Active-shooting incident reported at community college in Oregon

edmorseiii said:
The 2nd Amendment is always under attack because .gov does not want us to be armed. These shootings are just convenient happenings to twist people into accepting that fact under the guise of safety. Fortunately, the majority of the US isn't buying it anymore, regardless of what you guys may think.
Click to expand...

Exactly this. This is why the issue of "assault rifles/weapons" keeps getting brought up regardless of whether the latest shooting involved a rifle or not.
 
jibbr71 said:
I'ma qouted this again, because I'm a mouth breather who can't remember what he's already posted.

I kinda wish they'd stop with all the bullshit and do this already. Call a convention and repeal the 2nd amendment. If this is inevitable, then let's get the party started, so I can either die at the hands of someone trying to take my guns and the rest of my civil liberties, or squash the idea and have the possibility of raising my kid in a free society.
Click to expand...

They'll never get Congress to repeal the 2nd Amendment and I would WELCOME a Constitutional Convention. Because I can almost guarantee you'd get a revision of the 2nd Amendment that clears up any misunderstandings we currently have about it. And as a bonus you'd likely get the following: Term limits. Campaign finance reform. Bans on gay marriage AND abortion. The left only has weak bonds of "groups" to rally people to the polls. The right has all the churches. Anyone who thinks that the Catholic and Mormon churches along with every other brand of church isn't going to rally their members to go vote for these things? I can't f&cking wait for that to happen. I am not gay and I am not a woman so those issues mean nothing to me. I say that because a lot of people say "i don't have guns, so it doesn't impact me and I am told you shouldn't have them either".

But because you'd get all those things...an Article 5 Constitutional Convention will never happen. They tried for 20 odd years to get enough states to apply for one to pass the Balanced Budget Amendment. I think some of those applications are still active. They got 32 of 35 needed to make it happen. Please, please let's have another one. I'd be all over that sh!t.
 
modernhamlet said:
I'm still here. And I'm trying to educate myself on the issue. It's just hard to learn when 2/3rds of the conversation involves mouthbreathers with... limited capacity... claiming some sort of intellectual superiority over me.
Click to expand...

[rolleyes] In liberalspeak, mouthbreather= someone who has a different opinion. I havent read through the entire thread yet. How many people have you declared to be "ignorant" so far?
 
Johnny English said:
The criminals have plenty of guns in the UK, thank you, and use them regularly.

The handgun ban of 1997 didn't magically cut handgun homicides. UK Home Office statistics show that they increased after everyone was supposed to hand in their nasty killy things.

Screen+Shot+2012-12-22+at++Saturday,+December+22,+9.26+PM.png
Click to expand...

Ohh. Graphs!
Here is one for you. Australian Suicides from 1921 to 2009. Note the big red arrow, that is 1996 when they confiscated guns from private citizens. This tells you two things

1) The 88 a day/30k a year from "gun violence" is 2/3's suicides. The logic is that if there are no guns, there will be fewer suicides.
2) In Australia, following their complete gun ban, suicides went up and certainly didn't drop to zero and are in fact since 2009 almost at 1996 levels. All with pretty much no guns in the hands of private citizens.

 
stacarter said:
Ohh. Graphs!
Here is one for you. Australian Suicides from 1921 to 2009. Note the big red arrow, that is 1996 when they confiscated guns from private citizens. This tells you two things

1) The 88 a day/30k a year from "gun violence" is 2/3's suicides. The logic is that if there are no guns, there will be fewer suicides.
2) In Australia, following their complete gun ban, suicides went up and certainly didn't drop to zero and are in fact since 2009 almost at 1996 levels. All with pretty much no guns in the hands of private citizens.

Click to expand...

What happened between '48 and '55? We should do that here.
 
