Then maybe we should look into it? I mean it seems like this is happening more frequently in america.
Now what do we have over other countries that means we have more available weapons?
Then maybe we should look into it? I mean it seems like this is happening more frequently in america.
Now what do we have over other countries that means we have more available weapons?
so somewhere between 7 and 15 people died (LA times to NYdailynews)
4chan will likely be blamed (Certain news outlets are looking into /r9k/ because yesterday someone made a thread that started with "Don't go to school tomorrow if you're in the NW" with a picture of pepe the frog holding a gun)
2 week rant by the left saying we need do something about guns and baby killing asalt clips
2 week rant by the right saying we need more mental health screenings.
The guy who carried out this shooting will be plastered on every news channel, along side his kill count.
If the person is White/hispanic/asian he will be decried as mentally unstable and that people should of noticed sooner.
If the person is black/middle eastern he will be the victim of American Racism.
Ninjacommando wrote: so somewhere between 7 and 15 people died (LA times to NYdailynews)
4chan will likely be blamed (Certain news outlets are looking into /r9k/ because yesterday someone made a thread that started with "Don't go to school tomorrow if your in the NW" with a picture of pepe holding a gun)
2 week rant by the left saying we need do something about guns and baby killing asalt clips
The guy who carried out this shooting will be plastered on every news channel.
If the person is White/hispanic/asian he will be decried as mentally unstable and that people should of noticed sooner.
If the person is black/middle eastern he will be the victim of American Racism.
Ninjacommando wrote: so somewhere between 7 and 15 people died (LA times to NYdailynews)
4chan will likely be blamed (Certain news outlets are looking into /r9k/ because yesterday someone made a thread that started with "Don't go to school tomorrow if you're in the NW" with a picture of pepe the frog holding a gun)
2 week rant by the left saying we need do something about guns and baby killing asalt clips 2 week rant by the right saying we need more mental health screenings.
The guy who carried out this shooting will be plastered on every news channel, along side his kill count.
If the person is White/hispanic/asian he will be decried as mentally unstable and that people should of noticed sooner.
If the person is black/middle eastern he will be the victim of American Racism.
Hey here's an idea, lets keep the thread clear for actual news for a bit before we all go to our corners and punch ourselves in the face. People have died here. I see Modmaster ninja'd me.
AG is supposed to have confirmed 13 with shooter dead, not sure if shooter one of 13.
ROSEBURG, Ore. -- At least 13 people were dead after a gunman opened fire at an Oregon community college Thursday, Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum said.
Rosenblum said the gunman was also dead. It wasn't clear whether the gunman was among the 13 people who died. Rosenblum also said 20 people were wounded, many critically.
A gunman opened fire at 10:38 this morning, injuring at least 20 people at Umpqua Community College. Early reports from the scene suggest he may have killed as many as 13 of them.
The identities of the shooter and the victims were unavailable at press time. At least 11 had been transported to Mercy Medial Center, according to Mercy spokeswoman Kathleen Nickel, and two of those died. One victim was life-flighted north. As many as 13 victims were dead and the alleged shooter was reportedly killed.
Kortney Moore, 18, from Rogue River, was in her Writing 115 class in Snyder Hall when one shot came through a window. She saw her teacher get shot in the head. The shooter was inside at that point, and he told people to get on the ground. The shooter was asking people to stand up and state their religion and then started firing away, Moore said. Moore was lying there with people who had been shot.
There are unconfirmed reports that the shooter had either been shot or had shot himself. An official confirmed that the shooter had been “neutralized.”
Brady Winder, 23, of Portland, said he was in the room next door when he heard a loud thud that didn’t sound like a gunshot. He then heard a percussion of gunshots and the students all fled out the front door.
They left “like ants, people screaming, “Get out!” Winder said.
He saw a girl swim across the creek while fleeing.
Hannah Miles was in a class room next door to the shooting in Snyder Hall. Miles said they heard a sound next door that sounded like a yardstick slapping on a chalkboard. Then they heard the noise again. A teacher went to see if everything was all right, at which point it went off repeatedly and someone said everybody get out now. They got out as quickly as possible. They left everything behind.
According to scanner reports, the suspect was down and multiple ambulances were on scene. Police cleared the science building.
The scene was pure chaos.
Jared Norman, a nursing student, said he heard shots and then everyone was running. He was locked down in the cafeteria with 50 other students. His voice shook as he described the scene. They didn’t know what was going on, and they were terrified.
Shortly before noon, UCC Foundation Executive Director Dennis O’Neill said, “We locked our door and I went out to lock up the rest rooms and could hear four shots from the front of campus. We have heard there are casualties but know nothing more at this stage.”
An automated phone call went out to parents at Roseburg School District, referencing the shooting and claiming the school was safe.
Sometime after noon, students’ cell phones were confiscated, then students were marched out one building at a time, hands up, patted down and lined up to be evacuated on buses.
About 200 people were waiting at the Douglas County Fairgrounds for students, who were being ferried there in buses. Red Cross grief counselors were available at the fairgrounds.
Camas Valley teacher Christian Bringhurst said his daughter Justine was on UCC campus at time of shooting. She was safely evacuated to the fairgrounds.
“It’s awful. The uncertainty of what is going on is tough to deal with. We have a dozen (Camas Valley) kids going to school out there. Trying to find out who is there and make sure everybody is OK. Our hearts going out to the victims,” Bringhurst said.
The FBI’s Portland Division is responding to the incident. Agents and specialty personnel are responding from the FBI offices in Medford, Eugene, Salem and Portland.
U.S. Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Springfield, issued a statement following the incident.
“Today’s shooting in Roseburg is a heartbreaking tragedy, and my thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families. I want to extend my deepest gratitude to Roseburg’s first responders for their work in responding to the event. Once we know more about what happened today, I plan to work with my colleagues in Congress to find ways to prevent tragedies such as these,” DeFazio said.
Initial information from breaking news.
10:38 a.m. Police and emergency crews are at Umpqua Community College after a reported gunman has shot upwards of 20 people on campus. Scanner reports indicated the suspect is down. Multiple ambulances are on scene. Early reports indicate at least 15 people are dead. Students are reporting on social media that they are trapped inside classrooms.
11:20 a.m. Police are clearing the science building at this time.
11:28 a.m. Photographer just returned from Mercy Medical Center where he witnessed multiple ambulances bringing in patients.
11:34 a.m. Reporter at UCC describes the scene as “pure chaos.”
11:39 a.m. Jared Norman, a nursing student at UCC, said he heard shots and then everyone was running. He is locked down in the cafeteria with 50 other students right now. They’ve heard there is a shooting, but they don’t know what’s going on. And they’re scared.
11:42 a.m. Automated phone call went out to parents at Roseburg School District, referencing UCC shooting and saying all schools are safe.
11:49 a.m. “We locked our door and I went out to lock up the rest rooms and could hear four shots from the front of campus,” said UCC Foundation Executive Director Dennis O’Neill. “We have heard there are casualties but know nothing more at this stage.”
11:53 a.m. Oregon State Police are reporting via CNN that 10 people are dead and that the alleged shooter is dead.
11:57 a.m. Students and staff are gathered on the front lawn, waiting to be loaded onto a bus.
12:06 p.m. Kathleen Nickel, a spokesperson for Mercy Medical Center, said six patients have been brought to Mercy Medical Center and they are expecting two more.
12:40 p.m. Reporter Aaron Yost said two buses have brought students from UCC to the Douglas County Fairgrounds. Red Cross counselors are on scene to provide grief counseling.
12:57 p.m. Statement from Peter DeFazio on today’s shooting. “Today’s shooting in Roseburg is a heartbreaking tragedy, and my thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families. I want to extend my deepest gratitude to Roseburg’s first responders for their work in responding to the event. Once we know more about what happened today, I plan to work with my colleagues in Congress to find ways to prevent tragedies such as these.”
1 p.m. Christian Bringhurst said his daughter Justine is fine after she was on campus at the time of shooting.
“We (Camas Valley) have a dozen kids going to school out there,” Bringhurst said. “Trying to find out who is there and make sure everybody is OK. Our hearts going out to the victims.”
1:05 p.m. KVAL is reporting that the shooter is among the dead. That is unconfirmed.
1:13 p.m. Oregon Attorney General is reporting that 13 people are dead, up to 20 are injured including the shooter.
Jehan-reznor wrote: I thought they installed weapon detectors on schools a while back? RIP
Those schools that have (and can afford to) tend to be lower grade levels, with less buildings and entrances. It's rather difficult to secure an entire college campus.
Poor bastards. Everyone. The dead, the wounded, the people who had to hide in terror, the respondents who had to start working through such pointless carnage. Everyone.
I imagine trying to secure a large college campus is like trying to secure the London Underground. Transport For London did a test and determined it is completely impractical to cover all the possible access points and get people through the system at the required speed.
Seems like president Obama reacted quite sharply to this event. Not going to resurrect the victims, though.
Such an horrible atrocity...I can only pray for the dead, wounded and their families.
It's hard for me to understand a school has to use metal detector to feel safe. In my country, weapon sales are severely restricted and we don't have that kind of thing.
I guess you can never fully stop mad men from hurting innocent people...
Obama very angry at this latest tragedy. Apparently, this is the 15th time he's had to address the nation following a mass shooting
Here's what he had to say:
“As I said just a few months ago and I said a few months before that and each time we see one of these mass shootings, our thoughts and prayers are not enough. It does nothing to prevent this carnage being inflicted some place in America, next week or a couple of months from now,” the president said. “Somehow this has become routine.”
“Right now I can imagine the press releases being cranked out. We need more guns, they’ll say. Fewer safety laws. Does anybody really believe that?”
The president called for news organisations to compare the number of Americans killed by terrorism over the past decade with the number who died in gun violence. He noted that the US spends trillions of dollars and has passed myriad laws to protect people from terrorism.
“Yet we have a Congress that explicitly blocks us from even collecting data on how to reduce potential gun deaths. How can that be?” he said.
Some grim statistics as well:
45 school shootings in the US in 2015
142 school shootings since the attack at Sandy Hook
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Obama very angry at this latest tragedy. Apparently, this is the 15th time he's had to address the nation following a mass shooting
Here's what he had to say:
“As I said just a few months ago and I said a few months before that and each time we see one of these mass shootings, our thoughts and prayers are not enough. It does nothing to prevent this carnage being inflicted some place in America, next week or a couple of months from now,” the president said. “Somehow this has become routine.”
“Right now I can imagine the press releases being cranked out. We need more guns, they’ll say. Fewer safety laws. Does anybody really believe that?”
The president called for news organisations to compare the number of Americans killed by terrorism over the past decade with the number who died in gun violence. He noted that the US spends trillions of dollars and has passed myriad laws to protect people from terrorism.
“Yet we have a Congress that explicitly blocks us from even collecting data on how to reduce potential gun deaths. How can that be?” he said.
Some grim statistics as well:
45 school shootings in the US in 2015
142 school shootings since the attack at Sandy Hook
When you say 'school shootings' and mention Sandy Hook you are implying that there have been 45 Sandy Hook style murder sprees at schools in 2015, and 142 Sandy Hook style murder sprees since Sandy Hook. That is simply not true.
The numbers you have trotted out I presume are from the following articles
Including weapons discharges where no one was injured; attempted suicides, and suicides by gun. IE, things that have little or nothing to do with the thing we are talking about.
Yeah, I'm asking when *here* it's ok to start having the usual discussions and talking point theater we do every few weeks. Now, we've decided we need to do empty moral platitudes for a while first - so how long are we agreeing to that for? It's like a page, right? 2?
Ouze wrote: Yeah, I'm asking when *here* it's ok to start having the usual discussions and talking point theater we do every few weeks. Now, we've decided we need to do empty moral platitudes for a while first - so how long are we agreeing to that for? It's like a page, right? 2?
Start whenever you like
I'm not trying to make light of a tragedy, but IMO the thread should be able to talk about the social and political implications from the first post. Everybody on dakka can read about this tragedy on a gazillion different websites/newspapers etc etc
I see little point in parroting the news that is freely available elsewhere.
Ouze wrote: Yeah, I'm asking when *here* it's ok to start having the usual discussions and talking point theater we do every few weeks. Now, we've decided we need to do empty moral platitudes for a while first - so how long are we agreeing to that for? It's like a page, right? 2?
Start whenever you like
I'm not trying to make light of a tragedy, but IMO the thread should be able to talk about the social and political implications from the first post. Everybody on dakka can read about this tragedy on a gazillion different websites/newspapers etc etc
I see little point in parroting the news that is freely available elsewhere.
So what social and political implications do you want to discuss? So far all you've done is quote the President calling for more intrusive restrictive laws that wouldn't have had any impact on stopping these tragedies from occurring. Nobody in any of these gun threads has ever been in favor of murdering school children, we're all in agreement that it's a horrible crime. The continual point of disagreement is the need for ineffective additional intrusive restrictive laws that target law abiding citizens.
Kilkrazy wrote: I imagine trying to secure a large college campus is like trying to secure the London Underground. Transport For London did a test and determined it is completely impractical to cover all the possible access points and get people through the system at the required speed.
Aggieville, best school EVAH! At least until GC goes to unviersity then its whoever buys the old man a Vought F4U Corsair with 50 cal paintball guns first decides the best school. The problem is, most of the pushed for additional regulations would not have done anything with any of these, as they wouldn't have impacted or already violate current laws.
Like many things the infrastructure behind the NCIS system needs to be fixed, and the mental health system in the US needs a Manhattan Project style makeover. My own personal theory is that, in addition, during periods of great social and political upheaval, it stresses the society and the crazies come out.
Kilkrazy wrote: I imagine trying to secure a large college campus is like trying to secure the London Underground. Transport For London did a test and determined it is completely impractical to cover all the possible access points and get people through the system at the required speed.
Just thinking back over my college days, every building had 3+ entrances, not counting service entries and the like. The lab I worked in had it's own entry, as well as windows that were ground level and behind bushes where one could break in without anyone noticing. Putting a guard at every entrance or closing entrances would not be practical as students streamed into and out of every entrance between classes.
Ouze wrote: Yeah, I'm asking when *here* it's ok to start having the usual discussions and talking point theater we do every few weeks. Now, we've decided we need to do empty moral platitudes for a while first - so how long are we agreeing to that for? It's like a page, right? 2?
Start whenever you like
I'm not trying to make light of a tragedy, but IMO the thread should be able to talk about the social and political implications from the first post. Everybody on dakka can read about this tragedy on a gazillion different websites/newspapers etc etc
I see little point in parroting the news that is freely available elsewhere.
So what social and political implications do you want to discuss? So far all you've done is quote the President calling for more intrusive restrictive laws that wouldn't have had any impact on stopping these tragedies from occurring. Nobody in any of these gun threads has ever been in favor of murdering school children, we're all in agreement that it's a horrible crime. The continual point of disagreement is the need for ineffective additional intrusive restrictive laws that target law abiding citizens.
I think you've answered your own question.
But for me, the key questions, which most people will be more familiar with, are these:
1) Should there be more gun control?
2) Should there be less gun control?
Unfortunately, these simple questions are very complex, and because the well has been poisoned in America, regarding this issue, both sides are heavily polarised.
So we have the left calling for more gun control and less guns, and the right calling for armed teachers, more guns and F-14s to fly over schools.
Recently, I've been reading a lot on the 2nd amendment - the history, the debates, federal papers 29 and 46, James Madison's notes at the constitutional convention etc etc
And it is a VERY complex issue, that ultimately, the American people will have to solve.
Kilkrazy wrote: I imagine trying to secure a large college campus is like trying to secure the London Underground. Transport For London did a test and determined it is completely impractical to cover all the possible access points and get people through the system at the required speed.
Just thinking back over my college days, every building had 3+ entrances, not counting service entries and the like. The lab I worked in had it's own entry, as well as windows that were ground level and behind bushes where one could break in without anyone noticing. Putting a guard at every entrance or closing entrances would not be practical as students streamed into and out of every entrance between classes.
Society was different back then. I honestly think the me me me attitude and the modern trend for everyman for himself, has done something to the social fabric, not just in the USA, but the west in general.
I think people are more narcissistic, more prone to taking offence easier, and have this need for 'respect' and feel slighted if they don't get it.
I honestly believe that these are a factor in violent crimes in the west these days.
Kilkrazy wrote: I imagine trying to secure a large college campus is like trying to secure the London Underground. Transport For London did a test and determined it is completely impractical to cover all the possible access points and get people through the system at the required speed.
Aggieville, best school EVAH! At least until GC goes to unviersity then its whoever buys the old man a Vought F4U Corsair with 50 cal paintball guns first decides the best school. The problem is, most of the pushed for additional regulations would not have done anything with any of these, as they wouldn't have impacted or already violate current laws.
Like many things the infrastructure behind the NCIS system needs to be fixed, and the mental health system in the US needs a Manhattan Project style makeover. My own personal theory is that, in addition, during periods of great social and political upheaval, it stresses the society and the crazies come out.
I think mental health is a smokescreen, in all honesty.
There have been plenty instances of men or woman, free of mental health problems, discovering their partner cheating on them, and then shooting them dead for it.
I honestly think that guns escalate heated arguments/situations that 9 times out of 10, would end in a fist fight or a war of words, and thus leave people alive at the end of it.
I remember having a massive argument with my brother years ago, fists were thrown, heavy objects were thrown. Imagine if either of us had a gun...
And yet, a few days later, we're best friends again.
I'm willing to beat that thousands of people have been in that situation with a friend or brother, lost it in the heat of the moment, and then shot them...and felt guilt for the rest of their lives....
Ouze wrote: Yeah, I'm asking when *here* it's ok to start having the usual discussions and talking point theater we do every few weeks. Now, we've decided we need to do empty moral platitudes for a while first - so how long are we agreeing to that for? It's like a page, right? 2?
Start whenever you like
I'm not trying to make light of a tragedy, but IMO the thread should be able to talk about the social and political implications from the first post. Everybody on dakka can read about this tragedy on a gazillion different websites/newspapers etc etc
I see little point in parroting the news that is freely available elsewhere.
So what social and political implications do you want to discuss? So far all you've done is quote the President calling for more intrusive restrictive laws that wouldn't have had any impact on stopping these tragedies from occurring. Nobody in any of these gun threads has ever been in favor of murdering school children, we're all in agreement that it's a horrible crime. The continual point of disagreement is the need for ineffective additional intrusive restrictive laws that target law abiding citizens.
Funny. What the president actually asked for was being able to collect data on the best way to prrvent these types of things.
Frazzled wrote: Haing listened to his spoeech in the car on the way to a shooting competition, thats not all he asked for.
Please explain which proposed gun regulation would have stopped this?
I don't know. Maybe we should try and gather some data and find out?
We are fully aware of the mass murderers already. Mmm but to gather data on a neutral basis you also have to add in how many incidents occurred where a crime was prevented via use or blandishment of a firearm. The FBI denotes that at over a million times a year.
The bias of data is that the CDC, when it initially started was only collected certain data. The careful gathering of numbers can prove any point you want to make, and all of them violate the Bill of Rights so welcome to Planet Suck it.
"You're wrong so suck it". Boy am I glad this thread was allowed to start on the whole gun rights wagon instead of just for once being a news thing and nothing more.
Anyway we've already made the first few transitions, from "laws/no laws" to "I have data/So do I" to "Your data is bad/mine is good" and we could well be starting our just general downhill slide. And it's page 2.
How about making it illegal to sell a gun privately? Ie, youd have to go through an external agency, who performs a background check on the buyer. Buying a gun without prior training and screening should just be illegal... But then, that might just be me. Still seems like the best option for current gun owners though. Youre free to keep your guns, but if you want to get rid of some of them, you cant just sell them to anyone.
Tyr13 wrote: How about making it illegal to sell a gun privately? Ie, youd have to go through an external agency, who performs a background check on the buyer. Buying a gun without prior training and screening should just be illegal... But then, that might just be me. Still seems like the best option for current gun owners though. Youre free to keep your guns, but if you want to get rid of some of them, you cant just sell them to anyone.
