David Johnson wrote:
> "When was the last time you heard of any of the 9000 people in
> Northern Ireland with a permit to carry a pistol causing a
> problem?"
>
> I understand that there has been a war that went on there for
> most of the last 40 years with over 3,500 deaths. Given you
> mention that a significant number of permits were given to
> people like judges, Northern Ireland is probably not the best
> example for you to come up with about the reduced risks of
> allowing easier access to guns.
>
> Cheers
> D
Well the IRA did not get their guns legally did they? They still got them though. My point is that a significant percentage of the population in NI walks around discreetly armed, and it does not cause a problem. In your worldview it ought to cause a bloodbath, and yet it does not.
texas students to carry guns
Re: Robches
David Johnson wrote:
> "Given that almost every Swiss man owns an assault rifle, I
> think it is fair call gun ownership there "universal".
>
> First, the figures, I quote, state 45%. If this is your
> concept of "universal" you are already on dodgy ground.
>
> "As I am sure you are aware, the vast majority of gun crime in
> the USA is concentrated in the high crime areas. Most Americans
> have no contact with gun crime, but those unfortunate enough to
> live in certain parts of big cities see lots of it, regardless
> of what the law might be like in that state. Thus, people in
> the parts of America most like western Europe have a crime rate
> similar to western Europe, maybe even less, regardless of the
> gun laws".
>
> Do you actually believe this stuff you are coming out with?
>
> The figures I quote produced by the United States Office on
> Drugs and Crime suggest a firearm homicide rate of 3 per
> 100,000 in the USA. Obviously this average includes high crime
> areas as well as the low crime areas you refer to.
>
> In exactly the same way in Britain we have areas of high crime
> e.g. blighted parts of London, Manchester etc and areas of very
> low crime. The firearm homicide rate for England and Wales in
> the same table is .12, a fraction of that in the States.
>
> So we have two countries which are multi-ethnic, big
> disparities between rich and poor, a flexible workforce i.e.
> low paid generally. One has gun ownership of 88% of the
> population and has the right to bear arms enshrined in the
> Second Amendment of their Constitution; in the other, legal gun
> ownership is very difficult.
>
> So the vast difference in gun crime is purely coincidental is
> it?
>
> Cheers
> D
Given that all adult Swiss males are issued with an assault rifle, I'd say gun ownership there is pretty universal. Does the figure of 45% take that into account, or just refer to privately owned guns? Don't forget the assault rifles are government property, not private possessions.
As to the USA, as I said, it is a vast continent, it's like saying "Europe" and not differentiating between Surrey and Sicily. Some parts of the USA are like quiet parts of England, and have no crime to speak of. Others are more akin to the worst parts of the third world, and again have crime to match.
> "Given that almost every Swiss man owns an assault rifle, I
> think it is fair call gun ownership there "universal".
>
> First, the figures, I quote, state 45%. If this is your
> concept of "universal" you are already on dodgy ground.
>
> "As I am sure you are aware, the vast majority of gun crime in
> the USA is concentrated in the high crime areas. Most Americans
> have no contact with gun crime, but those unfortunate enough to
> live in certain parts of big cities see lots of it, regardless
> of what the law might be like in that state. Thus, people in
> the parts of America most like western Europe have a crime rate
> similar to western Europe, maybe even less, regardless of the
> gun laws".
>
> Do you actually believe this stuff you are coming out with?
>
> The figures I quote produced by the United States Office on
> Drugs and Crime suggest a firearm homicide rate of 3 per
> 100,000 in the USA. Obviously this average includes high crime
> areas as well as the low crime areas you refer to.
>
> In exactly the same way in Britain we have areas of high crime
> e.g. blighted parts of London, Manchester etc and areas of very
> low crime. The firearm homicide rate for England and Wales in
> the same table is .12, a fraction of that in the States.
>
> So we have two countries which are multi-ethnic, big
> disparities between rich and poor, a flexible workforce i.e.
