BILL IN UTAH PROMOTES GUN FREEDOM

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
I know from personal, first-hand experience with gun nuts that this is true.

And why wouldn't it be, I mean c'mon. I don't go to the climbing gym 3 times a week
and think about climbing all the time, because I hope never to have to climb something....

Cycloptichorn

By YOUR reasoning, TKO, people who participate in fire drills
yearn for a REAL fire, and why wouldn't it be, I mean c'mon and when we
"ducked and covered" in school after WWII, we did it because we WANTED to get hit with nuclear boms.
I know this from first hand experience with duckers n coverers.

David

Bullshit analogy. People who participate in periodic fire drills or 'duck and cover' excersises are not comprable to gun enthusiasts, who spend a good deal of their time and money on guns, advocate for them constantly, think about them all the time, and want to use them.

Not that I expect you to admit it, so....

Also, I would prefer if you refer to me as 'cyclo' when I'm logged in as Cycloptichorn, okay? Wink

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Intrepid,

Intrepid wrote:

maporsche wrote:

I would disagree. And I think the majority would agree with me. Of course I can't prove that, neither can you.

Thankfully it looks like more and more legislatures nationwide are loosening restrictions on concealed carry;
we will soon learn who is correct.

I think what we need here is a poll.

No; we 'd have too many invasive canadians that 'd screw up the poll.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
I know from personal, first-hand experience with gun nuts that this is true.

And why wouldn't it be, I mean c'mon. I don't go to the climbing gym 3 times a week
and think about climbing all the time, because I hope never to have to climb something....

Cycloptichorn

By YOUR reasoning, TKO, people who participate in fire drills
yearn for a REAL fire, and why wouldn't it be, I mean c'mon and when we
"ducked and covered" in school after WWII, we did it because we WANTED to get hit with nuclear boms.
I know this from first hand experience with duckers n coverers.

David

Quote:

Bullshit analogy. People who participate in periodic fire drills or 'duck and cover' excersises are not comprable to gun enthusiasts, who spend a good deal of their time and money on guns, advocate for them constantly, think about them all the time, and want to use them.

Your conclusion is stupid,
like saying that people who carry good quality spare tires in their trunks
wanna get flats, or people who have good health insurance
wanna get heart attacks. The reason that u deny it
is that I have debunked your nonsensicial allegations
and YOU wanna preserve the foolishness.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Also, I would prefer if you refer to me as 'cyclo' when I'm logged in as Cycloptichorn, okay?

As u put it, so charmingly: Bullshit.

2 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

Your conclusion is stupid,
like saying that people who carry good quality spare tires in their trunks
wanna get flats, or people who have good health insurance
wanna get heart attacks. The reason that u deny it
is that I have debunked your nonsensicial allegations
and YOU wanna preserve the foolishness.

So, people who have spare tires sit around comparing the merits of them? Making post after post advocating for them?

No, it is plainly obvious they do not. Instead, they are something that sit in people's trunks and never get discussed. You, on the other hand, discuss guns constantly. It's as if it is an obsession with you.

Quote:

As u put it, so charmingly: Bullshit.

So, let me ask you: which part of it do you believe is bullshit? Ought to be an interesting answer.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

Your conclusion is stupid,
like saying that people who carry good quality spare tires in their trunks
wanna get flats, or people who have good health insurance
wanna get heart attacks. The reason that u deny it
is that I have debunked your nonsensicial allegations
and YOU wanna preserve the foolishness.

You've debunked nothing, and you've served up another false analogy. If you went out to the drive several times a day to gloat over your excellent spare tires, or if you pulled out your insurance policy to re-read it every evening, you might approach the sort of fanatical obsession with firearms to which Cyclo refers.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Your logic is full of holes in this case Set.

I can paint an equally likely scenerio where the shooter goes into a classroom, starts shooting students, 1 (or multiple) student(s) who are armed pull their guns and shoot the shooter dead before any more lives can be taken. If 'dozens' more shooters arrive minutes later (and let's be real, if 10% of the students and teachers were armed, this situation would have played out in seconds, no time for dozens of people to show up from wherever), they'll see the situation already resolved, put their guns away.

I also don't think most poeple are of a 'charge into battle, guns blazing' mentality. Guns, in this situation, are defensive weapons. If I feel in danger or am in danger in this 'shooter' situation, the gun becomes my defense if I'm trapped in classroom. I should be allowed to defend myself right?

