Today, In Virginia
Dr BLT’s One Man “Banned”
Words and music by Bruce L. Thiessen, aka Dr. BLT Dr BLT ©2007
http://www.drblt.net/music/TinV.mp3

Virginia’s Tears
Dr BLT’s One Man “Banned”
Words and music by Dr BLT ©2007
http://www.drblt.net/music/VT.mp3

Bruce L. Thiessen, Ph.D, aka Dr BLT
University Instructor

Again, you’re the absolutist here saying that people who suggested that an armed professor or student at VA Tech might have prevented it or lessened it, deserves to be mocked. Therefore, you’re the one saying it doesn’t happen. So you come up with the real numbers tough guy.

Again. Ante up or shut the fuck up.

Allow me to be more of a pedantic wuss. Jay, the “people” you refer to would be the cops who first arrived on the scene. As I understand what happened that day, the civilians with guns didn’t show up until after the cops got there — then some of those late arriving civilians ended up getting shot themselves. Brilliant example, my friend. Brilliant.

All you’ve done to make your case is point to anecdotes. So I give you anecdotes back and you go off that I’m distorting your argument. But you really don’t have an argument do you? You just suggested that civilians with guns can prevent or lessen crimes. They can also get shot and killed themselves. Is that worth mentioning? Not to you. I wonder why that is.

Yes and I also pointed out that when people started shooting back he was forced to shoot through waterspouts which didn’t give him the field of view he had prior to that. Crikey you’re such a pedantic wuss.

And linked to a story about a principal that shot some crazy kid.

Goes to show you didn’t read the story. He didn’t shoot the kid, but he did keep him from killing others until the police arrived.

The point is that citizens with guns can stop crimes, but some times they also end up crime victims. Unless you have actual real numbers — and not just anecdotes selectively compiled by pro-gun idiots — to show which happens more often you’re totally full of shit.

Sorry dipshit, but the onus is on you to come up with numbers. Again, you’re the absolutist here saying that people who suggested that an armed professor or student at VA Tech might have prevented it or lessened it, deserves to be mocked. Therefore, you’re the one saying it doesn’t happen. So you come up with the real numbers tough guy.

Or shut the fuck up already.

As I just said, you gave an example of a principal who shot a student on a rampage. Why did you give that example? To suggest that if a teacher at VT had a gun they could have stopped or minimized the horror. I didn’t see you qualify your statement to suggest that, well, this guy was lucky, or that this kind of thing is rare. Indeed, you could go on all day with anecdotes proving that citzens with guns stop and/or minimize violent crimes. And you do this without qualification or acknowledgement that, you know what, it doesn’t always go down like that.

In ever instance you cite it’s just as likely that the citizen might have ended up a victim themselves or shot an innocent person or been shot by the late arriving cops.

Does the NRA keep files on all those stories? I bet it doesn’t. Do you bother to research for those incidents when arguing for conceal carry laws? I bet you don’t.

Ya, Jay, you’re just Mr Intellectual honesty. Try to imply one thing then weasel out of it when you get called on your bullshit.

Um, dipshit, Whitman did cause more damage after your citizen heroes showed up, so even your “fact” was fantasy. Of course, in order to keep it relevant you have to pull yet more bullshit out of your ass: “WHAT IF he did? There might have been 30 dead instead of 15 (See? I can do it too.)”

Yes, dude, you can do it too, it’s all you’ve been fucking doing. You give me anecdotes, I give you anecdotes back and then you accuse me not responding to your argument.

You wrote: “Yes because we know that school employees could never possibly help to thwart such a situation.” And linked to a story about a principal that shot some crazy kid. Great. I suppose you weren’t putting that out there in advance of some argument that citizens can stop crimes or limit their damage. Because if you were, what the fuck does one story or a thousand prove? I presented you with cases where off duty cops with guns were killed trying to stop crimes. For every story of a guy with a gun who becomes a hero, I’ll guarantee to you there’s one in which a guy trying to play hero ended up dead or wounded.

