Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: U.S. judge denies Texas professors who sought gun ban in their classrooms [View all]guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)102. But you are even less likely to be shot if no one is carrying a gun.
I know, that sounds ridiculous. Imagine a US where citizens did not have this desire (disguised as a need) to carry weapons that facilitate dealing out death.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
215 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
U.S. judge denies Texas professors who sought gun ban in their classrooms [View all]
Eugene
Aug 2016
OP
There's constantly school shootings, so that proves guns shouldn't be allowed
scscholar
Aug 2016
#28
"Those gun owners can't be trusted." Empirical evidence indicates otherwise:
friendly_iconoclast
Aug 2016
#52
Out of a population of 940,877-that's *1* conviction for every 8711 permitees
friendly_iconoclast
Aug 2016
#105
By tha standard everyone who drinks alcohol is responsible for all alcohol-related crime.
Nuclear Unicorn
Aug 2016
#124
That is a question for which that sort dares not offer an accurate answer...
friendly_iconoclast
Aug 2016
#108
Conflating all criminals that use guns with people with lawful carry permits is being tried upthread
friendly_iconoclast
Aug 2016
#110
I'm can live with the word illusory because that's fair and it doesn't really matter.
aikoaiko
Aug 2016
#7
If there is an "increased risk of violence", then why hasn't it happened elsewhere?
friendly_iconoclast
Aug 2016
#9
Do you have any evidence of such a coverup? Or even a media report of same?
friendly_iconoclast
Aug 2016
#90
My kids a TA in grad school in Tx who just completed her mandatory wtf to do
elehhhhna
Aug 2016
#146
Eh, I'll live-the devoutly religious can get quite emotional when they feel their faith challenged..
friendly_iconoclast
Aug 2016
#154
Instead of producing evidence, you get angry and spout insults. I don't take it too much to heart.
friendly_iconoclast
Aug 2016
#153
"any minimal protection that they might give will be negated by the increased risk of violence"
Nuclear Unicorn
Aug 2016
#23
Violence has been the first position of every nation-state and NS-wannabe.
Nuclear Unicorn
Aug 2016
#36
The difference is people protecting themselves versus the elite protecting their power over people.
Nuclear Unicorn
Aug 2016
#43
Are you saying there is no valid reason for citizens to keep arms to protect themselves from
Nuclear Unicorn
Aug 2016
#62
Do you see your government as a perpetual source of benevolence and good will?
Nuclear Unicorn
Aug 2016
#76
The Klan, in many cases, were a de facto part of local power structures
friendly_iconoclast
Aug 2016
#84
I don't. Then again, to regard the possiblity that it *might* become one as ludicrous...
friendly_iconoclast
Aug 2016
#81
In your own words, who or what is "encourag(ing) individual violence"?
friendly_iconoclast
Aug 2016
#46
"...how safe has that made this country?" Well, crime-wise things have improved...
Eleanors38
Aug 2016
#186
"If murder rates have gone down ,...why are more guns needed?" Murder still happens...
friendly_iconoclast
Aug 2016
#194
How many of those "30,000 actual gun deaths" were caused by CCW holders?
friendly_iconoclast
Aug 2016
#200
"You can thank me later." Feel free to hate me for these right now:
friendly_iconoclast
Aug 2016
#204
Mere collective guilt-tripping. You blame a verifiably safe subgroup for the actions of the entirety
friendly_iconoclast
Aug 2016
#210
"30,000 deaths/dead" as used in this thread is a 'thought-terminating cliche':
friendly_iconoclast
Aug 2016
#215
Gun ownership is for personal protection. To answer your question is to subsume gun
Eleanors38
Aug 2016
#195
If they can ban guns based on illusions of safety, surely they may allow them for the same reason?
jmg257
Aug 2016
#27
Background checks are a national law. So is the Lautenberg (sp?) Amendment.
Nuclear Unicorn
Aug 2016
#48
We are discussing people who did not avoid background checks- in fact, passed them
friendly_iconoclast
Aug 2016
#63
So are drug laws in spite of the fact they're as restricted by a regime of laws and agencies as
Nuclear Unicorn
Aug 2016
#64
Which are caused at a lesser rate by CCW holders than the general public- or cops, for that matter.
friendly_iconoclast
Aug 2016
#197
" How do we determine in advance which legal gun owner will later commit homicide?"
Nancyswidower
Aug 2016
#183
Why do you believe that it's possible to diagnose psychiatric disorders at a distance?
friendly_iconoclast
Aug 2016
#38
"(V)accines are not designed to kill." But they still kill people on very rare occasions.
friendly_iconoclast
Aug 2016
#42
Given that this has been legal in colleges elsewhere for years, without apparent problem...
friendly_iconoclast
Aug 2016
#70
Actually, it is easily answerable for concealed weapons permitees in Texas. 27
friendly_iconoclast
Aug 2016
#107
What leads you to claim that trouble is somehow inevitable that in Texas, when it hasn't...
friendly_iconoclast
Aug 2016
#119
Murder is not the only crime that occurs on campuses- but you knew that already.
friendly_iconoclast
Aug 2016
#121
Yet again, you are employing a strawman argument against claims that I have not made.
friendly_iconoclast
Aug 2016
#139
The terms "suicide" and "problem" are extinct; now the one is "homicide," the other "issue."
Eleanors38
Aug 2016
#187
"You assume that:" You know what they assume, how exactly? Telepsychology?
friendly_iconoclast
Aug 2016
#133
That post contains two strawman arguments and an argument by assertion
friendly_iconoclast
Aug 2016
#140
No, they are not. You are still arguing mightily against an assertion that poster did not make:
friendly_iconoclast
Aug 2016
#141
A gun doesn't equate automatic protection, it equates better protection than defenselessness.
Nuclear Unicorn
Aug 2016
#145
A reply to your points: 1) The 'implication' is entirely yours, not voiced by that poster.
friendly_iconoclast
Aug 2016
#142
You still argue vigorously against an idea that *no one* here seems to have to expressed.
friendly_iconoclast
Aug 2016
#152
You appear to have either misunderstood the question, or *did* understand it and don't like...
friendly_iconoclast
Aug 2016
#66
"Guns on campus may not make any difference whatsoever" They probably won't:
friendly_iconoclast
Aug 2016
#85
"It is almost impossible for any modern gun to go off accidentally. 99% are negligent discharges..."
Ilsa
Aug 2016
#117
If a person is determined to shoot at someone else that someone else will be shot at.
Nuclear Unicorn
Aug 2016
#112