> low paid generally. One has gun ownership of 88% of the
> population and has the right to bear arms enshrined in the
> Second Amendment of their Constitution; in the other, legal gun
> ownership is very difficult.
>
> So the vast difference in gun crime is purely coincidental is
> it?
>
> Cheers
> D
Given that all adult Swiss males are issued with an assault rifle, I'd say gun ownership there is pretty universal. Does the figure of 45% take that into account, or just refer to privately owned guns? Don't forget the assault rifles are government property, not private possessions.
As to the USA, as I said, it is a vast continent, it's like saying "Europe" and not differentiating between Surrey and Sicily. Some parts of the USA are like quiet parts of England, and have no crime to speak of. Others are more akin to the worst parts of the third world, and again have crime to match.
-
Sam Slater
- Posts: 11624
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: texas students to carry guns
[quote]I'm finding it very hard to follow your logic here.[/quote]
Really? I thought it was obvious. Just so you're clear, I'll repeat myself yet again. Try your hardest and follow as best you can:
1) More cars = more car accidents. More drinking = more drunkenness. More sharks around beaches = more shark attacks on swimmers. More guns in any given area = more people being shot in that given area.
That is my logic. Looking at the statistics there is a definite correlation between the amount of guns and the amount of killings involving guns. There are exceptions like Switzerland, but then again I can point to some old guy who's smoked 40 a day for 50 years and never got lung cancer. Using this guy as an example says nothing about the statistics about lung cancer and long-term smoking. Are you now clear on my logic? I hope so.
[quote]The concept of a "gun free zone" is one in which no-one can legally be armed. As such, a would-be murderer knows he will be able to indulge himself on a large number of targets for quite some time. This is not theory, it has happened on several campuses which were "gun free zones".[/quote]
Why do you keep repeating yourself? I've already agreed that a college full of gun-carriers may help in reducing a nutter's kill count when going on some sort of killing spree. I have argued that panicky civilians pulling out their weapons defending themselves may actually cause just as many deaths anyway, via friendly-fire, and I've also argued that because so many more young people will have access to lethal weaponry throughout the year, the likelihood of general scuffles, rivalries and accidents throughout the year may increase the death toll of students. But forget these for now for they are only opinions. Let me move back to the question I've asked you over and over and over and over again; the question you are dodging over and over and over again:
If you think 'gun-free zones' are more dangerous than 'gun-heavy zones' then how can you justify sending young adults under 21, teenagers and even children into schools that are 'gun-free zones'? Surely students under 21 deserve the same protection from gun-toting nutters as over 21s?
I don't have this dilemma because I think gun-free zones are safer than gun-heavy zones. As major of my town I'd be more than happy sending kids and teenagers into schools with no guns. You have a different philosophy, though, Robches, so as mayor of your town what will you do?
Furthermore, you completely ignored my point about employers and employees also having a right to bear arms in their working environments. Because a nutter can just as easily go on the rampage in a MacDonalds, Walmart of library do you think food-servers, checkout girls and librarians should also be packing Glock 9mms? Why should it be only students over the age of 21 that have the right to defend themselves with a gun? Come on, Robches - you're mayor and the people want answers!
Really? I thought it was obvious. Just so you're clear, I'll repeat myself yet again. Try your hardest and follow as best you can:
1) More cars = more car accidents. More drinking = more drunkenness. More sharks around beaches = more shark attacks on swimmers. More guns in any given area = more people being shot in that given area.
That is my logic. Looking at the statistics there is a definite correlation between the amount of guns and the amount of killings involving guns. There are exceptions like Switzerland, but then again I can point to some old guy who's smoked 40 a day for 50 years and never got lung cancer. Using this guy as an example says nothing about the statistics about lung cancer and long-term smoking. Are you now clear on my logic? I hope so.
