Oregon community college shooting, multiple casualties

Status
Not open for further replies.

jonnyghost

Well-Known Member
Also, I'm sure it was an oversight but you called the shooter a victim. But besides, you do realize that the shooters kill themselves, give up or leave when confronted by armed resistance don't you? They aren't giving up just because.

The problem with all these shootings the element of surprise blows being prepared out of the water and even if you have someone with a gun nearby, by the time they react many people can already be dead.

Even in Jonny's example shown here, every one that actually had a shooting take place and not everyone did, by the time someone realized what had happened and reacted the shooting was over and the victim had either left the scene, killed themselves or was apprehended by a law enforcement officer or in a few cases some civilian with a gun. In all the cases if the shooter was going to shoot, they shot the the people they wanted to and were done before anyone did anything.

Originally Posted by jonnyghost View Post
Want hard proof? Mass shootings stopped by armed citizens:
Pearl High School 1997
Parker Middle School 1998
Appalachian School of Law 2002
New Life Church 2007
New York Mills AT&T Store 2010
Sullivan Central High School 2010
Freewill Baptist Church 2012
Clackamas Town Center Mall 2012
Mystic Strip Club 2014
Austin, Texas Construction Site 2014
Cache Valley Hospital 2014
Mercy Fitzgerald Hospital 2014
 

seb

Well-Known Member
No one would argue that prevention is best but you will not eliminate all of these types of situations. You have to be prepared to deal with them when they come. Yes, people will get hurt and people will die. The idea is to minimize the damage.

It's not a safe world out there and you have to maintain a minimal amount of situational awareness. It's the first step in any kind of protection/safety/defense. There are steps that can be taken to increase situational awareness.
You keep missing the point. Yes, preparation is good, but the element of surprise is going to get you almost every time. I'm not talking about taking your beloved guns away but keeping the guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them in the first place. This is a better method than having everyone armed to the teeth and a shootout at various locations happening on a daily basis and people living in fear of their lives every minute of the day. Another possibility that you haven't addressed is what happens when one of your law abiding gun carrying first lines of defense snaps and shoots a bunch of people? It's bound to happen! All of your examples you shared with us had NOBODY BEING SAVED since the shooter had already finished what he came to do and either killed himself or was apprehended at the scene or outside as happened in the majority(all but the church and no shots were ever fired and nobody knows if the guy with the gun ever planned on killing anyone) of the shootings you singled out. Another problem with your preparedness approach its the fact that someone with a gun or having access to a gun is 29% more likely to be a victim in a homicide than someone who is not armed.

Yes, it's not a safe world out there and what you want to do is make it even less safe. Situational awareness hasn't worked to well so far, perhaps a boot camp for all gun owners is needed to train them how to recognize a dangerous situation and respond before someone gets hurt. I remember after 9/11, all the schools in are city practiced your situational awareness and put in red curbs around the schools and made the whole area around the campus's no parking zones. In addition they put up signs that said all visitors must check in at the office. When I went to one of the board meetings to ask what is with the red curbs? There answer was to keep someone from parking a truck loaded with a bomb on the street and blowing up the school. I asked them if someone had the intent to blow up a school do you think they are going to obey the red zone? I didn't think so and I also told them the person would more than likely pull the truck right in the middle of the campus and set it off. Situational awareness or surprise which do you think is going to win? Unless you have an armed guard at each door of every building, school room, store, movie theater, church, etc. it's going to do little good because the element of surprise will get you every time and besides the cost is going to be prohibitive.
 

seb

Well-Known Member
Also, I'm sure it was an oversight but you called the shooter a victim. But besides, you do realize that the shooters kill themselves, give up or leave when confronted by armed resistance don't you? They aren't giving up just because.
Thanks, it was late, it has been changed to shooter as it should of said to begin with, once again thank you.
 

jonnyghost

Well-Known Member
I know what you're saying. Surprise is a huge advantage but it's not always going to work. The shooter could miss or the gun could jam. The teacher might just happen to see the gun and have time to side step and draw a gun. Even if you're shot you can still fight back. You might even be mortally wounded and be able to return fire. Just because you're surprised doesn't always mean it's the end. Sometimes yes but not always. If you have a way to fight back you have options.
 

jonnyghost

Well-Known Member
You keep missing the point. Yes, preparation is good, but the element of surprise is going to get you almost every time. I'm not talking about taking your beloved guns away but keeping the guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them in the first place. This is a better method than having everyone armed to the teeth and a shootout at various locations happening on a daily basis and people living in fear of their lives every minute of the day. Another possibility that you haven't addressed is what happens when one of your law abiding gun carrying first lines of defense snaps and shoots a bunch of people? It's bound to happen! All of your examples you shared with us had NOBODY BEING SAVED since the shooter had already finished what he came to do and either killed himself or was apprehended at the scene or outside as happened in the majority(all but the church and no shots were ever fired and nobody knows if the guy with the gun ever planned on killing anyone) of the shootings you singled out. Another problem with your preparedness approach its the fact that someone with a gun or having access to a gun is 29% more likely to be a victim in a homicide than someone who is not armed.
That statistic includes thugs and gang banger and people who need defense because they live in high crime areas. So yea, if you're a gang member you are much more likely to be shot.

Yes, it's not a safe world out there and what you want to do is make it even less safe. Situational awareness hasn't worked to well so far, perhaps a boot camp for all gun owners is needed to train them how to recognize a dangerous situation and respond before someone gets hurt.
Situational awareness is absolutely key and if you see what's coming you have a much better chance of defending against it. The problem is most people are NOT aware of what's going on around them.

I remember after 9/11, all the schools in are city practiced your situational awareness and put in red curbs around the schools and made the whole area around the campus's no parking zones.
What does that have to do with awareness?

In addition they put up signs that said all visitors must check in at the office. When I went to one of the board meetings to ask what is with the red curbs? There answer was to keep someone from parking a truck loaded with a bomb on the street and blowing up the school. I asked them if someone had the intent to blow up a school do you think they are going to obey the red zone? I didn't think so and I also told them the person would more than likely pull the truck right in the middle of the campus and set it off. Situational awareness or surprise which do you think is going to win? Unless you have an armed guard at each door of every building, school room, store, movie theater, church, etc. it's going to do little good because the element of surprise will get you every time and besides the cost is going to be prohibitive.
I don't think you know what situational awareness is.
 

jonnyghost

Well-Known Member
If gun ownership make you more likely to be a gun related homicide victim then why does a state like Maine have 20 times fewer gun murders per capita than DC when we have 11 times as many guns per capita?

District of Columbia
population 2010 - 601,723
population density - 10298
murders total - 131
gun murders - 99
gun ownership - 3.6%
murder rate - 21.8
gun murder rate - 16.5


Maine
population 2010 - 1,328,361
population density - 43.04
murders total - 24
gun murders - 11
gun ownership - 40.5%
murder rate - 1.8
gun murder rate - 0.8

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state
 

whatdidyousay!

Well-Known Member
If gun ownership make you more likely to be a gun related homicide victim then why does a state like Maine have 20 times fewer gun murders per capita than DC when we have 11 times as many guns per capita?

District of Columbia
population 2010 - 601,723
population density - 10298
murders total - 131
gun murders - 99
gun ownership - 3.6%
murder rate - 21.8
gun murder rate - 16.5


Maine
population 2010 - 1,328,361
population density - 43.04
murders total - 24
gun murders - 11
gun ownership - 40.5%
murder rate - 1.8
gun murder rate - 0.8

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state
I am more concerned about being killed by a crazy driver than a crazy shooter .
 

seb

Well-Known Member
That statistic includes thugs and gang banger and people who need defense because they live in high crime areas. So yea, if you're a gang member you are much more likely to be shot.]

The statistics are not just tabulated using thugs and gang bangers, they include ALL GUN OWNERS.

[Situational awareness is absolutely key and if you see what's coming you have a much better chance of defending against it. The problem is most people are NOT aware of what's going on around them.]

Most schools I've been in don't even have windows by the doors, so you don't know who is coming through the door until they have entered the room, so there goes your situational awareness, by the time you are aware, you might be dead.



[What does that have to do with awareness?]

Basically the same thing: the government and school districts perceived a threat and tried to be ready if someone should try and blow up a school, but they forgot to think about the fact that a red curb is not going to stop someone from driving the vehicle onto the campus and setting the bomb off.


[I don't think you know what situational awareness is.
Yes, I know what situational awareness is, I just don't think it's going to work unless you basically have an armed guard outside of every door in the United States. The other problem is with the proliferation of gun ownership comes the chance of more nut job shooters.
 

seb

Well-Known Member
If gun ownership make you more likely to be a gun related homicide victim then why does a state like Maine have 20 times fewer gun murders per capita than DC when we have 11 times as many guns per capita?

