Stabby Lone Star College Stabber Is Caught

Submitted by: peakingo 3 years ago

Suspect stabbed 14 people on campus, thank Cthulhu he didn"t have a gun.
There are 102 comments:
Male 14,330
Yes pointing out a mistype in a thread isn`t anal retentive at all......
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@OldOllie

"@Musuko42: Then perhaps you might be so kind as to explain why ever single multiple-victim public shooting in the last 30 years, with only one exception, has happened in a gun-free zone."

Correlation is not causation.

Those areas could have been made gun-free zones because they`re common targets for shootings, rather than being common targets for shootings because they are gun-free zones.

@McGovern1981

It`s not grammar-nazism for believing that a man in his 30s in a first-world nation should be able to string a cohesive sentence together.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
[quote]"I bet HE was thanking somebody that nobody there had a gun."

It doesn`t make sense to attribute rational thinking such as that to someone who`s irrational enough to go on a knifing spree.[/quote]
@Musuko42: Then perhaps you might be so kind as to explain why ever single multiple-victim public shooting in the last 30 years, with only one exception, has happened in a gun-free zone.

These people are crazy, not stupid.
0
Reply
Male 2,514
[quote][quote">Riddle Me This: When is the last time someone went on a shooting spree, victimizing 14 people, and not killing a single one?[/quote">
@RobSwindol: It happens ALL the time! But it doesn`t "make the news" eh? It Happened At LSC! in January! The SAME PLACE (well, kind of). FFS![/quote]

Really? Three people were injured at LSC. That`s a LOT less than 14, you dumba55.
0
Reply
Male 14,330
LOL! Your mad brah! You`re argument has now devovled into grammer nazism because you`re arguments have been s**t all over and exposed for the bulls**t they`re are. :-p K now you`re head should explode!
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@McGovern1981

"Your compairing apples to oranges"

Your
Your
YOUR

Time for me to bow out of this conversation. I`ve got a good impression of the caliber of my opponent now, and I consider it bad form for me to fight a mental featherweight.

No hard feelings? "Your" free to go play with "you`re" lego blocks over "their", and leave the grown-ups to "there" talking.

Sheesh.
0
Reply
Male 14,330
@Musuko42

If they were an attraction that would mean people see them they don`t. Tourism comes from landmarks not the family. I`m quite familar with MAD. Your compairing apples to oranges trying to make a piss poor point because you dislike guns beacuse mama government said they`re bad to you your whole life. MAD is a bad form of protection the whole potential nuclear apocalypse should tell you that.
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@McGovern1981

"Now tell me where the line is for tourists to see the royal joke again?? What do they charge again?? Oh ya...."

If you can`t understand that an attraction doesn`t have to charge entry for it to be a profit for the country in terms of revenue derived from millions of tourists travelling in, paying for hotels, paying for food, paying for souvenirs, then you are done with this conversation.

I mean seriously...are you being obtuse?
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@McGovern1981

"ROFL your logic is FUBAR nuking a large area is not protecting yourself"

The THREAT of doing so IS. Google "mutual assured destruction". It was the entire basis of the Cold War and the nuclear arms race.

This is really simple stuff, and I`m surprised you do not know it.
0
Reply
Male 14,330
ROFL your logic is FUBAR nuking a large area is not protecting yourself it`s killing everyone in a large area. You picked the most illogical extreme to try to pick apart the 2nd amend for arguments sake.

[quote]You do realise the royalty of this country is ceremonial and doesn`t actually rule us, right? Oh, and they are a net profit for the country because they draw in a hell of a lot of tourists. [/quote]

Yes, and in India they ceremonial throw babies of a temple roof that dosen`t mean it`s not extremely stupid. Now tell me where the line is for tourists to see the royal joke again?? What do they charge again?? Oh ya....
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@5Cats

Arms is short for armaments. It simply means "weapon". A bomb is a weapon.

I am arguing that the 2nd Ammendment supports the right to own bombs to highlight that the right for Americans to own certain weapons has ALREADY been infringed.

Leading me to question why they point to the 2nd Ammendment in their fight against certain restrictions...yet ignore it when it comes to other restrictions.
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@McGovern1981

You do realise the royalty of this country is ceremonial and doesn`t actually rule us, right? Oh, and they are a net profit for the country because they draw in a hell of a lot of tourists.

