vortexring

'Though it's theoretical that allowing concealed carry on college campuses might actually save a life or stop a mass shooting, there is no credible evidence that it would have the opposite effect, so why not allow it? That's been the crux of my argument all along.' I think a lot of the resistance towards such a move stems from the fact that it won't necessary solve the problem. The root of the problem lies around cultural and social issues. Allowing concealed carry permits on campus therefore won't solve the problem. If you consider the possibilty it may in some cases cause similiar situations, wouldn't peoples efforts be better spent on dealing with the cultural and social issues? It is a horrendous situation becoming far too common, and whilst I recognise armed students could have possibly dealt with the/a gunman, could there then be more actual shootings, from more people carrying weapons? Despite what research is done into this question, it will always remain a possibility that people will be painfully aware of, and more importantly, it won't deal with the real source of issue. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Thanks for the Kennesaw and Florida examples. Now, you're mistaken to feel I've an opposite belief to you on this subject. That's a bit of an assumption I reckon, made to help fuel your argument. What I've been trying to point out is that the argument is unfounded as it's being generally based on theory. You asked me; 'How can you be so certain it WILL?' I'm not certain at all, and that's my point. How can you be so certain of theoretical issues? Through facts and figures? It may well strongly support your theory but it's still a theory. So in that context I think it helps to remain objective. Then we might not see so many similiar arguments degenerating into slagging matches!

'Can you name any societies that have implemented less stringent gun control laws? I can't.' My exact point. I didn't quite expect you to reiterate it, as apparantly you've done 'lots and lots of research' and seem to be an 'authority'. (Although despite this research and the fact you're an authority Mealtx seems to have come up with some interesting areas...) Again, like I mentioned earlier, I respect the efforts you've made - there's no need to get sarcastic if in some areas I remain unconvinced. Otherwise you get sarcasm back. So stop whining about the name calling. Whilst you have a belief that you feel is also supported by research and statistics, it still remains theoretical. I generally involved myself in this discussion because I found myself surprised at how convinced you are of being correct, in regards to a theory. Scary! I don't need to conduct research to recognise this. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Who cherry-picked the locations? Armed madmen with no regard for the rules. Right - arming madmen is a serious mistake. Unfortunately our society makes it easy for madmen to get firearms. That needs to be fixed. If that's true, name a few societies that have significantly reduced violent crime by disarming everybody. Who suggested disarming everybody? Nice strawman if it weren't so bloody obvious. I suggested making it harder, much harder, for madmen to get guns. Okay, let me rephrase the request: Name a few societies that have significantly reduced violent crime by implementing much stricter gun control laws. Can you name a few societies that have reduced violent crime by implementing less stringent gun control laws? There isn't really an argument regarding this hypothesis. How can you be so certain allowing students to carry won't cause even worse problems? Whilst I recognise your argument and respect it, what I find worrying is your insistance of being correct and how you also come across as 'all knowing' in a matter you cannot possibly be. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Sorry! What can I say in regards to their decent? Does it matter? And besides; I've nothing but respect for the Queen....... 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

I don't think my Mrs would let me...

No I don't. Any other comebacks? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

'The only people who care about that crap really seem to be Americans who think they are Irish' Hahaha!! Indeed. The amount of times I've been chatting to some American in a bar and heard them say; 'Ah'm Scattish too' or 'Ah'm Irish'. 'Oh really?' I've answered. 'Why don't you have a Scottish/Irish accent then?' The answer? 'We'all, it's fram my Great, Great, Grandfather who once spent around 10 minutes in Scotchland/Ireland on his way to America.....' or some other similiar nonsense. Brilliant! 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

However due to the long waiting times and poor service... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7045263.stm However I have never seen a mouth like that in the photo Now that's what you call teeth 'in all round defence' !! 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Yeah. And you don't. Bad. Is that Britspeak for "tough mother fuckers?" If so, you're right. No rebuttal on the teeth, I see. So telling. Anyhow , back to the task at hand. Who are the good guys? Who are the bad guys. No grey areas, please. Grey areas are for pussies. Sorry for the error - I meant fat bastards but somehow missed the 'fat'. Hope that didn't offend anyone. Now, regarding teeth, I missed that point on purpose due to its irrelevancy. I'm aware many American people on TV quickly sorted out their tooth defects before it caught on over here - but so what? Not really worth arguing over is it? Regarding whether you're the good guys or bad guys? Taking into account numerous visits to America and having worked with Americans countless times - like today in fact, I can say I generally like Americans. The vast majority I've met and worked with have good hearts, and mean well. But....... there's a very significant amount of 'bad apples' - as you'd expect from any nation. My issue is the 'problems' a lot of these 'bad apples' are causing. I'm pretty sure you might also share my concern. Now, regarding pussies, in '95 when I was over in Fort Bragg your 82nd airborne were issued cards explaining why they shouldn't drink with us. In general it was because we can drink more and then we'd beat them up. Who are the pussies?

