15 confirmed dead so far in Oregon college shooting

pmasterson95

Manic Moran wrote: »

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

Its a good thing that none of these shooters ever decide to "borrow" daddys security gun and bring into school. That would lead to school shootings. Oh wait

Overheal

when you say you can't afford security I assume you don't mean electronic countermeasures (door/window sensors etc?) I would think installing even a DIY system would fall under the cost of purchasing most firearms. Adds an extra layer before pulling the trigger needs to become an option (not telling you security replaces a firearm's function, but not having it and having multiple firearms doesn't sound practical)

zeffabelli

BoatMad wrote: »

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

I think its copy catism....

This guy shared some similarities with Adam Lanza...aspergers...very close to his mother who also had a love of guns...

He probably identified with him and then copied him.

I think they found also that those incidents in Germany...those ones had been following Columbine...

This is where the media could really play their hand differently.

Killing children is such a perversion ....

Im surprised anyone sends their kids to school anymore.

zeffabelli

BoatMad wrote: »

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

We also have a right to privacy but that's gone to ****.

Has nothing to do with rights..and everything to do with money.

zeffabelli

BattleCorp wrote: »

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.

Given the level of alcohol consumption I am quite happy most people dont have guns in the home.

AbusesToilets

zeffabelli wrote: »

Given the level of alcohol consumption I am quite happy most people dont have guns in the home.

Thankfully they just have cars to use responsibly...

zeffabelli

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Thankfully they just have cars to use responsibly...

Yeah and seatbelts, and check points, and annual inspections and licenses and vehicle registrations.... and lots of other safety measures.

AH and insurance in case you kill or injure someone....

Requiring insurance....is a good idea....let the insurance companies do the clamping down....

BoatMad

zeffabelli wrote: »

We also have a right to privacy but that's gone to ****.

Has nothing to do with rights..and everything to do with money.

You don't have a " right " to privacy. You typically have some constraints and privileges based on law.

How is the 2nd amendment to do with money

BoatMad

listermint wrote: »

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

I think the 1000 or so at the recent rural crime meeting don't agree with you. There was almost universal support for using a gun to deter crime. ( show of hands )

Old Jakey

May as well arm teachers at this stage, more lives will be saved.

BoatMad

Old Jakey wrote: »

May as well arm teachers at this stage, more lives will be saved.

I think the proposals envisage more armed school recreation officers. Many schools in the U.S. And Canada already have them armed.

zeffabelli

BoatMad wrote: »

You don't have a " right " to privacy. You typically have some constraints and privileges based on law.

How is the 2nd amendment to do with money

Yes I do and abortion is protected under right to privacy but my communications aren't.

See how this works.... Cherry picking.

nxbyveromdwjpg

College shooting today - http://www.abc15.com/news/region-northern-az/flagstaff/breaking-news-reported-shooting-at-nau-flagstaff-campus

zeffabelli

Old Jakey wrote: »

May as well arm teachers at this stage, more lives will be saved.

**** it. Arm the 7 year olds too.

Old Jakey

zeffabelli wrote: »

**** it. Arm the 7 year olds too.

I'm serious. You have as much chance of banning guns in America as you have of banning pubs in Ireland. If the teacher is armed he can kill the gunman and save the lives of students.

zeffabelli

Old Jakey wrote: »

I'm serious. You have as much chance of banning guns in America as you have of banning pubs in Ireland. If the teacher is armed he can kill the gunman and save the lives of students.

Expecting teachers to be cops is insane, but yeah I have heard this cry from the the gun lovers.

Overheal

Old Jakey wrote: »

May as well arm teachers at this stage, more lives will be saved.

People signed up to teach students, not be soldiers. School resource officers are fairly effective in contrast.

The Pheasant2

Another shooting now in Arizona...beyond ridiculous now

Old Jakey

zeffabelli wrote: »

Expecting teachers to be cops is insane, but yeah I have heard this cry from the the gun lovers.

It's the best solution cos the gun situation is not going to change anytime soon.