Anyway, you`re utterly wrong: I can tell you for certain that my personal security would DEFINITELY be improved by owning a nuclear warhead. No bugger would DARE go after me if I had one of those. That`s what Mutual Assured Destruction is about.

So, a nuclear bomb is a weapon, is an armament.
Your ammendment states that your right to armaments should not be infringed.
A nuclear bomb is capable of protecting you against attack and tyranny, supporting the spirit of the ammendment.

So...why are you saying you`re not allowed to own one? Are you against the 2nd ammendment?
0
Reply
Male 36,567
@Musuko: #1: Bombs =/= "Arms"

They had bombs back then, eh? Explosives of many sorts! The FF didn`t say y`all have the right to bombs, ffs.

#2: Paper Tiger
You`re arguing against something that NO ONE is arguing for! How brave of you! NO ONE disagrees with the current US Laws. Well, obviously some individuals may, but you KNOW what I`m saying is true.

[quote]In your opinion should an AK47 be sold at walmart like a hunting rifle?[/quote]
@HolyGod: One simply CANNOT buy a fully automatic "AK-47" at a WalMart, period! One can buy a "semi-automatic" which is identical in FUNCTION to 100 other "hunting rifles" but LOOKS scary!
So ban something because it "looks scary" eh? Nice!
0
Reply
Male 14,330
[quote]people that support a queen to understand[/quote]
And I don`t mean Gerry! He`s a good guy that can actually see the problem! :-P
0
Reply
Male 14,330
@Musuko42

No, That would go against shall not be infringed. The security of the people isn`t helped if a said person has a WMD it`s area of effect is huge. SO now the argument from you would be a person armed could shoot a bunch of people which is true but said people could also be armed stopping the nut job. Not perfect nothing is but it helps keep a balance of power. Something I don`t expect a people that support a queen to understand. Comparing "arms" like firearms to thermonuclear warheads is a pretty piss poor argument.
0
Reply
Male 14,330
[quote]So do you think that infringes on your constitutional rights? In your opinion should an AK47 be sold at walmart like a hunting rifle?[/quote]

I haven`t broken the law and went through licensing for my guns. So why should you make it so a person following the law can`t afford to own one unless well off. If I was going to do something illegal with it why would I even follow the laws in the first place? P.S. I own an AK-47 just not a full auto one.....
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@McGovern1981

"Because have posses common sense which give me the ability to distinguish WMDs from firearms."

But the ammendment doesn`t make that distinction. It just says "arms".

"That and know the context of why it was written it was written when your country tried to take away the peoples firearms."

You mean, a context where there were only single-shot muskets and rifles (the revolver had yet to be invented)? So, you`re okay with banning any other kind of weapon?

Yes or no? If no, then you`re NOT being true to the context in which it was written!
0
Reply
Male 14,330
@Musuko42

Because have posses common sense which give me the ability to distinguish WMDs from firearms. That and know the context of why it was written it was written when your country tried to take away the peoples firearms. Which they failed so then they proceded to do it to you for "saftey" of course.
0
Reply
Male 7,927
Mcgovern

"Well you can get those legally."

I know. That is why I said "as easily accessible".

"You`ll have to get a class 3 license though and it has to be made before 1985 or 1986"

So do you think that infringes on your constitutional rights? In your opinion should an AK47 be sold at walmart like a hunting rifle?
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@McGovern1981

"Yes, arms meaning personal arms pretty much what they had then besides cannons and such."

So not all arms then?

Would you like to show me where in the ammendment it says "the right to bear arms, except cannons and such, shall not be infringed"?

Answer me this: why are you using the constitution and its ammendments to demand you have the right to some kinds of arms...yet don`t mind it being ignored to deny you other kinds of arms; cannons, nuclear weapons, etc, when what was written down makes no mention of any distinction along those lines?

