Active-shooting incident reported at community college in Oregon

[Squire]

If you really care about your gun rights, then get active in trying to solve some of the problem above that get ignored in favor of the "quick fix" (doesn't fix a thing) gun control law du jour. All I ever see here is "that's their problem, not my problem". Well it IS your problem. Because those problems are WHY your 2nd amendment rights are under attack.

If the Bloomberg money called off the attack on Rights once and for all (drop this background check bullshit that does no good, repeal AWB, repeal GFZ, drop this "regulate ammo" side-show, etc.), and called a truce with the NRA, think about all the lobbying money that could be spent on your societal problems (which were succinctly and well articulated).

Gun rights DEFENDERS are on the defense here. Statist gun grabbers are on offense. Who is in a better position to focus on the societal problems, when the "gun lobby" is simply fending off attacks?

 

[bigblue]

Fixing American society as I already said, as it is at the root of most of the problems. End the war on drugs, etc. Again, I said this.

Your "solution" to a problem is to create moar problems? "Fixing American society"??? You seriously wrote that with a straight face? Are you bleeding out your ears?


I've seen a lot of patience in this thread but you continue to slam your forehead against a brick wall.


Nothing you have written will stop a person from going off their rocker and killing people.


President John F. Kennedy said, "Anyone can kill a president. All he has to do is be willing to trade his life for the president's."


The same holds true for any other murder.

 

[ChevyGuy91]

There are things you can do to stop plenty from doing them. Will it stop all? No, but it can stop some. Doing nothing but going "Oh just wait for them to happen and defend yourself" isn't a solution.

Dude, you can't stop bad people from doing bad things. Being able to defend yourself IS the only option you have to stop these kind of things from happening.

Christ, Tim McVeigh killed 168 people with a truck and a pile of shit, we are actually really lucky these mush heads, beta-males if you will, are so lazy and not that creative.

 

[In God We Trust]

I have no issue with universal background checks. At face value it kind of makes sense. If they really want "compromise" I'll trade them that for constitutional carry


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Squire]

I have no issue with universal background checks. At face value it kind of makes sense. If they really want "compromise" I'll trade them that for constitutional carry

That might get you Constitutional Carry for 2 years before they repeal it and leave the Background Checks.

Don't you realize how Big Government Statism works? It's trench warfare, and it's virtually impossible to take back Rights once they are surrendered.

 

[bigblue]

I have no issue with universal background checks. At face value it kind of makes sense. If they really want "compromise" I'll trade them that for constitutional carry


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No.

UBC is the first step to cataloging all guns and putting gun owners on a list. It may seem like fine for a MA resident who already deals with it but how about the other 40 states?

 

[Cabinetman]

As I was eating my lunch today, I was flipping channels and came across "The View", a chatty-Cathy tv show with a bunch of whiny women interviewing someone. Today what caught my eye was Dr. Carson being peppered with questions.

The discussion of what to do had Carson suggest that some of the employees of the school carry handguns after being properly trained. Ok, cool idea.

The one woman on the panel says, " I don't want to have to live like that!". Therein lies the issue. The people out in lala land suffer from normalcy bias and want everything to go back to the 'good 'ol days'. Unfortunately that ain't gonna happen and if it means that some teachers carry in the classroom, so be it. Better than than these ludicrous 'gun free zones' that guarantee complacency and easy soft targets.

Carson did very well, btw. Frankly, so did his wife who also was asked some questions.

Rome

 

[atilla]

I have no issue with universal background checks. At face value it kind of makes sense. If they really want "compromise" I'll trade them that for constitutional carry


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

bruh. no.

 

[modernhamlet]

No.

UBC is the first step to cataloging all guns and putting gun owners on a list. It may seem like fine for a MA resident who already deals with it but how about the other 40 states?

How would you suggest we address volume purchases by straw buyers or direct distribution by corrupt dealers that go directly to the black market?

 

[ChevyGuy91]

How would you suggest we address volume purchases by straw buyers or direct distribution by corrupt dealers that go directly to the black market?

It is already illegal to do all of this.

 

[bigblue]

As I was eating my lunch today, I was flipping channels and came across "The View", a chatty-Cathy tv show with a bunch of whiny women interviewing someone. Today what caught my eye was Dr. Carson being peppered with questions.

The discussion of what to do had Carson suggest that some of the employees of the school carry handguns after being properly trained. Ok, cool idea.

The one woman on the panel says, " I don't want to have to live like that!". Therein lies the issue. The people out in lala land suffer from normalcy bias and want everything to go back to the 'good 'ol days'. Unfortunately that ain't gonna happen and if it means that some teachers carry in the classroom, so be it. Better than than these ludicrous 'gun free zones' that guarantee complacency and easy soft targets.

