Oregon College Shootings

[Philip]

As criminals CAN and DO prolifically use stolen guns OR they can buy them (legally owned OR stolen - doesn't matter) dirt cheap on the street, as they don't have to/frequently don't go a legal route to buying a gun - what gun law is going to stop them? As there is a unlimited supply of weapons that can be purchased without ever necessitating the purchase of them new/having to submit to a background check, what law is going to stop them? Those with criminal, murderous or psychotic intent - what gun law is going to stop them?

Here's the ONLY things that might help (of course, these would only help with LEGAL gun acquisitions): Comprehensive background check that would cover both criminal past mental health past; A mandatory delay between purchase and acquisition; Also outlaw immediate/instant purchases from both individuals and gunshows, so that EVERYONE buying a weapon has a criminal/mental health check that must be producible upon demand. EVERY other type of gun acquisition would be illegal/off the books/unknown and untraceable - meaning, NO law would prevent it. Gun-free zones are a joke to the person bent upon gun violence or mayhem. Can't you just see a murderous thug (walks up to a campus, sees "NO GUNS OF ANY SORT ALLOWED ON PREMISES" - so he thinks better - "oh, I can't use my gun to rob or kill here, so I better find a place where guns are allowed." Really, how naive to think this would ever work in such a way!

Large venues should have a trained plainclothes person with concealed firepower adequate to stop most shooters.

Again, I don't like guns. I don't hunt/never did. But I want to be able to defend against thugs. I want thugs to be afraid to attack me or mine because of their knowing I am likely armed. And notice that a large percentage of mass killings are by the either the deranged or ones driven by terrorism intentions.

[Kurieuo]

As criminals CAN and DO prolifically use stolen guns OR they can buy them (legally owned OR stolen - doesn't matter) dirt cheap on the street, as they don't have to/frequently don't go a legal route to buying a gun - what gun law is going to stop them? As there is a unlimited supply of weapons that can be purchased without ever necessitating the purchase of them new/having to submit to a background check, what law is going to stop them? Those with criminal, murderous or psychotic intent - what gun law is going to stop them?

It's been demonstrated that de-arming society works, actually creates a safer society.
The issue though, is not with whether it works, but given the proliferation of guns in the US and everyone feeling like it's their right to have a bazooka, how it could get there.

We're also lucky, in that in Australia, we're on one big island surrounded by ocean. You guys have been selling arms to those south of you and all over the world. So you create your laws, there'd probably be a heavy black market in guns coming through your southern borders.

[Philip]

Kurieuo: It's been demonstrated that de-arming society works, actually creates a safer society.
The issue though, is not with whether it works, but given the proliferation of guns in the US and everyone feeling like it's their right to have a bazooka, how it could get there.

K, you're swerving closer to the truth, if but a bit. And, that is, I suspect you are beginning to realize that you CAN'T de-arm America - it's IMPOSSIBLE and a matter of a long history of generations acquiring guns and their pure staggering numbers, and their easy and cheap acquisition. Again, this is not Japan or Britain - we're 150 years past that. And, I don't know what stereotyping you've bought into, but the vast majority of Americans aren't stooges for the NRA, as most here DO want to have limits on firepower, magazine sizes, to keep automatic weapons banned, to have comprehensive background checks, etc. But most also realise we must deal realistically with the situation AS IT TRULY EXISTS - AND that will most keep us safe.

The NRA has opposed some sensible controls. I do not support them, although SOME of their stands are positive. So, there's a balance. One reason the NRA has taken some extreme stances is due to their correct assessment that there exists a very vocal, well-organized and well-funded liberal political element that desires ALL guns be banned. And the first step to that is mandating they are all registered.

[edwardmurphy]

Again, I don't like guns. I don't hunt/never did. But I want to be able to defend against thugs. I want thugs to be afraid to attack me or mine because of their knowing I am likely armed. And notice that a large percentage of mass killings are by the either the deranged or ones driven by terrorism intentions.

I don't actually mind guns. I go target shooting now and then. It's fun. I don't hunt because, frankly, it seems like a huge pain in the ass. I don't much like game, I don't want to have to figure out how to drag a moose out of the woods before dark, and I know too many hard-drinking hunters to ever feel comfortable in their free-fire zone. Thankfully we have enough people ready to embrace the expense and inconvenience that the deer herds are kept pretty well in check. Hunters provide a valuable service. As an aside, if any hunters are reading this, please come to New Hampshire and shoot some turkeys. They're getting to be a nuisance.