It`s almost as if, gasp, you`re interpreting what they wrote for your own views...and then getting angry when other people do the same with their own differing views!
0
Reply
Male 14,330
[quote]You`re doing it again. Answer my question.[/quote]


I have if you`d look at current laws you would see that. Yes, arms meaning personal arms pretty much what they had then besides cannons and such. A warhead would not be a very easy thing to use on your own now would it? Not to mention it wouldn`t be very effective protection because it would vaporise you and everyone around you in a large area.
0
Reply
Male 14,330
[quote]If that is your only criteria then obviously you think AK47s, Uzis, and even the M2 should be fully legal and as easily accessible as a shot gun or hunting rifle?[/quote]

Well you can get thoes legally. You`ll have to get a class 3 license though and it has to be made before 1985 or 1986 which that accomplished only one thing. Only letting well off people have them does that seem very fair to you? Gangs still have access to them.
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@McGovern1981

You`re doing it again. Answer my question.

So the 2nd ammendment does not codify the right for American citizens to own any kind of arms, just certain kinds of arms?
0
Reply
Male 7,927
McGovern

"they can`t be specifically targeted."

If that is your only criteria then obviously you think AK47s, Uzis, and even the M2 should be fully legal and as easily accessible as a shot gun or hunting rifle?
0
Reply
Male 14,330
Besides the whole other thing that people then and even a few still do now depend on firearms for sustenance.
0
Reply
Male 14,330
For the protection of citizens foreign or domestic. WMDs do not protect they destroy large areas with explosions, chemicals or biologically. None of those really exsisted when it was written but it`s pretty clear their intent was to give citizens a way to protect themselves or fight back as a last resort if they ever had to.
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@McGovern1981

"It`s simple the 2nd Amend. is for protection of citizens foreign or domestice WMDs do not protect citizens beacause they indiscriminatly kill whole towns/cities they can`t be specifically targeted."

So the 2nd ammendment does not codify the right for American citizens to own any kind of arms, just certain kinds of arms?
0
Reply
Male 14,330
Which would be why you can`t own things like landmines, deadly gasses and RPGS.
0
Reply
Male 14,330
@Musuko42

It`s simple the 2nd Amend. is for protection of citizens foreign or domestice WMDs do not protect citizens beacause they indiscriminatly kill whole towns/cities they can`t be specifically targeted.
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@McGovern1981

Still dodging my question?

How many civilians are allowed to own nuclear arms?
0
Reply
Male 14,330
[quote]Some are man portable. Are you familiar withe the Browning M2?[/quote]

Yep infact the pic you`re looking at is 4 of them.
0
Reply
Male 7,927
McGovern

It is very simple. Our debate began for one reason, you attempted to insult my intelligence and call me out for categorizing anti aircraft guns as arms.

Anti aircraft guns ARE arms.

You were wrong.
0
Reply
Male 7,927
McGovern

"No the stupid began at the anti aircraft statement."

That is a really nice picture. Not all anti aircraft guns are that big. Some are man portable. Are you familiar withe the Browning M2? That is more what I was talking about.

"Well it specifically states cannon and artillery"

I never disputed that. They ARE ordnance. That was not the debate. The debate was you said they aren`t arms, which they are.

All ordnance ARE arms
Not all arms are ordnance.
Get it?

"Oh I know go whine to a MOD"

You talking to me? I`ve never contacted a MOD once on here to complain about someone. The one and only time I`ve had any contact whatsoever with a MOD is when I contacted them to get unbanned for being honest.

You are barking up the way wrong tree with that one. Feel free to say whatever stupid thing comes into your head next, I would never try to stop you, it is way too entertaining.
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@McGovern1981

Answer my question. You are arguing that your right to bear arms should not be infringed. Nuclear weapons are arms. Your right to own them has been infringed. If you are not complaining about that, why are you complaining about not being allowed certain types of rifle?

To everyone else, I kindly ask: do not engage McGovern1981 in any further discussion until he answers this question. Otherwise you will reward his habit of dodging questions and changing the subject (in this case, trying to change the subject to UK knife crime).
0
Reply
Male 14,330
@chalket

Ya you would be stupid enough to follow.
0
Reply
Male 14,330
[quote]@McGovern1981

How many civilians are allowed to own nuclear arms?[/quote]

Tired argument it`s been done here is that really all you have now? Keep going where you`re going in the UK though and outlaw knives too that should fix everything what`s the worst that could happen!
0
Reply
Male 14,330
[quote]Not sure why you sent me that.[/quote]

Well it specifically states cannon and artillery not all arms but ya refuse to see that cause you know words could never have more than one meaning if it refutes holyspellcheckers argument.

