2015-10-01 tragedy unfolding in Roseburg OR

[#1Townie]

Okay to feed off of spooph he's correct. We have to deal with the problems. Not the tools.

One of the things that seems to make these guys do this is the simple fame. Making headlines. Striking fear into the houses of all parents. One thing I will never understand is the lack of security for our children. Walmart even has security. Malls. Everywhere. Yet in elementary schools or preschools or even highschools the security is very relaxed.

By making these gun free zones we need to apply some form of security. Training for these events. Its been shown over and over again that as soon as these guys meet force the situation ends. Usually by the gunman's own hand.

With that knowledge why do we only have maybe one cop in these schools? They should never be left defenseless.

I have said this before and I'm going to say it again. With the unemployment in our vets these days why don't we put them to work? They were good enough to fight for our freedoms and protect our rights and they are good enough to protect our future.

Also we need to really take a look at our war on drugs. Its a complete waste of time and effort for law enforcement. They have much better things to be doing with their time than busting minor possession charges.

And to top it off we really need to look at helping these people that think walking into a school and killing is okay. What makes their brain tic the way it does.

Sad part to all these. We may never find the true reason for this. We walk around in our bubbles and ignore the fact that pure evil does walk among us.

The idea that we live in a civilized society is just a dream. The truth? Every two minutes someone in this country is raped. On average 50 people are murdered every day in this country. Extremists from all walks of life want to kill normal people. Mentally ill people attack random individuals with provocation.

In the real world outside our little bubbles life is a crazy violent place. People kill. People take what they want. People do what they want. No law will ever stop this.

We can't reason with evil because evil has no reason. Its sad but this world isn't all rainbows and sunshine. The more we try to hide from it the harder it will slap us in the face.

Stay safe out there. People are crazy. Educate yourself in self-defense. Don't be a victim. And most of all don't rely on someone else to keep you safe. When seconds count the police are just minutes away.

[koop]

You have guns and you have crazy people. You can't outlaw crazy people. First, you don't always know who they are. Second, even if you did know who there were, they have rights and stuff.

Since you can't outlaw crazy people, the only other thing you can do when "we have to do something..." is to outlaw guns. Only problem is we don't want to outlaw guns. We like guns.

When that nut in Sandy Hook executed 20 kindergarten children we settled the debate. 20 dead six year olds and the country gave a collective shrug and said "whatchagonnado."

We have settled on a price. In exchange for unfettered access to guns we will accept a school shooting or two a year. Debate over, gun control lost. Who wants ice cream?

[Zanatos]

Most young spree killers obtain weapons from parents' or relatives' homes.

I secure my weapons so that they are readily available - but only to me and my wife. If I had a mentally unstable relative, I would take additional steps to make certain that they did not have access to my home or my weapons.

The fact that we don't have common sense laws that require people to properly safeguard their lethal weapons is clear evidence that gun lobbyists and the NRA have successfully brainwashed millions of Americans.

The Founding Fathers said the right to bear arms as part of a well-trained militia, shall not be infringed. Yet current laws have absolutely no training requirement for gun owners. As soon as a kid turns 18, he can go out and legally buy guns and ammo without any idea how to safely and properly fire the weapon, inspect it, clean it, function check it, clear it, or secure it - and without even an inkling of an idea about the laws covering the use of deadly force.

If stricter gun ownership laws are ineffective - how come they work in every other nation on the planet? (Look at the statistics for yourself. I won't bother posting any because every time I do, opponents say that my sources are biased/false/skewed/etc.)

[FZRguy]

None of us here are advocating for irresponsible gun ownership. Like others have stated, it's a very complex issue.

[#1Townie]

Most young spree killers obtain weapons from parents' or relatives' homes.

I secure my weapons so that they are readily available - but only to me and my wife. If I had a mentally unstable relative, I would take additional steps to make certain that they did not have access to my home or my weapons.

The fact that we don't have common sense laws that require people to properly safeguard their lethal weapons is clear evidence that gun lobbyists and the NRA have successfully brainwashed millions of Americans.

The Founding Fathers said the right to bear arms as part of a well-trained militia, shall not be infringed. Yet current laws have absolutely no training requirement for gun owners. As soon as a kid turns 18, he can go out and legally buy guns and ammo without any idea how to safely and properly fire the weapon, inspect it, clean it, function check it, clear it, or secure it - and without even an inkling of an idea about the laws covering the use of deadly force.

If stricter gun ownership laws are ineffective - how come they work in every other nation on the planet? (Look at the statistics for yourself. I won't bother posting any because every time I do, opponents say that my sources are biased/false/skewed/etc.)

Seems you need to brush up a bit.
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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.

So other countries with stricter gun regulations have less crime? Russia? Mexico? Both of them have banned firearms COMPLETLY and yet both make our murder rate look like nothing.

Sure let's look at Paris. They also have extremely tight regulated gun control. Its so peaceful there the cops don't carry guns. Are they safe from mass shootings? I would have to say not.

But let's flip the script a little. If the argument that more weapons equals more crime or murder why does Switzerland have one of the lowest crime rates in the world?

The percentage of firearms over there puts us to shame. Also why don't gunshows and even gun stores just erupt into random massacres? Name me one mass shooting in America at a gun show. Try.

You won't find one. Why? Because the people who commit these crimes want a target rich environmental with little resistance. They want to get the largest body count to make the headlines.

Also what good is to add more laws to anything when the current ones clearly don't work? Murder is a crime. Shooting someone is a crime. Hell pointing a firearm at someone for no reason is a crime!

You want to use newtown? Let's do it. The guy killed his own mother to gain access to those firearms. Think about that for a second.

HE KILLED IS OWN MOTHER TO GAIN ACCESS TO FIREARMS!

What law was going to stop him from hurting people?

[asp_125]

People get all wrapped up in the whole gun issue when it's not about weapons at all. It's about mental health and responsibility. Responsible gun owners take care to secure their weapons, responsible parents take raise children to know right from wrong, that violence is not the answer, that mental problems need more than a pill. How many mass shooters have a distorted sense of reality? If you treat the mentally unstable properly, or identify them early, then you can own all the guns you want, because they won't want to or be able to get to access them.

Part of me wants to reinstate mental hospitals where patients can be monitored and treated and away from society, but the asylum abuses of the past raise concerns about its practicality. Today you have diagnosed ADHD, PTSD, etc people as outpatients - where someone can go off the rails and gain easy access to weapons (guns, knives, Ricin, etc) for mass destruction.

It's totally not about weapons, it's about the people. Wake up! But the right wants to ignore the social aspect and the left wants to misdirect us towards guns.. nobody wants to confront the real problem. Guns are an easy scapegoat because the societal and psychological solution is much harder and nobody wants to deal with it. Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech, Columbine, all the perpetrators were some victim of bullying, neglect, or obsessed with violence and notoriety. They're hiding in plain sight, and we simply shrug our collective shoulders and look for easy fixes.

[Aaron]

So let me get this clear. You are advocating that the Police violate a person's 6th amendment rights as a way to save taxpayers money.
What if this person gave up like the Aurora Theater shooter did? Are you saying the Arapahoe Police Department should have killed the shooter as he sat in his car instead of arresting him because that would have been more of a just outcome in your eyes?

I actually would advocate this in these situations.

The Police are there to save lives. Obviously they cannot let medical personnel in until all confirmed threats are neutralized. How many Officers, who could have been saving innocent lives, were wasted by baby-sitting the offender? My department wouldn't leave him with less than 4, probably 5-6 Officers. However if his heart isn't beating, it'd be 1. That frees up 4-6 Officers who can be saving innocent lives. Stopping bleeding, escorting medics, giving rapid trauma care, carrying victims out, driving them to hospitals, etc. Time spent on the suspect in these cases is time wasted. If I was on scene and was forced to apply deadly force, I would apply it, go up and confirm it was effective at being deadly, take the weapons, and leave to try and save innocent people. You know, the ones who wanted to watch a movie with their children.

