15 confirmed dead so far in Oregon college shooting

Wompa1

gobsh!te wrote: »

If you strongly believe in something you need to speak up.

Whether I agree with you or not, you need to speak up and be another voice in the debate in the real world not just here on Boards

Kind of, sort of. I have a friend back in Ireland that will call the Gardai if he suspects somebody is drunk driving because he says he'd feel really bad if he found out there was a fatal accident and he didn't call.

It's odd...it depends on the dynamic for me. If it's my boss or whoever. I'd rather not start drama for myself. I would refuse the lift and suggest to others not to go. I'd encourage the boss or whoever to get a cab too..but I wouldn't go grabbing the keys away.

zeffabelli

MadsL wrote: »

That's laughable. Underage drinking and drunk driving not a problem in Ireland because of such restrictions huh?

http://www.irishcentral.com/news/irelands-dui-rate-among-highest-in-europe-new-study-shows-126616208-237403811.html

One of the highest rates in Europe (25th place) and three times higher than the European average.

It's the culture...

Same as the gun problem in the US...disease in the culture.

pmasterson95

MadsL wrote: »

That's laughable. Underage drinking and drunk driving not a problem in Ireland because of such restrictions huh?

http://www.irishcentral.com/news/irelands-dui-rate-among-highest-in-europe-new-study-shows-126616208-237403811.html

One of the highest rates in Europe (25th place) and three times higher than the European average.

Do you want to start a thread on Irish drinking? Or do you want to just divert this one since people arent bowing down to guns?

zeffabelli

Thing is it's not an equitable comparison.

Parent by law have to send their children to school.

Parents and children have a right to know their childhoods will be intact and not compromised by schools becoming a popular target.

My child's right to a safe childhood where he can go to school and not be scared of getting shot out weights your right to have a small Arsenal in your basement.

Manic Moran

zeffabelli wrote: »

My child's right to a safe childhood where he can go to school and not be scared of getting shot out weights your right to have a small Arsenal in your basement.

My child's right to a safe home outweighs your fear of your child getting shot at school. After all, the school can hire security.

Again, it's all a balance.

As an aside, one of my FB Friends lives in Roseburg, OR. His child was present, in another classroom (she was unharmed). He posted the following on his wall earlier today. There's one historical error, and I don't agree with all of it, but, hey, I don't chose my friends' opinions. This is his.

We are trying to heal today and this week. Many memorials.
DO NOT RESPOND TO MY POST WITH ANY NEGATIVE COMMENTS. I AM NOT IN THE MOOD.

THIS IS NOT A PRO GUN RANT, so keep reading. I am just angry, yet empathetic to all Americans' views on how to keep us free and safe. Many people from our area are angry right now. They say that we tried it your way. We tried to gun free campus. There was AND IS an enormous amount of love. So many parents are angry, screaming, crying. And it isn't because there were guns used. They are upset there weren't armed security. We have 350 million guns in the US and they will never go away. A well trained officer or soldier can use a pistol with a 10 round magazine to do as much damage as any assault rifle. The AR was developed by the army to hurt the enemy soldiers instead of killing them. Why? Because if an enemy soldier is wounded, it takes two other soldiers to carry him off the battlefield. The old 30-06 and .308 caliber bullets used previously were too devastating. A pistol's ammunition is incredibly more powerful. They use high power, expanding, extreme shock ammunition. The AR a .22 caliber solid metal bullet that tends to punch a little hole right through the target. The pistol will destroy that target. I only say this because of the uneducated, non gun people who think that removing certain guns will be the answer. I can shoot over 100 rounds out of a pistol, using 10 round magazines, in under 30 seconds including 10 reloads. It is harder to reload an assault rifle (I will use that word without apology-Assault rifle.)

I can buy every single part for every single gun made without any checks. The only part recorded is the lower receiver or receiver of any firearm. I can build a complete AR15 in under 20 minutes with a steak knife and $600. There will be no recordings because the receivers are mailed unfinished. You punch one hole on a drill press and now you have a fully operational, semi-auto pistol or FULLY auto machine gun. Easy as **** to do if you spend 5 minutes on Google.

The guns will not disappear. We do not have police service in some parts of our county for over an hour. I have used my pistol to protect my family, as a dad, not a cop or solider, two separate times. No shots were fired and the gang ran away the first time, and the drunks in a jeep chasing my family at 11pm up in the Umpqua Forest. Should we stay away from dangerous places like the mountains? Where is safe? Do we increase our tax base by 10% to put an officer in every school, church, mall or movie theater?

