Report of Oregon college shooting...

[Domo]

Here's my problem with a particular type of weapon holding: concealed firearms. Obviously if it's concealed, you can't target practice with it, at least not as well as you could with a match rifle. You can't really hunt with it. All you can do is hurt people with it and fund the undertaker. And it's no deterrent because no-one knows you have it. As for protection, if a miscreant pulls a gun on you and pulls the trigger, you won't have time to react by pulling out your own weapon, unlock the safety catch and return fire. So why have a concealed firearm? Just doesn't make sense to me.

 

[pat fan]

Seventeen pages dedicated to gun control. What about the victims? They were murdered for their beliefs. I think, they deserve to be acknowledged.

I can't say anything about them without receiving points, but just know I am talking about it IRL and other places.

 

[CPanther95]

Here's my problem with a particular type of weapon holding: concealed firearms. Obviously if it's concealed, you can't target practice with it, at least not as well as you could with a match rifle. You can't really hunt with it. All you can do is hurt people with it and fund the undertaker. And it's no deterrent because no-one knows you have it. As for protection, if a miscreant pulls a gun on you and pulls the trigger, you won't have time to react by pulling out your own weapon, unlock the safety catch and return fire. So why have a concealed firearm? Just doesn't make sense to me.

It's not meant to be a deterrent. In fact exposing it will likely just make you a target if someone meaning to do harm sees it. And you don't get a concealed carry permit for target shooting or hunting. It is meant primarily for personal protection - for self defense.

It isn't a magic answer to every possible scenario. Obviously someone could randomly walk up and shoot you - or blow you up with a bomb. It is only in the event that using deadly force could save your life - or the lives of your loved ones. (... and the most popular guns being carried have no safety to disengage before firing) My hope is if I were in a situation where someone just decided to start shooting people, he at least wouldn't be able to shoot both my wife and I before one of us could respond enough to get away.

But you don't have to imagine any further than the incident for the topic we are discussing. Would any of these victims had a better chance of survival if they had access to a firearm - and was trained to use it?

If someone had fired at him as soon as he entered and started shooting, might the shooter moved on to another classroom instead?

 

[Dentam]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/do...-make-shooter-anonymous/ar-AAf4NsM?li=AAa0dzB

A step in the right direction here - the community of Roseburg is taking a stand on this with the media.

 

[Domo]

Yeah you're probably right... access to a firearm probably wouldn't do much good. Unless, of course, the shooter sustained long periods of firing, in which case a concealed firearm could help. Then you have the obvious argument that if a country gets it right, the shooter shouldn't have access to a firearm in the first place. But that's swings and roundabouts and a moot point since we can't set up control groups or the like in the USA for as long as firearms are available.

 

[pat fan]

Then you have the obvious argument that if a country gets it right, the shooter shouldn't have access to a firearm in the first place. But that's swings and roundabouts and a moot point since we can't set up control groups or the like in the USA for as long as firearms are available.

What?

 

[Domo]

What?

Not really sure how else I can explain that. The idea of the post was to say that if laws in a gun-tight country are upheld to a satisfactory amount, criminals won't have access to the firearms in the first place, or at the very least most criminals won't have access to them as it will make access just that bit more difficult. As I stipulated though, to determine whether that would work in the USA we would need blind studies and control groups etc, which we're not gonna get because I don't see the USA going gun free, especially not in the name of research.

 

[asta]

As a very, very small start I hope the mother is charged if what I am reading is right. She not only provided the guns but sought out private places for them to practice their target shooting. She knew and acknowledged that her son had mental problems. Apparently a lifetime of enabling. She is at least partly responsible for these murders. If there isn't an existing law that allows her to be charged then there needs to be one for the future. I would think that the families could file civil charges against her but I think there should be criminal charges.

 

[CPanther95]

Not really sure how else I can explain that. The idea of the post was to say that if laws in a gun-tight country are upheld to a satisfactory amount, criminals won't have access to the firearms in the first place, or at the very least most criminals won't have access to them as it will make access just that bit more difficult. As I stipulated though, to determine whether that would work in the USA we would need blind studies and control groups etc, which we're not gonna get because I don't see the USA going gun free, especially not in the name of research.

The Founding Fathers weren't concerned with criminals having access to guns as much as they were concerned with making sure that we never lived in a country where only the Government had access to firearms.

 

[pat fan]

The idea of the post was to say that if laws in a gun-tight country are upheld to a satisfactory amount, criminals won't have access to the firearms in the first place,

Really? Drugs are illegal. How hard are they to get?

