15 confirmed dead so far in Oregon college shooting

osarusan

BoatMad wrote: »

no because you cannot actually offer up thats is 50% or 30% or any-percent so I wont dignify it with an answer.

I'm looking at solutions that stop all kids being targeted by nut-jobs in a classroom

You are suggesting " length of string" debates to simply place me in a certain box that suits your debate

I dont believe that short of an almost total ban on all firearms and a virtual war to remove illegal held and acquired firearms , that tinkering with US gun laws would make any significant difference

Tinker away all you like, however, Im not debating lengths of string as I have no data to do so.

You said it may make shootings less lethal - but you don't think that it is worthwhile to do so?

asherbassad

MadYaker wrote: »

Yeah it's tragic but I don't think any gun laws will change at a federal level. The NRA have too much power in congress. If Sandy Hook wasn't enough to bring about change then nothing will, strange they were able to take the guy alive, normally the people who do this want to die in process. I wonder would he be of Arabic descent and what his motives were?

It makes you wonder that they could take this guy alive yet Tamir Rice and Michael Brown had to be "taken out" because they posed such a threat. This guys had already whacked a dozen people and was armed to the teeth. I guess he wasn't "reaching for his waistband"

Witcher

asherbassad wrote: »

It makes you wonder that they could take this guy alive

Which guy?

BoatMad

osarusan wrote: »

You said it may make shootings less lethal - but you don't think that it is worthwhile to do so?

yes I dont know either thats 5% or 95% less lethal, personally , shooting him on the steps of the school is likely to be 100% less lethal for the kids

BoatMad

asherbassad wrote: »

It makes you wonder that they could take this guy alive yet Tamir Rice and Michael Brown had to be "taken out" because they posed such a threat. This guys had already whacked a dozen people and was armed to the teeth. I guess he wasn't "reaching for his waistband"

lets not mix up too entirely different situations

osarusan

BoatMad wrote: »

yes I dont know either thats 5% or 95% less lethal, personally , shooting him on the steps of the school is likely to be 100% less lethal for the kids

And what if the nutjob gets past the security guard?


I don't understand why you are so focused on a one-pronged approach only. You advocate armed security in schools - would you not prefer that the armed security guard in the school was faced with a nutjob holding a less powerful weapon instead of a more powerful one?

osarusan

I think it is absolutely baffling that, in your arguments for how dangerous nutjobs should be stopped from shooting up schools, you don't see any place for restricting the kind of weapons that these nutjobs have access to in the first place.

It makes no sense at all to me.

asherbassad

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Said it before, say it again if you want to own a gun in the States you should have to do a mandatory number of hours a month community service guarding Schools/Colleges.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Toby, as always puts it best.

The Constitution is cherry-picked to suit the nutters...just like the Bible.

They quote the 4th Amendment like it was sacrosanct yet shrug their shoulders or actively encourage breaching other amendments/sections like unreasonable search and seizure, cruel and unusual punishment, etc.

steddyeddy

BoatMad wrote: »

yes I dont know either thats 5% or 95% less lethal, personally , shooting him on the steps of the school is likely to be 100% less lethal for the kids

And not traumatic at all for the kids. I would prefer a solution that reduced the chance of a shoot out in front of kids.

Penn

"There have been 20 attacks lately where the attacker has thrown ninja throwing stars at innocent people? Should we restrict access to ninja throwing stars?"
"Hell naw, son! Let's just have people with their own ninja throwing stars ready to defend against those guys! Problem solved. I'm taking an early lunch."

The National Ninja Throwing Stars Association.

BoatMad

asherbassad wrote: »

The Constitution is cherry-picked to suit the nutters...just like the Bible.

They quote the 4th Amendment like it was sacrosanct yet shrug their shoulders or actively encourage breaching other amendments/sections like unreasonable search and seizure, cruel and unusual punishment, etc.

of course you know better that SCOTUS i see.

asherbassad

Strider wrote: »

Which guy?

I stand corrected. I didn't realise he was killed.

Little CuChulainn

BoatMad wrote: »

no because you cannot actually offer up thats is 50% or 30% or any-percent so I wont dignify it with an answer. ( thats the gun technicalities debate in another form)

I'm looking at solutions that stop all kids being targeted by nut-jobs in a classroom

You are suggesting " length of string" debates to simply place me in a certain box that suits your debate

I dont believe that short of an almost total ban on all firearms and a virtual war to remove illegal held and acquired firearms , that tinkering with US gun laws would make any significant difference

Tinker away all you like, however, Im not debating lengths of string as I have no data to do so.

How would your solution work in practice?

asherbassad wrote: »

It makes you wonder that they could take this guy alive yet Tamir Rice and Michael Brown had to be "taken out" because they posed such a threat. This guys had already whacked a dozen people and was armed to the teeth. I guess he wasn't "reaching for his waistband"

I appreciate you may be desperate to make this a race issue but could you clarify exactly who was taken alive?