Missing data from the source data. To do that here you'd have to just ignore suicides. Which for the purposes of a discussion of the 2nd Amendment is EXACTLY what we should do. That chart shows you that suicides are an irrelevant statistic when associated with gun deaths. I hate, hate, hate that people call it "gun violence". We don't call is razor blade violence, we don't call it rope violence or pill violence. It is ludicrous. Especially when the CDC estimates that there are 25 times more suicide attempts than actual suicides. Sooo, 38k people commit suicide a year. 22k of those are gun related. 16k are not gun related. But the CDC number is based on the whole number. So 25 times 38,000 is what 900k ish suicide attempts a year regardless of outcome. But lets agree that using a gun probably has a higher rate of success. There is no being found in a puddle of blood or vomit with a chance to survive even say half the time. So no guns gets you a 20k reduction in successful suicides at best and you still have over 900k attempted suicides a year. I'd argue that if you told anyone there were 20k people with disease A and 900k with disease B they'd tell you...fix disease B first. Especially when removing disease A doesn't change disease B one bit.
 
At the end of the day, realize one thing: The gun debate almost always boils down to one's perception on the legitimate utility of firearms as compared to their misuse, whether that utility is for tangible (self-protection) or intangible (freedom) reasons.

Liberals don't think that guns have any other purpose other than to harm people. We think (and know) differently. Work backwards from there and you'll have all your answers.
 
If we're going to talk about banning things - why don't we start with talking about banning what the REAL problem is with the murder rate in this country:

(Pay attention to where he says the REAL problem is coming from)




So want to solve the murder rate and bring the US rate for murders down to like 200th place from 1st? We need a massive deportation scheme.

But nobody is going to want to talk about actually solving THAT problem - are they?

Want to REALLY look at where the problem lies with mass murders - then you've got to look at the one consistent thing that permeates pretty much every single mass murder: SSRI 's.


But again - nobody is going to want to talk about that - are they.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Originally Posted by modernhamlet
How would you suggest we address volume purchases by straw buyers or direct distribution by corrupt dealers that go directly to the black market?
Click to expand...

headednorth said:
I'd suggest actually prosecuting the people who are caught doing this and sending them to prison. Just for starters...

http://www.jsonline.com/news/crime/...n-gun-fraud-charge-b99560011z1-322283481.html
Click to expand...


I'd suggest stop believing in and repeating liberal talking points and lies.

Show me the evidence that straw buyers and guns "going to the black market" - is a REAL PROBLEM, and not just made-up bullshit.

We've got a FEDERAL background check system - are you trying to say that dealers are completely avoiding that? I find that extremely hard to believe.

I call bullshit on that entire claim.
 
calsdad said:
I'd suggest stop believing in and repeating liberal talking points and lies.

Show me the evidence that straw buyers and guns "going to the black market" - is a REAL PROBLEM, and not just made-up bullshit.

We've got a FEDERAL background check system - are you trying to say that dealers are completely avoiding that? I find that extremely hard to believe.

I call bullshit on that entire claim.
Click to expand...

My point was they had their straw buyer boogy man dropped right into their laps and the "we're super serious about doing SOMETHING" Fed gov sentenced him to ONE year of probation. I dont think straw buyers are where criminals are getting their guns for the most part.
 
OfficerObie59 said:
At the end of the day, realize one thing: The gun debate almost always boils down to one's perception on the legitimate utility of firearms as compared to their misuse, whether that utility is for tangible (self-protection) or intangible (freedom) reasons.
Click to expand...

Maybe I am picking nits, but I think it is more fundamental. I believe that I am responsible for my own safety and the protection of myself and my family. Other people believe that the government is responsible for my safety and the protection of my family. If I am responsible for the safety of my family, then I need to have appropriate tools to ensure that safety. Those tools should be equal to those that evil men would use against me or my family.

If the government is responsible, then I do not need any tools of any kind that may be used to protect my family since I am perfectly safe living in the safe environment provided by the government. If there should be an occasional outlier where someone should have their wives and children raped and killed, well, that is unfortunate, but the government is doing its best, and everyone should keep in mind that, generally speaking, they are safe. Except when they get raped and killed.

Carry on.
 
Rider said:
Maybe I am picking nits, but I think it is more fundamental. I believe that I am responsible for my own safety and the protection of myself and my family. Other people believe that the government is responsible for my safety and the protection of my family. If I am responsible for the safety of my family, then I need to have appropriate tools to ensure that safety. Those tools should be equal to those that evil men would use against me or my family.

