How are the blatantly inflammatory, political and religious comments surviving in this thread? Where are the moderators?
"No religion, politics, and sex"??? LOL!
"No religion, politics, and sex"??? LOL!
Last edited:
Gun control/being safe out there....
- Thread starter CourierDriver
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: OneEyeJack
I hope people have learned one lesson. Never take your family to a gun free zone. It's far too dangerous. Don't send your children to a university that bans guns. And if there is a shooting the police are there to do the paper work and make sure your loved ones are sent to the nearest hospital or morgue. Remember, gun control is a code name for population control.
Check this.
Please stop lying. The school was not a "gun free zone", regardless of how it's described. 1) Oregon law prevents it 2) plenty of people there had guns.
I hope people have learned one lesson. Never take your family to a gun free zone. It's far too dangerous. Don't send your children to a university that bans guns. And if there is a shooting the police are there to do the paper work and make sure your loved ones are sent to the nearest hospital or morgue. Remember, gun control is a code name for population control.
Check this.
Please stop lying. The school was not a "gun free zone", regardless of how it's described. 1) Oregon law prevents it 2) plenty of people there had guns.
At least I would hope WE ALL can agree that this guy behaved like a real man. Not often seen these days! He didn't bother to 'shelter in place' and instead decided to try and save others.
A very decent fellow!
http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Man-r...-330421851.html
A very decent fellow!
http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Man-r...-330421851.html
Kestas
Staff member
I agree the guy was decent. But can you imagine a situation where the police arrive and see civilians shooting at each other, and trying to sort it out at the moment? When the police arrived, they didn't know how many people were involved in the shooting rampage. Many mistakes could have happened.
It's easy to play monday morning quarterback long after the incident is over. It's difficult to assess and control a developing situation at the moment. I see some merit in him not going after the shooter.
It's easy to play monday morning quarterback long after the incident is over. It's difficult to assess and control a developing situation at the moment. I see some merit in him not going after the shooter.
There is no way I'd sit huddled in a corner of a room if I thought that my chances of survival could be improved by taking my own actions. Gun available or not. My safety is my choice...no one else. I know of more than a few of these shooter instances where folks were attempting to hide in a room. The crazed maniac knows this...and just walks right in and shoots them. No thanks.
Originally Posted By: JOD
Here is *actual law*: https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/lawsstatutes/2013ors166.html
Check the Umpqua Community College student code of conduct and website. Firearms were not permitted without prior written authorization from the college. Nothing in the code of conduct or website about exceptions for concealed carry permit holders. It is clear to me that Umpqua Community College attempted to make it a 'gun free zone' whether or or not it was illegal.
It is not illegal for me to carry at work, but it is a violation of company policy and would certainly be grounds for immediate termination.
Here is *actual law*: https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/lawsstatutes/2013ors166.html
Check the Umpqua Community College student code of conduct and website. Firearms were not permitted without prior written authorization from the college. Nothing in the code of conduct or website about exceptions for concealed carry permit holders. It is clear to me that Umpqua Community College attempted to make it a 'gun free zone' whether or or not it was illegal.
It is not illegal for me to carry at work, but it is a violation of company policy and would certainly be grounds for immediate termination.
Same deal at my work. We can't have firearms on company property...period. Not even in our own vehicles. It's not illegal...just against company rules.
I'd be terminated if I ever did. It rather stinks though because on my drive home (late at night) I've had some fairly "interesting" encounters with some real nuts on the highway. I sometimes wish I could have my weapon with me in case I need it.
I'd be terminated if I ever did. It rather stinks though because on my drive home (late at night) I've had some fairly "interesting" encounters with some real nuts on the highway. I sometimes wish I could have my weapon with me in case I need it.
Originally Posted By: danthaman1980
Originally Posted By: JOD
Here is *actual law*: https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/lawsstatutes/2013ors166.html
Check the Umpqua Community College student code of conduct and website. Firearms were not permitted without prior written authorization from the college. Nothing in the code of conduct or website about exceptions for concealed carry permit holders. It is clear to me that Umpqua Community College attempted to make it a 'gun free zone' whether or or not it was illegal.