Guns on campus would not have allowed this to become a mass shooting, is my belief. Thankfully, again, the lawmakers appear to be coming to the same conclusion.

I don't know why you think all concealed carry owners are "shoot first, ask questions later" type people.

Do you see your situation play itself out ALL OVER THE COUNTRY where 48 states allow concealed carry, including YOURS!

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

I don't know that Joe is talking about gun nuts. He said 'gunners'. I dont' think it's a leap to assume he means me, although I disagree. If he does mean me, then I can promise you that I have no desire to become a hero. I am merely satistifed to be prepared to defend myself should the situation be FORCED on me. I'm not one to go looking for danger.

0 Replies

@maporsche,

You complain that my logic is full of holes, but i don't see you providing a shred of evidence, let alone a logical argument, for your scenario.

That shooter had automatic weapons--how long do you think your armed heroes would have lasted in that class room? Your argument is full of straw men, as well. I haven't said that people have no right to defend themselves, nor have i said a word against concealed carry laws--that's just your obsession gleaming forth. I have merely pointed out that when gun lovers talk about the Virginia Tech incident, they ignore the likelihood that lots of people with firearms, but little experience in their use, are potentially as dangerous, or more dangerous than the shooter.

Let me know if you come up with a plausible argument to suggest these jokers would use their weapons quickly and effectively with no danger to anyone else.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

I have no evidence.

My first post here was admonishing your similar post, which also has an extreme lack of evidence (equally lacking as mine). I have never stated my way was likely, in fact, I've only claimed that it was equally as likely as yours (although I do believe my example to be much more likely, I just have no proof of this of course, but it's ok, cause neither do you).

The shooter had semi-automatic weapons (you know the difference?). Not every student in every classroom died. It's not like he laid down every single student in every classroom.

I do not propose letting every single student carry concealed on campus. I am all in favor of mandatory training to earn this priviledge.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Let me know if you come up with a plausible argument to suggest these jokers would use their weapons quickly and effectively with no danger to anyone else.

Let me be as clear as I can.

These 'jokers' should be trained by law enforcement personal to be allowed this privledge. This training should be designed to prepare for likely scenerios that a student may encounter.

2 Replies

So now you want to add a new qualifier? Do you suggest that only people who have sufficient training and experience should get concealed carry permits? Do you suggest that there would ever be a sufficient number of students to prevent an event such as that we are discussing? The reason i said dozens of jokers running around with guns in their hands is because for your scenario to be even remotely plausible, there would have to be enough people on campus packin' heat so that there would be at least one in every classroom.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

The most alarming thing in that otherwise idiotic screed

Surely, Cho, woud AGREE with u, that his victims shoud have been completely unarmed.
Cho woud laud u, hug u and kiss u with gratitude.
The essence of your argument is:
when there is a JOB to be DONE, u better NOT have the necessary equipment to DO it.

Setanta wrote:

is the claim about mass shootings, and especially the reference to Virginia Tech.
The gun lovers seem to be fixated on the Virginia Tech incident.

One out of other examples of DEATH FROM GUN CONTROL, disarming future victims to make their predators SAFE.
Gun control is O.S.H.A for violent criminals defending them on-the-job from the defenses of their murder victims.

Setanta wrote:

But it is so obviously stupid to claim that the concealed carrying of firearms would have helped,
i can only conclude that gun lovers abandon good sense in favor of their obsession.

No; your powers of reason are merely overwhelmed by your emotions.

Setanta wrote:

If there had been dozens of people carrying fire arms in Virginia that day,

There are 1000s of people who carry firearms in Virginia every day.

Setanta wrote:

the odds are pretty good that, not knowing who the shooter was

The students KNEW who he was inasmuch as he was DISTINCT from the fact that he was SHOOTING at them.

Setanta wrote:

and having no description of the shooter, students with guns
would have been shooting down other students they saw with guns.

That makes no sense. The obvious sequence of events woud have been (if Cho 's victims had been armed)
that when he entered the class and opened up on them,
some of them woud have drawn out their defensive guns
and blasted the hell out of him, as he was standing there
right in front of them. That coud not happen because, sadly,
thay were all in compliance with ALL laws n rules of gun control: HELPLESS, to the aggrandizement of Cho.