Overheal

The Pheasant2 wrote: »

Another shooting now in Arizona...beyond ridiculous now

Only now that one more shooting has taken place? :rolleyes:

BoatMad

Overheal wrote: »

Only now that one more shooting has taken place? :rolleyes:

On a campus where guns are banned. , yep guns laws work

BoatMad

BoatMad wrote: »

On a campus where guns are banned. , yep guns laws work

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/09/northern-arizona-university-shooting-leaves-one-dead-and-three-injured

Arizona Congressman Trent Franks was asked on CNN about arming students. “I understand that on this campus in certain circumstances that is not allowed,” he said, adding: “These shooters deliberately choose a place where they know no one can defend themselves, where they know no one is armed. I think that’s a tragedy.

What a strange place.

BoatMad

Deleted User wrote: »

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/09/northern-arizona-university-shooting-leaves-one-dead-and-three-injured

Arizona Congressman Trent Franks was asked on CNN about arming students. “I understand that on this campus in certain circumstances that is not allowed,” he said, adding: “These shooters deliberately choose a place where they know no one can defend themselves, where they know no one is armed. I think that’s a tragedy.

What a strange place.

What's strange about it , if you can't enact significant gun laws due to a constitutional guarantee , that few want to change then you have to agree that defence against attack is the next thing. If all your attackers are armed, then all the defenders need to be too. It's the logical conclusion . For a country that permits such free access to small arms. In the end everyone will carry a gun everywhere

BoatMad

BoatMad wrote: »

What's strange about it , if you can't enact significant gun laws due to a constitutional guarantee , that few want to change then you have to agree that defence against attack is the next thing. If all your attackers are armed, then all the defenders need to be too. It's the logical conclusion . For a country that permits such free access to small arms. In the end everyone will carry a gun everywhere

I think it's strange because it sounds like the killer wasn't playing fair. It wouldn't have been so bad if he hadn't been cheating.
I mean, who just shoots innocent people without a good chance of a stand-off? A bad person clearly. Such a tragedy.

Samaris

Deleted User wrote: »

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/09/northern-arizona-university-shooting-leaves-one-dead-and-three-injured

Arizona Congressman Trent Franks was asked on CNN about arming students. “I understand that on this campus in certain circumstances that is not allowed,” he said, adding: “These shooters deliberately choose a place where they know no one can defend themselves, where they know no one is armed. I think that’s a tragedy.

What a strange place.

It's also incorrect, as it happens. The Oregon campus actually fell between two laws. Although the campus was -called- a gun-free zone, it actually was not; anyone with a permit could have concealed firearms on their person. Actually, a couple of people reportedly DID have guns and were advised by a university attendant not to try take down the gunman as they would make themselves a target if they failed to kill him and/or the police would not be able to tell who was the shooter and would probably kill the person trying to defend the rest.

Umpqua Community College banned guns on campus except where expressly allowed by law.

Franks was talking rubbish.

Manic Moran

Samaris wrote: »

It's also incorrect, as it happens. The Oregon campus actually fell between two laws. Although the campus was -called- a gun-free zone, it actually was not; anyone with a permit could have concealed firearms on their person. Actually, a couple of people reportedly DID have guns and were advised by a university attendant not to try take down the gunman as they would make themselves a target if they failed to kill him and/or the police would not be able to tell who was the shooter and would probably kill the person trying to defend the rest.

Umpqua Community College banned guns on campus except where expressly allowed by law.

Franks was talking rubbish.

I think the problem is that it was by policy, if not law, a gun free zone insofar as the college could enforce it, and the college was not entirely toothless. It seems likely that the folks who were armed were risking firing or sanction by bringing their firearms, despite not facing criminal charges. This is a situation similar to here in CA. It may be legal for me to bring my firearm onto campus or into work, but that doesn't mean I'm protected against firing when I do. It is not too uncommon for people to violate such policies. A recent case was the Chattanooga shooting where, for some time, there was some concern over whether the naval officer who shot back would be charged by the Navy for having a weapon in violation of the Navy's policy. The fine details would need to be examined.

