk.
Click to expand...

So you're saying cars serve a purpose in the class room?
 
Jerry said:
So you're saying cars serve a purpose in the class room?
Click to expand...

No. And we don't bring one in the classroom. However, they do serve a purpose in getting to the school and home again. Guns serve no purpose on the college campus.
 
Boo Radley said:
I've given those numbers already. Hint, it wasn't zero. ;)
Click to expand...

Then please enlighten me. Out of the 270 million guns that Americans own, how many of those a year were involved in a murder, accidental shooting,suicides or serious injury? What is the percentage?
 
Boo Radley said:
No. And we don't bring one in the classroom. However, they do serve a purpose in getting to the school and home again. Guns serve no purpose on the college campus.
Click to expand...

That is false.Guns are used for self defense.
 
Boo Radley said:
No. And we don't bring one in the classroom.
Click to expand...

What if I rode a skateboard everyday? When I take my seat, can't I just put it out of the way?

Boo Radley said:
However, they do serve a purpose in getting to the school and home again.
Click to expand...

Sure, absolutely. The car's purpose is for something outside of the classroom, but we need to bring it with us in order for it to be available when we're not in the classroom.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom