Report of Oregon college shooting...

[Colleen27]

I've read that the shooter had asperger's syndrome. Didn't the Sandy Hook shooter have the same diagnosis? It's odd, that both mothers encouraged guns in these cases.

I saw info and photos about the mother, maybe once or twice, soon after the tragedy. Although, dad has been splashed around a bit and quoted.

I read that too, but I'm not sure how accurate it is. The specifics people who knew the family describe - medication that he refused to take, a period of institutionalization because of med non-compliance - don't fit with "just" Aspergers. I think there's a good chance that the mother rejected, was in denial of, or simply didn't talk to friends about her son's full diagnosis.

The dad is getting attention because he's cooperative with the media, though some of the things he's said lead me to think he didn't know his son well enough to have any real insight into the situation. One report said they hadn't seen one another in several years. The mother, on the other hand, is actively avoiding the press so all the more reputable media can do is interview others who knew the family and gather what second- and third-hand information there is to be had that way. A couple of the more tabloid leaning pubs have run paparazzi-style photos taken from a distance, through fences/trees, while she tried to avoid the photogs.

Ok since we are still talking, how stupid can people be, the answer is real stupid. Gun owners seem to take an attitude that anyone who owns a guna and has not broken the law is an upstanding person. How do you know that, that is why we need licensing, traning and education. How about those idiot parents who gave a rifle to their 11 year old who shot the girl next door. Some people need to be told, You need to lock up guns, You need to keep guns away from people who are suicidal and suffer from depression They beat into our heads the drunk driving thing, why do we not do that with gun safety. They pushed the teen driving safety programs and teen driving deaths have dropped dramatically. We can make it better if we try. But if we do not even try nothing good will happen.

Amen! I got a Twitter alert about this news story when I was at school yesterday. A woman with a CPL (which, in my state means a whopping 6 hours of instruction) shot up the parking lot of a Home Depot in a major retail district in the middle of the day, trying to stop a pair of unarmed shoplifters who were fleeing the car. She didn't hit anyone, thankfully - not her target (two grown men in a full size SUV) and not any bystanders. But it stands as an excellent illustration of the dark side of "arm the populace" rhetoric. At best, she intended to seriously wound the men over a petty crime. At worst, she could have killed innocent bystanders in her "heroic" effort to stop that crime. Either way, I fail to see how this woman walking around packing heat is making anyone safer.

Now, if you're on the "other" side, to me the smart move is to put it back on the NRA. Instead of attacking head-on (pure suicide), show that you know better. "Okay NRA, we know anything we propose is going to be a fight. At the same time, we think most Americans want private sales to go through the background check just like commercial sales. How do YOU suggest we accomplish that in a manner that you can accept?".

Then, sit back & see what happens. If the NRA refuses to make their own recommendation, that weakens them. And they know that. So, be prepared to agree to their version which will likely also include some pro-gun measures (like CCW reciprocity).

Absolutely. That would be such a smart play because it would reveal the NRA for what it is - an industry group, not one that represents its members. The NRA opposes many measures that the American population supports, not in response to members' concerns but because those measures could reduce gun sales. For example... Right now, if you buy several guns from a single dealer the system flags that as a high risk transaction based on known gun trafficking patterns. But if you buy 1 or 2 guns from a dozen dealers in the same week, you are under the ATF radar. The NRA killed the bill that would have closed that loophole. Does anyone really believe they were standing up for the right of the common man to buy a few dozen weapons a week without attracting govt attention? Or could it be that the NRA was acting on behalf of manufacturers who really don't care where their product ends up? They only care about their sales volumes and profits (which is, of course, all that a for-profit enterprise is supposed to be concerned with, which is why we need an effective govt acting as a watchdog), so that's what the NRA acts to protect.

Or on the flip side, member pressure might force the NRA to actually propose something, which would then weaken the relationship between the NRA and the industry. Which could only be a good thing all the way around, IMO, for both NRA members and the public as a whole.

 

[rajak73]

Amen! I got a Twitter alert about this news story when I was at school yesterday. A woman with a CPL (which, in my state means a whopping 6 hours of instruction) shot up the parking lot of a Home Depot in a major retail district in the middle of the day, trying to stop a pair of unarmed shoplifters who were fleeing the car. She didn't hit anyone, thankfully - not her target (two grown men in a full size SUV) and not any bystanders. But it stands as an excellent illustration of the dark side of "arm the populace" rhetoric. At best, she intended to seriously wound the men over a petty crime. At worst, she could have killed innocent bystanders in her "heroic" effort to stop that crime. Either way, I fail to see how this woman walking around packing heat is making anyone safer.



Absolutely. That would be such a smart play because it would reveal the NRA for what it is - an industry group, not one that represents its members. The NRA opposes many measures that the American population supports, not in response to members' concerns but because those measures could reduce gun sales. For example... Right now, if you buy several guns from a single dealer the system flags that as a high risk transaction based on known gun trafficking patterns. But if you buy 1 or 2 guns from a dozen dealers in the same week, you are under the ATF radar. The NRA killed the bill that would have closed that loophole. Does anyone really believe they were standing up for the right of the common man to buy a few dozen weapons a week without attracting govt attention? Or could it be that the NRA was acting on behalf of manufacturers who really don't care where their product ends up? They only care about their sales volumes and profits (which is, of course, all that a for-profit enterprise is supposed to be concerned with, which is why we need an effective govt acting as a watchdog), so that's what the NRA acts to protect.

Or on the flip side, member pressure might force the NRA to actually propose something, which would then weaken the relationship between the NRA and the industry. Which could only be a good thing all the way around, IMO, for both NRA members and the public as a whole.

But you just sighted ONE instance, I could sight a instance in Omaha, Nebraska that's just the opposite and yes I don't think 6 hours is enough training. Here you take the class, pass the test and have to show you are proficient with the handgun. One local furniture store allowed CCW last year. You know what the argument against was. They will be having shootouts over couches! Sorry, it hasn't happened. Store hasn't been robbed since either. And can't you say that about anything? Isn't everybody for profit? I'm sure Ruger execs aren't sitting at a desk saying, "Well, let's hope these end up in drug dealers hands." I just don't trust the govt to be a watchdog. What did I hear about one solution to gun control? Let the victims them sue the manufacturer. Really, isn't that like me being able to sue Ford if you drive a ford and run into me? Is there things that can be done? Yes, I don't like internet sales of ammo or guns. Even though that is where I bought my first ammo for a handgun because of the govt it was in high demand. FedEx delivered it to me, left it in front of business, they had no idea who bought or picked up the ammo.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

Honestly, the best thing that ever happens to the firearms industry is anti-gun laws - pass or fail. The minuscule profits they glean from guns that are intended for crime right from the get-go are but a drop in the bucket compared to the sales driven by bans or potential bans. 3 years after the last major gun control push & I still can't find .22LR anywhere. And when I do, it's triple the price from just a few years back.

 

[3 MEN AND A BOAT]

But you just sighted ONE instance, I could sight a instance in Omaha, Nebraska that's just the opposite and yes I don't think 6 hours is enough training. Here you take the class, pass the test and have to show you are proficient with the handgun. One local furniture store allowed CCW last year. You know what the argument against was. They will be having shootouts over couches! Sorry, it hasn't happened. Store hasn't been robbed since either. And can't you say that about anything? Isn't everybody for profit? I'm sure Ruger execs aren't sitting at a desk saying, "Well, let's hope these end up in drug dealers hands." I just don't trust the govt to be a watchdog. What did I hear about one solution to gun control? Let the victims them sue the manufacturer. Really, isn't that like me being able to sue Ford if you drive a ford and run into me? Is there things that can be done? Yes, I don't like internet sales of ammo or guns. Even though that is where I bought my first ammo for a handgun because of the govt it was in high demand. FedEx delivered it to me, left it in front of business, they had no idea who bought or picked up the ammo.

I don't think anyone can say with a straight face that this wouldn't be intended to simply make it to costly to manufacture firearms to the average citizen. Basically force manufacturers into only supplying police, military, and other gov agancies.

 

[mnrose]

See, personally, I would like to see liability placed on the gun owner for deaths and injuries caused by their weapons....just like cars. If a car I own is involved in in accident, my insurance pays even if I wasn't driving. Should be the same for guns. If a gun you own causes a death (and it wasn't justifiable or the injured party's fault), instant liability to you. To escape liability because the gun was "stolen", there would have to be a report that the weapon was, in fact, stolen.

I think this would cause people to be very careful with their guns, and to make sure they weren't where people could get them (you know, the kids shooting other kids and that sort of thing).

 

[mnrose]

Honestly, the best thing that ever happens to the firearms industry is anti-gun laws - pass or fail. The minuscule profits they glean from guns that are intended for crime right from the get-go are but a drop in the bucket compared to the sales driven by bans or potential bans. 3 years after the last major gun control push & I still can't find .22LR anywhere. And when I do, it's triple the price from just a few years back.

And, there's a part of me just cynical enough to believe this is exactly why the NRA and manufacturers are against ANY law that regulates guns in any way shape or form. It gets their base all stirred up if they say "they are coming for your guns, better buy more quick" and then people buy more. If they agreed that SOME reasonable restrictions are ok, and maybe even make sense, it just doesn't have the same ring to it and isn't going to incite people into thinking us "anti-gunners" (as you call us...I am NOT anti-gun, just FOR some common sense) want all their guns.

 

[wishesuponastar]

Why does a person need/want more than one gun?

 

[Jdbsfw]

Why does a person need/want more than one gun?

You don't duck hunt with a rifle, you don't turkey hunt with a pistol, you can't "plink" with a deer rifle like you can a .22, you can't conceal/carry a long gun. Guns have intrinsic value, are family heirlooms, antiques, and so many other reasons. You are probably from somewhere that people only associates guns with crime, where I'm from that's low on the list

 

[Gumbo4x4]

And, there's a part of me just cynical enough to believe this is exactly why the NRA and manufacturers are against ANY law that regulates guns in any way shape or form. It gets their base all stirred up if they say "they are coming for your guns, better buy more quick" and then people buy more. If they agreed that SOME reasonable restrictions are ok, and maybe even make sense, it just doesn't have the same ring to it and isn't going to incite people into thinking us "anti-gunners" (as you call us...I am NOT anti-gun, just FOR some common sense) want all their guns.

I don't know, guess it just depends on your point of view. The Gun Owners of America consider the NRA "sell outs" because of compromises like:

Agreeing to all but outlaw full autos in McClure/Volkmer.

Designing & agreeing to the current background check system.

Brokering the deal that pulled the KTM bullet off the civilian market.

So, while the NRA doesn't often compromise, there have been occasions. And they have for almost a decade now been the champion of better reporting on disqualified individuals by the states.

And let's face it, the last major bill that was shot down did in fact reach a lot further than just boosting background checks. Plus, the anti-gun side has been just as inflexible. It's not like they've offered anything to the pro gun side. Instead of saying, "hey, here's 8 new restrictions on law abiding gun owners, take it or leave it", why not, "hey, here's 3 new restrictions and 2 things that benefit you in exchange"?

 

[Gumbo4x4]

See, personally, I would like to see liability placed on the gun owner for deaths and injuries caused by their weapons....just like cars. If a car I own is involved in in accident, my insurance pays even if I wasn't driving. Should be the same for guns. If a gun you own causes a death (and it wasn't justifiable or the injured party's fault), instant liability to you. To escape liability because the gun was "stolen", there would have to be a report that the weapon was, in fact, stolen.

I think this would cause people to be very careful with their guns, and to make sure they weren't where people could get them (you know, the kids shooting other kids and that sort of thing).

I don't know that that isn't the case today already. I would think a case of carelessness could result in a lawsuit.

Now, the stolen thing you probably have a point. It's a little fuzzy though because it's not like gun owners necessarily take daily inventory. But, I would guess under 99% of circumstances, if a gun is gone, more than likely so is your TV. So, you're probably going to know. So all in all, I can agree here.

 

[wishesuponastar]

You don't duck hunt with a rifle, you don't turkey hunt with a pistol, you can't "plink" with a deer rifle like you can a .22, you can't conceal/carry a long gun. Guns have intrinsic value, are family heirlooms, antiques, and so many other reasons. You are probably from somewhere that people only associates guns with crime, where I'm from that's low on the list

Thank you, that makes it clearer why people have several guns.

 

[wishesuponastar]

.