[ATrain]

Keywords being recorded and traffic.

The traffic incidents were just one example. God only knows what would happen if a few drunk college kids who all had concealed weapons decided to "have a little fun."

a shooting involving a traffic accident... do you REALLY think it WOULDN'T be recorded? hmm... theres a wrecked car on the side of the road. oh look, a body with bullet holes in it. i mean its not like the car is going to move ITSELF! and if somebody gets shot and doesn't die, the odds are they are going to go to a hospital or call 911. come on SJ....

drunk college kids with weapons... thats kind of a small sample size, if you're right, and alcohol plays a big part in it, then lets include hunters... have u ever been hunting? ever been to a hunting camp? the VAST MAJORITY of hunters in the nation drink beer (copious amounts of beer) when they hunt. heck, of all my buddies that hunt, i can only think of 2 that dont drink on hunting trips. if you were right, hunters would be exterminating each other at absurdly high rates every hunting season. but they DONT. they just dont.

furthermore, once again, you've provided ZERO numbers, proof or other factual basis to back up your claims. ZERO! come on SJ... if you're going to make a claim, at least try and back it up with research...

What research do you want dude? Get over it, there is no way to research this! You can't go to a lab and test this out, this is a real life problem that has to be REASONED through.

Although, here is a number for you...

THIRTY TWO.

The number of people killed by one man's gun at VTech.

Go back through your list, those are all numbers showing how GUNS KILL PEOPLE, and so the more of them there are, THE MORE PEOPLE WILL DIE.

I would say those are some "statistics"

Please focus on the words REASONED THROUGH...your reasoning is, well...not very good and even debatable as to whether it is sensible reasoning. Again, someone else has a gun in Norris Hall or West Ambler Johnson when Cho goes through, then he gets killed-or at least shot-before 32 do. The proof in our stats is the MORE guns there are, the LESS people will die. Are you just scared of people having guns? If thats the case, then you'll never want to come to Farmville...even though the murder rate is quite a bit less than Lynchburg's.

[RubberMallet]

you can find sources to prove anything you want...i tend to lean towards the gun side of things but there are some very good arguments on the other side of this debate...its kind of like when one study by one group of doctors say eggs are bad for you and then another group comes out later as says they are actually good for you...which one is right...hard to say...chances are its a little bit of both...which I believe is the same thing in this situation, one group says if everybody has guns it will deter crime and they back it up with some statistics, then another group of people say that no guns lower crime and they crap out some statistics that back them up...what one is right?? probably each side is right a little....

bingo....there no sense in turning around and throwing statistics around....we've had people shoot their neighbors because they thought they were breaking into their own house, we have people get shot just walking near a crime, we see people get shot just for carrying...(president of a local bank was robbed, he pulled out his own gun and couldn't use it because he froze, the crook dropped his own gun (not real) stole the bankers gun and shot him....it happens....we've also had instances where having a gun actually detered crime....who cares, the real stat is that i would be twice as terrified if a good percentage of the population was carrying as i would be thinking i might get mugged at gunpoint....

if i'm getting mugged i dont' want some vigilante running up with a gun to try and save my life...screw you dude, let him have my wallet and get away...

i have 5-6 guns including 2 handguns and have no desire to carry them....

[SuperJon]

bingo....there no sense in turning around and throwing statistics around....we've had people shoot their neighbors because they thought they were breaking into their own house, we have people get shot just walking near a crime, we see people get shot just for carrying...(president of a local bank was robbed, he pulled out his own gun and couldn't use it because he froze, the crook dropped his own gun (not real) stole the bankers gun and shot him....it happens....we've also had instances where having a gun actually detered crime....who cares, the real stat is that i would be twice as terrified if a good percentage of the population was carrying as i would be thinking i might get mugged at gunpoint....

if i'm getting mugged i dont' want some vigilante running up with a gun to try and save my life...screw you dude, let him have my wallet and get away...

i have 5-6 guns including 2 handguns and have no desire to carry them....

That's probably the smartest post of this entire stupid pointless debate.

[thepostman]

true..but statistics are flawed anyways....but there is still that element of not knowing if more guns is a good thing or not...there is no way to truly know that...

please don't quote me...i am far from on your side of things on this one

[SuperJon]

I don't completely agree with him on this, but your "statistics are flawed anyways" line was the most telling one of the whole thread. You can make statistics say anything.

[thepostman]

i think he is being as ridiculous as matshark on this one

[SuperJon]

I agree to an extent. He's just not attacking like matshark is.

[RubberMallet]

i dont' care if people get the proper training and carry...really i don't....i just don't feel the majority of the population can get the proper training....

