Deadly shooting on Oregon college campus

http://www.therightplanet.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/which-one-of-these-signs-will-prevent-another-tragedy-gun-free-zones.jpg

http://www.therightplanet.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Sitting-Duck-Zone.jpg

http://www.therightplanet.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Idiot-Obama-Voter.jpg

http://www.therightplanet.com/2015/10/hundreds-turn-out-in-roseburg-to-protest-obama-politicizing-tragedy-go-golf/

0 Replies

@Baldimo,

Baldimo wrote:

Wasn't someone saying that knifes/blade weapons aren't deadly?

A lie. 1 page back.

Baldimo wrote:

When did I say they weren't lethal? You are the one who is lying about what I have said.

Another lie.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

How does this statement:

Quote:

You can't have an exchange without downright lies, (guns are not lethal) or steering the topic away from what's actually happening.

compare to this statement:

Quote:

Baldimo wrote: Wasn't someone saying that knifes/blade weapons aren't deadly?

and then compare to this statement:

Quote:

Baldimo wrote: When did I say they weren't lethal? You are the one who is lying about what I have said.
Another lie.

You are making things up. I never said guns were not lethal, I only asked why someone asked why knifes were not lethal in relation to murder with a bladed weapon. How does that convey that guns are not lethal? What sort of twisted logic are you implying. I didn't even say bladed weapons were more dangerous than guns. They are both deadly weapons that can kill and maim

2 Replies

@Baldimo,

Quote:

You are making things up.

Tampax was there. Of course he is.

0 Replies

@Baldimo,

Quote:

You are making things up. I never said guns were not lethal, I only asked why someone asked why knifes were not lethal in relation to murder with a bladed weapon. How does that convey that guns are not lethal? What sort of twisted logic are you implying. I didn't even say bladed weapons were more dangerous than guns. They are both deadly weapons that can kill and maim

As they can not win a debate over what we had said they need to make up phony positions to challenge.

As annoying at that is, you kind of also need to feel sorry for them at the same time,

0 Replies

http://www.a-human-right.com/takesome.JPG

http://www.a-human-right.com/molonlave.jpg

0 Replies

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

Fifteen dead. A real tragedy, esp. for a small school.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/oregon-community-college-shooting-umpqua-community-college-roseburg/

I think we might have lost track of what has actually happened. It might be a good idea to revisit neologist original statement. Is was a senseless act of violence, the ripples of despair with haunt their friends an families until the day they die. Very, very sad.

1 Reply

@glitterbag,

Quote:

It might be a good idea to revisit neologist original statement. Is was a senseless act of violence, the ripples of despair with haunt their friends an families until the day they die. Very, very sad.

No, this is very predictable given how this collective treats young males. And we can add to it that this collective is very spiritually sick. Those who get forged in this environment are going to have a very high error rate. Trying to limit the tools that these troubled people have to use against the collective in retaliation will be of very little help. These people are very determined to find a way to hurt us, and they will no matter what we do. the only solution is to cut down on the error rate, but unfortunately my peers are mostly too stupid to be able to understand such basic truths. For all of your airs of elitism you Glitter are just one more stupid American, willfully ignorant because knowing the truth would shred so much of what you believe, to include that you dont do harm.

" THIS IS CRAZY, I JUST CAN'T UNDERSTAND HOW THIS HAPPENS!" Drunk

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

Trying to limit the tools that these troubled people have to use against the collective in retaliation will be of very little help

We better hope like hell that mass murders do not move away from firearms and to devices that can be build with the materials found in most homes and such places as pool supply stores.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Quote:
Trying to limit the tools that these troubled people have to use against the collective in retaliation will be of very little help

We better hope like hell that mass murders do not move away from firearms and to devices that can be build with the materials found in most homes and such places as pool supply stores.

If I have to choose between guns and IED's, and I do, I choose guns. We are wasting so much time an irrelevant debate in this country, irrelevant because those running their yaps make claims that make clear that they dont have the first ******* clue about the nature of the problem, so how the **** are are supposed to know the possible solutions?

