Marijuana.com

Andrew87

Sooo then what do you suggest? Maybe it would in fact be a better world without guns, but as of now, it is simply not plausible to believe that this idea has any realistic potential.

Nonetheless, I fail to see any reason whatsoever that the actions of "too many messed up individuals" should have any bearing on my constitutional rights.




I think you would be surprised to find that when I was younger, I supported gov't control of firearms.

What happened, you ask? I researched the issue, and after discovering many of the underlying facts, my viewpoint changed completely. I realized that it was absolutely foolish to believe that restriction or even outright prohibition of firearms will not prevent someone from purchasing one from black market distributors. I then came to the conclusion that it is certainly better to be prepared than merely hope I never encounter a homicidal shooter. As long as a person abides by the law, I see no reason why they should not be allowed that same right to be prepared.



Do you expect me to just take your word for it? I have never heard of a single case like the one you describe - if you're going to make such a radical assertion, at least back it up somehow.




You think college students are under a lot of pressure??? Please. You either have an incredibly weak mind, or zero life experience. Perhaps both.

How about the kids (yes, many of them are just kids) who bypassed college because they didn't have money for tuition, and are doing one year tours in IRAQ??? THEY are the ones who are under pressure. Your stress level is NOTHING compared to theirs - and somehow they manage not to "snap" and shoot up their entire platoon.

Also, Utah allows concealed carry on campus, and evidently it's worked quite well - due to the fact Utah's colleges haven't become some madman's shooting gallery nor have they seen the spontaneous eruption of violent gunfights on campus.

Utah only state to OK guns at college - Life - MSNBC.com

 

Andrew87

And how the fuck do you expect to accomplish that? You are insinuating we carry out a large-scale social revolution that is completely unfeasible when applied to today's world.

How do you figure?

I don't know about you, circa, but I make sure I am always aware of my surroundings. Surely, I'd realize if someone started shooting for no apparent reason.

Not to mention, I imagine the chances of an otherwise normal, law-abiding person all of a sudden saying "fuck it" and lighting up the campus are FAR less than someone coming from outside the school with the predetermined intent to shoot and/or kill people.

Dude, c'mon. I agree that the intelligence of the average human is an embarrassment, but I think you're underestimating it just a bit here.

Hey, if you want to bury your head in the sand - be my guest. Just don't expect me and others to go down with you.

Well, at least you admit it.

Yeah, and I'd feel more comfortable knowing that it was impossible for me to ever be hit by a drunk driver, hell, I'd feel more comfortable knowing that nothing bad could ever happen in my life, but I'm smarter than to try and kid myself.

So, you're OK with the potential possibility of a crazed gunman smearing peoples' brains on the walls left and right, but not with the law-abiding citizen in your class putting up a fight against him/her by means of a concealed handgun?

Sorry, but when you embrace a standpoint as baseless as this, it is quite difficult not to "mock your attitude."

Please tell me why in the hell it took TWO HOURS for the police to arrive?

Imagine if this were a school shooter, you'd have been waiting for two whole hours, completely defenseless, before you could be helped. That is, if you weren't dead by the time help got there.

circa, you are really building a case against yourself with this story. Just imagine if someone on your side had a gun....maybe you wouldn't have had to wait in the classroom with this lunatic like helpless sheep for TWO HOURS before anything could be done about it.

The state of Utah has proven you wrong.

Sorry pal, don't know what to tell ya. Maybe you need some thicker skin - or a victory over your fear of weapons.

Actually, I think anyone with a concealed carry permit is wise enough to know that there is no need to draw a weapon on an unarmed person. If he was visibly armed (had a gun, had a knife to the girl's throat, etc.) then it would be a very different situation. Hopefully if someone had drawn a weapon and shot him in one of these instances - you wouldn't refer to them as an 'idiot.'



...And on what do you base this assessment? Seems like your opinion is nothing but a guess.

Your (likely biased) description depicts an individual in a clinically psychotic state, however, psychosis does not necessarily mean schizophrenia is present.

Pure speculation. I don't know how you could 'guarantee' anything as potentially uncertain as the situation you describe.

None that I can think of.

No - it is essentially pointing out the idiocy of so-called 'gun free zones' and how they tend to accomplish the opposite of what they intend.

Well if you think you're going to be able to Monday-morning quarterback your way through life - you're in for a rude awakening.

As I mentioned in my last post, I didn't always hold the view I do now. It was only after I became more educated on the topic that I altered my ideology, because it is what I see as the most logical, reasonable approach (by a long shot).

If someone has a different opinion than mine, I more often than not enjoy an intelligent presentation of it - but when they start with strawman-laden foolishness I have to draw the line.

A debate's length says absolutely nothing about it's content. Simply being able to debate something until you are blue in the face doesn't make your opinion any more valid.

Hmm...

Sounds like you are being just as narrow-minded as everyone else supposedly is.

Please, by all means, post them - because as of now your entire argument consists solely of claims made by....yourself.