 

[Gumbo4x4]

As a very, very small start I hope the mother is charged if what I am reading is right. She not only provided the guns but sought out private places for them to practice their target shooting. She knew and acknowledged that her son had mental problems. Apparently a lifetime of enabling. She is at least partly responsible for these murders. If there isn't an existing law that allows her to be charged then there needs to be one for the future. I would think that the families could file civil charges against her but I think there should be criminal charges.

If she bought the guns for him because she knew nobody would sell directly to him, at the very least that's a straw purchase. On the other hand, if he was capable of passing the background check, then the guns are simply gifts. Would be curious to hear more about his background.

 

[Domo]

Really? Drugs are illegal. How hard are they to get?

Depends on the drug over here. Marijuana is fairly easy to get, where as hard drugs are comparatively difficult. Thing is, unlike guns, drugs are self abusive and not designed to maim and kill.

As the head of the Met said, if you try and get guns into our country, you Will get Caught.

 

[Domo]

The Founding Fathers weren't concerned with criminals having access to guns as much as they were concerned with making sure that we never lived in a country where only the Government had access to firearms.

I thought they did it so that a well rehearsed body of men didn't get trampled on by a selfish British force?

 

[CPanther95]

I thought they did it so that a well rehearsed body of men didn't get trampled on by a selfish British force?

They did it to protect us from tyranny - whether from abroad or home grown.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

I thought they did it so that a well rehearsed body of men didn't get trampled on by a selfish British force?

Many of the founders were concerned as much about having to potentially overthrow their own government as they were about foreign invaders.

 

[Domo]

They did it to protect us from tyranny - whether from abroad or home grown.

I'm not sure I saw how... I mean, the threats from abroad aren't a threat to your borders (ISIS, Syria) and home grown the threat isn't really neutered by gun ownership, as demonstrated by a continuing spate of gun crime?

 

[IndyRnRfan]

Depends on the drug over here. Marijuana is fairly easy to get, where as hard drugs are comparatively difficult. Thing is, unlike guns, drugs are self abusive and not designed to maim and kill.

As the head of the Met said, if you try and get guns into our country, you Will get Caught.

That's interesting considering drugs kill more people in our country than guns.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

As a very, very small start I hope the mother is charged if what I am reading is right. She not only provided the guns but sought out private places for them to practice their target shooting. She knew and acknowledged that her son had mental problems. Apparently a lifetime of enabling. She is at least partly responsible for these murders. If there isn't an existing law that allows her to be charged then there needs to be one for the future. I would think that the families could file civil charges against her but I think there should be criminal charges.

It is curious we have learned so little about the mother.

If she bought the guns for him because she knew nobody would sell directly to him, at the very least that's a straw purchase. On the other hand, if he was capable of passing the background check, then the guns are simply gifts. Would be curious to hear more about his background.

http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-co...ooters-troubled-childhood-southern-california

 

[Christine]

They did it to protect us from tyranny - whether from abroad or home grown.

So, I'm no constitution expert, but I recently heard that for about 200 years, the Second Amendment was actually interpreted to be about well-organized militias protecting the citizenry from tyranny and not about individuals. In fact, some believe that the Second Amendment was the Founding Fathers' version of gun control, otherwise, why have it. It was only in 2008 that Judge Antonin Scalia made a ruling of it being an "individual" thing. Hmmmmm.... wonder why?

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-second-amendment-is-a-gun-control-amendment

Anyway, the above source is not where I got that information as I don't generally read the New Yorker, but it does explain something that I heard a few days ago about this and had no clue about. I didn't realize that for a LOOONNNNGGG time, the viewpoint about gun ownership was not ruled toward individuals. Methinks, this is another "money" issue much like Citizens United. Sad...sad....sad.

 

[pat fan]

I'm not sure I saw how... I mean, the threats from abroad aren't a threat to your borders (ISIS, Syria) and home grown the threat isn't really neutered by gun ownership, as demonstrated by a continuing spate of gun crime?

Where are you from?

9/11. Boston Marathon. Nidal Hasan. Many more, but there's a couple. Yes, we do need to be prepared to defend ourselves and our country from all comers.

Depends on the drug over here. Marijuana is fairly easy to get, where as hard drugs are comparatively difficult.

I live in a rural area. What's your poison of choice? We are a hotbed of heroin, have the local pot factory up the road and I'm sure with very l;ittle effort I could find whatever else you wanted.