I want to own the gun shop.

[kcochran]

So if we have significantly less guns in the country, we'll have more violence? Who needs guns besides the police and criminals?

Do you really think you'll get into a shoot-out with a criminal and be some home protecting hero?

More like: Idiot shot dead today at the senseless age of 26.

Do I think I'll get in a shoot-out?  The odds say no.

Then again, you can tell that to my uncle, who was attacked in his home by two thugs - one had a knife, the other had a baseball bat.  My uncle managed to get clear, and eliminated two contributors to the criminal gene-pool.

Are you an advocate of simply letting people into your home to take whatever they want?

Sorry, my used kleenex are worth more to me than the life of gutter slime invading my home.

[kcochran]

And what if the government decides to oppress you? Do you think a handgun will protect you?

Once again, you'd get owned in a second.

All a gun is doing for an idiot like you is giving a REASON for someone to shoot you.

Riiiiight.

Unlike you, if the scenario you hypothesize comes to exist, at least I'll be able to do something about my situation.  If I die, I die.

If you've got so much trust in the police defending you, why don't you go visit a friendly cop and ask them about their responsibility to protect your life, and ask them about response times.

[mrpeanut]

Alright, so you're saying I should worry about home break-ins?

What makes you worried about this? Have you read a study? Can I see this study?

Can you compare the gun/no gun ratio to death/no death in terms of a break-in?

[kcochran]

Oh, and you know the school shooting that just happened?

Perhaps you ought to read up on what a couple of "idiot gun-nuts" did to stop a shooter from continuing his rampage:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_School_of_Law_shooting

Perhaps if VA Tech hadn't been so short-sighted with their firearms policy, things might be different.

Unfortunately, criminals don't obey the rules.

[kcochran]

Alright, so you're saying I should worry about home break-ins?

Worry?  No.  Odds are, it won't happen.  Being prepared for unexpected circumstances is simply common sense, however.

What makes you worried about this? Have you read a study? Can I see this study?

Again, I'm not "worried".  I simply believe in being prepared.  I was prepared when I was a Boy Scout, and I'm prepared now.

Can you compare the gun/no gun ratio to death/no death in terms of a break-in?

Does it really matter?  Simply put, if someone is in my home that does not belong there, I'm going to need new carpet and paint, because there's going to be a mess.  I truly hope it never comes to that, but I have little sympathy for thugs.  As such, I'm willing and prepared to defend my life and property.

Why should I have to sit back while either are violated?


[/quote]

[mrpeanut]

The criminal in this case bought his gun legally.

You suggest having guns on campuses. You could see how a gun could turn a benign situation into a serious one, right?

You reference "gun-nuts" (you words) and one of them is a police officer. A police officer had a gun and stopped a criminal (though off-duty).

[Raptor]

    Hey, Kcochran, I found your cameo appearance!

http://www.divshare.com/download/421722-f73


Quite ironic if you consider the game, and then this thread.

[kcochran]

The criminal in this case bought his gun legally.

You suggest having guns on campuses. You could see how a gun could turn a benign situation into a serious one, right?

You reference "gun-nuts" (you words) and one of them is a police officer. A police officer had a gun and stopped a criminal (though off-duty).

Yeah.  And when he bought his gun, he signed a piece of paper saying he wasn't going to comimit a crime with it.

See how the rules don't stop those with criminal intent?

And yeah, an off-duty police officer was involved, yet, if you want to get technical, it was the civilian with the firearm that ordered him down, and another civilian who physically restrained him.  Giving all the credit to the cop is bogus.

Also note that that neither the armed off-duty officer or the armed civilian knew about each other.  That means that the armed civilian was acting without the knowledge that there was anybody else involved.  Had the off-duty cop not been there, the off-duty civilian would have stopped this shooting.

[firstlesson]

yeah stupid va tech.... how dare they not allow everyone to carry guns on campus, what were those idiots thinking?

[kcochran]

   Hey, Kcochran, I found your cameo appearance!

http://www.divshare.com/download/421722-f73


Quite ironic if you consider the game, and then this thread.