Also, don't think my opinion isn't going to change no matter what - all changing it entails is presenting a better argument backed by logic and facts, something you have yet to do.

I would rather embrace a political standpoint that works, not one that makes me "feel good."

feedyourhead

military personnel are TRAINED not to 'snap' and to use their weapons correctly in the right situations. they have learned how to handle their stress, unlike most people their age. they have to, or else they WILL go crazy when they're on duty somewhere. stress control is crucial in their line of work. if i remember correctly from my brother's days in the military, there is also a psychological evaluation involved. comparing civilian life to military life (on-duty) is like comparing apples to oranges. to assume that no one has stress levels as a civilian that are as high as those serving in iraq is asinine. the stressors are still there but in a completely different form. i can tell you, my brother and his family were a HELL of a lot better off when he was in the navy and serving at guantanamo bay. he got out of the military, couldn't find a job, his fiance had just had their third child and he was born with multiple health problems, they lost their house, declared bankruptcy, and now he is living at my grandmother's with a weekly 'allowance' at 28 years old, working at a meat processing plant, trying to figure out how the hell he is going to feed and house his family (who are staying at a family member's about 2 hours away). trust me, he was WAY less stressed and better off tbh, when he was in the military. getting my electricity shut off or getting a bad grade in a class is nothing compared to doing a tour of duty in iraq, of course, but it's stressful nonetheless. college students and other civilians don't have the same KIND of stress that people in the military do, but to assume that everyone in college has it so easy because they're not in iraq and that they're not experiencing high stress levels either, makes it seem like YOU are the one who has had 'zero life experience, or a weak mind. perhaps both.'

__________________

xPotStar420x

GUN ZONE

In case of emergency, call 911, then crawl to the nearest exit. If help is delayed in arriving, then call this guy immediately!

Andrew87

I find it funny that of my entire, long-winded rebuttal, this is the only point you chose to address. If you re-read what I wrote, you'd see that I never claimed every military member's stress level > than every civilians'. My only claim was that the so-called "stress" of typical college life doesn't hold a candle to that of combat experience, anyone who says otherwise clearly doesn't know how good they have it. However, someone who takes night classes and works two full time jobs on top of that in order to support their children, yes, that is some extreme stress. But some bratty 20 year old who's only job is to pass classes and thinks that they are entitled to everything because "life is just SO hard,"..? That person is simply weak.

Getting good grades and maintaining a reasonable social life is NOT difficult - unless you're an absolute moron. (Well, the social factor can be difficult if you are conversely, incredibly intelligent - in which case you can rely on your triple-nine society meetings. )

Instead, fathom this example: A gun show. While I realize that a "high" stress level in many cases is not there - guns are (literally, in many cases) only an arms' reach away - in a relatively enclosed environment containing a reasonably large group of people. Going by you and circa's logic, why are there not more shooting massacres at gun shows? Damn near everyone has a gun (the few who don't still have easy access to one), but for some reason, they haven't resorted to shooting each other up over trivial matters...why would you suppose that is???

*(In your brother's case - has he not considered re-enlisting? If there are factors which you have not mentioned that prevent him from doing so, I apologize, and I mean no offense whatsoever - but from what you wrote it seems like he is much better suited for military life. Again - only my short-term judgment based on fairly limited information - so I apologize if for whatever reason this is not possible.)*

How clever of you.

Sorry, but I can't think of any 'college-life' situation that is serious enough to provoke someone into impulsively starting a gun fight. (Assuming there is no alcohol involved, of course, but this should go without saying for a true gun owner.)

Even, hypothetically, if someone did, they'd more than likely be taken down in a matter of seconds by someone else using their weapon in self defense.

Oh, and potstar420, I have no idea what your point in posting that picture was/is - but I assume you were simply trying to stir up trouble given the fact that you offered no explanation of of your still somewhat-indistinct opinion of the issue. If you would like to explain further and take part in the debate - please do.

 

xPotStar420x

sorry.... you posted a picture... so did i.

why can't i?

as for me and guns. i am in the middle. it is peoples right. i could care less if someone joins the nra and likes to shoot shit.

however, where is the right for the people who feel uncomfortable when someone has a gun in the classroom?

class is for learning.

it is peoples right, to smoke in a smoke zone. it is peoples right to drink. but, it in certain parts that is unacceptable to smoke and drink in public places. why should guns be any different?

which... brings me to another problem on why i agree with andrew and trouble and all them peeps. what would happen in v-tech if one of the students had a gun? that, is really a no brainier. far less devastation and less lives.

but there is an exact opposite to above.... what if the guy who shot it up, couldn't get a gun?

outlawing guns... will not work. just like prohibition, you will be putting the weapons in the criminalize hands. but, there should be certain rules for the other people around you, while you cherish your 2nd amendment.

feedyourhead

why would i address your entire post when none of the quotes you responded to were mine? i found a part that i wanted to comment on, so i did. i don't agree with the generalization. just because most students have the support of their parents doesn't mean that life magically gets less stressful and doesn't make the student 'bratty.' stress can't be pinned to any one person or group of people, things that stress others out and make them go crazy might not even phase the person their sitting beside. it's not all black and white, it's an emotion. assuming that a stranger has an easier life than another stranger just based upon whether or not they're a student or a soldier is nothing short of closed-minded.

people don't go on shooting sprees on the street either, but if you put a bunch of people in a room together with guns and something happens, and several people step in to be 'heroes,' there will be a lot more stray bullets than if there were only one or two shooters. you don't seem to get what i'm saying or where my stance on this issue is at all. i don't think that guns in the classroom will cause a massive shooting spree because a dude flunks a test, but i think it would further complicate an actual attack by someone who has an intent to kill.

after he had his kids, he just got sick of it, he didn't like being on ships for long periods of time, usually not knowing where or when he was going to ship out until he basically had to go. it was causing him to miss his kids grow up, they grow up quickly especially in the first few years. he sees them on weekends now, which is a better alternative than he had even though the overall situation is not so great.



i never, ever, ever, ever said that guns in the classroom would start impulsive gun fights on campus. i don't know why you keep asking me about impuslive shooting sprees when i never said anything about them. i just fear that arming multiple people and throwing them in a room with closed doors would cause chaos, confusion, and possible accidental hits from stray bullets, maybe even confusion as to who the shooter actually was. pardon me for not trusting a scared college student(s), untrained in how to use a weapon in an emergency such as this, to heroically stand up and shoot the bad guy.

also, i'm sorry, but being in college doesn't mean that life won't happen to you. i don't know if you're in school or not, but trust me -- most of the things i personally worry about (and that are serious and important) have absolutely nothing to do with grades or rent and everything to do with my life OUTSIDE of school (yes, school is just one part of many parts of my life, a shock i know). you're kidding yourself if you think that's all a college student thinks about or has to worry about.
i would LOVE for that to be the case.

Andrew87

No one said you couldn't - I only stated that your opinion on the matter seemed vague and that you should work to convey your point in an intelligent manner rather than post an obscure, immature picture which does nothing for neither you nor the discussion. No reason to "groan" about that.

Um, OK...This is an incredibly simplistic and primitive view of gun ownership, but I'll suspend my criticism for the sake of the discussion.

If someone is carrying a pistol concealed, there is no way for you to know whether or not they have one.

It seems to me (please, correct me if I'm wrong), that you all simply feel better that there is a 'law' that says no one can have a gun in a particular area - so called "gun free zones." (Which I thought we had already concluded were asinine, shallow excuses to "feel good," because in real life they have no bearing whether or not someone will bring a gun into the area.)

Guess what else? There is a law against murder, rape, robbery, assault, etc., but the simple presence of these laws is not going to prevent you from becoming victim to any of these crimes. That is ultimately up to you to prevent.

I agree - but no one is arguing that we should substitute learning for target shooting, so I guess I don't see your point.

You have all claimed that the reason for your general fear of weapons is not due to ignorance or mistrusting yourself - so tell me, what the hell is it? Do you even know?

Because me carrying a gun has absolutely no affect on you (unless I end up shooting someone in self defense - who might've killed me then moved on to you, of course ).

Although I disagree with the 'no smoking in public' laws in principle - a person smoking a cigarette near me can potentially negatively affect the health of myself or others, so I can see a clear basis for this law.

Perhaps a better question, would be why should guns be the same? Tobacco use in public harms others by default, possession of a gun does not.

Glad there's one aspect in which we agree...

You and I both know that anyone who wants a gun badly enough will find a way to get one - legally or otherwise. Obviously, if Seung literally could not have gotten a gun the VT situation never would've happened, but from a practical standpoint, there is no way to assure that anyone cannot get a gun, regardless of how hard they try.

Look at cocaine, for example. It is highly illegal for everyone (outside of the select few with DEA licenses), yet it can be found in every major city of the U.S. (in large quantities - I might add). So how do you explain this?

It's simple economics, potshot - when there is a demand for any given product (be it firearms, be it drugs, whatever), someone will provide it, regardless of whether or not it is legal to possess.

Maybe if every firearm was supernaturally wiped off the face of the earth, as well as the technology needed to create said firearms - your idea might have held some weight. But you're dreaming to think something like this would even be remotely possible to apply to the real world.

xPotStar420x

well... thanks for clearing it up. i can see where you are coming from. i am leaning that it is okay to have a gun in class. only if, there is some sort of law allowing the person to go through some sort of extra training, and evaluation on mental illnesses. now, i think that is fair.

Andrew87

Absolutely. I'd fully support something as this.

I think it'd be impossible for me to provide a sufficient answer to this question without venturing completely off-topic, but the gist of my argument would be that I strongly disagree with any sort of union between psychiatry and the state.

Simply put - theoretically, I would agree with you. Realistically, I'm not so sure - it's a very complex topic that deserves a separate discussion.