[quote]The concept of a "gun free zone" is one in which no-one can legally be armed. As such, a would-be murderer knows he will be able to indulge himself on a large number of targets for quite some time. This is not theory, it has happened on several campuses which were "gun free zones".[/quote]
Why do you keep repeating yourself? I've already agreed that a college full of gun-carriers may help in reducing a nutter's kill count when going on some sort of killing spree. I have argued that panicky civilians pulling out their weapons defending themselves may actually cause just as many deaths anyway, via friendly-fire, and I've also argued that because so many more young people will have access to lethal weaponry throughout the year, the likelihood of general scuffles, rivalries and accidents throughout the year may increase the death toll of students. But forget these for now for they are only opinions. Let me move back to the question I've asked you over and over and over and over again; the question you are dodging over and over and over again:
If you think 'gun-free zones' are more dangerous than 'gun-heavy zones' then how can you justify sending young adults under 21, teenagers and even children into schools that are 'gun-free zones'? Surely students under 21 deserve the same protection from gun-toting nutters as over 21s?
I don't have this dilemma because I think gun-free zones are safer than gun-heavy zones. As major of my town I'd be more than happy sending kids and teenagers into schools with no guns. You have a different philosophy, though, Robches, so as mayor of your town what will you do?
Furthermore, you completely ignored my point about employers and employees also having a right to bear arms in their working environments. Because a nutter can just as easily go on the rampage in a MacDonalds, Walmart of library do you think food-servers, checkout girls and librarians should also be packing Glock 9mms? Why should it be only students over the age of 21 that have the right to defend themselves with a gun? Come on, Robches - you're mayor and the people want answers!
[i]I used to spend a lot of time criticizing Islam on here in the noughties - but things are much better now.[/i]
Re: texas students to carry guns
Sam Slater wrote:
>
> That is my logic. Looking at the statistics there is a definite
> correlation between the amount of guns and the amount of
> killings involving guns. There are exceptions like Switzerland,
Which rather proves that your correlation is not quite as clear cut as you think, surely?
> If you think 'gun-free zones' are more dangerous than
> 'gun-heavy zones' then how can you justify sending young adults
> under 21, teenagers and even children into schools that are
> 'gun-free zones'? Surely students under 21 deserve the same
> protection from gun-toting nutters as over 21s?
I don't "justify" it, I think the notion of a "gun free zone" is as absurd as a "nuclear free zone". The fact is that under US law you have to be 21 to own a handgun and get a concealed carry permit, and this Texas law means that 21 year olds on campus keep the rights they have off campus. It won't lead to bloodbaths, but may help to stop some. As for whether the age should be 21, or 18, that's not the issue here, it's simply what US law states. But the under 21s will by default get the same protection on campus as off campus, ie that they don't live in an area that a lunatic knows is full of unarmed easy targets.
>
> I don't have this dilemma because I think gun-free zones are
> safer than gun-heavy zones. As major of my town I'd be more
> than happy sending kids and teenagers into schools with no
> guns. You have a different philosophy, though, Robches, so as
> mayor of your town what will you do?
>
The trouble with that Sam, is that "gun free zones" are only gun free until the lunatic with a gun turns up, at which point they become massacre zones.
> Furthermore, you completely ignored my point about employers
> and employees also having a right to bear arms in their working
> environments. Because a nutter can just as easily go on the
> rampage in a MacDonalds, Walmart of library do you think
> food-servers, checkout girls and librarians should also be
> packing Glock 9mms? Why should it be only students over the age
> of 21 that have the right to defend themselves with a gun? Come
> on, Robches - you're mayor and the people want answers!
I think they should have that right, but as I told you, employers such as Walmart forbid their employees from having a concealed weapon, which is wrong in my view.
>
> That is my logic. Looking at the statistics there is a definite
> correlation between the amount of guns and the amount of
> killings involving guns. There are exceptions like Switzerland,
Which rather proves that your correlation is not quite as clear cut as you think, surely?
> If you think 'gun-free zones' are more dangerous than
> 'gun-heavy zones' then how can you justify sending young adults
> under 21, teenagers and even children into schools that are
> 'gun-free zones'? Surely students under 21 deserve the same
> protection from gun-toting nutters as over 21s?