Setanta wrote:

And then the police would have shown up to find dozens of
clowns running around with guns in their hands,

By the time that the police actually arrived, Cho woud already have been dead
and starting to rot. There 'd be no reason for ANYONE
to still be holding a gun in his hand, and no one wearing a clown suit.
Neither woud there be any reason to run ( to go WHERE ?? )
Clearly, the state of alarm woud be limited
to the classroom wherein Cho was killed.

To all other students, it woud be news after the fact,
the same as if word got around that "a fire started in the chemistry lab, but we put it out").

Setanta wrote:

and any number of those could have been shot down for not
responding quickly enough, or in an appropriate manner to a
police order to put down the gun.

Not if those guns were back in their holsters, concealed, or back in ladies' pocketbooks.

Setanta wrote:

Of course, the greatest stupidity in any of these claims about how
having firearms makes you safe is the unspoken assumption that
the mere possession of a firearm somehow means the person with
the gun will know how to use it effectively, and will unfailing do
so in a situation of sudden and unexpected stress and threat.

Practice makes perfect. Practice is fun. I like it.

David

0 Replies

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

. . . I've only claimed that it was equally as likely as yours (although I do believe my example to be much more likely, I just have no proof of this of course, but it's ok, cause neither do you . . .

Of course you think so, you're obsessed with this. You don't want to move to Chicago because you can't get a concealed carry permit. The scenario i've envisioned is plausible because it would involve dozens of clowns running around waving loaded guns, when there would be no reason to assume that they could use those guns effectively and responsible.

Your scenario seems to suggest that the mere possession of a gun would make them competent.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

Setanta wrote:

Let me know if you come up with a plausible argument to suggest these jokers would use their weapons
quickly and effectively with no danger to anyone else.

maporsche wrote:

Let me be as clear as I can.

These 'jokers' should be trained by law enforcement personal to be allowed this privledge.
This training should be designed to prepare for likely scenerios that a student may encounter.

I take exception to characterizing this NATURAL RIGHT and this Constitutional Right, as a "privilege".

I agree that (having conceded the principle of compulsory education)
we shoud have our employees, the police,
teach optimally effective armed defensive strategy in schools.

David

0 Replies

@Setanta,

That's not entirely true set. I don't want to move to Chicago because I can't OWN my gun. I wot be able to get a concealed carry permit here regardless. My permit In Arizona is still valid though, but IL does not recognize that permit.

I think you are creating a scenerio that is unlikely to happen. I think the fact that this isn't a problem for the millions of people who carry weapons daily in 48 of THESE United States shows that people don't just run around like jokers or clowns shooting people. If you have ANYTHING to suggest that his happens in reality, please let me know.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

If you have ANYTHING to suggest that his happens in reality, please let me know.

We know that it DOES NOT, in that Vermont has been a State since the 1700s
with no gun laws and very low crime. Alaska repealed its gun control laws several years ago, with no ill effects and no effort
to restore gun control. Wyoming and Arizona are presently moving in the FREEDOM direction to join Vermont and Alaska.

David

0 Replies

well of course bill would promote gun freedom

http://www.collectinghollywood.com/MRoone2.jpg

he's a little slow

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

David wrote:

Quote:

No; we 'd have too many invasive canadians that 'd screw up the poll.

More likely, level headed Americans would pull the poll in favour of rational thought and away from the gun nuts. I really don't believe that the majority of Americans are gun nuts.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

Setanta wrote:

Let me know if you come up with a plausible argument to suggest these jokers would use their weapons quickly and effectively with no danger to anyone else.

Let me be as clear as I can.

These 'jokers' should be trained by law enforcement personal to be allowed this privledge. This training should be designed to prepare for likely scenerios that a student may encounter.

Would these gun toters get a nice shiny badge at the end of their "police training"?

1 Reply

@Intrepid,

Intrepid wrote:

David wrote:

Quote:
No; we 'd have too many invasive canadians that 'd screw up the poll.

More likely, level headed Americans would pull the poll in favour of rational thought and away from the gun nuts.
I really don't believe that the majority of Americans are gun nuts.

What u believe has no effect.
It makes no difference so long as no one tries to screw us out of our Natural Rights and our Constitutional Rights
to bear defensive guns.

David

0 Replies

BILL IN UTAH PROMOTES GUN FREEDOM

Quick Links

My Account

able2know