What about veterans. You have a well trained group of people who were trained to handle EXTREMELY stressful shooting incidents professionally and safely. We cannot be afraid. FEAR is what causes SO MUCH of the evil in this world. There will be no gun confiscation. There is no international conspiracy. Think about it. The top men who supposedly run the world...(laughing here) are all about what? What would they do to us? Slavery? Stop. They like money. Money is generated in a free society. If they enslave the people, how are they going to get money to buy the yachts? And furthermore, who gives a ****. Its not a contest. Let them have their money or whatever you are worried about. The largest armies in the world would not be able to strategically place a million foreign soldiers on our land. Now listen, we've got over 350 American's with guns. Right? How long do you think it will take for the 350 million American's to kill all of the invading soldiers if they grab their hunting rifles and head into the woods. We couldn't win a war in Vietnam like this, against an unarmed populace so why are we worried about our Government? Who is the government? Well, the police, sheriff and troopers are your freaking neighbor. Your kids play ball with their kids. They will never agree to take your guns. SECONDLY, if they were gong to do it, the internet will sound the alarm and the American populace would fight back. That will never happen. STOP WITH THE FEAR.

The only fear you should have is that of mentally disturbed people trying to hurt others. Raise our taxes and get these bastards in treatment before they kill your son or daughter. Its not your problem? Well when you are holding your dead child in your hand, you will understand, and you will scream at the guns... not realizing that the back up plan was $100 worth of pipes from Lowes and gunpowder from the sporting goods store. Would have been way more damage. Ask the beautiful people of Boston about bombs. Ask me. Lost soldiers to a bomb in Berlin. It sucked...BUT the Germans didn't have access to guns, so instead they blew the hell out of a bunch of innocents.

No, the type of gun is not the issue, but it certainly is easy for them to get. I support extended background checks. And we need a mental check along with the criminal check. PTSD vets, do not worry. Been through the system. The VA and government aren't going to take your guns. I understand your fear of being defenseless, and I too share that fear.

Together, we can beat this. Killers are going to kill. The most dangerous weapons in the country are these: A hunting rifle... A sniper is exponentially more dangerous than someone closer with a rifle or pistol. Shotgun. THIS IS THE MOST DEADLY WEAPON SOLD! BAR NONE! And now they have a shotgun that is designed on the AR and AK platform. ARE YOU KIDDING ME? SO DANGEROUS? A shotgun with 8 rounds of double ought buckshot (Ball bearings shooting out in mass of about 12-16 pellets per shot, the size of a small marble). The shotgun and rifle will never ever be illegal because of the public perception. If I had an enemy to go up against, I would prefer that they had a high capacity pistol or rifle than a shotgun... any day of the week. I honestly believe that these shotguns should be illegal. (Sorry, but I have to give a little to the other side as well).

How do we stop it? Not sure, but we need to hit it from all sides, TOGETHER.

KEEP ALL GUNS LOCKED UP. Easy. Have police departments hire reserve police officers, or trained campus security run through the Sheriff. There are many retired police officers and VERY responsible veterans who would LOVE to protect these kids... and they will do it for FREE. THIRD: Immediately pass legislation to create an immediate data base of those that mental health professionals can put names onto. That does not stop them from buying, they just need to be looked at closer. It isn't difficult to see the warning signs. NOW we need to have those purchasing guns to at least have been run through a good check. Why can't everyone who has a firearm be required to have training? I don't care if you disagree because of the 2nd. Take courses, learn the law, get a card and then you are good to go.

Anyway, this is my rant. Do not post negative pro gun or anti gun crap on this thread. I am in no mood and I will regret what I say to you. This is my page. My ideas. I respect your opinions. This is not a DEBATE thread. This is a [Name deleted] thread, who is a genius at these sort of 'finding the middle' type operations. Love all. No Fear.

Wompa1

Manic Moran wrote: »

My child's right to a safe home outweighs your fear of your child getting shot at school. After all, the school can hire security.

Again, it's all a balance.

As an aside, one of my FB Friends lives in Roseburg, OR. His child was present, in another classroom (she was unharmed). He posted the following on his wall earlier today. There's one historical error, and I don't agree with all of it, but, hey, I don't chose my friends' opinions. This is his.

It reads like a solider talking about being in the battle field. Maybe Americans need to leave their guns behind and go to a less chaotic country. That's no way to live...he's had to brandish his weapon in his home, multiple times...what the f*ck kind of place is he living in. Well, I know...Oregon. One of the most liberal states in the country BUT it's full of whacked out weirdos. What's better protection for your family against psychos with guns? Leave.

Sometimes when I read the fear of many people over here, I think, I bet if they flew to another country and tried to claim asylum. They'd have a tough time being turned down when they tell stories of what it's like in some of the states and cities here.

"I fear for my life. There's been six homicides within a half mile of my home. My Government has been overthrown by Corporate interests who strip away my freedom. If I go back, I fear I may be shot by a veteran with PTSD."

BoatMad

gobsh!te wrote: »

So silly....the right to bear arms would have prevented a lot of bloodshed in government coups in South America for example.

Jews were disarmed in 1938. Let that sink in.

Actually no they weren't , that's a myth , pre war gun laws in Germany were quite liberal. You think , a few bolt actions rifles would have prevented the Wehrmacht from rounding them up ... Please , no more then any US gun holder could hold back an attack by US military with heavy weapons , air support , etc.

Protect yourself from tyranny ,,,, please let's not peddle illogical nonsense

BoatMad

BattleCorp wrote: »

It is generally agreed that the right to guns was put into the constitution to enable citizens to protect themselves from the Government should the Government act oppressively towards the people. If people agree on this , then why do you think that they didn't mean it to apply to people if they had better guns?

The same rights exist today, to arm yourself to protect against an oppressive Government. The Government's technology has moved on, and so should the technology used by civilians if they have a right to arm themselves against an oppressive government. If the aim of the constitution was to protect the people from the Government in the best way possible, then there is not much point in the government having automatic firearms and the citizen is left with a single shot muzzle loader to defend themselves.

The 2008 SCOTUS. Judgement on the 2nd amendment completely disagrees with you and reaffirmed the right to personal defense using a firearm

wakka12

MadsL wrote: »

The primary purpose of firearms ownership in the US is not mass murder.

Nope but it is to kill or maim.

Martial9

MadsL wrote: »

That's laughable. Underage drinking and drunk driving not a problem in Ireland because of such restrictions huh?

http://www.irishcentral.com/news/irelands-dui-rate-among-highest-in-europe-new-study-shows-126616208-237403811.html

One of the highest rates in Europe (25th place) and three times higher than the European average.

In total 1,538 drivers were stopped at checkpoints in Ireland, some 205 were found to be DUI.
In stark contrast out of the 37,000 drivers tested in Finland a mere 96 were found to be over the legal limit.

The Finns like a drink so their figures are extremely impressive. We should look into what they are doing to discourage drink driving and replicate it.

BattleCorp

zeffabelli wrote: »

Thing is it's not an equitable comparison.

Parent by law have to send their children to school.

Parents and children have a right to know their childhoods will be intact and not compromised by schools becoming a popular target.

My child's right to a safe childhood where he can go to school and not be scared of getting shot out weights your right to have a small Arsenal in your basement.

Just because someone has a gun, that doesn't mean that they are likely to go shooting up schools. The vast vast majority of gun owners are responsible, sensible people, not deranged lunatics.

A child in the States is far more likely to get killed by being knocked down by a car than shot in a school.

Don't get me wrong, I abhor the idea of gun violence, and especially someone shooting up a school but people are going way over the top. There's a big focus on school shootings when far far far more people are killed in other gun violence in the States.

An outright gun ban won't happen in the States, and indeed it wouldn't make any difference even if there was a gun ban. If there was a ban, I'd be surprised if 5% of US citizens handed up theirs. Even if there is a gun ban, deranged fcukers will still get guns. We made weed, coke and heroin illegal here in Ireland and yet the country is awash with the stuff. There are over 350,000,000 (estimate) guns in the States. Most of these will still be operational in the next 50 years, this isn't a problem with a simple fix such as ban guns etc.

It's a cultural problem, the willingness to resort to gun violence to sort out differences. How do you change a culture? Very very slowly if at all.

BoatMad

wakka12 wrote: »

Nope but it is to kill or maim.

No it's in furtherance of their rights to defend them selves

BattleCorp

BoatMad wrote: »

The 2008 SCOTUS. Judgement on the 2nd amendment completely disagrees with you and reaffirmed the right to personal defense using a firearm

Did the 2008 SCOTUS decision remove the right to a " well regulated militia"?

"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."

adamshare01

It is so weird how Americans still think the benefits of guns outweigh the risks...

BoatMad

It's a cultural problem, the willingness to resort to gun violence to sort out differences. How do you change a culture? Very very slowly if at all.

Yes that's the key issue. Still doesn't explain why so many nut jobs target schools

Sudden Valley

Is there a law that states that schools can't have armed security? If so, was there any reason this law was brought in?

BoatMad

adamshare01 wrote: »

It is so weird how Americans still think the benefits of guns outweigh the risks...

Yes so given that how do you protect children from nut jobs. I suspect the answer is widespread use of school based armed response personnel. It's already in place in both the us and canada already

BattleCorp

adamshare01 wrote: »

It is so weird how Americans still think the benefits of guns outweigh the risks...

I'm from Ireland and I don't have a problem with guns. If you treat guns with respect and only use them for lawful purposes, then I've no problem with that.

gobsh!te

adamshare01 wrote: »

It is so weird how Americans still think the benefits of guns outweigh the risks...

Same thinking as the Swiss as I stated.

asherbassad

Manic Moran wrote: »

Yet.... they're not. This parade of horribles keeps being trotted out, but the conviction rates of people with concealed weapons permits is on about the same level as police officers. (And that's for all crimes, not just those involving firearms). Florida was one of the first States to move to a 'right to carry' law, with over 1.3 milliion licenses active for the first decade or so, all of 4,000 were revoked for any reason at all (which need not involve the firearm). We have information from over half the country which has started allowing more carriage of firearms, it just doesn't happen with any level of concern. So if you would care to support your assertion that such incidents are 'a dime a dozen', please do so.





It doesn't need to be. It may cite the most important reason as being the 'security of a free state', but it is not an exhaustive list. The thing about the Bill of Rights is that it is not a list of things the government can do. It is a list of things the Federal Government cannot do. It cannot deny freedom of speech. It cannot enforce military quartering. It cannot stop and search you at random. And so on. And it cannot remove your firearms. The right to a firearm is a pre-existing one, and some State constitutions are far more explicit about the reasoning than others, to include, in a number of them, personal defence.



It has been defined in the courts as "weapons which are in common use", which seems a fairly reasonable interpretation. It's flexible enough to allow for advancements in technology, (so much as the right to speech has evolved from quills, basic printing presses, and standing on a street corner to the Internet, television, radio, firearms have moved from black powder or air weapons to cordite cartridges) while still leaving open restrictions on things which most ordinary people don't think are ordinarily worth having, such as tanks, rockets, etc.



States -have- experimented with restrictions on things like weapon configuration or carriage. Indeed, the federal government did too (the 1994 assault weapons ban). They have repeatedly failed to have any effect. There is little more to be learned by trying the same things again, the assumptions are already disproven.

Plus there are the other States which have had it. Australia is commonly mentioned, but there is no evidence that the gun legislation had any particular bearing on gun related crimes, and it's not as if Australian and American researchers haven't looked into it.



Unfortunately, it -is- a possibility. I don't think anyone likes it, except maybe the news company shareholders. We all agree that something needs to be done. We seem to be in some agreement that the issue is cultural. We are in some disagreement as to where the cultural problem is. Either way, the firearms are an ancillary to the problem, not the problem itself, and until that cultural issue (which we disagree upon) is solved, the possibility will continue.



That violent home invasions or other crimes against the person happen is undeniable. Every jurisdiction on the planet, to my knowledge (including the Vatican) authorises the use of lethal force if necessary for self defence. In no jurisdiction on the planet, to my knowledge, is the police responsible for your personal safety.

Assuming you do not deny these factors, then we are arguing about shades of grey. The US takes these principles to the logical conclusion: That if you are responsible for your own safety, and if necessary can use lethal force, then you should be allowed the tools necessary to accomplish this.



And that is fine. A firearm is not for everyone, and one should take a fairly critical self-assessment of the risks and benefits. If you don't feel competent and confident with your firearm, don't use one. It is a personal decision, I would not insist you make such a choice. Even the towns in the US where firearms ownership is mandatory do not actively enforce such a law. (Not least, it's impossible to check anyway, courtesy of that pesky Constitution thing). Similarly, I object to other people making such a choice for me.

Stopped reading after you accused me of saying these "incidents" were a dime a dozen. Maybe you want to re-read my post.

asherbassad

Manic Moran wrote: »

My child's right to a safe home outweighs your fear of your child getting shot at school. After all, the school can hire security.

Again, it's all a balance.

As an aside, one of my FB Friends lives in Roseburg, OR. His child was present, in another classroom (she was unharmed). He posted the following on his wall earlier today. There's one historical error, and I don't agree with all of it, but, hey, I don't chose my friends' opinions. This is his.

I could feel my IQ dropping after reading that drivel.

BattleCorp

BoatMad wrote: »

Yes that's the key issue. Still doesn't explain why so many nut jobs target schools

It could be that they know that they will be famous if they do a school shooting. The more they kill, the more it will be newsworthy. Who knows what goes on in the mind of a deranged killer. Maybe it's the American philosophy of being the biggest and the best. Maybe a warped mind thinks that they need to do the biggest and best worst shooting with the most impact.