I don't "justify" it, I think the notion of a "gun free zone" is as absurd as a "nuclear free zone". The fact is that under US law you have to be 21 to own a handgun and get a concealed carry permit, and this Texas law means that 21 year olds on campus keep the rights they have off campus. It won't lead to bloodbaths, but may help to stop some. As for whether the age should be 21, or 18, that's not the issue here, it's simply what US law states. But the under 21s will by default get the same protection on campus as off campus, ie that they don't live in an area that a lunatic knows is full of unarmed easy targets.
>
> I don't have this dilemma because I think gun-free zones are
> safer than gun-heavy zones. As major of my town I'd be more
> than happy sending kids and teenagers into schools with no
> guns. You have a different philosophy, though, Robches, so as
> mayor of your town what will you do?
>
The trouble with that Sam, is that "gun free zones" are only gun free until the lunatic with a gun turns up, at which point they become massacre zones.
> Furthermore, you completely ignored my point about employers
> and employees also having a right to bear arms in their working
> environments. Because a nutter can just as easily go on the
> rampage in a MacDonalds, Walmart of library do you think
> food-servers, checkout girls and librarians should also be
> packing Glock 9mms? Why should it be only students over the age
> of 21 that have the right to defend themselves with a gun? Come
> on, Robches - you're mayor and the people want answers!
I think they should have that right, but as I told you, employers such as Walmart forbid their employees from having a concealed weapon, which is wrong in my view.
Re: texas students to carry guns
Sorry Sam but more cars dont = more accidents. A recent study showed that the number of car accidents has gone down but insurence has gone up due to people making fuller claimes and basically sueing each other. In France children are encouraged to drink at dinner as children, yet binbge drinking levels are notibly bellow our figures where u have to wait till you are 18 and Amweican 21. Just because these things look logical in theory doesnt mean real life conforms, that woulb be to easy.
http://masiedeehasablog.blogspot.com/
-
Sam Slater
- Posts: 11624
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: texas students to carry guns
[quote]Which rather proves that your correlation is not quite as clear cut as you think, surely?[/quote]
I thought my analogy with the 40-a-day old guy never getting lung cancer would have negated such a reply from you. Did you miss that bit of my post or did it not register?
[quote]I don't "justify" it, [/quote]
But you have no choice. You have to justify it if you're of the opinion gun free zones are dangerous. And you do seem to think this way because if gun-free zones weren't dangerous you'd surely be of the opinion no one needs to carry weapons in such places to defend themselves.
[quote]The fact is that under US law you have to be 21 to own a handgun and get a concealed carry permit, and this Texas law means that 21 year olds on campus keep the rights they have off campus.[/quote]
Again you come out with this crap. I've covered this already. We all give up certain rights when entering certain zones or premises. I realise I have the right to walk around naked in my own home and masturbate furiously...........or gently, depending on my mood. That right changes when I go for a swim at the local leisure centre. Let me repeat myself to make it clear to you: I don't give a shiny shit what Texans over the age of 21 are allowed to do outside campus. I'm talking about what they're allowed to carry on campus. Geddit?
[quote]It won't lead to bloodbaths, but may help to stop some.[/quote]
In your opinion, you mean. That's fine but you haven't even bothered to explain why you think this is so in any detail whatsoever. I, at least, did try and explain why I think the opposite. This is what debating is, Robches. You can't just say, "The moon is made of cheese." and leave it at that.
[quote]As for whether the age should be 21, or 18, that's not the issue here, it's simply what US law states.[/quote]
But it is the issue, Robches, because we're discussing the pros and cons of the right to carry arms in places of learning. It's a big reason why I think students shouldn't carry concealed weaponry on college campuses. How can you say it's not 'the issue'? That's like me picking one of your reasons for wanting students to carry weapons (say, to defend themselves against nutters) and say 'that's not the issue'. Of course it is. We're discussing the merits of what we think are the big issues.
