Page 10 of 18 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 178

Thread: Stabbing injures several on Lone Star College Cy-Fair campus

  1. #91
    He's the most tip top
    Top Cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:07 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    22,299

    Re: Stabbing injures several on Lone Star College Cy-Fair campus

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    we get the fact you like defenseless school children
    Why not simply arm the children?

  2. #92
    He's the most tip top
    Top Cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:07 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    22,299

    Re: Stabbing injures several on Lone Star College Cy-Fair campus

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    That was my intent. On the one hand, words matter, but on the other hand, if English as a language isn't going to follow it's own rules, then why should I have to?
    Surely that was intentional? Or not.

  3. #93
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:06 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,657

    Re: Stabbing injures several on Lone Star College Cy-Fair campus

    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    Why not simply arm the children?
    That is reserved for inner city youth after they drop out - not those that stay in school.
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  4. #94
    He's the most tip top
    Top Cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:07 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    22,299

    Re: Stabbing injures several on Lone Star College Cy-Fair campus

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    That is reserved for inner city youth after they drop out - not those that stay in school.
    I'm serious. How are those poor defenseless kids going to defend themselves when one of those armed teachers goes bat**** crazy?

  5. #95
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:06 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,657

    Re: Stabbing injures several on Lone Star College Cy-Fair campus

    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    I'm serious. How are those poor defenseless kids going to defend themselves when one of those armed teachers goes bat**** crazy?
    The NICS BG check system will be made so perfect as to prevent that from being a remote possibility, have you not been paying attention to the latest gun control plans in congress?
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  6. #96
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Last Seen
    08-19-16 @ 02:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    5,243

    Re: Stabbing injures several on Lone Star College Cy-Fair campus

    Quote Originally Posted by Slyfox696 View Post
    Of course. But considering all of this can be done by an 8 year old, I don't think it changes my "opinion" on guns being too easy to use to kill.

    I know the pro gun crowd is very fond of using other items to compare, but it's always a poor argument. The gun's main purpose is to shoot, and with handguns (and I'd argue semi-automatic "assault rifles" as well), the object is to shoot people (whether you are shooting in aggression or self-defense). Even if some people use the gun for other purposes, the primary intention of the gun is to shoot people. The primary purpose of a car is not to run over people. The primary purpose of a car is transportation.

    I'm all for improving safety in cars. But I'm in favor of safety in general and large magazines in rapid fire rifles and handguns which account for something around 80% of homicides (the number I've heard, I don't know the exact number) clearly do not suggest safety to me.

    But of the people who are murdered, the percentage who are murdered by firearm is outrageous. Here's the first source I found when Googling "usa homicides":

    2010:

    Homicides in the USA: 16,259
    Homicide by firearm: 11,078

    FASTSTATS - Homicide

    Almost 70% of the murders in the United States were done by firearm in 2010. And to prevent an Archie Bunker, no I would not feel any better if "they was pushed out of windows". But surely we can look at those numbers and say SOMETHING should be done.

    A handgun ban will not pass and is very unlikely to be survive a Supreme Court ruling if it did. So let's take care of at least part of the problem.

    But the point I was making was that after correctly assessing how silly it was to say certain people don't care about children, you turned around and did the exact same thing.

    And that's just incredibly false. I don't consider myself "left" on every issue, but I guess I am on this issue. And I care very much about saving lives, children and adults.

    Here's what I know. As the number of households which own a gun has decreased, so has crime (and yes, I know you would argue more guns during that time period). I know other countries have much lower gun homicide rates (and homicide rates in general). I know in 2010, roughly 70% of Americans who were murdered were killed by a gun (a statistic I'm fairly certain is consistent). At some point, don't we have to stop and say, "Maybe we should try something else"?

    The status quo isn't working. That is painfully obvious. The push to resist change just doesn't make sense to me when we CLEARLY have a problem. And arming teachers or beefing up security systems at schools does nothing for shopping malls, Wal-Mart, churches, domestic issues, etc. I'm looking to protect everyone as a whole, not just focus on one area.


    Thanks. It's easily one of my favorite shows and James Spader is simply phenomenal.
    So what about the three machetes I own? They are intended for clearing brush and small trees, but I'm fairly certain my 11 year old could swing one with enough force to kill. Of the three only the one that stays in my truck even has a sheath. A lot of people have been killed with machetes.

    I have to take issue with your assertion that guns are "intended" to shoot people. While that may be true in some cases (such as my military surplus rifles) most of my rifles (and pistols for that matter) are 22s. That would be a poor choice of caliber for shooting people. They are intended for target and varmint shooting.

    But let's look at those gun deaths. How many of them are committed with illegal weapons? You are still twice as likely to be gunned down in Chicago than in Afghanistan. It is all but impossible to get legal permission to carry in Chicago. In other words, the gun laws that we have are not being enforced to stop the majority of shooting deaths. It's a bit like ignoring immigration law and then complaining about how many illegal immigrants we have. The laws are on the books but are not being enforced.

