Fish……Thanks for the valaintry. I bet you’re a real Dirty Harry…. But if you’re on the streets of St. Louis carrying concealed weapons, I’ll rather be in Peoria.
I don’t spit on people. You have me confused with Looney. He calims he pisses on people if they’re on fire….except me.

Garrison, No I’m not happy. Innocent people died in a state and city that has some of the most restrictive gun laws. The campus is a gun free zone. Those signs and laws should have stopped him. But they didn’t even Chicago’s oppressive gun laws didn’t stop him. He was going to kill by hook or by crook. If he wasn’t able to secure a firearm to do it, knifes or explosives could have been used. Stop oppressing the friendly folks that are trying to protect you.

I wonder how many people Mr. Thornton would have killed with a knife Monday night?

He would have atempted a few.

At least two. He snuck up on the first cop and hid his weapon behind a sign to kill the second. They never had a chance. Thornton was a big guy and in a murderous rage. He could have stabbed any number of people before being taken down.

Any more smarmy questions?

At least two. He snuck up on the first cop and hid his weapon behind a sign to kill the second. They never had a chance. Thornton was a big man and in a murderous rage. He could have stabbed any number of people before being taken down.

Any more smarmy questions?

Knife wounds aren’t nearly as fatal as a gunshot wounds to the head. I doubt if two would have been killed Monday night…
I don’t ever remember reading a headline:
“Knife Weilding Man kills Many In Public Locale” ..

Even if two would have been stabbed and killed, that’s not much comfort to the other three families who buried their loved ones this week.

You’ve demonstrated how deranged your arguments can be.

Hint for eagle scout: NIU isn’t in Chicago, it’s in DeKalb, closer to Rockford than Chicago. But yet, to many (including Governor Baloneyvich, Illinois consists of the area roughly bounded by I-80 to the south and I-37 to the west. The rest is something alien.

When are we going to stop yammering about more guns, fewer guns, and start asking the really hard questions? The ones that require us to really think about what we’re saying to and about each other?

Here’s the question that I want to ask: What are some practical, acceptable ways to keep firearms out of the hands of those who have murder in their plans? Don’t spout off about ‘more enforcement’. How exactly can it be done? Here’s what I see: there are many who scream for ‘more enforcement of the laws’, and yet scream just as loudly whenever a creative attempt is made to actually DO something. I seem to recall a while back when someone put an offer on the table for a cash payment for every firearm that would be brought to a specific location, no questions asked, and then the weapons were destroyed. The screaming about ‘destruction of valuable artifacts’ was horrendous.

As long as firearms are easy and relatively cheap to obtain either legally or illegally, then there will continue to be crazies who arm themselves and use them to make a name for themselves or take out their perceived enemies. Either we accept that as the price for freedom, or we actually work to find a creative and workable answer.

My point was that most gun retailers shy away from that entire area due to the strict laws.

#17 Who’s deranged? Unless you’ve figured out how to uninvent gunpowder, you’ve fallen over the utopian edge. Your idea is to destroy all firearms (that are surrendered or confiscated). That covers the millions of firearms that are now open and legal. Now what magic have you devised to disarm the deranged, criminal, and terrorist elements?

We await your illuminating wisdom, Garrison.