Reading the morning paper, I ran across an article detailing the capture of the young shooter in the Lone Star College incident earlier this week. He was found in Plano, hiding out with some "acquaintances" and has been remanded back to Houston.

What I find very disturbing, while not altogether surprising is the guy's stated reason for shooting his victim. He told police he shot a person he did not know because the victim allegedly "bumped" into him. As amazing as that sounds, one has to wonder how guns limit the number of options people in potentially volatile situations would normally consider without guns being present. Think about it. Had this guy not a gun, he may have been forced to walk away, curse the guy out and move on or several other outs. It's clear the gun made it possible for him not to waste time thinking. He just simply shot a guy who pissed him off. How crazy, how disordered, how frightening is that? This is what our violent gun culture has wrought.

It's really a shame that we've come to this and what's worse is we've decided to live it, while insisting that guns make us free.

He probably wasn't suppose to be carrying a gun through his community college. Criminals are criminals and what your narrow mind can't wrap itself around is that your gun control laws only hurt law abiding citizens. So what's your hope? Ban all guns in America? If so, you are very ignorant.

Anybody else?

Everybody else probably read it, rolled their eyes, and moved on.

Do you think it might be possible for you to do likewise?

Why would you post this stupid bs then?

For people with gravitas to consider the thesis. Have you tried the football board?

People have considered it, and I'm not sure if you noticed, but they get outraged at the thought.

andtheblack2 wrote: Reading the morning paper, I ran across an article detailing the capture of the young shooter in the Lone Star College incident earlier this week. He was found in Plano, hiding out with some "acquaintances" and has been remanded back to Houston.

What I find very disturbing, while not altogether surprising is the guy's stated reason for shooting his victim. He told police he shot a person he did not know because the victim allegedly "bumped" into him. As amazing as that sounds, one has to wonder how guns limit the number of options people in potentially volatile situation would normally consider without guns being present. Think about it. Had this guy not a gun, he may have been forced to walk away, curse the guy out and move on or several other outs. It's clear the gun made it possible for him not to waste time thinking. He just simply shot a guy who pissed him off. How crazy, how disordered, how frightening is that? This is what our violent gun culture has wrought.

It's really a shame that we've come to this and what's worse is decided to live it, while insisting that guns make us free.

Obviously, the perp in this case was either white, black or some ethnicity other than Hispanic.  Had he been Hispanic, he wouldn't have shot the guy who bumped into him.  He would've stabbed him.

So, in bizarro world, we got the minorities covered. How would a gun toatin', gun lover such as yourself comport yourself?

AustinRaider6 wrote: People have considered it, and I'm not sure if you noticed, but they get outraged at the thought.

The Rivals forum, perhaps?

---------------------------------------------
--- andtheblack2 wrote:

AustinRaider6 wrote: People have considered it, and I'm not sure if you noticed, but they get outraged at the thought.

The Rivals forum, perhaps?

---------------------------------------------

Move to china so you can be happy get your oppressive red flag bs outta here

Because you're 20, I'm not overly concerned. There's time, but you need to start showing signs of some understanding of the world around you.

We are a violent society.  Even people on this board like to tout their firearms (I think that guns are their phallic symbol for their inadequacies) and talk about CHL activities - like little children trying to act tough.  sad indeed.

just look at this baby ... 

Barb, it's just crazy. When I think about the kid who was killed by a guy with a gun and an attitude while sitting in the back seat of an SUV on Black Friday, it makes me almost lose hope. Because of loud music, a man, who without a gun. would more than likely never have engaged those kids at all, emptied his gun into a car full of kids and drove off as if nothing happened.

Just this week , it was reported that a 16 year old who shot his mom and sister to death in Parker County did so because he had begun to think they were racists. (He also watched "Halloween: three times before deciding to commit murder)  Reportedly, he took a gun from his grandfather's arsenal and killed his family. How crazy is that? I can't help but wonder how he would have been forced to deal with the displeasure with his family had he not had access to a gun.

It's really quite sad.

symbol of our gun lunacy ... 

I appreciate what you are saying atb...I disagree with you, as you well know...but I understand to a certain extent what it is you are trying to convey.

The hard truth though, at least in my myopic view is that if more laws are made, the only folks that would be following them are those that have followed the laws so far.  The criminal element is not going to start following the law, and if I have disarmed, then I am going to be unable to protect myself should the need arise.   Maybe if I lived in the city where help was a quick response, I would feel different...but having seen the response times in person out here, I feel much more safe being able to protect me and my family.

I think a much better answer...would be to enforce the laws that are currently on the books and make the penalties for breaking them severe enough that it would deter even those with a criminal bend to their mind.  If someone uses a gun in a robbery, make it a life sentence.  If someone commits murder, make it an automatic death penalty...do not leave it up to a jury to decide life or death...make the death penalty the automatic penalty for a first degree murder conviction.  Put teeth into the penalties of the current laws, and just maybe the criminal element might shrink as  people begin to think the risk is not equal to the reward.  It would not deter the hellbent criminal, but it might shrink the size of the pool .

raiderinloneoak wrote: I appreciate what you are saying atb...I disagree with you, as you well know...but I understand to a certain extent what it is you are trying to convey.