As a result, unless a shooter looked into the fine details, it is quite possible that he believed the place was a gun free zone, and did not expect there to be any realistic chance of armed resistance.

http://www.oregonlive.com/education/index.ssf/2012/03/oregon_state_board_of_higher_e_7.html

No one spoke against the policy, which will immediately ban guns from classrooms, buildings, dormitories and sporting and entertainment events.

People who enter business relationships with state universities must agree not to carry guns on campus property. Those include students, employees, contractors, people buying tickets to university events or people renting university property.

<snip>

The state board policy, however, would not prevent people with concealed weapon permits from walking across a state university campus with a gun. They just couldn't enter any building or arena.
The policy also makes exceptions for police, military programs such as the Reserve Officers' Training Corps, residents in noncampus housing and hunting or target shooting clubs.

Punishment for violating the policy will vary, said George Pernsteiner, chancellor of the Oregon University System. Student violators, for example, would be subject to the conduct code, employees to disciplinary action and contractors to breach of contract.

Foxtrol

BoatMad wrote: »

What's strange about it , if you can't enact significant gun laws due to a constitutional guarantee , that few want to change then you have to agree that defence against attack is the next thing. If all your attackers are armed, then all the defenders need to be too. It's the logical conclusion . For a country that permits such free access to small arms. In the end everyone will carry a gun everywhere

That’s not logical to me at all. Knife crime happens in Ireland, should everyone be allowed carry knives in schools / bars?

On a larger scale do you believe it’s sensible to attempt to stop nations like North Korea, Iran, and Syria from obtaining nuclear weapons? Republicans are the first to want to bomb/invade these countries to stop them, as they don’t believe they can be trusted, but don’t dare think about trying to limit who can have a gun.

Foxtrol

Manic Moran wrote: »

I think the problem is that it was by policy, if not law, a gun free zone insofar as the college could enforce it, and the college was not entirely toothless. It seems likely that the folks who were armed were risking firing or sanction by bringing their firearms, despite not facing criminal charges. This is a situation similar to here in CA. It may be legal for me to bring my firearm onto campus or into work, but that doesn't mean I'm protected against firing when I do. It is not too uncommon for people to violate such policies. A recent case was the Chattanooga shooting where, for some time, there was some concern over whether the naval officer who shot back would be charged by the Navy for having a weapon in violation of the Navy's policy. The fine details would need to be examined.

As a result, unless a shooter looked into the fine details, it is quite possible that he believed the place was a gun free zone, and did not expect there to be any realistic chance of armed resistance.

http://www.oregonlive.com/education/index.ssf/2012/03/oregon_state_board_of_higher_e_7.html

I don't get this, by going into a school to shoot it up they have already decided that they're happy to die.

I don't think the possibility of a handful of people having guns would make any difference to them, especially as the trend I've seen is people targeting where they have a connection with (ie a student / employee).

Typical 'we have a problem with guns... yes, we don't have enough of them...'

Manic Moran

Foxtrol wrote: »

I don't get this, by going into a school to shoot it up they have already decided that they're happy to die.

I don't think the possibility of a handful of people having guns would make any difference to them, especially as the trend I've seen is people targeting where they have a connection with (ie a student / employee).

Typical 'we have a problem with guns... yes, we don't have enough of them...'

But how many is he going to take with him before he goes? Remember, he's likely trying to make a splash. Trying to kill as many people as possible, preferably those we care most about (children) to become as famous as possible. We've all heard of Cho at Virginia Tech in Virginia, but how many have heard of Odighizuwa at Appalachian School of Law in Virginia? He only shot three before being confronted by armed students and surrendering. Dylann Roof is a household name now, after shooting up a church in South Carolina and killing nine, how many have heard of Matt Murray, who was shot by a parishioner after he killed two at a church in Colorado? (After killing another three at another mission earlier that day). Perhaps we should be publicising such incidents more.

It's not the deterrance against getting shot, as you mention, they already are usually intending to not see the dusk. It's the deterrence against doing the act for publicity and, in the cases that it fails, it's the active counter to his or her killing as many people as they can until the police show up.

Sofiztikated

Perhaps people shouldn't be allowed out of their houses at all over there.

If they can't go out, they can't go to a school and shoot people.

At least then you can have all your guns, and not worry about people getting shot.