While I am down with that (3rd party "agency" is just run it through and FFL like any other transaction) I don't think they would have stopped any of the recent ones, but I could have been wrong. in fact there have been several instances where mental health issues weren't reported to the NCIS database (another thing I am about).
Yeah, that's what I was getting at before. If we're going to eat a big poop sandwich, why have a bunch of foreplay first? Let's just take a bite and get in there
When Americans are killed in mine disasters, we work to make mines safer. When Americans are killed in floods and hurricanes, we make communities safer. When roads are unsafe, we fix them to reduce auto fatalities. We have seatbelt laws because we know it safes lives. The notion that gun violence is somehow different—that our freedom and our Constitution prohibits any modest regulation of how we use a deadly weapon, when there are law-abiding gun owners all across the country who could hunt, and protect their families, and do everything they do under such regulations—doesn't make sense."
When Americans are killed in mine disasters, we work to make mines safer. When Americans are killed in floods and hurricanes, we make communities safer. When roads are unsafe, we fix them to reduce auto fatalities. We have seatbelt laws because we know it safes lives. The notion that gun violence is somehow different—that our freedom and our Constitution prohibits any modest regulation of how we use a deadly weapon, when there are law-abiding gun owners all across the country who could hunt, and protect their families, and do everything they do under such regulations—doesn't make sense."
How so? In your quote he doesn't actually cover it at all. What are the "modest regulations" that Obama wants to implement? Guns are already one of if not the most heavily regulated possession that you can privately own. All Obama has done is make an emotional plea for a vague yet massive govt response that he presents as a magical panacea for murder via firearm. Gun control is a misnomer, what they really want to control are people, but no amount of laws can create the amount of control they want to exercise over the rest of us.
When Americans are killed in mine disasters, we work to make mines safer. When Americans are killed in floods and hurricanes, we make communities safer. When roads are unsafe, we fix them to reduce auto fatalities. We have seatbelt laws because we know it safes lives. The notion that gun violence is somehow different—that our freedom and our Constitution prohibits any modest regulation of how we use a deadly weapon, when there are law-abiding gun owners all across the country who could hunt, and protect their families, and do everything they do under such regulations—doesn't make sense."
We could pass laws making it illegal to kill people and tack on added mandatory time if they do so with a firearm. Would that help cover regulating 'how we us a deadly weapon'?
Gun free zones have proven themselves to be an absolute failure and make what should theoretically be a safer environment actually more dangerous. This has been proven over and over. The batman shooter specifically even mentioned he did his shooting where he did because that theater was the only one of seven that banned personal weapons. There should be no gun free zones. If you went through all the effort and checks to get a concealed carry, you should be allowed to carry everywhere in every state. One student with a personal weapon could have stopped this madman or any of the other myriad madmen in the last few years. No law is going to stop crazy people. If they don't use guns then they will do it with swords, knives, or a homemade bomb. How many people died on 911 because of some nuts with box cutters? You cannot legislate crazy, but you can prevent business locations and schools from forcing people to be defenseless.
Further the media doesn't help these situations. These guys, every one of them have been seen as loners and losers, the types of people that are generally anti-social but crave the attention. This guy is a prime example since he even mentioned he did it to be famous. If my memory serves, isn't that why John Lennon was killed as well? Now again, how do you stop this? Cant stop the media from reporting and you cant really limit how much of it they report(unless you are Russia). If they don't visit a shrink then there is no way to know if they are dangerous or not. So are you going to give every gun buyer a psych eval?(note I haven't heard how this guy obtained his four guns, what he used specifically, or if that has even been released)
Also odd things here, just recently the school voted down to arm the lone security officer they had on campus. Oregon has very repressive gun laws that just got worse recently.
Col. Dash wrote: Gun free zones have proven themselves to be an absolute failure and make what should theoretically be a safer environment actually more dangerous. This has been proven over and over. The batman shooter specifically even mentioned he did his shooting where he did because that theater was the only one of seven that banned personal weapons. There should be no gun free zones. If you went through all the effort and checks to get a concealed carry, you should be allowed to carry everywhere in every state. One student with a personal weapon could have stopped this madman or any of the other myriad madmen in the last few years. No law is going to stop crazy people. If they don't use guns then they will do it with swords, knives, or a homemade bomb. How many people died on 911 because of some nuts with box cutters? You cannot legislate crazy, but you can prevent business locations and schools from forcing people to be defenseless.
Further the media doesn't help these situations. These guys, every one of them have been seen as loners and losers, the types of people that are generally anti-social but crave the attention. This guy is a prime example since he even mentioned he did it to be famous. If my memory serves, isn't that why John Lennon was killed as well? Now again, how do you stop this? Cant stop the media from reporting and you cant really limit how much of it they report(unless you are Russia). If they don't visit a shrink then there is no way to know if they are dangerous or not. So are you going to give every gun buyer a psych eval?(note I haven't heard how this guy obtained his four guns, what he used specifically, or if that has even been released)
Also odd things here, just recently the school voted down to arm the lone security officer they had on campus. Oregon has very repressive gun laws that just got worse recently.
This wasn't a gun free zone:
http://www.ncsl.org/research/education/guns-on-campus-overview.aspx "Due to recent state legislation and court rulings, 7 states now have provisions allowing the carrying of concealed weapons on public postsecondary campuses. These states are Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Mississippi, Oregon, Utah, and Wisconsin. In March 2014,"
and in 2012 the courts rules the schools did not have the right to ban guns. "it was ruled that state law dictates only the legislature can regulate the use, sale and possession of firearms, and therefore these systems had overstepped their authority in issuing the bans. "
full text:
Spoiler:
Guns on Campus: Overview
2/23/2015
Table of Contents
Concealed Carry Weapon Laws and College Campuses
Additional Resources
Contact
Education Program
In the wake of several campus shootings, the most deadly being the 2007 shooting at Virginia Tech University, states are considering legislation about whether or not to permit guns on college campuses. For some, these events point to a need to ease existing firearm regulations and allow concealed weapons on campuses. Others see the solution in tightening restrictions to keep guns off campuses.
In 2013, at least 19 states introduced legislation to allow concealed carry on campus in some regard and in the 2014 legislative session, at least 14 states introduced similar legislation. In 2013, two bills passed, one in Kansas that allows concelaed carry generally and one in Arkansas that allows faculty to carry. The Kansas legislation creates a provision that colleges and universities cannot prohibit concealed carry unless a building has "adequate security measures," however, governing boards of the institutions may still request an exemption to prohibit for up to 4 years. Arkansas' bill allows faculty to carry, unless the governing board adopts a policy that expressly disallows faculty to carry. In 2014, Idaho became the most recent state to allow concealed carry weapons on college campuses.
On the other hand, recent shootings also have encouraged some legislators to strengthen existing firearm regulations. In 2013, 5 states introduced legislation to prohibit concealed carry weapons on campus. None of these bills passed.
Concealed Carry Weapon Laws and College Campuses
In the United States, all 50 states allow citizens to carry concealed weapons if they meet certain state requirements. Currently, there are 20 states that ban carrying a concealed weapon on a college campus: California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Wyoming.
In 23 states the decision to ban or allow concealed carry weapons on campuses is made by each college or university individually: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and West Virginia.
Due to recent state legislation and court rulings, 7 states now have provisions allowing the carrying of concealed weapons on public postsecondary campuses. These states are Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Mississippi, Oregon, Utah, and Wisconsin. In March 2014, Idaho's legislature passed a bill premitting concealed weapons on campus and making it the 7th state to permit guns on campus.
Utah remains the only state to have statute specifically naming public colleges and universities as public entities that do not have the authority to ban concealed carry, and thus, all 10 public institutions in Utah allow concealed weapons on their property. Recently passed Kansas legislation creates a provision that colleges and universities cannot prohibit concealed carry unless a building has "adequate security measures," however, governing boards of the institutions may still request an exemption to prohibit for up to four years. Wisconsin legislation creates a provision that colleges and universities must allow concealed carry on campus grounds, however, campuses can prohibit weapons from campus buildings if signs are posted at every entrance explicitly stating that weapons are prohibited. All University of Wisconsin system campuses and technical community college districts are said to be putting this signage in place. Legislation passed in Mississippi in 2011 creates an exception to allow concealed carry on college campuses for those who have taken a voluntary course on safe handling and use of firearms by a certified instructor.
Recent court cases have also overturned some long standing system wide bans of concealed carry on state college and university campuses. In March 2012, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that the University of Colorado’s policy banning guns from campus violates the state’s concealed carry law, and in 2011 the Oregon Court of Appeals overturned the Oregon University System’s ban of guns on campuses, allowing those with permits to carry concealed guns on the grounds of these public colleges (Oregon's State Board of Higher Education retained its authority to have internal policies for certain areas of campus, and adopted a new policy in 2012 that bans guns in campus buildings). In both cases, it was ruled that state law dictates only the legislature can regulate the use, sale and possession of firearms, and therefore these systems had overstepped their authority in issuing the bans. See the "Guns on Campus: Campus Action," page for more information on these rulings, board policies and other campuses that allow concealed carry on their grounds.
For up-to-date information on legislation, see the Education Bill Tracking Database. Search under the topic "Postsecondary - Campus Safety."
and yes we can help those who are "crazy" and we can deny them access to guns. Do you really think the kids would have lined up against the wall waiting to be shot if the gunman only had knives & swords? of course not, you can outrun a knife and have a greater chance to live through a stabbing.
Col. Dash wrote: . One student with a personal weapon could have stopped this madman .
John Parker Jr., a veteran and student at UCC, spoke with MSNBC and revealed that he was in a campus building with a concealed handgun when the shooting started. He suggested other students with him at the time were also carrying concealed handguns.
. By the time he became aware of the shooting, a SWAT team had already responded. He was concerned that police would view him as a “bad guy” and target him, so he quickly retreated into the classroom.
Col. Dash wrote: . One student with a personal weapon could have stopped this madman .
John Parker Jr., a veteran and student at UCC, spoke with MSNBC and revealed that he was in a campus building with a concealed handgun when the shooting started. He suggested other students with him at the time were also carrying concealed handguns.
. By the time he became aware of the shooting, a SWAT team had already responded. He was concerned that police would view him as a “bad guy” and target him, so he quickly retreated into the classroom.
Yep. "Could have stopped" would only work if the armed person was in the actual area and knew what was going on (the 'close proximity' the guy mentions). Being across campus and not even hearing gunshots kind of rules that out. Now, if someone in the classroom or an adjacent classroom had been armed and confronted the gak bag, they 'could have stopped' him. Maybe not. We do know he was eventually stopped by folks with guns.
Yep. "Could have stopped" would only work if the armed person was in the actual area and knew what was going on (the 'close proximity' the guy mentions).
To be fair, that's like questioning the effectiveness of fire extinguishers not being able to extinguish a fire because there's none nearby.
It seems like it is becoming excaptable to shoot peoeple in usa.
I think it stems more from the usa culture of people need to except me or I am allowed to hurt them. Peoepl freaking out at the police, people freaking out at the judges questioning and thinking they deserve what ever they consider jutice ext.
So less guns more guns wont help I think it is the culture of the states everyone thinks they deserve better then him and with the 10 law things that breed hatred. You can tell when you ask them a simple question.
Who are you they all say the same type of thing, i am latin, muslim,african ect. I never heard anyone from canada say anything like that, they all say I am canadian. To much hatred and self deversity
OgreChubbs wrote: It seems like it is becoming excaptable to shoot peoeple in usa.
I think it stems more from the usa culture of people need to except me or I am allowed to hurt them. Peoepl freaking out at the police, people freaking out at the judges questioning and thinking they deserve what ever they consider jutice ext.
So less guns more guns wont help I think it is the culture of the states everyone thinks they deserve better then him and with the 10 law things that breed hatred. You can tell when you ask them a simple question.
Who are you they all say the same type of thing, i am latin, muslim,african ect. I never heard anyone from canada say anything like that, they all say I am canadian. To much hatred and self deversity
When Americans are killed in mine disasters, we work to make mines safer. When Americans are killed in floods and hurricanes, we make communities safer. When roads are unsafe, we fix them to reduce auto fatalities. We have seatbelt laws because we know it safes lives. The notion that gun violence is somehow different—that our freedom and our Constitution prohibits any modest regulation of how we use a deadly weapon, when there are law-abiding gun owners all across the country who could hunt, and protect their families, and do everything they do under such regulations—doesn't make sense."
Nice words from a gun grabber. This isn't Britain. This isn't Canada. The regulations being put forth don't stop this from happening, but do harm those law abiding gun owners. Let me be clear as he likes to say, he's for confiscation. Holder got a warm fuzzy up his leg about it, and said so. Pelosi et al have said so. The moment you lead off with long gun bans you betray that you're not about reducing mass murders or crime in general, but about confiscating guns from legal law abiding gun owners.
When you talk about that, push for that, but do nothing about the mental health system, nothing about linking mental health to background checks, then you're just lying under the cover of false righteousness.
You cant stop crazy unless someone else knows they are crazy. If this guy has never been to a shrink then there is no way to know he was certifiable. If its not on paper then you have no reason to deny them a gun. Now granted, gun store owners always have the right to deny a sale if they sense something fishy or isn't right. It does happen and I have seen it first hand and stuck around as back up waiting for the police to arrive to verify what happened. But if the person acts like a normal person and his or her record is spotless, gun store owners aren't mind readers and will have no reason not to sell to someone.
Even if the person goes to a shrink and is being treated, unless the doctor actually thinks the guy is a danger to himself or others he is bound by client/doctor confidentiality(last I heard). So again you have another human failure point in the mix.
Just because the guy is a Nazi fan or racial supremacist, or in this case atheist fanatic according to myspace(who the hell uses myspace anymore?) that doesn't give a legal reason to deny someone a basic right. The real world isn't Minority Report. Conversely instead of terrorism, he could have used his guns to stop a serial rapist in the future despite being all of the above and we would have never heard of him except on a couple pro-gun sites, which wouldn't have given him the infamy he so desperately wanted.
Just because the guy has his CC permit doesn't mean he has to rush across campus and naturalize the gunman. He did the right thing and let law enforcement naturalize the threat, He protected himself and the classroom he was in.
Yep. "Could have stopped" would only work if the armed person was in the actual area and knew what was going on (the 'close proximity' the guy mentions).
To be fair, that's like questioning the effectiveness of fire extinguishers not being able to extinguish a fire because there's none nearby.
It takes training to use a fire extinguisher correctly. Incorrect use can cause more damage than leaving the fire to burn. Besides, it isn't fire extinguishers that put out fires, it's kids who play video games.
Yep. "Could have stopped" would only work if the armed person was in the actual area and knew what was going on (the 'close proximity' the guy mentions).
To be fair, that's like questioning the effectiveness of fire extinguishers not being able to extinguish a fire because there's none nearby.
It takes training to use a fire extinguisher correctly. Incorrect use can cause more damage than leaving the fire to burn. Besides, it isn't fire extinguishers that put out fires, it's kids who play video games.
You don't need training to vote, freely assemble, practice your religion, be free from illegal searches of your person and papers, be free from cruel or unusual punishment, or how not to quarter troops. The Bill of Rights says your argument is worthless. Don't like it, change the ing Constitution. Good luck with that.
As I said in an earlier post, the mental health issue surrounding gun violence is a complete smokescreen, affecting a statistically insignificant proportion of actual gun crime.
American prisons are full of people who probably didn't know they were criminals until they came home one night and found their wife in bed with somebody else.
It's a complex issue, more complex than the left arguing for more gun control, and the right arguing for more guns etc etc
I do agree that America shouldn't look abroad for solutions, because it's circumstances are pretty unique.
When we had the Hungerford massacre and the Dunblane massacres in the UK, there was no outcry at guns being banned, quite the opposite. The majority of the UK population wanted them banned.
Ustrello wrote: Guns should be required to own guns. How else will they protect themselves from other mentally unstable guns?
Am I doing this right?
No, you're not.
Anyway...
About the gun free zone thing, here is clarification I did not know about:
The current policy of the State Board of Education states that people with concealed carry permits are allowed to bring their firearms on campuses, but are not into university buildings, which means a person can roam a campus with a concealed weapon, but if they want to go indoors, they must have somewhere (like the trunk of their car) to store their weapon. Umpqua Community College is not governed by the State Board of Education, but has a similar policy in place.
I read the same thing but figured I would let it go for someone else. Whoever had the armed friend there might want to tell him to shut up about it or end up in the same shoes as that navy officer who returned fire against the recruitment building.
Da Boss wrote: America is going to keep it's guns, and we'll be back here in however many months it is til the next one of these.
Hopefully it's a lot of months.
Obama's speech was great. We'll see if it gets followed up with anything substantive, but that was the best I'd seen him on any topic in a long while.
Obama can afford to talk like that, because he's out the door in a year's time. We may see the 'real' Obama coming through in the next few months on various issues, for the simple reason he's not up for re-election and can tread on toes.
As for anything substantive, not a chance. If Obama proposed that Christmas day should fall on the 25th December, the Republicans would block it.
Chute82 wrote: Just because the guy has his CC permit doesn't mean he has to rush across campus and naturalize the gunman. He did the right thing and let law enforcement naturalize the threat, He protected himself and the classroom he was in.
Yup, just another side effect of our broken immigration system.
*looks around wearily for the inevitable hail of criticism for how this chart was put together, or the source, or the fact that the two are incomparable*
Da Boss wrote: America is going to keep it's guns, and we'll be back here in however many months it is til the next one of these.
Hopefully it's a lot of months.
Obama's speech was great. We'll see if it gets followed up with anything substantive, but that was the best I'd seen him on any topic in a long while.
Obama can afford to talk like that, because he's out the door in a year's time. We may see the 'real' Obama coming through in the next few months on various issues, for the simple reason he's not up for re-election and can tread on toes.
As for anything substantive, not a chance. If Obama proposed that Christmas day should fall on the 25th December, the Republicans would block it.
Nothing substantive will happen but not because of Obama, but because historically substantive changes have always struggled to get passed by Congress for reasons that have pretty much been consistently the same. In my lifetime there have been 2 substantial federal gun laws passed, the creation of NICS for background checks run by FFL dealers and the assault weapons ban that was passed with a sunset clause and subsequently not renewed. Conversely, we know have more states issuing more concealed permits than ever making it easier for more citizens across the country to own and carry firearms. On the whole, we've moved to be more permissive than restrictive with firearm ownership so it's unlikely for that trend to suddenly be discounted by the politicians in Congress.
whembly wrote: It wasn't... in fact, he's a jackass for politicizing this.
Let's get something straight. Obama is *for* confiscation. Anyone who's arguing that he's not is deluding themselves...
A.) Of course, if he said nothing, there would be an equal amount of spittle-flecked keyboards
B.) The unintentional irony on that second sentence is just.... immeasurable. President Obama, probably the weakest president on gun control in a generation, supporting confiscation, while stating that people are deluding themselves? I mean, you literally don't even realize how ridiculous that is. And, that's sad.
Da Boss wrote: America is going to keep it's guns, and we'll be back here in however many months it is til the next one of these.
Hopefully it's a lot of months.
Obama's speech was great. We'll see if it gets followed up with anything substantive, but that was the best I'd seen him on any topic in a long while.
Obama can afford to talk like that, because he's out the door in a year's time. We may see the 'real' Obama coming through in the next few months on various issues, for the simple reason he's not up for re-election and can tread on toes.
As for anything substantive, not a chance. If Obama proposed that Christmas day should fall on the 25th December, the Republicans would block it.
Nothing substantive will happen but not because of Obama, but because historically substantive changes have always struggled to get passed by Congress for reasons that have pretty much been consistently the same. In my lifetime there have been 2 substantial federal gun laws passed, the creation of NICS for background checks run by FFL dealers and the assault weapons ban that was passed with a sunset clause and subsequently not renewed. Conversely, we know have more states issuing more concealed permits than ever making it easier for more citizens across the country to own and carry firearms. On the whole, we've moved to be more permissive than restrictive with firearm ownership so it's unlikely for that trend to suddenly be discounted by the politicians in Congress.