Back on topic, I have a wife and a couple of daughters and I understand your fears, but the data doesn't support your argument. Women are much more likely to be killed by an abusive spouse/boyfriend if there's a gun in the house. Children are far more likely to kill themselves (either intentionally or accidentally) if there's a gun in the house. A gun is far more likely to be used in a homicide, suicide, or accidental shooting than it is to be used to stop a crime. An assault victim is 4+ times more likely to be shot and killed if he's carrying a gun than if he isn't. Murder rates jumped by 7-10% in states that passed Stand Your Ground laws. And so on and so forth. Long story short, having a gun in your house is more dangerous to you and your family than it is to any criminals.

[edwardmurphy]

K, you're swerving closer to the truth, if but a bit. And, that is, I suspect you are beginning to realize that you CAN'T de-arm America - it's IMPOSSIBLE and a matter of a long history of generations acquiring guns and their pure staggering numbers, and their easy and cheap acquisition. Again, this is not Japan or Britain - we're 150 years past that. And, I don't know what stereotyping you've bought into, but the vast majority of Americans aren't stooges for the NRA, as most here DO want to have limits on firepower, magazine sizes, to keep automatic weapons banned, to have comprehensive background checks, etc. But most also realise we must deal realistically with the situation AS IT TRULY EXISTS - AND that will most keep us safe.

I agree that disarming America is impossible, and I don't think it's even right to try. Still, that doesn't mean that there's nothing that can be done do curb gun violence. For example -

* A voluntary buy-back program would reduce the number of guns somewhat.
* Mandatory gun safes and/or trigger locks will reduce the number of kids getting killed, as would mandatory gun safety courses for the purchaser and his/her entire household.
* A nation-wide background check system, including mental health screening would help.
* The banning of small, easily concealed semi-automatic weapons and oversized clips would help.
* Closing up all of the various loopholes (gun show sales, online sales, etc) would help.
* Mandating biometric trigger locks (once they become widely available and inexpensive) would help.
*Repealing the Tiahrt Amendment would help.
* Generally improving out mental health system would help.
* Taking the inflammatory political rhetoric down a notch would help.
* Destroying all confiscated guns would help.
* A national gun registry would help.
* Fighting poverty would help.
* Treating drug addiction would help.

That's just off the top of my head and I'm hardly a genius or an expert on the issue.

One reason the NRA has taken some extreme stances is due to their correct assessment that there exists a very vocal, well-organized and well-funded liberal political element that desires ALL guns be banned. And the first step to that is mandating they are all registered.

I don't buy that. The crazy redneck that demands the right to have a bazooka and the starry-eyed hippy who wants to confiscate every gun in the nation and melt them into a giant peace sign are both on the political fringes. They probably cancel each other out, assuming they even exist as anything other than caricatures. Unfortunately our lazy, sensationalist, irresponsible, profit-driven mass media tends to look for controversy, so the crackpots on both ends of the political spectrum get more air than they deserve. Nobody with any political clout is seriously pushing for a blanket repeal of gun regulations or a blanket ban on firearms.

I think the NRA is a lobbying group for the gun industry and they take extreme stances because they don't want any limitations on what they can sell and to whom they can sell it. Their strategy is to launch an all-out attack on any and all attempts to regulate their industry or their product. All this "Obama is after your guns" garbage is the gun industry whipping up hysteria to sell their product. Obama isn't trying to take the guns, not that it matters since he doesn't have the authority to take them anyway.

[melanie]

Again, those in other countries, in which gun ownership has ALWAYS been pretty restricted, have absolutely NO understanding of the unfathomably massive saturation of guns in America. Guns handed down upon generations. Stolen guns - HUGE numbers of gun crimes are committed with stolen weapons. People outside America simply don't seem to understand the enormous supply of guns here - ALL kinds of guns - is unlimited. This means that if you ban ALL guns sales that it won't do anything to keep criminals and insane people from obtaining guns illegally. IF guns sales were ALL illegal, and an insane person or a criminal wanted to buy a gun, then obtaining one would still be easy as pie, simply do to the massive supply and the profit motive of those desiring to illegally sell them.

IF you are for banning all gun purchases and ownership, please tell me:

How law-abiding citizens are to be kept safe if guns were outlawed and subsequently ONLY criminals with violent intent and the insane desired to have them - given the easy illegal ability to get whatever and however many guns one so desires.

Please tell me how you are going to keep such a massive supply (enough for centuries) of very cheap handguns from being obtained by criminals and the unstable?

