Students injured during shooting at Illinois university: reports

There has been a spate of shootings in the US over the last month or so. It sometimes makes me wonder if one event is somehow triggering subsequent events.

Yet another example of the success of the Peoples Republic of Illinois'
draconian firearms laws. Illinois citizens must be feeling safe and cosy in the knowledge that these firearms laws exist.
DerbyX


Suggestability--monkey see monkey do---copy-cat-

The Peoples republic eh? According to you anybody who supports anything you don;t is automatically a communist.

Why is it that of everybody on the forum the person most likely to have pictures of Stalin is you.

BTW, the gunmen purchased the guns legally about a week ago. I guess thode draconian laws aren't so draconian.

Its also very likely that had this person not had access to legal firearms he would have not had any idea how to acquire illegal firearms.

I don't like arguing that fact but since you seem to always blame every such shooting on gun laws in seemed a reasonable response.

DerbyX


Kimver Gill was legal as well. In both cases firearms laws were ineffective---CC may have lowered the body count.

DerbyX

Just because you don't have a clue?

DerbyX

Every shooting incident is blamed on firearms laws by the usual suspects so am I ***** or something----I reserve the right to be as irrelevant as anyone else.

In Utah, a CC state, a guy opened up in a crowded mall and was promply dispatched by an armed citizen---who only hit the perp.

Learn your facts. In both cases they acquired legal firearms which is entirely why gun ban proponets (and I am not one) say that gun bans will prevent at least gun related crimes.

Very few people actually have the knowledge, street cred, and/or ability to simply pick up an illegal firearm and thos ethat do will not be put off in the least over the possibility of somebody else having a gun.



A single incident of unverified origin doesn't somehow make the moronic belief that if everybody carried a gun there would be no crime.

Everbody has access to guns in Iraq, Afghanistan, Rwanda ......

Its absurd to hold the belief that in every case of shooting incidents like that above would be prevented had everybody not simply been carring a gun.

How many troops have been killed despite extremly well trained soldiers conducting themselves professionally?

How many times have we seen cops unload at a suspect and hit nothing on COPS? Loads.

Its wrong to think that gun bans will have a viable impact on gun related crime but it is equally stupid to believe that simply arming the citizenry will somehow reduce it.

In virtually every category Canada has far less crime then the US despite our gun laws and liberal laws. If your theory was anything but false that would not be true.

DerbyX

It has long been a verifiable given that the thing that criminals fear the most is the prospect of encountering an armed victim.
Not only are criminals astute enough not to take a knife to a gun fight---in most cases they avoid gunfights......in the exceptions, there is no deterent to a suicidal.....which has moved from the satatis of criminal to mentally deranged.
It seems the Dekalb shooter was bent upon suicide......

No it hasn't. Not one study that cannot be countered has been verified.

First off, it ignorse all crime out of desperation.

Second it ignores all the crime that happens despite the very great likelihood of confronting an armed victim. Every robbery in the states of a liquor store or convenience store carries a likely possibility of an armed cashier yet they still happen.

Third, it ignorse the reality that harsh punishment is rarely a deterrent.

Fourth, you have simply ignored by point about lower crime in Canada despite all the factors you say encourage it.

Fifth, you are ignoring the fact that as the lieklihood of armed and resisting victims increases the likelihood of a surprise and deadly first strike by criminals increases concurently.

Thats why all the big chains of likely target stores have hard and fast rules about their employees not resisting. They can afford to lose a few hundred dollars per robbery then deal with dead employees because robbers have started a shoot first policy.

You are wrong. Accept it and move on to being wrong again in another thread.

kimver on his blog indicated that he was being followed around and he referenced bullying, going to the cops and having them do nothing, but that is another thread.

The interesting thing about this latest shooter is I found an article taht mentioned that he had been acting irratic since going off his medication. I am trying to figure out what he was on, and if that is confirmed.

The reason I ask, is because of the link to several of the other school shooters and medications.

I am not saying that is why they did it, but it's a link that I look for now when I follow up on these stories in the news. If anyone knows this, post it.

Thanks.

DerbyX

You mean by you denying it outright as heresy?
DerbyX

Most people avoid parking tickets by putting money in a meter---deterents are effective.
DerbyX

Not in the Peoples Republics of New York, Illinois.....
DerbyX

That's new...any evidence?
DerbyX

Political views of executives notwithstanding, for the longest time the Police recommended that victims of rape not resist to limit their injuries ----then somebody discovered that resistance reduce injuries rather than increased them ---the Police no longer make such a recommendation.
DerbyX

Loads? Name one!

Cut the histeronics. Its not heresy, its just plain wrong.



Brilliant. Your knowledge of law and punishment is severely lacking.

If punishment were an adequate deterrrent we wouldn't have crime in california with their 3X your out laws.

We still see crime in countries that have brutal punishments.

Again I point to Canada with far less crime yet far more forgiving laws then the US and other nations.

Can you explain that?

Your rape point is invalid as a comparison because of the nature of the crime. In a robbery they want the money with as little trouble as possible. In a rape they want to do harm.

I personally taught self defense against rape and never have I ever heard such nonesenses as police saying "don't resist".

Prove it. In fact the opposite has been true. They have always counseled "resist loudly" because the chance of rape and/or death increases exponentially the moment they have control over you.

The risk of death increases for resistors during a robbery.

Your logic is piss-poor and easily defeated. Hell, I could be arguing for gun control against you as your points are simply wrong.

Lucky for you I'm not.

Yep, .

Better now.

Better now.

What about the recent events. Hell, the UNI guy was a poster child for the gun ban crowd.

I don't like arguing that side of things but somebody who likely has no idea how to acquire illegal firearms and who got legal firearms (through multiple purchases that should have raised flags) buys a load of guns then a scant week latter shoots up a school might have been twarted had he not been able to buy the guns in the first place.

For every case where a gan ban could work there is a case where it won't.

Somewhere in the middle must be the logical answer.

peace? Yeah right!