[quote]"peakingo put a picture in"

Yes. "a" not 7.[/quote]

But you said I have a patent do we have to look up the meaning of that for you? Oh I know go whine to a MOD and see who gives a f**k!!
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@McGovern1981

How many civilians are allowed to own nuclear arms?
0
Reply
Male 14,330
[quote]WhoDat and I were having a nice hypothetical debate and then you came in here and threw stupid all over it.[/quote]

No the stupid began at the anti aircraft statement. Which FYI some civilians do own these....


Now tell me how to spin "shall not be infringed." All knowing one.
0
Reply
Male 7,927
McGovern1981

"Websters see #2"

Not sure why you sent me that. I`m well aware of what ordnance means. That doesn`t change the fact that it falls under arms. You can send me the definition of "rifle" to. Won`t mean rifles aren`t arms either.

"self proclaimed genuis"

I never once said I was a genius.

"ban whatever he dislikes through the use of strawman arguments"

I`m not really sure I`ve ever advocated banning anything. I just like the debate. WhoDat and I were having a nice hypothetical debate and then you came in here and threw stupid all over it.

0
Reply
Male 2,711
[quote]We should just proclaim Holy ruler of the world so he can ban whatever[/quote]

I`d vote for that, McG, as long as YOU are the first thing banned.
0
Reply
Male 14,330
@Holy

Websters see #2

Cannon, artillery and such. Sure that won`t stop the all knowing though cause you know exactly what they ment in the constitution through the powers of self proclaimed genuis. We should just proclaim Holy ruler of the world so he can ban whatever he dislikes through the use of strawman arguments like "Well I should be able to get AA guns then!"
0
Reply
Male 7,927
McGovern1981

"Wow ya I put an i in there thank you holyspellchecker!"

It isn`t just a misspelling, it is a totally different word and my guess is you never knew there was a difference between the two.

I thought you were talking about ordinance as in "gun free zone" then I went back and re-read my posts and realized you were probably referring to the anti aircraft gun and thus meant ordnance.

You gonna skip right over the fact that anti aircraft most certainly ARE arms?

I guess I just find humor in you snidely calling me "Capt Mensa" in a post where not only is your entire premise inaccurate but even your inaccurate premise is wrong because you don`t even use the right word.

"peakingo put a picture in"

Yes. "a" not 7.
0
Reply
Male 14,330
Wow ya I put an i in there thank you holyspellchecker! Now peakingo put a picture in too should I be consulting your genius for patent infringment!!?!?!
0
Reply
Male 7,927
McGovern1981

Oh....

You probably meant ordnance huh? I forgot to run things through the "McGovern filter" I just downloaded.

Well arms are weapons, not just firearms or small arms. The category of ordnance falls under arms, it is not a separate thing.

I would think someone as well versed in gun related meme pictures as you would know this.

When you read about the cold war ARMS race did you think russia and the US were seeing who could get the most hand guns?

http://tinyurl.com/22vez9k
http://tinyurl.com/cq5xujj
http://tinyurl.com/cx74nr

I`m pretty sure that if "arms" can refer to nuclear weapons it can refer to anti aircraft guns. Now go back to your hole and find me a funny picture.
0
Reply
Male 7,927
McGovern1981

"You`d think Cpt. Mensa the self made millionare would know the difference between what arms and ordinance is....."

The difference between arms and ordinance?

Arms are weapons.
Ordinance is a rule, law, or regulation.

HUGE difference. Why wouldn`t I know that?
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@McGovern1981

"It`s not like guns are used for sport in anything like the olympics......"

I specifically stated "gun ownership for the purposes of protection", recognising that many people own guns for recreation (sport, hunting, collecting, etc), and they are seperate from what we are discussing: those who feel the need to own a gun for protection.

Incidentally, the UK is not "f**cked up": our murder rate is half yours, and our violent crime rate is high because we record things as violent crimes that your country does not.