In the 19th and for most the 20th century, SCOTUS were quite happy to uphold gun control laws.
Hell, before Heller, SCOTUS ruled 4 times that the 2nd wasn't a blanket individual right to own arms.
*looks around wearily for the inevitable hail of criticism for how this chart was put together, or the source, or the fact that the two are incomparable*
Well... it's as just as a valid comparison as the Gun Deaths vs Abortions:
Spoiler:
Or, looking at the CDC data...
Gun Deaths: ~30,000 per year
Abortions: ~730,000 per year
But, that isn't a politically convenient comparison.
What I find highly amusing is that Obama "asked" for this comparison and Vox jumped right into it...
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: As I said in an earlier post, the mental health issue surrounding gun violence is a complete smokescreen, affecting a statistically insignificant proportion of actual gun crime.
The fact that the large majority of gun deaths in the United States are suicides would seem to contradict this claim....
*looks around wearily for the inevitable hail of criticism for how this chart was put together, or the source, or the fact that the two are incomparable*
What's the point of the chart? Did anybody think that religious extremist goatherds on the other side of the planet were killing more Americans in the US than American criminals? Nobody was claiming that ISIS was here in America launching a murderous crime wave across the country.
Also, I heard that two police ran into the building to confront the shooter w/o hesitating for backup or approval. Those two should be lauded too...
IIRC after Columbine most (all?) police departments revamped their protocol for responses to shootings and instead of treating it like a hostage situation and establishing a perimeter and wating for back up/SWAT they now go in as quickly as possible to minimize the number of casualties the gunman can create.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: As I said in an earlier post, the mental health issue surrounding gun violence is a complete smokescreen, affecting a statistically insignificant proportion of actual gun crime.
The fact that the large majority of gun deaths in the United States are suicides would seem to contradict this claim....
I was referring to homicides, as well you probably know.
I'm always confused by the mental health argument. You hear people say that, but there is never a push to reform and fund our mental health system. If people actually think that the way to prevent these tragedies is through the mental health system, shy isn't anything done. Maybe I've missed something?
whembly wrote: It wasn't... in fact, he's a jackass for politicizing this.
Let's get something straight. Obama is *for* confiscation. Anyone who's arguing that he's not is deluding themselves...
A.) Of course, if he said nothing, there would be an equal amount of spittle-flecked keyboards
B.) The unintentional irony on that second sentence is just.... immeasurable. President Obama, probably the weakest president on gun control in a generation, supporting confiscation, while stating that people are deluding themselves? I mean, you literally don't even realize how ridiculous that is. And, that's sad.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: As I said in an earlier post, the mental health issue surrounding gun violence is a complete smokescreen, affecting a statistically insignificant proportion of actual gun crime.
The fact that the large majority of gun deaths in the United States are suicides would seem to contradict this claim....
I was referring to homicides, as well you probably know.
Do I?
When the media totes the gun deaths in the United States, they so seldom discriminate.
Doesn't change the fact that the mental health issue is hardly a mask, especially in these highly publicized instances (you know, the ones that have everyone clamoring) that clearly involve mental health issues.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I'm always confused by the mental health argument. You hear people say that, but there is never a push to reform and fund our mental health system. If people actually think that the way to prevent these tragedies is through the mental health system, shy isn't anything done. Maybe I've missed something?
Nobody ever won an election saying that they would fix the mental health system.
Also, rich pharmaceutical companies make a lot of money selling anti-depressants to people. I doubt if they want mental health care fixed, either.
The point of the graph is the reaction to the deaths from terrorism compared to the reaction to deaths from gun violence. Numerous freedoms were curtailed, new agencies set up and massive amounts of money spent to "fight" terrorism. Not to mention the two wars.
I could make a similar argument with regard to the moves in certain quarters to legally restrict abortion, but you're smart enough to join those dots (as I am sure you were smart enough to take Obama's meaning when he said it directly in his speech).
When you compare that reaction to the reaction to the number of gun deaths in your country, it does look pretty weird.
Also, Obama is a politician. It's his fething job to politicise important issues, like regular mass shootings.
Da Boss wrote: America is going to keep it's guns, and we'll be back here in however many months it is til the next one of these.
Hopefully it's a lot of months.
Obama's speech was great. We'll see if it gets followed up with anything substantive, but that was the best I'd seen him on any topic in a long while.
Obama can afford to talk like that, because he's out the door in a year's time. We may see the 'real' Obama coming through in the next few months on various issues, for the simple reason he's not up for re-election and can tread on toes.
As for anything substantive, not a chance. If Obama proposed that Christmas day should fall on the 25th December, the Republicans would block it.
Nothing substantive will happen but not because of Obama, but because historically substantive changes have always struggled to get passed by Congress for reasons that have pretty much been consistently the same. In my lifetime there have been 2 substantial federal gun laws passed, the creation of NICS for background checks run by FFL dealers and the assault weapons ban that was passed with a sunset clause and subsequently not renewed. Conversely, we know have more states issuing more concealed permits than ever making it easier for more citizens across the country to own and carry firearms. On the whole, we've moved to be more permissive than restrictive with firearm ownership so it's unlikely for that trend to suddenly be discounted by the politicians in Congress.
In the 19th and for most the 20th century, SCOTUS were quite happy to uphold gun control laws.
Hell, before Heller, SCOTUS ruled 4 times that the 2nd wasn't a blanket individual right to own arms.
Because it isnt. The Second Amendment maintains the Right for well regulated militia by the state, not by personal people. And because we have our Militia, the national guard, we do not need personal gun ownership.
That and another part of it is "Well Regulated" is something we do not do.
Because it isnt. The Second Amendment maintains the Right for well regulated militia by the state, not by personal people. And because we have our Militia, the national guard, we do not need personal gun ownership.
That and another part of it is "Well Regulated" is something we do not do.
whembly wrote: It wasn't... in fact, he's a jackass for politicizing this.
Let's get something straight. Obama is *for* confiscation. Anyone who's arguing that he's not is deluding themselves...
A.) Of course, if he said nothing, there would be an equal amount of spittle-flecked keyboards
B.) The unintentional irony on that second sentence is just.... immeasurable. President Obama, probably the weakest president on gun control in a generation, supporting confiscation, while stating that people are deluding themselves? I mean, you literally don't even realize how ridiculous that is. And, that's sad.
The failure to pass reasonable gun laws after Newton, as written, only equates to "confiscation of all guns / total gun ban" if you're mindlessly repeating crazy person talking points. Which, sadly, is par for the course.
But why take what he's actually done, when we can extrapolate out a pretend version of what we think he might want, and pretend that's how things actually are?
Da Boss wrote: The point of the graph is the reaction to the deaths from terrorism compared to the reaction to deaths from gun violence. Numerous freedoms were curtailed, new agencies set up and massive amounts of money spent to "fight" terrorism. Not to mention the two wars.
I could make a similar argument with regard to the moves in certain quarters to legally restrict abortion, but you're smart enough to join those dots (as I am sure you were smart enough to take Obama's meaning when he said it directly in his speech).
When you compare that reaction to the reaction to the number of gun deaths in your country, it does look pretty weird.
Not really weird.
There are regulation.
Also, Obama is a politician. It's his fething job to politicise important issues, like regular mass shootings.
But before we have all the information? This is his "if I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon Martin" moment again...
What would prevent these shootings from happening?
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: As I said in an earlier post, the mental health issue surrounding gun violence is a complete smokescreen, affecting a statistically insignificant proportion of actual gun crime.
The fact that the large majority of gun deaths in the United States are suicides would seem to contradict this claim....
I was referring to homicides, as well you probably know.
Do I?
When the media totes the gun deaths in the United States, they so seldom discriminate.
Doesn't change the fact that the mental health issue is hardly a mask, especially in these highly publicized instances (you know, the ones that have everyone clamoring) that clearly involve mental health issues.
When street gangs turn Chicago into the OK Corral, I seriously doubt that mental health issues are the driving factor.
When a known racist murders African Americans in a church, again I doubt it's down to mental health issues. His racism made perfect sense to him, just as my hatred of racists would probably confuse the hell out of him.
I'm not denying that mental problems plays a part in some shootings, but I believe that it's a very insignificant number of cases.
No doubt, there are plenty of people in America who commit suicide without the use of guns.
Because it isnt. The Second Amendment maintains the Right for well regulated militia by the state, not by personal people. And because we have our Militia, the national guard, we do not need personal gun ownership.
That and another part of it is "Well Regulated" is something we do not do.
Well, you're wrong.
DC v Heller And SCOTUS agree that you're wrong.
And like I say in an earlier post, 4 times before Heller, SCOTUS said he was right. Who's to say that SCOTUS won't change its mind again in future?
Because it isnt. The Second Amendment maintains the Right for well regulated militia by the state, not by personal people. And because we have our Militia, the national guard, we do not need personal gun ownership.
That and another part of it is "Well Regulated" is something we do not do.
Well, you're wrong.
DC v Heller And SCOTUS agree that you're wrong.
So I guess Roe v. Wade proved everybody who is anti-abortion "wrong", and citizens united v. FCC proved everybody who wants political donations curtailed "wrong".
The point being that supreme court decisions change, Heller being one of those cases, and it my change back in time. So just saying "the supreme court disagrees with you, therefore what you are saying is always wrong" isn't an argument that works.
But why take what he's actually done, when we can extrapolate out a pretend version of what we think he might want, and pretend that's how things actually are?
It's only because he knows that CONGRESS, as well as the rest of the public, won't go along with more stringent gun controls.
Are you going to sit there and tell me, that if Obama could, he wouldn't enact more stringent gun controls?
Because it isnt. The Second Amendment maintains the Right for well regulated militia by the state, not by personal people. And because we have our Militia, the national guard, we do not need personal gun ownership.
That and another part of it is "Well Regulated" is something we do not do.
When I can be bothered, I'll start a thread on this on why I believe that the Heller case, and Scalia's ruling, were a complete crock!
Yes, I've been reading my federalist papers, James Madison's notes, and a heap of other stuff!
EDIT: just noticed this thread is spiralling out of control
whembly wrote: It's only because he knows that CONGRESS, as well as the rest of the public, won't go along with more stringent gun controls.
Are you going to sit there and tell me, that if Obama could, he wouldn't enact more stringent gun controls?
Now we're having a different argument from your ridiculous idea that Obama pushed for banning / confiscating guns. This is called "moving the goalposts".
I don't even know that gun controls would actually work, at least not for decades.
There are so many guns in america already that it seems pretty unlikely that making them completely illegal would do much to stop gun deaths for a pretty long time.
But hey, you guys engaged in that pointless war on drugs for decades, so maybe you might have the stamina to attack something else that's quite a lot of fun when done responsibly but can kill you/mess up your life when indulged in irresponsibly!
But why take what he's actually done, when we can extrapolate out a pretend version of what we think he might want, and pretend that's how things actually are?
It's only because he knows that CONGRESS, as well as the rest of the public, won't go along with more stringent gun controls.
Are you going to sit there and tell me, that if Obama could, he wouldn't enact more stringent gun controls?
You know as well as I do that if Obama said grass was green, the Republicans would automatically disagree. Years ago, Congress would cooperate for the greater good on various issues, nowadays it's horribly polarised.
whembly wrote: It's only because he knows that CONGRESS, as well as the rest of the public, won't go along with more stringent gun controls.
Are you going to sit there and tell me, that if Obama could, he wouldn't enact more stringent gun controls?
Now we're having a different argument from your ridiculous idea that Obama pushed for banning / confiscating guns. This is called "moving the goalposts".
When did I say Obama pushed for "banning / confiscating" guns.
I said he's *for* those concepts, as in I believe that the basis of his political beliefs.
What would prevent these shootings from happening?
Take all guns away from all americans. They've consistently shown they're not mature enough to have them.
And yet gun violence is going down. And literally millions of lawful gun owners do not commit murder or other violent crimes each year.
and the guy who just shot up the school was a lawful gun owner the day before the shooting. Lawful gun owners are just one shooting away from being murderers & violent criminals.
For lack of a better source, it does go on to say that 80% of the homicides in Chicago are Gang Related. We just had 50+ shootings in back-to-back weekends. If you want a real thrill, check out the weekend numbers here every Monday. It's a riot.
Where was Obama's outrage about the deaths these past 2 weekends which killed twice as many people? Where was his impassioned speech? What is his plan to curb the violence in his own state?
Another mass shooting sears deep into our collective consciousness, but it is hype and hysteria on the rise, not violence.
Another mass shooting sears deep into the collective consciousness of the American people. Another school — this time a community college in an otherwise peaceful town in rural Oregon — is devastated by a young man taking aim at students trapped in classrooms. Nine are murdered, and many others wounded, before the gunman is killed in a shootout with the police.
Within a few hours, President Obama appeared before the camera, reinforcing the notion that America is under siege. “Somehow this has become routine,” noted Obama with obvious emotion. “The reporting is routine.”
Although the sense of urgency may be overstated, Obama is certainly correct about the almost formulaic media response. The Oregon shooting had countless news outlets flooding the airwaves and the Internet with questionable statistics on the incidence of mass shootings along with sidebar listings of the deadliest shooting sprees in U.S. history. In the usual rush to offer up some breaking information, news reports were embellished with unconfirmed details about the massacre and the assailant that did little but fuel a contagion of fear.
For context, media folks reminded us of the unforgettable, high profile shootings that have taken place over the past few months, hinting of a problem that has grown out of control. They lumped together rather different types of incidents (the hate-inspired church killing in Charleston, the random shooting at a Louisiana movie theater in which two victims were slain, and the targeted killing of two employees of a Virginia television station by a disgruntled former co-worker seeking payback for perceived mistreatment) as if there is a pattern emerging.
Further adding to the state of alarm and confusion, headlines featured scary yet conflicting statistics from various sources. By reducing the standard threshold in defining a mass shooting (four or more killed by gunfire, not including the perpetrator), the incidence can reach incredible proportions. For example, the “Mass Shooting Tracker” website redefines a mass shooting as an incident in which at least four people (including the assailant) are shot, but not necessarily killed. By this criterion, there have been nearly 300 thus far this year.
Notwi
thstanding the sadness caused by each of these tragedies, nothing has really changed in term of risk. One can take virtually any period of months or years during the past few decades and find a series of shootings that seemed at the time to signal a new epidemic. The ‘80s were marked by a flurry of deadly postal shootings, which gave rise to the term “going postal.” The ‘90s witnessed a string of mass shootings in middle and high schools carried out by alienated adolescents with access to borrowed guns, prompting the venerable Dan Rather to declare an epidemic of school violence.
More recently, the “active shooter” has become the new boogeyman armed with a gun. Of course, there were shootings in public places long before this frightening catchphrase was created. Nowadays, any time someone shows up with a gun in a school, a church, a movie theater, a shopping mall or a restaurant, twitter becomes alive with messages of alarm.
I certainly don't mean to minimize the suffering of the Oregon victims and their families, but the shooting spree is not a reflection of more deadly times. Consider the facts.
According to a careful analysis of data on mass shootings (using the widely accepted definition of at least four killed), the Congressional Research Service found that there are, on average, just over 20 incidents annually. More important, the increase in cases, if there was one at all, is negligible. Indeed, the only genuine increase is in hype and hysteria.
What would prevent these shootings from happening?
Take all guns away from all americans. They've consistently shown they're not mature enough to have them.
And yet gun violence is going down. And literally millions of lawful gun owners do not commit murder or other violent crimes each year.
and the guy who just shot up the school was a lawful gun owner the day before the shooting. Lawful gun owners are just one shooting away from being murderers & violent criminals.
SO because one gak bag goes completely off the rails, you want to lump the millions who do not into the same category. It is your right to do so.
* By the way, have they released how/where he got the gun or even type of gun yet? All I've heard was 'hand gun' and saw a picture from the crime scene focusing on a shell casing which lends credence to that.
Because it isnt. The Second Amendment maintains the Right for well regulated militia by the state, not by personal people. And because we have our Militia, the national guard, we do not need personal gun ownership.
That and another part of it is "Well Regulated" is something we do not do.
Well, you're wrong.
DC v Heller And SCOTUS agree that you're wrong.
So I guess Roe v. Wade proved everybody who is anti-abortion "wrong", and citizens united v. FCC proved everybody who wants political donations curtailed "wrong".
The point being that supreme court decisions change, Heller being one of those cases, and it my change back in time. So just saying "the supreme court disagrees with you, therefore what you are saying is always wrong" isn't an argument that works.
Thank you. I could not have stated it better.
America, and people in general have showed they are smart enough to have to readily available guns. If guns really did anything for defense, this would not have happened.
There is no need for personal gun owner ship on this level like there is for a country like Svalbard where you regulary have to have one for polar bears
Pepper Sprays and Tasers do the same thing. This is why many security guards(Including me) carry them. This whole Idea of "Adreniline will keep em going" is a hack.
What would prevent these shootings from happening?
Take all guns away from all americans. They've consistently shown they're not mature enough to have them.
And yet gun violence is going down. And literally millions of lawful gun owners do not commit murder or other violent crimes each year.
and the guy who just shot up the school was a lawful gun owner the day before the shooting. Lawful gun owners are just one shooting away from being murderers & violent criminals.
Vancouver hadn't had a riot until their hockey team lost the cup. Canada should ban hockey.
What would prevent these shootings from happening?
Take all guns away from all americans. They've consistently shown they're not mature enough to have them.
And yet gun violence is going down. And literally millions of lawful gun owners do not commit murder or other violent crimes each year.
Actually, I've always wondered about that. Is gun crime going down faster or slower than violent crime total? Because violent crime has dropped signifigantly it would be interesting to see how much gun crime has dropped in relation.
Because it isnt. The Second Amendment maintains the Right for well regulated militia by the state, not by personal people. And because we have our Militia, the national guard, we do not need personal gun ownership.
That and another part of it is "Well Regulated" is something we do not do.
Well, you're wrong.
DC v Heller And SCOTUS agree that you're wrong.
And like I say in an earlier post, 4 times before Heller, SCOTUS said he was right. Who's to say that SCOTUS won't change its mind again in future?
Presser v Illinois (1886), US v Miller (1939), lewis v US (1980), DC v Heller (2008) and McDonald v Chicago (2010) are all SCOTUS rulings that support the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as granting US citizens the right to keep and bear arms. Gun ownership has always been regulated by municipal, state and federal laws. However, regulating ownership of firearms does not extend to banning law abiding citizens from owning firearms. That is where the courts have drawn the line, govt can regulate my ownership of firearms by law abiding citizens but it cannot prevent law abiding citizens from exercising their 2nd Amendment right to own firearms if they so choose.
Actually, I've always wondered about that. Is gun crime going down faster or slower than violent crime total? Because violent crime has dropped signifigantly it would be interesting to see how much gun crime has dropped in relation.
As far as I am concerned, violent crime going down is a good thing, and I always felt it was silly to focus on the mechanism of the violence instead of the fact it was a violent crime. Gun, fist, baseball bat makes no difference to me.
Because it isnt. The Second Amendment maintains the Right for well regulated militia by the state, not by personal people. And because we have our Militia, the national guard, we do not need personal gun ownership.
That and another part of it is "Well Regulated" is something we do not do.
Well, you're wrong.
DC v Heller And SCOTUS agree that you're wrong.
And like I say in an earlier post, 4 times before Heller, SCOTUS said he was right. Who's to say that SCOTUS won't change its mind again in future?
Presser v Illinois (1886), US v Miller (1939), lewis v US (1980), DC v Heller (2008) and McDonald v Chicago (2010) are all SCOTUS rulings that support the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as granting US citizens the right to keep and bear arms. Gun ownership has always been regulated by municipal, state and federal laws. However, regulating ownership of firearms does not extend to banning law abiding citizens from owning firearms. That is where the courts have drawn the line, govt can regulate my ownership of firearms by law abiding citizens but it cannot prevent law abiding citizens from exercising their 2nd Amendment right to own firearms if they so choose.
But can the government prevent you from owning certain types of firearms?
What would prevent these shootings from happening?
Take all guns away from all americans. They've consistently shown they're not mature enough to have them.
And yet gun violence is going down. And literally millions of lawful gun owners do not commit murder or other violent crimes each year.
and the guy who just shot up the school was a lawful gun owner the day before the shooting. Lawful gun owners are just one shooting away from being murderers & violent criminals.
SO because one gak bag goes completely off the rails, you want to lump the millions who do not into the same category. It is your right to do so.
* By the way, have they released how/where he got the gun or even type of gun yet? All I've heard was 'hand gun' and saw a picture from the crime scene focusing on a shell casing which lends credence to that.
Yep, it only takes 1 donkey-cave to ruin it for everyone. It's why I see so many americans against letting in refugees, OMG we might let in 1 terrorist, don't take any of them.
So I guess Roe v. Wade proved everybody who is anti-abortion "wrong", and citizens united v. FCC proved everybody who wants political donations curtailed "wrong".
Two curious choices for you to pick.
So I guess the answer is yes. Although I think you have the incorrect phrasing for someone that is anti-abortion. Doesn't popular media tell us it's more along the lines of "anti-woman moron?"
Because it isnt. The Second Amendment maintains the Right for well regulated militia by the state, not by personal people. And because we have our Militia, the national guard, we do not need personal gun ownership.
That and another part of it is "Well Regulated" is something we do not do.
Well, you're wrong.
DC v Heller And SCOTUS agree that you're wrong.
And like I say in an earlier post, 4 times before Heller, SCOTUS said he was right. Who's to say that SCOTUS won't change its mind again in future?
Presser v Illinois (1886), US v Miller (1939), lewis v US (1980), DC v Heller (2008) and McDonald v Chicago (2010) are all SCOTUS rulings that support the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as granting US citizens the right to keep and bear arms. Gun ownership has always been regulated by municipal, state and federal laws. However, regulating ownership of firearms does not extend to banning law abiding citizens from owning firearms. That is where the courts have drawn the line, govt can regulate my ownership of firearms by law abiding citizens but it cannot prevent law abiding citizens from exercising their 2nd Amendment right to own firearms if they so choose.
But can the government prevent you from owning certain types of firearms?
Yes. That was expressly ruled upon in US v Miller and the NFA Act of 1934 and the Gun Control Act of 1968.
So I guess Roe v. Wade proved everybody who is anti-abortion "wrong", and citizens united v. FCC proved everybody who wants political donations curtailed "wrong".
Two curious choices for you to pick.
So I guess the answer is yes. Although I think you have the incorrect phrasing for someone that is anti-abortion. Doesn't popular media tell us it's more along the lines of "anti-woman moron?"
Well, they are both very contentious issues, and, with changes in the supreme court over time, we may see changes in them. Especially CU v. FCC, as it was a 5/4 decision that happens (relatively) recently.
Da Boss wrote: America is going to keep it's guns, and we'll be back here in however many months it is til the next one of these.
Hopefully it's a lot of months.
Obama's speech was great. We'll see if it gets followed up with anything substantive, but that was the best I'd seen him on any topic in a long while.
Obama can afford to talk like that, because he's out the door in a year's time. We may see the 'real' Obama coming through in the next few months on various issues, for the simple reason he's not up for re-election and can tread on toes.
As for anything substantive, not a chance. If Obama proposed that Christmas day should fall on the 25th December, the Republicans would block it.
Nothing substantive will happen but not because of Obama, but because historically substantive changes have always struggled to get passed by Congress for reasons that have pretty much been consistently the same. In my lifetime there have been 2 substantial federal gun laws passed, the creation of NICS for background checks run by FFL dealers and the assault weapons ban that was passed with a sunset clause and subsequently not renewed. Conversely, we know have more states issuing more concealed permits than ever making it easier for more citizens across the country to own and carry firearms. On the whole, we've moved to be more permissive than restrictive with firearm ownership so it's unlikely for that trend to suddenly be discounted by the politicians in Congress.
In the 19th and for most the 20th century, SCOTUS were quite happy to uphold gun control laws.
Hell, before Heller, SCOTUS ruled 4 times that the 2nd wasn't a blanket individual right to own arms.
And its not. However it IS a right to own firearms by an individual.
Pepper Sprays and Tasers do the same thing. This is why many security guards(Including me) carry them. This whole Idea of "Adreniline will keep em going" is a hack.
I mean, this is just patently false. And has been proven falls time after time.
Hell, we have instances where GUNSHOTS don't stop assailants immediately.
My hope is you're not serious. It's a false hope, I know. But I'll maintain it nonetheless.
So I guess Roe v. Wade proved everybody who is anti-abortion "wrong", and citizens united v. FCC proved everybody who wants political donations curtailed "wrong".
Two curious choices for you to pick.
So I guess the answer is yes. Although I think you have the incorrect phrasing for someone that is anti-abortion. Doesn't popular media tell us it's more along the lines of "anti-woman moron?"
Well, they are both very contentious issues, and, with changes in the supreme court over time, we may see changes in them. Especially CU v. FCC, as it was a 5/4 decision that happens (relatively) recently.
It takes more than just a change in justices to overturn a SCOTUS decision. A new court can't just choose to overturn a previous ruling. Somebody needs to have a case dealing with that specific issue, appeal it, take the appeal all the way up to SCOTUS, SCOTUS has to agree to hear it and then rule on it. It's not as if every time a new judge is confirmed to SCOTUS that they get to revisit every SCOTUS case and hold a new vote on it.
Yep, it only takes 1 donkey-cave to ruin it for everyone. It's why I see so many americans against letting in refugees, OMG we might let in 1 terrorist, don't take any of them.
So I guess Roe v. Wade proved everybody who is anti-abortion "wrong", and citizens united v. FCC proved everybody who wants political donations curtailed "wrong".
Two curious choices for you to pick.
So I guess the answer is yes. Although I think you have the incorrect phrasing for someone that is anti-abortion. Doesn't popular media tell us it's more along the lines of "anti-woman moron?"
Im starting to think you are not right dude, when most if not all your arguments are insults and not actual counter-arguments, something is wrong.
So I guess Roe v. Wade proved everybody who is anti-abortion "wrong", and citizens united v. FCC proved everybody who wants political donations curtailed "wrong".
Two curious choices for you to pick.
So I guess the answer is yes. Although I think you have the incorrect phrasing for someone that is anti-abortion. Doesn't popular media tell us it's more along the lines of "anti-woman moron?"
Well, they are both very contentious issues, and, with changes in the supreme court over time, we may see changes in them. Especially CU v. FCC, as it was a 5/4 decision that happens (relatively) recently.
It takes more than just a change in justices to overturn a SCOTUS decision. A new court can't just choose to overturn a previous ruling. Somebody needs to have a case dealing with that specific issue, appeal it, take the appeal all the way up to SCOTUS, SCOTUS has to agree to hear it and then rule on it. It's not as if every time a new judge is confirmed to SCOTUS that they get to revisit every SCOTUS case and hold a new vote on it.
Well yes, it takes a bit, but, again, with changes in the supreme court over time, people will say "oh, I can probably get this passed now" and pass laws that violate the old decision with hope of getting a new one. That's how it works.
Because it isnt. The Second Amendment maintains the Right for well regulated militia by the state, not by personal people. And because we have our Militia, the national guard, we do not need personal gun ownership.
That and another part of it is "Well Regulated" is something we do not do.
When I can be bothered, I'll start a thread on this on why I believe that the Heller case, and Scalia's ruling, were a complete crock!
Yes, I've been reading my federalist papers, James Madison's notes, and a heap of other stuff!
EDIT: just noticed this thread is spiralling out of control
yes, please as a British non-lawyer, tell us why a Supreme Court Justice was wrong on, well anything outside of dress sense.
Yep, it only takes 1 donkey-cave to ruin it for everyone. It's why I see so many americans against letting in refugees, OMG we might let in 1 terrorist, don't take any of them.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Pepper Sprays and Tasers do the same thing. This is why many security guards(Including me) carry them. This whole Idea of "Adreniline will keep em going" is a hack.
This is deeply, deeply deficient in facts, especially that last sentence.
If you would like to know more, you can watch this video, which is long. Cut to 13 minutes in.
So I guess Roe v. Wade proved everybody who is anti-abortion "wrong", and citizens united v. FCC proved everybody who wants political donations curtailed "wrong".
Two curious choices for you to pick.
So I guess the answer is yes. Although I think you have the incorrect phrasing for someone that is anti-abortion. Doesn't popular media tell us it's more along the lines of "anti-woman moron?"
Im starting to think you are not right dude, when most if not all your arguments are insults and not actual counter-arguments, something is wrong.
Why argue with someone who has a fundamental misunderstanding of the law and what SCOTUS has done.
Yep, it only takes 1 donkey-cave to ruin it for everyone. It's why I see so many americans against letting in refugees, OMG we might let in 1 terrorist, don't take any of them.
Yeah, sounds like a massive problem requiring the curtailment of the rights of millions of law abiding citizens.
now compare that to the 247 mass shootings this year alone. compared to the "voter fraud" problem, this is a hugely epic problem. So if your not actually in the state's well regulated militia you should not have a gun. You have no right to one, turn it in.
Yep, it only takes 1 donkey-cave to ruin it for everyone. It's why I see so many americans against letting in refugees, OMG we might let in 1 terrorist, don't take any of them.
Yeah, sounds like a massive problem requiring the curtailment of the rights of millions of law abiding citizens.
now compare that to the 247 mass shootings this year alone. compared to the "voter fraud" problem, this is a hugely epic problem. So if your not actually in the state's well regulated militia you should not have a gun. You have no right to one, turn it in.
There are numerous state constitutions that repeat the individual right to own firearms that is also in the US constitution. It's not as if the 2nd Amendment is the sole law regarding firearms ownership in the US. But don't let facts get in the way of your diatribes.
Yep, it only takes 1 donkey-cave to ruin it for everyone. It's why I see so many americans against letting in refugees, OMG we might let in 1 terrorist, don't take any of them.
Yeah, sounds like a massive problem requiring the curtailment of the rights of millions of law abiding citizens.
now compare that to the 247 mass shootings this year alone. compared to the "voter fraud" problem, this is a hugely epic problem. So if your not actually in the state's well regulated militia you should not have a gun. You have no right to one, turn it in.
There are numerous state constitutions that repeat the individual right to own firearms that is also in the US constitution. It's not as if the 2nd Amendment is the sole law regarding firearms ownership in the US. But don't let facts get in the way of your diatribes.
So...? On the federal level, state constitutions do not matter (IIRC).
So I guess Roe v. Wade proved everybody who is anti-abortion "wrong", and citizens united v. FCC proved everybody who wants political donations curtailed "wrong".
Two curious choices for you to pick.
So I guess the answer is yes. Although I think you have the incorrect phrasing for someone that is anti-abortion. Doesn't popular media tell us it's more along the lines of "anti-woman moron?"
Im starting to think you are not right dude, when most if not all your arguments are insults and not actual counter-arguments, something is wrong.
Why argue with someone who has a fundamental misunderstanding of the law and what SCOTUS has done.
Doesnt mean I have to agree with SCOTUS, Personal gun ownership is not needed in the united states and has done more harm then good.
If guns where not so readily available to buy, we would not have the level of gun violence we would.
And on the same, why talk to me at all? IF you dont like what im saying and you think i have a fundamental misunderstanding, why insult? OR say anything at all?
hotsauceman1 wrote: Pepper Sprays and Tasers do the same thing. This is why many security guards(Including me) carry them. This whole Idea of "Adreniline will keep em going" is a hack.
This is deeply, deeply deficient in facts, especially that last sentence.
If you would like to know more, you can watch this video, which is long. Cut to 13 minutes in.
When I had an assailant on the job, pepper spray worked fine to get him off me.
Same with my friend and his Taser when he got a Knife pulled on him on the job.
Heck look at this video where police take a man down with just pepper spray.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9TFvh6Xps4
Doesnt mean I have to agree with SCOTUS, Personal gun ownership is not needed in the united states and has done more harm then good.
If guns where not so readily available to buy, we would not have the level of gun violence we would.
And on the same, why talk to me at all? IF you dont like what im saying and you think i have a fundamental misunderstanding, why insult? OR say anything at all?
This presumes most firearms used in the commission of a murder (hint: a capital felony) are obtained legally (hint: they aren't).
When I had an assailant on the job, pepper spray worked fine to get him off me.
Same with my friend and his Taser when he got a Knife pulled on him on the job.
Heck look at this video where police take a man down with just pepper spray.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9TFvh6Xps4
Yep, it only takes 1 donkey-cave to ruin it for everyone. It's why I see so many americans against letting in refugees, OMG we might let in 1 terrorist, don't take any of them.
Yeah, sounds like a massive problem requiring the curtailment of the rights of millions of law abiding citizens.
now compare that to the 247 mass shootings this year alone. compared to the "voter fraud" problem, this is a hugely epic problem. So if your not actually in the state's well regulated militia you should not have a gun. You have no right to one, turn it in.
There are numerous state constitutions that repeat the individual right to own firearms that is also in the US constitution. It's not as if the 2nd Amendment is the sole law regarding firearms ownership in the US. But don't let facts get in the way of your diatribes.
So...? On the federal level, state constitutions do not matter (IIRC).
They matter a lot when it comes to my rights to own and carry firearms, amongst other things. Regardless of your personal opinion regarding the 2nd Amendment which contradicts SCOTUS and legal precedent, I still have the right to own and carry firearms as a resident of my state. The 2nd Amendment could get repealed tomorrow and it would have no impact on my ability to own and carry firearms as a law abiding resident of North Carolina. So sirlynchmob's chosen interpretation of the 2nd Amendment being limited to the organization of a militia (quick fact, a militia is made up of civilian volunteers so it's only possible to form a militia, well regulated or not, if the populace isarmed) has no bearing on my right to own firearms.
Because it isnt. The Second Amendment maintains the Right for well regulated militia by the state, not by personal people. And because we have our Militia, the national guard, we do not need personal gun ownership.
That and another part of it is "Well Regulated" is something we do not do.
Well, you're wrong.
DC v Heller And SCOTUS agree that you're wrong.
And like I say in an earlier post, 4 times before Heller, SCOTUS said he was right. Who's to say that SCOTUS won't change its mind again in future?
Presser v Illinois (1886), US v Miller (1939), lewis v US (1980), DC v Heller (2008) and McDonald v Chicago (2010) are all SCOTUS rulings that support the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as granting US citizens the right to keep and bear arms. Gun ownership has always been regulated by municipal, state and federal laws. However, regulating ownership of firearms does not extend to banning law abiding citizens from owning firearms. That is where the courts have drawn the line, govt can regulate my ownership of firearms by law abiding citizens but it cannot prevent law abiding citizens from exercising their 2nd Amendment right to own firearms if they so choose.
Nobody denies that people don't have the right to carry guns, but in what CONTEXT?
I believe, after reviewing the evidence as a historian, it's a collective right i.e as part of a militia.
As a private citizen, I'm in favour of people owing guns. It's important to separate the professional from the private. If that makes sense
whembly wrote: Can we go back to blaming the shooterand not the guns?
People can do both. If it were an isolated incident it might make sense, but since this is a troubling trend that transcends one incident pretending there is no issue involved seems a bit troublesome.
sirlynchmob wrote: So if your not actually in the state's well regulated militia you should not have a gun. You have no right to one, turn it in.
Is this wishful thinking or are you trying to argue that we don't have individual rights to guns?
it's the part of the second amendment that is never quoted.
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.
Surely the national guard fits this bill, it's clearly a well regulated militia, so if your not in the guard, you shouldn't have a gun.
regardless, it's an amendment, those can be repealed and changed to fit the times.
this nonsense where more guns will make us safer is insane. there's enough guns for every man, woman, child & fetus to have one. When will there be enough guns that we'll finally start being safe? we've tried more guns, now is the time to try less guns.
Doesnt mean I have to agree with SCOTUS, Personal gun ownership is not needed in the united states and has done more harm then good.
If guns where not so readily available to buy, we would not have the level of gun violence we would.
And on the same, why talk to me at all? IF you dont like what im saying and you think i have a fundamental misunderstanding, why insult? OR say anything at all?
This presumes most firearms used in the commission of a murder (hint: a capital felony) are obtained legally (hint: they aren't).
When I had an assailant on the job, pepper spray worked fine to get him off me.
Same with my friend and his Taser when he got a Knife pulled on him on the job.
Heck look at this video where police take a man down with just pepper spray.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9TFvh6Xps4
1: The allowance of firearms to be purchased legally allow them to be readily purchased illegally.
2: Why not add something instead of "HURRR I think this guy is stupid, so im just gonna Facepalm him to show How stupid he is"
Prestor Jon wrote: it's only possible to form a militia, well regulated or not, if the populace isarmed
No, it's not. You can have a central depot and hand out weapons to your militia when the time requires it. Or have the populace armed but without ammunition. I believe Switzerland follows the latter model, IIRC.
hotsauceman1 wrote: We do not, the 2nd amendment, is read properly, states you do not.
US case law disagrees with you and legal precedent actually matters to the legality of firearm ownership rights much more so than your opinion. That's why I keep citing the cases wherein the courts specifically call out the right of individual citizens to keep and bear arms.
Because it isnt. The Second Amendment maintains the Right for well regulated militia by the state, not by personal people. And because we have our Militia, the national guard, we do not need personal gun ownership.
That and another part of it is "Well Regulated" is something we do not do.
Well, you're wrong.
DC v Heller And SCOTUS agree that you're wrong.
And like I say in an earlier post, 4 times before Heller, SCOTUS said he was right. Who's to say that SCOTUS won't change its mind again in future?
Presser v Illinois (1886), US v Miller (1939), lewis v US (1980), DC v Heller (2008) and McDonald v Chicago (2010) are all SCOTUS rulings that support the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as granting US citizens the right to keep and bear arms. Gun ownership has always been regulated by municipal, state and federal laws. However, regulating ownership of firearms does not extend to banning law abiding citizens from owning firearms. That is where the courts have drawn the line, govt can regulate my ownership of firearms by law abiding citizens but it cannot prevent law abiding citizens from exercising their 2nd Amendment right to own firearms if they so choose.
But can the government prevent you from owning certain types of firearms?
Yes. That was expressly ruled upon in US v Miller and the NFA Act of 1934 and the Gun Control Act of 1968.
Because it isnt. The Second Amendment maintains the Right for well regulated militia by the state, not by personal people. And because we have our Militia, the national guard, we do not need personal gun ownership.
That and another part of it is "Well Regulated" is something we do not do.
When I can be bothered, I'll start a thread on this on why I believe that the Heller case, and Scalia's ruling, were a complete crock!
Yes, I've been reading my federalist papers, James Madison's notes, and a heap of other stuff!
EDIT: just noticed this thread is spiralling out of control
yes, please as a British non-lawyer, tell us why a Supreme Court Justice was wrong on, well anything outside of dress sense.
For the record, I'm trying to break away from Britain (Scottish independence)
Frazz, SCOTUS was clearly wrong on slavery, so lets pretend that SCOTUS is infallible.
But yes, I will start an appropriate thread on that ruling.
Ahtman wrote: Person A: X is a problem we should address probably.
Person B: But it is Constitutional™.
Person A: Well then I guess we have to ignore it.
I think the problem that many responsible gun owners have is that none of the rhetoric actually proposes anything that would curtail the commission of crimes with guns by criminals.
IMO, the place to start is by actually enforcing the gun penalties we have on the books to the fullest extent, and even making them harsher. You commit a crime with a gun, you don't get parole, etc.
So lets back up find common things we can agree on.
1. I'll go for: A. universal background checks for all transfers via FFL; B. Strengthen reporting of mental health and other background check violations to NCIS; C. California style hearing to remove firearms from location if reportable mental event occurred.
2. In return I want CHL supremacy clause. All states that have CHL have to recognize other state's CHL if those persons are in your state; and 2. No limitations on the purchase of ammunition (Certain cities limit hollowpoint ammo which greatly increases the chances of bystanders being hit for why???).