    BTW I didn't say you were on the left. Reread my post, I said "those on the left". I don't know you well enough to know where you stand yet.

    I'm listening to the radio right now, they are talking about 15,000 felony fugitives who tried to buy guns last year and Obama's justice department only prosecuted 44 of them. It was brought up in the gun law debate by Cruz. Why do we need to take guns away from legal owners again? Because it is quite clear who is doing the killing, and it isn't the large population of legal owners. I've suggested on this site several times that if we really wanted to put a dent in gun crime we should be going door to door in poor neighborhoods and taking guns away from males under 25. Nobody seems to want to touch that. But if the government (and indeed the clueless liberals) are OK with violating the rights of legal gun owners then they should have no problem violating those of poor gang members. When you start to look at all of these things together it becomes quickly apparent that "saving the children" is not the intent at all. The weapons the administration is looking to ban are rarely used in crimes, and there is no mention of going after the ones that are. And yet the media still lies about Sandy Hook, we hear from them and from many on the anti side about the Bushmaster rifle that was used. It's not true. There were 4 pistols used, no rifle. There was video of the shooter's trunk being opened by police and a round being cleared from a rifle that was NOT a Bushmaster or any other kind of "assault weapon".

    Beyond that there is a money issue. Is the government looking to buy these weapons back? They are not cheap. Are we supposed to just hand over thousands of dollars of personal property just to see if murder rates will drop? Would it be OK if government officials came to your house and said "There are a lot of people being killed by cars, so we're going to take yours so we can see if that will help". I don't think that's much of a stretch. You could buy a pretty decent used car for the amount I have tied up in firearms, a lot of people I know could have bought nice new cars for what they have invested. Is that OK?

  7. #97
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:55 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,496

    Re: Stabbing injures several on Lone Star College Cy-Fair campus

    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    Let me guess...so they can "put food on their families"?
    Uh, yeah! Why do you think people go to work??
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  8. #98
    Educator Paratrooper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Al
    Last Seen
    10-05-17 @ 12:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    888

    Stabbing injures several on Lone Star College Cy-Fair campus

    I think the point is to pierce the liberal view that a world without guns will all of the sudden be safe.

    It's not. Banning guns/ high capacity magazines will not make us safer. I would argue it makes us less safe.

    People have already made up their mind that they want to kill someone before they do it in almost everyone of these attacks.

    He didn't attack simply because he had a knife.

    These people decide they want to do something and then acquire a weapon. If they can't find a certain weapon then they will improvise.

  9. #99
    Sage
    Slyfox696's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    7,985

    Re: Stabbing injures several on Lone Star College Cy-Fair campus

    Quote Originally Posted by tech30528 View Post
    So what about the three machetes I own? They are intended for clearing brush and small trees, but I'm fairly certain my 11 year old could swing one with enough force to kill. Of the three only the one that stays in my truck even has a sheath. A lot of people have been killed with machetes.
    When machetes become responsible for even 50% of homicides in America, I'll be happy to look into ways to prevent death by machete.

    But let's look at those gun deaths. How many of them are committed with illegal weapons? You are still twice as likely to be gunned down in Chicago than in Afghanistan. It is all but impossible to get legal permission to carry in Chicago. In other words, the gun laws that we have are not being enforced to stop the majority of shooting deaths. It's a bit like ignoring immigration law and then complaining about how many illegal immigrants we have. The laws are on the books but are not being enforced.
    But a city wide law has no teeth when another city nearby allows what the first bans. That's why a NATIONAL law is necessary.

    BTW I didn't say you were on the left. Reread my post, I said "those on the left". I don't know you well enough to know where you stand yet.
    I wasn't trying to accuse you, I was simply saying that on this issue, I suppose I would fall to the left. I actually believe I fall more to the middle, because I support stricter gun control, but not outright bans of all guns.

    Here's the deal about most gun owners. Most gun owners don't keep their guns for personal defense. Or, rather, they don't keep them SOLELY for personal defense. Take Alex Jones on Piers Morgan from a while back. He stated he had something like 50+ guns, is that correct? What man needs 50+ guns to protect from a home invader? None. And if the government wanted Alex Jones dead, all the legally obtainable guns in the world wouldn't protect from a missile delivered by a predator drone. And correct me if I'm wrong, but don't most gun owners like to point out that so many homicides in America are the result of gang violence?

    The fact is many, if not most, gun owners collect guns as a hobby, a toy for enjoyment. They love to hunt with them, they love to shoot them at the firing range while BS'ing with their buddies, they love to show them off, etc. It's enjoyable for them, just as collecting technology (computers, TV, etc.) is for me. And there is NOTHING wrong with making guns a hobby. I have ZERO problem with that. It's not a hobby I would ever pursue, but neither is Beanie Babies, and those were mega popular for a while.

