What part of
do either of you not understand??
I’m saying (how clearly do I need to spell it out*??) that the idjit in the video was an exception to the rule.
You can ask when he learned what he did. But it would be absurd to generalize to some ‘they’ from that one instance, like both of you perversely seem to insist on doing. Especially given that we’re talking about Clemson students who, by and large, are brought up in a very pro-gun environment.
C-H-E-E-S-E-A-N-D-O-N-I-O-N-S, oh no 
The only way you could interpret it the way you did is if you assume that Clemson U students only come from South Carolina.
Most of the time, universities have students in attendance from all over the United States, and even some foreign countries.
You can’t be so fucking thick that you think all Clemson students were originally from Clemson, SC.
Actually, what I equated was that ‘students from around the country 5-15 years ago now comprise the student body of Clemson University.’
That seemed fairly reasonable to me, as it would be in line with what I experienced when I went to a public university.
That guy, tortured justification notwithstanding, was taught by someone that guns were bad. When did he learn it, where did he learn it, and why? There were two people interviewed and both were anti-gun people. Should we not take that as representative and wonder why?
What’s more, the thought that the kid expressed is absurd, but similar ideas are rampant, which is what caused bad laws like the AWB to pass in the past. I want to know where these ideas came from. They show ignorance of fact and ignorance of law.
I don’t think that’s entirely fair. If I won the gun, I probably wouldn’t accept it either. Especially if I was a college student. An AK-47 has somewhat limited utility, especially compared to the .22. It won’t be great for hunting. I’d also be worried about it being stolen, especially since now everyone on campus knows where to get an AK-47.
In Soviet Russia, AK-47 evokes YOU!
If you’ll notice, I didn’t make that claim.
You’re welcome to confuse the two issues: the fact that Clemson indeed draws some students from a wide geography, and the fact that it draws most of its students from its backyard. There isn’t a thing I can do to stop you from doing so, apparently.
Like I said, a false equation.
I’d be interested in knowing which public university doesn’t cater primarily to students in its own state. Just out of professional curiosity, as someone who used to be in the ed biz.
I got my Master’s from the University of Virginia, and a lot of my friends went there as undergrads.
U.Va., as you know, is one of the so-called “public Ivies,” which means it has more out-of-state drawing power than most public universities. But even still, most of the student body was from Virginia. If it had been otherwise, Virginia taxpayers wouldn’t have been particularly interested in supporting the school with their tax dollars. Does that surprise you?
Why should you care?? He is not representative of Clemson students. Your OP is about Clemson.
I saw three people interviewed:
Your thread title is: More ignorance on the gun front, this time from Clemson U.
You say in the OP, about the idjit: Please, pleeease tell me that students are not learning that at Clemson.
My point is: **you’re saying something about Clemson, on the basis of one data point. That’s wrong to begin with. But on top of that, I happen to know he’s not at all representative. **
Goddamn, how have I wound up defending Clemson - my wife and I have three degrees from its rival, the University of South Carolina, between us - and against claims that their students are taught anti-gun propaganda, of all things??
Excuse me, but I’ve gotta go. My head’s exploding.
Well look at how well you weasel.
I’m not about to continue further down your delusional path of inventing a meaning for my statements.
You can create whatever kind of fantasies you want around what I’m saying and then play pedantic asshole about your invented facts, but you’re going to have to do it without my participation.
I wonder how many millions of people have died or been permanently maimed by gunshots from a AK-47? Would it be safe to assume millions? Kinda sets it apart from just a semi-automatic weapon.
add “same as any other” to that last sentence.
Ah, I would argue a different point here. You and Airman are saying it was reported on, and not accepted, because of a stigma towards it - that it’s a “bad” gun. I disagree; I think that most people are intelligent enough to recognise that no matter what a gun is associated with, that doesn’t make the gun itself cause or responsible for those acts. No, I think the reason behind it being reported is that it’s a famous gun.
I admit I know very little about any type of guns, myself. If i’d read that story, shorn of any mention of the weapon’s capabilities (and in some cases including - i’m unaware as to most gun jargon) but simply mentioning it was (as in Airman’s example) a Ruger, i’d assume it was a pistol or revolver, or some antique gun that was worth a lot of money. On the other hand, all I need is “AK-47” to instantly conjure up images of that weapon’s capabilities and what type of gun it is, because it’s a famous gun! It’s probably been used in every action film since the 80’s, and while films are certainly not the best source of info on actual gun abilities, but nevertheless, you say “Ruger” and (non-gun) people will think, ok, a gun. You say “AK-47” and people think ah, a pretty powerful machine gun. We already have an idea of it in our minds.