I blame the education system. So many people are desperately in need of a 2x4 upside the head repeatedly till they understand the truth that they are stupid. The education system has not done its job.

0 Replies

Before I post this, let me clarify that I'm not strongly pro- or anti-gun. I'm just wondering if someone would be interested in commenting on the image and the idea it contains:

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/11181205_919079714851750_4779873589750531041_n.jpg

2 Replies

@FBM,

Not everyone who owns a gun has the ability to carry insurance. It would put the cost of owning out of the reach of many Americans. When this happens, the gun industry looses business and without sales they would fail as an industry, no more new guns or parts to fix the old ones. This is the whole point behind requiring insurance. It has nothing to do with covering the costs of injury or death but everything with forcing an industry out of business.

3 Replies

@FBM,

Quote:

Before I post this, let me clarify that I'm not strongly pro- or anti-gun. I'm just wondering if someone would be interested in commenting on the image and the idea it contains:

Let see I am going on 67 years old and been around guns all my life and three generations before me that I know of there was gun owners.

There would have been no claims of any kind to an insurance company in a 150 years or so from my family owning firearms.

Now given that a very large percent of homes in the US contain firearms that also never cause anyone any problems I do not see how the rate to have that insurance would be all that high.

After all we do get car insurance and there are around 30,000 deaths a year on our highways far far far more then deaths from firearms.

We all can wish that owning cars was as safe as owning guns.

1 Reply

@Baldimo,

Do you think it would be unconstitutional?

1 Reply

@FBM,

Yes. It would be an infringement for those who are on the lower end of the pay scale to purchase firearms. Do any other Constitutional Amendments require the purchase of insurance to practice them? It would be the only one.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

I also grew up in a gun-owning family, and we were quite poor. We used our guns to put meat on the table. If the insurance wasn't too expensive, we probably would have paid it. Maybe the insurance could be just for non-hunting weapons? Not sure.

2 Replies

@FBM,

Trying to get rid of guns by driving the insurance cost up is on the front burner. What the advocates want to see is the most people decide to get rid of guns because they dont want to pay thousands of dollars a year for the privilege. Then those who dont pay the carrying costs will get ruined if their gun ever fires a bullet at a person. Which do we want to choose? Either way guns will cost a ton to own, and the government will claim that it is not the reason we lost our rights.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Hmm. OK, there are already expensive licensing requirements for owning fully automatic weapons. Suppose handguns and non-hunting long guns were simply bumped up to that class? After all, it's a lot harder to sneak a 30.06 onto campus or into a theater. Just speculating.

3 Replies

@FBM,

As I stated cars killed 30,000 or so every year far more deaths then gun cause even before subtracting suicides that I would think would not be cover by insurance.

Been in a few car accidents in my life but never been in a gun accident nor do I know personally any gun owner who have been.

If you would set the rate for gun liability by the real world claim rates for such insurance I can not see how it would be more then a few hundreds dollars a year at worst.

The risk would be spread out over a 100 millions or so plus gun owners with the 300 millions or so guns having a far better safety record then cars.

3 Replies

@Baldimo,

Baldimo wrote:

This is the whole point behind requiring insurance. It has nothing to do with covering the costs of injury or death but everything with forcing an industry out of business.

house insurance has put the housing industry out of business?

car insurance has put car manufacturers out of business?

it actually has the opposite effect. insurance allows people/companies to do stupid things and not be bankrupted/put out of business. It originated in the middle east to protect shippers of goods from loss of their goods in transit many centuries ago.

___

Some homeowner's liability insurance will cover lawsuits against shooters but it's got a pile of exclusions (won't cover shootings in course of crime being committed etc). Given the number of guns in the US, coverage for individual gun owners would probably be pretty low due to spread of risk.

1 Reply

Deadly shooting on Oregon college campus

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know