NH: Gun toting Free Staters clear ice in "troubled" neighborhood

[Halofan48]

Why do guns have to be the answer though? Why not have it be, o i don't know, NLWs? (non-lethal weapons)

Besides, a gun doesn't always help. What if you have a gun, and a guy comes up behind you and hits you over the head with a pipe. Now your out cold, your wallets gone, and you just gave a criminal a weapon, and if he is dressed like the average joe, and is keeping cool, the cops aren't likely to nab him, since carrying guns is normal.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Tycoon Besides, you completely ignored the question of how making more guns solves anything.

If all of the teachers at Columbine High School and Virginia Tech had been armed and competently trained in the use of a firearm, how successful would those attacks have been?

That about sums it up.

[Tycoon]

Giving guns to teachers is different than just any person carrying them in public. Besides, that would actually give students the chance to steal the teachers' guns. It's not like they can keep a watchful eye all the time.

[Halofan48]

If all of the teachers at Columbine High School and Virginia Tech had been armed and competently trained in the use of a firearm, how successful would those attacks have been?

depends, if he just burst through the door and caught everybody by surprise, the professor better have some extremely quick reflexes or he's going to get shot.

Again, NLWs should be used instead, IMO anyway

[Tycoon]

Besides, the students wouldn't have even gotten any of the guns if they were more strictly regulated. Stricter regulations would solve more problems than having more guns around.

[Halofan48]

Maybe the reason people don't want a more strict regulation system is because they might not be able to buy one then, possibly being viewed as unfit to carry a weapon, and if this is true, then we have a big problem.

[Tycoon]

Maybe the reason people don't want a more strict regulation system is because they might not be able to buy one then, possibly being viewed as unfit to carry a weapon, and if this is true, then we have a big problem.

Either way, allowing guns to be carried in all public places by anybody goes in the complete opposite direction. Certainly not a good thing.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Tycoon Besides, the students wouldn't have even gotten any of the guns if they were more strictly regulated. Stricter regulations would solve more problems than having more guns around.

Really? How's that working out for drugs? How'd it work for alcohol?

Quote by: Tycoon Either way, allowing guns to be carried in all public places by anybody goes in the complete opposite direction. Certainly not a good thing.

Why not? What is going to happen other than that people will cease to be easy targets of crime?

[Halofan48]

No, crime will become more common. Ever hear of a term called "crimes of passion"?

[Whilletal]

Quote by: Roxdog Not really. They are trying to spread the message that having the ability to defend yourself is a good thing. So, if they are "irrelevent" than I would say they are about as irrelevent as cookies are to girl scouts.

Mmmmmmm cookies

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Tycoon Giving guns to teachers is different than just any person carrying them in public. Besides, that would actually give students the chance to steal the teachers' guns. It's not like they can keep a watchful eye all the time.

They can't keep a watchful eye on their belt? I knew Americans were getting obese, but geez...

Why would students steal their guns when they haven't shown a propensity to steal other belongings of their teachers (like purses and phones)?

You need to support your arguments with EVIDENCE. Right now you're just using conjecture and your "gut feelings" on things, which can easily be wrong.

Quote by: Halofan48 No, crime will become more common. Ever hear of a term called "crimes of passion"?

Any evidence for this? Be careful, you're treading on my area of expertise.

Are "crimes of passion" impossible without a gun, by the way?

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: Tycoon The only thing a gun does is kill or maim. In the case of public safety they should only be carried by cops.

Oh really? And what's so special about a cop that gives them a right to carry and no one else?

[Kizzume]

If one absolutely believes that guns are bad, religiously, then for them, guns are bad.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Kizzume If one absolutely believes that guns are bad, religiously, then for them, guns are bad.

Well unlike the OTHER side, the pro-gun movement doesn't want to force anything on anyone.

[Halofan48]

Are "crimes of passion" impossible without a gun, by the way?

Of course not. But they would likely become a lot harder. Like, lets say your married. One day, you come home, and you find your spouse in bed with another. In a fit of rage, you end up shooting them both. Now take the gun out of the picture. It's a lot harder to kill someone with a knife then a gun. A gun, you can't really fight back against,but a knife you can. So yes, they wouldn't stop completely, but the number of deaths caused by them would likely decrease.

[Tycoon]

Why would students steal their guns when they haven't shown a propensity to steal other belongings of their teachers (like purses and phones)?

Uuum, excuse me, but yes, they have shown a propensity to steal belongings. Just at my little isolated school a DVD player was stolen last week.

[Halofan48]

Yep, happens at my school all the time. One time someone tried to take a teachers laptop he got caught right as he was leaving school grounds. I've seen teachers have phones stolen, wallets taken, heck, even a projector. It happens.

[Kizzume]

Quote by: tivodan1116 Well unlike the OTHER side, the pro-gun movement doesn't want to force anything on anyone.

That is absolutely true.

[Tycoon]

Well unlike the OTHER side, the pro-gun movement doesn't want to force anything on anyone.

Hmm, on the contrary...

If everybody can carry around guns then the only thing stopping somebody from shooting you is if you carry a gun as well. What I am saying is that you would have to carry a gun or be shot.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Halofan48 Of course not. But they would likely become a lot harder. Like, lets say your married. One day, you come home, and you find your spouse in bed with another. In a fit of rage, you end up shooting them both. Now take the gun out of the picture. It's a lot harder to kill someone with a knife then a gun. A gun, you can't really fight back against,but a knife you can. So yes, they wouldn't stop completely, but the number of deaths caused by them would likely decrease.

Quote by: Tycoon Uuum, excuse me, but yes, they have shown a propensity to steal belongings. Just at my little isolated school a DVD player was stolen last week.

Quote by: Halofan48 Yep, happens at my school all the time. One time someone tried to take a teachers laptop he got caught right as he was leaving school grounds. I've seen teachers have phones stolen, wallets taken, heck, even a projector. It happens.

Hi. I'm elementary logic. Have we met? You both need to go out there on teh interwebs and google some good studies of logic so you can learn that anecdotes =/= evidence.

Quote by: Tycoon Hmm, on the contrary... If everybody can carry around guns then the only thing stopping somebody from shooting you is if you carry a gun as well. What I am saying is that you would have to carry a gun or be shot.

What you are saying is nonsense. There is a concept in the law that there's no way to write a contract to prevent a dishonest man from screwing you, because a dishonest man won't honor the contract no matter what it says.

If "everyone" can carry guns the "only" thing stopping someone from shooting you will be the exact same things that stop people from shooting you now - laws against shooting someone, the social contract, civilization, etc.

Here's your logic: Right now, the only thing stopping someone from running you down with their car is that you're in a car, too. Therefore, as long as there are pedestrians anywhere, cars should be outlawed.

Absurd.