The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    To register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

Va. Tech Shooting

Not sure why we can't all agree that it is too easy to get a gun

That people have a right to have them - if they pass certain tests - and a wait period

That semi automatics in the hands of most anyone - is a problem

The right to bear arms - has to be controlled no?

do we want people like Cho being so able to get a gun?

Can anyone say that?
 
Not sure why we can't all agree that it is too easy to get a gun

That people have a right to have them - if they pass certain tests - and a wait period

That semi automatics in the hands of most anyone - is a problem

The right to bear arms - has to be controlled no?

do we want people like Cho being so able to get a gun?

Can anyone say that?

Well said. ..|
 
Well, that's a president's job. So, why didn't they send Cheney? Frankly, it's nice to see that Bush responds when white people are the victims, unlike his ignoring the black people of New Orleans. Still, even if one person gained succor from Bush's visit, then it was worth it. (Though I do wonder if it was entirely appropriate of the First Lady to wear a pantsuit to this solemn event -- maybe the Bushes were going bowling after the service, that would explain the horrific lapse in decorum.)



20070417-1_d-0602-1-515h.jpg

Wow, took longer than I expected for the race card to be pulled. A variety of ethnicities died that day you victicrat.
 
The Va Tech shooting offers us two lessons. (1) Political correctness stopped people from identifying Cho as a danger and doing something about it and (2) Defensive use of guns work.
 
Originally Posted by General_Alfie
Well, that's a president's job. So, why didn't they send Cheney? Frankly, it's nice to see that Bush responds when white people are the victims, unlike his ignoring the black people of New Orleans. Still, even if one person gained succor from Bush's visit, then it was worth it. (Though I do wonder if it was entirely appropriate of the First Lady to wear a pantsuit to this solemn event -- maybe the Bushes were going bowling after the service, that would explain the horrific lapse in decorum.)



Your ability to "outdo" yourself expands every day
 
Not sure why we can't all agree that it is too easy to get a gun

That people have a right to have them - if they pass certain tests - and a wait period

Have you tried to buy a gun lately? It isn't all that easy!
Americans have a right (well, everyone does, just most places won't allow it) to get a gun, guaranteed by the Constitution; no one has a right guaranteed by the Constitution to get a DVD. But it is a LOT harder to get a gun than a DVD, in spite of those words "shall not be infringed".
You like waiting periods, huh? I congratulate you on being in favor of ex-boyfriends being able to enter the houses of former girlfriends and the girlfriends aren't allowed to buy the one item that could save their lives.

Tell me, if you want to start a newspaper, do you have to pass a test, and wait a period?
If you want to go to church, do you have to pass a test, and wait a period?

That semi automatics in the hands of most anyone - is a problem

There's ignorance speaking. There are millions of semi-automatics in the U.S. of A., and hardly any of those are ever used in a crime, or in any threatening way. Semi-automatics are no different than any other currently, commonly lawful weapon: you pull the trigger once, you get one shot; to shoot again, you pull the trigger again.
The only people I've ever known of who I don't like having semi-autos are cops, because its cops I hear about and talk to people who were there about, cops who fire all ten rounds in their weapon into a boy who was scared and wouldn't stop screaming.

The right to bear arms - has to be controlled no?

Rights are NOT to be controlled; they're rights.
"Rights must be controlled" is a nice summation of the philosophy that ran the late, failed Soviet Union. Their Constitution guaranteed freedom of religion -- but that right had to be controlled, no? I guaranteed freedom of the press, but that right had to be controlled, no? It guaranteed freedom for (unwarranted) search and seizure, but that right had to be controlled, no? It guaranteed the right to vote -- but that right, too, had to be controlled!

Control -- by the government -- is precisely the reason there is a guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms: so that when government control gets out of line, it can be stopped.

do we want people like Cho being so able to get a gun?

I would rather that Cho and others like him be able to get a gun than that we all have to be what Pelosi and htose like her want: that we all be sheep.
But I would more rather that the government stop making new rules for about twenty years and clean up what we have, because from listening to the schools officials and doctors interviewed on the matter, it was government rules that prevented them from restraining the killer. In a free country, a concerned counselor could have consulted with a colleague, and then with a school official, and sent out a notice to local gun shops, "Don't sell this guy a weapon." Of course in a free country, other students would have been armed and stopped him before the death count passed five.

Chance, you and other keep missing something: a high school shop building has everything needed to build a gun. The local machine shop could build a gun. I could sit down and order from Sears on-line everything I need to build a gun. Heck, if I'm not stuck on using gunpowder, I could drive over to Fred Meyer right now and buy what I need to build a gun!
For that matter, I could go out into the garage, grab a few items, and head into the basement to build a crossbow. I could build a slingshot and a homemade grenade. I could fashion a blowgun accurate to fifty yards. With a quick trip to first an auto parts store, and then a grocery store with a garden section, I could whip up some cannisters with which I could kill a few hundred people, horribly, in just minutes -- anyone who sits down and thinks about their college chemistry education could.
Which means that anyone determined to kill people, and anyone who doesn't care about the law, can get a weapon. The technology is, as they say, out of the bag.
Which is, again, part of why the Constitution guarantees the inherent right to keep and bear arms: the evil individuals of the world will get what they want to do their evil deeds, and the best defense of the good is to, as my handgun safety course emphasized, "stop the threat" -- and that means a gun.
 

