Gun Expert Lott: Let Teachers Carry Arms, Ban Gun-Free Zones to Halt Mass Shootings

Jiro said:
your another usual contradictions.

shel's reply was -



and your reply was



then you say it should be up to individual and it's perfectly fine if shel chose not to carry.... and yet... you say you're surprised and you didn't think she would go down without a fight.

:dizzy:
Click to expand...

That is the exact opposite of contradiction. Notice the word "type"......it is a very important word in that exchange. Speaking of trolling, I think most here will notice that you are butting into a civil conversation for the purpose of causing trouble. You should move on since it is clear you are having trouble understanding.
 
TXgolfer said:
That is the exact opposite of contradiction. Notice the word "type"......it is a very important word in that exchange.
Click to expand...
if your opinion is exactly same as Reba's... then you should respect shel's decision without question. just because she chose to be unarmed doesn't mean she's not going down without a fight. there are other ways beside gun to go down with a fight, you know.

TXgolfer said:
Speaking of trolling, I think most here will notice that you are butting into a civil conversation for the purpose of causing trouble.
Click to expand...
yakking around, I see. you should already know by now that your coy tactic does not work. look at what happened to you-know-who-just-got-banned. now let's not have another farce, shall we?

TXgolfer said:
You should move on since it is clear you are having trouble understanding.
Click to expand...
yes - most of us are having trouble understanding you since you have repeatedly refused to explain your vague posts when asked for clarification. don't know why it has to be like that :dunno:
 
Jiro said:
if your opinion is exactly same as Reba's... then you should respect shel's decision without question. just because she chose to be unarmed doesn't mean she's not going down without a fight. there are other ways beside gun to go down with a fight, you know.


yakking around, I see. you should already know by now that your coy tactic does not work. look at what happened to you-know-who-just-got-banned. now let's not have another farce, shall we?
Click to expand...

I have no problem with Shel's decision at all. :)

Sorry but the only troll I see is you butting into a civil conversation.
 
My opinion, at this point, is that it should be against the law to sell or expose mentally ill people to guns. Under this law, it would have been illegal for Adam's mother to expose him to guns and may have stopped the situation. And, under this law it would also be required that the medical community report metal illness of individuals to authorities as an informational measure to assist law enforcement.

I think that would be a good law.
 
VacationGuy234 said:
My opinion, at this point, is that it should be against the law to sell or expose mentally ill people to guns. Under this law, it would have been illegal for Adam's mother to expose him to guns and may have stopped the situation. And, under this law it would also be required that the medical community report metal illness of individuals to authorities as an informational measure to assist law enforcement.

I think that would be a good law.
Click to expand...

Do you want me to submit your proposal to NRA?
 
VacationGuy234 said:
My opinion, at this point, is that it should be against the law to sell or expose mentally ill people to guns. Under this law, it would have been illegal for Adam's mother to expose him to guns and may have stopped the situation. And, under this law it would also be required that the medical community report metal illness of individuals to authorities as an informational measure to assist law enforcement.

I think that would be a good law.
Click to expand...
I agree that before anyone who applies for a gun license or purchase guns should be required to include family members who live with the applicant/purchaser. For example, a guy buys a gun for himself and his brother who is a criminal lives with him. That's fucked up!
 
President Obama and VP Biden will plans to bans guns for security on children but president Obama will speeches on CNN and fox lives also about gun laws

But will post on articles after president's speech done
 
CrazyPaul said:
I agree that before anyone who applies for a gun license or purchase guns should be required to include family members who live with the applicant/purchaser. For example, a guy buys a gun for himself and his brother who is a criminal lives with him. That's fucked up!
Click to expand...

A good idea, but I doubt it would pass constitutional muster.

You can't stop someone from purchasing, but you can hold the accountable for actions after they have purchased. If the guns are not locked away and stored correctly, that can be regulated.
 
VacationGuy234 said:
My opinion, at this point, is that it should be against the law to sell or expose mentally ill people to guns. Under this law, it would have been illegal for Adam's mother to expose him to guns and may have stopped the situation. And, under this law it would also be required that the medical community report metal illness of individuals to authorities as an informational measure to assist law enforcement.