If you can't answer these questions, then your "ban the guns" rhetoric is meaningless political correctness and entirely emotional and poorly thought out! "Ban the guns" would essentially be putting some feel-good law over people's safety and protection. I simply don't understand how anyone who truly realized the huge and endless gun supply, and who also realizes that criminals and the insane intended murderer would not be stopped one bit by such a ban. And if WE can personally protect ourselves against thugs and maniacs with guns - which are going NOWHERE/which won't change, then WHO/what entity will protect us? Do you not realize there are many neighborhoods in which the cops only contain/try not to unnecessarily enter - because they are far too dangerous! Go to gang-saturated L.A. or Chicago - cops play containment defense - TRY to keep the violence contained.

And, if guns were outlawed, some honest people would be forced to realize the insanity of leaving themselves and their families at the mercy of gun-toting thugs and the insane - meaning, even THEY wouldn't turn their guns in. That is only common sense! Again, look at the murder and gun crime statistics in Chicago - where guns are VERY strictly regulated - why do you think their murder rate is one of the highest in the nation? Thugs there operate with impunity. NO gun law is going to stop them. A drive-by shooting in a poor neighborhood here is big news. Chicago? It's just another day/another murder. Compare Chicago to where I live, where gun crimes (killings/shootings) are pretty rare - and here you can have a concealed carry permit, and family homes all have several guns for protection - so, WHY then, are places with much stricter gun laws far less safe? Hmmmmmmm? Just MAYBE it's because the criminals here have something to fear (people who are armed and WILL shoot back). Often, here (in the country), we don't worry about locking our doors until after dark.

You speak of using over emotional arguments but then it is the base of your argument.
I honestly don't know who you are addressing Philip.
This is an argument about gun reform, nobody ever suggested banning all guns or all gun sales.
Guns are not banned in Australia.
There are millions of guns here. Although we have very tight laws surrounding ownership.
Screening is extensive.
All states are unified. If you are unable to obtain a firearm in one state then you cannot obtain one in another state.
This is not a left verses right issue.
It was the conservative Howard government that put these reforms in place.

There are major reforms needed in the U.S. That much is obvious.
Nobody is saying ban all guns.
Not even your own government
http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and- ... osals.aspx
It's about gun reform.
Why is it that when these measured are talked about then common sense goes out the window, the importance of the discussion is brushed aside with this 'your not taking my gun away mentality.
It is automatically placed in the 'banning all guns' mindframe when nobody is actually saying that.

[melanie]

K, you're swerving closer to the truth, if but a bit. And, that is, I suspect you are beginning to realize that you CAN'T de-arm America - it's IMPOSSIBLE and a matter of a long history of generations acquiring guns and their pure staggering numbers, and their easy and cheap acquisition. Again, this is not Japan or Britain - we're 150 years past that. And, I don't know what stereotyping you've bought into, but the vast majority of Americans aren't stooges for the NRA, as most here DO want to have limits on firepower, magazine sizes, to keep automatic weapons banned, to have comprehensive background checks, etc. But most also realise we must deal realistically with the situation AS IT TRULY EXISTS - AND that will most keep us safe.

I agree that disarming America is impossible, and I don't think it's even right to try. Still, that doesn't mean that there's nothing that can be done do curb gun violence. For example -

* A voluntary buy-back program would reduce the number of guns somewhat.
* Mandatory gun safes and/or trigger locks will reduce the number of kids getting killed, as would mandatory gun safety courses for the purchaser and his/her entire household.
* A nation-wide background check system, including mental health screening would help.
* The banning of small, easily concealed semi-automatic weapons and oversized clips would help.
* Closing up all of the various loopholes (gun show sales, online sales, etc) would help.
* Mandating biometric trigger locks (once they become widely available and inexpensive) would help.
*Repealing the Tiahrt Amendment would help.
* Generally improving out mental health system would help.
* Taking the inflammatory political rhetoric down a notch would help.
* Destroying all confiscated guns would help.
* A national gun registry would help.
* Fighting poverty would help.
* Treating drug addiction would help.

That's just off the top of my head and I'm hardly a genius or an expert on the issue.

One reason the NRA has taken some extreme stances is due to their correct assessment that there exists a very vocal, well-organized and well-funded liberal political element that desires ALL guns be banned. And the first step to that is mandating they are all registered.

I don't buy that. The crazy redneck that demands the right to have a bazooka and the starry-eyed hippy who wants to confiscate every gun in the nation and melt them into a giant peace sign are both on the political fringes. They probably cancel each other out, assuming they even exist as anything other than caricatures. Unfortunately our lazy, sensationalist, irresponsible, profit-driven mass media tends to look for controversy, so the crackpots on both ends of the political spectrum get more air than they deserve. Nobody with any political clout is seriously pushing for a blanket repeal of gun regulations or a blanket ban on firearms.