Good link -- a little common sense for once.

Though I disagree that the presence of guns increases the death rate: guns are used more often every year to save lives than to take them (though it can be argued that the person(s) deterred merely go on to kill someone else).

If one of those students had been armed, and dropped the killer in his tracks, this would have been a case of a gun saving over two dozen lives.
 
If one of those students had been armed, and dropped the killer in his tracks, this would have been a case of a gun saving over two dozen lives.
I don't think this is correct... unless you know of someone who has the ability to see alternate realities...
Had this scenario happened, the debate would most probably also have revolved around casualties that would have occured, how it would have (been allowed to) happened and the reason for it.
 
If one of those students had been armed, and dropped the killer in his tracks, this would have been a case of a gun saving over two dozen lives.


If if if if if ... what a stupid game.

IF that student hadn't also been a nut.

IF that student had had the presence of mind of an adult trained the way a police officer is trained.

IF ifififfififif. You can if yourself to absolutely nowhere.

There are laws allowing concealed weapons in more than half the states. Cite the times -- even just one for each state would do -- that your IF scenario happened.
 
She didn't shoot them but she probably could have killed all four and claimed self defense and nobody would have known.

Amazing how comfortable you are with a lie as horrendous as that.

Murdering four people.

Amazing.
 
Amazing how your mind works...or not.

Where did I say I was comfortable with her...

Murdering four people?

"She didn't shoot them but she probably could have killed all four and claimed self defense and nobody would have known."

Oh, and since you apparently couldn't find the information to back up your claim about her

Please. I'm not a BushRepublican.

Former Miss America Venus Ramey is taking on the U.S. government over its tobacco policy.

Acting as her own lawyer and seeking $300 billion in damages, Ramey filed a federal lawsuit last Friday against the U.S. Justice Department.

Ramey, who was Miss America 1944, is now 74 and living on a farm north of Eubank. She wants to save the tobacco industry from possible extinction and get farmers back on their feet. . . Ramey, who represented the District of Columbia in the Miss America pageant, said her family has grown tobacco for 350 years and she has been a tobacco farmer for 50 years. . . The lawsuit accuses the government and President Clinton of trying ``to destroy a successful, lucrative American industry.''

http://www.tobacco.org/articles/lawsuit/ramey/

And the fact that the successful lucrative tobacco industry has knowingly been killing Americans for decades doesn't matter to Ms Ramey. Of course.

Oh and I love this about Ramey, from Wiki:

Ramey was critical of later Miss America winners Vanessa Williams (1984) and Kate Shindle, calling the former a "slut" for posing nude in a photo shoot, and blasting the latter for her support of condom distribution in schools. (In an open letter to Shindle, Ramey charged "there is a name for girls who hand out condoms, and it isn't Miss America.")
 
If if if if if ... what a stupid game.

IF that student hadn't also been a nut.

IF that student had had the presence of mind of an adult trained the way a police officer is trained.

IF ifififfififif. You can if yourself to absolutely nowhere.

There are laws allowing concealed weapons in more than half the states. Cite the times -- even just one for each state would do -- that your IF scenario happened.

Several have already been cited in this thread.

Enough happen every month that the NRA has to sift through them to decide what to run in their "Armed Citizen" feature.

Or do you mean on campuses?

The FBI acknowledges that citizens defend themselves 2 million times a year with firearms -- concealed or otherwise. But you know how many of those instances are in places like Virginia Tech? Virtually none. Why? Because politicians continue to decree that many places be guaranteed victim zones, where effective self-defense isn't allowed. The fact that those other times occur, however, is as close to a guarantee as can be that armed people will defend themselves, not uncommonly by removing the threat permanently.
 
Nick, with regard to your post #193, what does any of that have to do with her calm restraint in shooting out the invaders' tires rather than the invaders? Until the U.S. started getting soft on crime, not many would have had a problem with her just finishing them off -- invaders on an old lady's property would not have been seen as deserving of much mercy.

But she understood innately a basic proposition arising from the truth "You own yourself": don't initiate violence. Rather than attack when she had not been attacked, she methodically did what was necessary to hold them for the police.
 
Several have already been cited in this thread.

I see only one that's legitimate cited, and in that instance it was a police officer who shot the would-be assailant.

Enough happen every month that the NRA has to sift through them to decide what to run in their "Armed Citizen" feature.

Bull.

If that's true, cite a dozen that I could verify. Cite half a dozen.

Or do you mean on campuses?

I mean what you described: "If one of those students had been armed, and dropped the killer in his tracks, this would have been a case of a gun saving over two dozen lives."

