Oregon community college shooting, multiple casualties

Status
Not open for further replies.

seb

Well-Known Member
Not in the same amount of time.

There have been plenty of other vehicle events where there were more casualties in a shorter time.



Just like crazed gunmen--they get put away in prison, after the fact. This woman will be punished after the fact. Nothing prevented her from driving that way.
Can you show a single car accident that killed more than 69 people?

Perhaps she had already been sited for DUI? We don't know that yet. As to preventing her from driving that way, I know of several people who have a breathalyzer in their car that they have to breath into in order to start the vehicle. At least we can put these in cars! Gun owners won't even put trigger locks on their weapons!
 

Reba

Retired Terp
Premium Member
When did I say she owned the weapon? It wasn't just poor judgement, but plain stupidity IMO! My point is and has always been that these are the type of people the vast majority of people in the US are dealing with when anyone brings up anything regarding keeping guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't shoot or be allowed to own one.
My point shows that even people who don't own guns can get their hands on them, one way or another, and use them incorrectly. Putting restrictions on gun ownership won't stop people from using guns incorrectly. Your proposal to put every prospective gun owner thru a psychological test wouldn't change that.
 

Reba

Retired Terp
Premium Member
Can you show a single car accident that killed more than 69 people?
Like the 1955 Le Mans disaster? The crash caused large chunks of racing car debris to fly into the crowd. Eighty-three spectators and the driver died and 120 more were injured.

Perhaps she had already been sited for DUI? We don't know that yet. As to preventing her from driving that way, I know of several people who have a breathalyzer in their car that they have to breath into in order to start the vehicle. At least we can put these in cars! Gun owners won't even put trigger locks on their weapons!
What if she had been cited for DUI before? It didn't prevent her from driving, did it? What if she had a breathalyzer starter in her car? What's to stop her from driving another person's car?

"Gun owners won't even put trigger locks on their weapons!" That's a pretty broad statement. How many of them won't put trigger locks on?

Besides, how is a trigger lock going to prevent a gun owner from going nuts and shooting people? (Your scenario.) If a gun owner can put the lock on, he can also take it off. If someone steals a gun with a trigger lock, it can be removed.
 

seb

Well-Known Member
Like the 1955 Le Mans disaster? The crash caused large chunks of racing car debris to fly into the crowd. Eighty-three spectators and the driver died and 120 more were injured.


What if she had been cited for DUI before? It didn't prevent her from driving, did it? What if she had a breathalyzer starter in her car? What's to stop her from driving another person's car?

"Gun owners won't even put trigger locks on their weapons!" That's a pretty broad statement. How many of them won't put trigger locks on?

Besides, how is a trigger lock going to prevent a gun owner from going nuts and shooting people? (Your scenario.) If a gun owner can put the lock on, he can also take it off. If someone steals a gun with a trigger lock, it can be removed.
- Come on! That was an auto race with spectators in the stands! Come up with one from regular driving conditions.

- Breathalyzer ignition systems, better know as an Ignition Interlock Device. Hopefully another person wouldn't be stupid enough to let her drive their car if she had prior DUI's. The penalties and liability is huge.

-Do you have trigger locks on all your guns that aren't being used?

-I wasn't referring to the gun owner going nuts, I was referring to the "new owner" the person who stole the gun from using it, or some kid getting ahold of it and shooting someone. We have had a number of kids over the years (including and off duty policeman's son) get ahold of a gun in the house and kill themselves or someone else in the house. A simple trigger lock would of prevented all of these senseless shootings. Once again, irresponsible gun ownership.
 

seb

Well-Known Member
My point shows that even people who don't own guns can get their hands on them, one way or another, and use them incorrectly. Putting restrictions on gun ownership won't stop people from using guns incorrectly. Your proposal to put every prospective gun owner thru a psychological test wouldn't change that.