District of Columbia
population 2010 - 601,723
population density - 10298
murders total - 131
gun murders - 99
gun ownership - 3.6%
murder rate - 21.8
gun murder rate - 16.5


Maine
population 2010 - 1,328,361
population density - 43.04
murders total - 24
gun murders - 11
gun ownership - 40.5%
murder rate - 1.8
gun murder rate - 0.8

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state
Probably has to do with population density and who you have living in DC.

Maine is not immune to mass murder: Christian Nielsen in September, 2006 gunned down four people and then dismembered the bodies, so when they have a crazy shooter, they get the really crazy ones!
 

jonnyghost

Well-Known Member
Probably has to do with population density and who you have living in DC.

Maine is not immune to mass murder: Christian Nielsen in September, 2006 gunned down four people and then dismembered the bodies, so when they have a crazy shooter, they get the really crazy ones!
No place is immune. So what you're saying then is it's not the guns but the people? That sort of blows the owning guns inreasing your risk theory then.
 

diehardbiker

Active Member
We Americans needs to be grateful instead of whining about mass murders, there are much bigger, more evil than ever murdering going around the world, say out in middle East, if your in wrong place your screwed, end of story.

This is the reason why I do not support trying to gain gun control where we have other major issues going on that is far more serious than this issue.
 

diehardbiker

Active Member


I'm thinking Seb fantasized himself like this guy on right (White head and gown). His idealogy isn't going to happen at all, not even in our current generations.
 

seb

Well-Known Member
No place is immune. So what you're saying then is it's not the guns but the people? That sort of blows the owning guns inreasing your risk theory then.
Doesn't change a thing. The gun is still a deadly weapon being shot by a person. The person pulls the trigger, the bullet does the killing.
 

Secretblend

Well-Known Member
Doesn't change a thing. The gun is still a deadly weapon being shot by a person. The person pulls the trigger, the bullet does the killing.
Disagree..

Should be:

The gun is still a deadly weapon being shot by a person. The person pulls the trigger, the bullet does the damage but person that pulled the trigger did the killing.
 

diehardbiker

Active Member
Doesn't change a thing. The gun is still a deadly weapon being shot by a person. The person pulls the trigger, the bullet does the killing.

{scratching my head}

Enlighten me if you could, how can the bullet alone do the killing? Does that bullet have brain of their own?
 

jonnyghost

Well-Known Member
Doesn't change a thing. The gun is still a deadly weapon being shot by a person. The person pulls the trigger, the bullet does the killing.
Then I'll ask again. If it's the gun why does Maine, having so many more guns per capita than DC, have so fewer gun murders? According to that study shouldn't Mainers be at a much higher risk?
 
Last edited:

whatdidyousay!

Well-Known Member
Doesn't change a thing. The gun is still a deadly weapon being shot by a person. The person pulls the trigger, the bullet does the killing.
The bullet can only project from a gun when a person pulls the trigger. There forth the person is doing the killing . A bullet does not say I think I will go out and kill someone today .
 

diehardbiker

Active Member
Here is why gun control is BAD idea.

http://money.cnn.com/2015/10/21/news/police-guns-crimes/index.html?iid=hp-stack-dom

You see, cops are supposed to be trusted government servant. Now if we have gun control, there are GOOD chances there will be rats among those who are so called "Authority" granted by government to overseen the control on firearms, this is what gets scarier if we give up our 2nd Amendment rights.

This is one of several reasons why I oppose molesting 2nd Amendment, never ever allow this law infringe at all cost!
 

whatdidyousay!

Well-Known Member
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/20997-new-bill-forces-gun-owners-to-buy-liability-insurance



New Bill Forces Gun Owners to Buy Liability Insurance
Written by Joe Wolverton, II, J.D.















font size decrease font size increase font size
Print
Email



New Bill Forces Gun Owners to Buy Liability Insurance


In what surely comes as no surprise to gun owners, there is a Democrat member of Congress who wants to further infringe on the right to keep and bear arms by forcing gun owners to purchase liability insurance.

As reported by The Hill, Representative Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) has introduced a bill, H.R. 2546, that would “require gun buyers to have liability insurance coverage before being allowed to purchase a weapon, and would impose a fine of $10,000 if an owner is found not to have it. Service members and law enforcement officers, however, would be exempt from the requirement.”

The bill, the Firearm Risk Protection Act, carves out a significant and equally unsurprising exception to the liability insurance purchase mandate. Section 2 states that the insurance requirements “shall not apply to the purchase or sale of a firearm for the use of the United States or any department or agency of the United States.”



