Another stupid article on the Daily Toxin

[Codename46]

http://www.dailytexanonline.com/content ... classrooms" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Purplehood]

The author uses the "all or nothing" argument over and over. I love logical fallacies, except when I use them.

[Lodge2004]

"The NRA claims that mass shooters love gun-free zones. Mass shooters do not target gun-free zones because they lack guns. They target gun-free zones because such places are considered sanctuaries. The shooter at my alma mater wanted to take away our feeling of safety in classrooms."

These are the words of someone desperately trying to make sense of the events he suffered. I'd suspect they are a reflection of what a grief counselor told him..."he wanted to take away your feeling of safety...don't let him do that...you can beat him by..."

Interesting that he has taken this path since he apparently is a martial artist ("Two of my martial arts students died in the Virginia Tech shooting; neither had a chance even to stand up..."). Extending his argument to self defense in general, it makes the practice of any martial art useless unless it's only done for exercise. I wonder if that has occurred to him.

[jimlongley]

"Mass shooters do not target gun-free zones because they lack guns. They target gun-free zones because such places are considered sanctuaries."

I would love to be able to ask him if he could explain the difference. It seems to me that one defines the other, ie: This place is a sanctuary, therefore it shall be gun free:This place is gun free, therefore it is a sanctuary.

Either way you look at it, it is a target rich environment.

[Charles L. Cotton]

John Woods does not feel constrained by the truth. His claim to fame is that a girl he claimed as his girlfriend (hotly disputed) was killed at Virginia Tech while he was having a breakfast taco somewhere far from the carnage of unarmed victims. (I'm kidding about the taco.) His absolute lack of knowledge of the events at VT are astounding for self-proclaimed expert on mass murderers.

I debated him during a short interview on KRLD radio in the Dallas area during the 2009 legislative session and he would have been a joke, were the subject matter not so important. As I said earlier, he knew nothing about the facts and when I refuted every single claim he made with a minute-by-minute description of when and where the shooter went, he was so frustrated he couldn't talk. He just kept saying "Mr. Cotton wasn't there, I was!" No you weren't John, but unlike me, you didn't do the research to find out what really happened.

John Woods is a fraud trying to garner some degree of fame by dancing in the blood of the innocent.

Chas.

[Codename46]

John Woods does not feel constrained by the truth. His claim to fame is that a girl he claimed as his girlfriend (hotly disputed) was killed at Virginia Tech while he was having a breakfast taco somewhere far from the carnage of unarmed victims. (I'm kidding about the taco.) His absolute lack of knowledge of the events at VT are astounding for self-proclaimed expert on mass murderers.

I debated him during a short interview on KRLD radio in the Dallas area during the 2009 legislative session and he would have been a joke, were the subject matter not so important. As I said earlier, he knew nothing about the facts and when I refuted every single claim he made with a minute-by-minute description of when and where the shooter went, he was so frustrated he couldn't talk. He just kept saying "Mr. Cotton wasn't there, I was!" No you weren't John, but unlike me, you didn't do the research to find out what really happened.

John Woods is a fraud trying to garner some degree of fame by dancing in the blood of the innocent.

Chas.

Whoa. Out of curiosity, what was hotly disputed about his girlfriend? Was she not even his g/f?

[Charles L. Cotton]

John Woods does not feel constrained by the truth. His claim to fame is that a girl he claimed as his girlfriend (hotly disputed) was killed at Virginia Tech while he was having a breakfast taco somewhere far from the carnage of unarmed victims. (I'm kidding about the taco.) His absolute lack of knowledge of the events at VT are astounding for self-proclaimed expert on mass murderers.

I debated him during a short interview on KRLD radio in the Dallas area during the 2009 legislative session and he would have been a joke, were the subject matter not so important. As I said earlier, he knew nothing about the facts and when I refuted every single claim he made with a minute-by-minute description of when and where the shooter went, he was so frustrated he couldn't talk. He just kept saying "Mr. Cotton wasn't there, I was!" No you weren't John, but unlike me, you didn't do the research to find out what really happened.

John Woods is a fraud trying to garner some degree of fame by dancing in the blood of the innocent.

Chas.

Whoa. Out of curiosity, what was hotly disputed about his girlfriend? Was she not even his g/f?

I shouldn't have said that. I was told by people she was not his girlfriend. In view of his many other false statements, I tend to believe it. Apparently this has been brought up before; he now says "I lost the girl I loved" instead of my girlfriend.

Chas.