Its common sense compromise.
I think the problem that many responsible gun owners have is that none of the rhetoric actually proposes anything that would curtail the commission of crimes with guns by criminals.
Prestor Jon wrote: it's only possible to form a militia, well regulated or not, if the populace isarmed
No, it's not. You can have a central depot and hand out weapons to your militia when the time requires it. Or have the populace armed but without ammunition. I believe Switzerland follows the latter model, IIRC.
The Swiss are allowed to buy personal ammunition for their issued firearms kept at home, they are not allowed to keep military issued ammunition at home. In theory every Swiss person who is keeping their military issue rifle at home as part of the military obligation can have plenty of ammunition for it. I couldn't find information regarding how many Swiss keep a supply of private ammunition for their military rifle at home in the few seconds it took me to google the information regarding their firearm laws.
hotsauceman1 wrote: "In order to maintain a WELL REGULATED militia"
We have a "Militia" for state defense its called the National guard
If just repeating ideas over again made them true, then my boyhood muttering would have surely scored me a hookup with Drew Barrymore.
Sadly both you are are are left empty handed; although in my boyhood it was more figuratively. Especially when thinking of Drew Barrymore.
The point is, that the idea you are expressing has been roundly rejected by the Supreme Court, it took a really, really long time for them to get to that ruling, and they are unlikely to revisit it anytime soon.
Frazzled wrote: So lets back up find common things we can agree on.
1. I'll go for: A. universal background checks for all transfers via FFL; B. Strengthen reporting of mental health and other background check violations to NCIS; C. California style hearing to remove firearms from location if reportable mental event occurred.
2. In return I want CHL supremacy clause. All states that have CHL have to recognize other state's CHL if those persons are in your state; and 2. No limitations on the purchase of ammunition (Certain cities limit hollowpoint ammo which greatly increases the chances of bystanders being hit for why???).
Its common sense compromise.
I think the problem that many responsible gun owners have is that none of the rhetoric actually proposes anything that would curtail the commission of crimes with guns by criminals.
Bingo!
Dude, its NICS, National Instant Criminal Background Check System. NCIS is your weiner dog's favorite tv show.
sirlynchmob wrote: So if your not actually in the state's well regulated militia you should not have a gun. You have no right to one, turn it in.
Is this wishful thinking or are you trying to argue that we don't have individual rights to guns?
it's the part of the second amendment that is never quoted.
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.
Surely the national guard fits this bill, it's clearly a well regulated militia, so if your not in the guard, you shouldn't have a gun.
regardless, it's an amendment, those can be repealed and changed to fit the times.
this nonsense where more guns will make us safer is insane. there's enough guns for every man, woman, child & fetus to have one. When will there be enough guns that we'll finally start being safe? we've tried more guns, now is the time to try less guns.
Edited for being too harsh..
Here's the 2nd Amendment in it's entirity:
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.
You are incorrect.
And, yes, it can be amended/changed in the future. Good luck with that.
Prestor Jon wrote: it's only possible to form a militia, well regulated or not, if the populace isarmed
No, it's not. You can have a central depot and hand out weapons to your militia when the time requires it. Or have the populace armed but without ammunition. I believe Switzerland follows the latter model, IIRC.
The Swiss are allowed to buy personal ammunition for their issued firearms kept at home, they are not allowed to keep military issued ammunition at home. In theory every Swiss person who is keeping their military issue rifle at home as part of the military obligation can have plenty of ammunition for it. I couldn't find information regarding how many Swiss keep a supply of private ammunition for their military rifle at home in the few seconds it took me to google the information regarding their firearm laws.
Switzerland has an estimated 3M guns in total in their largely homogenized country. The United States has 300M.
whembly wrote: Can we go back to blaming the shooterand not the guns?
In contrast to any other piece of equipment used, we must blame the equipment.
When someone kills nearly a dozen people in less than 10 minutes with a baseball bat, and then that happens again and again every few weeks, we'd probably start to look at the availability of baseball bats, too.
Because it isnt. The Second Amendment maintains the Right for well regulated militia by the state, not by personal people. And because we have our Militia, the national guard, we do not need personal gun ownership.
That and another part of it is "Well Regulated" is something we do not do.
When I can be bothered, I'll start a thread on this on why I believe that the Heller case, and Scalia's ruling, were a complete crock!
Yes, I've been reading my federalist papers, James Madison's notes, and a heap of other stuff!
EDIT: just noticed this thread is spiralling out of control
yes, please as a British non-lawyer, tell us why a Supreme Court Justice was wrong on, well anything outside of dress sense.
For the record, I'm trying to break away from Britain (Scottish independence)
Frazz, SCOTUS was clearly wrong on slavery, so lets pretend that SCOTUS is infallible.
But yes, I will start an appropriate thread on that ruling.
Under the constitution, SCOTUS wasn't legally incorrect. It took an Amendment to change that. If you feel the Second Amendment is bad, people can attempt to change it. Thats what the Constitution is designed to do.
Frazzled wrote: So lets back up find common things we can agree on.
1. I'll go for: A. universal background checks for all transfers via FFL; B. Strengthen reporting of mental health and other background check violations to NCIS; C. California style hearing to remove firearms from location if reportable mental event occurred.
2. In return I want CHL supremacy clause. All states that have CHL have to recognize other state's CHL if those persons are in your state; and 2. No limitations on the purchase of ammunition (Certain cities limit hollowpoint ammo which greatly increases the chances of bystanders being hit for why???).
Its common sense compromise.
I think the problem that many responsible gun owners have is that none of the rhetoric actually proposes anything that would curtail the commission of crimes with guns by criminals.
Bingo!
Exalted and something that's definitely more achievable than massed confiscation.
That is the dependent line "Well regulated Militia" Means something to defend the state, which we have, called the National guard.
Individual gun rights are NOT NEEDED.
Also, you need to stop insulting people if you want to be taken seriously. It seems your default is "Your stupid, so im just gonna say it" to people rather then just participate in the conversation with them.
sirlynchmob wrote: So if your not actually in the state's well regulated militia you should not have a gun. You have no right to one, turn it in.
Is this wishful thinking or are you trying to argue that we don't have individual rights to guns?
it's the part of the second amendment that is never quoted.
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.
Surely the national guard fits this bill, it's clearly a well regulated militia, so if your not in the guard, you shouldn't have a gun.
regardless, it's an amendment, those can be repealed and changed to fit the times.
this nonsense where more guns will make us safer is insane. there's enough guns for every man, woman, child & fetus to have one. When will there be enough guns that we'll finally start being safe? we've tried more guns, now is the time to try less guns.
Do you understand the full armed and operational "commas" means in the English language?
Here's the 2nd Amendment in it's entirity:
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.
You are incorrect.
And, yes, it can be amended/changed in the future. Good luck with that.
So you're fine with ignoring the problem, see you at the next school shooting then. let's hope its not the school your kids go to.
hotsauceman1 wrote: That is the dependent line "Well regulated Militia" Means something to defend the state, which we have, called the National guard.
Individual gun rights are NOT NEEDED.
Also, you need to stop insulting people if you want to be taken seriously. It seems your default is "Your stupid, so im just gonna say it" to people rather then just participate in the conversation with them.
I'm curious if you actually know what a dependent clause is. Do you?
Based on this response I think you might need to hit the Google.
Frazzled wrote: Under the constitution, SCOTUS wasn't legally incorrect. It took an Amendment to change that. If you feel the Second Amendment is bad, people can attempt to change it. Thats what the Constitution is designed to do.
Yes; this is essentially the crux of the issue and the summary, ultimately. American has a lot of firearms and we enjoy using them, and we're by and large OK with the occasional piles of dead young people that accrue. The second amendment prevents us from significantly changing that paradigm, and there is no political will to change the situation. Everything else is a waste of breath. We offer useless prayers and meaningless lip service, and then we move on barely before the blood is mopped up.
sirlynchmob wrote: So you're fine with ignoring the problem, see you at the next school shooting then. let's hope its not the school your kids go to.
Sure, all of us are. As Americans, we're OK with that. After all, has there been any meaningful attempt at changing the situation? We keep electing the same people making the same promises. Clearly, we're OK with all of this as a voting population.
Look at this subforum in general and this thread in specific as a useful microcosm of this, really. We're not really talking to each other, and there is no useful exchange of ideas here. Some of these threads are very nearly scripted events, by humans essentially acting as bots.
Because it isnt. The Second Amendment maintains the Right for well regulated militia by the state, not by personal people. And because we have our Militia, the national guard, we do not need personal gun ownership.
That and another part of it is "Well Regulated" is something we do not do.
When I can be bothered, I'll start a thread on this on why I believe that the Heller case, and Scalia's ruling, were a complete crock!
Yes, I've been reading my federalist papers, James Madison's notes, and a heap of other stuff!
EDIT: just noticed this thread is spiralling out of control
yes, please as a British non-lawyer, tell us why a Supreme Court Justice was wrong on, well anything outside of dress sense.
For the record, I'm trying to break away from Britain (Scottish independence)
Frazz, SCOTUS was clearly wrong on slavery, so lets pretend that SCOTUS is infallible.
But yes, I will start an appropriate thread on that ruling.
Nobody is saying SCOTUS is infallible, just that their rulings, along with other legal precedents, actually matter in determining what is legal and constitutional. Everyone is free to hold and express their own personal opinion but the opinion of SCOTUS and other courts are the ones that actually legally matter. The idea that SCOTUS rulings are "wrong" based solely on personal opinions is unreasonable because personal opinions are irrelevant in regards to the legal standing of SCOTUS rulings. No matter how vehemently one argues that SCOTUS is wrong it has no bearing on the pratical applications of their ruling. The two aren't on anything close to equal footing so it's a fruitless exercise.
People always make the mistake of overlooking what was left out of the 2nd amendment.
James Madison originally included a pacifist clause to allow Quakers to be exempt from militia duty, due to religious objections. This was voted down.
If the 2nd was created with the AIM of focusing on individual ownership, then he would not have bothered with this clause, as Quakers could have chosen their individual right not to own guns.
That he wanted this included shows the clear emphasis on militias...
Yes; this is essentially the crux of the issue and the summary, ultimately. American has a lot of firearms and we enjoy using them, and we're by and large OK with the occasional piles of dead young people that accrue. The second amendment prevents us from significantly changing that paradigm, and there is no political will to change the situation. Everything else is a waste of breath. We offer useless prayers and meaningless lip service, and then we move on barely before the blood is mopped up.
I respect you and your intelligence, Ouze, so I'll pose this question in hopes of an honest answer:
What can we do, in 2015 America, that will curtail the gun crimes committed by criminals? If we were able to wave a wand and get rid of all legally registered firearms in the hands of their lawful owners, do you think we'd see a major decrease in gun crime? We obviously would in gun deaths, since around 66% of them come from suicide. But do you believe there is a path we can take that will noticeably affect that downward trend more than we already are?
“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.”
All gun Rights are hinged on whether we have a regulated militia(We do, the National Guard) This was when people would have to be called to arms and provide their own weapons
With the establishment of a National guard and the US Military to protect the state(Whether you read that as States as countries or individual states) individual gun rights are not needed.
Infact, a ready supply of guns, even legally, allows for an easy supply of illegal guns.
hotsauceman1 wrote: That is the dependent line "Well regulated Militia" Means something to defend the state, which we have, called the National guard.
Individual gun rights are NOT NEEDED.
Also, you need to stop insulting people if you want to be taken seriously.
Pretty strong words coming from someone making a general statement based on opinion (tm).
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: People always make the mistake of overlooking what was left out of the 2nd amendment.
James Madison originally included a pacifist clause to allow Quakers to be exempt from militia duty, due to religious objections. This was voted down.
If the 2nd was created with the AIM of focusing on individual ownership, then he would not have bothered with this clause, as Quakers could have chosen their individual right not to own guns.
That he wanted this included shows the clear emphasis on militias...
Dude... the militias = the people.
The militias is NOT the National Guard. They were established AFTER 1903.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: People always make the mistake of overlooking what was left out of the 2nd amendment.
James Madison originally included a pacifist clause to allow Quakers to be exempt from militia duty, due to religious objections. This was voted down.
If the 2nd was created with the AIM of focusing on individual ownership, then he would not have bothered with this clause, as Quakers could have chosen their individual right not to own guns.
That he wanted this included shows the clear emphasis on militias...
It doesn't really. It reflects a time in which there was no standing army.
Further, the more you read, the more you'll find that the intent of the 2nd amendment is, at it's heart and soul, to allow the citizenry to defend itself from its government and to guarantee it's freedom from governmental oppression.
Yes; this is essentially the crux of the issue and the summary, ultimately. American has a lot of firearms and we enjoy using them, and we're by and large OK with the occasional piles of dead young people that accrue. The second amendment prevents us from significantly changing that paradigm, and there is no political will to change the situation. Everything else is a waste of breath. We offer useless prayers and meaningless lip service, and then we move on barely before the blood is mopped up.
I respect you and your intelligence, Ouze, so I'll pose this question in hopes of an honest answer:
What can we do, in 2015 America, that will curtail the gun crimes committed by criminals? If we were able to wave a wand and get rid of all legally registered firearms in the hands of their lawful owners, do you think we'd see a major decrease in gun crime? We obviously would in gun deaths, since around 66% of them come from suicide. But do you believe there is a path we can take that will noticeably affect that downward trend more than we already are?
Yes, Because, less readily available guns means less gun crime
Remember, the gun from Sandy Hook was a legal gun stolen from his mother.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: People always make the mistake of overlooking what was left out of the 2nd amendment.
James Madison originally included a pacifist clause to allow Quakers to be exempt from militia duty, due to religious objections. This was voted down.
If the 2nd was created with the AIM of focusing on individual ownership, then he would not have bothered with this clause, as Quakers could have chosen their individual right not to own guns.
That he wanted this included shows the clear emphasis on militias...
Well, it doesn't really matter. What matters is how the amendment is currently being interpreted by the Supreme Court; which is to say, supporting a natural right to self-defense unconnected to militia membership. You guys should drop this argument, because it's bad, bad, bad. That ruling just came out, and it's not going to be changed anytime soon, all else being equal.
If you want to reduce the number of firearms in this country*, the 2nd amendment needs to be changed, period, full stop.
hotsauceman1 wrote: That is the dependent line "Well regulated Militia" Means something to defend the state, which we have, called the National guard.
Individual gun rights are NOT NEEDED.
Also, you need to stop insulting people if you want to be taken seriously.
Pretty strong words coming from someone making a general statement based on opinion (tm).
Or more on experiance and reading up on the issue itself.
Because it isnt. The Second Amendment maintains the Right for well regulated militia by the state, not by personal people. And because we have our Militia, the national guard, we do not need personal gun ownership.
That and another part of it is "Well Regulated" is something we do not do.
When I can be bothered, I'll start a thread on this on why I believe that the Heller case, and Scalia's ruling, were a complete crock!
Yes, I've been reading my federalist papers, James Madison's notes, and a heap of other stuff!
EDIT: just noticed this thread is spiralling out of control
yes, please as a British non-lawyer, tell us why a Supreme Court Justice was wrong on, well anything outside of dress sense.
For the record, I'm trying to break away from Britain (Scottish independence)
Frazz, SCOTUS was clearly wrong on slavery, so lets pretend that SCOTUS is infallible.
But yes, I will start an appropriate thread on that ruling.
Under the constitution, SCOTUS wasn't legally incorrect. It took an Amendment to change that. If you feel the Second Amendment is bad, people can attempt to change it. Thats what the Constitution is designed to do.
You mistake my intensions Frazz, I'm on your side. I believe that people should have the right to own guns to defend themselves/homes/family. - I'm a libertarian.
But as a historian, and being professional about it, I believe that the 2nd amendment is all about the militias, and not the individual.
You may think it's hard to separate the two strands of thought, but it's possible, and not a contradiction. Lawyers do it all the time.
Professional me: 2nd is for the militias.
Private Citizen me: people should be allowed to own guns.
Yes, Because, less readily available guns means less gun crime
Remember, the gun from Sandy Hook was a legal gun stolen from his mother.
Sure, if you ignore the data that shows us gun crime continues to decrease as the number of guns in legal circulation in the United States continues to increases.
So you're fine with ignoring the problem, see you at the next school shooting then. let's hope its not the school your kids go to.
You're saying the problem is guns...
I'm saying the problem is the shooter.
But, since you've already advocated for confiscation... what's the point of discussing this? You know that will never happen.
Outside of confiscation, what would've prevented this shooting?
the problem is the massive availability of guns, so when anyone wants to go on a shooting spree there is no limit to the number of guns and the ammo he can buy. Isn't it reassuring to know, in arizona a shooter could post all over the net he's going to go shoot up someplace for weeks. Go to any gun store and walk out with a variety of guns & ammo during his lunch break, then carry out his plan. Or any gun show if it's in town, walk in, buy all the guns you want, go on a shooting spree.
due to the massive availability of guns, the first step is to remove most of the guns.
there has been many rational gun laws suggested, yet after sandy hook the gun sales got less restrictive. There are many countries we can use for examples on rational gun laws and how to implement them.
Less guns have proven to cause less gun violence from mass shootings to suicides.
If america is this supposed greatest country on earth, than surely the can find a viable solution to this problem, instead of ignoring it.
what's your idea on how to stop the next one then? keep selling more guns so the good guys with guns can shoot the wrong person during a car jacking? and if less guns cause less gun violence, than surely it's obvious, more guns cause more gun violence.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: People always make the mistake of overlooking what was left out of the 2nd amendment.
James Madison originally included a pacifist clause to allow Quakers to be exempt from militia duty, due to religious objections. This was voted down.
If the 2nd was created with the AIM of focusing on individual ownership, then he would not have bothered with this clause, as Quakers could have chosen their individual right not to own guns.
That he wanted this included shows the clear emphasis on militias...
No. What your example shows is that people didn't feel the need to add a clause to the amendment exempting Quakers becuase Quakers were already free to choose not to own firearms and/or volunteer for the militia or any other military service. You don't need a pacifist clause to allow people the right to not own firearms or join the militia or military because there is nothing in the 2nd amendment forcing anyone to purchase firearms or join the militia or military.
There are ample examples of the founders explaining the intent of the 2nd amendment.
"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."
- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789
"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
"[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
Yes, Because, less readily available guns means less gun crime
Remember, the gun from Sandy Hook was a legal gun stolen from his mother.
Sure, if you ignore the data that shows us gun crime continues to decrease as the number of guns in legal circulation in the United States continues to increases.
But, you know, pesky facts and things.
Yep, the number of the guns in the US has increased as the number of people owning guns has decreased. Pesky facts and all that.
Yes; this is essentially the crux of the issue and the summary, ultimately. American has a lot of firearms and we enjoy using them, and we're by and large OK with the occasional piles of dead young people that accrue. The second amendment prevents us from significantly changing that paradigm, and there is no political will to change the situation. Everything else is a waste of breath. We offer useless prayers and meaningless lip service, and then we move on barely before the blood is mopped up.
I respect you and your intelligence, Ouze, so I'll pose this question in hopes of an honest answer:
What can we do, in 2015 America, that will curtail the gun crimes committed by criminals? If we were able to wave a wand and get rid of all legally registered firearms in the hands of their lawful owners, do you think we'd see a major decrease in gun crime? We obviously would in gun deaths, since around 66% of them come from suicide. But do you believe there is a path we can take that will noticeably affect that downward trend more than we already are?
Yes, Because, less readily available guns means less gun crime
Remember, the gun from Sandy Hook was a legal gun stolen from his mother.
Said differently, the guns used in Sandy Hook were illegally obtained through murder and theft.
So you're fine with ignoring the problem, see you at the next school shooting then. let's hope its not the school your kids go to.
You're saying the problem is guns...
I'm saying the problem is the shooter.
But, since you've already advocated for confiscation... what's the point of discussing this? You know that will never happen.