[laspariahs]

I actually would advocate this in these situations.

The Police are there to save lives. Obviously they cannot let medical personnel in until all confirmed threats are neutralized. How many Officers, who could have been saving innocent lives, were wasted by baby-sitting the offender? My department wouldn't leave him with less than 4, probably 5-6 Officers. However if his heart isn't beating, it'd be 1. That frees up 4-6 Officers who can be saving innocent lives. Stopping bleeding, escorting medics, giving rapid trauma care, carrying victims out, driving them to hospitals, etc. Time spent on the suspect in these cases is time wasted. If I was on scene and was forced to apply deadly force, I would apply it, go up and confirm it was effective at being deadly, take the weapons, and leave to try and save innocent people. You know, the ones who wanted to watch a movie with their children.

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.Benjamin Franklin

[Okrapp]

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.Benjamin Franklin

The literal meaning of that quote has zero to do with Aaron's statement or this discussion as a whole. It is used out of context frequently by those thinking it has something to do with actions by government perceived to restrict certain civil liberties for the sake of physical security. This was actually a discussion directed at a governor vetoing the ability of the general assembly to tax certain wealthy parties the same as everyone else. Pretty entertaining when you think of those that bring this quote up.

But since it's already out of context, sure let's take a look at the physical security and civil liberty potential meaning. Yes, people were denied the liberty of defending themselves against such actions for the imagined degree of safety afforded. They received neither. Sad.

Looking for a root cause of why these people are acting out and identifying them for help would be productive. Eliminating one or more type of weapon they could possibly use to act out isn't going to happen. And recent history demonstrates the environments with the highest restrictions on people that may be able to defend themselves are the most likely to be subject to this type of action. The ideology that taking away legal firearm ownership abilities or singling out ones that look scarier but don't function any differently simply do not work here.

That said, I don't agree with arming everyone either. I don't mind going through a background check or waiting some given period. It isn't going to be helpful though unless we can agree to focus on getting those that could go on a spree in that database. But that's harder than blaming an implement and illegal channels exist for those looking to work around the system. Oh, you're thinking that's the 'gun show loophole' right? Not here. Have been to several and never witnessed anyone selling without background checks. Were there any calls for banning pressure cookers lately? Should we have our soil and compost inspected for nitrate content? Maybe put serial numbers on arrows and other pointy sticks?

[Spooph]

Most young spree killers obtain weapons from parents' or relatives' homes.

I secure my weapons so that they are readily available - but only to me and my wife. If I had a mentally unstable relative, I would take additional steps to make certain that they did not have access to my home or my weapons.

The fact that we don't have common sense laws that require people to properly safeguard their lethal weapons is clear evidence that gun lobbyists and the NRA have successfully brainwashed millions of Americans.

The Founding Fathers said the right to bear arms as part of a well-trained militia, shall not be infringed. Yet current laws have absolutely no training requirement for gun owners. As soon as a kid turns 18, he can go out and legally buy guns and ammo without any idea how to safely and properly fire the weapon, inspect it, clean it, function check it, clear it, or secure it - and without even an inkling of an idea about the laws covering the use of deadly force.

If stricter gun ownership laws are ineffective - how come they work in every other nation on the planet? (Look at the statistics for yourself. I won't bother posting any because every time I do, opponents say that my sources are biased/false/skewed/etc.)

YES YES YES! This!

Add psychological/cultural classes to schools focused on introspection. We all have the people we go to to vent, or talk through issues when we're emotionally compromised. Mass Shooters more often than not, do not, and haven't had that for a long time. If we prepare our youth with greater emotional maturity by guiding them through the treacherous brain space of today of violent media, no ubiquitous national moral code, and relationship difficulties, to name just a few, we can start making head way.

Along with that, teach gun safety in schools alongside sex ed and driver's ed (and although it wouldn't solve the mass shootings, it will address many gun-related accidents).

Along with that, I'm all for requiring gun owners to undergo proper training. If the gun-owning populace can't regulate that themselves, then as is the case with any body of people who can't take on the responsibility for their own freedom, it will be legislated for them.

Either step up or have somebody do it for you. These are the principles of the Constitution. It's not some dish rag to be waived around in ignorance and used to sop up any mess that morons have created. It's our governing law. Respect it, honor it and carry it's responsibility.

I can't speak for anybody else, however, I make it a point to be very open with my non-gun friends about guns. I don't get into arguments anymore because that is counter productive. What is much more productive is to work with them to find a solution. We all want the same thing. Safety. For those trumpeting guns, it is THEIR responsibility to make the gun-toting populace safer, better owners of guns.

There is a reasonable line in this mess, but it certainly is not within the duality which our political structure dictates. It is then up to free-thinking citizens to find and implement the solution.

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

Gotcha. That's a typical argument used by the lefties, no offense meant. No, in the end it might not be cheaper......but I think it's money well spent. I think we should be far more efficient in the appeals process, and that would save us money. Like I mentioned, have a condition where, due to overwhelming evidence, there can be no appeal, then line them up and finish them.

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

Today's American gun culture provides for the most unequivocally convenient mechanism of harm to our population, in the history of violence. To think that they somehow do not factor them into the equation, is naïve.

Actually, that's 100% incorrect. Suicide bombers, the 9/11 terrorists, the marathon bombers, and Timothy McVeigh proved that. Large explosives are orders of magnitude more effective at killing than guns, and are less regulated. Trust me, I worked in the design of them for the Navy for 12+ years.

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

Seems you need to brush up a bit.
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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.

So other countries with stricter gun regulations have less crime? Russia? Mexico? Both of them have banned firearms COMPLETLY and yet both make our murder rate look like nothing.

Sure let's look at Paris. They also have extremely tight regulated gun control. Its so peaceful there the cops don't carry guns. Are they safe from mass shootings? I would have to say not.

But let's flip the script a little. If the argument that more weapons equals more crime or murder why does Switzerland have one of the lowest crime rates in the world?

The percentage of firearms over there puts us to shame. Also why don't gunshows and even gun stores just erupt into random massacres? Name me one mass shooting in America at a gun show. Try.

You won't find one. Why? Because the people who commit these crimes want a target rich environmental with little resistance. They want to get the largest body count to make the headlines.

Also what good is to add more laws to anything when the current ones clearly don't work? Murder is a crime. Shooting someone is a crime. Hell pointing a firearm at someone for no reason is a crime!

You want to use newtown? Let's do it. The guy killed his own mother to gain access to those firearms. Think about that for a second.

HE KILLED IS OWN MOTHER TO GAIN ACCESS TO FIREARMS!

What law was going to stop him from hurting people?

I'd have to say I agree with all this 100%. Bravo!

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

I actually would advocate this in these situations.

The Police are there to save lives. Obviously they cannot let medical personnel in until all confirmed threats are neutralized. How many Officers, who could have been saving innocent lives, were wasted by baby-sitting the offender? My department wouldn't leave him with less than 4, probably 5-6 Officers. However if his heart isn't beating, it'd be 1. That frees up 4-6 Officers who can be saving innocent lives. Stopping bleeding, escorting medics, giving rapid trauma care, carrying victims out, driving them to hospitals, etc. Time spent on the suspect in these cases is time wasted. If I was on scene and was forced to apply deadly force, I would apply it, go up and confirm it was effective at being deadly, take the weapons, and leave to try and save innocent people. You know, the ones who wanted to watch a movie with their children.

Thanks for saving me from having to explain it to him......

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

People get all wrapped up in the whole gun issue when it's not about weapons at all. It's about mental health and responsibility. Responsible gun owners take care to secure their weapons, responsible parents take raise children to know right from wrong, that violence is not the answer, that mental problems need more than a pill. How many mass shooters have a distorted sense of reality? If you treat the mentally unstable properly, or identify them early, then you can own all the guns you want, because they won't want to or be able to get to access them.

Part of me wants to reinstate mental hospitals where patients can be monitored and treated and away from society, but the asylum abuses of the past raise concerns about its practicality. Today you have diagnosed ADHD, PTSD, etc people as outpatients - where someone can go off the rails and gain easy access to weapons (guns, knives, Ricin, etc) for mass destruction.

It's totally not about weapons, it's about the people. Wake up! But the right wants to ignore the social aspect and the left wants to misdirect us towards guns.. nobody wants to confront the real problem. Guns are an easy scapegoat because the societal and psychological solution is much harder and nobody wants to deal with it. Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech, Columbine, all the perpetrators were some victim of bullying, neglect, or obsessed with violence and notoriety. They're hiding in plain sight, and we simply shrug our collective shoulders and look for easy fixes.

I generally agree 100% with this.....except for the right ignoring the social aspect. We need a much better way to STOP these people before they turn violent. Are we going to bend a few of their liberties doing so? Probably, but I believe certain people who have shown certain behavior need to be watched, and in some cases, incarcerated BEFORE they get a chance to harm innocents. I do agree with the abuses of the past showing us we need to be careful about the criteria for incarceration and treatment.

[Zanatos]

Townie, you are correct about the "well-regulated" part. That means highly controlled through laws.

Too often, gun rights advocates remember the "shall not be infringed" part, and they claim that any laws that apply to guns and gun owners are infringements of the Second Amendment.

I oppose gun bans - but I do support required education for firearms owners and strict penalties for people who don't take any precautions to keep weapons out of the wrong hands. While it might not prevent a maniac from killing his parents to get their guns, it might make it a bit tougher for thieves, mentally unstable teenagers, and curious little kids from getting their mitts on a weapon. There is no good reason to oppose a law that requires people to take personal responsibility for their guns. It is common sense and due care that most people shouldn't even need to be told - but unfortunately, there are a lot of very dumb people in the world who lack common sense and are careless. (That's why the black market for stolen weapons is so huge.)

[#1Townie]

Townie, you are correct about the "well-regulated" part. That means highly controlled through laws.

Too often, gun rights advocates remember the "shall not be infringed" part, and they claim that any laws that apply to guns and gun owners are infringements of the Second Amendment.

I oppose gun bans - but I do support required education for firearms owners and strict penalties for people who don't take any precautions to keep weapons out of the wrong hands. While it might not prevent a maniac from killing his parents to get their guns, it might make it a bit tougher for thieves, mentally unstable teenagers, and curious little kids from getting their mitts on a weapon. There is no good reason to oppose a law that requires people to take personal responsibility for their guns. It is common sense and due care that most people shouldn't even need to be told - but unfortunately, there are a lot of very dumb people in the world who lack common sense and are careless. (That's why the black market for stolen weapons is so huge.)

Well the courts disagree with you and your idea about the second amendment. The peoples right is a pretty strong statement.

The whole idea that we need to be regulated is kind of against the whole idea to begin with. Remember this document was written because a large group of people had enough of being ruled under a king and decided to fight for freedom.

Do you really think that these so called farmers really meant you can only have a gun if you are enlisted in some form of the governments military? Again doesn't that kind of defeat the whole purpose?

As needing training I think it's a great idea but I have to counter that argument with this. What if a woman has just left her husband and needs one to protect herself? Sorry you'll just have to try to survive for a few weeks or even months until you meet the proper requirements? No thank you. Anyone who thinks they need one should be able to access one in a timely manner if they are legally allowed to own one.

Next on to the secure your weapons. Again no. Why should anyone have to take added steps to "secure" a tool meant to be their self-defense weapon? Too many stories of kids who were taught to use their parents weapons being able to get to them and defend themselves against a home invasion.

