• 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!

Stabbing injures several on Lone Star College Cy-Fair campus

tech30528 said:
Have we made it all the way to ridicule to try and shame conservatives out of arguing already? That's a sure sign you've run out of arguments. Thing is that only works when your argument has any value and yours doesn't. If you honestly (and that would be a stretch given your ideology) think conservatives don't love their children there is nothing you can say that holds any water. Sadly you have just earned a spot on the bench next to Head of Jackass and Tedorunrun. Goodbye.
Click to expand...
In fairness, and I'm not accusing you of hypocrisy, but your statement works in both directions.
TurtleDude said:
So I turn it back to AIDS-a scourge that has killed more people than privately owned firearms through homicide in the last three decades. Many conservatives find no inherent value to sodomy among males so why not ban such activity in the hope it will stop the spread of AIDS?
Click to expand...
Because HIV is more prevalent amongst heterosexuals than homosexuals? Because the two issues are unique and ridiculous to compare together?
Primarily spread by heterosexual sex, HIV/AIDS now infects as many women as men worldwide. Although the disease was first recognized in the United States among gay men, it is also significantly spread among IV drug users. Internationally, it is more often a disease of heterosexuals.
Click to expand...
The Top Ten Myths About HIV/AIDS
 
TurtleDude said:
actually the point is valid. anti gunners (almost always left wing) claim that the actions of millions need to be restricted in order to stop a few criminals. This suggestion is easy when those proposing restrictions find no inherent merit or value in law abiding people owning or using firearms for ANY reason. So I turn it back to AIDS-a scourge that has killed more people than privately owned firearms through homicide in the last three decades. Many conservatives find no inherent value to sodomy among males so why not ban such activity in the hope it will stop the spread of AIDS?

same argument as the anti gun position
Click to expand...

Either of these arguments are valid when discussing the base of the gun control debate. The left frames it as a way to end child deaths. Of course this is a red herring, the true intent is to disarm citizens. We know it, they know it, and it is why liberals get all bent out of shape when we bring up killing children thru abortion and people dying from AIDS. No firearm comes from the manufacturer loaded. That has to be done later, and an unloaded gun is incapable of killing anyone unless it is used like a hammer, which kill more people than guns do. There would be no abortion if people did not engage in sex knowing that a possible effect of that may be pregnancy. A person with AIDS can completely avoid spreading the disease as the pathology of the virus is well understood.

So all of these things are preventable, and thru simple means. Don't load the firearm, and don't **** anybody if you don't want to run the risk of pregnancy or spreading STDs. But liberals will not accept that. Their basic mindset is they can do whatever they want to and someone else will clean up the mess for them. In other words, they honestly do not feel they should have to be held accountable for their actions, and yet gun owners (who are predominantly conservatives) should be held accountable for theirs. This is why there will never be agreement. The double standard is staggering, and the actions they hold dear cause the death of far more children than do guns. But they don't want to talk about that. It is as though their dicks have minds of their own and can not be controlled. They lack any semblance of self control, so they look to the government to control them. Since they can not control themselves they assume (in their narrow field of view) that others can't either. They will not shy from this perspective because to admit that one does not have any self control while others do would be an admission of their own personal weakness.

I'll go with Herman Caine here. We need to save the savable. Liberals are not savable, it's a waste of time to explain truth to the willfully ignorant. They need (and indeed want) to be controlled. Interestingly enough one definition of severe mental disability is the inability to care for oneself in a safe manner. Under that definition liberalism is a mental disorder. We need to stop arguing with these people and help them find treatment. For some it is intentional, for other it is a disease they picked up in college. It's time we started addressing the right problems. Perhaps the CDC should look in to this.
 
Wiseone said:
Dumb argument by the OP that's been debunked plenty of times before. Yes if you only want to focus on a single characteristics of something than yes lets ban gun, lets ban knives, lets ban cars, lets ban heights, but of course nothing in the world has only a single characteristic, so talking about things as if they do is just stupid.
Click to expand...

nota bene said:
So what's your point?
Click to expand...

