Parkland shootings

ib1yysguy

ib1yysguy

Junior Member
If this slaying of four officers teaches us one thing, it's that more guns in more places won't prevent violent crime.

All we ever hear after a shooting is how if there had only been more guns there it never would have happened. We hear this even after a shooting on a military base. But now, it happens in front of four armed and uniformed officers.

Basically, this tells us that more guns does not equal more protection.
 
yes, one incident means all this....

let's ban police from carrying guns, it obviously never works as we can tell from this one incident....

:rolleyes:
 
ib1yysguy said:
...

All we ever hear after a shooting is how if there had only been more guns there it never would have happened. We hear this even after a shooting on a military base. But now, it happens in front of four armed and uniformed officers.

....
Click to expand...

The Ft. Hood incident occurred on a campus area where guns were banned.

Generally, thanks to a 1993 Clinton-imposed order, Army posts are an anti-gun advocate's dream, a microcosm of a "gun-free" society: only the police are allowed to carry weapons, service weapons are signed out only for training or maintenance, and any personal weapons must be kept locked and registered with the base provost marshal.
Click to expand...
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=115985

Another epic failure by ibgayguy.

:facepalm:
 
So we can retire that tired old argument that if only the Virgina Tech students were allowed to carry guns (or whichever school has been shot up most recently by someone with a handgun) then everything would have been hunky dory?

It's pretty obvious, as this case makes clear to the non-retarded, that this argument is totally without merit.
 
ib1yysguy said:
So we can retire that tired old argument that if only the Virgina Tech students were allowed to carry guns (or whichever school has been shot up most recently by someone with a handgun) then everything would have been hunky dory?

It's pretty obvious, as this case makes clear to the non-retarded, that this argument is totally without merit.
Click to expand...



If you are being serious it seems pretty logical to understand that because one has a gun on them it doesn't prevent them from getting surprised attacked as it sounds like was the case with these officers. If someone had a gun on them at Va Tech the shooter would have still shot people initially but could have been prevented from shooting as many as he did.
 
Last edited:
ib1yysguy said:
So we can retire that tired old argument that if only the Virgina Tech students were allowed to carry guns (or whichever school has been shot up most recently by someone with a handgun) then everything would have been hunky dory?

It's pretty obvious, as this case makes clear to the non-retarded, that this argument is totally without merit.
Click to expand...

You cannot prove that things would not be better if someone had been armed. Statistics do not support either argument.
 
ib1yysguy said:
If this slaying of four officers teaches us one thing, it's that more guns in more places won't prevent violent crime.

All we ever hear after a shooting is how if there had only been more guns there it never would have happened. We hear this even after a shooting on a military base. But now, it happens in front of four armed and uniformed officers.

Basically, this tells us that more guns does not equal more protection.
Click to expand...

Apparently the accused was/is mentally ill. This could have been prevented by getting him help when he was 17 instead of sentencing him to 95 years in prison.

What wacko judge would sentence a 17 year old to 95 years in prison?
 
apple0154 said:
Apparently the accused was/is mentally ill. This could have been prevented by getting him help when he was 17 instead of sentencing him to 95 years in prison.

What wacko judge would sentence a 17 year old to 95 years in prison?
Click to expand...

You know that it's harder to get anti depressants or anti psychotics than it is to get a handgun? That's the state of gun control in this country. It's indefensible.
 
ib1yysguy said:
So we can retire that tired old argument that if only the Virgina Tech students were allowed to carry guns (or whichever school has been shot up most recently by someone with a handgun) then everything would have been hunky dory?

It's pretty obvious, as this case makes clear to the non-retarded, that this argument is totally without merit.
Click to expand...

Yes, you have made the case that your argument is totally without merit. :good4u:
 
ib1yysguy said:
You know that it's harder to get anti depressants or anti psychotics than it is to get a handgun? That's the state of gun control in this country. It's indefensible.
Click to expand...
So get a gun and blow your brains out so we don't have to read your asinine posts.
 
ib1yysguy said:
You know that it's harder to get anti depressants or anti psychotics than it is to get a handgun? That's the state of gun control in this country. It's indefensible.
Click to expand...

you don't have a right to those drugs....you have a right to bear arms

your post is indefensible and we all know what happened with the DC handgun ban....
 
Yurt said:
you don't have a right to those drugs....you have a right to bear arms
Click to expand...

One has a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If a drug results in saving ones life, if a drug results in preventing one from being irrational thereby losing their freedom, if the ingestion of a drug results in happiness then the the case is clear cut. :D
 
Proof positive that granting parole, clemency does not work. He should have never been allowed to get out.

Clemmons’ criminal history includes at least five felony convictions in Arkansas and at least eight felony charges in Washington. The record also stands out for the number of times he has been released from custody despite questions about the danger he posed.

Clemmons had been in jail in Pierce County for the past several months on a pending charge of second-degree rape of a child.

He was released from custody just six days ago, even though he was wanted on a fugitive warrant out of Arkansas and was staring at eight felony charges in all out of Washington state.
 
apple0154 said:
One has a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If a drug results in saving ones life, if a drug results in preventing one from being irrational thereby losing their freedom, if the ingestion of a drug results in happiness then the the case is clear cut. :D
Click to expand...

cute
 
apple0154 said:
Apparently the accused was/is mentally ill. This could have been prevented by getting him help when he was 17 instead of sentencing him to 95 years in prison.

What wacko judge would sentence a 17 year old to 95 years in prison?
Click to expand...

Arkansas probably had 1/3 time parole, so it would've been more like a 30 year sentence without parole. It's still a pretty whopping sentence to give to a 17 year old who hasn't committed a murder.

This is why we should have some sort of rehabilitating role in prisons. We should have mental health facilities for prisoners.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top