Shooting at Texas college

Checkmite said:
Gang members aren't human and it's no big deal if they shoot at each other; so we can safely discount incidents of shootings involving gang members as irrelevant to the wider gun debate.
Click to expand...

Agreed - I have no use at all for them and a firm wish they would all become fertilizer ASAP. This extends to all criminal gangs and all terrorist groups. And the non-alligned individuals.
 
Elypsis44 said:
Hopefully one of the shooters was a good, God-fearing, NRA card-carrying CCW'er who prevented any further injuries or deaths with their superb tactical skills, situational awareness and considerable firearms safety training.

If only there were more guns. After all, more guns means less crime.
Click to expand...

Yawn
 
Checkmite said:
Gang members aren't human and it's no big deal if they shoot at each other; so we can safely discount incidents of shootings involving gang members as irrelevant to the wider gun debate.
Click to expand...

I have to admit I don't understand why gang shootings are excluded by pro-gun people when dealing with statistics, and I'd be glad if someone could explain it to me.
 
In a weird turn of events,

Officials identified Carlton Berry, 22, as the suspected shooter. Berry is currently in jail after being treated for a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the buttocks at Northwest Medical Center in Houston. Law enforcement officials have charged him with aggravated assault.
Click to expand...

I imagine he was trying to conceal the gun in the small of his back after shooting a man he was arguing with, and another man who was in the way, when he shot himself in the buttocks.
 
Belz... said:
I have to admit I don't understand why gang shootings are excluded by pro-gun people when dealing with statistics, and I'd be glad if someone could explain it to me.
Click to expand...

Gangs are populated by "those people", see. And we don't want "those people" to be confused with the god-fearin', right-thinkin' gun owners who aren't criminals right up until they _are_ criminals and shoot the hell out of someone.

"Those people" are always criminals, of course, even though their only crime may be "being part of a gang" and "getting shot by a rival gang". Though I guess that last one isn't actually a crime. Oops.
 
Belz... said:
I have to admit I don't understand why gang shootings are excluded by pro-gun people when dealing with statistics, and I'd be glad if someone could explain it to me.
Click to expand...

remirol said:
Gangs are populated by "those people", see. And we don't want "those people" to be confused with the god-fearin', right-thinkin' gun owners who aren't criminals right up until they _are_ criminals and shoot the hell out of someone.

"Those people" are always criminals, of course, even though their only crime may be "being part of a gang" and "getting shot by a rival gang". Though I guess that last one isn't actually a crime. Oops.
Click to expand...

Huh?

Um...the pro-gun side is extremely aware of gang violence. I've discussed this, at length, in the other gun threads. As have others.

This was my most recent post addressing this point.

Don't pretend that if you didn't see it, that it didn't happen.
 
Belz... said:
I have to admit I don't understand why gang shootings are excluded by pro-gun people when dealing with statistics, and I'd be glad if someone could explain it to me.
Click to expand...

Probably because gang members involved in illegal activity are the least likely people to follow any restrictive gun laws. Most of them already have felony records, so they already aren't allowed to posses firearms. Passing new gun laws will only affect people who actually respect the law
 
lobosrul said:
Probably because gang members involved in illegal activity are the least likely people to follow any restrictive gun laws. Most of them already have felony records, so they already aren't allowed to posses firearms. Passing new gun laws will only affect people who actually respect the law
Click to expand...
Ah yes, the old, no reason to have gun laws because criminals don't obey them.

Just like we don't have laws against robbery, rape, assault, extortion, ponzi schemes and murder
 
Belz... said:
I have to admit I don't understand why gang shootings are excluded by pro-gun people when dealing with statistics, and I'd be glad if someone could explain it to me.
Click to expand...

Did you miss all those posts I made about how one major way to curb gun violence is to reduce the number of criminals by ending the Drug War?
 
remirol said:
Gangs are populated by "those people", see. And we don't want "those people" to be confused with the god-fearin', right-thinkin' gun owners who aren't criminals right up until they _are_ criminals and shoot the hell out of someone.