College campuses are either:
a) Pretty safe places so no one should feel the necessity to carry a handgun around the place.
or
b) Vulnerable to attack from nutters due to their 'gun-free' nature.
If you think 'b', which I've concluded you do, I'm just asking (repeatedly) why you think it's ok to send young adults, under 21, into these places unarmed?
[quote]The trouble with that Sam, is that "gun free zones" are only gun free until the lunatic with a gun turns up, at which point they become massacre zones.[/quote]
Then that's a terrible thing. You're still willing to send under 21s into these places undefended.
[quote]I think they should have that right, but as I told you, employers such as Walmart forbid their employees from having a concealed weapon, which is wrong in my view.[/quote]
So you DO think check-out girls in Walmart, food-servers in Macdonalds and librarians in libraries should be packing Glock 9mms. Sounds a wonderful place to bring up the kiddies.
I thought my analogy with the 40-a-day old guy never getting lung cancer would have negated such a reply from you. Did you miss that bit of my post or did it not register?
[quote]I don't "justify" it, [/quote]
But you have no choice. You have to justify it if you're of the opinion gun free zones are dangerous. And you do seem to think this way because if gun-free zones weren't dangerous you'd surely be of the opinion no one needs to carry weapons in such places to defend themselves.
[quote]The fact is that under US law you have to be 21 to own a handgun and get a concealed carry permit, and this Texas law means that 21 year olds on campus keep the rights they have off campus.[/quote]
Again you come out with this crap. I've covered this already. We all give up certain rights when entering certain zones or premises. I realise I have the right to walk around naked in my own home and masturbate furiously...........or gently, depending on my mood. That right changes when I go for a swim at the local leisure centre. Let me repeat myself to make it clear to you: I don't give a shiny shit what Texans over the age of 21 are allowed to do outside campus. I'm talking about what they're allowed to carry on campus. Geddit?
[quote]It won't lead to bloodbaths, but may help to stop some.[/quote]
In your opinion, you mean. That's fine but you haven't even bothered to explain why you think this is so in any detail whatsoever. I, at least, did try and explain why I think the opposite. This is what debating is, Robches. You can't just say, "The moon is made of cheese." and leave it at that.
[quote]As for whether the age should be 21, or 18, that's not the issue here, it's simply what US law states.[/quote]
But it is the issue, Robches, because we're discussing the pros and cons of the right to carry arms in places of learning. It's a big reason why I think students shouldn't carry concealed weaponry on college campuses. How can you say it's not 'the issue'? That's like me picking one of your reasons for wanting students to carry weapons (say, to defend themselves against nutters) and say 'that's not the issue'. Of course it is. We're discussing the merits of what we think are the big issues.
College campuses are either:
a) Pretty safe places so no one should feel the necessity to carry a handgun around the place.
or
b) Vulnerable to attack from nutters due to their 'gun-free' nature.
If you think 'b', which I've concluded you do, I'm just asking (repeatedly) why you think it's ok to send young adults, under 21, into these places unarmed?
[quote]The trouble with that Sam, is that "gun free zones" are only gun free until the lunatic with a gun turns up, at which point they become massacre zones.[/quote]
Then that's a terrible thing. You're still willing to send under 21s into these places undefended.
[quote]I think they should have that right, but as I told you, employers such as Walmart forbid their employees from having a concealed weapon, which is wrong in my view.[/quote]
So you DO think check-out girls in Walmart, food-servers in Macdonalds and librarians in libraries should be packing Glock 9mms. Sounds a wonderful place to bring up the kiddies.
[i]I used to spend a lot of time criticizing Islam on here in the noughties - but things are much better now.[/i]
Re: texas students to carry guns
Sam:
As I have said, the notion of a gun free zone is ludicrous, it only guarantees that law abiding people do not carry arms into it, not criminals.
