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)171. Keep avoiding or minimizing suicide.
As long as it supports the argument that guns are not really responsible for 30,000 homicides every year. It is all part of the NRA mandated "framing the issue" that goes on in every discussion about guns.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
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