Outside of confiscation, what would've prevented this shooting?
the problem is the massive availability of guns, so when anyone wants to go on a shooting spree there is no limit to the number of guns and the ammo he can buy. Isn't it reassuring to know, in arizona a shooter could post all over the net he's going to go shoot up someplace for weeks. Go to any gun store and walk out with a variety of guns & ammo during his lunch break, then carry out his plan. Or any gun show if it's in town, walk in, buy all the guns you want, go on a shooting spree.
due to the massive availability of guns, the first step is to remove most of the guns.
there has been many rational gun laws suggested, yet after sandy hook the gun sales got less restrictive. There are many countries we can use for examples on rational gun laws and how to implement them.
Less guns have proven to cause less gun violence from mass shootings to suicides.
If america is this supposed greatest country on earth, than surely the can find a viable solution to this problem, instead of ignoring it.
what's your idea on how to stop the next one then? keep selling more guns so the good guys with guns can shoot the wrong person during a car jacking? and if less guns cause less gun violence, than surely it's obvious, more guns cause more gun violence.
There are extensive municipal, state and federal laws that expressly limit what kind of firearms are permitted for sale to private citizens and under what parameters private citizens can own certain types of firearms. Some states also have extensive laws regarding the purchase, sale and ownership of ammunitions. Are you deliberately ignoring these facts or are you unaware of their existence?
As for your concern about people posting things on the internet and then being allowed to purchase firearms, that's a 1st amendment issue not a 2nd amendment issue.
We're talking about violent crime and gun crime vs. gun ownership.
Moooooove em!
Its not a different issue. If having guns around increases crime rate(Which according to Stanford, a well recognized establishment) then it is proven that guns can cause crime.
whembly wrote: Can we go back to blaming the shooterand not the guns?
This is pretty much exactly it.
Someone made a conscious choice to kill people in a pre-meditated fashion, the weapon didn't didn't force him to do it or control his mind or kill people itself.
As has been pointed out before, murder rates are at historic lows. What we have is a problem with people going out and engaging in shock killings. This is a relatively recent phenomenon however. In the time when you order machine guns through the Sears catalog and have the USPS deliver them right to your door, and kids could take their rifle to school so they could go plinking or squirrel hunting after, these things didn't really happen despite guns being far less restricted. Fundamentally, we have a sociological issue where a couple of subsets of the population are feeling increasingly disconnected from society and infuriated for whatever reason, and feel that engaging in these sorts of atrocities makes them relevant and gives them their 15 minutes in the sun as the media goes apeshit over it.
There's approximately 350,000,000 private guns now... so, let's say our goal is to get 250,000,000 guns off the street costing us $250 Billion.
All without changing existing laws... just, get it off the streets.
You cool with a program like this?
Municipalities and agencies have gun buy back programs numerous times throught out the years. What you typically get are people turning in guns they dont want or guns that are broken. Gun buy back programs only curtail gun ownership and availability in the sense that it's an opportunity for people to dispose of guns that they didn't want in the first place. GIven the cost of guns, ammunition, magazines, holsters, slings, etc. offering only $1000 isn't going to convince many gun owners who deliberately purchased their gun to trade it in for money.
Vaktathi wrote: As has been pointed out before, murder rates are at historic lows. What we have is a problem with people going out and engaging in shock killings. This is a relatively recent phenomenon however. In the time when you order machine guns through the Sears catalog and have the USPS deliver them right to your door, and kids could take their rifle to school so they could go plinking or squirrel hunting after, these things didn't really happen despite guns being far less restricted. Fundamentally, we have a sociological issue where a couple of subsets of the population are feeling increasingly disconnected from society and infuriated for whatever reason, and feel that engaging in these sorts of atrocities makes them relevant and gives them their 15 minutes in the sun as the media goes apeshit over it.
Yes, yes yes.
Cincy asked him if I could think of ways that gun control could reduce crime, and sure, we can do some stuff, but ultimately I don't think reducing availability is the problem, or ultimately that we shouldn't be spending our (imaginary, hypothetical) political capital somewhere more useful. I'm not trying to make a nirvana fallacy here: if we can try and reduce spree killings, we should - but, you know, totally avoidable heart diseases kills a hell of a lot more people every year and gets a lot less coverage on CNN. If we're waving magic legislation wands around with the goal of saving lives, there are more fertile fields to plant.
In short you can self regulate your own militia(which can be a militia of one), that's the point. The whole purpose was a counter to the standing army and self defense. If you have taken hunter safety course, CCW courses, military, police, Appleseed, actual self-training, etc etc courses you are trained enough to own guns according to the definition of this term in how it was used in this. The point was to keep the government from being able to take power away from its citizenry.
"The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it."
"The word militia refers to an army or other fighting force that is composed of non-professional fighters; citizens of a nation or subjects of a state or government that can be called upon to enter a combat situation, as opposed to a professional force of regular soldier." The National Guard and reserves are in fact professional troops who go to official training regularly and are deployed regularly and are paid, thus do not fall into the class "militia."
Also the Dick Act of 1902/3 states that all males 18- 45 are eligible to be called up for service thus can be construed as they are in fact militia. While the Dick Act has been more or less effectively been made obsolete by later laws, they never actually straight up repealed it. Furthermore the Selective Service component is still in place along with the draft making any male(females are not part of selective service yet) technically part of the militia.
Frazzled wrote: Under the constitution, SCOTUS wasn't legally incorrect. It took an Amendment to change that. If you feel the Second Amendment is bad, people can attempt to change it. Thats what the Constitution is designed to do.
Yes; this is essentially the crux of the issue and the summary, ultimately. American has a lot of firearms and we enjoy using them, and we're by and large OK with the occasional piles of dead young people that accrue. The second amendment prevents us from significantly changing that paradigm, and there is no political will to change the situation. Everything else is a waste of breath. We offer useless prayers and meaningless lip service, and then we move on barely before the blood is mopped up.
sirlynchmob wrote: So you're fine with ignoring the problem, see you at the next school shooting then. let's hope its not the school your kids go to.
Sure, all of us are. As Americans, we're OK with that. After all, has there been any meaningful attempt at changing the situation? We keep electing the same people making the same promises. Clearly, we're OK with all of this as a voting population.
Look at this subforum in general and this thread in specific as a useful microcosm of this, really. We're not really talking to each other, and there is no useful exchange of ideas here. Some of these threads are very nearly scripted events, by humans essentially acting as bots.
I went to a Kraftwerk concert-it was easily the second worst entertainment thing I'd ever been to (die fat old baby boomer German electrosynthesizer nazis die!) and they had a "ROBOT" song for like 12 minutes. I think it had three words in it.
Yes; this is essentially the crux of the issue and the summary, ultimately. American has a lot of firearms and we enjoy using them, and we're by and large OK with the occasional piles of dead young people that accrue. The second amendment prevents us from significantly changing that paradigm, and there is no political will to change the situation. Everything else is a waste of breath. We offer useless prayers and meaningless lip service, and then we move on barely before the blood is mopped up.
I respect you and your intelligence, Ouze, so I'll pose this question in hopes of an honest answer:
What can we do, in 2015 America, that will curtail the gun crimes committed by criminals? If we were able to wave a wand and get rid of all legally registered firearms in the hands of their lawful owners, do you think we'd see a major decrease in gun crime? We obviously would in gun deaths, since around 66% of them come from suicide. But do you believe there is a path we can take that will noticeably affect that downward trend more than we already are?
Yes, Because, less readily available guns means less gun crime
Remember, the gun from Sandy Hook was a legal gun stolen from his mother.
Said differently, the guns used in Sandy Hook were illegally obtained through murder and theft.
Except, at one point the gun was obtained legally, it wasnt smuggled in, it wasnt sold to him by the black Market. It was a legal gun that was one step removed from him. He did not have to go to anything. If the gun was not readily availble, it would have been likely to not have happened.
Guns are meant to kill, they are not anything else.
We're talking about violent crime and gun crime vs. gun ownership.
Moooooove em!
Its not a different issue. If having guns around increases crime rate(Which according to Stanford, a well recognized establishment) then it is proven that guns can cause crime.
Guns can't cause anything, they're inanimate objects. There is nothing in the Stanford study that links concealed carry laws to the incidence rate for violent crimes like assault. It shows that instituting more concealed carry laws don't magically make crime rates go down but it also doesn't show how concealed carry laws cause crime to go up, only that small increases in some violent crimes occurred after instituting concealed carry laws. That correlation does NOT prove causation.
Yes; this is essentially the crux of the issue and the summary, ultimately. American has a lot of firearms and we enjoy using them, and we're by and large OK with the occasional piles of dead young people that accrue. The second amendment prevents us from significantly changing that paradigm, and there is no political will to change the situation. Everything else is a waste of breath. We offer useless prayers and meaningless lip service, and then we move on barely before the blood is mopped up.
I respect you and your intelligence, Ouze, so I'll pose this question in hopes of an honest answer:
What can we do, in 2015 America, that will curtail the gun crimes committed by criminals? If we were able to wave a wand and get rid of all legally registered firearms in the hands of their lawful owners, do you think we'd see a major decrease in gun crime? We obviously would in gun deaths, since around 66% of them come from suicide. But do you believe there is a path we can take that will noticeably affect that downward trend more than we already are?
Yes, Because, less readily available guns means less gun crime
Remember, the gun from Sandy Hook was a legal gun stolen from his mother.
Said differently, the guns used in Sandy Hook were illegally obtained through murder and theft.
Except, at one point the gun was obtained legally, it wasnt smuggled in, it wasnt sold to him by the black Market. It was a legal gun that was one step removed from him. He did not have to go to anything. If the gun was not readily availble, it would have been likely to not have happened.
Guns are meant to kill, they are not anything else.
The mother was a US citizen and legal resident of Connecticut, she had a clean criminal record, no history of mental illness and followed all of the state gun laws which are some of the most restrictive in the country. She did nothing wrong, she was not a threat to herself or others, she was a law abiding citizen that chose to exercise her right to keep and bear arms. Are you suggesting that we need to strip rights away from people if they reside with family members who might have mental health issues? The govt can only control firearm ownership at the point of sale, the state put in place strict regulations regarding the purchase of firearms, the woman met all the requirements. We try to limit gun ownership to good people, if somebody meets the criteria of a good person then there is no reason to bar them from purchasing a gun. Guns are not readily available for purchase in CT they are tightly regulated.
Yep, the number of the guns in the US has increased as the number of people owning guns has decreased. Pesky facts and all that.
And tell me about the violent crime rate.
yes please tell us about it, the only ones I found ended in 2011. can you show the numbers for 2014 and how that trended from 2011?
Why do crime stats matter? Constitutional rights aren't dependent on whether or not they lower crime rates. Does the 1st Amendment lower crime rates? How about the 4th or the 5th? If they don't then I guess we don't need them right?
HA, im engaged in two conversations at once and got confused.
But to answer your question. Yes, because, unless we have nanite guns like the ones in MGS4 a gun cannot itself determine if its user is its legal owner. Anyone can pick up gun and shoot it.
And, if you are going by my logic, that, because she was not regulated militia, so she should not have gotten a gun
Vaktathi wrote: As has been pointed out before, murder rates are at historic lows. What we have is a problem with people going out and engaging in shock killings. This is a relatively recent phenomenon however. In the time when you order machine guns through the Sears catalog and have the USPS deliver them right to your door, and kids could take their rifle to school so they could go plinking or squirrel hunting after, these things didn't really happen despite guns being far less restricted. Fundamentally, we have a sociological issue where a couple of subsets of the population are feeling increasingly disconnected from society and infuriated for whatever reason, and feel that engaging in these sorts of atrocities makes them relevant and gives them their 15 minutes in the sun as the media goes apeshit over it.
Yes, yes yes.
Cincy asked him if I could think of ways that gun control could reduce crime, and sure, we can do some stuff, but ultimately I don't think reducing availability is the problem, or ultimately that we shouldn't be spending our (imaginary, hypothetical) political capital somewhere more useful. I'm not trying to make a nirvana fallacy here: if we can try and reduce spree killings, we should - but, you know, totally avoidable heart diseases kills a hell of a lot more people every year and gets a lot less coverage on CNN. If we're waving magic legislation wands around with the goal of saving lives, there are more fertile fields to plant.
Aye, there's a lot of things that kill people at staggering rates that don't get the same media attention. And I can understand that, a shooting is a traumatic thing, but they're so shocking *because* they're not every-day "oh he died of heart disease".
Guns are meant to kill, they are not anything else.
This is patently untrue. There are untold millions of weapons designed, marketed, and sold without any intention of ever being fired at anything living.
Except, at one point the gun was obtained legally, it wasnt smuggled in, it wasnt sold to him by the black Market. It was a legal gun that was one step removed from him. He did not have to go to anything. If the gun was not readily availble, it would have been likely to not have happened. Guns are meant to kill, they are not anything else.
He did have to do something. He had to murder his own mother.
As for the part in orange, that is just fething stupid. There are a TON of guns made specifically for sport shooting/target shooting, and I would say the majority of long guns (especially) sold in the US are bought specifically for hunting, recreational shooting, collecting instead of even for defensive purposes (though they can and do pull double duty in that regard).
You're smarter than this. You whine when you have folks talk down to you or *facepalm* your posts, but the fact is much of what you are posting is on the silly side of wrong in this topic.
hotsauceman1 wrote: HA, im engaged in two conversations at once and got confused.
But to answer your question. Yes, because, unless we have nanite guns like the ones in MGS4 a gun cannot itself determine if its user is its legal owner. Anyone can pick up gun and shoot it.
And, if you are going by my logic, that, because she was not regulated militia, so she should not have gotten a gun
No. Regardless of what the 2nd Amendment means, even if we ignore what SCOTUS has ruled since you personally object to it, the woman was a legal resident of the state of Connecticut and met all of the requirments to legally purchase and own firearms in the state of Connecticut. Those laws and how they enabled her to possess firearms stand on their own apart from the 2nd Amendment. If the 2nd Amendment was repealed tomorrow, all of the other federal, state and municipal laws regarding firearms ownership would still exist and be legally binding. She had a legal right to those guns regardless of the meaning of the 2nd amendment.
Thanks for the smart comment, you are one of the few. I whine with, rather then people deciding the engage in a debate, they decide to belittle eatchother with snide comments.
I have gone on record with my Opinion on hunting, so I will leave that alone.
I do believe that having more guns around, even legally, can make them easier to get.
Again, if his mother had not legally purchased a gun, or anyone around him had, how easy would it have been to get one?
hotsauceman1 wrote: Thanks for the smart comment, you are one of the few. I whine with, rather then people deciding the engage in a debate, they decide to belittle eatchother with snide comments.
I have gone on record with my Opinion on hunting, so I will leave that alone.
I do believe that having more guns around, even legally, can make them easier to get.
Again, if his mother had not legally purchased a gun, or anyone around him had, how easy would it have been to get one?
I understand your point that if the mother didn't own guns it would have been much harder for the shooter to get any. However, I think you're missing the point that CT put in place state laws that their legislature felt made it very difficult for bad people to legally purchase guns and to ensure as best they could that only good people legally owned guns in CT. The mother met all the requirements. Short of CT banning private ownership of guns altogether CT did all it could to prevent guns from being available to bad people. If you don't want people like the mother to own guns then you either are advocating for a total ban or for the state to make determinations as to the mental health of everyone's children and restrict the rights of the parents upon the results of such evaluations. Both are probably too intrusive and extreme as to be politically feasible.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Thanks for the smart comment, you are one of the few. I whine with, rather then people deciding the engage in a debate, they decide to belittle eatchother with snide comments.
I have gone on record with my Opinion on hunting, so I will leave that alone.
I do believe that having more guns around, even legally, can make them easier to get.
Again, if his mother had not legally purchased a gun, or anyone around him had, how easy would it have been to get one?
That's a ridiculous question that ignores the key issue. The kid MURDERED HIS MOTHER. What are you going to do that would stop anyone who is willing to do that? No law fixes that.
Oregon gunman singled out Christians during rampage
A gunman singled out Christians, telling them they would see God in “one second,” during a rampage at an Oregon college Thursday that left at least nine innocent people dead and several more wounded, survivors and authorities said.
“[He started] asking people one by one what their religion was. ‘Are you a Christian?’ he would ask them, and if you’re a Christian, stand up. And they would stand up and he said, ‘Good, because you’re a Christian, you are going to see God in just about one second.’ And then he shot and killed them,” Stacy Boylen, whose daughter was wounded at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Ore., told CNN.
A Twitter user named @bodhilooney, who said her grandmother was at the scene of the carnage, tweeted that if victims said they were Christian, “then they were shot in the head. If they said no, or didn’t answer, they were shot in the legs.”
Gunman Chris Harper-Mercer’s disdain for religion was evident in an online profile, in which he became a member of a “doesn’t like organized religion” group on an Internet dating site.
Kortney Moore, 18, said she saw the teacher of her Writing 115 class get shot in the head at the college’s Snyder Hall before the gunman started asking people to state their religion and opening fire, the city’s News-Review newspaper reported.
Harper-Mercer, 26, was killed in a shootout with police outside one of the classrooms, said Douglas County Sheriff John Hanlin.
“There was an exchange of gunfire,” he said. “The shooter threat was neutralized.”
Although police put the death toll at 10 — including Harper-Mercer — with seven people injured, Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum had said 13 people died.
In other developments:
-The killer was carrying four guns — three pistols and a rifle — a source told CNN.
-An anonymous user wrote in an ominous post on the online bulletin board 4chan Wednesday night: “Some of you guys are alright. Don’t go to school tomorrow if you are in the northwest. happening thread will be posted tomorrow morning. so long space robots.”
-Online profiles linked to Harper-Mercer showed that he had a fascination with the terror tactics of the Irish Republican Army, and bought Nazi memorabilia. He also wrote a blog post that mentioned Vester Lee Flanagan, who murdered a Virginia newswoman and cameraman live on air, according to CBS News. “Seems like the more people you kill, the more you’re in the limelight,” he wrote.
-A former president of the college said that it has only one unarmed security officer and that the community decided against armed guards last year. “I suspect this is going to start a discussion across the country about how community colleges prepare themselves for events like this,” Joe Olson told CBS.
President Obama issued a plea for greater gun control and bemoaned that America is “the only advanced country on Earth [that] sees these kind of mass shooting every few months.”
The attack brought the number of mass shootings in the nation this year to 294, according to the Mass Shooting Tracker.
People were scrambling “like ants” when the gunman opened fire around 10:38 a.m., according to Brady Winder, a 23-year-old student from Portland.
“People [were] screaming, ‘Get out!’ ” he told The News-Review, adding he saw a girl frantically swimming across a creek to escape.
Student Hannah Miles was sitting in a classroom next door when she heard a pop that sounded like a yardstick slapping on a chalkboard, she said.
Everyone in her classroom fled as more gunfire erupted.
Student Brandy Winter posted on Facebook, “I ran to the edge of the campus, down a hill and waited. From talking with a student in the classroom where it happened, almost every person in the room was shot by a man with four guns.”
Another student, Luke Rogers, said he saw blood in a classroom as he was evacuated from the building.
“As we passed by the classroom, on the ground there were drops of blood,” the first-year Umpqua student told CNN. “We didn’t see any bodies. We saw books on the ground.”
One witness told The New York Times that she heard gunshots outside her classroom.
She said a middle-aged woman then tried to close the door and prevent the shooter from getting inside, but she was shot several times in the stomach.
The gunman “was just out there, hanging outside the door,” Cassandra Welding told the Times “and she slumped over and I knew something wasn’t right. And they’re like, ‘She got shot, she got shot.’ And everyone is panicking.”
Douglas County Fire Marshal Ray Shoulfer said victims were found in “multiple classrooms,” according to CNN.
The sheriff said the shooter was taken down by two officers who rushed to the scene without backup minutes into the shooting.
In a national address, Obama lamented that mass shootings have become routine in America.