The point is that when adult students are allowed the same rights to carry concealed pistols on campus as other adults have off campus, there is no longer any gun free zone, it ceases to exist, a good thing in my view. Students too young to qualify benefit from the protection given by having armed adults on campus, the same as they do off campus. No-one is advocating that minors or children should have the right to carry concealed firearms, only adults.
And yes, I have no objection to any law abiding worker being able to protect themselves and others. Walmart recently sacked some workers who, unarmed, tackled and disarmed a criminal with a gun. What a shitty bunch of twats run that company!
As I have said, the notion of a gun free zone is ludicrous, it only guarantees that law abiding people do not carry arms into it, not criminals.
The point is that when adult students are allowed the same rights to carry concealed pistols on campus as other adults have off campus, there is no longer any gun free zone, it ceases to exist, a good thing in my view. Students too young to qualify benefit from the protection given by having armed adults on campus, the same as they do off campus. No-one is advocating that minors or children should have the right to carry concealed firearms, only adults.
And yes, I have no objection to any law abiding worker being able to protect themselves and others. Walmart recently sacked some workers who, unarmed, tackled and disarmed a criminal with a gun. What a shitty bunch of twats run that company!
-
Sam Slater
- Posts: 11624
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: texas students to carry guns
[quote]As I have said, the notion of a gun free zone is ludicrous, it only guarantees that law abiding people do not carry arms into it, not criminals.[/quote]
You keep saying this over and over again. So what? A school with children/teenagers/young adults under 21 will be one of these zones you talk about. Hence why I keep bloody asking you over and over again how you can justify sending kids into these zones you're so concerned about?
[quote]Students too young to qualify benefit from the protection given by having armed adults on campus, the same as they do off campus. No-one is advocating that minors or children should have the right to carry concealed firearms, only adults.[/quote]
Hahahaha! What bollocks. Is this a David Cameron style idea of 'big society'? Don't worry kids, the other kids just a little bit older will come runnin' & gunnin' to protect you. I'm sure the under 21s are sleeping soundly about that. So really you're just hoping that any nutters that walk into a college don't happen to walk into a class of first year students, cos they're left fucking helpless. Should the colleges make sure there's an even mix of over 21s and under 21s in each class? I know, why not get every over 21 student to 'sponsor' an under 21 student? You know, each under 21 has a sort of body guard on campus whereby he/she has an electronic tag and if they stray more than 20 yards from their protective sponsor an alarm goes off or something. Brilliant.
[quote]And yes, I have no objection to any law abiding worker being able to protect themselves and others.[/quote]
Well, at least you're honest. I find a world where you can't get more than 10 yards from a Glock 9mm to be some sort of nightmare. Why not go the whole 9 yards (another American phrase) and make gun ownership and carrying compulsory? Then if 3 or more innocent people are murdered in any given area their families can sue if any bystanders nearby happened to have left their guns at home that day. Sort of, "If you'd not forgot your gun last Tuesday my little Johnny would still be alive! Arrrrrgghhhh!!!!"
Like I said, it's deeply flawed, discriminatory and, I think very very dangerous. Students should be busy learning, fucking and getting drunk, not worrying about forgetting to clean their gun over the weekend and debating over hollow points vs full jacketed ammo.
You keep saying this over and over again. So what? A school with children/teenagers/young adults under 21 will be one of these zones you talk about. Hence why I keep bloody asking you over and over again how you can justify sending kids into these zones you're so concerned about?
[quote]Students too young to qualify benefit from the protection given by having armed adults on campus, the same as they do off campus. No-one is advocating that minors or children should have the right to carry concealed firearms, only adults.[/quote]
Hahahaha! What bollocks. Is this a David Cameron style idea of 'big society'? Don't worry kids, the other kids just a little bit older will come runnin' & gunnin' to protect you. I'm sure the under 21s are sleeping soundly about that. So really you're just hoping that any nutters that walk into a college don't happen to walk into a class of first year students, cos they're left fucking helpless. Should the colleges make sure there's an even mix of over 21s and under 21s in each class? I know, why not get every over 21 student to 'sponsor' an under 21 student? You know, each under 21 has a sort of body guard on campus whereby he/she has an electronic tag and if they stray more than 20 yards from their protective sponsor an alarm goes off or something. Brilliant.