Point is that guns, knives, cars, and high falls, etc, despite all being potentially dangerous are not the same thing and you cannot treat them the same way. Meaning that you can't take an argument to ban all guns and say "Well shouldn't we ban all knives, cars, high falls, and etc?" to show a fallacy in the argument, because all those things are different things. Basically I'm saying its apples and oranges.

Also hardly anyone here or in politics is calling for a ban on all guns, and by all I mean literally every single one, however if you listen to many of the folks here you'll hear them talk as if that's all that "anti-gunners" as they call them want to do. Its a gross exaggeration and a strawman to constantly imply that its an argument people are making as often as they do.
 
tech30528 said:
Either of these arguments are valid when discussing the base of the gun control debate. The left frames it as a way to end child deaths. Of course this is a red herring, the true intent is to disarm citizens. We know it, they know it, and it is why liberals get all bent out of shape when we bring up killing children thru abortion and people dying from AIDS.
Click to expand...
Holy ignorant criticism, Batman.

If guns didn't provide such an easy way to kill people, I'd have no problem with guns. My interest is only in safety, not just for children, but for everyone. What amazes me about your post here is what you said just a couple of posts above.

You said:
Have we made it all the way to ridicule to try and shame (liberals) out of arguing already? That's a sure sign you've run out of arguments. Thing is that only works when your argument has any value and yours doesn't. If you honestly (and that would be a stretch given your ideology) think (liberals) don't love their children there is nothing you can say that holds any water.
Click to expand...

Any credibility you may have had has just been discarded. I'm actually disappointed, because I thought you made a great point and then you go and do the exact same thing for which you criticized another.
 
American said:
No one expects you to take your robotic focus off guns, because we all know it isn't people's safety that drives you....but pure power.
Click to expand...

Really? Love the NRA tripe. Honestly, bring something to the table for once.
 
tech30528 said:
Have we made it all the way to ridicule to try and shame conservatives out of arguing already? That's a sure sign you've run out of arguments. Thing is that only works when your argument has any value and yours doesn't. If you honestly (and that would be a stretch given your ideology) think conservatives don't love their children there is nothing you can say that holds any water. Sadly you have just earned a spot on the bench next to Head of Jackass and Tedorunrun. Goodbye.
Click to expand...

Don't let the door hit you... Remind me again of all the wonderful legislation republicans have supported for children.
 
Last edited:
Manc Skipper said:
If only he'd had a gun, many of them would be dead instead of just injured. A weapon multiplies injury and death, a gun is more effective at spreading them further and faster.
Click to expand...

If one of the victims and/or people close by had a legal carry permit he or she could have pulled that gun and blew the psycho's head off.
 
head of joaquin said:
So your wish is that the perpetrator had used a gun? Is that the purpose of this ugly OP?
Click to expand...

So are you saying knives are as dangerous as guns? Doesn't the story argue against this dishonest post of yours?
 
rhinefire said:
If one of the victims and/or people close by had a legal carry permit he or she could have pulled that gun and blew the psycho's head off.
Click to expand...

But that never happens, does it? Funny, its as if the NRA types are chicken.
 
Velvet Elvis said:
That guy must have had a high capacity magazine on that knife.

Too bad none of those other kids on campus had a gun to blow his stupid-ass head clean off.
Click to expand...

Some probably did have a gun and they probably ran away, which is generally what NRA types do when real violence occurs. As opposed to talking tough on the internet.

By the way, nothing like hyperventillating frat boys with guns shooting into crowds. Yeah that's a good way to avoid injuries
 
Top Cat said:
Don't let the door hit you... Remind me again of all the wonderful legislation republicans have supported for children.
Click to expand...

No abortions
 
head of joaquin said:
But that never happens, does it? Funny, its as if the NRA types are chicken.
Click to expand...

No, it's airhead liberal insects that run around screaming "no guns, no guns, peace on earth, love eveyone" thatoppose gun ownership. If YOU WOULD READ you would know of the thousands of incidents where legal gun owners shoot or scare off criminals breaking in their homes. Go pick a flower.
 