“I hope and pray that I don’t have to come out again during my tenure as president to offer my condolences to families in these circumstances,” he said. “But based on my experience as president, I can’t guarantee that, and that’s terrible to say, and it can change.”
hotsauceman1 wrote: Thanks for the smart comment, you are one of the few. I whine with, rather then people deciding the engage in a debate, they decide to belittle eatchother with snide comments.
I have gone on record with my Opinion on hunting, so I will leave that alone.
I do believe that having more guns around, even legally, can make them easier to get.
Again, if his mother had not legally purchased a gun, or anyone around him had, how easy would it have been to get one?
I understand your point that if the mother didn't own guns it would have been much harder for the shooter to get any. However, I think you're missing the point that CT put in place state laws that their legislature felt made it very difficult for bad people to legally purchase guns and to ensure as best they could that only good people legally owned guns in CT. The mother met all the requirements. Short of CT banning private ownership of guns altogether CT did all it could to prevent guns from being available to bad people. If you don't want people like the mother to own guns then you either are advocating for a total ban or for the state to make determinations as to the mental health of everyone's children and restrict the rights of the parents upon the results of such evaluations. Both are probably too intrusive and extreme as to be politically feasible.
A bit of column A and a Bit of Column B.
I feel that personal gun ownership is a relic of a time when it was needed. IMO it isnt anymore
No stated reason or manifesto that I'm aware of, and we're not getting one because he's dead.
I did read somewhere that he was 26 and hadn't ever had a girlfriend. I seem to recall some similar 'virgin killer' a couple years ago, but I suspect that's a symptom, not a cause, of the mental illness that causes this sort of behavior.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Thanks for the smart comment, you are one of the few. I whine with, rather then people deciding the engage in a debate, they decide to belittle eatchother with snide comments.
I have gone on record with my Opinion on hunting, so I will leave that alone.
I do believe that having more guns around, even legally, can make them easier to get.
Again, if his mother had not legally purchased a gun, or anyone around him had, how easy would it have been to get one?
That's a ridiculous question that ignores the key issue. The kid MURDERED HIS MOTHER. What are you going to do that would stop anyone who is willing to do that? No law fixes that.
If he's capable and willing enough to murder his own mother or family members to get a weapon do you think that he'd suddenly draw the line at murdering some stranger for their weapons? If anything the fact that he was willing to kill her for the guns so just how seriously messed up he is. He could have stolen them when she wasn't around, but no he killed his own family member to get them that's a pretty deep level of psychopathy involved.
No stated reason or manifesto that I'm aware of, and we're not getting one because he's dead.
I did read somewhere that he was 26 and hadn't ever had a girlfriend. I seem to recall some similar 'virgin killer' a couple years ago, but I suspect that's a symptom, not a cause, of the mental illness that causes this sort of behavior.
■In 2006, firearms were used in 67.9 percent of the Nations murders, in 42.2 percent of the robbery offenses, and in 21.9 percent of the aggravated assaults. (Weapon data are not collected for forcible rape offenses.) (Based on Table 19 and Expanded Homicide Data Table 7.)
■In 2007, offenders used firearms in 68.0 percent of the Nation’s murders, 42.8 percent of robberies, and 21.4 percent of aggravated assaults. (Weapon data are not collected for forcible rape offenses.) (Based on Robbery Table 3, Aggravated Assault Table, and Expanded Homicide Data Table 6.)
■In 2008, offenders used firearms in 66.9 percent of the Nation’s murders, 43.5 percent of robberies, and 21.4 percent of aggravated assaults. (Weapon data are not collected for forcible rape offenses.) (See Expanded Homicide Data Table 7, Robbery Table 3, and Aggravated Assault Table.)
■Information collected regarding type of weapon showed that firearms were used in
67.1 percent of the Nation’s murders, 42.6 percent of robberies, and 20.9 percent of aggravated assaults. (Weapons data are not collected for forcible rape.) (See Expanded Homicide Data Table 7, Robbery Table 3, and the Aggravated Assault Table.)
■Information collected regarding type of weapon showed that firearms were used in 67.5 percent of the Nation’s murders, 41.4 percent of robberies, and 20.6 percent of aggravated assaults. (Weapons data are not collected for forcible rape.) (See Expanded Homicide Data Table 7, Robbery Table 3, and the Aggravated Assault Table.)
■Information collected regarding type of weapon showed that firearms were used in 67.7 percent of the nation’s murders, 41.3 percent of robberies, and 21.2 percent of aggravated assaults. (Weapons data are not collected for forcible rape.) (See Expanded Homicide Data Table 7, Robbery Table 3, and the Aggravated Assault Table.)
■Information collected regarding types of weapons used in violent crime showed that firearms were used in 69.3 percent of the nation’s murders, 41.0 percent of robberies, and 21.8 percent of aggravated assaults. (Weapons data are not collected for forcible rape.) (See Expanded Homicide Data Table 7, Robbery Table 3, and the Aggravated Assault Table.)
Firearms were used in 69 percent of the nation’s murders, 40 percent of robberies, and 21.6 percent of aggravated assaults (weapons data is not collected on rape incidents).
This whole argument is flawed though because gun ownership has actually been going down. It is true that the US has more guns than ever, but they are owned by fewer and fewer people. So graphs that show gun crime going down, actually support less ownership, not more.
but you see where you went wrong though, that's violent crimes as a whole. Now find the homicide rates from guns up to and including 2014.
Read my quote: "violent crime." I didn't misrepresent a single thing.
But since I'm so nice:
Gun homicides down.
I'd hardly call that down, looks like it's been mostly steady. And if we look at the numbers for 2014 its heading upward at 12,562 and 284 mass shootings, it's on a upward trend. let's also keep in mind the 23,015 injured.
Ninjacommando wrote: so somewhere between 7 and 15 people died (LA times to NYdailynews)
4chan will likely be blamed (Certain news outlets are looking into /r9k/ because yesterday someone made a thread that started with "Don't go to school tomorrow if you're in the NW" with a picture of pepe the frog holding a gun)
2 week rant by the left saying we need do something about guns and baby killing asalt clips
2 week rant by the right saying we need more mental health screenings.
The guy who carried out this shooting will be plastered on every news channel, along side his kill count.
If the person is White/hispanic/asian he will be decried as mentally unstable and that people should of noticed sooner.
If the person is black/middle eastern he will be the victim of American Racism.
'
Unfortunately, this is probably how it will turn out.
Their definition of 'mass shooting' is deliberately chosen to make a political point in an emotional way.
Most people see 'mass shooting' and think of Sandy Hook, not a drive by in Chicago that manages to hit 4 people, or some slob who offs his wife, two kids and then himself. The vast majority of that 296 number are cases much closer to the latter than to Sandy Hook.
hotsauceman1 wrote: I feel that personal gun ownership is a relic of a time when it was needed. IMO it isnt anymore
So your personal opinion should override the rights of millions of people who feel otherwise? (legal law abiding gun owners)
Talk about entitled.
The 'millions of people who feel otherwise' are being just as entitled. What an odd argument to present.
Not really, the constitution and case law is on the side of those millions. They just want their current right to remain as is. They are not trying to impose their will on hotsauceman as he would like to impose his will on them. There is a difference.
CptJake wrote: the constitution and case law is on the side of those millions.
Millions of non-Constitutional scholars, non-lawyers, and non-historians think saying "but it is the law" suddenly makes the discussion beyond reproach. How entitled of them.
CptJake wrote: They just want their current right to remain as is. They are not trying to impose their will on hotsauceman as he would like to impose his will on them. There is a difference.
Excluding the fact that they really are, expressing a thought and a feeling on the subject doesn't mean one is any more imposing than another.
CptJake wrote: the constitution and case law is on the side of those millions.
Millions of non-Constitutional scholars, non-lawyers, and non-historians think saying "but it is the law" suddenly makes the discussion beyond reproach. How entitled of them.
CptJake wrote: They just want their current right to remain as is. They are not trying to impose their will on hotsauceman as he would like to impose his will on them. There is a difference.
Excluding the fact that they really are, expressing a thought and a feeling on the subject doesn't mean one is any more imposing than another.
No. To impose your will you are gonna be changing the 'as is' to the 'as I would like it'. Hotsauceman and others have clearly expressed their desire to impose their will on the millions of lawful gun owners, who are happy with the 'as is' and don not want nor need to impose their will at all.
Abstract:
Since President Obama’s election the number of concealed handgun permits has soared, growing from 4.6 million in 2007 to over 12.8 million this year. Among the findings in our report:
-- The number of concealed handgun permits is increasing at an ever- increasing rate. Over the past year, 1.7 million additional new permits have been issued – a 15.4% increase in just one single year. This is the largest ever single-year increase in the number of concealed handgun permits.
-- 5.2% of the total adult population has a permit.
-- Five states now have more than 10% of their adult population with concealed handgun permits.
-- In ten states, a permit is no longer required to carry in all or virtually all of the state. This is a major reason why legal carrying handguns is growing so much faster than the number of permits.
-- Since 2007, permits for women has increased by 270% and for men by 156%.
-- Some evidence suggests that permit holding by minorities is increasing more than twice as fast as for whites.
-- Between 2007 and 2014, murder rates have fallen from 5.6 to 4.2 (preliminary estimates) per 100,000. This represents a 25% drop in the murder rate at the same time that the percentage of the adult population with permits soared by 156%. Overall violent crime also fell by 25 percent over that period of time.
-- States with the largest increase in permits have seen the largest relative drops in murder rates.
-- Concealed handgun permit holders are extremely law-abiding. In Florida and Texas, permit holders are convicted of misdemeanors or felonies at one-sixth the rate that police officers are convicted.
TL;DR: 1% increase in adults with CCW = 25% reduction in murder rate.
hotsauceman1 wrote: I feel that personal gun ownership is a relic of a time when it was needed. IMO it isnt anymore
So your personal opinion should override the rights of millions of people who feel otherwise? (legal law abiding gun owners)
Talk about entitled.
The 'millions of people who feel otherwise' are being just as entitled. What an odd argument to present.
Not really, the constitution and case law is on the side of those millions. They just want their current right to remain as is. They are not trying to impose their will on hotsauceman as he would like to impose his will on them. There is a difference.
Exactly, by his statements he would seek to impose his will by removing choice and legal ownership of property from millions of people. Expressly against what is granted to us a right by the Constitution. If that's the case we may as well revoke all of our rights because they are also "outdated concepts for today's world". Who needs free speech or the right to pursue happiness, we just squander that stuff anyways.
People having the right to own guns does not force anyone to own them that doesn't wish to. He can be against guns as much as he wants, maintaining my right to ownership is no way violates his personal choice. However banning ownership removes freedom of choice and places his will above/before everyone else.
Calling it 'lawful' doesn't stop the conversation anymore than it stops the USA from being the world leader in shootings like this. Saying "we have a right to this" is just as much an imposition as "we don't have a right to this". Pretending there is no room for conversation and acting like the subject isn't something people can talk about shows just as much intractability as the people one complains about being intractable.
CptJake wrote: Their definition of 'mass shooting' is deliberately chosen to make a political point in an emotional way.
Most people see 'mass shooting' and think of Sandy Hook, not a drive by in Chicago that manages to hit 4 people, or some slob who offs his wife, two kids and then himself. The vast majority of that 296 number are cases much closer to the latter than to Sandy Hook.
The definition of a mass shooting is 4 or more people, it was used this way in 2013. With the same definition the number is already up and there will be a lot more in the coming months. They might just be 4 people groupings, or they can be sandy hook numbers, only time will tell. Isn't it sad we can predict how many more there will be. Because nothing is being done to slow the trend, or stop the trend.
Ahtman wrote: Calling it 'lawful' doesn't stop the conversation anymore than it stops the USA from being the world leader in shootings like this. Saying "we have a right to this" is just as much an imposition as "we don't have a right to this". Pretending there is no room for conversation and acting like the subject isn't something people can talk about shows just as much intractability as the people one complains about being intractable.
Well this thread is going exactly where I figured it would, and it was only on page 2 yesterday!
"We need to do something about this!"
"What?"
"Better gun regulation?"
"Wont work, muh freedoms, terrorists win, not proven"
"Ok what do you have in mind?"
"Uh...Muh freedoms, dont oppress me"
Conversation gets dropped, 6 months later it happens again.
Look i get it, 2nd amendment hooray. But honestly, guns are far from well regulated, getting a Driver's license is a much stricter process than buying a guy down at your local shop.
The news reports show a "good guy with a gun" isnt going to do anything, plenty of other people on campus had concealed guns they were carrying around and didnt act.
Having a gun free zone wont work, as obviously people that are going to perpetrate these things dont care.
What can be done at this point other than the typical shouting match between the left/right, between pro gun or no gun, the NRA vs the PTA etc?
CptJake wrote: Their definition of 'mass shooting' is deliberately chosen to make a political point in an emotional way.
Most people see 'mass shooting' and think of Sandy Hook, not a drive by in Chicago that manages to hit 4 people, or some slob who offs his wife, two kids and then himself. The vast majority of that 296 number are cases much closer to the latter than to Sandy Hook.
The definition of a mass shooting is 4 or more people, it was used this way in 2013. With the same definition the number is already up and there will be a lot more in the coming months. They might just be 4 people groupings, or they can be sandy hook numbers, only time will tell. Isn't it sad we can predict how many more there will be. Because nothing is being done to slow the trend, or stop the trend.
Uh... The US has been trending downwards...
Besides: Mass shooting isn't unique to US... and the worst rates, are countries having more restrictive Gun Controls.
Abstract:
Since President Obama’s election the number of concealed handgun permits has soared, growing from 4.6 million in 2007 to over 12.8 million this year. Among the findings in our report:
-- The number of concealed handgun permits is increasing at an ever- increasing rate. Over the past year, 1.7 million additional new permits have been issued – a 15.4% increase in just one single year. This is the largest ever single-year increase in the number of concealed handgun permits.
-- 5.2% of the total adult population has a permit.
-- Five states now have more than 10% of their adult population with concealed handgun permits.
-- In ten states, a permit is no longer required to carry in all or virtually all of the state. This is a major reason why legal carrying handguns is growing so much faster than the number of permits.
-- Since 2007, permits for women has increased by 270% and for men by 156%.
-- Some evidence suggests that permit holding by minorities is increasing more than twice as fast as for whites.
-- Between 2007 and 2014, murder rates have fallen from 5.6 to 4.2 (preliminary estimates) per 100,000. This represents a 25% drop in the murder rate at the same time that the percentage of the adult population with permits soared by 156%. Overall violent crime also fell by 25 percent over that period of time.
-- States with the largest increase in permits have seen the largest relative drops in murder rates.
-- Concealed handgun permit holders are extremely law-abiding. In Florida and Texas, permit holders are convicted of misdemeanors or felonies at one-sixth the rate that police officers are convicted.
TL;DR: 1% increase in adults with CCW = 25% reduction in murder rate.
TL;DR: Written by John Lott and the Crime Prevention Research Center.
I would suggest you make even a cursory look into his research and standings, as it makes his findings a LOT more questionable.
Ahtman wrote: Calling it 'lawful' doesn't stop the conversation anymore than it stops the USA from being the world leader in shootings like this. Saying "we have a right to this" is just as much an imposition as "we don't have a right to this". Pretending there is no room for conversation and acting like the subject isn't something people can talk about shows just as much intractability as the people one complains about being intractable.
I don't see anyone suggesting that we can't raise discussion about it, where I was calling him out was on the grounds that he would suggest to impose his will unfairly on millions of people and in doing so he'd run counter to the established law and constitutionally granted rights in doing so. We're certainly still free to discuss terrible ideas.
Look i get it, 2nd amendment hooray. But honestly, guns are far from well regulated, getting a Driver's license is a much stricter process than buying a guy down at your local shop.
Ah glad you brought this up. Can we now discuss the weapon of genocide that is the automobile and what we are going to do about it?
The news reports show a "good guy with a gun" isnt going to do anything, plenty of other people on campus had concealed guns they were carrying around and didnt act.
Sources please.
Having a gun free zone wont work, as obviously people that are going to perpetrate these things dont care.
Abstract:
Since President Obama’s election the number of concealed handgun permits has soared, growing from 4.6 million in 2007 to over 12.8 million this year. Among the findings in our report:
-- The number of concealed handgun permits is increasing at an ever- increasing rate. Over the past year, 1.7 million additional new permits have been issued – a 15.4% increase in just one single year. This is the largest ever single-year increase in the number of concealed handgun permits.
-- 5.2% of the total adult population has a permit.
-- Five states now have more than 10% of their adult population with concealed handgun permits.
-- In ten states, a permit is no longer required to carry in all or virtually all of the state. This is a major reason why legal carrying handguns is growing so much faster than the number of permits.
-- Since 2007, permits for women has increased by 270% and for men by 156%.
-- Some evidence suggests that permit holding by minorities is increasing more than twice as fast as for whites.
-- Between 2007 and 2014, murder rates have fallen from 5.6 to 4.2 (preliminary estimates) per 100,000. This represents a 25% drop in the murder rate at the same time that the percentage of the adult population with permits soared by 156%. Overall violent crime also fell by 25 percent over that period of time.
-- States with the largest increase in permits have seen the largest relative drops in murder rates.
-- Concealed handgun permit holders are extremely law-abiding. In Florida and Texas, permit holders are convicted of misdemeanors or felonies at one-sixth the rate that police officers are convicted.
TL;DR: 1% increase in adults with CCW = 25% reduction in murder rate.
TL;DR: Written by John Lott and the Crime Prevention Research Center.
I would suggest you make even a cursory look into his research and standings, as it makes his findings a LOT more questionable.
I would suggest that you'd actually download it and read it. I see no major red flags.
Look i get it, 2nd amendment hooray. But honestly, guns are far from well regulated, getting a Driver's license is a much stricter process than buying a guy down at your local shop.
Ah glad you brought this up. Can we now discuss the weapon of genocide that is the automobile and what we are going to do about it?
The news reports show a "good guy with a gun" isnt going to do anything, plenty of other people on campus had concealed guns they were carrying around and didnt act.
Sources please.
Having a gun free zone wont work, as obviously people that are going to perpetrate these things dont care.
As for automobiles, I agree drunk driving pentalties should be more severe.
Though in actuality, the instances of people taking their vehicle to use a weapon intentionally targeting bystanders, is much rarer, and arguably more difficult than the same intentions with a firearm.
As for automobiles, I agree drunk driving pentalties should be more severe.
Oh, so he saw the shooter?
He was in the room with the shooter?
Oh wait, he was in a different building on campus?
Yep, that's relevant.
He asked for a source, the article was quoted that there were multiple people, not just this one man on the campus at the time with concealed weapons, yet no 'good guy with a gun' did anything
Though in actuality its not really a 'gun free zone' if the state permits concealed carry on campuses in general
But again this is but deflection from the actual argument, I'm aware that any restrictions on guns wont be tolerated, so I'm still waiting for an answer from "Pro Gun" on what we can do to prevent these instances
WrentheFaceless wrote:plenty of other people on campus had concealed guns they were carrying around and didnt act.
cincydooley wrote:Oh, so he saw the shooter?
He was in the room with the shooter?
Oh wait, he was in a different building on campus?
Yep, that's relevant.
If you look at what he actually said... yes, it is. The only way your line of reasoning can make sense is if you want there to be someone with a gun in every room, at all times.
Ahtman wrote: Calling it 'lawful' doesn't stop the conversation anymore than it stops the USA from being the world leader in shootings like this. Saying "we have a right to this" is just as much an imposition as "we don't have a right to this". Pretending there is no room for conversation and acting like the subject isn't something people can talk about shows just as much intractability as the people one complains about being intractable.
The Bill of Rights says you are wrong, and also that you dress funny. "we have a right to do this" is an enshrined encompassing right. Its not "we can do this if X and Y say we can" or "we can do this if we meet this criteria and its completely safe." The Bill of Rights says we HAVE THE RIGHT to free speech, press, assembly, TexMex, arms, disco, belief in the Great Wiener, and really bad TV advertising.
Look i get it, 2nd amendment hooray. But honestly, guns are far from well regulated, getting a Driver's license is a much stricter process than buying a guy down at your local shop.
That statement is absurd and demonstrably false. Is there a single federal law regarding obtaining a driver's license? There's an entire book of federal laws regarding gun ownership, I know I got my copy of them from the ATF when I got my 03 FFL. You don't have to have driver's license to buy a car but I have to go through several rigorous checks to buy a gun. You don't have to pass a criminal background check to get a driver's license, you do if you want to buy a gun. You don't have to answer all the questions on a form 4473 under penalty of federal prosecution to get a driver's license but you do to buy a gun. I can buy a car and give it to anyone I want, if I buy a gun for somebody it's a federal crime. There are numerous federal state and municipal restrictions on what kind of guns I can buy and what forms and permissions I need to buy them.
It's not easier to buy a gun than it is to get a driver's license or buy a car. It's an absurd comparison.
You guys all know that the CDC has not been allowed to do carry out research on gun violence for nearly 20 years now?
Basically meaning there is no data on ways mass shootings like this could be prevented, instead there is just opinions and anecdotes, where there should be empirical evidence on the best course of action.
Maybe there is a way that deaths could be avoided and the right to own weapons left intact, but if you don't allow the research to be done, you'll never know and people will continue to die.
This is really sad.
Still on the plus at least your country will remain sufficiently armed to overthrow the tyrannical regime that Trump would impose.
SickSix wrote: You said 'plenty of people' and came up with one guy. Not to mention citing a left leaning site that references other left leaning sites.
So I can dismiss this as easily as others dismiss Fox News right?
The guy himself in the interview is the who stated there were others on campus with concealed weapons, not the website.
As for automobiles, I agree drunk driving pentalties should be more severe.
Oh, so he saw the shooter?
He was in the room with the shooter?
Oh wait, he was in a different building on campus?
Yep, that's relevant.
He asked for a source, the article was quoted that there were multiple people, not just this one man on the campus at the time with concealed weapons, yet no 'good guy with a gun' did anything
Though in actuality its not really a 'gun free zone' if the state permits concealed carry on campuses in general
But again this is but deflection from the actual argument, I'm aware that any restrictions on guns wont be tolerated, so I'm still waiting for an answer from "Pro Gun" on what we can do to prevent these instances
Nothing needs to be done. The probability of dying in a *mass shooting* is so low that you would be crazy to even consider it as you go about your daily business.
You and your family would be better off abstaining from driving after 7 PM, not having a swimming pool, and living in a low crime area. I'm not posting this to be cute or anything. ..statistically speaking any of those things are more likely to kill you than being in the wrong place at the wrong time and dying in a mass shooting.
Abstract:
Since President Obama’s election the number of concealed handgun permits has soared, growing from 4.6 million in 2007 to over 12.8 million this year. Among the findings in our report:
-- The number of concealed handgun permits is increasing at an ever- increasing rate. Over the past year, 1.7 million additional new permits have been issued – a 15.4% increase in just one single year. This is the largest ever single-year increase in the number of concealed handgun permits.
-- 5.2% of the total adult population has a permit.
-- Five states now have more than 10% of their adult population with concealed handgun permits.
-- In ten states, a permit is no longer required to carry in all or virtually all of the state. This is a major reason why legal carrying handguns is growing so much faster than the number of permits.
-- Since 2007, permits for women has increased by 270% and for men by 156%.
-- Some evidence suggests that permit holding by minorities is increasing more than twice as fast as for whites.
-- Between 2007 and 2014, murder rates have fallen from 5.6 to 4.2 (preliminary estimates) per 100,000. This represents a 25% drop in the murder rate at the same time that the percentage of the adult population with permits soared by 156%. Overall violent crime also fell by 25 percent over that period of time.
-- States with the largest increase in permits have seen the largest relative drops in murder rates.
-- Concealed handgun permit holders are extremely law-abiding. In Florida and Texas, permit holders are convicted of misdemeanors or felonies at one-sixth the rate that police officers are convicted.
TL;DR: 1% increase in adults with CCW = 25% reduction in murder rate.
TL;DR: Written by John Lott and the Crime Prevention Research Center.
I would suggest you make even a cursory look into his research and standings, as it makes his findings a LOT more questionable.
I would suggest that you'd actually download it and read it. I see no major red flags.
I did download it. I did read it.
And the fact that it's John Lott is a major red flag. This is a guy who has been accused, multiple times, of being in the pocket of gun rights advocates and has published multiple papers where the numbers do not add up--and where other academics have not been able to duplicate the results. This is also a guy who created a sockpuppet account to defend his research and proclaimed himself "the best teacher" that the sockpuppet had.
Seriously Whembly. Find another source that makes the same conclusions he does, without citing Lott or his organization's research. It's likely impossible to do.
Look i get it, 2nd amendment hooray. But honestly, guns are far from well regulated, getting a Driver's license is a much stricter process than buying a guy down at your local shop.
That statement is absurd and demonstrably false. Is there a single federal law regarding obtaining a driver's license? There's an entire book of federal laws regarding gun ownership, I know I got my copy of them from the ATF when I got my 03 FFL. You don't have to have driver's license to buy a car but I have to go through several rigorous checks to buy a gun. You don't have to pass a criminal background check to get a driver's license, you do if you want to buy a gun. You don't have to answer all the questions on a form 4473 under penalty of federal prosecution to get a driver's license but you do to buy a gun. I can buy a car and give it to anyone I want, if I buy a gun for somebody it's a federal crime. There are numerous federal state and municipal restrictions on what kind of guns I can buy and what forms and permissions I need to buy them.
It's not easier to buy a gun than it is to get a driver's license or buy a car. It's an absurd comparison.
Buying a car is not the same as applying for a government issued license to drive it. Nor did I mention in my argument buying the vehicle itself was regulated, buying a car isnt . And driving without a license is a crime as well.
Getting the license to drive it is regulated by the government, including mandated classroom training, government written form tests, mandated amount of time behind the wheel training and a government mandated driving test with an employee of the government in the car with you and multiple forms to be filled out.
But i understand that you may confuse buying a car than with getting the license yourself because the actual steps to get the license doesnt support your argument. And I have my State booklet about vehicle codes from when i got my license still. And driving without a license is also a crime
Basically meaning there is no data on ways mass shootings like this could be prevented, instead there is just opinions and anecdotes, where there should be empirical evidence on the best course of action.
Maybe there is a way that deaths could be avoided and the right to own weapons left intact, but if you don't allow the research to be done, you'll never know and people will continue to die.
This is really sad.
Still on the plus at least your country will remain sufficiently armed to overthrow the tyrannical regime that Trump would impose.
-Shrike- wrote: You have to pass several tests to get a driver's license, I assume.
They are joke. Clearly demonstrated by the millions of deaths and car wrecks every year.
Background checks and forms for guns are a joke, clearly demonstrated by the (number) of deaths and injuries every year. That either set of tests and checks can't/don't prevent death and injury doesn't mean that the measures aren't there, which could lead to a driving license being more difficult to obtain than a concealed carry license. Do you actually have to be tested on whether you know how to properly operate a firearm?
The Umpqua shooter has been named as Chris Harper Mercer, a 26-year-old who lived with his mother at an apartment only a few miles from the college.
American media reports said he was born in England and moved to the US at a young age: his stepsister, Carmen Nesnick, told CBS Los Angeles that he travelled to the US as a young boy. Other accounts report that Nesnick specified that Harper-Mercer was born in England.
Harper-Mercer was the son of Ian Mercer and Laurel Margaret Harper. Mercer and Harper filed for divorce on 6 June 2006. He appears to have left an online footprint that hints at interest in mass shootings as well as apparent support for the IRA.
He also appears to have been a prolific user of the file-sharing system Bittorrent.
An email address, “ironcross45@gmail.com”, was found to be associated with a Chris Harper Mercer of Winchester, Oregon, via a public records search. That address is linked to an account on the torrent upload site kat-ph.proxy-x.com, which bears the username “Lithium_Love”.
The final video uploaded by Lithium_Love to the torrent site, just three days ago, was a BBC documentary called Surviving Sandy Hook about the school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, in 2012.
Other uploads include PDFs of the occult magazine Phenomena, conspiracy-themed documentaries including Lost Secrets of the Illuminati, and assorted soft pornography.
There is also a blog attached to the upload account. The first entry was posted on 6 July 2015 and is titled “The material world is a lie.” It says: “Most people will spend hours standing in front of stores just to buy a new iphone … I used to be like that, always concerned about what clothes I had, rather than whether or not I was happy. But not anymore.
“Since then I have learned the truth that such attachments are falsehoods and will only bring misery. This is my first blog post, there will be more to come.”
Other blogposts complain about the uploading habits of other users. Another bemoans the death of horror filmmaker Wes Craven.
A Myspace page bearing Mercer’s name is filled with pictures of masked gunmen and references to the IRA, including a picture of the front page of a the Irish republican newspaper An Phoblacht, bearing the headline “British Army Could Not Defeat IRA”. Another photo to the page carries the words “IRA undefeated army”.
The page gives Mercer’s home location as Torrance, California. A Whitepages page – which tracks addresses and phone numbers – gives two addresses for Mercer: one in Torrance, California, and the other in Winchester, Oregon. The latter is also the address associated with the registration of the “ironcross45” email address.
Using that email address, Mercer also appears to have advertised for penpals on the website Morgue Pals, which describes itself as “the hippest place for pen pals who identify with any sort of alternative culture”.
In his advertisement, Mercer, then aged 20, said he was looking for email pals and described his hobbies as “music movies and news”.
In his profile, he described himself as: “I’m 20 years old, in college, I like to listen to music, mostly goth/punk/industrial/electronic, and I love to watch movies, Horror movies are the best, but i also like some action films, depending on the type, and I like crime dramas as well.“
He added: “I’m looking for penpals who are similar to me, but anyone is welcome to email me.”
A posting on the Spiritual Passions dating and social networking site uses a picture that appears to be Mercer under the user name IRONCROSS45, which Mercer also used as his email.
He described himself on the site as a 26-year-old, mixed-race “man looking for a woman”. He said he was “not religious, but spiritual”, and was a “teetotaler” living with his parents and a conservative Republican. Socially, he said, he was “shy at first” and “better in small groups”. He described himself as “always dieting” and looking for “the yin to my yang”.
The email address Ironcross45@gmail.com is also associated with a crowdfunding webpage to help the user pay for uploading and storing bittorrent files for downloading videos as well. According to the cached version of the webpage, the most recent video uploaded was Collection Of Hot Lesbians (Nudes) Vol. 8.
Two phone numbers associated with the name appeared to have been disconnected.
A profile on the site belonging to Mercer on the website Spiritual Singles, which advertises itself as “a free online dating & social networking site specifically for spiritual singles,” and bears a picture of the same person as Mercer’s Myspace page, the alleged killer describes himself politically as a “conservative, republican” whose hobbies are “internet, killing zombies, movies, music, reading” and who lives with parents. In the profile, the personality type he is looking for is “intellectual, punk, introvert, loner, lover, geek, nerd” with an “individuality” of “piercings, psychic, tattoos, vampire”. His preferred religious views are “Pagan, Wiccan, Not Religious, but Spiritual” as well.
On the image-sharing message-board 4chan, rumours were flying on Thursday night that the killer may have been one of their own. In an anonymous post at 1:19am on Thursday morning on the /r9k board – all posts to 4chan are anonymous – someone said “Some of you guys are alright. Don’t go to school tomorrow if you are in the northwest.”
There is no way of verifying that the post came from the shooter.
A spokesperson for the Douglas County sheriff’s department, which is handling the investigation, said it could “neither confirm nor deny” at this point that they were investigating the post, though federal officials reportedly told the New York Times that they were doing so.
It is not known if Mercer was affiliated with the college, but his name was listed as a production assistant for an upcoming production of the Noel Coward play Blithe Spirit at Umpqua.
The gunman’s father, Ian Mercer, said he was “just as shocked as everybody” at his son’s actions. Speaking from his home in the US, he told reporters: “I’ve just been talking to the police and the FBI and all the details I have right now is what you guys [reporters] have already.
“I can’t answer any questions right now, I don’t want to answer any questions right now. It’s been a devastating day, devastating for me and my family. Shocked is all I can say.”
CptJake wrote: Their definition of 'mass shooting' is deliberately chosen to make a political point in an emotional way.
Most people see 'mass shooting' and think of Sandy Hook, not a drive by in Chicago that manages to hit 4 people, or some slob who offs his wife, two kids and then himself. The vast majority of that 296 number are cases much closer to the latter than to Sandy Hook.
The definition of a mass shooting is 4 or more people, it was used this way in 2013. With the same definition the number is already up and there will be a lot more in the coming months. They might just be 4 people groupings, or they can be sandy hook numbers, only time will tell. Isn't it sad we can predict how many more there will be. Because nothing is being done to slow the trend, or stop the trend.
Uh... The US has been trending downwards...
Besides: Mass shooting isn't unique to US... and the worst rates, are countries having more restrictive Gun Controls.
That is not showing a downward trend, and look at columns 2 and 4, america is far in the lead above all other shown countries combined. America leading the world in rampage fatalities and incidents.
CptJake wrote: Their definition of 'mass shooting' is deliberately chosen to make a political point in an emotional way.
Most people see 'mass shooting' and think of Sandy Hook, not a drive by in Chicago that manages to hit 4 people, or some slob who offs his wife, two kids and then himself. The vast majority of that 296 number are cases much closer to the latter than to Sandy Hook.
The definition of a mass shooting is 4 or more people, it was used this way in 2013. With the same definition the number is already up and there will be a lot more in the coming months. They might just be 4 people groupings, or they can be sandy hook numbers, only time will tell. Isn't it sad we can predict how many more there will be. Because nothing is being done to slow the trend, or stop the trend.
Uh... The US has been trending downwards...
Besides: Mass shooting isn't unique to US... and the worst rates, are countries having more restrictive Gun Controls.
That is not showing a downward trend, and look at columns 2 and 4, america is far in the lead above all other shown countries combined. America leading the world in rampage fatalities and incidents.
In raw numbers... sure. But not compared to overall population... which is more meaningful.
WrentheFaceless wrote: Well this thread is going exactly where I figured it would, and it was only on page 2 yesterday!
"We need to do something about this!"
"What?"
"Better gun regulation?"
"Wont work, muh freedoms, terrorists win, not proven"
"Ok what do you have in mind?"
"Uh...Muh freedoms, dont oppress me"
Conversation gets dropped, 6 months later it happens again.
Look i get it, 2nd amendment hooray. But honestly, guns are far from well regulated, getting a Driver's license is a much stricter process than buying a guy down at your local shop.
There's a number of reasons for that. Getting a drivers license isn't required to simply own a car, rather, it's a method of regulation for usage of public resources, in this case, the road system. If I just want to own a car, I don't need a drivers license for that. What I need the license for is to take it out and drive it on public roads.
Likewise, it's hard to license something that is ostensibly a "right" without destroying it as a "right".
What can be done at this point other than the typical shouting match between the left/right, between pro gun or no gun, the NRA vs the PTA etc?
Probably not much, at least in regards to direct gun control legislation.
The only preventative (as opposed to retributive) option the law really has is confiscation. All the background checks and the like in the world aren't going to mean squat if the person has no record (as in most of these cases) or kills someone and steals the victim's weapons (as in Sandy Hook).
That's really ultimately what it boils down to. Ultimately, the problem isn't with guns, again, these sort of public massacres are a relatively recent phenomenon. My grandfather could bring his rifle to school int he 1920's and nobody thought twice about it. We have a changing society with changing social roles and there's obviously some things that simply aren't being addressed. These shootings are a cry for relevancy from people who are provisioned for the basics in life but are otherwise disconnected from normal society.
That said, there's also some other things that could be done. If people *really* feel they need to reduce the number of weapons in circulation, and feel that it really should be a top public safety priority, then buyback guns at exorbitant prices. Instead of offering a $100 Grocery Store gift card for a handgun, offer $3000 cash, no taxes, no questions.Watch guns come pouring in by the millions. But nobody wants to do anything like that. Partly it's because the money really can be spent more productively in other ways, partly its because both sides like keeping it around as a wedge issue.
-Shrike- wrote: You have to pass several tests to get a driver's license, I assume.
One written test, an eyesight test and a driving test when you get your first license as a teenager. After that you have to pass a written test and eye exam again if you move to a new state. Once you pass your first driver's license exam in a state and get a driver's license you can just renew again when you license expires by mail but you need to turn in your renewal form in person if you want a photo on your license, although it does vary with some states requiring you to retake the written test when you renew and most states require elderly people to retake the eye exam when they renew.
CptJake wrote: Their definition of 'mass shooting' is deliberately chosen to make a political point in an emotional way.
Most people see 'mass shooting' and think of Sandy Hook, not a drive by in Chicago that manages to hit 4 people, or some slob who offs his wife, two kids and then himself. The vast majority of that 296 number are cases much closer to the latter than to Sandy Hook.
The definition of a mass shooting is 4 or more people, it was used this way in 2013. With the same definition the number is already up and there will be a lot more in the coming months. They might just be 4 people groupings, or they can be sandy hook numbers, only time will tell. Isn't it sad we can predict how many more there will be. Because nothing is being done to slow the trend, or stop the trend.
Uh... The US has been trending downwards...
Besides: Mass shooting isn't unique to US... and the worst rates, are countries having more restrictive Gun Controls.
That is not showing a downward trend, and look at columns 2 and 4, america is far in the lead above all other shown countries combined. America leading the world in rampage fatalities and incidents.
In raw numbers... sure. But not compared to overall population... which is more meaningful.
in overall population all the other countries listed equal that of the US. But lets look at what france is doing, france is kicking americas ass, lets borrow from their gun laws.
CptJake wrote: Their definition of 'mass shooting' is deliberately chosen to make a political point in an emotional way.
Most people see 'mass shooting' and think of Sandy Hook, not a drive by in Chicago that manages to hit 4 people, or some slob who offs his wife, two kids and then himself. The vast majority of that 296 number are cases much closer to the latter than to Sandy Hook.
The definition of a mass shooting is 4 or more people, it was used this way in 2013. With the same definition the number is already up and there will be a lot more in the coming months. They might just be 4 people groupings, or they can be sandy hook numbers, only time will tell. Isn't it sad we can predict how many more there will be. Because nothing is being done to slow the trend, or stop the trend.
Uh... The US has been trending downwards...
Besides: Mass shooting isn't unique to US... and the worst rates, are countries having more restrictive Gun Controls.
That is not showing a downward trend, and look at columns 2 and 4, america is far in the lead above all other shown countries combined. America leading the world in rampage fatalities and incidents.
In raw numbers... sure. But not compared to overall population... which is more meaningful.
in overall population all the other countries listed equal that of the US. But lets look at what france is doing, france is kicking americas ass, lets borrow from their gun laws.
Nah... we're good.
Heck, the French were lucky a couple American bros were on a particular train ride. Things could've been a lot worse...eh?
Let's guide the debate back towards this event...
Via twittah:
U.S. Army says the #UCC gunman flunked out of basic training in 2008. Failed to meet the min admin standards. pic.twitter.com/QcZ5gKhN1p
-Shrike- wrote: You have to pass several tests to get a driver's license, I assume.
Or one.
One time in your entire life.
Usually a written exam which is multiple choice and really simple. Even foreigners not familiar with the US way of doing things can pass it with relative ease. After that is the driving test. Assuming you have ever driven a car prior to that point, you should be able to pass it as well.
Still, even less stringent is the State ID that you can get at the DMV. No written or driving tests required.
I wonder if I wouldn't be easier (and perhaps more productive) if we were able to restrict a different right in order to curb these mass shootings: the right of freedom of the press. Would it be possible to pass some sort of law that limits what the press can report on for national security reasons? We do it with military intelligence. Could we also do it with domestic violence like this?
For example, the press could report the story, and interview willing family victims, but the name and identity of the shooter could not be revealed or discussed in the news. Nor could the actual details of the specific actions. It might limit the celebritization of these killers.
ing Constitution. Good luck with that.