It is not illegal for me to carry at work, but it is a violation of company policy and would certainly be grounds for immediate termination.
EDIT: Thanks for the link, though! I was not aware that it was legal to carry on the campus, and that there were individuals on campus who were carrying. I think the point is moot, though, if the college discouraged it by threat of disciplinary action. If someone shows me that the college did not in fact discourage it, or that they took appropriate measures to protect the students they attempted to disarm, I would be interested to know!
I'm not outright opposed to the idea of the 'gun free zone' (large sporting events, courtrooms), but it is the responsibility of the entity that is disarming you to ensure your safety while you are there, so the security at these locations needs to be tightly controlled. Security at most school campuses is not tightly controlled.
Originally Posted By: JOD
Here is *actual law*: https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/lawsstatutes/2013ors166.html
Check the Umpqua Community College student code of conduct and website. Firearms were not permitted without prior written authorization from the college. Nothing in the code of conduct or website about exceptions for concealed carry permit holders. It is clear to me that Umpqua Community College attempted to make it a 'gun free zone' whether or or not it was illegal.
It is not illegal for me to carry at work, but it is a violation of company policy and would certainly be grounds for immediate termination.
EDIT: Thanks for the link, though! I was not aware that it was legal to carry on the campus, and that there were individuals on campus who were carrying. I think the point is moot, though, if the college discouraged it by threat of disciplinary action. If someone shows me that the college did not in fact discourage it, or that they took appropriate measures to protect the students they attempted to disarm, I would be interested to know!
I'm not outright opposed to the idea of the 'gun free zone' (large sporting events, courtrooms), but it is the responsibility of the entity that is disarming you to ensure your safety while you are there, so the security at these locations needs to be tightly controlled. Security at most school campuses is not tightly controlled.
I feel like any time one of these tragedies occur, the narrative that comes out of it is whatever plays best in the media. We politicize this stuff too much to get a sober look at it, which is why I think there's all this ancillary stuff that makes news about it instead of asking why it keeps happening and what can be done about it. I tend to agree with the notion that it's a mental health problem disguised as a gun issue, being leveraged for political juice.
Originally Posted By: SaturnIonVue
To the liberal elites, it's safer and more expedient to ban all guns than it is to fix the crazies! Just trade one constitutional right for another. Gun rights vs. the right of people to be crazy and not have to deal with issues of personal liberty. Once upon a time, persons who were mentally ill (1960's) were all kicked out of mental health facilities (hospitals) because their "rights" were being violated. That was a liberal agenda.
So how would the perp have been committed to an institution under 1950's era rules? His mom works in the health care field as an LPN and should have been able to negotiate the system. He did nothing "wrong" before he snapped. He flunked out of Boot Camp, which, well, someone's gotta. But you can't lock everyone away for that. Other than the boot camp thing he kept to himself. Generally one needs to be "an immediate threat to themselves or others."
Although, yes, I agree in principle, mental health needs more resources. And we need to care about our fellow man, maybe not treat them like walking zombies that will be someone else's problem.
To the liberal elites, it's safer and more expedient to ban all guns than it is to fix the crazies! Just trade one constitutional right for another. Gun rights vs. the right of people to be crazy and not have to deal with issues of personal liberty. Once upon a time, persons who were mentally ill (1960's) were all kicked out of mental health facilities (hospitals) because their "rights" were being violated. That was a liberal agenda.
So how would the perp have been committed to an institution under 1950's era rules? His mom works in the health care field as an LPN and should have been able to negotiate the system. He did nothing "wrong" before he snapped. He flunked out of Boot Camp, which, well, someone's gotta. But you can't lock everyone away for that. Other than the boot camp thing he kept to himself. Generally one needs to be "an immediate threat to themselves or others."
Although, yes, I agree in principle, mental health needs more resources. And we need to care about our fellow man, maybe not treat them like walking zombies that will be someone else's problem.
It is MAINLY a gun issue. Not a mental health issue. THAT is used as an argument every time, IMO. If the mentally ill didn't have such easy access to guns the possibility of them taking so many innocents with them will go down.
Sure there are other means, but not as easy as this.
