• 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!

Failed gun regulation left this woman, defenseless and dead.

Renae

Renae

Banned
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
50,241
Reaction score
19,243
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
'''Gun free zone''' law disarmed Virginia Beach shooting victim, attorney says | Fox News
The night before Kate Nixon and 11 others were murdered by a disgruntled co-worker, the decade-long Virginia Beach city employee talked with her husband about bringing a gun to work for self-defense -- a decision that was taken out of her hands by the city's ban on employees carrying firearms at work, a Nixon family lawyer said.Now, Nixon's family is calling for an independent investigation into events leading up to the May 31 shooting and what could have been done differently before and during it, particularly given the explicit concerns about shooter DeWayne Craddock.
“Kate expressed to her husband concerns about this individual in particular, as well as one other person,” Nixon family attorney Kevin Martingayle told WHRV's "HearSay with Cathy Lewis" radio show Monday. “In fact, they had a discussion the night before about whether or not she should take a pistol and hide it in her handbag -- and decided not to, ultimately, because there's a policy apparently against having any kind of weapons that are concealed in the building."
Click to expand...
Damn... just damn
 
Praxas said:
Very few states allow firearms in their city buildings. Even Nevada, which is an open carry state, doesn’t allow this.
Click to expand...

It's an example of "failed gun regulation" and it cost lives.
 
Renae said:
Damn... just damn
Click to expand...

****, just more stupid ****....

I have a bit of a jaundice eye when reading this sort of story.... IF the woman feared two fellow employees did she file a complaint, speak to HR, a supervisor???? How risky is it to carry a small handgun in her purse??? How many chest thumpin' 2nd A ranters declare- 'better judged by 12 than carried by 6'... :roll:

'Just the night before' stories are contrived.... IF the conversation was really held would she really have stopped by the open 24 hours firearms store and bought a weapon she may or may not have a clue how to use??? Thinking about it 'the night before' is meaningless and just propaganda....

Does the gun rubbing state of Tejas allow employees to carry inside municipal buildings??? :peace
 
Renae said:
'''Gun free zone''' law disarmed Virginia Beach shooting victim, attorney says | Fox News
Damn... just damn
Click to expand...

Well, if you look at this logically, you can see the danger of allowing employees to bring firearms to work. The guy that shot the place up could have been anyone or everyone. In fact, odds are that if other employees were armed then the shooting would have been much, much worse with 400-47,000 employees left dead. That's the nature of guns. Once they get a hankerin' for killing they're hard to stop.
 
notquiteright said:
And the other side of the coin, fairly open firearm ownership, is "failed freedoms" and it costs lives... :peace
Click to expand...

This is another case of a gun law failing to protect people.
 
apdst said:
It's an example of "failed gun regulation" and it cost lives.
Click to expand...

Even the majority of red states that allow open carry don’t allow them in state and federal buildings.
 
apdst said:
This is another case of a gun law failing to protect people.
Click to expand...

Ummm no, it's another case of NO LAW being 100% capable of protecting people. Like terrorists, you don't acknowledge the successes but rather roll around in the fails.

But as usual you ignore the other side of the debate, ( do note the gun rubbers have dropped the 'price of freedom' crap, guess even the most ardent rubber sees the idiocy of that whine)

Fact is mass shootings are yet another case of a fail in the firearm industry to police it's own. Rubbers go on and on about 'law abiding' citizens but so many mass murderers are 'law abiding' citizens (according to the very hit and miss oversight in the matter) until they kill... :roll:

When it comes to the 'if someone had a firearm' crap, it is like someone in the oldest profession, we all know what she is, we are just setting the price...

5 dead, 10 dead, 20 dead... so much depends on far more than was a firearm present... :peace
 
Praxas said:
Even the majority of red states that allow open carry don’t allow them in state and federal buildings.
Click to expand...

If they intend to maintain a "no-gun" zone, they should have a reasonably effective method to screen whoever enters. Many government buildings I have visited have security checks at the entrances, similar to the ones you see in the airports.
 
notquiteright said:
Ummm no, it's another case of NO LAW being 100% capable of protecting people. Like terrorists, you don't acknowledge the successes but rather roll around in the fails.

But as usual you ignore the other side of the debate, ( do note the gun rubbers have dropped the 'price of freedom' crap, guess even the most ardent rubber sees the idiocy of that whine)

Fact is mass shootings are yet another case of a fail in the firearm industry to police it's own. Rubbers go on and on about 'law abiding' citizens but so many mass murderers are 'law abiding' citizens (according to the very hit and miss oversight in the matter) until they kill... :roll:

When it comes to the 'if someone had a firearm' crap, it is like someone in the oldest profession, we all know what she is, we are just setting the price...

5 dead, 10 dead, 20 dead... so much depends on far more than was a firearm present... :peace
Click to expand...

