• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Dylann Roof: The Second Amendment Strikes Again

Yuchi1 said:
What's absurd is you thinking it is a coincidence these monsters did not choose to go into a facility where civilians could be legally CCW.
Click to expand...
You think it's a coincidence that people don't go into supermarkets mass killing everyone? Really?
 
Yuchi1 said:
What's absurd is you thinking it is a coincidence these monsters did not choose to go into a facility where civilians could be legally CCW.
Click to expand...


They chose to go into a facility in which they had history.

Where did I say school shootings would drop to zero? The fact appears, (Utah) there have been no school shootings there as well as Kansas, once they allowed CCW in their schools. I find it absurd you're trying to put words into people's mouths when their facts/logic do not mesh with your paradigm of how the world should be.
Click to expand...

I'm using the same standards you applied to me on this very page. Don't like it?

IMO, post(s) 105 (desperate times/desperate measures...really?) , 150, 157 & 163 leave little to the imagination as to your true feelings about self-defense.

IMO, post 167 illustrates your disneyfication as it belies the fact our Second Amendment is what protects our First Amendment.
Click to expand...
 
marplots said:
But your point was about a lack of concealed weapons. To have any merit, you first need to show that having concealed weapons around make a meaningful difference. Otherwise, one could assert that the lack of any old thing - heroin included - alters the situation and leads to another outcome.

If you'd like a less out-of-the-box example, I could promote separating by sex for education, using the fact that all school shootings happened in mixed-gender schools. Of course, that assertion fails for the same reason yours does.
Click to expand...

Your circular argument is to ignore the facts. Fact, guns were used in these events. Fact, CCW guns were not allowed in these events. Fact, similar environments (Utah schools) where CCW is allowed, no mass shootings have occurred.

With the central premise being mass shooting, gun violence, your attempts at extraneous examples falls flat.
 
Yuchi1 said:
What's absurd is you thinking it is a coincidence these monsters did not choose to go into a facility where civilians could be legally CCW.

Where did I say school shootings would drop to zero? The fact appears, (Utah) there have been no school shootings there as well as Kansas, once they allowed CCW in their schools. I find it absurd you're trying to put words into people's mouths when their facts/logic do not mesh with your paradigm of how the world should be.
Click to expand...

I'm sure mass murderers carefully review the relevant laws before they chose a venue.:rolleyes:
 
NoahFence said:
They chose to go into a facility in which they had history.



I'm using the same standards you applied to me on this very page. Don't like it?
Click to expand...

Which happened to be a facility that did not allow CCW making the decision an apparent easy one, for them.
 
Yuchi1 said:
Your circular argument is to ignore the facts. Fact, guns were used in these events. Fact, CCW guns were not allowed in these events. Fact, similar environments (Utah schools) where CCW is allowed, no mass shootings have occurred.

With the central premise being mass shooting, gun violence, your attempts at extraneous examples falls flat.
Click to expand...

There was no law preventing anyone from carrying in the church.
 
Yeggster said:
I think if they didn't PROMOTE the events and make celebrities of the killers (by that I mean banning all news reports) that would help much more ... since elimination of all firearms is impossible ... why not work toward something that can actually help?
Click to expand...
You mean if someone goes nuts with a gun and kills people, the media should be forbidden to report the fact? If you don't mean that, what do you mean?
 
Yuchi1 said:
Which happened to be a facility that did not allow CCW making the decision an apparent easy one, for them.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't have made a lick of difference.

Again - you're saying that if guns were allowed in every school, there would be zero school shootings. Wow.
 
NoahFence said:
Wouldn't have made a lick of difference.

Again - you're saying that if guns were allowed in every school, there would be zero school shootings. Wow.
Click to expand...

Wish you try to stop the spin.

How do you know it wouldn't have made a difference?

I'm sorry you cannot seem to get over the fact Utah allows CCW in schools and has had zero mass school shootings. Again, where did I say that was a coast to coast guarantee if other schools adopted such a policy? Also, again in all of the mass shootings in schools, was CCW allowed?
 
Yuchi1 said:
Wish you try to stop the spin.

How do you know it wouldn't have made a difference?

I'm sorry you cannot seem to get over the fact Utah allows CCW in schools and has had zero mass school shootings. Again, where did I say that was a coast to coast guarantee if other schools adopted such a policy? Also, again in all of the mass shootings in schools, was CCW allowed?
Click to expand...

You implied it rather heavily. You can't see that?
 
RandFan said:
Use your imagination. I'm talking about the ones that don't allow CCW. Why are they not a source for mass shootings?
Click to expand...

Probably, because they are populated by a larger number of able-bodied adults instead of children?

The mall shooter (Portland) allegedly took his own life (after shooting ~2 people) once he saw a civilian had retreived his CCW from outside and was coming to interdict him.

Perhaps, I should be drinking more of the Sheeple kool-aid that seems prevalent around here?
 
Craig B said:
You mean if someone goes nuts with a gun and kills people, the media should be forbidden to report the fact? If you don't mean that, what do you mean?
Click to expand...

Perhaps he would like to restrict the news of mass gun killings to only those who have guns.

That way, the general public would not be provided with any additional excitement, the fellow who did the killing would not be able to see his name in the media, and those with guns would be provided with enough data to kill the person who did the aforementioned mass gun killing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom