• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Horrifying Details Emerge in Hearing on Virginia Tech Murder


We should obey the Constitution.

The right to bear arms should be respected, and not restricted unless there is an overwhelmingly compelling reason, such as visitors entering jails and prisons and courthouses.

The burden of proof is actually on your side: prove that law-abiding citizens, such as concealed-carry permit holders, should NOT be allowed to carry on campus. Prove it with something other than just opinion.

G.
 
Of course, the real issue on this thread isn't the gun grabbers.

The real issue is what the hell is wrong with a society that can produce such a monster as that? No, not the guy with the knife. I'm talking about the totally worthless limp-dick that thought yakking on the telephone was going to do anything that girl could appreciate, when all she really wanted right then is a man, or even a woman, so long as her rescuer could stop her head from coming off her neck.

What happened to America? Are we that much like Europe already?
 

If we are going to frame it as a constitutional issue, all you have to do is convince the supreme court you are right.
 
Last edited:
If we are going to frame it as a constitutional issue, all you have to do is convince the supreme court you are right.


Be glad to, if it were feasible. Some day.

Until that day, I think the words of the Founders about the Second Amendment will suffice:

 
Last edited:
Sir, tell that to a young lady named Xin Yang.

Oh, I'm sorry... you can't. She was decapitated at V-tech.

G.


I'm not reading through 21 pages to see if this has been addressed so if it has, my apologies.


You implied in your OP that if V-Tech allowed guns that Xin Yang would be alive. Did Xin Yang carry a gun while not at school?


Also, it sounds like he jumped up and attacked her quickly. Even if she had a gun in her purse or wherever it doesn't sound like she had the time to arm herself with a gun and shoot prior being fatally injured.


:thinking:
 
Spin it any way you want bud. I've supported my points with facts, and you haven't.

G.

So far, Goshin, I can't find ONE LINK TO SOURCES in any of your posts in this thread. I will keep looking though.:liar
 
She was attacked in a cafe amongst other students and decapitated, my issue isn't gun control(he had a knife), my issue is that no one helped her, they stood around and watched it happen.
 

Finally, 11 pages in you post 1 study and 2 wiki pages. Fair enough. Lets have a look.
 
According to the article one was administered and he was found competent to stand trial.

That only means he knew the difference between right and wrong... according to a court appointed shrink.

I would ask for an independent evaluation.
 
She was attacked in a cafe amongst other students and decapitated, my issue isn't gun control(he had a knife), my issue is that no one helped her, they stood around and watched it happen.



They stood there and let it happen....
 

Goshin:

Re: The Wiki article on Lott Book. Honestly, I have never seen a Wiki article with so many oppositional positions.

I don't doubt Lott's academic credentials, he was educated at one California's fine Universities, UCLA. However, the number of other academics who take issue with his work raises eyebrows.

It's doesn't appear that his data in is in question but rather his interpretation of that data. You call it nit-picky, but it appears that Lott's work has been reviewed quite thoroughly.


Goshin:

You linked to the Wiki article, and I think it's reasonable to examine everything there, correct?


Ayres and Donohue's analysis of Lott's work:


 
They stood there and let it happen....
On further reflection, this version is more appropriate than the way I worded it. Again, those people are one of two things, cowards or callous, nevermind, they're both.
 



Fair enough. There are those who question Lott's analysis. The Wiki article is balanced and has both pro- and anti- viewpoints.

I stand by what I've said. There's tons of evidence out there that guns in the hands of law abiding citizens do far more good than harm.

the Kleck Study:
Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology



A 1993 Gallup Poll study (hardly a conservative partisan group) found a likely annual rate of defensive gun use (DGU) of 777,153 per year in the US.
An LA Times 1994 study found an implied national DGU of 3,609,682.



The Kleck study concluded that there were possibly as many as 2.5 million defensive gun uses per year, many of which involved no shots fired or no one injured, and many of which were not reported:



Lawful defensive uses outnumber all accidents by anywhere from 50 to 1, to thousands to one, depending on what set of numbers you choose to believe. The most conservative numbers are using those provided by the government.

G.
 
Last edited:

I realize it is a long thread, but this aspect has been hashed to death. Pardon the pun.

Nobody is saying that she definately, positively would have survived if lawful permit-holders were allowed to carry on campus. My position is that allowing law abiding concealed-carry permit holders to carry on campus will improve safety, and give people like this girl and the victims of the V-tech slaughter last year a second chance, as the chances of someone stopping the crime would be greatly increased.

G.
 


Actually, I think if the government would lift it's ban on backbones and permitted the private owership and carrying thereof, the mass slaughters would be less effective and young ladies would be more confident their heads won't be removed in public places.
 


Scarecrow and Goshin:

I'm not clear on what it is you want as far as gun rights that you don't already have.

Specifically, what restrictions on your ability to purchase and use guns do you have a problem with?

It has come out that Scott Roeder has been arrested in 1996 for possession of bomb making materials. Were his gun rights restricted as a result of this? If not, should they have been?
 

I thought the topic at hand was reasonably clear: that the restriction against those with concealed carry permits, not being allowed to carry such places as colleges and schools, be lifted in order to increase the number of citizens able to effectively stop crimes in progress.
 
I am leaning to the side of let them carry
but nobody acted without a gun while this girl was stabbed and decapitated so I do not think, if they were carrying, they would have done anything either.
took some real beatings over the head here for me to realize you really do not know how you will act in a crisis situation until you are in it
just because they have the gun does not mean they will use it.
a chair to the back of the head would have worked nicely on this freak but nobody moved
 

As I said early on, if there are no testicles present, weapons won't help much....BUT some people would take on a knifer if they had a gun, who wouldn't try if they had to go hand to hand with him.

G.
 

Some Colleges Bar Even Talking About Right to Bear Arms, Gun Advocates Say - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News - FOXNews.com


Funny, I thought Universities were all about freedom of speech, open minds, the free flow of ideas.... OH, yeah I forgot, that only applies to Leftists. Righties are supposed to shut up and listen, and be glad they're allowed on campus at all.

G.
 
Scarecrow and Goshin:

I'm not clear on what it is you want as far as gun rights that you don't already have.

It's an infringement to require a citizen to obtain a permit to carry a gun, whether it's concealed, open, or shoved up his butt.

Specifically, what restrictions on your ability to purchase and use guns do you have a problem with?

Specifically? All of them.

It has come out that Scott Roeder has been arrested in 1996 for possession of bomb making materials. Were his gun rights restricted as a result of this? If not, should they have been?

No, since any attempt at determining his felony conviction (gee, was he convicted of that charge? If not, it's not relevant) would infringe on the freedom of others without felony convictions. If, however, he's caught committing a crime using a firearm and is found to have a felony conviction on his record, then throw the the book at him, go to the library, get another copy, and throw that one at him, too.
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…