The point is that citizens with guns can stop crimes, but some times they also end up crime victims. Unless you have actual real numbers — and not just anecdotes selectively compiled by pro-gun idiots — to show which happens more often you’re totally full of shit.

It is totally mockable, on the other hand, to suggest that professors or students with guns could have done a dman thing to stop what happened or even lessened the horror of it.

What this is saying unequivocally is that if a professor or student had a gun, it wouldn’t have stopped what happened or lessened it.

YOU are making the absolutist claims here. Not me.

No, I didn’t make an argument. I stated a fact.

But rather than actually defend your initial argument

Once again, I didn’t make an argument. I stated a fact. I also stated a fact with regard to Joel Myrick.

you shift to talking about a decrease in crime rates which may have nothing at all to do with conceal and carry laws, especially because crime rates have also dropped in states that don’t have such laws. In your brain, a broad natonal trend in crime rates is evidence in favor of legislation passed in only a few states. Brilliant.

Wrong again idiot (you must have some sort of mental condition that makes you present an argument or statement not a single person has made). The drop in crime rates and the reduction in gun violence in states where there are concealed carry laws is evidence that the Brady Org’s of the country, their supporters and those who argue their positions (like you) crystal ball predictions of a return to the days of Billy The Kid and Jesse James is wrong.

Then you accuse me using “What ifs” but, Jay, it was easy enough for me to find an real-life example of off duty cops being killed and shot while attempting to stop crimes. Why are you ignoring this anecdote?

I’m not ignoring them. You’re presenting them in the light that I argued that an armed teachers and students at VA Tech would have prevented it from happening or that it would always have a happy ending in other situations and I never made or even implied any such claim.

Indeed, Whitman was even able to pick off a few more people even after the cops and your much championed armed citizens showed up.

Yes, but he obviously did not have the same field of vision he did before that happened. WHAT IF he did? There might have been 30 dead instead of 15 (See? I can do it too.)

Once again, stop trying to turn this on me and getting me to acknowledge something I have never denied! Jeebus H Christ, put away the huge boner that you have for me and try to think rationally sometimes.

So how can you say what the fuck would have happened had teachers and students had guns?

I didn’t say what the fuck would have happened. YOU DID.

This is just awesome.

But Jay there’s also evidence that armed people who try to stop armed criminals get shot and killed themselves. So how can you say what the fuck would have happened had teachers and students had guns? Either they kill the guy or got shot and killed themselves.

You got any real numbers to show that one happens more than the other? Or just more cherry picked anecdotes?

What? No it doesn’t. Your initial argument was that the Charles Whitman tragedy somehow confirmed that citizens with guns can actually help minimize the loss of such a tragedy. That’s a total fantasy on your part.

But rather than actually defend your initial argument, and later suggestions that armed students and professors could have mitigated the death at VT, you shift to talking about a decrease in crime rates which may have nothing at all to do with conceal and carry laws, especially because crime rates have also dropped in states that don’t have such laws. In your brain, a broad natonal trend in crime rates is evidence in favor of legislation passed in only a few states. Brilliant.

Then you accuse me using “What ifs” but, Jay, it was easy enough for me to find an real-life example of off duty cops being killed and shot while attempting to stop crimes. Why are you ignoring this anecdote? I’ll venture to guess that it’s because your entire argument in favor of arming the citizenry for self-defense depends entirely on ignoring such anecdotal evidence -inother words, reality — in favor of anecdotes that support your claims.

Let’s also not forget that your assertation that “it’s not Mexican standoff time[s] in situations like this” is itself a total, “What if..” fantasy. Just look at your Whitman example. Could you find a better example of a “Mexican standoff” scenario? Indeed, Whitman was even able to pick off a few more people even after the cops and your much championed armed citizens showed up.

