Get ready for a sharp rise of school shootings in Texas

[FA_Q2]

Texas lawmakers reach deal allowing guns on campus - Houston Chronicle

The far right legislature passed a law allowing any student, regardless of criminal record, state of inebriation, or age, to carry a handgun onto Texas school campuses

Nothing could go wrong. Right? Right?

Riddle me this, NRA nutjobs. Adam Lanza killed students whit a gun. Cho Seung Hui killed students with a gun. Charles Whitman killed students with a gun

Why the fuck do you want MORE guns on school grounds?

Gun availability isn't a factor in acts of violence and crime. Used be a lot easier to get them and we didn't have the same problems we do now. Some of the reasons for violence of today is increased religiousity, declining role models, parents who need to read a book on parenting as they have zero expertise being one trying to be their kids' friend instead of their parent, and a growing attempt to deny teens are sexual every bit as much as adults. When you suppress sexuality you increase violent acting out. Want less violence, encourage sexuality instead of denouncing, denying, and trying to control it. That's like trying to stop a firehouse's flow of water with your hand. Great way to break your hand, but horrible way to stop the water.

Not one single source for this statement. Likely because it is complete bullshit.

Increased 'religiousity?' That is quantifiably false. The rest is equally insane.

 

[bodecea]

I really don't see this as a problem.

Those Texas boys, and girls, are shooters, but I doubt most students would have the balls to climb up that tower Charles Wittman used in Austin, and stop his shooting, but I guess it would only take one, so it's possible.

I would get a little nervous if some wild campus party had a bunch of drunken fools, only with guns now too.

But in the case of gun ownership, I'm all for state's rights.

This experiment is better off happening in Texas, instead of anywhere near where people I care about go to college.

Well, the thing about it is that Texans are fundamentally as God fearing people. This they understand what rights are, from where they come and what is required to sustain them.

 

[Jarlaxle]

If guns aren't for protection then why do you want armed guards?

So they can kill the bad guy, who also has a gun, or a knife, or a baseball bat, or a bomb, or a box of tampons if it comes to that, I don't really care at that point. It's not like the security guy is going to hold the gun in front of his chest for protection now is he? That's a "bullet-proof" meaning "gun-proof", vest. That's protection not the gun, and he's going to shoot and kill the bad guy, hopefully, with the gun, which is why we invented the bloody things in the first place.

So guns are for protection?

Nope. They are for killing things. Let's say I have 10 loaded guns in the house, and there are five people who live there, but only one knows how to use a gun or is willing to kill someone and they are miles away right now but a rapist is outside breaking in, do the guns mean I'm protected? Or, do they only mean I'm protected if someone who knows how to use a gun is there and is willing to kill the rapist?

Guns don't kill people right, people do, so how, in this case, is the house protected? Answer, it isn't because guns aren't for protection, they are for killing things.

Spin, spin, spin, guns are only as good as the person holding them, who knew? You got any more fantasy scenarios up your sleeve?

There's no spin there. You can't have it both ways. A gun only protects you if you kill the other guy first.

No, that's a lie.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Three idiots. If she sees you coming, you're doing it wrong, obviously.

You seem to know an awful lot about how rapists operate. Why is that?

 

[Jarlaxle]

So they can kill the bad guy, who also has a gun, or a knife, or a baseball bat, or a bomb, or a box of tampons if it comes to that, I don't really care at that point. It's not like the security guy is going to hold the gun in front of his chest for protection now is he? That's a "bullet-proof" meaning "gun-proof", vest. That's protection not the gun, and he's going to shoot and kill the bad guy, hopefully, with the gun, which is why we invented the bloody things in the first place.

So guns are for protection?

Nope, they are for killing things, which can change the game from you die to they die, if done right.

In the vast majority of DGU's no body dies, dream on.

If you pull a gun and no one gets shot, you didn't need the gun. Guns are for killing things, period.

That has to be one of the most ignorant things that you have ever said and that is a VERY high bar.

Just wow!

You give him too much credit. He is not ignorant, he is DISHONEST.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

So what? Why do you compare the US to France when yo could compare it to Mexico? Mexico has strict gun regulation. And high rates of gun crimes.

Do you call Mexico a developed nation?

Actually perhaps it is fairer to compare the US to developing nations rather than developed nations. They seem more its cultural counterparts than the social democracies of the west.

I guess the US is more like Mexico than it is like Canada.

Strip out crimes committed by black men between the ages of 15 and 25 and our crime rate looks just like France or Norway.

Or strip out the white crimes and get the same result.

 

[The Rabbi]

So what? Why do you compare the US to France when yo could compare it to Mexico? Mexico has strict gun regulation. And high rates of gun crimes.

Do you call Mexico a developed nation?

Actually perhaps it is fairer to compare the US to developing nations rather than developed nations. They seem more its cultural counterparts than the social democracies of the west.

I guess the US is more like Mexico than it is like Canada.

Strip out crimes committed by black men between the ages of 15 and 25 and our crime rate looks just like France or Norway.

Or strip out the white crimes and get the same result.

False.

 

[hadit]

Texas lawmakers reach deal allowing guns on campus - Houston Chronicle

The far right legislature passed a law allowing any student, regardless of criminal record, state of inebriation, or age, to carry a handgun onto Texas school campuses

Nothing could go wrong. Right? Right?

Riddle me this, NRA nutjobs. Adam Lanza killed students whit a gun. Cho Seung Hui killed students with a gun. Charles Whitman killed students with a gun

Why the fuck do you want MORE guns on school grounds?

Gun availability isn't a factor in acts of violence and crime. Used be a lot easier to get them and we didn't have the same problems we do now. Some of the reasons for violence of today is increased religiousity, declining role models, parents who need to read a book on parenting as they have zero expertise being one trying to be their kids' friend instead of their parent, and a growing attempt to deny teens are sexual every bit as much as adults. When you suppress sexuality you increase violent acting out. Want less violence, encourage sexuality instead of denouncing, denying, and trying to control it. That's like trying to stop a firehouse's flow of water with your hand. Great way to break your hand, but horrible way to stop the water.

When you suppress sexuality you increase violent acting out.

So in the 50s when kids weren't taught to have sex whenever they felt like it...we had more youth violence......really?

Want less violence, encourage sexuality instead of denouncing, denying, and trying to control it.

So you are saying our teenagers have less sex now than before...that is why they are so violent....really?

You should probably rethink those positions......

Sex didn't used to be as open as it is now. Consequently, teens having sex was a given but not spoken of let alone denounced like it is today. Now sex is so linked with sin, dirty, and disease pubescence kids don't have an outlet for all that hormonal desire and it's being channeled into self-destructive behaviours like boys making nutshot videos (if I don't need these might as well get on tv being kicked in the groin,) and girls making cutting videos.

Peer-reviewed scientific experiments show that when animals are prevented from sexual stimulation they begin mutilating themselves. Would think in a complete absence of physical stimulation and pleasure they're injring themselves to feel something, anything, even pain. It's why humans don't do well in solitary confinement. We're social animals and don't do well by ourselves.

Our society now is so paranoid about sex that we don't even touch non-sexually any more. Used tot ouch and hug and cuddle a lot more. Now it's like people are afraid to be intimate for fear o f being accused of being a molester. And in a time when that label carries so much jeopardy, true or not, the mere accusation can ruin a perrson's life.

So instead we shut down our social grouping natures, our desire to touch and be touched and our kids are the ones paying for it.

I find it very difficult to take seriously someone who says the US is more sexually repressive today than it was in say the 1950's. That is far from reality.

 

[FA_Q2]

So what? Why do you compare the US to France when yo could compare it to Mexico? Mexico has strict gun regulation. And high rates of gun crimes.

Do you call Mexico a developed nation?

Actually perhaps it is fairer to compare the US to developing nations rather than developed nations. They seem more its cultural counterparts than the social democracies of the west.

I guess the US is more like Mexico than it is like Canada.

Strip out crimes committed by black men between the ages of 15 and 25 and our crime rate looks just like France or Norway.

Or strip out the white crimes and get the same result.

You realize that is actually incorrect, right?
Or do you not understand what the crime rates are?

 

[SwimExpert]

Our society now is so paranoid about sex that we don't even touch non-sexually any more. Used tot ouch and hug and cuddle a lot more. Now it's like people are afraid to be intimate for fear o f being accused of being a molester.

No, people just don't do those things with you, over fear that you are a creepy molester.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

So they can kill the bad guy, who also has a gun, or a knife, or a baseball bat, or a bomb, or a box of tampons if it comes to that, I don't really care at that point. It's not like the security guy is going to hold the gun in front of his chest for protection now is he? That's a "bullet-proof" meaning "gun-proof", vest. That's protection not the gun, and he's going to shoot and kill the bad guy, hopefully, with the gun, which is why we invented the bloody things in the first place.

So guns are for protection?

Nope. They are for killing things. Let's say I have 10 loaded guns in the house, and there are five people who live there, but only one knows how to use a gun or is willing to kill someone and they are miles away right now but a rapist is outside breaking in, do the guns mean I'm protected? Or, do they only mean I'm protected if someone who knows how to use a gun is there and is willing to kill the rapist?

Guns don't kill people right, people do, so how, in this case, is the house protected? Answer, it isn't because guns aren't for protection, they are for killing things.

Spin, spin, spin, guns are only as good as the person holding them, who knew? You got any more fantasy scenarios up your sleeve?

There's no spin there. You can't have it both ways. A gun only protects you if you kill the other guy first.

No, that's a lie.

Nope. If that wasn't true you could just leave a gun hanging around and you be protected. If doesn't work that way.

 

[The Rabbi]

So guns are for protection?

Nope. They are for killing things. Let's say I have 10 loaded guns in the house, and there are five people who live there, but only one knows how to use a gun or is willing to kill someone and they are miles away right now but a rapist is outside breaking in, do the guns mean I'm protected? Or, do they only mean I'm protected if someone who knows how to use a gun is there and is willing to kill the rapist?

Guns don't kill people right, people do, so how, in this case, is the house protected? Answer, it isn't because guns aren't for protection, they are for killing things.

Spin, spin, spin, guns are only as good as the person holding them, who knew? You got any more fantasy scenarios up your sleeve?

There's no spin there. You can't have it both ways. A gun only protects you if you kill the other guy first.

No, that's a lie.

Nope. If that wasn't true you could just leave a gun hanging around and you be protected. If doesn't work that way.

You understand there are other possibilities, right?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Three idiots. If she sees you coming, you're doing it wrong, obviously.

You seem to know an awful lot about how rapists operate. Why is that?

Because unlike you I deal in reality, not ideology. That's why I know that guns don't stop rape and even if they did most women wouldn't shoot who they get raped by, which is someone they know, like, or even love in the vast majority of cases.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Nope. They are for killing things. Let's say I have 10 loaded guns in the house, and there are five people who live there, but only one knows how to use a gun or is willing to kill someone and they are miles away right now but a rapist is outside breaking in, do the guns mean I'm protected? Or, do they only mean I'm protected if someone who knows how to use a gun is there and is willing to kill the rapist?

Guns don't kill people right, people do, so how, in this case, is the house protected? Answer, it isn't because guns aren't for protection, they are for killing things.

Spin, spin, spin, guns are only as good as the person holding them, who knew? You got any more fantasy scenarios up your sleeve?

There's no spin there. You can't have it both ways. A gun only protects you if you kill the other guy first.

No, that's a lie.

Nope. If that wasn't true you could just leave a gun hanging around and you be protected. If doesn't work that way.

You understand there are other possibilities, right?

As long as you are faster at killing them then they you, you might have a chance using a gun but the gun is good for only one thing, killing the other guy.

 

[hadit]

So guns are for protection?

Nope. They are for killing things. Let's say I have 10 loaded guns in the house, and there are five people who live there, but only one knows how to use a gun or is willing to kill someone and they are miles away right now but a rapist is outside breaking in, do the guns mean I'm protected? Or, do they only mean I'm protected if someone who knows how to use a gun is there and is willing to kill the rapist?

Guns don't kill people right, people do, so how, in this case, is the house protected? Answer, it isn't because guns aren't for protection, they are for killing things.

Spin, spin, spin, guns are only as good as the person holding them, who knew? You got any more fantasy scenarios up your sleeve?

There's no spin there. You can't have it both ways. A gun only protects you if you kill the other guy first.

No, that's a lie.

Nope. If that wasn't true you could just leave a gun hanging around and you be protected. If doesn't work that way.

False. A gun can represent a threat. An assailant preparing to rob what he thinks is an unprotected elderly lady has a different equation to work with if she opens her purse and pulls out a weapon. In that case, he has a decision to make. Either run away and live another day, or persist in trying to rob her and potentially lose his life. She doesn't have to kill him in order for the presence of the weapon to have a positive impact. You're simply wrong, know you're wrong, and are flailing desperately trying to find a way to salvage some pride. Here's a clue, you can't. Just walk away knowing you failed, big time.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Nope. They are for killing things. Let's say I have 10 loaded guns in the house, and there are five people who live there, but only one knows how to use a gun or is willing to kill someone and they are miles away right now but a rapist is outside breaking in, do the guns mean I'm protected? Or, do they only mean I'm protected if someone who knows how to use a gun is there and is willing to kill the rapist?