Hence the reason people have to be allowed to excercise their right to self-defense. Stripping a person of his right to self-defense and replacing it with a law is useless.

Fact is mass shootings are yet another case of a fail in the firearm industry to police it's own. Rubbers go on and on about 'law abiding' citizens but so many mass murderers are 'law abiding' citizens (according to the very hit and miss oversight in the matter) until they kill
Click to expand...

Yeah, that damn presumption of innocense. That's another right yoi would like to see abolished. Huh?

The fact is, in a free society, there's no way to police citizens the way you want them policed: with the assumption that everyone will commit a crime, it's only a matter of time. Since that's the case, it makes zero sense to rob a person of his right and ability to defend himself.
 
apdst said:
Hence the reason people have to be allowed to excercise their right to self-defense. Stripping a person of his right to self-defense and replacing it with a law is useless.
Click to expand...

Who is stripping a person of the right of self defense?
 
Praxas said:
Even the majority of red states that allow open carry don’t allow them in state and federal buildings.
Click to expand...

Doesn't change the fact that such laws rip away a person's right to defend himself.
 
Lutherf said:
Well, if you look at this logically, you can see the danger of allowing employees to bring firearms to work. The guy that shot the place up could have been anyone or everyone. In fact, odds are that if other employees were armed then the shooting would have been much, much worse with 400-47,000 employees left dead. That's the nature of guns. Once they get a hankerin' for killing they're hard to stop.
Click to expand...

I agree that that is a possibility, but if I had to choose, I'll choose to arm everyone that wants to be armed vice disarming everyone.
 
apdst said:
The government, when it creates gun free zones.
Click to expand...

What is your alternative as this is a nation wide policy found all over the country in countless places - both public and private?
 
haymarket said:
What is your alternative as this is a nation wide policy found all over the country in countless places - both public and private?
Click to expand...

Anyone who chooses to carry a firearm on their person should be allowed to do so.

It's obvious that the current policy isn't effective.
 
=notquiteright;1070207214]****, just more stupid ****....
Click to expand...
More stupid what? 'Gun free zones' How well did it work out?
I have a bit of a jaundice eye when reading this sort of story
Click to expand...
I think anything to do with guns gives you "jaundice eyes".
....
IF the woman feared two fellow employees did she file a complaint, speak to HR, a supervisor????
Click to expand...
We seem to be finding out more. Maybe she did or someone else did and it pissed him off after a polite talk with whoever.
How risky is it to carry a small handgun in her purse???
Click to expand...
Correct holster or type of purse,probably none would be my guess.
How many chest thumpin' 2nd A ranters declare- 'better judged by 12 than carried by 6'... :roll:
Click to expand...
Don't you mean how many carried by 6? Though had she or someone else had against policy (aka GUN FREE ZONE) carried they would gladly go with 12.
'Just the night before' stories are contrived.... IF the conversation was really held would she really have stopped by the open 24 hours firearms store and bought a weapon she may or may not have a clue how to use??? Thinking about it 'the night before' is meaningless and just propaganda....
Click to expand...
Maybe yes maybe no. Had she though she would have got a clue therefore a chance,but she didn't and we'll never know. GUN FREE ZONES be damned. What they don't know won't hurt them.
Does the gun rubbing state of Tejas allow employees to carry inside municipal buildings??? :peace
Click to expand...
Hell a lot of places even in OR. do.
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
Anyone who chooses to carry a firearm on their person should be allowed to do so.

It's obvious that the current policy isn't effective.
Click to expand...

What source in law do you city which elevates a individuals personal Second Amendment rights over property rights and the collective right of society to creating zoning and other laws which have been upheld by the Supreme Court?
 
haymarket said:
What source in law do you city which elevates a individuals personal Second Amendment rights over property rights and the collective right of society to creating zoning and other laws which have been upheld by the Supreme Court?
Click to expand...

The United States Constitution, that guarantees the right to life, liberty and property. Do I need to show it to you, or are you familiar with that part?

Bottomline: the government doesn't have the authority to rob the citizens of their right to self-defense.
 
dogboy49 said:
If they intend to maintain a "no-gun" zone, they should have a reasonably effective method to screen whoever enters. Many government buildings I have visited have security checks at the entrances, similar to the ones you see in the airports.
Click to expand...

It was a state building this happened in.
 
apdst said:
Doesn't change the fact that such laws rip away a person's right to defend himself.
Click to expand...

Take it up with those states then. Fact remains even in the most gun loving red states, you can’t bring a firearm into a state or federal building.
 
Praxas said:
Take it up with those states then. Fact remains even in the most gun loving red states, you can’t bring a firearm into a state or federal building.
Click to expand...

We knew that before you posted it 3 times. What's your point?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom