Why not focus on removing the rednecks by improving your public education system instead?
I find this extremely insulting.
I am a red neck, and I have a 4.0 GPA, and have consistently scored between 28-32 on the ACT exam. Education has nothing to do with it. Some of us just like to hunt, and live the old country life-style.
I am a red neck, and I have a 4.0 GPA, and have consistently scored between 28-32 on the ACT exam. Education has nothing to do with it. Some of us just like to hunt, and live the old country life-style.
Yeah, my experience has been that, while people from rural areas (at least in Virginia) might not share the same cultural landmarks as other people, they tend to be just as educated, if not more so. There is a poor, white culture that is undereducated and fits the "trailer trash" stereotype to some extent, but they tend to actually live in and around cities these days.
Although, I think the point being made here was a sincere one, which is that we do have under-educated, poor and disenfranchised segments of our population, where people are born and grow up with very little chance to actually escape that lifestyle. The educational system does need to be fixed to allow kids from lower class families a chance to do better for themselves.
I myself live in a rural area, in a trailer. I have a 3.50GPA and scored a 1100 on my SAT when I was 13. I like hunting in the great outdoors. It certantly cuts down on the grocery bills thats for sure. I am not undereducated, though I will admit that our educational system isn't perfect. But... people have to have some accountibility for what happens in their lives. They cannot blame everything on everybody else.
Just like how people cannot blame guns for all crime... after all the Oklahoma City Bombing was carried out with fertilizer and a little bit of oil packed in a glorified U-Haul truck.
...regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and suicide in the home
"Well I'm gonna go take a showeOH MY GOD MY GUN JUST WENT OFF I THINK MY WIFE IS DEAD"
Maybe the real problem here isn't gun control or making sure everyone has a gun (because in the case of the former, it didn't matter as mentioned before and the latter would cause complete anarchy). The real problem is the fact that no matter what, there are people who are quite mentally unstable everywhere and that given enough time and resources will do just about anything. If you've read the accounts about how the killer killed, it really wouldn't have mattered if everyone had a gun and was trained to use it. He just barged in classrooms and calmly started firing away. Even if someone could pull out a handgun to protect themselves, what are the odds that a shooter wouldn't just, I don't know, shoot him first? Also, the guy wouldn't have been packing two pistols if he was expecting resistance; he would have had much more deadlier weaponry.
What can prevent these types of things is simply people noticing someone who shows these psychiatric warning signs and helping them. So what if people kill people and not guns? People wouldn't get the desire to kill and plan out these types of Columbine events every year if someone wasn't stepping in and saying, "you're crying for help. So here it is."
It would sure be nice if every gun-owner was entirely responsible with their weapon and had excellent judgement in the heat of the moment as to whether or not the dark figure in their lounge is an armed criminal or a teenager. The trouble is, that is not the way the world is. Lots of people die in situations such as the one I describe, and barring a massive gun-education campaign, they will continue to.
Some people cut themselves with knives. Should we ban knives? Some people drink and drive. Should we ban alcohol? Some people do stupid stunts on skateboards. Should we ban skateboards?
What's my point? My point is that people are always going to be irresponsible with things, and we cant simply ban something just because some people don't use it responsibly.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Winner of the SCG Invitational, Somerset, NJ, Jul 26-28, 2013
Top 8 of SCG Invitational, Las Vegas, NV, Dec 13-15, 2013
Top 8 of SCG Invitational, Somerset, NJ, Aug 28-30, 2015
Winner of SCG Worcester Team Sealed Open with Gerard Fabiano and Curtis Sheu, September 28, 2013
It would sure be nice if every gun-owner was entirely responsible with their weapon and had excellent judgement in the heat of the moment as to whether or not the dark figure in their lounge is an armed criminal or a teenager. The trouble is, that is not the way the world is. Lots of people die in situations such as the one I describe, and barring a massive gun-education campaign, they will continue to. Look at the stats I quoted: 1 legal/justifiable shooting to 22 other shootings (suicides, accidents, assaults). Maybe guns are a deterrent. Maybe they aren't. But even if they are, you have to make a judgement as to whether you'd prefer your crime to be burglaries, where you lose your TV set, or murders, where you lose your life.
That's a nice false dilemma fallacy. I'll yield to Bizkit's rsponse.
That means that the more freely guns are available, the higher the homicide rate per unit population.
I'm aware of what it means, I'm simply not aware of any proof, and aware of statistics to the contrary.
Do you really believe that? Hitler and Mussolini came to power on the back of public support, not by imposing themselves over a helpless populace (I haven't read up on Stalin, but IIRC the Russian revolution which put the Communists in power was not just a bunch of thugs imposing their will).
The gulags and mass-murders that took place under these regimes would not have been possible against an armed populace. It's not that they wouldn't have risen to power, it's that they would've been much easier to dislodge after they got there and started throwing their weight around.
You can take it even further than that, Bizkit. People also use their right to freedom of speech to spew hate and advocate violence. They use their freedom of assembly to create the Klan and the Mafia. They use their freedom from constant surveillance to sneak off and do unpleasant things like suicide.
To a certain extent, looked at in the short term, all liberty comes at the price of safety. But it is as Ben Franklin, elder sage of America, said: "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." (Okay, that's not quite what he wrote, but it's the version I like best.)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Except that it isn't, seeing as you propose a negative correlation between gun ownership and burglaries (thanks to deterrence), and I have shown that there is a positive correlation between gun ownership and gun-related deaths. Assuming the your proposal is true, it follows that harsher gun laws would result in fewer gun-related deaths and more burglaries.
Yes, it is, because you're still acting as if all that can be done is to either ban guns or not, and that neither can be part of a more comprehensive approach to the problem of guns. I, for instance, advocate teaching firearms usage in schools, so that children early on understand how to use them safely and not accidentally shoot family members in a moment of Hollywood inspired bravado.
When the population largely supports the regime which is carrying out the atrocities, as they did under fascism, I don't see how an armed population would change anything.
During the era of Jim Crow, white people in both the North and South in the US far and away supported a regime of "Keeping negroes in their place". Apologetics and revisionists try to gloss over how much popular support their was for organizations like the KKK, but the truth is that it was there, and those who opposed this attitude generally did so half-heartedly.
Now, there were lynchings, killing and fights, but there was never a widespread pogrom to eliminate blacks from the US that was carried out with any kind of success. The fact that black families were very often armed was essential to this. It's not that blacks could, even armed, win battles against people that outnumbered them several times over. You still had incidents like the Greenwood riots, where hundreds of blacks were killed and, fighting back as well as they could, only a couple dozen of the white attackers died. That was generally how black resistance to white violence went- they were able to take a few of their attackers with them, but generally they got the raw end of the deal. However, for fear of being amongst the few revenge casualties, whites did not usually go out of their way to harass and try to kill the blacks that they hated, and when they did, they did so at night, in groups and masked so that retaliation became difficult. There were many whites who were perfectly fine with the idea of killing off all the blacks in their area, but because there was a real danger to trying to do so, even if the odds were on their side, it was usually avoided. Here, African Americans' ability to defend themselves where the law would not protect them was paramount to their survival.
It slippery-slopes in the other way too though. If personal nuclear weapons were legal, people might die when they went off. Does that mean they should be illegal, even though some people might use them responsibly for decoration
That analogy doesn't work. Guns aren't legal for decoration purposes, (Heck, even most gun collectors will fire their guns) they're completely funtional. I can go out and shoot a deer with my gun, and have some fresh meat to eat. I can't, however, take a nuke out for recreational purposes, and not cause massive destruction.
I agree with Bizkit Overlord's analogy, but yours is simply too far-fetched to work.
Yukora, you took my response right out of my mouth.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Winner of the SCG Invitational, Somerset, NJ, Jul 26-28, 2013
Top 8 of SCG Invitational, Las Vegas, NV, Dec 13-15, 2013
Top 8 of SCG Invitational, Somerset, NJ, Aug 28-30, 2015
Winner of SCG Worcester Team Sealed Open with Gerard Fabiano and Curtis Sheu, September 28, 2013
That analogie doesn't work. Guns aren't legal for decoration purposes, (Heck, even most gun collectors will fire their guns) They're completely funtional. I can go out and shoot a deer with my gun, and have some fresh meat to eat. I can't, however, take a nuke out for recreational purposes, and not cause massive destruction.
I agree with Bizkit Overlord's analogy, but yours is simply too far-fetched to work.
true his analogie is a little far-fatched but what if a nuklear reactor can be place in every home to power it, sure some people will use the radioactive mterials and make a bomb out of it but that doesn't meen because of a few people we should ban it.
I always thought that quote was a little too pithy. Surely any organized government involves the sacrifice of a little liberty for a little security?
There are two types of liberty: Hobbesian liberty and Lockean liberty.
Hobbesian liberty is the absence of restraint; in the state of nature, I am free to rob and kill because there is no force or law preventing me from doing it. This is the freedom the "sacrifice" of which is necessary for the establishment of government, and is indeed not just a means but an end of that establishment, as some Hobbesian freedoms are rather deletorous.
Lockean liberty, on the other hand, might perhaps better be described as "rights" (though Hobbes actually uses that word for his liberty as well). These are the ones you have to be very careful about, things like freedom of speech, freedom of property, and freedom to defend oneself. This does not mean they are absolutely unqualified - you can't yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater, you have to pay taxes, and you can't have a machine gun nest on your roof - but the essential nature of the right must be preserved - yelling "FIRE" isn't self-expression, taxes aren't so burdensome or "progressive" that you can't enjoy the fruits of your labor, and a handgun is perfectly sufficient for stopping someone who's attacking you.
And in this day and age, you cannot realistically be expected to defend yourself from an assailant when you have been disarmed by the government, much less defend yourself from said government should it become oppressive. Merely having a gun may not be enough against the wiles of totalitarianism, but without a gun, what chance is there at all?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
true his analogie is a little far-fatched but what if a nuklear reactor can be place in every home to power it, sure some people will use the radioactive mterials and make a bomb out of it but that doesn't meen because of a few people we should ban it.
Ok, let me put it this way. Comparing guns to anything involving nuclear capability is simply too far of a jump. Guns can be regulated, and maintained, because they're both capable of being recreational tools, and implements for defense. Nuclear weapons, on the other hand, have no recreational purposes, and if you're using them to defend yourself, you're committing suicide at the same time. All you're really doing is comparing apples and pitch-forks.
In your particular example. I highly doubt homes will ever have heir own nuclear reactors to fuel their appliances. Yes, nuclear radiation can be harnessed for energy, but supplying each home with a potential nuclear meltdown is extremely dangerous. Imagine a suburb with each home fueled by nuclear reactors. One has a meltdown, and them, as a domino effect, every other home would experience another meltdown. There's a reason that type of energy isn't available to the public. Therefore, your analogy is also too far-fetched to work.
We don't have nearly the US rate of mass killings in the UK. Dunblane was the last time I recall something like this happening here, and that was in 1996. In the US, this sort of thing seems to happen fairly often (the Amish school killings, and more before that which I can't remember offhand). I'm happy living in a society where people can't legally own a handgun, a device whose sole purpose is to kill other people. We have crime here too, yes, but the thing is that that crime rarely involves people getting shot, which IMO is a good thing. The law is not leniant on people who own illegal guns, and the situation is nothing like the 'armed criminals vs defenceless populace' you are trying to portray.
People seem to happily ignore that the UK only has 58,789,194 inhabitants (as of 2001 census), whereas the United States has 301,665,213, which is a little over five times the inhabitants (~5.13 times).
So, the fact that the US, a country with 5+ times the number of _citizens_ (doesn't account for unregistered or illegal citizens, which contribute a fairly substantial number) has more killings is... only logical.
There are two types of liberty: Hobbesian liberty and Lockean liberty.
Never miss a chance to speak of Hobbes, do you?
Quote from Gareth »
true his analogie is a little far-fatched but what if a nuklear reactor can be place in every home to power it, sure some people will use the radioactive mterials and make a bomb out of it but that doesn't meen because of a few people we should ban it.
So, who do you want to control the guns?
Quote from Nazdakka »
When the population largely supports the regime which is carrying out the atrocities, as they did under fascism, I don't see how an armed population would change anything.
Well I believe that in fascist countries there were public schools so it's entirely predictable that people supported the genocide. We just get rid of that evil and maybe we won't have the same problem again.
In any event, it's easy to cherry pick any old example you want and run with it. The fact of the matter is that an armed populace provides at least a possible check against government gone insane, which is exactly what government does time and time again.
There is a point that has not been mentioned to my knowledge.
The fact is that he did this at a place where everybody knew that the populace was unarmed. If it weren't for the law banning people from having guns on the campus - even with a permit - then it would have been less likely that the shooting would have happened because people on murderous rampages tend to pick unarmed civilian populations.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Guns don't kill people. Bullets kill people. Guns just make them move really, really fast.