How do we know, we haven't been able to implement any restrictions. Holding the gun owner responsible for their weapon (even if stolen) would put a serious dent in how many illegal guns our out on the streets. Look what has happened in Oregon when they raised the fine on littering to $6250 for a first offense, you can know eat off their roads! I recently drove the entire length of I-5 in OR and did not see one piece of litter on the entire freeway. Do the same thing for firearms and people might take owning a gun more seriously and keeping it locked up in something that is going to take a burglar or crook longer than 15 or 20 minutes to get into.
 

KikLove

Member
How do we know, we haven't been able to implement any restrictions.
Any restrictions? Are you talking about state, federal, or local? California and Washington D.C. have some the toughest restrictions. States like New Mexico and Texas have some different gun laws regarding open carry/concealed carry but it is much easier to purchase a firearm. You cannot expect every state (or person even) to agree with you on restrictions or fines. Heck, even the law of various states may not agree with you.

There were restrictions added after the Columbine Massarce, various states have added or removed restrictions within the last few years alone.

Look what has happened in Oregon when they raised the fine on littering to $6250 for a first offense, you can know eat off their roads! I recently drove the entire length of I-5 in OR and did not see one piece of litter on the entire freeway.
Oregon raising the littering fine to that much does mean that it stopped people from littering. That specific interstate could actually have people go out and clean them. I bet I could go and find trash somewhere within that area. Texas has a $2000 fine (in some places) for littering but that does not mean I don't still see trash on I-35 here in Dallas or elsewhere.

Do the same thing for firearms and people might take owning a gun more seriously and keeping it locked up in something that is going to take a burglar or crook longer than 15 or 20 minutes to get into.
Uh oh, we are back on the let's keep a gun "locked in the Pentagon" for personal use and protection. It would suck having to waste ten minutes trying to get the gun out of the safe (from the way it sounds from you) when someone could be kicking in your front door. Some gun owners, such as myself, do not really use a gun safe (mine is a cheap one but child proof) because I feel much safer having quicker access to my firearm (with my line of work and my apartment building being the way it is). I'm not going to lock it up because every anti-gun person says too.

Now when my daughter starts actually getting into things, yes, I will invest in a much better safe. With me being a single parent, I know my daughter is not old enough and will LEARN not to play with things she is not supposed to. She isn't a year old yet and she likes trying to grab for my hearing aids. So, when I play and/or hold her, I make the decision on what to do with them (wear them or not, or move them where she cannot reach).

Secondly, most gun owners take OWNING a gun seriously. It is the stupid ones that do not follow common sense when using a gun. I know what goes into that chamber and I know once I pull the trigger and/or load the gun, that there is a chance at anytime it could be use to take a life (or even my own if such a scenario were to happen).
 

seb

Well-Known Member
Any restrictions? Are you talking about state, federal, or local? California and Washington D.C. have some the toughest restrictions. States like New Mexico and Texas have some different gun laws regarding open carry/concealed carry but it is much easier to purchase a firearm. You cannot expect every state (or person even) to agree with you on restrictions or fines. Heck, even the law of various states may not agree with you.

There were restrictions added after the Columbine Massarce, various states have added or removed restrictions within the last few years alone.]

The study conducted in 2013, that is being highlighted on Yahoo today shows that the states with the most restrictive gun laws also have the lowest gun related shootings per capita.



[QUOTE[Oregon raising the littering fine to that much does mean that it stopped people from littering. That specific interstate could actually have people go out and clean them. I bet I could go and find trash somewhere within that area. Texas has a $2000 fine (in some places) for littering but that does not mean I don't still see trash on I-35 here in Dallas or elsewhere.]

I didn't see any trash in Eugene, or the Portland areas either.



Uh oh, we are back on the let's keep a gun "locked in the Pentagon" for personal use and protection. It would suck having to waste ten minutes trying to get the gun out of the safe (from the way it sounds from you) when someone could be kicking in your front door. Some gun owners, such as myself, do not really use a gun safe (mine is a cheap one but child proof) because I feel much safer having quicker access to my firearm (with my line of work and my apartment building being the way it is). I'm not going to lock it up because every anti-gun person says too.

Now when my daughter starts actually getting into things, yes, I will invest in a much better safe. With me being a single parent, I know my daughter is not old enough and will LEARN not to play with things she is not supposed to. She isn't a year old yet and she likes trying to grab for my hearing aids. So, when I play and/or hold her, I make the decision on what to do with them (wear them or not, or move them where she cannot reach).]

I'm not talking about someone with one gun used for protection as much as I'm talking about those people who have 10,15,20, 30, etc. guns and put them in the cheap safes and think they are safe. My parents neighbors house was broken into and they cut the door off the cheap safe in less than 30 min and took all his guns. Another neighbor who was a policeman had over 30 guns stolen in addition to three complete police uniforms in a burglary of his home. Since he had no children at home, he kept all the guns stolen in closets in the house.

Secondly, most gun owners take OWNING a gun seriously. It is the stupid ones that do not follow common sense when using a gun. I know what goes into that chamber and I know once I pull the trigger and/or load the gun, that there is a chance at anytime it could be use to take a life (or even my own if such a scenario were to happen).

Yes, you are right, they take OWNING it seriously, they just don't take keeping it safe as seriously, if they didl, you wouldn't have as many stolen guns on the streets.
 

jonnyghost

Well-Known Member
So if someone steals your car and kills someone with it should you be held responsible?

In this country cars kill far more people than guns even taking into account percentage of ownership. It's a 3,000 lbs chunk of steel hurdling 120 fps. That's so ballistically superior to any bullet it's not even funny.
 

Reba

Retired Terp
Premium Member
- Come on! That was an auto race with spectators in the stands! Come up with one from regular driving conditions.
Why? Some of your shooting examples were groups of people trapped in confining spaces (classrooms, theaters).

- Breathalyzer ignition systems, better know as an Ignition Interlock Device. Hopefully another person wouldn't be stupid enough to let her drive their car if she had prior DUI's. The penalties and liability is huge.
Plenty of stupid people in this world, and some of them lend their cars to unsafe, unlicensed drivers. Some people with DUI's steal cars. No safeguard is foolproof.

-Do you have trigger locks on all your guns that aren't being used?
Whether I do or not is certainly no scientific measure of how many gun owners do.

We have trigger locks but we don't use them at home. We have no children at home, we have a gun safe (not from Walmart), and for self defense one certainly doesn't want to deal with a trigger lock.

We have other relatives, gun owners, who do use trigger locks. It's their choice.

Some people use them some don't; some use them on some guns, not all. Everyone's circumstances are different.

-I wasn't referring to the gun owner going nuts, I was referring to the "new owner" the person who stole the gun from using it, or some kid getting ahold of it and shooting someone. We have had a number of kids over the years (including and off duty policeman's son) get ahold of a gun in the house and kill themselves or someone else in the house. A simple trigger lock would of prevented all of these senseless shootings. Once again, irresponsible gun ownership.
Some gun owners are irresponsible, just like there are irresponsible drivers, dog owners, parents, etc. Some people are irresponsible.

I don't know the details of your examples, so I wouldn't state whether trigger locks would have prevented what happened or not.

What is your point?
 

Reba

Retired Terp
Premium Member
How do we know, we haven't been able to implement any restrictions. Holding the gun owner responsible for their weapon (even if stolen) would put a serious dent in how many illegal guns our out on the streets.
Gun owners can be held liable for their weapons, to varying degrees, depending on the situation. I doubt any additional restrictions would make a "serious dent" in illegal street guns.

Look what has happened in Oregon when they raised the fine on littering to $6250 for a first offense, you can know eat off their roads! I recently drove the entire length of I-5 in OR and did not see one piece of litter on the entire freeway. Do the same thing for firearms and people might take owning a gun more seriously and keeping it locked up in something that is going to take a burglar or crook longer than 15 or 20 minutes to get into.
Are you seriously equating littering and gun ownership?

You forget that for any action to be a truly motivating force it not has to just have a certain weight of penalty; the penalty has to outweigh the perceived benefit of not following the restriction. It also depends on the perceived odds of having the negative action occurring.