I think the NRA is a lobbying group for the gun industry and they take extreme stances because they don't want any limitations on what they can sell and to whom they can sell it. Their strategy is to launch an all-out attack on any and all attempts to regulate their industry or their product. All this "Obama is after your guns" garbage is the gun industry whipping up hysteria to sell their product. Obama isn't trying to take the guns, not that it matters since he doesn't have the authority to take them anyway.

Haha what he said ^
Took the words outta my mouth.
Great minds think alike??

[FlawedIntellect]

Seems to me that you had there was an Atheist "zealot".

Don't tell me Atheism isn't as ideological as religion. It has "extremists" all of its own.
Atheism has its own "fundamentalists" (as much as I hate how that word has lost its original meaning today).
The likes of Dawkins and Harris et al., and the Atheistic dribble online are responsible for fueling such hatred against Christians and a mere belief in God.

The shooter, according to news articles, was said that some of his profiles on online websites listed his beliefs as "spiritual but not religious." So it's doubtful that he was an atheist.

Edit: No mention of Chris Mintz, the army vet who charged the shooter 'n took 'im down?

[abelcainsbrother]

The states that have the strictest gun laws have the highest amount of gun violence so despite the left's attempt to enact stricter gun laws it does not work. Also it cannot be stressed enough the bad guys are the ones who have access to more gun power with stricter gun laws so that the good guys are outgunned because of stricter gun laws. Stricter gun laws only effect the good law abiding citezen but not criminals.I really do not understand the push for stricter gun laws,it really seems idiotic to me.It is getting to where criminals have even more gun power than the Police. I remember a few years ago criminals went on a shooting rampage with high powered rifles and they had more gunpower than the cops and because of it a number of cops were killed because they had less gun power.

[abelcainsbrother]

The Oregon shooters father speaks out.
http://www.youngcons.com/father-of-oreg ... l-tragedy/

[PaulSacramento]

The problem isn't guns and never has been.
The issue is that, somewhere along the line, some people believed that it was acceptable to kill people.

[edwardmurphy]

The states that have the strictest gun laws have the highest amount of gun violence so despite the left's attempt to enact stricter gun laws it does not work.

I already posted a bunch of charts and graphs and statistics showing that that's not true. There are more gun deaths per capita in Montana and Wyoming than there are in Illinois, California, or New York. Your entire post is assumptions and raw emotion. A lot of those assumptions are wrong, and strong emotion just clouds the issue. Calm down and look at the data.

The problem isn't guns and never has been.
The issue is that, somewhere along the line, some people believed that it was acceptable to kill people.

Somewhere along the line? We're emotional creatures. Conflict and violence have always been a social problems. Weapons exacerbate those problems. Extremely effective weapons, such as guns, exacerbate them even more.

The data is there to be seen, and it clearly shows that people are more likely to die if guns are present than if they are not.

[Philip]

One must also look at the nuances within gun death statistics:

Factcheck.org: Firearm deaths, however, include suicides, and there are a lot of them. In 2013, there were a total of 33,636 firearm deaths, and 21,175, or 63 percent, were suicides, according to the CDC. Homicides made up 11,208, or 33 percent, of those firearm deaths. The rest were unintentional discharges (505), legal intervention/war (467) and undetermined (281). So, using just that year, significantly over 50% were suicides, and quite a few others were not homicides. Interesting that factcheck.org didn't compare Illinois statistics because it reported "limited data to the FBI" (shocking! ).

IF one lives with someone they know to be unstable AND there are guns on the premises - or even if they are not - they need to decide if the risk of staying in such a home is acceptable. I'd say NOT! Course, if that unstable person happens to be your child, either remove your weapons or have them unquestionably secured! My sister's ex-husband was a gun nut AND he was emotionally and psychologically unstable. She moved out, to my great relief. He'd also had an affair, she evemtually divorced him. Actually, we were all concerned about him showing up to our houses.

[Kurieuo]

Australian death rates by guns (law was introduced in 1996 with a buy back scheme).
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compa ... gun_deaths

"State laws regulate the ownership, possession and use of firearms in Australia. These laws were largely aligned in 1996 by the National Firearms Agreement. Anyone wishing to possess or use a firearm must have a firearms licence and, with some exceptions, be over the age of 18. Owners must have secure storage for their firearms." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Australia

Per ratio, US have 10 times more gun deaths than Australia.
And despite more guns getting into the "bad guys" hands (i.e., crime) over the years, according to reports, the deaths in Australia have been reducing.