Neither of our countries are perfect. But you`re doing yourself no favours by pointing to us and wailing "but they`re worserer!" like some petulant child who got caught being naughty.
0
Reply
Male 14,330

0
Reply
Male 579
Do you lefty`s see it yet? When you come up with some legislation that would have stopped this guy from cutting all those folks then you have the groundwork for preventing the whackos of the world from obtaining harmful weapons. Would any of the new laws passed or in progress have stopped this guy if he did have a gun? Answer, not one. All you are doing is making criminals out of law-abiding citizens while nutso people like this will still find a way despite all your new laws.
0
Reply
Male 14,330
[quote]From my perspective, most forms of gun ownership for the purposes of protection seem to have the same roots.[/quote]

So following that thinking the same applies to knife ownership which is exactly why the UK is so f**ked. It`s not like guns are used for sport in anything like the olympics......
0
Reply
Male 14,330

0
Reply
Male 14,330
@HolyGod

You`d think Cpt. Mensa the self made millionare would know the difference between what arms and ordinance is.....
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@OldOllie

"I bet HE was thanking somebody that nobody there had a gun."

It doesn`t make sense to attribute rational thinking such as that to someone who`s irrational enough to go on a knifing spree.
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@turdburglar

"Most forms of gun control have their roots in fear and emotion."

From my perspective, most forms of gun ownership for the purposes of protection seem to have the same roots.
0
Reply
Male 761
Forgive me for forsaking you my lord!


0
Reply
Male 15,832
I bet HE was thanking somebody that nobody there had a gun. Where else but in a gun-free zone could this have happened?
0
Reply
Male 2,711
[quote]Why are we thanking Cthulhu for anything? That`s f*cking stupid.[/quote]
I AGREE!! We all know it is the Flying Spaghetti Monster we should be thanking!
0
Reply
Female 1,478
Why are we thanking Cthulhu for anything? That`s f*cking stupid.
0
Reply
Male 1,745
We need to have a trial for these people the following day and execute them that afternoon.
0
Reply
Female 65
And something about him carrying around a sock puppet talking to said puppet.
0
Reply
Female 65
He went on stabbing people with a freakin x-acto knife and a scalpel as they were leaving class down the hallway. Time to start banning butter knives and paint brushes!!
0
Reply
Male 3,474
BFD! Do you know what they have been doing in Africa with machetes?
0
Reply
Male 251
With gun control being a hot topic, I imagine knife control/sharp pointed stick control will be next. We`ll need license to carry a concealed nail file. Ginzu knives will be on the government list of banned cutlery.
0
Reply
Male 7,364
HolyGod-"Look, I expect more from you."

Hey, I spent 15 whole minutes photoshopping that picture.

HolyGod-"Doing stuff like that trivializes and brings a level of immaturity to what can otherwise be an intelligent, rational, serious debate between people of differing views."

It is impossible to have an intelligent, rational and serious debate with most gun grabbers. There are many on the fence you can have a nice conversation with, though.

My `attempt` was intentionally immature, in the small hope that a rabid gun grabber would see how immature their own argument (which is pretty much the same as I used in this case) is.
0
Reply
Male 36,567
@markust: All things are "partisan"
Everything is "biased"
Everyone "discriminates"

Ever chew on broken glass? WHY do you discriminate against doing it! Eh? Lots of people enjoy it, but you refuse?

(An analogy I used to use in the 80`s... I`m so old!)
0
Reply
Male 4,308
I think you guys may have cured me from going into the partisan posts.
0
Reply
Male 208
Sounds like he was trying to do a political statement.
0
Reply
Male 3,909
"If you view that the constitution has to specify any exclusion and all other exclusions are unconstitutional then you have to take it the whole way."

Exactly, I`m just using the very same logic that you did but flipping the script from the one extreme you used to the other extreme. When you look at it from both extremes you begin to see the flaws in that argument.

People also use the argument that when the 2nd Amendment was added we only had muskets therefore it doesn`t apply to modern day weapons.

If I apply that logic to the 1st Amendment then you can really get an idea of how absurd the argument is. When our founding fathers declared we`d have the right to free speech we didn`t have radio, TV, the internet, etc, therefore those means of communication aren`t protected by the 1st Amendment.
0
Reply
Male 36,567
Sorry @WhoDat: You`re on your own with "that one" eh? Keep making excellent, factual points bro! It`s fun to watch him do what he does to someone else. Then he`ll blame ME for it, of course...