"Those people" are always criminals, of course, even though their only crime may be "being part of a gang" and "getting shot by a rival gang". Though I guess that last one isn't actually a crime. Oops.
Click to expand...

Or, in reality-land, people think that putting restrictions in place that focus on the law-abiding whilst having minimal impact on the (already) criminal element, who commit the majority of homicides, is both wrong-headed and unjust.
 
Sabretooth said:
Huh?

Um...the pro-gun side is extremely aware of gang violence. I've discussed this, at length, in the other gun threads. As have others.

This was my most recent post addressing this point.

Don't pretend that if you didn't see it, that it didn't happen.
Click to expand...

In that thread, you said

Nearly 300,000,000 guns in the USA today. Nearly one per person. The majority of ~12,000 homicides are perpetrated by someone, by current laws, had no legal right to have that firearm in their grubby hands. So why attack the legal owners?
Click to expand...

Well, "going after" the guns doesn't have to be the same as "going after the legal owners"; it's only owners that insist that's the case. But never mind: the fact is, those someones who by current laws had no reason to have that firearm in their grubby hands, bought that firearm from a legal owner. Or perhaps they bought it from another illegal owner, who first bought it from a legal owner. One way or another, that gun was sold or given at some point by someone legally entitled to have it, to someone not so legally entitled to have it.

Legal owners open themselves up to attack when they insist upon preserving the right to sell their guns to people not legally entitled to buy them, and openly resist any attempt or suggestion by authorities to make a record of when a legally-owned firearm gets sold to an illegal owner.
 
DavidJames said:
Ah yes, the old, no reason to have gun laws because criminals don't obey them.

Just like we don't have laws against robbery, rape, assault, extortion, ponzi schemes and murder
Click to expand...

You're comparing laws that prohibit harming others to those that ban an object that might be used in a crime? That makes total sense. :rolleyes:
 
remirol said:
Gangs are populated by "those people", see. And we don't want "those people" to be confused with the god-fearin', right-thinkin' gun owners who aren't criminals right up until they _are_ criminals and shoot the hell out of someone.

"Those people" are always criminals, of course, even though their only crime may be "being part of a gang" and "getting shot by a rival gang". Though I guess that last one isn't actually a crime. Oops.
Click to expand...

Thank you but I wasn't looking for sarcasm.

lobosrul said:
Probably because gang members involved in illegal activity are the least likely people to follow any restrictive gun laws. Most of them already have felony records, so they already aren't allowed to posses firearms. Passing new gun laws will only affect people who actually respect the law
Click to expand...

People who go around shooting people are not very likely to respect gun laws, either, so I don't see the difference.

Polaris said:
Did you miss all those posts I made about how one major way to curb gun violence is to reduce the number of criminals by ending the Drug War?
Click to expand...

What does that have to do with my request ?
 
Belz... said:
What does that have to do with my request ?
Click to expand...

Illegal drugs are the major source of gangs and gang violence. Dealing with the gangs' income reduces gang violence, and lowers gun deaths. Talking about how to reduce gang shootings is talking about gang shootings.
 
Last edited:
Checkmite said:
In that thread, you said



Well, "going after" the guns doesn't have to be the same as "going after the legal owners"; it's only owners that insist that's the case. But never mind: the fact is, those someones who by current laws had no reason to have that firearm in their grubby hands, bought that firearm from a legal owner. Or perhaps they bought it from another illegal owner, who first bought it from a legal owner. One way or another, that gun was sold or given at some point by someone legally entitled to have it, to someone not so legally entitled to have it. Legal owners open themselves up to attack when they insist upon preserving the right to sell their guns to people not legally entitled to buy them, and openly resist any attempt or suggestion by authorities to make a record of when a legally-owned firearm gets sold to an illegal owner.
Click to expand...

All of which I addressed in the same damn post.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom