MASS SHOOTING reported at Oregon college campus 15 dead atleast MANY MORE INJURED

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: Power_Semi
- I get upset at the needless loss of American lives.

It not our country or our responsibility.


Not up to us to dictate there values.

If they want there silly guns? Well its up to them.

Do you argue the same for Syrian refugees, or any other form of refugee?

That their problem is not in our country and so it's not our problem?

While the US is absolutely not going to be swayed by anyone else, and it's up to them to sort out their own mess, at least trying to express some kind of rational argument might make someone think and save at least another one or two or more people from dying needlessly.

This has to stop, it can't continue.

a reply to: Jansy

Yes - almost everyone would be calling 911. Many would be calling their loved ones. But others would definitely be taping the event. I would hide if possible yes, but then communication would be on my mind as well and if I had such a phone(I am one of the very few who don't), I would certainly try to get some video and get it out to the world.

a reply to: vor78

How many more lives do you wish to see lost just so you can keep your damn guns?

10?
20?
50?
100?
More?????

originally posted by: starfoxxx


SSRI'S involved?

Most likely: Anti-Depressants and Mass Shootings

a reply to: Indigo5

Problem is if one is abjudicated as mentally ill, institutionalized or on drugs recently you've already broken existing law in buying a gun.

I am all for strictly applying what's already on the books - new law is just politicians making useless noise.

When driving is enshrined as a right in the Constitution then it would be fair comparison. As it stand a privelidge does not make a right.

The issue boils down to not impeding a Constitutional right of the many while punishing the few who'd abuse those rights.

The prosecution of those abusing the right is woefully lacking.

Everyday these charges are first to be plea bargained away.

On mental health there will be pushback because claim will be made those needing help will avoid it because of penalty.

Until the above is addressed in existing law it leaves me responsible to defend myself from criminals and crazies because while the government is good at making thousands of laws they never seem able to apply that which already exists.

originally posted by: Kryties
From: thinkprogress.org...

‘Good Guy With A Gun’ Was On UCC Campus At Time Of Massacre

Umpqua Community College, the site of the massacre on Thursday that left at least 10 people dead, was not — in law or in practice — a gun free zone.

It was the policy of university administers to limit the use of guns to the extent allowed by law. But, as ThinkProgress and the New York Times reported, Oregon is one of seven states that allows concealed carry on postsecondary campuses. This was based on a 2011 state court decision invalidating efforts to ban guns at public universities in Oregon. Public colleges like UCC are permitted to exclude concealed weapons from certain buildings and facilities but not the campus in general.

But not only was UCC not a gun free zone by law, there were people who brought guns onto campus at the time of the massacre.

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.

The issue of whether UCC was a “gun free zone” has become a source of controversy. Gun advocates argue that “gun free zones” encourage gun violence by creating a space where people are unable to defend themselves.

This is not supported by the facts. According to a study of 62 mass shootings over 30 years conducted by Mother Jones “not a single case includes evidence that the killer chose to target a place because it banned guns.” Many of those mass shootings took place in areas were guns were permitted, but not a single one was stopped by armed civilians.

Parker’s interview revealed the practical difficulties of armed civilians trying to stop a mass shooting. 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.

So it turns out having armed people on the campus prevented ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

I wonder how the gun nut crowd will twist this to suit their agenda? Should be fun to watch....

What a spin. They have no evidence that gun free zones are a target? No evidence. That simply means that the dead shooter never mentioned he was targeting a place because it was a gfz.

Did you even watch and listen to the video? The guy said he was not in that building and was quite a distance away from it. He made the determination that with Swat on the way, he and the others with their cc permits would remain in the building they were in and be prepared to protect their location rather than interfere with a Swat plan of action.

He said not only does he have a right under the Second Amendment of our Constitution to protect himself, but under Oregon law, he was within his rights.

originally posted by: Kryties
a reply to: vor78

How many more lives do you wish to see lost just so you can keep your damn guns?

10?
20?
50?
100?
More?????

I'm not responsible for what someone else does. My neighbor is not responsible for what someone else does. 100 million other law-abiding gun owners are not responsible for what someone else does.

You can try to play the shame/blame game, but its not going to work.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: starfoxxx


SSRI'S involved?

Most likely: Anti-Depressants and Mass Shootings

Chicken or the egg? Not sure if the answer is relevant..haven't thought it out. Are they taking SSRI's cuz they are nuts or are they nuts because they are taking SSRI's.

Correlation isn't always causation..

We might have more mass shootings with less SSRI's? Despite (if accurate) data showing shooters on SSRIs.

originally posted by: Kryties
a reply to: vor78

How many more lives do you wish to see lost just so you can keep your damn guns?

10?
20?
50?
100?
More?????

If its not guns, it'll be knives, IEDs, etc.
Do you propose to ban cars as well? They seem to cause many deaths

He singled out Christians...perhaps we should begin to take a closer look at the PROGESSIVES now.
It is Democrats who created the faltering cities,gun free zones and NOW perhaps they are hunting and killing Christians.
If THIS guy IS NOT a Jihadist I think we NOW have a group that has formented most of the issues we see.In FACT if we break it down it's intellectual terrorism that rules their messages.
Trying to deflect the issue with tools used,trying to create laws to forment their position and further establish a larger hand of control.
Gun owners ?
Veterans?
We would be more covert.

We've seen how their messages play out TIME AND TIME again(Possibly rendering it so EASY to counter)
From Soros down to some on this thread due to pragrammed IGNORANCE.
WE know how WE operate..it wouldn't be THAT easy to stop nor really if we were dedicated could they,WE aren't forming sweeper squads to take out command elements, WE would'nt waste bullets on lower targets.

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: Answer

I was wondering when ATS's only intelligent anti-gun regulation advocate was going to show up.

We've had some heated debates in the past but I appreciate that.

Although, I'm not the ONLY intelligent one. There are a few others who are able to get their point across without going full retard.

originally posted by: Banquo

Do you propose to ban cars as well? They seem to cause many deaths

I don't recall cars having been invented with the express purpose of killing living things.

Please stop the strawman arguments.

originally posted by: Kryties
a reply to: vor78

How many more lives do you wish to see lost just so you can keep your damn guns?

10?
20?
50?
100?
More?????

That's a very emotional way to ask the question.

Try a little logic sometime, it's less stressful.

originally posted by: vor78

I'm not responsible for what someone else does. My neighbor is not responsible for what someone else does. 100 million other law-abiding gun owners are not responsible for what someone else does.

You can try to play the shame/blame game, but its not going to work.

Actively helping to prevent laws that would reduce gun crime gives you a level of responsibility whether you like it or not.

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: Banquo

Do you propose to ban cars as well? They seem to cause many deaths

I don't recall cars having been invented with the express purpose of killing living things.

Please stop the strawman arguments.

'Intent' doesn't make much difference at the end of the day. The end result is the same. We have 30,000+ traffic-related fatalities in this this country every year. Once simple change in the law, dramatically reducing speed limits, would undoubtedly reduce this figure dramatically, all at the cost only of driver inconvenience. So why don't we do it? It would save thousands of lives.

originally posted by: Answer

That's a very emotional way to ask the question.

Try a little logic sometime, it's less stressful.

With all the ridiculous strawman arguments coming out of the gun nut crowd, this is nothing in comparison.

So the shooter ends up being from the UK. Pretty ironic, seeing how many British people immediately jumped in this thread blabbering about how Americans have "deep-seated issues" causing them to do things like this.

originally posted by: vor78

'Intent' doesn't make much difference at the end of the day. The end result is the same. We have 30,000+ traffic-related fatalities in this this country every year. Once simple change in the law, dramatically reducing speed limits, would undoubtedly reduce this figure dramatically, all at the cost only of driver inconvenience. So why don't we do it? It would save thousands of lives.

OK, so go about changing the traffic laws to your hearts content - and get back to the topic at hand which is GUNS, not strawman arguments that deflect from the topic.

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: vor78

I'm not responsible for what someone else does. My neighbor is not responsible for what someone else does. 100 million other law-abiding gun owners are not responsible for what someone else does.

You can try to play the shame/blame game, but its not going to work.

Actively helping to prevent laws that would reduce gun crime gives you a level of responsibility whether you like it or not.

You have no information to suggest that those laws would reduce gun crime so your statement is false.

There is no data in the US to suggest that mass shootings are reduced by stricter gun laws.

Again, bring some facts to the table if you're going to argue this. Your emotional responses aren't going to influence anyone's opinion.

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: Banquo

Do you propose to ban cars as well? They seem to cause many deaths

I don't recall cars having been invented with the express purpose of killing living things.

Please stop the strawman arguments.

Shy away from the rest of my post? Or don't you have an argument for the obvious elements?