Har.

So, you know, in Australia, they've banned swords, and in Britain, if they haven't yet, they're moving to do it.

In Britain, there's also been suggestions to ban large kitchen knives.

What's this prove?

Simply that criminals will use any means necessary to meet their goals, and that eliminating firearms has no effect on violent crime - in fact, quite the opposite.

To be sure, since Britain banned firearms, gun crime has gone down.  Yet, surprisingly, violent crime has gone up.

Bobbies didn't use to carry sidearms.  They started - AFTER firearms were banned from civilian ownership.

Strange...

[Mr.Cactus]

And what if the government decides to oppress you? Do you think a handgun will protect you?

Once again, you'd get owned in a second.

All a gun is doing for an idiot like you is giving a REASON for someone to shoot you.

mmmmmuu... ufts
uoy od ton tnuoc

[kcochran]

yeah stupid va tech.... how dare they not allow everyone to carry guns on campus, what were those idiots thinking?

Virginia - January 31, 2006 - From the Roanoke Times - http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/wb/xp-50658

Gun Bill gets shot down by panel

HB 1572, which would have allowed handguns on college campuses, died in subcommittee.

By Greg Esposito
381-1675

A bill that would have given college students and employees the right to carry handguns on campus died with nary a shot being fired in the General Assembly.

House Bill 1572 didn't get through the House Committee on Militia, Police and Public Safety. It died Monday in the subcommittee stage, the first of several hurdles bills must overcome before becoming laws.

The bill was proposed by Del. Todd Gilbert, R-Shenandoah County, on behalf of the Virginia Citizens Defense League. Gilbert was unavailable Monday and spokesman Gary Frink would not comment on the bill's defeat other than to say the issue was dead for this General Assembly session.

Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker was happy to hear the bill was defeated. "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."

Del. Dave Nutter, R-Christiansburg, would not comment Monday because he was not part of the subcommittee that discussed the bill.

Most universities in Virginia require students and employees, other than police, to check their guns with police or campus security upon entering campus. The legislation was designed to prohibit public universities from making "rules or regulations limiting or abridging the ability of a student who possesses a valid concealed handgun permit ... from lawfully carrying a concealed handgun."

The legislation allowed for exceptions for participants in athletic events, storage of guns in residence halls and military training programs.

Last spring a Virginia Tech student was disciplined for bringing a handgun to class, despite having a concealed handgun permit. Some gun owners questioned the university's authority, while the Virginia Association of Chiefs of Police came out against the presence of guns on campus.

In June, Tech's governing board approved a violence prevention policy reiterating its ban on students or employees carrying guns and prohibiting visitors from bringing them into campus facilities

[mrpeanut]

Oh come on. There's no way to know if he would have tried to take down that one guy. Maybe two guns made him wake the fuck up, who knows?

Anyway, the idea is to make guns NOT part of society. Crazy people just go crazy, giving them a way to legally buy guns is a bad idea. (yesterday's shooter)

Do I really need to bring up Canada? Because those people are used far too often for this shite.

[mrpeanut]

mmmmmuu... ufts
uoy od ton tnuoc

I hope a crackhead shoots you with a gun that his friend legally purchased.

[kcochran]

Oh come on. There's no way to know if he would have tried to take down that one guy. Maybe two guns made him wake the fuck up, who knows?

Anyway, the idea is to make guns NOT part of society. Crazy people just go crazy, giving them a way to legally buy guns is a bad idea. (yesterday's shooter)

Do I really need to bring up Canada? Because those people are used far too often for this shite.

Does it matter if he'd have tried to take down one, but not two?  The fact is, an ARMED CIVILIAN was there, and stopped the situation from getting worse.

And yes, crazy people just go crazy - eliminating firearms just means they'll use something else.

Shooting people is already illegal - but it still happens.  If Congress/Senate + President tomorrow enact a law confiscating firearms, do you really thing the criminals are going to comply?