I think that would be a good law.
Click to expand...

first of all - it's already illegal to sell guns to those with a history of mental/emotional/behavioral problem. and it's already a standard procedure that police would perform a background check for applicant's mental and criminal history if before issuing a firearm license.

you are veering to a very very dangerous slippery slope. what you are really proposing is... a thought police. sounds like just about all of us could be reported to police because people don't like our opinions on certain issues as our opinions may sound extreme or lunatic.
 
when Fort Hood shooting happened... why nobody was clamoring for gun restriction?

when Aurora shooting happened... why everybody was clamoring for increased gun rights?

when Tucson shooting happened... why nobody was clamoring for a change in how we deal with mental patients?

when Sandy Hook shooting happened.... why are people such a hypocrite and irrational bunch?

:confused:
 
Jiro said:
when Fort Hood shooting happened... why nobody was clamoring for gun restriction?

when Aurora shooting happened... why everybody was clamoring for increased gun rights?

when Tucson shooting happened... why nobody was clamoring for a change in how we deal with mental patients?

when Sandy Hook shooting happened.... why are people such a hypocrite and irrational bunch?

:confused:
Click to expand...

Because the masses are asses. You've got 2 extremes, try to make it harder for everyone to get a gun, give everybody a gun. But see, the gun, is not the root of the problem so neither extreme is really a solution. The problem is the psyche of the people who do these things, and gun issues do not address it.

If there were no one anywhere had a gun, they could still blow up the building. If every body had a gun, they could still blow up the building. In fact the deadliest massacre at a school to date was someone who bombed the school, back in 1927.
 
Jiro said:
when Fort Hood shooting happened... why nobody was clamoring for gun restriction?

when Aurora shooting happened... why everybody was clamoring for increased gun rights?

when Tucson shooting happened... why nobody was clamoring for a change in how we deal with mental patients?

when Sandy Hook shooting happened.... why are people such a hypocrite and irrational bunch?

:confused:
Click to expand...

Could be that it was against very young children? Like there was no apparent reason.
 
Jiro said:
first of all - it's already illegal to sell guns to those with a history of mental/emotional/behavioral problem. and it's already a standard procedure that police would perform a background check for applicant's mental and criminal history if before issuing a firearm license.

you are veering to a very very dangerous slippery slope. what you are really proposing is... a thought police. sounds like just about all of us could be reported to police because people don't like our opinions on certain issues as our opinions may sound extreme or lunatic.
Click to expand...

Wrong, only if a person has been institutionalized or deemed dangerous by the police will they be denied purchase, and that depends on state law.

This is totally different than my approach which would mean any single history for that particular person. And, if you haven't been diagnosed by a doctor with a mental illness it wouldn't apply. Furthermore, that anyone including family is not allowed to expose them to guns without criminal penalty.

No thought police is needed...
 
ambrosia said:
Because the masses are asses. You've got 2 extremes, try to make it harder for everyone to get a gun, give everybody a gun. But see, the gun, is not the root of the problem so neither extreme is really a solution. The problem is the psyche of the people who do these things, and gun issues do not address it.

If there were no one anywhere had a gun, they could still blow up the building. If every body had a gun, they could still blow up the building. In fact the deadliest massacre at a school to date was someone who bombed the school, back in 1927.
Click to expand...
There is a difference between bombers and shooters. The bomber knows how to make bombs while most of the shooters don't, therefore the shooters use guns which are easier to use and kill. There are not many bombers around. Last time we had a bomber, it was in Oklahoma City in 1995. Tim McVeigh was a terrorist unlike other shooters.
 
Jiro said:
when Fort Hood shooting happened... why nobody was clamoring for gun restriction?

when Aurora shooting happened... why everybody was clamoring for increased gun rights?

when Tucson shooting happened... why nobody was clamoring for a change in how we deal with mental patients?

when Sandy Hook shooting happened.... why are people such a hypocrite and irrational bunch?

:confused:
Click to expand...
Yep quoted you again. Was doing the dishes and had a thought. You know I think social media might have a lot to do with this. The last mass school shooting was in 2007, not as many people, and certainly not as many adults used facebook then, did twitter and all the others even exist 6 years ago? I think everybody is feeding each others paranoia and getting everybody worked up. There is overreaction all over the place. I have a feeling pen caps might have killed more children this year than died at Sandy. People are acting like there's some kind of epidemic when it's been closer to a decade than a year since the last one, and over a decade between the last one and the one before that.
 
Back
Top