The hard truth though, at least in my myopic view is that if more laws are made, the only folks that would be following them are those that have followed the laws so far.  The criminal element is not going to start following the law, and if I have disarmed, then I am going to be unable to protect myself should the need arise.   Maybe if I lived in the city where help was a quick response, I would feel different...but having seen the response times in person out here, I feel much more safe being able to protect me and my family.

I think a much better answer...would be to enforce the laws that are currently on the books and make the penalties for breaking them severe enough that it would deter even those with a criminal bend to their mind.  If someone uses a gun in a robbery, make it a life sentence.  If someone commits murder, make it an automatic death penalty...do not leave it up to a jury to decide life or death...make the death penalty the automatic penalty for a first degree murder conviction.  Put teeth into the penalties of the current laws, and just maybe the criminal element might shrink as  people begin to think the risk is not equal to the reward.  It would not deter the hellbent criminal, but it might shrink the size of the pool .

Valid points, RILO.  Points all made here at one time or another - most of them repeated ad nauseum by those of us who are law-abiding gun owners.  My only slight disagreement with what you posted was regarding police response times in cities.  You've probably heard the saying, "When seconds count, the police are just minutes away."  Even in Lubbock, the police aren't able to respond fast enough to stop a home invasion or something similar in most cases.

But, those points fall on the deaf ears of the Super Troll/anti-gun king.  The Super Troll is only interested in the passage of laws that will disarm those who follow the laws.  Super Troll never brings anything useful to the table when it comes to actually harshly dealing with CRIMINALS - the ones who foster this supposed "gun culture" by being the ones toting those guns out on the street AND using them in crimes.  In fact, I predict that Super Troll will disagree mightily with you on the use of the death penalty and argue to no end about how it's not a deterrent to crime.

So, many of us have simply given up on presenting facts or reason or logic to those whose are eaten up with their anti-gun agenda.  Instead, we just leave responses like the one I left earlier in the thread.

raiderinloneoak wrote: I appreciate what you are saying atb...I disagree with you, as you well know...but I understand to a certain extent what it is you are trying to convey.

The hard truth though, at least in my myopic view is that if more laws are made, the only folks that would be following them are those that have followed the laws so far.  The criminal element is not going to start following the law, and if I have disarmed, then I am going to be unable to protect myself should the need arise.   Maybe if I lived in the city where help was a quick response, I would feel different...but having seen the response times in person out here, I feel much more safe being able to protect me and my family.

I think a much better answer...would be to enforce the laws that are currently on the books and make the penalties for breaking them severe enough that it would deter even those with a criminal bend to their mind.  If someone uses a gun in a robbery, make it a life sentence.  If someone commits murder, make it an automatic death penalty...do not leave it up to a jury to decide life or death...make the death penalty the automatic penalty for a first degree murder conviction.  Put teeth into the penalties of the current laws, and just maybe the criminal element might shrink as  people begin to think the risk is not equal to the reward.  It would not deter the hellbent criminal, but it might shrink the size of the pool .

That's fine, Oak.  But can you provide us with some data that supports the points you make?  For example, what is evidence that severe penalties in themselves reduce gun-related crime and/or gun murders?

It's well to speculate about these matters, but I think we'd be better guided by whatever evidence is currently available.

ElBueno wrote:

raiderinloneoak wrote: I appreciate what you are saying atb...I disagree with you, as you well know...but I understand to a certain extent what it is you are trying to convey.

The hard truth though, at least in my myopic view is that if more laws are made, the only folks that would be following them are those that have followed the laws so far.  The criminal element is not going to start following the law, and if I have disarmed, then I am going to be unable to protect myself should the need arise.   Maybe if I lived in the city where help was a quick response, I would feel different...but having seen the response times in person out here, I feel much more safe being able to protect me and my family.

I think a much better answer...would be to enforce the laws that are currently on the books and make the penalties for breaking them severe enough that it would deter even those with a criminal bend to their mind.  If someone uses a gun in a robbery, make it a life sentence.  If someone commits murder, make it an automatic death penalty...do not leave it up to a jury to decide life or death...make the death penalty the automatic penalty for a first degree murder conviction.  Put teeth into the penalties of the current laws, and just maybe the criminal element might shrink as  people begin to think the risk is not equal to the reward.  It would not deter the hellbent criminal, but it might shrink the size of the pool .

That's fine, Oak.  But can you provide us with some data that supports the points you make?  For example, what is evidence that severe penalties in themselves reduce gun-related crime and/or gun murders?

It's well to speculate about these matters, but I think we'd be better guided by whatever evidence is currently available.

And here were go.....

Different troll, same schtick.