I hope you’re not implying that anyone who didn’t want it is somehow afraid of guns. I certainly wouldn’t want it, and I’m not afraid of guns. I’m afraid of stupid people with guns, but who isn’t? I just would have no use for the thing, nor really any desire for it. Nothing to do with the stigma of an AK-47-I’d say the same about some small little pistol, or a hunting rifle. I just have no interest in guns.
That doesn’t make me afraid of them.
If they tried to raffle off an AK-47 at my undergraduate school, I’m not sure if anyone would take it, if only because it is rather impractical. An AK-47 has never really struck me as a good hunting rifle (though I’d be happy to be corrected) but at least it wouldn’t be hard to keep at school. Security has a gun safe and will keep any rifle or shotgun (or hunting bow) for use when the owner wants it, as hunting is big in that part of the country. I never used it, because I don’t have a gun, though I wouldn’t mind having a shotgun for at least skeet shooting. Otherwise, of course, having a gun on campus was an offense if it wasn’t in transit to or from your car and especially if outside its case.
While the person who made that statement in the video expressed it in a very stupid way, I agree with the underlying sentiment. I have never liked guns and I do not allow them in my home (well, if I needed the police out for some reason that would be one thing) I also see no reason why anyone has any need for something like an AK-47. and no I was not ‘taught’ to be anti-gun, I come from a military family who is also very conservative, likes hunting, blah blah.
Russell
You know, I was pretty damned upfront in my first post in this thread:
Ever since, in this thread, I’ve stuck to that point, explained it, and defended it. Ain’t moved an inch from it.
This must be some new definition of ‘weaseling’ that I hadn’t previously encountered.
Because it was run by, and publicized in, a college newspaper? That’s kind of unusual, to say the least.
Also thereby being published in a source that might be read by someone who’d think it worth forwarding to the local TV station.
Maybe gun raffles are going on all the time in this country, but you couldn’t prove it by me; I never hear of a one. Until now, of course. They must be publicized in a parallel media universe, that is, in publications that aren’t general-interest newspapers or magazines, but rather in publications that only people who are interested in guns read.
Well, that helps too. Let’s face it - an AK-47 isn’t a hunting rifle, unless you’re hunting people of course.
And because the young gun nuts picked this rifle with that goal in mind, that’s somehow the fault of somebody else??
You’ve lost me here.
But I expect that due to the college setting, it would have been newsworthy regardless.
The problem is, this has nothing to do with the ‘objection’ of your OP. The only ‘objection’ at that point was the idjit kid, and he didn’t say anything remotely suggestive of this. The other kid didn’t object, Clemson University itself didn’t object, and the TV station didn’t give an opinion.
And now you’re reading all sorts of stuff in on the basis of things you’ve seen elsewhere. You want to say that, fine. But there’s no evidence for it in your OP, or the linked article and video.
Since this is the pit: I pit the dumb bitch that turned down a perfectly good Kalashnikov. I would have given her between 100 and 1000 bucks for it, depending on the manufacturer and model.
If it was an actual “AK-47”, and I’m positive it wasn’t she could have got 5 figures for it.
The thing that gets me, though, is that this is like going to a party where the food is great, the women are hot, the beer is plentiful, but there’s a lot of people there soyou have to wait in line a couple minutes to use the john, and so you start a Pit thread about the party on account of that.
You and catsix are pro-gun. So a college newspaper at Clemson raffles off an AK-47. So far, so hoopy for you, right? And it gets publicity - good publicity. If there’s any sort of undercurrent of disapproval or reservation by the newscaster, I missed it. So that should make you happy, too, right?
And in the piece, the pro-gun guy gets to do most of the talking. There’s a brief clip of a guy whose main objection is that if you’re going to raffle off a gun, it should be off-campus. No big deal. And of course, the only ‘anti-gun’ sentiment comes from a genuine, gold-plated bozo. That should make you fucking ecstatic - to the extent that the ‘other side’ is represented, it’s scoring points against itself.
And this is what you start a Pit thread about.
Lordy.
And it’s the only rifle on a nation’s flag. It’s inexpensive, easy to use, easy to maintain, uses cheap ammunition and seems to pop up on the news constantly. No better symbol for an assault weapon than the AK-47.
If they don’t want it, I’ll sure as hell take it. It would come in mighty handy next hurricane.
Word.
I have no choice but to laugh at pussies who are afraid of guns.