BoatMad

osarusan wrote: »

I think it is absolutely baffling that, in your arguments for how dangerous nutjobs should be stopped from shooting up schools, you don't see any place for restricting the kind of weapons that these nutjobs have access to in the first place.

It makes no sense at all to me.

you mis-characterise my argument,

based on the current interpretation by SCOTUS of the constitution, the ability of states to make serious changes in the nature of what an individual can own is very severely limited.

Im all in favour of background checks, cooling off periods and banning the sale of firearms in open markets etc . many states have such laws ( or had)

But in reality this does nothing to change what a nut-job will get his hands on. he will still be able to get access to " ordinary" high powered semi or magazine loaded bolt actions and any of these is incredibly lethal in an enclosed class room


in the absence of changes to the constitution the immediate solution is to keep kids safe in schools, there is only one way to try an accomplish that, and that is the presence of armed protection in schools.

BoatMad

BoatMad wrote: »

of course you know better that SCOTUS i see.

Given that the judges decide 90% of the time on party lines I find it laughable to claim they make their decisions based on knowledge and that us mere mortals can't question them.

asherbassad

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The National Guard is the Militia period. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903

See also this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792 for how far back congress had complete control of previous militias


The US has a Navy bigger than the next 17 combined. So the only threat from invasion would be go through Canada or Mexico and you'd still have to travel across an ocean to get to them (yes Canada did burn down the White House back in 1814 but that was only because the US invaded first). There is no need for a private citizens paramilitary group.

I think the idea was to NOT have a standing army as Jefferson, et al. saw how it could be used for imperialism abroad and tyranny at home.

No change there then.

BoatMad

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

How would your solution work in practice?
?

evidence has shown on planes in airports and other walks of life in the USA, is that the immediate presence of armed response personnel, deters and prevents gun violence of the nature we are seeing.

yes its a retrograde step, exposing kids to arms, but in the US, kids used to bring there 0.22 to school to go shooting rabbits afterwards, so I dont think it will be a big culture shock.

I would actually use armed soldiers or national guardsmen in the immediate future until a more fully trained school police force should be brought to bear.

I would include other school security policies like fully locked down schools and other procedures, many which are already in place.

LeinsterDub

BoatMad wrote: »

evidence has shown on planes in airports and other walks of life in the USA, is that the immediate presence of armed response personnel, deters and prevents gun violence of the nature we are seeing.

yes its a retrograde step, exposing kids to arms, but in the US, kids used to bring there 0.22 to school to go shooting rabbits afterwards, so I dont think it will be a big culture shock.

I would actually use armed soldiers or national guardsmen in the immediate future until a more fully trained school police force should be brought to bear.

I would include other school security policies like fully locked down schools and other procedures, many which are already in place.

So Americans need guns to stop a government over reaching and creating a police state and in order to protect everyone from all the people with guns America should create a police state?

BoatMad

Deleted User wrote: »

Given that the judges decide 90% of the time on party lines I find it laughable to claim they make their decisions based on knowledge and that us mere mortals can't question them.

gun law in the US has been challenged and subjected to more inspection then most things in the US. there have been constant referrals to the federal and state court system by both sides.

to suggest therefor that you know better then this process is ridiculous.


The constitution has been determined that you have the right to bear arms to defend yourself. all else flows from that , the militia argument was well and truly overturned.

to effect significant gun control in the US, like for example to ban handguns, you will need to modify the constitution, the legislator can do very little ( that it hasn't already done in many states ). thats a fact of life,

within that fact of life , we need effective solutions not dreams

BoatMad

LeinsterDub wrote: »

So Americans need guns to stop a government over reaching and creating a police state and in order to protect everyone from all the people with guns America should create a police state?

never mentioned anything about a police state

BoatMad

BoatMad wrote: »

gun law in the US has been challenged and subjected to more inspection then most things in the US. there have been constant referrals to the federal and state court system by both sides.

to suggest therefor that you know better then this process is ridiculous.


The constitution has been determined that you have the right to bear arms to defend yourself. all else flows from that , the militia argument was well and truly overturned.

to effect significant gun control in the US, like for example to ban handguns, you will need to modify the constitution, the legislator can do very little ( that it hasn't already done in many states ). thats a fact of life,

within that fact of life , we need effective solutions not dreams

So is it the supreme court or the "process" I don't know better than?
When decisions along the process are made depending on which party managed to stack the courts to their liking it's hard to believe that the judges and decisions are made based on an impartial understanding of the law on their part and that just maybe they're biased since they split so often on party lines. Well, unless one just wants to believe that that's the case because their recent decisions suit one's own starting position.

BoatMad

Deleted User wrote: »

So is it the supreme court or the "process" I don't know better than?
When decisions along the process are made depending on which party managed to stack the courts to their liking it's hard to believe that the judges and decisions are made based on an impartial understanding of the law on their part and that just maybe they're biased since they split so often on party lines. Well, unless one just wants to believe that that's the case because their recent decisions suit one's own starting position.