I believe that the shootings at VT would have happened anyways. Cho had no problem killing those people, and then KILLING HIMSELF. He was not afraid of dying and was even planning on it. If you even seen half of the videos he was talking about how he was going to "Die as Jesus did." The Death toll would only be higher if everyone had guns.
Also, Imagine a world where you new everyone had the potential to kill you, and your life wasn't even in your hands anymore. how safe would you feel then?
I don't think anybody's arguing that everybody should own a gun. Simply, everyone should have the OPTION to own a gun or not. Personally, I don't know anybody that owns a gun, so saying that "everybody in America" has a gun is an exaggeration.
When you take the guns away from the law-abiding people, the only people with guns are the government and criminals.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Winner of the SCG Invitational, Somerset, NJ, Jul 26-28, 2013
Top 8 of SCG Invitational, Las Vegas, NV, Dec 13-15, 2013
Top 8 of SCG Invitational, Somerset, NJ, Aug 28-30, 2015
Winner of SCG Worcester Team Sealed Open with Gerard Fabiano and Curtis Sheu, September 28, 2013
This is just a perfect example of just how ignorant America and some of the world has become to reality. People die every day. Many more than died that day at that school. So many more people died that day from smoking related illnesses, but we don't see that on the news now do we? Every person who was killed/injured or any one in that school that day had the right to bare arms in self defense. Mind you the school probly has the ban on weapons on campus but that doesn't stop the people like that guy to cary weapons on campus and do what he did. He injured/killed over something like 70 people with pistols? Do you guys relize how much reloading was involved in that time yet no one probly even tried to to stop him in that time. I'm not saying that every student should be carring a gun. I am just saying that people need to be responcable for their own lives. If you arn't/can't protect your self who is gona?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I will play what wins, not what is convenient. Personal preference is nothing, The win is all that matters. I will netdeck at every opportunity, but I will not let that stifle my creativity. Style points do not appear on tournament reports. A good deck with an incompetent pilot is nothing more than a dressed up match win. I will crush my opponent mercilessly, and expect no less from him. Victory is its own reward, The prize is just a bonus.
Legacy is dying
The school's ban is partially at issue here; all things being equal, a law-abiding citizen is more likely to actually obey such a ban than one with murder on his mind. It's unconscionable to blame the victims here for following a rule designed to keep the campus safe (whether or not that rule was a good one).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
And therefore, if somebody has a gun and isn't working for the government, you know he's a criminal and the police can take action against him. That's the way the system works (in a simplified way) in Europe and it doesn't work that bad.
That said, again, I agree that such a policy can't apply in the USA anymore.
You cannot count on the police for everything. When only the government and criminals have guns, it's not exactly a good situation for the law-abiding citizens. While some police action is taken to prevent crimes, a lot of times, the police come during or after a crime is being committed. They can't be everywhere at all times, and normal every-day law-abiding people need to be able to defend themselves.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Winner of the SCG Invitational, Somerset, NJ, Jul 26-28, 2013
Top 8 of SCG Invitational, Las Vegas, NV, Dec 13-15, 2013
Top 8 of SCG Invitational, Somerset, NJ, Aug 28-30, 2015
Winner of SCG Worcester Team Sealed Open with Gerard Fabiano and Curtis Sheu, September 28, 2013
Your reasoning is that they will always get a gun anyway. That reasoning may be correct in the USA but it isn't in Europe and even if they do get a gun, it is actually possible to stop them before they get to use it for the worst.
How?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Most people who comit crimes with guns usually arn't trained in how to handle or opporate a gun properly. Striping a weapon from an inexperienced opperater is not that hard.
And yes most people really don't want to tackle a guy with a gun but geting shot in the leg is way better than geting shot in the face.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I will play what wins, not what is convenient. Personal preference is nothing, The win is all that matters. I will netdeck at every opportunity, but I will not let that stifle my creativity. Style points do not appear on tournament reports. A good deck with an incompetent pilot is nothing more than a dressed up match win. I will crush my opponent mercilessly, and expect no less from him. Victory is its own reward, The prize is just a bonus.
Legacy is dying
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I am a red neck, and I have a 4.0 GPA, and have consistently scored between 28-32 on the ACT exam. Education has nothing to do with it. Some of us just like to hunt, and live the old country life-style.
Yeah, my experience has been that, while people from rural areas (at least in Virginia) might not share the same cultural landmarks as other people, they tend to be just as educated, if not more so. There is a poor, white culture that is undereducated and fits the "trailer trash" stereotype to some extent, but they tend to actually live in and around cities these days.