[Douva]

John Woods does not feel constrained by the truth. His claim to fame is that a girl he claimed as his girlfriend (hotly disputed) was killed at Virginia Tech while he was having a breakfast taco somewhere far from the carnage of unarmed victims. (I'm kidding about the taco.) His absolute lack of knowledge of the events at VT are astounding for self-proclaimed expert on mass murderers.

I debated him during a short interview on KRLD radio in the Dallas area during the 2009 legislative session and he would have been a joke, were the subject matter not so important. As I said earlier, he knew nothing about the facts and when I refuted every single claim he made with a minute-by-minute description of when and where the shooter went, he was so frustrated he couldn't talk. He just kept saying "Mr. Cotton wasn't there, I was!" No you weren't John, but unlike me, you didn't do the research to find out what really happened.

John Woods is a fraud trying to garner some degree of fame by dancing in the blood of the innocent.

Chas.

Whoa. Out of curiosity, what was hotly disputed about his girlfriend? Was she not even his g/f?

I shouldn't have said that. I was told by people she was not his girlfriend. In view of his many other false statements, I tend to believe it. Apparently this has been brought up before; he now says "I lost the girl I loved" instead of my girlfriend.

Chas.

I don't have any personal insight into this; I've just heard the same rumblings as Charles, and it's my interpretation that whether or not she was his girlfriend is a matter of semantics.

How does one define "girlfriend"?

It seems that they were dating; however, the relationship was likely more casual than what many people infer when they hear the term "girlfriend." John Woods' flawed arguments are legendary; however, I honestly don't think it makes much difference if he calls the woman who died "my girlfriend" or "the girl I was dating" or anything else--none of that makes his points any more or less valid (not that they could be much less valid).

[GrayGhost]

The gun lobby has long argued that mass shooters exclusively target “gun-free zones” and, confusingly, that the presence of firearms can deter suicidal individuals. The firearms industry maintains this argument even in the face of the Jan. 8 shooting in Tucson that nearly took the life of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. Arizona allows the concealed carry of firearms without any background check or permit.

The author argues that a law or a sign that says, “No guns allowed. Murder is illegal” renders criminals with the only option of not having a gun. He maintains this argument even in the face of the Jan. 8 shooting in Tucson where several individuals were shot in spite of the fact that the acts were all illegal.

Shootings have more in common with ambushes than duels — and in an ambush, it doesn’t matter how the victims are armed. Two of my martial arts students died in the Virginia Tech shooting; neither had a chance even to stand up, and one never saw her killer enter the room. Guns would not have saved them if they didn’t have time to move. So, we must begin to ask ourselves: What do we do for those who can’t simply get strapped, such as 9-year-old Tucson victim Christina Green?

In an ambush it also does not matter if the victims are unarmed. The two martial arts students would not have had the chance to stand up any more if there had been a law that outlawed handguns. The lack of a gun would not have saved them if they didn’t have time to move either. Taking away the guns of law abiding citizens would not have saved 9-year-old Tucson victim Christina Green.

Then, when a major tragedy occurs, the NRA simply claims that gun control doesn’t work. Yet we see clear evidence that it does work in the U.K., where the homicide rate is one-fourth of that seen in America.

Putting the U.K. up as the shining example of gun control working is laughable since gun crime has sky rocketed since implementation.

The NRA claims that mass shooters love gun-free zones. Mass shooters do not target gun-free zones because they lack guns. They target gun-free zones because such places are considered sanctuaries. The shooter at my alma mater wanted to take away our feeling of safety in classrooms.

Anti-gunners claim that gun-free zones are always that, gun-free. Mass shooters will not carry in a gun-free zone. Do I really have to comment upon the ridiculousness of such thought?

A rational look at the statistics shows that even counting Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University, we remain safe in classrooms. According to a Department of Justice study, 93 percent of violent crimes against students happen off campus. Indeed, the University of Texas at Austin has experienced only three homicides in the last 30 years. I cannot imagine improving that rate by adding guns, except perhaps in the hands of professional law enforcement officers.

Good thing he conveniently left out the 1966 sniper shooting that left 16 dead and 31 wounded. Guess you can select the right time frame and no one would have been killed. But so much for the gun-free zone just the same.

I hope Texas will join me, along with the survivors of the Virginia Tech shooting, in protecting the sanctuaries that are our classrooms.

Protecting? First time in the article he mentions any type of protection. Hmmm, I wonder how he plans on doing that? Allowing private carry does not guarantee a superman to be available when tragedy occurs. Banning private carry guarantees, unless law enforcement is near, only the villain will be armed.

[bnc]

At least he is upfront about playing his victim card. Or, more accurately, his disputable-acquaintanceship-with-a-real-victim card.