FFS, more conspiracy nut-jobs, no point here

if you want to read one of the key decisions that overturned many regulations and affirmed the right to bear arms ( only as late as 2008)

read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

asherbassad

MadsL wrote: »

I see you are back on usual form, starting out with insulting people in your first post in this thread.

Well you have to be fundamentally unsound of mind to either want to kill people or to think that you are perpetually in danger.

Snickers Man

Here's David Jacks, the owner of the Roseburg Beacon, talking on Newstalk this morning. The Beacon is a local newspaper for the area in which the college is located.



His interview starts a few minutes into this clip. But if you'd rather not wade through it, here's a fairly verbatim transcript of what he said in response to the question "What do people there think of President Obama's comments?"

"The sentiment where we are is the president is very inappropriate in the timing of his remarks. We believe that the focus ought to be right now on the grieving families and meeting their needs.

I think for him to take a cheap political shot right now is an embarrassment to the nation and I don’t think that any strengthening…..we have thousands of gun laws on the books and it’s illegal by the way in Roseburg, Oregon to walk into a classroom and murder people in cold blood. That’s illegal.

And you know to add an additional law would not have prevented this. I think the President is demagoguing the issue and several of us hope that he doesn’t come to our community for more grandstanding."


So no recommendations or suggestions about measures that might improve the situation, from either the gun lobby or the pro-regulation people. That's "politicising the issue". And of course, this can't ever be considered as a political issue.

asherbassad

MadsL wrote: »

Errrm....

https://www.google.com/search?q=oregon+swat+teams

Why are they wearing jungle warfare camouflage?
I thought the idea of camouflage was to obscure your presence?

BoatMad

asherbassad wrote: »

Why are they wearing jungle warfare camouflage?
I thought the idea of camouflage was to obscure your presence?

they also have black and blue uniforms as well

if they are operating in oregon ( a rural state) I suspect the camo is useful


and its not jungle camp

looks like US universal camo - i.e. UCP

Wompa1

Snickers Man wrote: »

.

Well, talk about a change of tone. The editor became incandescent. The timing of his comments were inappropriate. The first priority must be the victims and their needs. Obama's politicising the issue and frankly he's an embarrassment. It's a cheap political stunt what he did. We don't need any more laws. You know it's already illegal to shoot several people in a university dead in America, right? Many people hope he doesn't come to visit. Etc Etc

So if this man's views are representative of people in Oregon it seems that the only appropriate response is more sympathy for the victims and whatever you do, even if you're the president, do not make any suggestions or proposals that might actually do something to lessen the chances of this happening again. (You can never guarantee against it happening) That's "politicising the issue".

In Obamas speech he said that would happen, he even specifically said he would be accused of 'politicizing' the issue for his own agenda. Many Americans seem to lack the power of critical thinking...they listen to the soundbytes from both sides and pick one..they don't analyze a situation and measure the human side of things. It's one of the most retarded democracies on the planet.

It really is just a dog and pony show and I wouldn't be surprised if there's actually just one party and they conspire to put out two extremes to allow people to argue amongst themselves over BS that doesn't matter to those in charge. While those in charge make money by using US citizens and treat them like the dopes that many of them are.

Another issue is conditioning. I was driving to a shop last night and f'ckin Ryan Seacrest has a syndicated show. He started talking about the 'Good news stories of the day'...every morning there's a local radio show that does the same thing with a crappy little jingle and all "Tell me something good"....that was on last night after citizens were gunned down in a college! That local show still ran with that bit when there was a guy shooting into the f'kin freeway! Maybe stop pretending like everything is f'cking amazing!! People should be very concerned!!

My fiancé grew up here. Her attitude is, yeah, well, it's a lot worse in other countries. I just tell her, if you're comparing the supposed greatest nation on earth to war torn third world countries than be my guest but I know that you know this place is a sh1t sandwich

zeffabelli

BoatMad wrote: »

evidence has shown on planes in airports and other walks of life in the USA, is that the immediate presence of armed response personnel, deters and prevents gun violence of the nature we are seeing.

yes its a retrograde step, exposing kids to arms, but in the US, kids used to bring there 0.22 to school to go shooting rabbits afterwards, so I dont think it will be a big culture shock.

I would actually use armed soldiers or national guardsmen in the immediate future until a more fully trained school police force should be brought to bear.

I would include other school security policies like fully locked down schools and other procedures, many which are already in place.

You know this sounds pretty close to martial law?

You cannot be serious offerring this as a solution?

BoatMad

amongst certain sections Obama is deeply disliked. he has been deeply ineffectual based on his own promises . so we can park that one

Yes the US is a big place and most dont know whats happening in the next state , never mind outside the country

all of this has little to do with the issue at hand though

The Randy Riverbeast

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

NRA will block any tighter controls, gun nuts will argue they need more fire power to defend against god knows who launching a precinct 13 style siege on their homes.

Think it's meant to be the government trying to take their guns. Ironically.