Although, I think the point being made here was a sincere one, which is that we do have under-educated, poor and disenfranchised segments of our population, where people are born and grow up with very little chance to actually escape that lifestyle. The educational system does need to be fixed to allow kids from lower class families a chance to do better for themselves.
Just like how people cannot blame guns for all crime... after all the Oklahoma City Bombing was carried out with fertilizer and a little bit of oil packed in a glorified U-Haul truck.
Honestly, what the hell? Spam.
What can prevent these types of things is simply people noticing someone who shows these psychiatric warning signs and helping them. So what if people kill people and not guns? People wouldn't get the desire to kill and plan out these types of Columbine events every year if someone wasn't stepping in and saying, "you're crying for help. So here it is."
Some people cut themselves with knives. Should we ban knives? Some people drink and drive. Should we ban alcohol? Some people do stupid stunts on skateboards. Should we ban skateboards?
What's my point? My point is that people are always going to be irresponsible with things, and we cant simply ban something just because some people don't use it responsibly.
Top 8 of SCG Invitational, Las Vegas, NV, Dec 13-15, 2013
Top 8 of SCG Invitational, Somerset, NJ, Aug 28-30, 2015
Winner of SCG Worcester Team Sealed Open with Gerard Fabiano and Curtis Sheu, September 28, 2013
twitter
That's a nice false dilemma fallacy. I'll yield to Bizkit's rsponse.
I'm aware of what it means, I'm simply not aware of any proof, and aware of statistics to the contrary.
The gulags and mass-murders that took place under these regimes would not have been possible against an armed populace. It's not that they wouldn't have risen to power, it's that they would've been much easier to dislodge after they got there and started throwing their weight around.
To a certain extent, looked at in the short term, all liberty comes at the price of safety. But it is as Ben Franklin, elder sage of America, said: "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." (Okay, that's not quite what he wrote, but it's the version I like best.)
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Yes, it is, because you're still acting as if all that can be done is to either ban guns or not, and that neither can be part of a more comprehensive approach to the problem of guns. I, for instance, advocate teaching firearms usage in schools, so that children early on understand how to use them safely and not accidentally shoot family members in a moment of Hollywood inspired bravado.
During the era of Jim Crow, white people in both the North and South in the US far and away supported a regime of "Keeping negroes in their place". Apologetics and revisionists try to gloss over how much popular support their was for organizations like the KKK, but the truth is that it was there, and those who opposed this attitude generally did so half-heartedly.
Now, there were lynchings, killing and fights, but there was never a widespread pogrom to eliminate blacks from the US that was carried out with any kind of success. The fact that black families were very often armed was essential to this. It's not that blacks could, even armed, win battles against people that outnumbered them several times over. You still had incidents like the Greenwood riots, where hundreds of blacks were killed and, fighting back as well as they could, only a couple dozen of the white attackers died. That was generally how black resistance to white violence went- they were able to take a few of their attackers with them, but generally they got the raw end of the deal. However, for fear of being amongst the few revenge casualties, whites did not usually go out of their way to harass and try to kill the blacks that they hated, and when they did, they did so at night, in groups and masked so that retaliation became difficult. There were many whites who were perfectly fine with the idea of killing off all the blacks in their area, but because there was a real danger to trying to do so, even if the odds were on their side, it was usually avoided. Here, African Americans' ability to defend themselves where the law would not protect them was paramount to their survival.
I agree with Bizkit Overlord's analogy, but yours is simply too far-fetched to work.
Top 8 of SCG Invitational, Las Vegas, NV, Dec 13-15, 2013
Top 8 of SCG Invitational, Somerset, NJ, Aug 28-30, 2015
Winner of SCG Worcester Team Sealed Open with Gerard Fabiano and Curtis Sheu, September 28, 2013
twitter
true his analogie is a little far-fatched but what if a nuklear reactor can be place in every home to power it, sure some people will use the radioactive mterials and make a bomb out of it but that doesn't meen because of a few people we should ban it.
cookie wizards of the the simic
The extendo siggy thingy currently dead
There are two types of liberty: Hobbesian liberty and Lockean liberty.
Hobbesian liberty is the absence of restraint; in the state of nature, I am free to rob and kill because there is no force or law preventing me from doing it. This is the freedom the "sacrifice" of which is necessary for the establishment of government, and is indeed not just a means but an end of that establishment, as some Hobbesian freedoms are rather deletorous.