That is, people are more willing to sacrifice littering (not anyone's big deal in life) for avoiding a $6250 fine. It's just not worth it.
 

Reba

Retired Terp
Premium Member
:giggle: Hoichi, you first...tell me how that 'ban' goes.
It's called censorship.

Maybe the government can't ban someone's thoughts but they can ban or restrict one's ability to share those thoughts with others.
 

seb

Well-Known Member
Gun owners can be held liable for their weapons, to varying degrees, depending on the situation. I doubt any additional restrictions would make a "serious dent" in illegal street guns.


Are you seriously equating littering and gun ownership?

You forget that for any action to be a truly motivating force it not has to just have a certain weight of penalty; the penalty has to outweigh the perceived benefit of not following the restriction. It also depends on the perceived odds of having the negative action occurring.

That is, people are more willing to sacrifice littering (not anyone's big deal in life) for avoiding a $6250 fine. It's just not worth it.

I was using the littering fine and the lack of litter on the roads and streets in OR to make my point which is: you make the fine high enough and enforce it and people get real responsible. In other words if people don't want to protect their guns in a responsible manner and they are stolen and used to commit a crime hold them liable. Simple as that.
 

jonnyghost

Well-Known Member
The study conducted in 2013, that is being highlighted on Yahoo today shows that the states with the most restrictive gun laws also have the lowest gun related shootings per capita
Studies don't proove anything. There was a study that came out recently that claimed it had bigfoot DNA. Anyone who's looked at the FBI data know that study is full of it.
 

hoichi

Well-Known Member
No, these are the actions of people who should not own a weapon. Thank
God they killed themselves and not anyone else. Kinda like the little girl who shot the instructor in the head and killed him at the gun range while she was shooting an Uzi; whomever allowed someone that age to shoot an automatic weapon needs to hcanave their head examined. Primarily the instructor was an idiot to even let her shoot it and he paid the ultimate price for his stupidity! The bottom line is some people should not be allowed to own guns!
Cant you see, it is the MIND that makes a thing a weapon. Its not intrinsic in the thing itself
Guns can obviously be used as a weapon to harm another, they are also used to protect others from harm. They are also used in sports and also admired for their value of objects that can be cinsidered works of beuty.

Any object. Can.be a weapon used to harm others. Any. It is the person that does it, not the actual object itself.
I train in and assist in instructing musu jekeden eishin ryu iaido. We of course use what you woumd term a katana. (Samurai sword). Indeed a formidible and.noble weapon. But we call it the life giving sword not the life taking one...due to its abaility to. Not only safe lives back when it was used as such but akso its abality to change them, the one who lesens to use it, learns through the art a better respect for how precious life is. Given how ewsy it is extinguish.
Your so stuck on guns as weapons..
They are neuteral objects....
It is the mind.that is he weapon.
 

CrazyPaul

Active Member
Cant you see, it is the MIND that makes a thing a weapon. Its not intrinsic in the thing itself
Guns can obviously be used as a weapon to harm another, they are also used to protect others from harm. They are also used in sports and also admired for their value of objects that can be cinsidered works of beuty.

Any object. Can.be a weapon used to harm others. Any. It is the person that does it, not the actual object itself.
I train in and assist in instructing musu jekeden eishin ryu iaido. We of course use what you woumd term a katana. (Samurai sword). Indeed a formidible and.noble weapon. But we call it the life giving sword not the life taking one...due to its abaility to. Not only safe lives back when it was used as such but akso its abality to change them, the one who lesens to use it, learns through the art a better respect for how precious life is. Given how ewsy it is extinguish.
Your so stuck on guns as weapons..
They are neuteral objects....
It is the mind.that is he weapon.
You know, when a cop asks you if you have any weapon on you or in your car, are you going to say no even if you actually have a gun in your car because in this post of yours, you said it's not a weapon since the mind makes it a weapon?




The point is that a gun is a weapon, no matter what. LOL! You are so freaking funny.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top