Guns don't kill people right, people do, so how, in this case, is the house protected? Answer, it isn't because guns aren't for protection, they are for killing things.

Spin, spin, spin, guns are only as good as the person holding them, who knew? You got any more fantasy scenarios up your sleeve?

There's no spin there. You can't have it both ways. A gun only protects you if you kill the other guy first.

No, that's a lie.

Nope. If that wasn't true you could just leave a gun hanging around and you be protected. If doesn't work that way.

False. A gun can represent a threat. An assailant preparing to rob what he thinks is an unprotected elderly lady has a different equation to work with if she opens her purse and pulls out a weapon. In that case, he has a decision to make. Either run away and live another day, or persist in trying to rob her and potentially lose his life. She doesn't have to kill him in order for the presence of the weapon to have a positive impact. You're simply wrong, know you're wrong, and are flailing desperately trying to find a way to salvage some pride. Here's a clue, you can't. Just walk away knowing you failed, big time.

If you pull out a gun and don't shoot anyone, you didn't need the gun, period. Some guy trying to steal an old lady's purse isn't going to give her the chance to get to a gun. When he steals the purse he gets that as well. For some guy planning to rape an armed college girl it's the same thing. He get sex and a gun, which she never had the time to pull.

 

[The Rabbi]

Spin, spin, spin, guns are only as good as the person holding them, who knew? You got any more fantasy scenarios up your sleeve?

There's no spin there. You can't have it both ways. A gun only protects you if you kill the other guy first.

No, that's a lie.

Nope. If that wasn't true you could just leave a gun hanging around and you be protected. If doesn't work that way.

You understand there are other possibilities, right?

As long as you are faster at killing them then they you, you might have a chance using a gun but the gun is good for only one thing, killing the other guy.

OK so you dnt understand this.
If I point the gun at you and you run away, I have used my firearm to neutralize a threat. No one was killed but that doesnt mean I didnt win the confrontation.
If I wound you and you go down I have used my firearm to neutralize the threat byt no one died.
If I rack my shotgun and you run away at the sound before even seeing me I have used my fierarm to neutralize a threat.
Do you understand this better now?

 

[The Rabbi]

Spin, spin, spin, guns are only as good as the person holding them, who knew? You got any more fantasy scenarios up your sleeve?

There's no spin there. You can't have it both ways. A gun only protects you if you kill the other guy first.

No, that's a lie.

Nope. If that wasn't true you could just leave a gun hanging around and you be protected. If doesn't work that way.

False. A gun can represent a threat. An assailant preparing to rob what he thinks is an unprotected elderly lady has a different equation to work with if she opens her purse and pulls out a weapon. In that case, he has a decision to make. Either run away and live another day, or persist in trying to rob her and potentially lose his life. She doesn't have to kill him in order for the presence of the weapon to have a positive impact. You're simply wrong, know you're wrong, and are flailing desperately trying to find a way to salvage some pride. Here's a clue, you can't. Just walk away knowing you failed, big time.

If you pull out a gun and don't shoot anyone, you didn't need the gun, period. Some guy trying to steal an old lady's purse isn't going to give her the chance to get to a gun. When he steals the purse he gets that as well. For some guy planning to rape an armed college girl it's the same thing. He get sex and a gun, which she never had the time to pull.

Whut?
Gun-Toting Grandma Stops Would-Be Assailant NBC 5 Dallas-Fort Worth

 

[hunarcy]

Texas lawmakers reach deal allowing guns on campus - Houston Chronicle

The far right legislature passed a law allowing any student, regardless of criminal record, state of inebriation, or age, to carry a handgun onto Texas school campuses

Nothing could go wrong. Right? Right?

Riddle me this, NRA nutjobs. Adam Lanza killed students whit a gun. Cho Seung Hui killed students with a gun. Charles Whitman killed students with a gun

Why the fuck do you want MORE guns on school grounds?

Was it the firearms that were the problem or was the problem Adam Lanza, Cho Seung Hui and Charles Whitman?

Further, which of them had permission to bring a firearm onto his campus?

How were each of those incidents closed?

 

[M14 Shooter]

False. A gun can represent a threat. An assailant preparing to rob what he thinks is an unprotected elderly lady has a different equation to work with if she opens her purse and pulls out a weapon.

Very very few criminals will go after a potential victim they have reason to believe is armed; criminals that choose to do so are either highly motivated, highly trained, crazy, or a some combination of the three.
If anyone tells you different, they are lying.