[SuperJon]

i dont' care if people get the proper training and carry...really i don't....i just don't feel the majority of the population can get the proper training....

Why do you have to make such good points?

[RubberMallet]

its an illness....i'll get back to regular scheduled nonsense here shortly..

[ToTheLeft]

true..but statistics are flawed anyways....but there is still that element of not knowing if more guns is a good thing or not...there is no way to truly know that...

please don't quote me...i am far from on your side of things on this one

I find what you said to be true... why should I not quote you?

[ToTheLeft]

i think he is being as ridiculous as matshark on this one

What else do you expect from me?

[thepostman]

I just don't want to be mistaken for agreeing with you...because I don't completely agree with you

[ToTheLeft]

I don't expect anyone to agree with me fully. I am a bit radical with my ideas. I just know that in an ideal world, what you and SJ are saying is more practical and I agree with it, rather than the other side of this argument.

[thepostman]

gotcha....too bad this isn't an ideal world

[ToTheLeft]

gotcha....too bad this isn't an ideal world

Oh I know, that reality slaps me in the face everyday.

[Schfourteenteen]

See I think TTL is ridiculous in what he says and then I walk in his room and see his roomate. I see where hes coming from. Not that I agree with him, its just that there are people who are pushing for CC who should NEVER be allowed to touch a gun.

As for what that means, I dont really care at this point, and if I get shot by somebody Im not going to regret it for long.

[Schfourteenteen]

Oh and on a side note - anytime you need someone to come in and say something completly stupid, Ill be here

[matshark]

Keywords being recorded and traffic.

The traffic incidents were just one example. God only knows what would happen if a few drunk college kids who all had concealed weapons decided to "have a little fun."

a shooting involving a traffic accident... do you REALLY think it WOULDN'T be recorded? hmm... theres a wrecked car on the side of the road. oh look, a body with bullet holes in it. i mean its not like the car is going to move ITSELF! and if somebody gets shot and doesn't die, the odds are they are going to go to a hospital or call 911. come on SJ....

drunk college kids with weapons... thats kind of a small sample size, if you're right, and alcohol plays a big part in it, then lets include hunters... have u ever been hunting? ever been to a hunting camp? the VAST MAJORITY of hunters in the nation drink beer (copious amounts of beer) when they hunt. heck, of all my buddies that hunt, i can only think of 2 that dont drink on hunting trips. if you were right, hunters would be exterminating each other at absurdly high rates every hunting season. but they DONT. they just dont.

furthermore, once again, you've provided ZERO numbers, proof or other factual basis to back up your claims. ZERO! come on SJ... if you're going to make a claim, at least try and back it up with research...

What research do you want dude? Get over it, there is no way to research this! You can't go to a lab and test this out, this is a real life problem that has to be REASONED through.

Although, here is a number for you...

THIRTY TWO.

The number of people killed by one man's gun at VTech.

Go back through your list, those are all numbers showing how GUNS KILL PEOPLE, and so the more of them there are, THE MORE PEOPLE WILL DIE.

I would say those are some "statistics"

you dont get it... the reason that many died is because they were all UNARMED!!!! they COULDN'T DEFEND THEMSELVES!!! the man stopped and reloaded several times. he even took his time as he did it. why? because he knew no one there had a gun to shoot back...

[thepostman]

so is there no middle ground?

[Schfourteenteen]

so is there no middle ground?

NO

[scuzdriver]

Guns don't kill people. People kill people. Why not ban cars? They kill more people than anything. May as well ban cancer as well! I know, why don't we all hand out flowers to everyone!

[SuperJon]

Guns don't kill people. People kill people. Why not ban cars? They kill more people than anything. May as well ban cancer as well! I know, why don't we all hand out flowers to everyone!

No one's saying ban. We're saying keep them legal, keep restrictions on them, and don't promote every person having them.

[matshark]

No, we use our brains. We don't just accept something as truth and spew nonsense about it, we think things through and come to rational decisions.

actually, you are just accepting it as truth and spewing nonsense. you've provided ZERO evidence to back up ANY of your claims... you say, "I think" and "it would make sense"... try bringing expert and peer reviewed studies into your points and you have a case... but you haven't, so you don't.

Jon is absolutely right, even if having more guns around at VTech had saved 15-20 lives, I think that those lives would have been taken elsewhere by people who SHOULDN'T have guns, but were allowed to have them and encouraged to have them.

who says they would've been taken by other people. show me EVIDENCE. "the world is flat, everyone knows that. if you were to let peple go sailing of in boats trying to reach the indies, they might fall off the edge."