Top Cat said:
Don't let the door hit you... Remind me again of all the wonderful legislation republicans have supported for children.
Click to expand...
Armed teachers for safer schools, lower taxes so their parents can provide a better lifestyle.
 
TurtleDude said:
we increased CCW and the assault weapon bans and the waiting periods ended and crime went down

and if it was really about crime how come all the gun banners are almost all far left?
Click to expand...

Is this some kind of backwards version of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy?
 
Slyfox696 said:
Holy ignorant criticism, Batman.

If guns didn't provide such an easy way to kill people, I'd have no problem with guns. My interest is only in safety, not just for children, but for everyone. What amazes me about your post here is what you said just a couple of posts above.



Any credibility you may have had has just been discarded. I'm actually disappointed, because I thought you made a great point and then you go and do the exact same thing for which you criticized another.
Click to expand...

It's unfortunate you feel that way. I want to point out in my discussion of AIDS I made no reference to gays. I know it is men and women affected by this. But it is still a blood born illness and spreading it is avoidable. My father in law has Hepatitis C (since 1988), another blood born disease. His wife gets tested for it regularly, she doesn't have it. The spread is preventable.

As for your opinion on guns being too easy to use to kill, you still have to admit that they can not do it without first being loaded, the safeties disabled and the trigger pulled. You can kill somebody with a car very easily and quickly as well. My old boss is semi retired and now drives a tow truck (he used to own an auto repair shop and tow), he recently was involved in an "accident" in his tow truck. I say it that way because it was no accident at all. A guy in a smart car pulled the wheel to the left, crossed a median and hit his tow truck head on. He was trying to kill himself. He failed despite the huge vehicle weight difference and the combined impact speed of about 130 mph. The tow truck was totalled and the car driver was ejected from the car. That he lived is amazing, the point is it took a twitch of the hand to put him in Jerry's path and the time from start to finish was seconds. It takes a fraction of a second to push somebody off a bridge or building. The fact that guns CAN be used to kill stands in contradiction to the number of people who use them for killing as compared to other methods. The percentage of guns used to kill is miniscule. The number of those guns being so called "assault weapons" is even smaller. And yet the proposed legislation is to take away something that is far less deadly in real life as other methods and it is pushed by exploiting the death of children. But if we actually talk about how to reduce child death, well, according to the left we are off subject. It's BS and everybody on both sides of the argument knows it. So the discussion is at it's very base a lie, which is one reason opposition is so high. I'm suggesting an honest discussion of how to save the most children. Those on the left have no interest in this discussion.

Great avy BTW. Love that show. The arrogance of the two main characters is very entertaining.
 
Jerry said:
Armed teachers for safer schools, lower taxes so their parents can provide a better lifestyle.
Click to expand...

An armed society where at a drop of a hat, the shooting starts.

Helluva vision the boomsticklovers have of America.

Of course, nobody who knows anything about guns think that it's easy to shoot somebody, especially if he's shooting back. But then, boomsticklovers are all internet tough talk.
 
head of joaquin said:
An armed society where at a drop of a hat, the shooting starts.
Click to expand...
And gun control makes it even worse.

Check out the video in post #42, it's actually well don, and links to the .gov sources used in the video provided below it.
 
Top Cat said:
Don't let the door hit you... Remind me again of all the wonderful legislation republicans have supported for children.
Click to expand...

Republicans have tried to prevent government job killing policies, so Americans could go back work and support their families.
 
apdst said:
Republicans have tried to prevent government job killing policies, so Americans could go back work and support their families.
Click to expand...

Let me guess...so they can "put food on their families"?
 
Jerry said:
Armed teachers for safer schools,.
Click to expand...

Yes because more guns mean safer schools...

Jesus you righties sure have some twisted ideas. That NRA tea you're drinking is pure swill.
 
Top Cat said:
Yes because more guns mean safer schools.
Click to expand...
That's why you don't see mass shootings in schools which allow concealed guns. Glad we could agree :2wave:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom