Registered users: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot], MSNbot Media, Yahoo [Bot]
Who is online
In total there are 68 users online :: 5 registered, 0 hidden and 63 guests
Most users ever online was 218 on Wed Dec 07, 2016 6:58 pm
Registered users: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot], MSNbot Media, Yahoo [Bot] based on users active over the past 5 minutes
sunrunner20, you are an idiot.
Sorry, MrC, that's just not enough here... we need something far more powerful than just the common facepalmheaddeskcombo.
You got a new Highscore!
Please enter your name:
Now press this button if you require an ambulance
*Beep* An ambulance has been called for you. You may now collapse in an unconscious heap.
EDIT: Now that's an idea. A *facepalmheadpalmcombo* game... I'll start looking at that as a concept.
Does that thing kinda look like a big cat to you?
it seems to me a lot of people are arguing that there wouldn't be any parties on campus... but this is ridiculous. Anyone ever hear of a floor party? there are parties in dorms all the time... last time I checked dorms are on campus... lol
Now we're just splitting hairs.
4,140 is the number of US private colleges according to:
Lets, assume, for argument sake, that there are 4 college shooting incidents in the US in a year. That's about a 0.096% chance of having a shooting at your college every year.
I'm not going to say that we should ignore the problem, but I don't think it's reached the point where we need to start letting the students carry guns. Mabye just slightly better security, and my "teachers with tazers" plan?
"If at first you dont succeed, then skydiving is not for you" - Darwin Awards
It seems to me alot of people are saying that there are no parties outside campus. You can carry a gun to a party outside campus, right? Well if someone has, i've never heard of a shooting incident at a party.
So if they don't bring guns to parties outside campus, why would they bring them to parties inside campus. Even if they did, so far they haven't shot anyone at a outside campus party.
well if everyone is running around the campus with a gun(doesnt matter if there are shootings off campus, were talking on campus) i dont care about statistics, if everyone has a gun, there wont be fist fights, there will be good old fashioned shoot outs...just like war, back in the day people would rush at eachother using swords, now everyone has guns so they shoot eachother. When college students, who still are prone to being becoming emotional, might act without thinking about consequenses, simple as that
sorry for double posting but ya i agree there is no need yet for students to be carrying guns around
NOT EVERYONE WILL HAVE A GUN!
Thought I needed to make that more clear as you keep missing that.
If you say it will turn into a war zone, how come that hasn't happened outside campus? Are you saying there are no fights outside campus?
They are 21, their brain is fully developed, how many students would have a gun, let alone a concealed license.
everyone will want a gun if made legal... i wouldnt feel safe knowing that some kids around me had guns and i didnt and i know a lot of people would feel that way, thus basically making many many people have guns. And if the majority of people didnt have a gun then what the hell would be the point of the whole o well the guards cant get there in time if only a few people, who odds are wont be where the attack takes place, have guns??
Not everyone will want guns, nor will everyone be able to get a gun let alone the concealed weapons license, you can't just walk in there and get it.
There should be a few people in each class who would have a gun, and you only need one person with a gun to make a difference.
Even if teachers had a gun, it would make a huge difference. It should at least be allowed for a teacher with the concealed license to carry a gun on campus.
Not everyone will want guns! How many times must we reiterate this point? The law would not make anything legal except for people who already have licenses to carry on campus. It's not going to be easier to get the guns, it's not going to be cheaper.
"Who ever said the pen was mightier than the sword, obviously, never encountered automatic weapons."
-General Douglass MacArthur
Read my dog's blog - Life of Kilo
When every man/woman carried a gun there was far less crime. Crime, itself did not become the problematic social discourse until the polit-bureau's started changing/adding gun laws... which also coincided with the "need" for more officers of the law.
Add to this, both parents leaving the home to provide for their families and leaving the raising of their children to strangers, as well as various specific gov't agencies stripping parents of their right to discipline their children in the same fashions as the pre-industrial era families had, and you have the wonderful ground-work recipe for all these school/workplace/home shootings and killings.
When reciprocal respect between the parents and their children fell away, room was made for the teachers who publicly ridiculed students in front of each other and the abrasive social clicks that were no different on the playground.
One could say that we did this to ourselves, or the establishment did this to us, or the money giants did this to us, or, or, or...but really, when the political base in this country shifted to a need to put our fingers in everyone else's pies in the world, the trickle down started ruining our society- our family structure fell away like dirt along a stream bank.