If the government is responsible, then I do not need any tools of any kind that may be used to protect my family since I am perfectly safe living in the safe environment provided by the government. If there should be an occasional outlier where someone should have their wives and children raped and killed, well, that is unfortunate, but the government is doing its best, and everyone should keep in mind that, generally speaking, they are safe. Except when they get raped and killed.

Carry on.
Click to expand...

Definitely a sound argument. It places the burden on the person who can accept it or defer it to the government. I think most of us would agree that, with respect to self-defense, we would choose to take care of our own ourselves.
 
Rider said:
Maybe I am picking nits, but I think it is more fundamental. I believe that I am responsible for my own safety and the protection of myself and my family. Other people believe that the government is responsible for my safety and the protection of my family. If I am responsible for the safety of my family, then I need to have appropriate tools to ensure that safety. Those tools should be equal to those that evil men would use against me or my family.

If the government is responsible, then I do not need any tools of any kind that may be used to protect my family since I am perfectly safe living in the safe environment provided by the government. If there should be an occasional outlier where someone should have their wives and children raped and killed, well, that is unfortunate, but the government is doing its best, and everyone should keep in mind that, generally speaking, they are safe. Except when they get raped and killed.

Carry on.
Click to expand...

The anti-gun pro-government types keep saying over and over again that we don't need civilian ownership of guns because "the police are there to protect us".

Well - given that we've had quite a few of these mass murder situations I'd argue that the police and the government have had more than ample opportunity to demonstrate their ability to provide us with that protection they claim we should all give up our guns for.

WHERE THE **** IS IT?

We've got the NSA and all sorts of government agencies tracking our movements. We've got gun registration. We've got militarized police. SWAT teams. etc.

WHERE THE HELL IS THE PROTECTION?

This is very simple shit. If you want to sell somebody on something - then DEMONSTRATE IT. Want to sell somebody a fast car - then drag race the competition and WIN. Want to impress that hot girl you want to marry? Then demonstrate how much money you make and whatever else it is that impresses her. Want to get a raise at work - demonstrate competence.


Show me one single example where police have prevented a massacre - just ONE.
 
I've been following this thread for days and the volume of posts has been a little tough to keep up with so I apologize if this is a repeat.
I support the 2nd amendment BUT, if they are going to further infringe on my ability to protect myself and my family, I think they need to look at the root cause of the ills of our society. People that are too crazy to have guns also shouldn't be able to:
Vote, have children, speak publicly, be on juries, drive, be lawyers, etc.

If they are serious about protecting society from itself at the expense of liberty and freedom, fine, go all the way and at least be consistent for once.

Sure that group of excluded people will revolt, but I'm sure the police will there to protect the chosen ones...
 
rickinma said:
I've been following this thread for days and the volume of posts has been a little tough to keep up with so I apologize if this is a repeat.
I support the 2nd amendment BUT, if they are going to further infringe on my ability to protect myself and my family, I think they need to look at the root cause of the ills of our society. People that are too crazy to have guns also shouldn't be able to:
Vote, have children, speak publicly, be on juries, drive, be lawyers, etc.

If they are serious about protecting society from itself at the expense of liberty and freedom, fine, go all the way and at least be consistent for once.

Sure that group of excluded people will revolt, but I'm sure the police will there to protect the chosen ones...
Click to expand...


We, as a country, actually went the route of regulating procreation once. Three generations of imbeciles and all. Pretty much everything you sarcastically suggest has literally been tried at one time or another so your statements aren't quite as unpossible as you would like to believe.
 
rickinma said:
Cool. So let's admit it is a failure and stop blaming tools and trying to control people? Why isn't the other side getting this?
Click to expand...

The other side gets it just fine, they just don't care. This game is about control, not preventing violence or fixing society's issues.
 
edmorseiii said:
The other side gets it just fine, they just don't care. This game is about control, not preventing violence or fixing society's issues.
Click to expand...

A friend of mine, who happens to be a therapist of the mental kind, suggested that antis want gun control because they don't trust themselves with guns. The train of thought goes that they don't trust us with guns because they don't trust themselves.

Idk, he has seen a lot of these moonbats & head cases up close so I kind defer to him a certain amount.
 
I'm not a shrink, but in my opinion there are two types of people. Those who believe that it is their responsibility to protect themselves and their families, and those who think its the government's job to do that. Most (probably all) of us are in the first camp. Those in the second camp can't even fathom that responsibility yet want to impose their beliefs on the rest of us.
 
The absolute dumbest comment I read on social media today regarding this shooting/mass shootings in general:

"The south needs to split from the north because its totally people from the south who like guns and are a problem. We totally need a reverse civil war."

So you're suggesting another civil war, the first of which was the bloodiest in American history, that will be fought using gggg-guns, in order to stop so called gggg-gun violence? Progressives really amuse me.
 
bigblue said:
A friend of mine, who happens to be a therapist of the mental kind, suggested that antis want gun control because they don't trust themselves with guns. The train of thought goes that they don't trust us with guns because they don't trust themselves.

Idk, he has seen a lot of these moonbats & head cases up close so I kind defer to him a certain amount.
Click to expand...

Someone said it earlier, there are types of liberals, the evil and the ignorant. One wants to disarm for their own evil goals, the other believes the lies the evil one tells.

Someone who is uncomfortable around guns likely falls into the ignorant catagory.
 
Rider said:
Maybe I am picking nits, but I think it is more fundamental. I believe that I am responsible for my own safety and the protection of myself and my family. Other people believe that the government is responsible for my safety and the protection of my family. If I am responsible for the safety of my family, then I need to have appropriate tools to ensure that safety. Those tools should be equal to those that evil men would use against me or my family.

If the government is responsible, then I do not need any tools of any kind that may be used to protect my family since I am perfectly safe living in the safe environment provided by the government. If there should be an occasional outlier where someone should have their wives and children raped and killed, well, that is unfortunate, but the government is doing its best, and everyone should keep in mind that, generally speaking, they are safe. Except when they get raped and killed.

Carry on.
Click to expand...

calsdad said:
The anti-gun pro-government types keep saying over and over again that we don't need civilian ownership of guns because "the police are there to protect us".

Well - given that we've had quite a few of these mass murder situations I'd argue that the police and the government have had more than ample opportunity to demonstrate their ability to provide us with that protection they claim we should all give up our guns for.

WHERE THE **** IS IT?

We've got the NSA and all sorts of government agencies tracking our movements. We've got gun registration. We've got militarized police. SWAT teams. etc.

WHERE THE HELL IS THE PROTECTION?

This is very simple shit. If you want to sell somebody on something - then DEMONSTRATE IT. Want to sell somebody a fast car - then drag race the competition and WIN. Want to impress that hot girl you want to marry? Then demonstrate how much money you make and whatever else it is that impresses her. Want to get a raise at work - demonstrate competence.


Show me one single example where police have prevented a massacre - just ONE.
Click to expand...

I must point out that SCOTUS has ruled multiple times that the police have zero legal requirement to protect you. Zero. None. Nada. Zip.

I've seen it argued that the police can literally watch a crime in progress and they are legally able to walk away.

The anti's don't even want police to protect you. They just want to leave you completely defenseless against an evil person intent on doing harm. Because in their minds as long as you can't revolt against the government then their plans for communism cannot be challenged.

The anti's would rather see a woman raped than even entertain the thought that she could defend herself with a gun.
 

Similar threads

SD shooting in Chicopee, MA
Replies
1
Views
214
VTski4x4
VTski4x4
SWAT team responding to Arkansas shopping mall, police ask public to avoid the area: Officials called it “an incident that is active"
Replies
5
Views
228
TJ4
T
Washington school shooting: Students in lockdown at William Wiley Elementary as police rush to the scene
Replies
8
Views
380
CMEBoston
CMEBoston
Police responding to reported shooting at Joel Osteen's Lakewood Church in Houston
2
Replies
47
Views
2K
Reptile
Reptile
At least 3 injured in shooting at Southern California dental office
Replies
9
Views
254
Dadstoys
Dadstoys
Back
Top Bottom