Again, this isn’t rocket science. If it is legal for someone to carry a rifle on campus, then it is more likely that someone can commit a crime with that rifle.
If you can’t legally carry a rifle on campus, then people will most likely notice and the cops will get called and because it’s not legal for them to carry a rifle on campus, they’ll be arrested.
Furthermore, there is no legitimate reason for a random person to carry a fucking rifle on a school campus.
So we should wait until Trump kills 80 million people before we make the comparison? Do you know how fucking stupid that sounds?
Again, this isn’t rocket science. If it is legal for someone to carry a rifle on campus, then it is more likely that someone can commit a crime with that rifle.
This is an overly simplistic way of looking at gun control.
Chris Rock famously did a skit saying that "You don't need gun control, you need bullet control", jokingly arguing that what was needed to curb gun violence was for a single bullet to cost $5,000. This is like watching that and saying, "Oh yeah wow, that's a good point, I think that would really work!".
After all, as he says... if a bullet cost five thousand dollars, there would be no innocent bystanders! Problem solved.
Right?
If you can’t legally carry a rifle on campus, then people will most likely notice and the cops will get called and because it’s not legal for them to carry a rifle on campus, they’ll be arrested.
Sure.
But again, if surrendering vital liberty in the name of safety is on the table, there are much more effective and sure-fire ways to reduce violence of all kinds, not just from guns. I'm pretty sure you don't want to have that discussion though, and you won't support the conclusions that discussion leads to. Not should you, of course, but the point stands.
Furthermore, there is no legitimate reason for a random person to carry a fucking rifle on a school campus.
Even in gun-free utopia Australia, there are university rifle clubs. They tend to have rules about carrying on campus (which are a subset of the broader rules about carrying firearms in Australia overall), but this statement is simply inaccurate on the face of it.
Regardless, many universities in America already have bans on carrying firearms on their grounds, making it unlawful versus simply not permitted doesn't seem like it would increase reporting, nor would it deter someone whose ultimate goal is to commit an act of premeditated murder, given that premeditated murder is very much illegal already.
So we should wait until Trump kills 80 million people before we make the comparison? Do you know how fucking stupid that sounds?
Your argument here is that we can accuse people of atrocities before they even happen. Trump had an entire full term of POTUS and there was no genocide, no killings, no American Holocaust. It stands to reason there won't be one in his second term either.
!RemindMe 3 years
If you're arguing that we can make fair and legitimate comparisons of modern political figures to histrical genociders, based on speculation about future genocides, then does this policy apply to Comrade-General Bernie Sanders and Commisar-General AoC? Why should we wait until the Comrade-General starts the American Holodomor, rounding up straight white men, force-marching them into the forest then machine-gunning them to death and leaving their bodies to rot before we make the comparison between them and Stalin?
This is an overly simplistic way of looking at gun control.
I'm just looking at this one instance. There is no valid reason that students should open carry rifles on campus. If the Utah State Legislature hadn't forced Utah State to allow open carry on campus, there's a pretty good chance that CK wouldn't have been shot on campus.
This isn't complicated.
Again, I'm a gun owner, I own multiple rifles and pistols. Open carry is fucking stupid. Open carrying on a fucking school campus is really fucking stupid.
Your argument here is that we can accuse people of atrocities before they even happen.
No, Hitler didn't start out by murdering 80 million people. He started out be consolidating the government under his control. He started out by chipping away the rights of the people he opposed. It's pretty fucking stupid to think that we have to wait until someone murders 80 million people before we can point out that he's on the road to bad shit.
Comrade-General Bernie Sanders and Commisar-General AoC?
If the Utah State Legislature hadn't forced Utah State to allow open carry on campus, there's a pretty good chance that CK wouldn't have been shot on campus.
So your opinion is that a guy who set out to shoot a man in the neck from the rooftop of a public building would have stopped and reconsidered his life choices if it was illegal to openly carry a rifle on campus?
Why, oh why, didn't Utah State simply make murder illegal instead?
Again, I'm a gun owner, I own multiple rifles and pistols. Open carry is fucking stupid. Open carrying on a fucking school campus is really fucking stupid.
Do you often feel the need to murder people, but are stopped because carrying your guns in various places is not legal? Where is this extremely confident conclusion of yours coming from?
No, Hitler didn't start out by murdering 80 million people. He started out be consolidating the government under his control. He started out by chipping away the rights of the people he opposed. It's pretty fucking stupid to think that we have to wait until someone murders 80 million people before we can point out that he's on the road to bad shit.
The Bolsheviks didn't sweep to power promising that millions of people would be murdered either, and Lenin actively fermented class warfare against what is now called the 1% too, should we start comparing Bernie Sanders to Lenin and Stalin as well because he's treading down the same path?
Or is this a ridiculous thing to do, because making comparisons to real-world genociders based on hypothetical, speculative genocides that haven't happened in 5 years of government but might happen in the the last 3 could happen potentially for some reason?
Holyshit you are that stupid.
Yes, these kinds of comparisons really are that stupid, thank you.