ULINE Shipping Supplies

Huge Catalog! Over 30,000 Products. Same Day Shipping from 11 Locations

www.ULINE.com



Given the purchase of millions of rounds by various federal agencies (including the notoriously poorly armed U.S. Postal Service), it makes sense to exclude them from the latest individual insurance mandate. Of course, exempting the federal government from the purchase requirement will undoubtedly be spun as a cost-saving measure by the establishment press and the constitutionally contrary congressmen it serves.

As for what sort of policy satisfies the proposed statutes mandate, Section 2 defines a “qualified liability insurance policy" as a policy that “provides liability insurance covering the purchaser specifically for losses resulting from use of the firearm while it is owned by the purchaser; and is issued by an insurer licensed or authorized to provide the coverage by the State insurance regulatory authority for the State in which the purchaser resides.”

“We require insurance to own a car, but no such requirement exists for guns," Maloney said, using language very similar to that used during the debates on ObamaCare. "The results are clear: car fatalities have declined by 25 percent in the last decade, but gun fatalities continue to rise,” The Hill reports.

As for Maloney, she seems never to have met an oath she wasn’t willing to break: In this case, it's the part of her constitutional oath of office regarding the preservation, protection, and defense of the Constitution. Presumably, that includes the Second Amendment, yet the Firearms Risk Protection Act was the second bill offered by Maloney this week that unconstitutionally restricts the right of Americans to keep and bear arms. The Hill reports:

A few weeks ago she reintroduced legislation that would require sellers to obtain a background check for all guns sold at gun shows.

The Gun Show Loophole Closing Act, long championed by former Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.), would subject anyone selling or transferring a gun to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System and require that transfers be reported to the attorney general.

As readers are aware, the Second Amendment imposes on the federal government an unqualified proscription on constriction of the right to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

The phrase that pays: shall not be infringed. That means "shall not," not "shall not unless a gun is used in a high-profile crime," or "shall not unless the president issues an executive order infringing upon it," or "shall not unless there is a risk that someone is injured.”

Despite what many “conservative” voices would have Americans believe, there is no “reasonable” exception to the “shall not be infringed” phrase.

Our Founding Fathers understood this very well. They knew, from sad, personal experience with the oppression of tyrants, that the right to keep and bear arms was the right that protects all the other rights.

Founding-era jurist St. George Tucker wrote:

This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defence [sic] is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour [sic] or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.

In light of the nearly innumerable efforts by congressmen, the president, and the United Nations to effectively repeal the Second Amendment, there is an urgent need for states to stand up and assert their constitutional authority to resist any act of the federal government not specifically permitted in the “few and defined” powers delegated to it. States must nullify all such attempts to deny citizens of their God-given rights, including the right to keep and bear arms.

Nullification, not capitulation, is the way to defeat the powerful forces combined against the continued enjoyment of freedom.

Nullification is the “rightful remedy” and cannot only restore the rule of law in this Republic, but can restore the independence of states and cities, freeing them from the financial chains that have them bound to the federal behemoth.

Remarkably, there are even those among the Hollywood elite who understand the purpose of the protections provided by the Second Amendment. In an interview with the U.K. edition of G.Q. magazine, Vince Vaughn expressed what is surely a controversial (though constitutionally correct) opinion on the matter. "I support people having a gun in public full stop, not just in your home. We don't have the right to bear arms because of burglars; we have the right to bear arms to resist the supreme power of a corrupt and abusive government. It's not about duck hunting; it's about the ability of the individual,” Vaughn said.

Regardless of the how widely the proper role of gun ownership spreads, the danger from Washington, D.C. remains clear and present.

The first step in thwarting Representative Maloney’s move to shrink the scope of gun rights is to remember that any federal act, regulation, or order that exceeds the constitutional limits on federal power has no legal effect. States can — must — courageously refuse to enforce those acts using the historically, legally, and constitutionally sound principle of nullification.

Nullification recognizes the right of states to invalidate any federal measure that a state deems unconstitutional. Nullification is founded on the fact that the sovereign states formed the union, and as creators of the compact, they hold ultimate authority as to the limits of the power of the federal government to enact laws that are applicable to states and their citizens.

That our Founders understood this principle is demonstrated by Alexander Hamilton in The Federalist, No. 78:

There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.

James Madison, also writing in The Federalist, recommended that state legislators, in order to prevent federal abridgment of fundamental liberties, should refuse “to co-operate with the officers of the Union.”

Finally, founding era jurist Joseph Story described the Second Amendment’s critical check on tyranny:

The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.

Maloney's bill is awaiting consideration by the House Judiciary Committee.






What do people think of this , I don't criminals will go out and buy gun insurance . And that is wrong to make citizens buy gun insurance and not police .
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top