2015-10-01 tragedy unfolding in Roseburg OR

[Captain Obvious]

Cobb County GA, this place rocks..... mandatory gun and ammo ownership for all households.

Where did this come from? I moved here from Austell, GA, which is in Cobb. I was never surveyed nor told I had to have one. I do know the city of Kennesaw, GA, which is just north of Austell in Cobb county, has a city requirement.

One of the other aspects of the lower crime rate in Kennesaw is they refused to be connected to MARTA, the metro transit system. They felt that being directly connected would allow criminals using mass transit to come in directly to the city. Instead, you have to get off at the Arts center on the NW side of town, and then change systems to the local. I don't think studies have show there is a direct correlation to the lower crime rate, but many locals feel them NOT hooking directly into the MARTA system has helped keep the lazy criminals out.

[#1Townie]

I love how much you've always coveted your own resume.

And no... I'm not incorrect. You seem to have "conveniently" (haha) missed the most important word I used in my statement. You'll know it when you get it.

Think you may have tried to get too fancy with your words and made a post that only you can find funny.

The problem with all these checks and balances in our government today is that there is little trust with them. I know barn this country has never been in a better place according to you. But let's look at actual facts.

The media reports crime like its turning into a warzone here in America. Yet...

http://time.com/3577026/crime-rates-drop-1970s/

How about them "assult weapons"?

http://m1.marketwatch.com/articles/B...e=y&mobile=yyy
The link is a few years old but the numbers have not changed. Hand guns kill a hell of a lot more people than so called " assault weapons ".

We don't need these things because our country is fully prepared to handle any situation that could arise right? Hurricane Katrina? Remember that awesome little adventure? The police who will be there to protect us?

Here they are.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danz...idge_shootings

Could you stand here and tell me that no matter what happened in the next 200 years we would never need a rifle to protect ourselves?

That our government could never get so corrupt that we would never need to take back our country with force?

You can stand there and guarantee me that nothing could ever happen to this country that would leave the citizens needing to defend themselves?

Because that's basically what we brake this down to. If we fail to maintain our stance on firearms we are saying that there is no need for them anymore. Ever. Its not something we could just take back if we did need it.

And to finish this post I will remind you of this. By disarmament of the civilization you are also saying that we could never be invaded by a foreign army. Ever.

While we may never have full military style weapons again we should still have access to advanced weaponry so that the people could make a stand.

Just some food for thought.

[~Barn~]

Too fancy?

I certainly hope not. Hell.... I even put the hint in quotations to make things easier!

[Captain Obvious]

Two pages of civil firearms discussion. Looks like CSB.com is growing up....

1) I would like to see firearms training and competency be required for legal possession/ownership.
2) The existing background questionnaire is a joke (the questions). It really needs to be reevaluated.
3) Background checks should be part of every firearms sale. P2P sales should not be allowed IMO. For a nominal fee, certified firearms retailers would conduct the check. The retailers should WANT to do this to help reduce illegally owned firearms and protect their industry (see San Fran article).

IMO, until the pro-community allows supports some basic, common sense regulations, the opposition will continue to demand some reasonable and many unreasonable changes. The whole notion of "the domino effect", I just don't agree.

I would also acknowledge the vast majority of legally owned firearms are not the issue. But any basic steps that the legal population can take that would help direct the argument to "deal with the criminals" would get the crazies off our backs. Thats the "I don't believe in firearms" group. If you "don't believe" in guns, you are not functioning in reality.

We won't eradicate all instances of firearm violence, but surely trying basic steps to mitigate should be embraced.

[#1Townie]

Two pages of civil firearms discussion. Looks like CSB.com is growing up....

1) I would like to see firearms training and competency be required for legal possession/ownership.
2) The existing background questionnaire is a joke (the questions). It really needs to be reevaluated.
3) Background checks should be part of every firearms sale. P2P sales should not be allowed IMO. For a nominal fee, certified firearms retailers would conduct the check. The retailers should WANT to do this to help reduce illegally owned firearms and protect their industry (see San Fran article).

IMO, until the pro-community allows supports some basic, common sense regulations, the opposition will continue to demand some reasonable and many unreasonable changes. The whole notion of "the domino effect", I just don't agree.

I would also acknowledge the vast majority of legally owned firearms are not the issue. But any basic steps that the legal population can take that would help direct the argument to "deal with the criminals" would get the crazies off our backs. Thats the "I don't believe in firearms" group. If you "don't believe" in guns, you are not functioning in reality.

We won't eradicate all instances of firearm violence, but surely trying basic steps to mitigate should be embraced.

