Oregon Community College Shooting

[Sporte]

You skipped over the spectator vs participant distinction. A porn move is not a participant activity. Even for Pee-wee Herman.

[deadheadskier]

Madhatter

Actually the Southside of Chicago sounds like the perfect place for you and all the other gunoholics.

It's you low information folk who say, "the solution to America's gun problem is more guns," or "the only way to stop bad people with guns is good people with guns."

Lots of guns there. I'd bet you'd love it.

I'm sorry, but if you're against sensible gun control you are part of the problem period. Fully fund the ATF to do their jobs and massively reduce illegal gun trafficking, close gun show loopholes, require background checks and competency training. You'd pass all those things and would be just as armed as you are today. So, why is that a problem for you?

We are talking about making it a little bit harder for the good guys to get guns and a LOT harder and more penalizing for the bad guys. We are not talking about taking guns away from responsible owners. Bringing up Chicago is an asinine argument. Needs to be done nationally to be successful.

[Atomic1]

When guns are outlawed than only outlaws will have guns . So if you think the police departments can be there in time to stop every crime then your a dreamer who lives in a fantasy world . You might as well get rid of the fire extinguisher in your house as well and just wait for the fire department should a fire start !

[spanky]

When guns are outlawed than only outlaws will have guns . So if you think the police departments can be there in time to stop every crime then your a dreamer who lives in a fantasy world . You might as well get rid of the fire extinguisher in your house as well and just wait for the fire department should a fire start !

Re-read the post above yours and tell me, where does he say guns should be outlawed?

[madhatter]

Madhatter

Actually the Southside of Chicago sounds like the perfect place for you and all the other gunoholics.

It's you low information folk who say, "the solution to America's gun problem is more guns," or "the only way to stop bad people with guns is good people with guns."

Lots of guns there. I'd bet you'd love it.this just shows how oblivious to reality you are, you know absolutely nothing about me except what you;ve invented in your head...I'm uite happy right where I am w the laws we have right now... thanks anyway, but the gun control you seek is already in place in chicago and is a disaster...

I'm sorry, but if you're against sensible gun control you are part of the problem period. always the judge jury and executioner...no one appointed you arbiter of what's fair and righteous so stop imagining that... Fully fund the ATF to do their jobs and massively reduce illegal gun trafficking,like they did in mexico??? close gun show loopholes,fine no problem but show me a gunshow "loophole" gun that was used in a crime, otherwise its just "feel good" legislation... require background checks most if not all states have em, wouldn't have stopped this guy or the newtown guy or any of the crime in chicago...and competency training. responsible people do this, criminals and gangbangers not so much, again the shooters here and elsewhere were plenty competent they were also intent on killing, which is already illegal...didn;t stop em... You'd pass all those things and would be just as armed as you are today. So, why is that a problem for you?it's not, enforce those laws... most are already on the books...

We are talking about making it a little bit harder for the good guys to get guns and a LOT harder and more penalizing for the bad guys. no, you fail to understand criminals don;t obey laws...We are not talking about taking guns away from responsible owners. Bringing up Chicago is an asinine argument.really??? very strict gun laws prohibiting their possession, rampant illegal possession of guns and high rate of gun crime = law not effective...it's a PERFECT example, which is why you find it asinine... Needs to be done nationally to be successful.yes we need the entire country to resemble failed chicago... cuz nothing negates failed ideas more than spreading em around:roll:

meanwhile here in VT there are virtually zero restriction on carry yet we have so few incidences and most everyone feels quite safe... I know I do...I'm never worried about getting shot and I never feel the need to carry, but I also know that could change....

[deadheadskier]

I wouldn't expect you to agree. You've openly threatened to "cap" a member of this forum.

You're part of the problem with gun violence in this country. You're no different than the ghetto thugs on the Southside of Chicago.

[shortski]

I'm sorry, but if you're against sensible gun control you are part of the problem period. Fully fund the ATF to do their jobs and massively reduce illegal gun trafficking, close gun show loopholes, require background checks and competency training. You'd pass all those things and would be just as armed as you are today. So, why is that a problem for you?

This shows how delusional you are. Fund the ATF...you mean the same ATF that ran guns into Mexico resulting in the death of Brian Terry, side note man just convicted in his death. So shouldn't Obama and Holder also be charged with his murder under under joint enterprise, a doctrine of common law used to convict entire groups of the same crime. If several people set out to commit a crime together, such as a robbery, and in the course of that crime someone is murdered, the entire group can be convicted of murder regardless of who dealt the fatal blow.

The so called gun show loophole. How many gun shows you been to lately. I've been to several and there is noway you're going to buy a gun at a gun show without passing a background check. The promotion companies that run them couldn't get liability insurance if they allowed sales without the check. You need to get out in the real world before you start spouting off about things you know nothing about......but that never deterred or stopped a liberal/progressive in the past.

Competency training...and who's the judge of that some liberal who going to bring their prejudiced and anti-gun beliefs to the hearing? I bet you would approve all of the people who came to you for approval. NOT!

Pass all of your recommendations and you know what the nut jobs and criminals would just ignore them just like they do now. Your stupid solution does nothing but make it more difficult for law abiding citizens to exercise their constitutional right to keep and bear arms, as the Supreme Court has ruled several times.

My recommendation for gun control that will work is don't want a gun don't get a gun...but don't step on my rights because you take no responsibility for your own safety and want the government to be your mommy and daddy. I needed a mommy and daddy until I became an adult. When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

[deadheadskier]

Competency as in Hunter safety training. Not mental competency, which some of you gun freaks would clearly fail. You need minimal training to drive a car. I think asking for the same from adults wanting to own a gun is perfectly reasonable.

And yes the ATF needs to be better funded with the same caliber of talent as the CIA to get illegal guns off the street. What do cities do when they have crime problems? They invest further in law enforcement. Put the street side thugs selling glocks in jail for decades.

That campus allowed students to carry guns. Did it help? Your vigilante justice system does not work.

[Mister Moose]

Here's a question: If we believe violent video games desensitize and influence those already prone to violence, are we also to believe that porn movies influence some to rape?

Whooooooa, there Bubba. We know there are many video games where the player is a shooter. Your average porn movie, so I've been told, is about consensual sex, not rape. There is no rape depicted to achieve your theorized desensitizing. Not apples to apples at all.

It's you low information folk who say,...

That's a very poor way to start out if you want credibility.

I'm sorry, but if you're against sensible gun control you are part of the problem period. Fully fund the ATF to do their jobs and massively reduce illegal gun trafficking, ...and a LOT harder and more penalizing for the bad guys.

How's the War On Drugs working out? You expect me to believe that laws can stop the black market trafficking that goes on? Not to mention all the 13 guns belonging to this guy were legal guns, purchase in full compliance with all laws.

We are not talking about taking guns away from responsible owners.

In many cases, yes you are.

Anytime you place regulatory authority into the hands of government you take rights away from the people. It's just the way it works in real life. The government is not run by unicorns, it is run by real people with all the flaws that go with them. Small case in point:

A few years ago I was in a Wetlands hearing waiting while a prior application was discussed. An older couple had saved a building lot in a nice town, and now wanted to retire to Florida and sell the lot. You had to cross a 7 foot brook right next to the road to get to the lot. The wetlands commission kept denying the application based on erosion, wildlife, wetland buffer, you name it. This was not an irresponsible design, each submittal, and I think there was 3 separate expensive proposals, was prepared by a professional, licensed engineer. Each new proposal addressed the commissions prior concerns, and the commission kept finding new concerns. The couple finally gave up as engineers and attorneys are expensive, and lost their nest egg. This couple was abused by the town, the regulations, and over zealous anti-build commissioners. This is not an isolated incident, I see it a lot.

So while I am (of course) not advocating zero government, I am also not advocating government over reach. We need to make sure our laws do not enable abuse of the citizen, and these laws should be written assuming that government itself is flawed.

[steamboat1]

That campus allowed students to carry guns. Did it help? Your vigilante justice system does not work.

"In 2011, according to Oregonlive.com, a three-judge panel of the Oregon Court of Appeals ruled that the State Board of Higher Education does have the authority to ban guns on campuses.

The decision stemmed from a lawsuit filed by the Oregon Firearms Education Foundation, who claimed that the university system had no right to restrict students from carrying a gun into public buildings. For months, students and faculty with permits were allowed to carry concealed guns into classrooms and university buildings in the Oregon University System.

In March 2012, however, Oregon's higher education board fought back, succeeding in banning guns from most on-campus facilities, including classrooms, buildings and dormitories. Concealed-carry permit holders remained free to walk across the grounds as long they didn't enter any buildings, OregonLive.com wrote.

While Oregon's State Board of Education does not have jurisdiction over Umpqua Community College, the school follows a similar policy."

[steamboat1]

That campus allowed students to carry guns. Did it help? Your vigilante justice system does not work.

While Oregon's State Board of Education does not have jurisdiction over Umpqua Community College, the school follows a similar policy."

And here's UCC's policy:

As of March 2015, Concealed carry is not permitted, except by written permission by college.
"Possession or use, without written authorization, of firearms, explosives, dangerous chemicals, substances, or any other weapons or destructive devices that are designed to or readily capable of causing physical injury, on College premises, at College-sponsored or supervised functions or at functions sponsored or participated in by the College."


Doesn't sound to me like they allowed guns on campus.

[deadheadskier]

It's you low information folk who say,...

That's a very poor way to start out if you want credibility.
.

If it wasn't playing to the crowd, you'd be correct. Unfortunately many of the conservatives that participate in these conversations aren't as mature and respectful as you, Bubba and a few others. I'd expect you to also call out those others with the constant "libtard" this and that, but I don't see that from you.

And regarding the war on drugs, I'm assuming if you're going to draw a parallel with gun laws, that you'd be supportive of law changes allowing any law abiding adult to get their hands on potentially lethal substances like heroin and cocaine.

The war on drugs maybe failing, but we're still trying. I do not want to take away lawful citizens guns. I shot a lot as a kid and sometimes contemplate owning one myself. I do think government needs to try harder to curtail gun violence.

[deadheadskier]

My bad. You're correct Steamboat.

[steamboat1]

My bad. You're correct Steamboat.

Low information.....

[steamboat1]

By the way I've never owned or wanted to own a gun so I have no dog in this fight. I do believe in the right given in the 2nd Amendment though.