We've already solved the issues of guns, immigration and the Middle East in here. Time to solve this one. There's more to those 2 isles than just bad food, bad teeth and the beta version of a language that was perfected in the U.S. British or Irish? Usurpers or patriots? Terrorists or freedom fighters? World peace is in your hands. Bad food? If you're comparing it to the US diet you must be joking! You've sugar in almost everything and are a nation of fat bastards. Anyway, back to your point - I agree completely with what Warpedskydiver said. edit: to add in the word 'fat' 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

What was your top Under-reported news story & why? 1) The war in Iraq. Despite continual news reports it's still under-reported. The reasons being that if you consider the lies, deceit, greed, ignorance and utter incompetence demonstrated by the people who made the decisions for the war - why hasn't anything been done about this? Why was the leader re-elected? If enough reporting on these matters was done, then we'd possibly see moral justice. The ignorance, apathy, cynicism and contemptuousness held by most people might actually come to something. In a sense, you, me, and most other people of the democratic nations which conducted the war shoulder some blame too. Whether as civilians or serving military, we're generally still going about our daily lives and duties without really giving this matter considered thought. Why should we? Right? For the majority of military people, it's discouraged to give such political matters considered thought. And quite rightly too. You'd lose military effectiveness were this the case... You'd have considerable recruitment and retention problems. This in itself is an area which could bring up some interesting debate. But essentially, this entire aspect of the Iraq war has been under-reported. It's naturally my opinion it should therefore be daily headline news.

You're sounding as bad as the 'mentalists. Chill your boots!

Are you serious? I think you are. Hilarious!! 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Al Qaeda certainly wanted to kill her, but with many of Bhutto's supporters claiming Pervez Musharref is responsible, will they openly admit responsibility themselves if indeed they were behind the murder? It could be thought that Musharref may well be behind this, although I think it more likely to be Al Qaeda - and I'm guessing they'll not exactly be quick to admit it either. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article3100052.ece 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Quote>Yes, the DoD requires a tremendous amount of energy to execute its mission. This is why I think it is both critical to develop alternative energy sources, and to NOT drill ANWR. Right now, a coalition of countries allied against the US could cripple us militarily and economically by simply cutting off oil exports to us. If we have already exploited our last large reserve, the situation gets even worse, because we have no alternatives at that point. Oil runs our economy, and it is a strong economy that lets us dabble in hydrogen, synfuels, solar power, wind power, biofuels etc. If we wait until the oil supply dwindles - and our economy follows it - we will have no money to spend on alternatives. They have to be up and running by that point. If they are not, then our choices will devolve to a war of conquest to control the world's oil, or a slow slide into oblivion. Firstly, certain countries are busy trying to achieve such an aim by trading oil in Euro's. If you'd written the second statement I've highlighted around the year 2000 I could now commend you on your foresight. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

QuoteYou can pick on, and insult me with impunity around these parts. Hahahahaha! Wanker!

Perhaps another way of looking at your sisters financial irresponsibility would be to compare it to an 'addiction' such as alcoholism or gambling. In all cases the individuals know they shouldn't be doing what they're doing. But of course, does it stop them? Is it really just down to a lack of good old fashioned self discipline and common sense? I suppose if you're set on helping your sister deal with her situation you have some hard work ahead! Good luck.

It's not what he's smoking - it's where the wires go...

I think it's often apparant that patriotism can be, in a sense, 'blinding.' It's difficult to explain, but I feel it sometimes prevents people from seeing the reality of many situations. It can discourage objective thought. It's an important and interesting subject - unfortunately I don't have the time to waffle away my 2 pence worth - I'm off back out to the dust! 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Yes mate - it looks exactly like that - except for the pointy ears - google it, ya earth bound freak... 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

You've ignored my Dalton computer. Is it because I called you a slaphead again? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Don't know it - although the Dalton might be worth a look. At the very least it'll boggle yar big slaphead with all it's functions. Besides, what boggles my melon is how a thread can completely change direction. Perhaps I've lost my alternators, the gyro's have toppled, and I'm not referring to my E2C, as well as being IMC...er, gee. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Dalton flight computer?

I think this might be the reason: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2625691;search_string=armageddon;#2625691 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'