[quote]And yes, I have no objection to any law abiding worker being able to protect themselves and others.[/quote]
Well, at least you're honest. I find a world where you can't get more than 10 yards from a Glock 9mm to be some sort of nightmare. Why not go the whole 9 yards (another American phrase) and make gun ownership and carrying compulsory? Then if 3 or more innocent people are murdered in any given area their families can sue if any bystanders nearby happened to have left their guns at home that day. Sort of, "If you'd not forgot your gun last Tuesday my little Johnny would still be alive! Arrrrrgghhhh!!!!"
Like I said, it's deeply flawed, discriminatory and, I think very very dangerous. Students should be busy learning, fucking and getting drunk, not worrying about forgetting to clean their gun over the weekend and debating over hollow points vs full jacketed ammo.
[i]I used to spend a lot of time criticizing Islam on here in the noughties - but things are much better now.[/i]
Re: texas students to carry guns
Sam Slater wrote:
> [quote]As I have said, the notion of a gun free zone is
> ludicrous, it only guarantees that law abiding people do not
> carry arms into it, not criminals.[/quote]
>
> You keep saying this over and over again. So what? A school
> with children/teenagers/young adults under 21 will be one of
> these zones you talk about. Hence why I keep bloody asking you
> over and over again how you can justify sending kids into these
> zones you're so concerned about?
In a school, adults such as teachers and security guards could be armed if they wished. At present, in states which enforce these gun free zones, even school security cannot be armed, which just makes schools completely vulnerable to attack by lunatics. Such attacks do happen, it is just ridiculous to think that calling something a gun free zone means no guns will be used there.
>
> [quote]Students too young to qualify benefit from the
> protection given by having armed adults on campus, the same as
> they do off campus. No-one is advocating that minors or
> children should have the right to carry concealed firearms,
> only adults.[/quote]
>
> Hahahaha! What bollocks.
Well, in your opinion. I have tried to be polite, but it's a two way street Sam.
>
> [quote]And yes, I have no objection to any law abiding worker
> being able to protect themselves and others.[/quote]
>
> Well, at least you're honest.
I do try to be.
I find a world where you can't
> get more than 10 yards from a Glock 9mm to be some sort of
> nightmare. Why not go the whole 9 yards (another American
> phrase) and make gun ownership and carrying compulsory?
Because I believe in freedom. It would be as wrong to force people to be armed as it is to force them to be defenceless against their will.
>
> Like I said, it's deeply flawed, discriminatory and, I think
> very very dangerous. Students should be busy learning, fucking
> and getting drunk, not worrying about forgetting to clean their
> gun over the weekend and debating over hollow points vs full
> jacketed ammo.
Some students managed to do that and keep their guns clean. Multitasking isn't so hard.
> [quote]As I have said, the notion of a gun free zone is
> ludicrous, it only guarantees that law abiding people do not
> carry arms into it, not criminals.[/quote]
>
> You keep saying this over and over again. So what? A school
> with children/teenagers/young adults under 21 will be one of
> these zones you talk about. Hence why I keep bloody asking you
> over and over again how you can justify sending kids into these
> zones you're so concerned about?
In a school, adults such as teachers and security guards could be armed if they wished. At present, in states which enforce these gun free zones, even school security cannot be armed, which just makes schools completely vulnerable to attack by lunatics. Such attacks do happen, it is just ridiculous to think that calling something a gun free zone means no guns will be used there.
>
> [quote]Students too young to qualify benefit from the
> protection given by having armed adults on campus, the same as
> they do off campus. No-one is advocating that minors or
> children should have the right to carry concealed firearms,
> only adults.[/quote]
>
> Hahahaha! What bollocks.