    Can a gun be used in self-defense? Yes. Is part of the reason some people own a gun for self-defense? Yes. But are guns owned for far more than just self-defense? Absolutely. However, gun supporters cannot admit this. Once gun owners admit part of their brick wall defense of guns is about enjoyment, it makes their argument against banning certain types of guns impossible.

    All of this is to explain where I stand on gun control. I'm in the middle. I don't mind allowing guns which are less likely to commit murder. I don't mind guns whose value exists far more on the recreational side than the shooting people side. But I also think it's silly to see what an incredible problem we have with gun deaths and think nothing should be done to curtail part of the problem. Banning certain types of guns and/or magazines is BY FAR the most logical approach. "Item A contributes to X amount of problems a year, so let's remove Item A". This is an INCREDIBLY logical step to take, and is one we take every day with all sorts of problems.

    Anyways, you never asked, but that's where I stand. In what I consider to be the middle.

    I'm listening to the radio right now, they are talking about 15,000 felony fugitives who tried to buy guns last year and Obama's justice department only prosecuted 44 of them. It was brought up in the gun law debate by Cruz. Why do we need to take guns away from legal owners again? Because it is quite clear who is doing the killing, and it isn't the large population of legal owners. I've suggested on this site several times that if we really wanted to put a dent in gun crime we should be going door to door in poor neighborhoods and taking guns away from males under 25. Nobody seems to want to touch that. But if the government (and indeed the clueless liberals) are OK with violating the rights of legal gun owners then they should have no problem violating those of poor gang members.
    I have no problem with a crackdown on gang activity. The problem with this is the only way to crack down on gang activity is to pour money into these areas, and most of the same people who are against gun control are also fiscal conservatives.

    When you start to look at all of these things together it becomes quickly apparent that "saving the children" is not the intent at all.
    I'm curious as to how many those on the left have argued with you about wanting to crack down on gang violence.

    And yet the media still lies about Sandy Hook, we hear from them and from many on the anti side about the Bushmaster rifle that was used. It's not true. There were 4 pistols used, no rifle. There was video of the shooter's trunk being opened by police and a round being cleared from a rifle that was NOT a Bushmaster or any other kind of "assault weapon".
    I know this is a popular misconception amongst gun supporters, but it has been confirmed by the Connecticut state police it was an "assault rifle" which was used.

    The shooter used the Bushmaster .223 to murder 20 children and six adults inside the school; he used a handgun to take his own life inside the school. No other weapons were used in this crime. This case remains under investigation.
    http://www.ct.gov/despp/cwp/view.asp?Q=517284

    In this case, the only media who has lied has been the gun media.

    Beyond that there is a money issue. Is the government looking to buy these weapons back? They are not cheap.
    This is ALWAYS the hardest part about my gun control plan, how to legally get back the guns which already exist with a government that is already spending more than it brings in.

    I don't have the answer to this right now.

    Are we supposed to just hand over thousands of dollars of personal property just to see if murder rates will drop?
    This is certainly a very fair and very reasonable question. Which is why I think the first step is banning the purchase of future guns, to avoid escalating the cost of a future buyback program.

    Would it be OK if government officials came to your house and said "There are a lot of people being killed by cars, so we're going to take yours so we can see if that will help". I don't think that's much of a stretch.
    The government has already mandated that all, or at least some, cars which are manufactured must meet certain MPG limits. It's not any different than the government saying any gun you buy tomorrow cannot hold more than X number of rounds.


    By the way, I do appreciate a quality and mature discussion on this, even though we are in disagreement.

  10. #100
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Stabbing injures several on Lone Star College Cy-Fair campus

    Quote Originally Posted by Slyfox696 View Post
    Can a gun be used in self-defense? Yes. Is part of the reason some people own a gun for self-defense? Yes. But are guns owned for far more than just self-defense? Absolutely. However, gun supporters cannot admit this. Once gun owners admit part of their brick wall defense of guns is about enjoyment, it makes their argument against banning certain types of guns impossible.
    You seem to be skilled at dodging what we say, because we make no effort to hide it:
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Our militias were created with the intent that we would never have a standing Army. We're not supposed to have a standing Army today, but we do, and Armys tend to do exactly what they're trained to do, which is why America is waging war allover the globe.

    The idea was that if there were an emergency, the militia would be called up, the militia would deal with the problem, and then the militia would disband and be no more until needed again. Citizens privately owning so-called "military style" firearms is meant to keep a large standing army from forming. If the government stockpiled weapons for the militia, the government would finish the job and just make a large standing army; which is exactly what ended up occurring.
    ..and that was just from a few days ago.

    The primary purpose of the 2A is to defend the state from insurrection, riots and invasion. Self defense is a nice secondary benefit, as is hunting, but the primary purpose of the 2A is for the average common citizen to be able to engage in warfare.

Page 10 of 18 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •