Random Politics & Religion #00
|
Random Politics & Religion #00
How else are you going to get good grades if you don't carry a gun to an exam.
[+]
I think it's safe to call any school that will expel you for carrying a firearm a "gun-free zone". We can argue semantics all day, but it still acts as a heavy deterrent.
[+]
Bahamut.Ravael said: » I think it's safe to call any school that will expel you for carrying a firearm a "gun-free zone". We can argue semantics all day, but it still acts as a heavy deterrent. It's far from semantics. Facing academic punishment is so far from criminal gun charges, and "gun-free zones" are federal/state mandated areas where you do not have the constitutional right to possess a firearm. Obviously it varies by state and institution, but the whole argument against gun free zones is that they are soft targets, places that criminals know nobody will be armed. A place with a no guns internal policy is a different animal. A person can LEGALLY be armed in that setting, and is unlikely to face any serious discipline when they pull out a gun to stop a killer. Valefor.Sehachan said: » How else are you going to get good grades if you don't carry a gun to an exam. I can't understand the need for a concealed weapon on campus unless you LIVE in student housing. If you want to be able to protect yourself in your residence, I don't really see a problem with that, but nobody needs to be armed in a stinking English class. Jassik said: » Valefor.Sehachan said: » How else are you going to get good grades if you don't carry a gun to an exam. I can't understand the need for a concealed weapon on campus unless you LIVE in student housing. If you want to be able to protect yourself in your residence, I don't really see a problem with that, but nobody needs to be armed in a stinking English class.
[+]
Jassik said: » nobody needs to be armed in a stinking English class. Recent events would say otherwise.
[+]
Yeah, what if a muslim kid brings a bomb to class!
Anna Ruthven said: » Jassik said: » Valefor.Sehachan said: » How else are you going to get good grades if you don't carry a gun to an exam. I can't understand the need for a concealed weapon on campus unless you LIVE in student housing. If you want to be able to protect yourself in your residence, I don't really see a problem with that, but nobody needs to be armed in a stinking English class. I've had a student stand up in class and lash out recently over an admittedly clusterfuck of a project. I still can't see the need to be armed. Jetackuu said: » Jassik said: » nobody needs to be armed in a stinking English class. Recent events would say otherwise. Right, why would you hide or run when you can pull out a gun and get more people killed. Brilliant. I don't even have a stark opinion on gun-free zones, except that there should be at least some form of deterrent to make up for it. But as they typically stand now, they are soft targets. It's the easiest logic argument ever. If you want to kill a bunch of people, do you: (A)- Go to a place where law or policy discourages guns; (B)- Go to a place with no gun regulation whatsoever.
[+]
Valefor.Sehachan said: » Yeah, what if a muslim kid brings a bomb to class! Jassik said: » Anna Ruthven said: » Jassik said: » Valefor.Sehachan said: » How else are you going to get good grades if you don't carry a gun to an exam. I can't understand the need for a concealed weapon on campus unless you LIVE in student housing. If you want to be able to protect yourself in your residence, I don't really see a problem with that, but nobody needs to be armed in a stinking English class. I've had a student stand up in class and lash out recently over an admittedly clusterfuck of a project. I still can't see the need to be armed. Bahamut.Ravael said: » I don't even have a stark opinion on gun-free zones, except that there should be at least some form of deterrent to make up for it. But as they typically stand now, they are soft targets. It's the easiest logic argument ever. If you want to kill a bunch of people, do you: (A)- Go to a place where law or policy discourages guns; (B)- Go to a place with no gun regulation whatsoever. Putting up a better perimeter should be the logical conclusion, though, not to eliminate gun-free zones. There's a reason that you aren't allowed to have a weapon in places like courthouses. Does it make it safer if everyone has a weapon or if nobody has one? Asura.Kingnobody said: » Valefor.Sehachan said: » I don't see you bothering with a proper reply. If snide commentary is all you got, well.. Valefor.Sehachan said: » No. Valefor.Sehachan said: » How else are you going to get good grades if you don't carry a gun to an exam. Valefor.Sehachan said: » Yeah, what if a muslim kid brings a bomb to class! Just so you're aware of what KN was talking about.
[+]
Bahamut.Ravael said: » Asura.Kingnobody said: » Valefor.Sehachan said: » I don't see you bothering with a proper reply. If snide commentary is all you got, well.. Valefor.Sehachan said: » No. Valefor.Sehachan said: » How else are you going to get good grades if you don't carry a gun to an exam. Valefor.Sehachan said: » Yeah, what if a muslim kid brings a bomb to class! Just so you're aware of what KN was talking about. To be fair, in that sample it's only 50-75% of her posts. Jassik said: » Bahamut.Ravael said: » I don't even have a stark opinion on gun-free zones, except that there should be at least some form of deterrent to make up for it. But as they typically stand now, they are soft targets. It's the easiest logic argument ever. If you want to kill a bunch of people, do you: (A)- Go to a place where law or policy discourages guns; (B)- Go to a place with no gun regulation whatsoever. Putting up a better perimeter should be the logical conclusion, though, not to eliminate gun-free zones. There's a reason that you aren't allowed to have a weapon in places like courthouses. Does it make it safer if everyone has a weapon or if nobody has one? Lol, courthouses. You mean places where criminals are often found and armed police officers are on high alert? I think that safely falls into the "deterrent" portion of my quoted post.
[+]
Those were jokes though, I didn't use them on anyone's argument. They're no counters about the topic. And most definetely not snide lol.