I'm not saying what the solution is over there. But, looking at the raw statistics, there is a high gun-death link.

Really, I see many US people always pushing back and trying to minimise the issue or justify a right to owning guns.
In Australia, we have the left and right too, perhaps not as "right" as your right wing but when we see another shooting in the US most of us are quite unitedly amazed how many in the US just don't see an issue with guns. We then see people saying after this or that shooting there's no gun issue. It's like, when are they going to wake up and realise not a solution, but at least the problem.

An alcoholic or drug addict may not know the solution to their problems. BUT, the first step to their recovery is first acknowledging that they have a problem. Now, no other country can tell you what to do, but a true friend should always speak up to the truth to help another friend rather than just nod and agree.

[Philip]

Kurieuo: I'm not saying what the solution is over there. But, looking at the raw statistics, there is a high gun-death link.

That's because there is one heck of lot more guns here (see below). I also wonder if things like drug trafficking, gangs, crack cocaine are anywhere near the problems that they are here.

Kurieuo: Really, I see many US people always pushing back and trying to minimize the issue or justify a right to owning guns.

One needs to justify protecting their family???!!! Even Jesus told his disciples to carry a sword - the handgun of the day.

My questions for anyone who thinks handguns for protection should be outlawed: Thugs with guns are everywhere - ESPECIALLY in the cities. Do you feel safer without a gun or with one? Do you want to be able to defend against the very real possibility that a criminal with a gun might try to enter your house? Would you not feel safer knowing of the deterrent impact that thugs are far less likely to take a risk of home invasion because they know people may well be armed? Why would you rather take a chance of not being able to defend your family against armed robbers or worse?

Yes, there IS a gun issue - the wrong people can get them very easily, cheaply, often without legally obtaining them. How do you think you are going to stop legal purchases by criminals without outlawing such purchases for EVERYONE? And why would you want to create the danger that would cause when you well know that criminals have MANY other options for obtaining a weapon?

OK, you have a criminal record, and so you can't LEGALLY buy a weapon. But you live in a crime-infested area where you know every thug around is packing serious heat - are you going to just play by the book and not buy one? If you're still involved with criminal activities, why would you ever let something like a law stop you? See, this is not logical, as the bad boys are always going to get their guns: 1) because it's easy and cheap; 2) and because they WANT TO - tools of the trade, so to speak.

Kurieuo: An alcoholic or drug addict may not know the solution to their problems. BUT, the first step to their recovery is first acknowledging that they have a problem. Now, no other country can tell you what to do, but a true friend should always speak up to the truth to help another friend rather than just nod and agree.

Hey, K, NO one here is saying we don't have a problem - but the problems are 1) The criminal elements that are obtaining guns; 2) There is no way to effectively stop this; 3) You could perhaps keep an impulsive LEGAL gun purchase from happening, but those who want guns for crime and mayhem are not going to stop just because they can't buy legally (think prohibition); 4) Many who wheel and deal in guns to criminals may not have a record, but they are involved in all kinds of illegal gun sales.

From Public Broadcasting Service - as to WHERE the bad boys get their guns: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... /guns.html

Here's what's already floating around - and this was just as of two decades ago: "The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and
Firearms (ATF) estimates that from 1899 to 1993 about 223 million guns became available in the United States, including over 79 million rifles, 77 million handguns, and 66 million shotguns. A 2012 Congressional Research Service report estimated that there were 310 million civilian guns in 2009: 114 million handguns, 110 million rifles, and 86 million shotguns.

Comparing the gun problem in places like Australia (with 15 guns per every 100 people) with America (112.6 guns per 100 people) gives one a little better understanding of why criminals will NEVER run out of guns they desire!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of ... by_country

Think about that - (by NOW) nearly 350 MILLION guns in the U.S. The enormous ALREADY-EXISTING supply and easy access to that supply by criminals is the REAL problem. And, we don't even effectively police the laws we DO have. Plus we need to do better with private sales and gunshows. But countless rogue dealers and private sales exist. So, it's far from simply being a matter of what guns are SOLD, but more of how many ALREADY exist!

I can tell you this, NO one in my area (a rural area considered very safe) would not have at least one gun for protection. Criminals know that to break in while someone is home out here: 1) they have to make a significant amount of noise; 2) they know they will likely be shot; 3) Which is why home invasions here are EXTREMELY rare.