"la la la la LA! I cannot hear yooooou!"
0
Reply
Male 36,567
@carmium: As @WhoDat linked: Lone Star College is a "Gun Free Zone". They`d be expelled if they were "packing" no matter how many permits and papers they had.

[quote">Should I be worried?[/quote">
@HalfPintRoo: A Woody doll? Naw, you`re a female, you should be safe. Now if it were a "Jessie" doll? Eek!

[quote">Riddle Me This: When is the last time someone went on a shooting spree, victimizing 14 people, and not killing a single one?[/quote">
@RobSwindol: It happens ALL the time! But it doesn`t "make the news" eh? It Happened At LSC! in January! The SAME PLACE (well, kind of). FFS!
0
Reply
Female 6,381
Weren`t at least some of these Texan students packing?!
0
Reply
Male 7,927
whodat

"I can also say that since the constitution only says "the right to bare arms," it doesn`t actually specify any type of firearms, which means they should all be legal and trying to ban any one type would be unconstitutional.

Would you not agree?"

Not really no. But let`s say that is the correct interpretation. By that rationale banning AK47s should be unconstitutional. Right?

If you view that the constitution has to specify any exclusion and all other exclusions are unconstitutional then you have to take it the whole way. A criminally insane 12 year old has the right to an anti aircraft gun at the presidential inauguration. Anything short of that is unconstitutional.
0
Reply
Male 3,909
@HolyGod - You do know that your argument that the constitution doesn`t say "the right to bare any and all arms in existence" can also work the other way around since it`s merely your interpretation of how the 2nd Amendment is worded.

I can also say that since the constitution only says "the right to bare arms," it doesn`t actually specify any type of firearms, which means they should all be legal and trying to ban any one type would be unconstitutional.

Would you not agree?
0
Reply
Male 7,927
There is no reason to compare knives and guns. You can kill someone with a gun. You can kill someone with a knife. You can kill someone with a lava lamp. However anyone in here with half a brain knows that a "stabbing spree" is going to almost always result in fewer deaths than a "shooting spree". That is common sense and not really worth debating.

I know the poster brought guns into this but it really has NOTHING to do with guns. This is about why 20 something middle class white kids feel the need to indiscriminately kill as many people as possible and what we can do about it.
0
Reply
Male 7,927
Megrendel

"You can tell it`s an AK (Assault Knife) by the following features:"

Look, I expect more from you. I don`t agree with you often but I usually can count on you saying something meaningful. Let`s leave retarded picture posting to McGovern1981. He pretty much has the patent on it.

Doing stuff like that trivializes and brings a level of immaturity to what can otherwise be an intelligent, rational, serious debate between people of differing views.
0
Reply
Male 3,909
"Dude! It was in TEXAS!!! Everyone and their mother has a fuqing gun in Texas!!! But a lot of good it did them here."

Well, since the stabbing occurred on campus, which is a GUN FREE ZONE the law abiding Texans that go to school there and own guns can`t bring those guns to school with them.
0
Reply
Male 7,927
MeGrendel

"without invading our constitutional rights"

The constitution says "the right to bare arms"

It does not say "the right to bare any and all arms in existence."

Let`s say that all guns were outlawed except for revolvers and single shot hunting rifles. You would still have "the right to bare arms" wouldn`t you?

So it doesn`t really infringe on the constitution.

The only thing that would infringe on "the right to bare arms" is if ALL arms were made illegal?

Would you not agree?
0
Reply
Male 7,927
djwajda

"concentrating on...oh I don`t know....mental health? "

Good idea. Let`s make sure everyone has access to mental healthcare. Oh wait...
0
Reply
Male 2,514
"Or if other people had more guns he`d have been taken out sooner and hurt fewer people."

Dude! It was in TEXAS!!! Everyone and their mother has a fuqing gun in Texas!!! But a lot of good it did them here.

Riddle me this:
When is the last time someone went on a shooting spree, victimizing 14 people, and not killing a single one?