There are no stats to prove that, it's just a rational viewpoint based on what I know about people, what I know about guns, and what I know about life. This isn't some nraownsmysoul.com article about how guns make people safer, or some article about how some good samaritan with a handgun stopped a shooting from happening. This is just how I believe, and I think that logic and reason tend to follow my way of thinking more than yours.

you're right, there ARE NO STATS TO PROVE THAT. most rational view points, have stats to prove them, or at least show support for them. i mean, holy crap, thats what scientific research is all about!

we aren't talking about nra articles. we are talking carefully compiled records of shootings, and carefully researched academic studies and crime statistics. they are from OBJECTIVE sources. and articles about people with guns stopping shootings provides REAL LIFE examples of it in action. not some, "well i think that if this or this, then that." its not some drawn up hypothetical, its REAL LIFE SITUATIONS and how things REALLY play out in REAL LIFE.

as far as logic and reasoning you might be right. i mean, i state something, then show support for it from sources and studies, then defend it, then show more support for it. you on the other hand just say stuff such as "i think this or that" and then show no support for it, and then ridicule my numbers without showing any to support your claims. yes, logic and reason definitely follow your way of thinking

Then again, you also come from a viewpoint that thinks that Bombing causes Peace, and that by passing legislation to get rid of porn, pot, abortion, and who knows what else, that we will have a better society. People are people, the government and the right can say and do all they want, but people are still people. Train someone how to use a gun safely and encourage him to have it on him as much as he can for the sake of safety, but if his girlfriend cheats on him, don't cry about it when he shoots the guy who she cheated with in the crotch. You enabled that.

yes, because you know so much about my viewpoint.

bombing causes peace. well lets think about that for a second. if giving into the demands of aggressors doesn't work (hitler 1939), and if terrorists will attack anyone and everyone without provocation (islam for the past 1400 years), and they wont stop when you ask them nicely but are bent on forcing their will on everyone else (sadaam, pol pot, japan 1941), then maybe u have to kill them before they kill you. so yes, if you kill all the bastards that want you dead, and there are no more of them to cause trouble, YES, bombing causes peace.

as far as abortion goes, its just plain murder - and theres NO way around that. as far as porn and pot go, i really dont have any problems with them. i personally think pot is far less dangerous than alcohol and cigarettes, and that if the fed gov't knew how to TAX it, it would already be legal. so would i have a bit of problem with pot being legalized? NOPE. do i smoke pot, have i smoked pot and will i EVER smoke pot? no, no and no.

ok yes, lets just make up a scenario, and then blame SOMEONE ELSE for this hypothetical person's hypothetical actions. yes, that's just brilliant. men have been retaliating for women cheating since the dawn of time. if he wants to cause him harm, he will find something to do it with. him being trained, etc... with how to use a gun properly and safely really has NOTHING to do with him shooting some guy in the balls. most people can figure that out just fine without gun safety classes. but if there wasn't a gun, he'd use a knife, and if no knives, he'd use a pencil, and no pencils, then a fork and if no forks he'd just punch him in the balls, so while we're at it, lets just take away his hands too, then you can blame me for this hypothetical man losing his hands and ramming the guy in the balls with the stumps of his arms... because no one should EVER be held personally responsible for their actions... (and did it occur to you for just a moment that if he DID shoot him he would instantly be guilty of a felony and be unable to use his gun again legally? or that maybe, just maybe, properly trained persons would know this and avoid using their weapons in situation where the imminent loss of life was likely unless they used their gun?)

You can say these are just "crazy made up scenarios", but I think that putting more guns into more peoples hands is one heck of a crazy mixed up scenario. Thinking that having a room with no guns is less safe than a room with 10 guns. It's ridiculous.

well that depends on if you've got a determined criminal trying to break into that room now doesn't it... oh, wait, the criminal also gets to determine when, how and where he breaks into the room, and whether you are ready or not, oh and he's watching to see if you are alert and paying attention so that he can strike when you are least prepared.

look, i understand you are well intentioned, i just think you are naive as to the way criminals profile and interact with their victims. everything i've said comes as a result of lots of research, and talking with numerous law enforcement professionals with a lot of years on the job. the bottom line is that i've supported everything i've said, and you've provided ZERO research to back up anything you've said. all you ahve is unsupported assumptions, and we all know what happens when you assume.

oh, and btw, im a Libertarian, not a Conservative. Smaller gov't = Better

[SuperJon]

There isn't facts to back up our reasoning because not everyone has guns. You can't prove a hypothetical situation. There is a place for reasoning and the hypothetical and you obviously can't get that through your head.