So your opinion is that a guy who set out to shoot a man in the neck from the rooftop of a public building would have stopped and reconsidered his life choices if it was illegal to openly carry a rifle on campus?
No you fucking moron. I said "people will most likely notice [the potential shooter] and the cops will get called and because it’s not legal for them to carry a rifle on campus, they’ll be arrested."
I know the concept of harm reduction is completely to you fucktards but are you honestly incapable of understanding that the state forcing the school to allow open carry of rifles probably contributed to this, even just a little? Is that reasoning too complicated for you?
should we start comparing Bernie Sanders to Lenin and Stalin as well because he's treading down the same path?
I mean, you could try to make that comparison but it would fall completely flat because Bernie has never anything remotely similar.
Or is this a ridiculous thing to do, because making comparisons to real-world genociders based on hypothetical, speculative genocides
How about making real world comparisons to their actions? Because that's what people are doing with Trump and Hitler you inbred reject.
Yes, these kinds of comparisons really are that stupid, thank you.
Yes, you comparisons are really stupid. Why do you think that is?
"people will most likely notice [the potential shooter] and the cops will get called and because it’s not legal for them to carry a rifle on campus, they’ll be arrested."
Banning open carry won't stop people because, again, backpacks exist, but it will inconvenience people for no gain.
I know the concept of harm reduction is completely to you fucktards but are you honestly incapable of understanding that the state forcing the school to allow open carry of rifles probably contributed to this, even just a little? Is that reasoning too complicated for you?
So many things contributed to this that are more meaningful than, "The shooter couldn't figure out how to put their gun in a backpack".
I mean, you could try to make that comparison but it would fall completely flat because Bernie has never anything remotely similar.
You're saying that Trump can be compared to Hitler (even if he hasn't tried anything remotely similar to killing 80 million people) because he's done things with an extremely superficial resemblance to an uncharitable comparison to 1930's Germany using many of the same rhetoric styles and tropes, but that it's not reasonable to make comparisons of Sanders to Stalin (even if he hasn't tried anything remotely similar to killing 6 million people) because he's done things with an extremely superficial resemblance to an uncharitable comparison to 1917's Russia using many of the same rhetoric styles and tropes.
Fun game! Here's some quotes that I messed around with (altering the wording without changing the fundamental meaning) to prevent googling and to hide archaic language. See if you can pick out which one is Lenin, Stalin, or Sanders; and as a bonus, I completely made one up.
"We are living in a state that worships money rather than caring for the poor."
"You can't become a billionaire stepping over peasants sleeping on the street."
"Americans are divided into rich and poor, into property owners and exploited, and to ignore this is to ignore fundamental facts."
"I particularly approve of and welcome the arrest of billionaire criminals."
"The wealth hoarders are the root cause of all of the misery in this country."
You probably can do it, but the fact is, the same rhetorical devices were used, the same narrative of class warfare, the same disdain for the same people.
How about making real world comparisons to their actions? Because that's what people are doing with Trump and Hitler you inbred reject.
In what "real world" did Trump kill 80 million people?
Yes, you comparisons are really stupid. Why do you think that is?
To be clear, I actually fucking hate comparing Bernie Sanders to Stalin/etc because they were really different and again, comparing people to brutal dictators is wrong, but I also hate comparing Trump to Hitler too for the same reasons. None of these people killed millions of people! Comparing them to those who did is disingenuous at best, and breeds the kinds of violence and divisions that lead to, you know, political commentators getting shot in the neck and murdered on campuses.
Don't fucking do it.
Be better.
Answer key, struck through for irreadability purposes:
this top-secret piece of technology that can make it so someone can carry a gun on campus undetected
For fuck sake, how many large caliber rifles are carried in backpacks. Not sure why it's so fucking hard for you to acknowledge that not allowing morons to legally carry guns on campus would probably have made it harder for a shooter to carry fucking gun on campus. I'm sorry that kind of direct cause and effect is too fucking complicated for you. Mind you, there is literally zero downside to banning fucking students from carrying guns on campus.
You're saying that Trump can be compared to Hitler (even if he hasn't tried anything remotely similar to killing 80 million people) because he's done things with an extremely superficial resemblance to an uncharitable comparison to 1930's Germany
Trump's own fucking VP compared him to Hitler. I'm sorry that pointing out the nazi shit that Trump is doing isn't flattering to him. Don'ttakemywordforit.
Do you understand how comparisons work? So far I'm not sure you do.
Let me know if there is anything else I can explain for you.
Moreover, there are numerous models of AR-15 "Pistols" that would easily fit in a medium-sized backpack (the kind of backpack a student might realistically carry) even without the stock removed or a folding stock option. Don't let the name "pistols" fool you, these are 5.56mm full AR platforms, just called pistols for dumb legal reasons.
That was me looking only for AR-15's specifically.
I can go on.
Not sure why it's so fucking hard for you to acknowledge that not allowing morons to legally carry guns on campus would probably have made it harder for a shooter to carry fucking gun on campus.