A private citizen, not a trained professional, dropping a killer in his tracks in a scenario that could reasonably be expected to have saved two dozen lives. That was your description; so support it.

The FBI acknowledges that citizens defend themselves 2 million times a year with firearms -- concealed or otherwise.But you know how many of those instances are in places like Virginia Tech? Virtually none.

Well this sure is misleading and intellectually dishonest.

You imply that the FBI reports --excuse me, "acknowledges"-- 2 million instances of private citizens dropping a killer in his tracks.

That 2 million figure is not an FBI figure --I know you didn't directly say it is but you sure imply it-- and it's not a statistic, it's a survey number gathered in the early 1990s. And I don't see anywhere that the FBI even "acknowledges" that that figure accurately reflects what they know to be true. Got a link?

Why do gun nuts have to be intellectually dishonest to make their points?

The true figure for 2005 is 143:

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_14.html


And the figure for 2005 of murder by firearm is 10,100:

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_07.html


Why? Because politicians continue to decree that many places be guaranteed victim zones, where effective self-defense isn't allowed. The fact that those other times occur, however, is as close to a guarantee as can be that armed people will defend themselves, not uncommonly by removing the threat permanently.


According to Wiki, currently 48 states have concealed carry laws. With practically every state having that law, 143 versus 10,100 is not a ratio that lends validity to your argument.
 
Nice effort at a smokescreen, Nick.
You deliberately mislead, deliberately post links that have data that don't relate to the actual question, deliberately misconstrue the law....
and ignore common sense.

I don't believe you'll do the research -- you didn't do any this time, you just tossed up some numbers that kind of related to what you wanted things to be like rather than the real issue. I've listed far more than a dozen instances of private citizens defending themselves prior to this, and have you ever researched one?

As is typical of anti-gun (= anti self-defense) folks, you're good at choosing the figures you want instead of looking at the whole picture. You're also apparently good at categorizing anything that doesn't fit your view as not "legitimate".

It doesn't take a "trained professional", it just takes someone like Venus Ramsey who can remain calm and shoot straight. If you want to research something, try this on -- though from what you've been doing above, you'll probably twist it -- for size: the fact that when a police officer gets to shooting, the likelihood of hitting an innocent person is statistically over five times higher than for a "civilian".
 
A bit of common sense is all it takes to know that the students at Virginia Tech would have been better off if some of them had been able to use firearms to defend themselves. But for those who don't get common sense, I'd like to point out that according to the Department of Justice report concerning violent crime in 1987-1992, someone engaging in self-defense with a firearm, against a violent criminal, was only 20% likely to suffer an injury, while those making no defense were 50% likely to suffer an injury.
 
I've listed far more than a dozen instances of private citizens defending themselves prior to this, and have you ever researched one?

"Far more than a dozen"??

I just went through the thread and can find ONE that you listed. You say you listed more than a dozen. What are the post numbers?

The one I found that you listed, you wrote in post 178:

My favorite is still the old grandmother in a wheelchair who got attacked by three "joggers". She surrendered her purse, and her shopping, and when they wanted more they tipped her wheelchair over and started to kick her. So she pulled her little sterling silver revolver and with four bullets killed all three.

That's a ridiculous story and I let it pass because I didn't want to gratuitously embarrass you. But since you insist on pressing it and it's the only one of yours I can find, all right then.

I find no credible report of that happening. Post a link to at least support the validity of that one you cited.

Your claims are flat out bogus.

It doesn't take a "trained professional", it just takes someone like Venus Ramsey [sic] who can remain calm and shoot straight.


Get a hold of reality.

Venus Ramey shot out the tires of the car of an unarmed intruder, who was trying to leave, who'd been poking through a shed where she keeps old equipment she says is a hundred years old.

If you want to research something, try this on -- though from what you've been doing above, you'll probably twist it -- for size: the fact that when a police officer gets to shooting, the likelihood of hitting an innocent person is statistically over five times higher than for a "civilian".

Why don't you post a link that supports that?

I suspect, if it's true as you state (and knowing you it likely isn't), it's because police officers do a lot more shooting in situations where there are threatening gunmen and innocent bystanders than civilians do. But let's see your source.
 
mowrest, did you miss this link that Nick posted?

http://www.tobacco.org/articles/lawsuit/ramey/

I doubt you're going to get a reply based on logic, though. As you can see from Nick's "replies" to my posts, he's very very good at seizing on some side issue or redefining the question so he can use data he likes rather than what pertains to the question.

Such as the former Miss America and her gun skills: anyone who can shoot out tires (I'm assuming without walking right up to the vehicle) can shoot well enough to hit a threatening intruder. Transfer that to the Virginia Tech massacre, and it's simple enough to see that an armed student could have brought it to an end.
It isn't uncommon for armed citizens to use firearms to rescue policemen, so clearly it is possible for an armed citizen to rescue other non-police citizens in the same way.
 
Back
Top