Shared publicly  - 
 
The shooting wasn't a result of someone coming to shoot up a school, but rather, uncontrolled tempers in an argument

I'm typically not a fan of politicizing death, but everyone that says being able to carry guns to school will make everyone more safe.. I'm pretty sure you're wrong. The potential for crossfire casualties is too high.

Think about what would happen if instead of fights, there were shootings. 

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/1-killed-1-injured-in-north-Houston-shooting-3474843.php
10
1
Rachel Ying's profile photoBryan Hoefer's profile photoJames Peterson's profile photoRamon Henares's profile photo
36 comments
 
people could have stabbed eachother in argument. - BOTH people who argued had guns? what's the chances of that. OH wait. this is texas. 

everyone is armed. - guess both of the guessed wrong. 
 
But... If they didn't have guns, they would have run each other over with their cars! Because cars kill too!! 
 
they could have thrown books at eachother and put an eye out. 
 
+Keyan Mobli there is an exception to every rule, and a rule to every argument.  In reality it is a statistical anomaly that there will be a shooting any any particular campus anywhere in the US, but assaults and robberies are common enough.
 
Eric, that's absolutely dumb - anyone who thinks a kid is "cool headed" enough to carry a gun should just let them drive the car to school or be responsible for taxiing aircraft . hell lets just put little kids in the army - it'll make our forces better trained. I'm training my kid to fire weapons responsability, but he's not allowed touch the gun or even hold it without me scrutinizing every movement - no one wants anyone dead or injured. 
 
 
In my opinion, if the person has a problem with their temper enough that'd they use a gun in an argument, they'd find other ways to lash out and do harm. Gun laws would only restrict the law-abiding victim.
 
+Andreas Suter oooorrr, by the time they found a way to lash out, their rage induced anger would subside? These can be argued both ways. However, only one of the ways involves innocent people not involved with the latercation being shot.
 
I can clearly tell you that i carry a gun, and have never shot anyone, or plan to. even during arguments, i'm not going to accept the use of a handgun to win it. 
 
The standard argument is that guns don't kill people. I generally agree with this argument. The numbers don't lie. People stab, bludgeon, strangle, poison, etc. If they want to kill a person, they will... The big difference with those tools of death compared to a gun is that a gun makes mass, indiscriminate killing a very simple thing. Try killing a bunch of people at once with a knife or hammer. It just won't happen. I think this is the main point a gun control argument must make. 
 
That already happens all the time. We get stories here all the time about two guys fighting over a girl and someone getting shot, or a $20 bet that someone didn't want to pay, or something else stupid. Where people used to throw punches now they shoot.
 
i have friends who are bio-medical chemists and know more about weaponized chemistry and biologicals then i do about guns. - you should be more worried about those guys, then people with guns. 
 
+Steve Berry Yeah I've seen all those mustard gas incidents at schools and shopping malls. You're totally right, let's worry about the chemists.
 
+Steve Berry I don't doubt that the vast majority of gun owners are responsible. My question is: is the proposed solution from anti-gun control advocates of more guns going to increase responsible gun ownership?

Likewise, if these bio-medical chemists are responsible, does that mean we should all have access to that kind of info? Surely, the more people with access increases the chance that irresponsible people can use it.
 
I'm more apt to defend the argument of "it's the price of freedom" than I am to accept the "more guns" argument. A good guy with a gun is also a potential George Zimmerman hero-wannabe type
 
responsible :P yeah right, the only reason they haven't unleashed a killer virus on us.. oh wait.it's possible they have.

The point is, you assume those in charge of nuclear, infrastructure and biological weapons are incapible of using them to kill others. I beg to differ. - the weapons of humanity are always used. - there's no blocking. this isnt startrek society. it's earth 2013. we're brutal. get used to it. 
 
there are sensors in our subways to manage the detection of biological releases .. which have NOT happened. - just mean people have not tried. 
 
But if you extend the anti-gun control logic to biological and nuclear weapons it says we should all have access. After all... the 2nd amendment protects the right to keep and bear ARMS. It doesn't specify between firearms and rocket propelled grenades or nuclear bombs or mustard gas. Why do we draw a line at some and not certain others. 

And I'm not in favor of getting rid of guns... I just think there should be some reasonable limits on type and capacity of them
 
+Steve Berry A bunch if religious loonies in Japan released sarin gas in the Tokyo subway, that might be why you have those sensors.

Had they had easy access to guns, they would probably have used them instead. 
 
Looks like this happened at an apartment building and not at a college.  Does that change anything for anybody?  
 
yes. it makes it harder to politicize. 
 
It wouldn't have normally even made the news..I guess because it was so close to a school(s) and the typical new dramatization is what has everyone in a frenzy.
 
I'm glad that it did make the news. Lots of people don't realize how common these shootings are. 
 
If there was one year where every shooting made the national news what do you think the public reaction would be?
 
people would lose interest in the first week.
 
i dono i don't speak chinese and korean or asian languages where shootings also occur, nor do i speak german or french where shootouts happen too. 
 
+James Elsenburg So would they tune out the national news or what would happen? I mean... at this point even mass shootings that DO make national news are common place. 
 
anything is possible.  It may sway people to the side of needing to get a gun to protect them from the other people that have guns, but I think it may become a segment of the news that most people would just go pee.
 
If only there'd been a third person with a gun to protect bystanders from the two people with guns having a shootout.
 
I feel that everyone who says we need to just have "good guys with guns" (aka allowing everyone to be armed which by the way if that works so well what is stopping it from working now? Because most people do not want to have to carry a gun) needs to read Thomas Hobbes. I for one do not want an existence "nasty, brutish, and short" which is the end result in a society dictated by the "Good's" ability to out-power the (temporarily) powerful Evil, instead of a society based in well-founded and legitimate laws. 
 
Stupid people making stupid decisions and ruining it for everybody else. I feel like that's a trend in this country. Not trying to make a political point one way or the other, just an observation.
 
According to the Texas Department of Public Safety, in 2011 concealed carry license holders comitted two tenths of one percent of crime committed. That includes all crime not only violent crime.
The link is wrong, it shows me an article about a shooting at an apartment.

It is hard to comment about the specifics, but as someone else already posted, it is extremely rare that for legal licensed concealed carry permit holders to be involved.

 
+Trav Montana I completely agree.  I think these fame seekers should just mysteriously disappear. All pictures removed, any information about them being alive gone.  no more immortalization.
Add a comment...