Honestly I truly hate the term of commonsense laws. Let me ask you something. The only way to make background checks in p2p work is gun registration. I am 100% against that. From now until forever.

The government has no right what so ever to know who has firearms. Again this is counterproductive to everything we should stand for.

So because it was ignored before I'm going to ask again. If a person has to pass a training course for firearms what do you tell people who overnight find themselves in a possible violent situation. As in woman left an abusive husband or boyfriend and needs one to protect themselves. Do we just them should have planned better? Sorry we can't help you because you didn't take a class yet? The police aren't going to baby sit them.

How about a man stands up the criminals in his neighborhood and now finds himself in need of a firearm to protect his family. Tell him tough luck? Shouldn't have stood up to those drug dealers/thugs? Move?

I do agree that education would be nice. Again I'm saying make it part of public education. Senior year make it mandatory to graduate.

See the problem I have with these so called commonsense laws that people bring up is that they are always brought up without thinking about actual emergency situations.

[Nolan]

You don't even need an ID to vote much less be educated on the issues and candidates. I like the idea of a graduation requirement. The "pro gun" community (even the NRA) advocate that training and education are extremely important.
But nobody sees that.

Whatever

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

I love how much you've always coveted your own resume.

And no... I'm not incorrect. You seem to have "conveniently" (haha) missed the most important word I used in my statement. You'll know it when you get it.

Well, it IS a far more extensive one.

Dunno about you, but if I was a sick twisted murderous psycho I "would" find it more convenient per person killed to simply go get some fuel and fertilizer.......and so, obviously, does every terrorist.

Actually, I find your argument funny because the last time I saw your car you had both a loaded handgun and big bag of weed in the driver's door map compartment. And we won't even discuss the interlock issue.......

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

IMO, until the pro-community allows supports some basic, common sense regulations, the opposition will continue to demand some reasonable and many unreasonable changes. The whole notion of "the domino effect", I just don't agree.

Why should We The People allow someone else's, a liberals no less, idea of "common sense regulations" to infringe upon a RIGHT that is both RECOGNIZED and GUARANTEED in no less than the Constitution?

Considering the much vaster disparity between the gov't's weapons vs. The People's today vs. back when the 2nd Amendment was written, the 2nd is actually FAR more valuable and crucial for us than ever, and will continue to be even more so.

[Spooph]

As much as I like a good back and forth of repeated sound bites being thrown back and forth, here's something to think about:



and http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

and this:
http://markmanson.net/school-shootings

Put all of those together and it's pretty easy to see how scarcity turns any issue into divisiveness and opposition. So let me connect the dots:
1.) Mentally unstable people reflect what is wrong in this society and channel it in terrible ways.
2.) Mentally stable people accept the world for what it is but argue about various ways to deal with the symptoms of the system we operate in.
3.) Nobody acts because empathy is simply too much work.
4.) Nobody gets what they need, because they have to fight each other to get it.
5.) Everybody settles, and nobody has the answer.

One step toward empathy for each person on earth is one giant leap toward solving the problem. If we fix the problem we will be privileged to a new paradox. We won't need guns, nor will they need to be regulated. A society that can handle guns is a society which doesn't need them. Please don't miss-interpret that last sentence. Society is a collection of people, not an individual, so don't go taking it personal or applying it to your own egotistical mindset.

[Zanatos]

After reading other people's points of view in this thread, I have completely changed my mind.

It's a great idea for people to be able to get guns without any training or knowledge of the laws governing deadly force.

Let a woman with an abusive husband buy a gun for protection. And when the a-hole comes after her, let her kill the bastard by firing indiscriminately into a crowd of people.

Let dumb asses shoot thieves in the back for stealing their car stereos and motorcycles. They'll end up in jail for manslaughter - but who really gives a shit?

Let gun nuts hoard pistols, rifles, and ammo - and leave everything out where anyone who wants it can easily steal it. It doesn't affect me - so why do I care?

Yep - when it comes to guns, there is no need for any kind of training or laws. And there is no way to prevent or even deter idiots from shooting up schools.

That settles the issue. We should all just give up and accept it. Dead kids are part of the "price of freedom." God bless 'Merica.

Related Article: Combat Veterans: "Good Guy With A Gun Nonsense Is A Dangerous Fantasy"

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

LOLZ....spoken like a true liberal. Thanks for the laughs!

[#1Townie]

After reading other people's points of view in this thread, I have completely changed my mind.

It's a great idea for people to be able to get guns without any training or knowledge of the laws governing deadly force.

Let a woman with an abusive husband buy a gun for protection. And when the a-hole comes after her, let her kill the bastard by firing indiscriminately into a crowd of people.

Let dumb asses shoot thieves in the back for stealing their car stereos and motorcycles. They'll end up in jail for manslaughter - but who really gives a shit?

Let gun nuts hoard pistols, rifles, and ammo - and leave everything out where anyone who wants it can easily steal it. It doesn't affect me - so why do I care?

Yep - when it comes to guns, there is no need for any kind of training or laws. And there is no way to prevent or even deter idiots from shooting up schools.

That settles the issue. We should all just give up and accept it. Dead kids are part of the "price of freedom." God bless 'Merica.

Related Article: Combat Veterans: "Good Guy With A Gun Nonsense Is A Dangerous Fantasy"

I will further this conversation with you when you mature a bit. Until then good sir please see yourself out of the conversation.

[Wrider]

Two pages of civil firearms discussion. Looks like CSB.com is growing up....

1) I would like to see firearms training and competency be required for legal possession/ownership.
2) The existing background questionnaire is a joke (the questions). It really needs to be reevaluated.
3) Background checks should be part of every firearms sale. P2P sales should not be allowed IMO. For a nominal fee, certified firearms retailers would conduct the check. The retailers should WANT to do this to help reduce illegally owned firearms and protect their industry (see San Fran article).

IMO, until the pro-community allows supports some basic, common sense regulations, the opposition will continue to demand some reasonable and many unreasonable changes. The whole notion of "the domino effect", I just don't agree.

I would also acknowledge the vast majority of legally owned firearms are not the issue. But any basic steps that the legal population can take that would help direct the argument to "deal with the criminals" would get the crazies off our backs. Thats the "I don't believe in firearms" group. If you "don't believe" in guns, you are not functioning in reality.

We won't eradicate all instances of firearm violence, but surely trying basic steps to mitigate should be embraced.

I can argue against these "common sense" regulations all day long, and here's why.

1. That would result in a back-door registration of who owns firearms. Not only is that illegal, but it's not a good idea. If you need any examples of why that's a bad idea, check out your local library in the "history" section under Hitler, Pol Pot, and Stalin. If you would like a current events relation, check out what's happening in Mexico at the moment. Drug cartels are running rampant in the northern states, to the point where they have the police and feds under their thumb. So citizens have decided to say "To hell with laws, I'm getting what I need to protect myself". Which worked, for a while. Until the feds said "Yeah, we're with you, here, sign up on this here list so we can help you out." When they do, their firearms are seized and the drug cartels have a nice convenient list of who opposed them.

2. The form was never meant as a thorough questionnaire. That's what the background check is for. The form 4473 is simply so that when they sign it, it becomes a legally binding document, meaning the feds can also bring perjury, falsification of a federal form, etc type charges against the person who bought the gun.

3. Again, that brings into account a back-door gun registry. See #1 why that's a bad thing.

4. The whole compromise thing is a joke. The pro-gun people have been "compromising" for over 200 years at this point. It's always "just a little". Well at this point 200 years worth of "just a little" or "common sense" gun laws have become a huge volume of gun laws that control dang near every facet of firearms design, materials, import, export, sales, ownership, and use. If you want to see the definition of government bureaucracy, just check out the BATFE. And if you don't believe me, I dare you to wade through the laws that govern just the selling of firearms without emailing or calling them for their interpretation of the laws.

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

EXCELLENT post! I would argue it wasted on arguing with a liberal, but I digress.....

[asp_125]

The biggest problem with all of this is us vs them, and not enough WE. Each side adopting an all or nothing position. As long as that attitude exists we'll never get out of this mess.

[Wrider]

The biggest problem with all of this is us vs them, and not enough WE. Each side adopting an all or nothing position. As long as that attitude exists we'll never get out of this mess.

Normally I'd agree with you, but I will reference the point I made above for why I don't agree. Have you seen the BATFE's list of laws and regulations? It's insane. E.G. Did you realize that all guns that are imported must meet a point system criteria in order to be legally imported. Everything is taken into account and the points are completely and utterly subjective with no point to any of them. Heck, just to meet the points requirements, Glocks that are not made in the US are imported with a rear sight that's "click adjustable". When it hits US turf, they take that off and put on the familiar Glock rear sight. Also, the thumb indent is there to qualify it as a "target grip" and the trigger is checkered/striped to qualify it as a "target trigger". That's the kind of inanity that firearms manufacturers and dealers have to deal with every single day just trying to conduct a business.

[Kim-n-Dean]

Normally I'd agree with you, but I will reference the point I made above for why I don't agree. Have you seen the BATFE's list of laws and regulations? It's insane. E.G. Did you realize that all guns that are imported must meet a point system criteria in order to be legally imported. Everything is taken into account and the points are completely and utterly subjective with no point to any of them. Heck, just to meet the points requirements, Glocks that are not made in the US are imported with a rear sight that's "click adjustable". When it hits US turf, they take that off and put on the familiar Glock rear sight. Also, the thumb indent is there to qualify it as a "target grip" and the trigger is checkered/striped to qualify it as a "target trigger". That's the kind of inanity that firearms manufacturers and dealers have to deal with every single day just trying to conduct a business.

It is absolutely absurd the laws they come up with. My SLR 95 (100% Bulgarian AK-47 w/ milled receiver) came with a "thumb hole" stock instead of a pistol grip. To legally put a pistol grip on it I have to have a certain number of American made parts on it. For instance, change the magazine to an American version and I get points for the housing, the spring, the bottom plate and the follower. Change the trigger group, and how ever many parts there are for the trigger count towards the amount of American made parts you need.

Can anyone tell me what this law prevents? Can anyone tell me how this law improves safety? Can anyone tell me how this law keeps this rifle out of the hands of criminals?

[Captain Obvious]

The biggest problem with all of this is us vs them, and not enough WE. Each side adopting an all or nothing position. As long as that attitude exists we'll never get out of this mess.

Thats very correct. Even above I am now suddenly a liberal just because I don't subscribe to the "as many guns and ammo as I can afford with no govt involvement cause the 2nd amendment declares I can have anything I want......"

Unless a middle ground is found, the same thing will happens as it always does. The govt will be forced to become involved, they will push the pendulum wildly to the "other" side and people will be shocked. It is already happening, just look at the more liberal states, they are already generating legislation that according to many is far too extreme. Cali, Chicago, NY. It is going to happen, people can either be part of a moderate solution or pissed off with the end result.

[Spooph]

Thats very correct. Even above I am now suddenly a liberal just because I don't subscribe to the "as many guns and ammo as I can afford with no govt involvement cause the 2nd amendment declares I can have anything I want......"

Unless a middle ground is found, the same thing will happens as it always does. The govt will be forced to become involved, they will push the pendulum wildly to the "other" side and people will be shocked. It is already happening, just look at the more liberal states, they are already generating legislation that according to many is far too extreme. Cali, Chicago, NY. It is going to happen, people can either be part of a moderate solution or pissed off with the end result.

your name fits with this post very well!

Simply yelling why suggested attempts won't or can't work isn't going to solve anything. We have a problem, we need to fix that problem. Hard line attitudes will only inflame the situation.

Lol, I'm so glad my post went completely unnoticed. Simply proves that people care more about having an opinion than educating that opinion, lol.

[#1Townie]

Thats very correct. Even above I am now suddenly a liberal just because I don't subscribe to the "as many guns and ammo as I can afford with no govt involvement cause the 2nd amendment declares I can have anything I want......"

Unless a middle ground is found, the same thing will happens as it always does. The govt will be forced to become involved, they will push the pendulum wildly to the "other" side and people will be shocked. It is already happening, just look at the more liberal states, they are already generating legislation that according to many is far too extreme. Cali, Chicago, NY. It is going to happen, people can either be part of a moderate solution or pissed off with the end result.

I have to say to you. The idea that people can just go buy anything and everything they ever wanted is kind of why you got lumped into that category. We have very strict regulations on firearms. Violating those regulations comes with very tough punishments.

The problem with the middle ground idea is all the laws that have been passed in the last 20 years. The only middle ground a majority of the anti firearms group has in mind is total disarmament of the population.

Think about how many laws are broken the moment a person steps into a school and kills people. None of those stopped the person.

May I ask why no one will listen to the idea of of more security in schools? I mean even Walmart has a security staff. Why is it that our cheapest goods are good enough to be protected and yet children aren't?

Yeah I know I'm using the more guns to defeat guns argument but come on man. The only reason these things happen is because its an easy target.

Even the mall shootings have slowed down because because these guys didn't get high body counts. At the end of the day all these sick bastards want is their fame.

So why not secure our future with more than one guy that rotates from school to school? Why not employ some of our vets and give them dual jobs?

Why do we have to wait for a call to 911 and then an officer to be dispatched to protect our kids? SHOULDNT they have protection already in place? Create a deterrent so that these guys will stop targeting schools?


And finally I will say this to a link posted about vetereans saying blah blah armed civis can't get the job done.

There was a guy in Oregon that did fight back. Think of the difference that man could have made if he had been allowed to be armed. Unless we are going to argue that even our soldiers don't have the proper training to deal with a situation like an active shooter.