Carson did very well, btw. Frankly, so did his wife who also was asked some questions.

Rome

Even the "good ole days" weren't good. The most deadly school killing in the US was in the 30's.

Whack jobs gonna whack.

Focus on the problems that we are able to solve not these fairy tales.

- - - Updated - - -

How would you suggest we address volume purchases by straw buyers or direct distribution by corrupt dealers that go directly to the black market?

As Ed stated, all of these are currently illegal.

Perhaps the .gov should work on prosecuting those weapon charges and collecting MORE weapons than they give out. <cough> <cough>

 

[Jsfitzgerald85]

How would you suggest we address volume purchases by straw buyers or direct distribution by corrupt dealers that go directly to the black market?

since when does Congress pass laws that affect the ATF? This wont change.

 

[bill o]

How would you suggest we address volume purchases by straw buyers or direct distribution by corrupt dealers that go directly to the black market?

Enforce the laws that already make this illegal? Or not, I don't care.

 

[modernhamlet]

As Ed stated, all of these are currently illegal.

Perhaps the .gov should work on prosecuting those weapon charges and collecting MORE weapons than they give out. <cough> <cough>

What do you think is preventing this today? Why is it that most of the illegal handguns (and it's almost always handguns) involved in Chicago shootings come from the same few sources just outside of Chicago? Why is it that the gov can't nail these evil people?

 

[kevin9]

My position is actually reasonable, and the debates are extreme and the evidence is right here in this thread that if you are for anything other than no restrictions you're a statist. How am I framing it that way when people are clearly stating it as such?

Again, you have argued for more restrictions on gun ownership. That is what the vast majority of people here find to be absolutely unreasonable and illogical, particularly given adverse effects of restrictions like gun-free zones.

That isn't a nirvana argument, again, because it's true and goes straight to the argument that more/everyone being armed will stop these events from happening. So it directly responds to something people state repeatedly.

Can one argue with the fact that if Chris Mintz had been armed the shooting would have stopped sooner? Of course not. How does the supposed (I say supposed because I haven't seen it reported anywhere yet) fact that "there was a carrier on the grounds during the Oregon shooting" who was not able to stop the shooter invalidate in any way the point that more people carrying would have increased the odds that the shooter would have been stopped sooner? It doesn't. This argument you're making is not logical.

None of my arguments are inconsistent with any of the others. At all. You may just be having a hard time understanding them, though they are pretty straightforward.

I understand exactly what you are trying to say in each of your arguments. I and others have pointed out where each one of them is flawed and/or inapplicable (ex. children might get a gun and shoot someone). The lack of understanding is not on our end.

I asked what do we do to stop these events and got numerous non-answers like "Shoot them" or "arm everyone" and I addressed the issues with those. There are no logical fallacies there at all. You're just seeing what you want to see, and putting on the blinders.

You have responded, yes, but you have refuted nothing. For example, "Shoot them" is actually a very valid and cogent response which you have not even addressed. Why can't they be shot? Eliminating gun-free zones is another that you have not responded to.

Last time I say it, your argument appears to be we need more restrictions on gun ownership, not less, so how much more would be good. That's doubling down on failure, an illogical, non-starter. I think it fair to say that vast majority of people here find your starting point offensive. You're free to state it, but don't expect hugs and kisses until you actually show some evidence of listening to the counter-points and changing your mind.

 

[atilla]

How would you suggest we address volume purchases by straw buyers or direct distribution by corrupt dealers that go directly to the black market?

you mean like when the DoJ and ATF allowed these purchases to be made? and then allowed these guns to go to the cartels in mexico?

this same government you trust to enforce what's currently on the books (they don't), and that you trust to enact new legislation--which somehow will make things better?

craaaaaaaaaaack piiiiiiiiiiiipe.

 

[modernhamlet]

Enforce the laws that already make this illegal? Or not, I don't care.

You don't care until they use it as an excuse to take more of our rights away...

 

[bill o]

What do you think is preventing this today? Why is it that most of the illegal handguns (and it's almost always handguns) involved in Chicago shootings come from the same few sources just outside of Chicago? Why is it that the gov can't nail these evil people?

Well it's government, so corruption, incompetence. Some combination of the two?

- - - Updated - - -

You don't care until they use it as an excuse to take more of our rights away...

Your concern trolling is noted.

 

[Squire]

How would you suggest we address volume purchases by straw buyers or direct distribution by corrupt dealers that go directly to the black market?

You mean, people committing crimes?

You can't stop crime by making it harder for non-criminals to not commit crime.

 

[soam]

How would you suggest we address volume purchases by straw buyers or direct distribution by corrupt dealers that go directly to the black market?

How about by enforcing the laws we already have?

Have you seen the numbers on enforcement of perjury violations on the 4473 (the Federal form you fill out for a background check when you buy a gun)?