Jassik said: » Right, why would you hide or run when you can pull out a gun and get more people killed. Brilliant. Apparently you don't grasp the concept of "stand your ground" or why it's a thing. Last I checked "running and/or hiding" doesn't protect you so well. What does the Fox News say?
YouTube Video Placeholder
[+]
Jetackuu said: » Jassik said: » Right, why would you hide or run when you can pull out a gun and get more people killed. Brilliant. Apparently you don't grasp the concept of "stand your ground" or why it's a thing. You're not grasping that I'm referring to people not being Rambo. Statistics show over and over that people who pull a gun to stop a bad guy end up killing other people or getting themselves killed more often than they stop their target. Jassik said: » Jetackuu said: » Jassik said: » Right, why would you hide or run when you can pull out a gun and get more people killed. Brilliant. Apparently you don't grasp the concept of "stand your ground" or why it's a thing. You're not grasping that I'm referring to people not being Rambo. Statistics show over and over that people who pull a gun to stop a bad guy end up killing other people or getting themselves killed more often than they stop their target. I am grasping, I just know you're full of it. Bahamut.Ravael said: » Jassik said: » Bahamut.Ravael said: » I don't even have a stark opinion on gun-free zones, except that there should be at least some form of deterrent to make up for it. But as they typically stand now, they are soft targets. It's the easiest logic argument ever. If you want to kill a bunch of people, do you: (A)- Go to a place where law or policy discourages guns; (B)- Go to a place with no gun regulation whatsoever. Putting up a better perimeter should be the logical conclusion, though, not to eliminate gun-free zones. There's a reason that you aren't allowed to have a weapon in places like courthouses. Does it make it safer if everyone has a weapon or if nobody has one? Lol, courthouses. You mean places where criminals are often found and armed police officers are on high alert? I think that safely falls into the "deterrent" portion of my quoted post. Not necessarily the same idea. Having a perimeter around the zone was the point. If a school is a gun-free zone, you have to have a way to ensure that it is indeed gun-free. So schools now need perimeter fences and security checkpoints? Is that what you're suggesting?
Why not make everyone show their papers while you're at it.
[+]
Jetackuu said: » Jassik said: » Jetackuu said: » Jassik said: » Right, why would you hide or run when you can pull out a gun and get more people killed. Brilliant. Apparently you don't grasp the concept of "stand your ground" or why it's a thing. You're not grasping that I'm referring to people not being Rambo. Statistics show over and over that people who pull a gun to stop a bad guy end up killing other people or getting themselves killed more often than they stop their target. I am grasping, I just know you're full of it. Ignoring the facts doesn't make you right, as you point out every time. In any case, I've told you multiple times I do not wish to discuss this topic with you, yet you continue to respond to my posts unsolicited. Jassik said: » Ignoring the facts doesn't make you right, as you point out every time. In any case, I've told you multiple times I do not wish to discuss this topic with you, yet you continue to respond to my posts unsolicited. If you pull a gun, CC or not you're a target. CC is a last resort, or at least should be. Open Carry is stupid, bull's eye tattoos on your forehead and back should be mandatory to open carry because when ***goes down, you're the first target. Carrying a weapon should be a secret.
[+]
Jetackuu said: » So schools now need perimeter fences and security checkpoints? Is that what you're suggesting? Why not make everyone show their papers while you're at it. I never said that was the solution. It's the logical conclusion for ensuring a gun free zone is actually gun free. Not the typical more guns solution that always gets thrown out there. Anna Ruthven said: » If you pull a gun, CC or not you're a target. CC is a last resort, or at least should be. Open Carry is stupid, bull's eye tattoos on your forehead and back should be mandatory to open carry because when ***goes down, you're the first target. Carrying a weapon should be a secret. Matter of opinion, personally I have nothing wrong with those who OC. Jassik said: » Jetackuu said: » So schools now need perimeter fences and security checkpoints? Is that what you're suggesting? Why not make everyone show their papers while you're at it. I never said that was the solution. It's the logical conclusion for ensuring a gun free zone is actually gun free. Not the typical more guns solution that always gets thrown out there. mmhmm, got it. Anna Ruthven said: » If you pull a gun, CC or not you're a target. CC is a last resort, or at least should be. Open Carry is stupid, bull's eye tattoos on your forehead and back should be mandatory to open carry because when ***goes down, you're the first target. Carrying a weapon should be a secret. Not true. Look at this guy, he open carries all the time and nobody can frickin' hit him.
[+]
Garuda.Chanti said: » Asura.Kingnobody said: » .... So, sorry Chanti, but that school is, by federal law, designated to be a gun-free zone. Quote: The Oregonian published a piece with the headline: “Umpqua Community College not a gun-free zone: Oregon laws prevent that.” The paper explained that “[e]veryone with a concealed firearms license is allowed to bring guns on campus. 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(25) said: (25) The term “school zone” means— (A) in, or on the grounds of, a public, parochial or private school; or (B) within a distance of 1,000 feet from the grounds of a public, parochial or private school. Bahamut.Ravael said: » I don't even have a stark opinion on gun-free zones, except that there should be at least some form of deterrent to make up for it. But as they typically stand now, they are soft targets. It's the easiest logic argument ever. If you want to kill a bunch of people, do you: (A)- Go to a place where law or policy discourages guns; (B)- Go to a place with no gun regulation whatsoever. This is the most frustrating part of this discussion. Liberals outright refuse to see that gun free zone = easy target. Literally blinded by their ideology.
[+]
|
All FFXIV and FFXI content and images © 2002-2025 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD.
FINAL FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.