There is a million ways we could deal with this and yet the only one anyone is willing to talk about is firearms. Kind of pathetic really.

[#1Townie]

your name fits with this post very well!

Simply yelling why suggested attempts won't or can't work isn't going to solve anything. We have a problem, we need to fix that problem. Hard line attitudes will only inflame the situation.

Lol, I'm so glad my post went completely unnoticed. Simply proves that people care more about having an opinion than educating that opinion, lol.

Your post didn't get unnoticed. Just like others have said there is no middle ground anymore. We already have a ton of firearms regulations. That is being ignored.

In Colorado alone you have background checks for everything even p2p sales. You have the original laws still in place. You have the federal laws still in place. How many more laws are you asking 2a supporters to give into for this so called middle ground?

I mean it's not like I can go down to the local gas station and buy ten thousand rounds of armour piercing and a fully auto ar15.

So I mean really how much more do we have to give before we truly start to deal with the problems here?

[Captain Obvious]

Honestly I truly hate the term of commonsense laws. Let me ask you something. The only way to make background checks in p2p work is gun registration. I am 100% against that. From now until forever.

The government has no right what so ever to know who has firearms. Again this is counterproductive to everything we should stand for.

So because it was ignored before I'm going to ask again. If a person has to pass a training course for firearms what do you tell people who overnight find themselves in a possible violent situation. As in woman left an abusive husband or boyfriend and needs one to protect themselves. Do we just them should have planned better? Sorry we can't help you because you didn't take a class yet? The police aren't going to baby sit them.

How about a man stands up the criminals in his neighborhood and now finds himself in need of a firearm to protect his family. Tell him tough luck? Shouldn't have stood up to those drug dealers/thugs? Move?

I do agree that education would be nice. Again I'm saying make it part of public education. Senior year make it mandatory to graduate.

See the problem I have with these so called commonsense laws that people bring up is that they are always brought up without thinking about actual emergency situations.

I get why you are anti-registration. Not sure I agree, but I get it.

RE your latest hypothetical. Perhaps no one is replying because every time you present a scenario, people will poke holes in it, you will say they are wrong even if evidence shows otherwise or you will just modify the scenario. It is a never ending cycle of "keep proving me wrong".

All govt legislation will have people left behind. That is the nature of public policy that governs many. There will always be the edge cases that were not accounted for or are so rare the in the overall betterment of society, it is a price worth paying.

Re waiting periods (expanded to include required training). Any evidence that the waiting period in California has caused ex-GFs of abusers to be killed whereas all the ex-GFs in Alabama have successfully shot the abuser post firearms purchase? I am simply asking if your hypothetical can be justified as a reason to NOT implement.

Re the training. Lets also admit, just because someone has training doesn't mean they will not commit firearms violence. The us spends on average $12.8 million daily on gun violence. Thats 4.6 billion a year for the short term and long term costs associated with gun violence. Now clearly most of it is not the legal / non-criminal. But it is a problem the we collectively have to be able to improve.

[Captain Obvious]

May I ask why no one will listen to the idea of of more security in schools? I mean even Walmart has a security staff. Why is it that our cheapest goods are good enough to be protected and yet children aren't?

Yeah I know I'm using the more guns to defeat guns argument but come on man. The only reason these things happen is because its an easy target.

Even the mall shootings have slowed down because because these guys didn't get high body counts. At the end of the day all these sick bastards want is their fame.

So I don't know about this. I know growing up, every public school I attended in North Florida had a School Resource Officer. SRO. And that was a fully armed and certified deputy. It was just a rotating duty station that the Sheriff appointed someone. I have no idea why so many schools seemingly don't. This was K-12. We also had a full police force at FSU, FAMU and TCC.

I have zero issues with armed, trained, qualified persons being placed in schools. I DON'T think arming teachers / professors is a good idea unless they meet the first statement. Nor would requiring them be.

I am only aware of 1 incident in the last 30 years for the aforementioned 6 educational facilities. FSU had a gunman injure 3 before being shot. Now some would say FSU had a police force and still had an incident, which is true, but the results seem to be very different than many other schools.

I would also submit it isn't the "using guns to defeat guns" I would say it is using QUALIFIED persons with firearms as a tool to defeat/deter. But again, I grew up with it so I fully support a LEO in every school. It is a price worth paying IMO. However, reactive isn't sufficient. Still need to fix the existing issues to prevent a situation before it occurs.

[Captain Obvious]

In Colorado alone you have background checks for everything even p2p sales. You have the original laws still in place. You have the federal laws still in place. How many more laws are you asking 2a supporters to give into for this so called middle ground?

So wait, do we have p2p sales in CO? Do they require a background check?