Well, in your opinion. I have tried to be polite, but it's a two way street Sam.
>
> [quote]And yes, I have no objection to any law abiding worker
> being able to protect themselves and others.[/quote]
>
> Well, at least you're honest.
I do try to be.
I find a world where you can't
> get more than 10 yards from a Glock 9mm to be some sort of
> nightmare. Why not go the whole 9 yards (another American
> phrase) and make gun ownership and carrying compulsory?
Because I believe in freedom. It would be as wrong to force people to be armed as it is to force them to be defenceless against their will.
>
> Like I said, it's deeply flawed, discriminatory and, I think
> very very dangerous. Students should be busy learning, fucking
> and getting drunk, not worrying about forgetting to clean their
> gun over the weekend and debating over hollow points vs full
> jacketed ammo.
Some students managed to do that and keep their guns clean. Multitasking isn't so hard.
-
Sam Slater
- Posts: 11624
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: texas students to carry guns
[quote]Because I believe in freedom. It would be as wrong to force people to be armed as it is to force them to be defenceless against their will.[/quote]
But you're forcing under 21s to put trust in the over 21s to protect them. You're forcing students to be in constant contact with gun-wielding colleagues. Where's the freedom to choose if you want to be in such an environment? Like I said further up the thread, the students themselves overwhelmingly do not want their fellow students to have the right to bring guns into class. The students seem to be having this forced on them. Where's their freedom to be gun-free? If they're that concerned about getting shot on campus then maybe college isn't for them. Home-teaching or learning online is probably best. That way the rest of the normal kids can go about their college life as most other students around the globe do.
On a personal level I wouldn't want fellow students carrying weapons in their pants or rucksacks. No sirreee. I'd rather be gun-free and just take my chances.
I've cleaned my gun properly cos I'm a good lad, but Sally, who sits across from me in Physics is VERY forgetful. Scatterbrain we call her. I know her gun's in her bag and she throws that bag all over the place in a clumsy manner. Has she remembered to put the safety on? Is it pointing at me right now through her bag? I'd have this worry not only in physics but every other fucking class because I'm surrounded by guns. Every morning and afternoon and even through bloody lunch. Young adults telling jokes, arguing, wrestling and giving eachother dead arms and getting drunk at night........all carrying guns. Yeah, I'd feel MUCH safer!
What's that little idiom now?: The types of people that want to own a gun and carry it around everywhere they go are the exact types of people that shouldn't have access to guns.
But you're forcing under 21s to put trust in the over 21s to protect them. You're forcing students to be in constant contact with gun-wielding colleagues. Where's the freedom to choose if you want to be in such an environment? Like I said further up the thread, the students themselves overwhelmingly do not want their fellow students to have the right to bring guns into class. The students seem to be having this forced on them. Where's their freedom to be gun-free? If they're that concerned about getting shot on campus then maybe college isn't for them. Home-teaching or learning online is probably best. That way the rest of the normal kids can go about their college life as most other students around the globe do.
On a personal level I wouldn't want fellow students carrying weapons in their pants or rucksacks. No sirreee. I'd rather be gun-free and just take my chances.
I've cleaned my gun properly cos I'm a good lad, but Sally, who sits across from me in Physics is VERY forgetful. Scatterbrain we call her. I know her gun's in her bag and she throws that bag all over the place in a clumsy manner. Has she remembered to put the safety on? Is it pointing at me right now through her bag? I'd have this worry not only in physics but every other fucking class because I'm surrounded by guns. Every morning and afternoon and even through bloody lunch. Young adults telling jokes, arguing, wrestling and giving eachother dead arms and getting drunk at night........all carrying guns. Yeah, I'd feel MUCH safer!
What's that little idiom now?: The types of people that want to own a gun and carry it around everywhere they go are the exact types of people that shouldn't have access to guns.
[i]I used to spend a lot of time criticizing Islam on here in the noughties - but things are much better now.[/i]