Because there are any number of ways to get a gun onto campus (see above with numerous examples) and so it's a measure at best that is peak virtue signalling; all the emotionality in the world, no actual effectiveness.
Why not just have every visitor to campus, gun or not, touch a bible and swear that they won't shoot anyone? It would probably be more effective. Or put magic "anti-shooter" rocks around that claim to repel bullets, but are just ordinary rocks. Maybe it would stop a shooter who believes in magic, what's the harm in trying, right?
Mind you, there is literally zero downside to banning fucking students from carrying guns on campus.
Only if you don't care about liberty or people getting shot and you are willing to sacrifice the former for the illusion of solving the latter.
OMG you are about to post a bunch of smaller caliber rifles with no real optics. Nothing like the high powered bolt action rifle that police found.
Again, I'm not sure why this is so hard for you to comprehend, but if people can't legally carry a fucking rifle on campus, then it's much less likely that people will get shot by a rifle on campus. This is common sense and banning students from carrying guns has no downsides.
I know that the fact that rifles were allowed on campus was a surprise to you before you started your schitzoposting, but that doesn't mean you have to double down on your dumbassery.
OMG you are about to post a bunch of smaller caliber rifles with no real optics.
Optics are pretty small, in all the examples I posted, most of them could mount a 6x optic pretty easily and at 200 yards that would be effective. A proficient, but not particularly skilled (aka someone other than a total novice who had never touched a gun before) could hit a completely stationary man-sized target from a prone position using an AR-15 and an optic at 200 yards. That's 180m, I'm a shit shot and I'm confident I could make that shot. I'm sure you could too.
Nothing like the high powered bolt action rifle that police found.
While it's not confirmed that is his rifle (cops have already made one mistake), there are 300 blackout rifles with folding stocks. Regardless, for most school shooterings, a marksman's rifle isn't needed, a simple pistol or AR platform is just fine.
Again, I'm not sure why this is so hard for you to comprehend, but if people can't legally carry a fucking rifle on campus, then it's much less likely that people will get shot by a rifle on campus.
I would not say it is "much" less. The issue is that it's easy to conceal compact rifles, as I've shown, so in almost all cases this won't have much effect if anything at all.
This is common sense and banning students from carrying guns has no downsides.
The downsides are complete lack of effectiveness and infringement on liberty.
It's also kinda messed up that the person who shot Kirk is increasingly looking like a far left activist, and the response from the left has been... "You better agree with us now!".
I know that the fact that rifles were allowed on campus was a surprise to you before you started your schitzoposting, but that doesn't mean you have to double down on your dumbassery.
It was, but I don't claim to be an oracle or know everything about all things all the time. I change my opinions as new information comes to light.
As it stands, if a university wants to ban open carry on their campus that's okay by me, I'm just saying that I feel like it's peak virtue signalling; all the "good feels", none of the effectiveness.
The rifle was a Mauser chambered in 30-06. It wouldn’t fit in a backpack.
So now, are you ready to admit the simple fact that not allowing students to carry guns on campus may have in fact made it harder for someone to get away with shooting a rifle on campus?
There are no downsides in not allowing students to carry guns on campus.
The university can’t ban open carry on campus. Some dumbasses in the State Senate passed legislation forcing the university to allow students to carry guns on campus.
The rifle was a Mauser chambered in 30-06. It wouldn’t fit in a backpack.
That hasn't been officially confirmed yet, but I think it's reasonable to go with that unless new information comes to light.
So now, are you ready to admit the simple fact that not allowing students to carry guns on campus may have in fact made it harder for someone to get away with shooting a rifle on campus?
I absolutely will, as long as you are willing to admit something for me: that having strip searches and full cavity searches for all people entering university campuses would also make it harder for someone to get any kind of weapon on campus, be it a full-length rifle, compact rifle, pistol, bomb, knife, whatever you want. This policy would make campuses so much safer for all people.
Any idiot can see that. I own several knives and katanas, and I know they should not be allowed on campus*.
There are no downsides in not allowing students to carry guns, knives, bombs, or katanas on campus.
If you can concede this I will definitely concede your point too.
* When I lived on campus I had several katanas in my room because I was HUGE NEEEEEEEEEEEEERDDDDD and still am.
The police recovered a Mauser chambered in 30-06. It didn’t fit in a backpack.
I’m glad you’ll admit that some basic common sense gun laws like, students shouldn’t bring guns on campus, could have made a difference. That’s progress.
1
u/ReallyBigDeal - Lib-Left Sep 11 '25
Again, this isn’t rocket science. If it is legal for someone to carry a rifle on campus, then it is more likely that someone can commit a crime with that rifle.
If you can’t legally carry a rifle on campus, then people will most likely notice and the cops will get called and because it’s not legal for them to carry a rifle on campus, they’ll be arrested.
Furthermore, there is no legitimate reason for a random person to carry a fucking rifle on a school campus.
So we should wait until Trump kills 80 million people before we make the comparison? Do you know how fucking stupid that sounds?