Look at the guys who robbed the bank in West Hollywood. They created a Mexican standoff with a fucking army of cops because they were so heavily armored and armed themselves. You want to tell me how your armed citizenry would have handled those two fucking guys before the cops showed up? Of course you won’t because to acknowledge the fact that sometimes citiznes who try to stop crimes with guns get killed or shot themselves brings down your whole argument.

Oh wait, I forgot, you aren’t actually making any argument at all, at least not one your willing to stand behind for more than two posts at a time …

Yeah and I am sure the founders when discussing free speech were talking about being able to access “Barely Legal” porn on the Internet, but I will still defend Frame’s right for him watch it.

Scroll up and read.

It is totally mockable, on the other hand, to suggest that professors or students with guns could have done a dman thing to stop what happened or even lessened the horror of it.

Why? How can you say that when there is already evidence of it happening before?

But if you acknowledge that there’s an equal chance that citizens with guns could make things worse as better, why advocate conceal and carry laws at all?

Because the evidence proves that in the overall, things haven’t been made worse. Crime has been going down despite more and more states passing concealed carry laws. Now, people suggest that crime has not decreased because of concealed carry laws and that may be true. But we certainly haven’t seen the doomsday scenario the critics have suggested would take place.

Act within seconds to do what? Start shooting at a gunman? And what if that carries on for the duration of the time it takes for the cops to get there? Then you have a situation exactly like the one you deny could happen.

And what if and what if and what if…..

Face it man. You’ll what if until the cows come home looking to prove you’re right. It’s lame.

It would not be difficult? How the fuck do you know? How do you know how a scenario like this would play out?

What if what if what if what if??

In your hypothetical, the student always wins and wins decisively in seconds.

Once again, you’re up to your same old bullshit which is debating points nobody made. I won’t bother with that crap anymore.

You criticize gun control advocates for “every dire forecast” but you yourself are relying entirely on a fantasy scenario supported entirely by cherry picked anecdotes. It’s, like, brilliant.

The fact that crime has gone down, combined with the increase in concealed carry laws, combined also with the fact that these dire forecasts have not come true, combined with the real life examples (of which there are many) that I provided gives more weight to my side of the argument.

You’re left with nothing but “What ifs” which anybody can use ad nauseum in a discussion and it eventually leads nowhere.

It is totally mockable, on the other hand, to suggest that professors or students with guns could have done a dman thing to stop what happened or even lessened the horror of it. For all you know, they could have made a horrible situation worse. That’s my point. But if you acknowledge that there’s an equal chance that citizens with guns could make things worse as better, why advocate conceal and carry laws at all?

At the same time, isn’t also disingenuous to suggest that student and teachers should be allowed to carry guns to defend themselves but then deny that you are suggesting they could do any good? Especially when you clearly are suggesting that citizens with guns could have lessened the horror of the VT incident. Afterall you wrote: “The cops cannot be there within seconds, but other people on the scene can act within seconds.”

Act within seconds to do what? Start shooting at a gunman? And what if that carries on for the duration of the time it takes for the cops to get there? Then you have a situation exactly like the one you deny could happen. You wrote:

Contrary to what you think Frame, it’s not Mexican standoff time in situations like this. It would not be difficult to ascertain who the murderer was because he’d be the one calmly shooting other unarmed people.

It would not be difficult? How the fuck do you know? How do you know how a scenario like this would play out?

Let’s look realistically at your hypothetical. Up against a well armed, determined psychopath who has pre-planned his killing spree, including bringing lots of extra ammo, you have a civilian acting on the spur of the moment in the middle of intense confusion who probably only has the ammo in his gun. In your hypothetical, the student always wins and wins decisively in seconds. Why is this? Not because it fits reality — afterall we have anecdotes of trained cops being killed by assailants –
but because it suits your ideological agenda.

You criticize gun control advocates for “every dire forecast” but you yourself are relying entirely on a fantasy scenario supported entirely by cherry picked anecdotes. It’s, like, brilliant.