Go on a shooting spree and kill 20 homeless people in an abandoned building and you will be forgotten about in a few months. Kill 20 kids in Sandy Hook, you will be far more famous. Not many people are going to forget the name Adam Lanza.

One other possibility is that they know that schools will be gun free zones. Much more potential for doing damage in a gun free zone.

Aka Ishur

wakka12 wrote: »

Nope but it is to kill or maim.

Sure everyone who buys a gun in the US wants to kill or maim. Right. No target shooting. No hunting. Killing and maiming. Right.

Is this just gun buyers in the US or do gun buyers in Ireland and elsewhere have this predilection to killing and maiming?

listermint

asherbassad wrote: »

I could feel my IQ dropping after reading that drivel.

Did he really write that.

That sentence

"my child right to a safe home out weights your fear of your child getting shot in school"

in a nut shell is the single stupidest argument ive seen made in this thread, and from a poster whom i would have a reasonable amount of time for.

Its that attitude solely that is why America is beyond helping, and frankly the same attitude would say "we dont need your help"

Well sir, metal detectors in childrens schools across the states says you do.


I cant believe this is some peoples version of reality.

beyond comprehension

listermint

Aka Ishur wrote: »

Sure everyone who buys a gun in the US wants to kill or maim. Right. No target shooting. No hunting. Killing and maiming. Right.

Is this just gun buyers in the US or do gun buyers in Ireland and elsewhere have this predilection to killing and maiming?

People in ireland are not out buying guns as some attempt to be self made law men, or protecting their little corner of the earth. Its not required we live in a country that doesn't rely on fear to make a fast buck.

After all that is the sole purpose of the gun industry in the states, and there are those that are delusional enough in here to fall for for it.

#landofthefree

asherbassad

Martial9 wrote: »

The Finns like a drink so their figures are extremely impressive. We should look into what they are doing to discourage drink driving and replicate it.

The legal limit in Finland is 2 litres of vodka :pac:

asherbassad

Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.

discus

adamshare01 wrote: »

It is so weird how Americans still think the benefits of guns outweigh the risks...

Unlike us who don't live there, who judge them and want to impose our ideas and views of gun ownership on them!

BoatMad

I personally think , that if the 2nd Amendment wasn't there or didn't guarantee the right, the US would have gun laws very similar or even stricter then the US. The US is a very heavily regulated society , generally with more rules and regulations than societies in Europe for example. ( where liberty was actually fought for and dearly won )

Hence there is no doubt where the issue lies , no more then in our own constitution, we have amendments like the 8th which just serve to make things actually worse then if we just had a legislative basis only.

Given all that, There is simply no support to amend the 2nd Amendment, none, nada. Hence in a realistic discussion you simply have to accept the status quo. Sure you can tinker around the edges, but it will do little in reality

The issue then remains, how do you protect children in schools, that seem to have become a common target for nut-jobs

Manic Moran

listermint wrote: »

in a nut shell is the single stupidest argument ive seen made in this thread, and from a poster whom i would have a reasonable amount of time for.

It was phrased deliberately provocatively in order to demonstrate the logic of the original statement it was paraphrasing. But there is some reason behind it.

Just like everyone else's child, my child goes to school. (Public, first grade, she's six). Like any father, I think she is the most precious, innocent, adorable thing on the planet, and I will do everything in my power to ensure she has a long and happy life. As a result, I am absolutely as concerned about her safety when at school as the parent of any other parent, even the one to whom I was replying. The argument about people not caring about school safety as long as they can have a gun at home simply is misplaced.

However, my daughter does not spend all her time at school. We surrender our responsibility for our children's safety when they are inn the care of others. And not just for shootings, but for fire, traffic, medical response, and so on. But schools also have resources to deal with such things. We expect that they will have mitigations in place, be it fire sprinklers or SROs. We demand it, and we pay taxes for it.

These mitigation, however, do not exist at home, and if there is any place one should feel safe, it's home.. It is -my- responsibility, not anymore else's, to ensure she is safe at home. Most of a school's measures are not available to us, so we make do the best we can. I can't hire a nurse, I've a first aid kit. I don't fit out my house with sprinklers, but I can have a fire extinguisher. And I can't afford security. Which means I have to provide for that, myself, as well.

The point is that there are measures such can be implemented to increase school safety (preferably focusing on reducing the willingness of people to air shoot up schools on the first place) without affecting the rights of my family to be safe at home