TexasCHLforum.com

Yet more proof (as if we need more) it can happen anywhere, any time.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,573745,00.html

All the more reason that law-abiding citizens should be allowed to be armed. I just wonder how many more body bags it will take before the anti-gun crowds realizes the failure of gun control!

1,000,000,000,000,000 would not be enough. They just feel they have not taken it far enough.

vrentropy wrote:1,000,000,000,000,000 would not be enough. They just feel they have not taken it far enough.

Yeah, their default stance is "if we could have only prevented the bad guy from getting a gun then we would have prevented the shooting".

So basically the logical disconnect is that 1. criminals abide by gun control laws or 2. regular normal people are all potential bad guys. So we have to prevent the normal people (potential bad guys) from getting a gun, in case they turn into a bad guy, and once they are a bad guy then they are going to continue to abide by the law preventing them from acquiring a gun.

Only a fool would rationally believe either of these things. But it's hard to beat the emotional appeal of "if there just were no guns, there would be no violence" that is the natural reaction of many people when something like this happens.

The correlary to to this argument, which is always the fallback position, is that "fewer law-abiding people with guns equals fewer guns, and fewer guns equals less chances for a bad guy to have a gun". Which is logically true, but a moot point. It depends on a lack of commitment to crime on the part of bad guys.

Of course I am preaching to the choir.

mr.72 wrote:

vrentropy wrote:1,000,000,000,000,000 would not be enough. They just feel they have not taken it far enough.

Yeah, their default stance is "if we could have only prevented the bad guy from getting a gun then we would have prevented the shooting".

So basically the logical disconnect is that 1. criminals abide by gun control laws or 2. regular normal people are all potential bad guys. So we have to prevent the normal people (potential bad guys) from getting a gun, in case they turn into a bad guy, and once they are a bad guy then they are going to continue to abide by the law preventing them from acquiring a gun.

Only a fool would rationally believe either of these things. But it's hard to beat the emotional appeal of "if there just were no guns, there would be no violence" that is the natural reaction of many people when something like this happens.

The correlary to to this argument, which is always the fallback position, is that "fewer law-abiding people with guns equals fewer guns, and fewer guns equals less chances for a bad guy to have a gun". Which is logically true, but a moot point. It depends on a lack of commitment to crime on the part of bad guys.

Of course I am preaching to the choir.

Yes, the anti's sense of logic and in this issue (in fact any issue) is pathetic at best. That is to say, they have none! If Vulcan's from Star Trek did infact exist, Mr. Spock would be seriously addicted to heavy doses of Excedrin by now after dealing with the far left in this country!

I'm not one to let the anti's get me too upset , but when I saw this it made my blood boil.
Just another example of their ignorance.

Isn't that the nut from Virginia Tech? That's just sad. If there had been an NRA member there with a CHL he might have been stopped sooner.

C-dub wrote:Isn't that the nut from Virginia Tech?

Yep , that's him .

Like I said earlier , the anti people don't bother me so much . Everyone is entitled to an opinion .
But to associate that guy with the NRA is beyond comprehension.

They just don't get it .

Looks to me like family ought to really sue the socks off someone.