Lockean liberty, on the other hand, might perhaps better be described as "rights" (though Hobbes actually uses that word for his liberty as well). These are the ones you have to be very careful about, things like freedom of speech, freedom of property, and freedom to defend oneself. This does not mean they are absolutely unqualified - you can't yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater, you have to pay taxes, and you can't have a machine gun nest on your roof - but the essential nature of the right must be preserved - yelling "FIRE" isn't self-expression, taxes aren't so burdensome or "progressive" that you can't enjoy the fruits of your labor, and a handgun is perfectly sufficient for stopping someone who's attacking you.
And in this day and age, you cannot realistically be expected to defend yourself from an assailant when you have been disarmed by the government, much less defend yourself from said government should it become oppressive. Merely having a gun may not be enough against the wiles of totalitarianism, but without a gun, what chance is there at all?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
In your particular example. I highly doubt homes will ever have heir own nuclear reactors to fuel their appliances. Yes, nuclear radiation can be harnessed for energy, but supplying each home with a potential nuclear meltdown is extremely dangerous. Imagine a suburb with each home fueled by nuclear reactors. One has a meltdown, and them, as a domino effect, every other home would experience another meltdown. There's a reason that type of energy isn't available to the public. Therefore, your analogy is also too far-fetched to work.
Great minds think alike :).
People seem to happily ignore that the UK only has 58,789,194 inhabitants (as of 2001 census), whereas the United States has 301,665,213, which is a little over five times the inhabitants (~5.13 times).
So, the fact that the US, a country with 5+ times the number of _citizens_ (doesn't account for unregistered or illegal citizens, which contribute a fairly substantial number) has more killings is... only logical.
[KalmWave] [Last.FM]
Ubuntu Linux
Never miss a chance to speak of Hobbes, do you?
So, who do you want to control the guns?
Well I believe that in fascist countries there were public schools so it's entirely predictable that people supported the genocide. We just get rid of that evil and maybe we won't have the same problem again.
In any event, it's easy to cherry pick any old example you want and run with it. The fact of the matter is that an armed populace provides at least a possible check against government gone insane, which is exactly what government does time and time again.
The fact is that he did this at a place where everybody knew that the populace was unarmed. If it weren't for the law banning people from having guns on the campus - even with a permit - then it would have been less likely that the shooting would have happened because people on murderous rampages tend to pick unarmed civilian populations.
Isn't it incredible how far and wide his genius can be seen?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Also, Imagine a world where you new everyone had the potential to kill you, and your life wasn't even in your hands anymore. how safe would you feel then?
Extendo
Read my Blog!
When you take the guns away from the law-abiding people, the only people with guns are the government and criminals.
Top 8 of SCG Invitational, Las Vegas, NV, Dec 13-15, 2013
Top 8 of SCG Invitational, Somerset, NJ, Aug 28-30, 2015
Winner of SCG Worcester Team Sealed Open with Gerard Fabiano and Curtis Sheu, September 28, 2013
twitter
Personal preference is nothing, The win is all that matters.
I will netdeck at every opportunity, but I will not let that stifle my creativity.
Style points do not appear on tournament reports.
A good deck with an incompetent pilot is nothing more than a dressed up match win.
I will crush my opponent mercilessly, and expect no less from him.
Victory is its own reward, The prize is just a bonus.
Legacy is dying
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
You cannot count on the police for everything. When only the government and criminals have guns, it's not exactly a good situation for the law-abiding citizens. While some police action is taken to prevent crimes, a lot of times, the police come during or after a crime is being committed. They can't be everywhere at all times, and normal every-day law-abiding people need to be able to defend themselves.
Top 8 of SCG Invitational, Las Vegas, NV, Dec 13-15, 2013
Top 8 of SCG Invitational, Somerset, NJ, Aug 28-30, 2015
Winner of SCG Worcester Team Sealed Open with Gerard Fabiano and Curtis Sheu, September 28, 2013
twitter
How?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
And yes most people really don't want to tackle a guy with a gun but geting shot in the leg is way better than geting shot in the face.
Personal preference is nothing, The win is all that matters.
I will netdeck at every opportunity, but I will not let that stifle my creativity.
Style points do not appear on tournament reports.
A good deck with an incompetent pilot is nothing more than a dressed up match win.
I will crush my opponent mercilessly, and expect no less from him.
Victory is its own reward, The prize is just a bonus.
Legacy is dying