About 0.1% of violations are referred for prosecution. Despite the fact that the people who filled out the forms committed perjury, and also demonstrated clear intent to obtain a firearm illegally. How many of those people do you think subsequently get a gun through some other channel?

Note that these numbers don't include people who truthfully answered "Yes" on one of the disqualifiying items and were denied by the dealer. Those don't even get called into NICS since the dealer just tells the person "sorry bub, can't sell to you" and sends them on their way. They only include people who lied on the form and were denied when the dealer called in the check to NICS (e.g. they said "No" to the "Are you a convicted felon?" question and they actually are a convicted felon).

Here's a link to a PDF of the stats from 2010, the most recent year I could find: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/239272.pdf

 

[ChevyGuy91]

What do you think is preventing this today? Why is it that most of the illegal handguns (and it's almost always handguns) involved in Chicago shootings come from the same few sources just outside of Chicago? Why is it that the gov can't nail these evil people?

The point is the existing laws do not prevent people who want to shoot people with guns from getting guns. So what makes you think more laws would make them all of a sudden start abiding by the new laws up until the point they shoot people. Which is also illegal, just in case you forgot.

 

[modernhamlet]

http://america.aljazeera.com/watch/...22/why-does-chicagohavesomanyillegalguns.html

Tracing an illegal gun is hard, because once it is sold on the private market in what’s called a straw purchase, the gun often no longer has a paper trail.

If I can legally buy a duffle bag full of handguns at an Indiana gun show without there being any record of the purchase, then drive to Chicago and sell them on the street, then clearly the laws aren't adequate...

 

[ChevyGuy91]

http://america.aljazeera.com/watch/...22/why-does-chicagohavesomanyillegalguns.html

Tracing an illegal gun is hard, because once it is sold on the private market in what’s called a straw purchase, the gun often no longer has a paper trail.

You don't say?

 

[bill o]

http://america.aljazeera.com/watch/...22/why-does-chicagohavesomanyillegalguns.html

That is the funniest thing I have read all day. Thank you.

 

[atilla]

http://america.aljazeera.com/watch/...22/why-does-chicagohavesomanyillegalguns.html

omgnowai.

dude did you read any of the posts shooting (lulz oh no gun violence) your talking points down?

are you just here to stir shit? do you even own a firearm? do you know which end the projectiles exit from?

 

[bigblue]

http://america.aljazeera.com/watch/...22/why-does-chicagohavesomanyillegalguns.html

Take a look at the prosecution rates of felons with gun crimes. If you don't want felons shooting guns, wouldn't it make sense to prosecute them?

 

[Squire]

The point is the existing laws do not prevent people who want to shoot people with guns from getting guns. So what makes you think more laws would make them all of a sudden start abiding by the new laws up until the point they shoot people. Which is also illegal, just in case you forgot.

This. If every firearm was confiscated from every American in the U.S., the only statistics that would go down would be accidents and suicides. The criminals would get guns (even the nut-jobs who commit mass murder) as easily as they could get a bag of cocaine smuggled in from Mexico, which was given to them by the ATF.

 

[bigblue]

omgnowai.

dude did you read any of the posts shooting (lulz oh no gun violence) your talking points down?

are you just here to stir shit? do you even own a firearm? do you know which end the projectiles exit from?

He doesn't actually own one, he wants to buy one so take that at face value...

 

[atilla]

He doesn't actually own one, he wants to buy one so take that at face value...

probably going to post about it on his blog, "the day i purchased a murder-kill instrument".

my hands were warm and sweating as i held the pen, obviously stolen from a bank, while i filled out what is commonly known as "the form", the ATF 4473 form that you have to fill out when purchasing a gun from a dealer. this process however is completely side-stepped at gun shows across the united states...

 

[Pete85]

Agreed, but this does nothing to prevent shootings by anyone who is planning to kill but just hasn't done it yet.

How do you intend to prevent someone "who is planning to kill but just hasn't done it yet" from doing so? How do you identify that person before they're walking in with a gun, bomb, knife, poison gas, or biological weapon and imminently about to start their killing? If you can't identify them, you can't stop them. We aren't living in the Philip K. Dick world where we'd have the pre-cogs who can see a murder before it happens. There is no pre-crime here. Even when the government has someone under surveillance for two years prior to the attack, they're unable (or unwilling) to stop it, just like we saw with the marathon bombing. Even when someone has to go through extensive security screening, determined people are still able to get weapons through, like we saw with the shoe bomber and the underwear bomber.

Laws aren't written to prevent crimes from occurring. Laws are simply a mechanism that is used to punish someone after the fact. Some people may look at the punishment they face if they get caught and decide it's not worth the risk to commit their crime, but our prisons are full of people who were not prevented from committing their crimes by the laws.