i think its a different mind-set entirely. carry brings a keen sense of
responsibility and awareness. you just cant afford to be "stupid" when you
carry. in fact, you have an obligation to avoid senseless trouble when you
Nathan in Montana
You're suggesting an ideal scenario where _one_ responsible person with
a gun can do everything right. Probably every gun enthusiast fantasizes
that he could have been Virginia Tech's hero.
I think that your 25,000 gun-carrying "sheep" on the VT campus might be
a poor solution. Your 'sheep & wolves' analogy isn't realistic, real
wolves don't look like sheep, and they don't wear sheep's clothing. The
VT gunman looked like anybody else would holding a gun, so the final
outcome may have been based on who had the itchiest trigger finger and
who shot at who first. Students could have continued shooting each other
across the campus after the original gunman was already dead. If just
100 armed and excitable azwileys saw each other pointing guns, that's 99
dead right there.
Did you miss it? azwiley1 has let us know that it simply isn't his
responsibility to determine beforehand whether shooting someone is
justified. It's the state's duty to prove, after the shooting, that it
Man you are dumber then a box of rocks and you're too damn stupid to
just STFU at times, even when one of your "partners in crime" says let
Also, if you are going to try and quote something that I or anyone
said, get it right asshole. I did not say or imply that I didn't have
to prove anything, I stated as it is the fact of law here that the
DEFENCE/DEFENSE does not have to prove that I was justified, that it
is up to the state/prosecution to prove that it was UNJUSTIFIED. What
don't you understand fucknuts?
Roy, my reply was not an attempt to prove a point, though I do agree
with you on the getting old issue. However, I'm not going to sit here
and let some assclown make false statements and claim it is what I
"You're right, it is not up to me to prove "he" was armed and that my
life or that of my family was in danger. It is up to the "state pros"
to prove that my life and/or that of my families WASN"T." - punkin
I understand that you're now babbling about your defense in court, your
legal argument. Not your personal defense when you decide to shoot
someone. I understand that you don't really give a flip about who you
mistakenly shoot, as long as you're off the hook.
All I have said, and will continue to say is that shooting someone is not as
simple scenario as you project it to be. It's not always written in stone,
and any slimy lawyer who's worth his Evian water knows ten different ways to
come at you. OR will come up with some new tactic.
And even if you do win the case, your lawyer gets his $400 per hour, and
good luck getting that back from the perp in small claims court.
i have _never_ stated, suggested, or implied in ANY way that every student
should be armed. what ive stated is that you cannot deny that right to
those who wish to exercise it.
give me _any_ statistical data to substantiate that this is in any way a
probability. your statement sir, is without merit.
you do however bring up a valid point. without knowing who the gunman is it
can be quite difficult to distinguish between the good guys and the bad.
this is where proper training comes into effect. if you follow your
training you minimize the possibility of shooting the wrong guy. yes, it
happens....but given the choice of facing a trained, armed good guy verses
being unarmed and completely at the mercy of an armed bad guy, ill take my
chances on the good guy.
Nathan in Montana
I can't deny the right to wear body armor to those who wish to exercise it.
Mass hysteria & panic happens. Merely saying the wrong words in large
groups has caused trampling deaths in stampedes.
Wasn't there a story about some guy hid out in the forests
(Phillipines?) for like 30 years because he never got the word that WWII
was over? I think there has to be communications, and a commander to
orchestrate things. Imagine how much tougher the police's job would be
with thousands of alarmed and armed students running around. Who should
they shoot at?
Maybe it's time for software to control guns, like it does nearly
Gun contains small battery and piezo tweeter that emits a *chirp* every
few seconds, like a car alarm. Won't operate without it. Now everyone
knows who the wolf is, it's the guy chirping. Also a time delay, so the
gun isn't ready for use until it's been actively chirping for 30 minutes.
Don't laugh.... my state already has law on the books that says only smart
guns can be sold in this state.... just as soon as one is developed.
That's right - we actually have a law requiring something that doesn't even
exist yet. Oh, of course, LEO's are exempt from the law... as well, I'm
sure, are the personal security staff of the elected officials. Hmmm.....
no you cant....but where the heck did that come from?
totally unrelated to what i asked you for. show me ANY statistical data
that substantiates your statement as any sense of probability. i dont think
any of those who died that day died of being trampled.
you mean those same police who didnt respond for how many hours?
Nathan in Montana
The armor is purely defensive. I'm not at increased risk if the class
clowns sitting behind me wear it. If they're carrying guns, though, they
affect me, and without my consent. Maybe I'd be safer, maybe not, but
why should they impose their decision on me?
It isn't totally unrelated. It's an example of people following the
reactions of others around them. Rather than hunt for statistics, I'll
just agree that it's improbable. Improbable things will happen.
I mean every campus police officer.
Cho Seung Hui's gun would have been just as likely to BSOD as anyone else's.
Perhaps with RFID chips in them, guns could be scanned for their
identity and remotely turned off.
Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.