PWA "The Lounge"

[ljustin293]

Kevin Harvick's Twitter

i'm thinkging about asking for a refund for all of my penalties!!!!

huh! suprised by the penalty or lack there of..

[Scrappy Doo]

Originally Posted by ljustin293

wow

What a bunch of BS. That looked pretty intetional to me.

[ljustin293]

Originally Posted by Scrappy Doo

What a bunch of BS. That looked pretty intetional to me.

it was intentional and he didn't deny that it wasn't. I am shocked at the ruling, but I kind of like it

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by ljustin293

Universities here may soon have the choice to allow carrying permits, I sure hope so

I don't understand the logic of this. Allowing more guns will reduce shootings? How about reducing the number of guns? I'm pretty sure that you don't hunt deer with an uzi or a beretta. Their only reason for existence is to shoot other people. Want a hunting rifle or a shotgun, fine. Want to keep that shotgun loaded incase some creep invades your home, alright. But more guns simply mean that more people will shoot each other. After all, if you don't have one you can't use it.

[ljustin293]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

After all, if you don't have one you can't use it.

but what about the criminal that does have one, and they have the intent of coming to a school and killing multiple people. Say then a law abiding citizen has a legal carrying permit, takes action, and only a minimum number are injured??? I want to be that one with the permit, I think the laws on a permit must stay extremely tight, but those that qualify should be able to take them anywhere.

[DGthe3]

I'm sorry but hero's preventing a few deaths per year is nothing next to the tens of thousands of gun related deaths. And this is just a gut feeling, but I doubt that the average gun carrying citizen would be able use their gun in an emergency situation like you describe. Most will either will be shot before they can make a move or unable to pull the trigger on another human. And if they do shoot, they need to be accurate (which most people aren't, even under the best of circumstances let alone when there is a gun wielding maniac around). All in all, chances are slim that possessing a gun will help.

Besides, what is to stop someone who has a legal permit from going on a shooting spree, besides his conscience? You can't have a law that says 'you can have a gun, but don't do anything bad with it, alright?' and expect it to work.

[Xanthos]

Personally, I've never thought that tighter gun control on non-assault weaponry would do any good. The criminals will get weapons no matter what happens - removing them from the homes of law-abiding citizens would do no good whatsoever.

HOWEVER, that said, I do feel that the CCW regulations (required training/testing standards) in most states are far below what they should be. I think only those with LE or military levels of training and/or competency should be allowed to carry. Its just like DG said: to fire upon another human being is something far more difficult than most people realise. And beyond that, using a weapon in a tactical situation requires great skill. You have to be accurate enough (under pressure) to fire and hit your target every time, and only your target, and you have to have the knowledge and quick thinking necessary to distinguish targets from civilians.

Basically what I'm getting at is that I agree that allowing carry on campuses is a good idea, but I feel there should be much tighter regulations on who is allowed to carry anywhere.
- X

[DGthe3]

I will stop with my gun control ideas, because while this thread doesn't really have a topic serious discussion doesnt really fit. I will say this: nearly every nation with tighter restrictions has fewer gun deaths per person than the US.

[Xanthos]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

I will stop with my gun control ideas, because while this thread doesn't really have a topic serious discussion doesnt really fit. I will say this: nearly every nation with tighter restrictions has fewer gun deaths per person than the US.

Yeah, well... that could just be that American's are more violent per capita also.

I agree with ceasing the discussion, because it probably won't go anywhere anyway.
- X

[brandotron]

I see X is whoring it up for old time's sake. Where have you been? Hanging out in the V6 forum?

[Xanthos]

Originally Posted by brandotron

I see X is whoring it up for old time's sake. Where have you been? Hanging out in the V6 forum?

Actually, I've pretty much been gone from the webs in general lately. I've had a lot going on (30 hours a week work, plus a 3 hour class at OU, plus my EMT class which is 15 hours a week, not counting homework or clinicals) brings me to something like 1500 hours a week of dedicated time. Well, maybe not that much but... 70-someodd easily. Just really haven't had time to get on like I used to. I've pretty much just been popping in a couple times a week to maintain the V6 1/4 mile list and thats about it...
- X

[brandotron]

Originally Posted by Xanthos

Actually, I've pretty much been gone from the webs in general lately. I've had a lot going on (30 hours a week work, plus a 3 hour class at OU, plus my EMT class which is 15 hours a week, not counting homework or clinicals) brings me to something like 1500 hours a week of dedicated time. Well, maybe not that much but... 70-someodd easily. Just really haven't had time to get on like I used to. I've pretty much just been popping in a couple times a week to maintain the V6 1/4 mile list and thats about it...
- X

Hot damn, you're a busy little beaver these days.

[Camaro_Corvette]

Originally Posted by ljustin293

but what about the criminal that does have one, and they have the intent of coming to a school and killing multiple people. Say then a law abiding citizen has a legal carrying permit, takes action, and only a minimum number are injured??? I want to be that one with the permit, I think the laws on a permit must stay extremely tight, but those that qualify should be able to take them anywhere.

IMO, I completely agree with allowing carrying permits. AS LONG AS, the person holding it can shoot worth a shit. They should be able to shoot the weapon they are carrying to a specific accuracy before they are issued a license to carry. Cause then your situation in a crowded school yard, even police think twice about discharging a weapon until they get a good shot. A random civilian will fire up to 4 to 5 shots before they make contact with a target. That is the possibility of several students getting shot by a civilian that is trying to do the right thing. You know what I mean. Spray and pray doesn't work. It takes trained people to hit a target with the minimum amount of collateral damage.


Plus, I read a while back of a country that requires everybody to carry a weapon, and they had the lowest crime rate around. I'll try to find it.

[guiLT]

I LOOOOVVEE THIS THREAD.