Things theoretically must get worse before they can get better... but better by whose standards? If more people carried guns in more places, yes, you'd see a rise in shootings, but, you'd also see a decline in crime after a time of culling out the marm.People would realize that everybody else has a gun, too, and there'd be a drastic change socially as to how we ALL treat each other.
Social workers would rethink ripping apart families based on fabrications, the police would think out the ramifications of tasering anybody they felt like for the stupidest reasons, and with required gun safety courses for EVERY citizen, we might be able to get back on even ground.
Heck, maybe if everybody carried weapons that shot soft paraffin wax balls; something non-lethal that'd hurt just the same, the people who just don't pick up on social cues or the obnoxious bullies would get the point to curb their mouths and actions.
I'm sure I'll catch some flack over this from all the left-thinking people, but just remember, it is the left-thinking folks that have paved the way for our societal denigration.
Gun- toting, card carrying right-wingers is where it's at.Take away guns and crime flourishes. Don't believe it? Look into world-wide crime statistics... countries that have outlawed guns and countries who require their citizens to serve as well as be armed...we suck. We have problems that no other countries in the world have to deal with on such rampant scales.
while your views are pretty extreme, I pretty much agree with everything you say.
I like the old bumper sticker that says "if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns."
I like to play blackjack. I'm not addicted to gambling, I'm addicted to sitting in a semi-circle.
I agree so far.
Country after country, state after state, study after study, the truth is when gun control gets more strict, crime rate goes up. The "safest" countries in the world (namely Switzerland) have mandatory military service and firearm ownership for males of age.
Try Alaska... everybody carries. You want to try to rob some hillbilly in Alaska? Neither do I. 95% chance he's got a 12 gauge - 50-50% rather it's loaded with buckshot or rock salt.
Sorry, I disagree here.
If I have a reason to draw my gun, it means my life is in danger. In such a situation, I do not want wax balls, rubber bullets or Mace spray; I want hollowpoints of a caliber that starts with a "4" or ends with "Magnum".
Furthermore, I would never shoot to wound. Ever. Here's why:
1) Lethal force is lethal force and the law will look at the situation more or less the same way rather your bullet wounded or killed your adversary.
2) If you have a reason to be pulling the trigger in the first place, you damn well better have a good reason to be using lethal force - if you don't have a clear legally and morally justifiable shoot, your gun should not have cleared leather.
3) If you incapacitate your adversary, he may come back later (with 4 homies) for payback.
4) In today's world, burglars have successfully sued their own victims for injuries and etc. You could be made to pay his hospital bills which could total tens of thousands. Dead men tell no tales and file no lawsuits.
5) Wound shots are harder to make. Center-of-mass (mass meaning whatever's visible - if you can only see half of your target, then it's the center of what you can see) is always the easiest to hit and the most likely to incapacitate.
6) Shooting to wound puts you in a very sticky tactical situation; you must then cover the wounded bad guy to make sure he doesn't get up and come back at you, while watching for others and calling the authorities.
No sir, if I have a reason to be shooting at someone, I'm firing two shots center-of-mass and accessing the situation. As I've drilled for extensively.
And in court, I'll honestly be able to say: "I was absolutely scared for my life - Mr (xxxx) had a (knife/gun/crowbar) and was advancing towards me, I yelled at him to stop or I'd shoot but he kept coming. I did what I've practiced to do for years and fired two shots at the center of the target. I was on autopilot, I was so scared". Assuming your facts line up, what jury would convict you for this?
I'm a liberal with a carry permit. We exist and many of us are logical, reasonable people - don't assume all us left-wingers are anti-gun zealots.
Wow this has been a lot of reading!
I take this matter somewhat personally since recently a guy was arrested at the school I go to for planning to shoot up the school just like someone did at Northern IL University. They were trying to recruit people to help them when someone ratted them out. It would have happened in the very building I am in many times a week, nothing like this has ever hit so close to home so it made me think. I mentioned this to Pete who then asked about posting this thread here.
I have a question, what about high school? Some students there would be of legal age to carry a weapon. I work for a school district and I am fairly sure that I would feel uneasy about a student carrying a weapon.
Regardless, teachers and staff being able to carry arms I would like. But I really don't know if I could approve of students carrying arms. Even knowing how hard it may be to get a license and how much training is involved, I may feel as if I would want to carry just because I know other students could be carrying.
Although some teachers are crazier than their students...
Yes, I am the guy that owns & operates SpudFiles (along with our extremely helpful moderators).
Who is online
Registered users: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot], MSNbot Media, Yahoo [Bot]