Sure we could argue all day long about keeping these things out of the hands of criminals but that's a false dream. Wishful thinking. They are criminals. The black market isn't for honest people.

You think a safe is impenetrable? The best safe in the world can be broken into. So again the only people being limited by a law like that is honest people. No thank you.

Buuuut I do agree that education would help. Its why I feel that it should be in school. To graduate from high school I think you should have a firearms certificate.

I also think schools and so called gun free zones need to own up to the situation.

Face it man these places are targets because its a target rich environment with little to no defense. Do you really think these guys care about killing kids? Nope.

These people want one thing. Fame. They don't want to fight. They just want to kill as many people as they can before they get stopped. You really want to end this madness? Secure gun free zones.

Notice how because I won't agree to give into stricter firearm regs I don't care about children? Thats fun yet I'm preaching we need to secure our children.

If a guy can walk into a school loaded with guns whats stopping from grabbing kids and taking them? There is a billion reasons why our schools should be secured. But no the best we can do is out gun free zone sign up and call it a day. Because that is clearly working.


Nope make it so that these places aren't easy targets anymore. Simple.

And cm no. I disagree 100%. I would rather see 100mill spent on making sure you have the right man before you execute someone. Our courts make a lot of mistakes and it would be an even bigger tragity to kill the wrong person for a crime.

[Slo]

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

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

And cm no. I disagree 100%. I would rather see 100mill spent on making sure you have the right man before you execute someone. Our courts make a lot of mistakes and it would be an even bigger tragity to kill the wrong person for a crime.

Gee, and here I thought we were on a roll..... I think you misunderstand. There would be certain conditions of overwhelming evidence, i.e. a whole theater of witnesses and cops, where there is absolutely no doubt, where the jury would have to vote on that as a separate issue like "sanity" (a bullshit defense in and of itself but I digress....), and the death penalty. In other words (ignoring the ridiculous "insanity" issue) first the jury determines guilt. then the jury determines if it warrants the death penalty. THEN it decides if the evidence it's heard was overwhelming. If yes, give them maybe a week to take care of burial arrangements and will etc., then cook them. DONE. Or should I say, WELL DONE......

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

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

....and probably a very low crime rate.....imagine that.....

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

Too often, gun rights advocates remember the "shall not be infringed" part, and they claim that any laws that apply to guns and gun owners are infringements of the Second Amendment.

I don't see any of your proposed "conditions" on the word "Infringed":
verb (used with object), infringed, infringing. 1. to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress: to infringe a copyright; to infringe a rule. (As in don't INFRINGE on my 2nd Amendment Rights).

verb (used without object), infringed, infringing. 2. to encroach or trespass (usually followed by on or upon): Don't infringe on his privacy.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/infringed?s=t

I.E. there is no such thing as a "little" infringement. That's like telling a cop "I was only a little trespassing". It infringes, or it does not. Simple.

And, for the record, we are not "gun rights advocates", we are "Constitutional advocates". We have a Constitution, it's high time we follow it. Those pussies that want to live in a gun-free zone, can move to france where their RIGHT to bear arms is not specifically recognized and GUARANTEED by a Constitution.

[GMR]

The catch 22: the more talk there is about gun control, the more gun demand and prices rise=more private gun sales=fewer background checks

[Nolan]

The more talk there is about gun control means I can turn a profit from the lowers I'm probably not going to use. Or sell my ammo at double my cost.

[~Barn~]

Today's American gun culture provides for the most unequivocally convenient mechanism of harm to our population, in the history of violence. To think that they somehow do not factor them into the equation, is naïve.

Actually, that's 100% incorrect. Suicide bombers, the 9/11 terrorists, the marathon bombers, and Timothy McVeigh proved that. Large explosives are orders of magnitude more effective at killing than guns, and are less regulated. Trust me, I worked in the design of them for the Navy for 12+ years.

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.