None of the victims were killed... only injured. This wouldn`t have happened had he had a gun.
0
Reply
Male 36,567
Thank Cthulhu none of the other students or security had a gun! Then he`d only have stabbed 2 or 3 people! It would deprive him of his rights!!!
0
Reply
Male 37,914

[quote]"If he had a gun he would have killed even more people"[/quote]
Or if other people had more guns he`d have been taken out sooner and hurt fewer people.

0
Reply
Female 2,764
There is a "kid" (maybe 17?) who walks around our town with a woody doll, and carries him like he`a real and walking with him.

Should I be worried?
0
Reply
Male 7,364
Not to mention, if any of his victims suffers from bloodborn infectious disease (HIV, Hep-B, Hep-C, Viral Hemorrhagic Fever)the people stabbed after that are in danger of contracting said disease.
0
Reply
Male 7,364
FoolsPrussia-"Except that the gun control measures in question are also intended to improve mental health care."

Exactly what does `mental health care` have to do with firearms, or the control thereof? Can not `mental health care` be accomplished without invading our constitutional rights?
0
Reply
Male 3,445
Thank Cthulhu he didn`t have a gun...because some of the victims might actually have been killed.

"or, if someone else had of had a gun they could have shot him."

Sure, and they wouldn`t even need a 30 round clip to do it.
0
Reply
Male 7,364
Hey, this was OBVIOUSL an AK-42.

One of the deadliest knives out there.

You can tell it`s an AK (Assault Knife) by the following features:
It`s black.
It has a scope.
It has a `tactical handle`.
It has a laser sight
It has a flashlight.

These must be banned...NOW..


0
Reply
Male 3,445
"Please that requires effort instead of placing blame onto an object."

Except that the gun control measures in question are also intended to improve mental health care.
0
Reply
Male 14,330
@djwajda

PFFFFSHHHH!!! Please that requires effort instead of placing blame onto an object.
0
Reply
Male 883
I dunno this may sound silly and outlandish but shouldn`t our illustrious government instead of seeking out guns and all as evil be concentrating on...oh I don`t know....mental health?

0
Reply
Male 5,986
Ah the pro/against gun control rhetoric is strong today!
0
Reply
Male 3,909
Let`s not forget that when he was questioned by police after being arrested he told them he has had fantasies of stabbing & killing people since he was 8 years old. That should be enough to tell you that this is a mental health issue and shouldn`t be turned into another bullsh*t "good thing he didn`t have a gun" argument.
0
Reply
Female 4,349
or, if someone else had of had a gun they could have shot him.
0
Reply
Male 3,909
I thought it was hilarious when one student said, "Yeah, he was weird, he used to walk around campus with stuffed animals."

Then another student said, "We wish we could protect ourselves with guns and stuff. We wish that the law would let us carry guns because we`re legal adults."
0
Reply
Male 5,190
Let`s just nerf the world.
0
Reply
Male 2,375
I`ve got stuffed animals too. You have been warned.
0
Reply
Male 395
[quote]If he had a gun he would have killed even more people[/quote]

or "If he had a gun he would have killed people"...subtle difference
0
Reply
Male 55
Maybe if he had a gun, he would have been involved in one of those "500 times more likely to accidentally shoot yourself in the face if you own a gun" situations that I keep hearing the gun grabbers cry about, and this whole stabbing ordeal could have been avoided.
0
Reply
Male 14,330
FEAR THE INATIMATE OBJECTS PEOPLE THEY`RE COMING TO GET YOUUUU!!
0
Reply
Male 4,308
"That`ll learn em for calling me Ginger."
0
Reply
Male 4,893

Most forms of gun control have their roots in fear and emotion.
This had nothing to do with a gun. The gun grabber crowd will still try to use this for more gun control. "If he had a gun he would have killed even more people" or something along those lines.
0
Reply
Male 14,330
[quote]thank Cthulhu he didn`t have a gun.[/quote]

Ya or a student cause then they could`ve just shot this prick..... KNIFE CONTROL NOW BAN ALL BLACK ASSUALT KNIVES!!
0
Reply
Male 761
Link: Stabby Lone Star College Stabber Is Caught [Rate Link] - Suspect stabbed 14 people on campus, thank Cthulhu he didn`t have a gun.
0
Reply