Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy
Why? You think soccer games are exempt from attacks by loonies?
If you have to carry a firearm or other weapons with you because you fear some loonie will attack you or someone else during your child's soccor game, when it has never happened before in your life, in fact you have never been attacked in your life anywhere and the only misfortunate thing that occured was a serious vehicle "Accident" ~ Then there's something wrong with your head and it revolves around something like self centered paranoia in thinking that the entire world is out to get you and your family.
That's called absolutely flipping nuts, and I don't care what the laws state, her motives are screwed and she's using the law to the extreme to cover up something she isn't willing to face in her life. And eventually she's gonna loose it.
Even others in the communities who are in the NRA and police departments who love guns probably as much as she does think that she's a bit out there in the head.
There are sometimes when people have to seperate themselves from line by line reading of laws to support a burocracy of technicalities in order to enable someone with a mental case who has her children hanging around her hips all the time.
This isn't the wild west anymore, and even if it was, back then, the men carried their guns on their hips and wern't lugging children around with them wherever they went..... that position wasn't designed for saftey around children I imagine, there has been no justified action against her to warrent such a paranoia of needing a firearm wherever you go.
Seriously, when was the last time you seen anything on the news in regards to a little league soccor brawl with pipes, knives and guns breaking out between parents?
You might find one..... somewhere in the world...... frigging safer there then it is driving in your car.... which she apparently found out but didn't clue in, so now she carries a gun with her everywhere she goes.
She's a nut bar with chocolate chips.
The administration of Virginia Tech thought schools were an inapproprite place for guns, and banned them on-campus. Virginia is a "shall issue" state, but none of the student permit-holders were allowed to have their guns.....so they were walking targets......
Man, we've already went down this road..... they all have their guns, he has his gun, he starts shooting people, those people with their guns start shooting back, others come around the corner and see other students shooting at each other, doesn't know which one to shoot, or decide to shoot the wrong one, then those defending themselves are now being shot at by other students, and a bigger mess occurs, along with SWAT coming in with their guns and gunning down all the kids shooting their guns.
Gun or no Gun, you're a walking target regardless and it's really all up to the person doing the targeting.
But if you want to go down that route, think of it as being a sniper in war. You want to inflict a bunch of damage? You want to hurt the enemy or make it easier for your men to defeat them? You take out the officers and commanders if you have the chance. You want to kill as many kids at your school as you can before they take you out? Take out the one's flaunting their guns first.... now you have more guns and more ammo.
Then you're an even bigger target, and probably one of the first to get. You won't be the big hero, you'd be the first victim before you even knew what was going on.
Sure it might help you out if you're lucky and the guy didn't do his homework. You could be taking a dump in the bathroom when it all goes down, or hiding under the stage in the gym from the bullies (Odd considering you have a gun, I know)
But in the end, the odds of them reducing the actual losses at the school if they had guns is minimal, and you can use the one or two examples of it working before in the past, I'm sure there are many more examples in the past of it not working.
"Allowing citizens to carry concealed firearms deters violent crimes and it appears to produce no increase in accidental deaths. If those states which did not have right to carry concealed gun provisions had adopted them in 1992, approximately 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes and over 60,000 aggravated assaults would have been avoided yearly." -- Professor John R. Lott, Jr., and David B. Mustard, University of Chicago.
Facts About Right To Carry (external - login to view)
I guess just because you have professor in your title doesn't actually mean you're smart. If the guy knew anything about common sense, he would know that there is not anyway for him to determine all of those crimes would have been prevented, since life usually isn't just a black or white situation.
Oh well they didn't have a gun to shoot and kill the guy, so that's why they died.
Oh well they had a gun to shoot the guy, but had the saftey on and got shot first.
Oh well they had a gun to shoot the guy but left it home.
Oh well they had a gun to shoot the guy, but the other guy already had a gun to his head before he knew it and was ordered to pass over the gun and die.... then died.
Or they could have shot the guy and the professor might have been right.
But if he was actually right, then how come the crime rate there sure as hell ain't improving?
Not to mention the amount of people who are about to become poor, out of work and desperate....... well, if it was even getting any better, it's about to go all to hell soon enough.