Disarming people in this country is not going to happen. CONTROL is what is needed:
-Types of guns CIVILIANS are allowed to own. (based on PROVEN type of need / use - yearly checks if special need still exists)
-NUMBER of guns, say you own 1 gun for 5 yrs and if you're still being a responsible gun owner and everything seems ok still, THEN you get to apply to own ONE MORE gun.
-AMOUNT of ammunition that CIVILIANS can buy at ONE time.
-YEARLY MANDATORY checks of background, mental health, criminal activity etc. If you don't show up, your permit and gun(s) are GONE.
These countries don't have mentally ill people or what?
Sure there are other means, but not as easy as this.
Disarming people in this country is not going to happen. CONTROL is what is needed:
-Types of guns CIVILIANS are allowed to own. (based on PROVEN type of need / use - yearly checks if special need still exists)
-NUMBER of guns, say you own 1 gun for 5 yrs and if you're still being a responsible gun owner and everything seems ok still, THEN you get to apply to own ONE MORE gun.
-AMOUNT of ammunition that CIVILIANS can buy at ONE time.
-YEARLY MANDATORY checks of background, mental health, criminal activity etc. If you don't show up, your permit and gun(s) are GONE.
These countries don't have mentally ill people or what?
Originally Posted By: Yognoff
I feel like any time one of these tragedies occur, the narrative that comes out of it is whatever plays best in the media. We politicize this stuff too much to get a sober look at it, which is why I think there's all this ancillary stuff that makes news about it instead of asking why it keeps happening and what can be done about it. I tend to agree with the notion that it's a mental health problem disguised as a gun issue, being leveraged for political juice.
I would agree. I think it's particularly indicative that our President HAS to appear and comment after every one of these incidents and performs a variant form of chastisement that the society likely doesn't want to do what he wants to do regarding guns. He'll say it's the guns and not the society and we need to wake up to his reality...which of course is obvious and he's unanimously in support of it. My intent here isn't to be overtly political but I can't remember a President that HAD to comment and/or chastize about a contentious topic as much as this guy. IMO, being this predictable in what can be thought of as a bad way isn't a particularly strong trait for a President / Commander in Chief.
I feel like any time one of these tragedies occur, the narrative that comes out of it is whatever plays best in the media. We politicize this stuff too much to get a sober look at it, which is why I think there's all this ancillary stuff that makes news about it instead of asking why it keeps happening and what can be done about it. I tend to agree with the notion that it's a mental health problem disguised as a gun issue, being leveraged for political juice.
I would agree. I think it's particularly indicative that our President HAS to appear and comment after every one of these incidents and performs a variant form of chastisement that the society likely doesn't want to do what he wants to do regarding guns. He'll say it's the guns and not the society and we need to wake up to his reality...which of course is obvious and he's unanimously in support of it. My intent here isn't to be overtly political but I can't remember a President that HAD to comment and/or chastize about a contentious topic as much as this guy. IMO, being this predictable in what can be thought of as a bad way isn't a particularly strong trait for a President / Commander in Chief.
Originally Posted By: 97tbird
Disarming people in this country is not going to happen.
Quote:
-Types of guns CIVILIANS are allowed to own. (based on PROVEN type of need / use - yearly checks if special need still exists)
What do mean on "proven type" Who will determine that. What if my gun's don't meet this nebulous "type". I would have to give them up?? Like DISARMED??You said that is not possible.
Quote:
-NUMBER of guns, say you own 1 gun for 5 yrs and if you're still being a responsible gun owner and everything seems ok still, THEN you get to apply to own ONE MORE gun.
Wow generous of you!!! Folks that are into target shooting many times use many types of guns. Hunting..same thing. Hunting varmits, small game, deer, bear will require any number of guns. In addition husband/wife...must they share or can they have separate guns. In many cases each wiol require different guns.
Quote:
-AMOUNT of ammunition that CIVILIANS can buy at ONE time.
So I make 10 trips per day. Seriously....lackl of ammunition will never make or break a mass shooting.
Quote:
-YEARLY MANDATORY checks of background, mental health, criminal activity etc. If you don't show up, your permit and gun(s) are GONE.
What is the "etc" How will you handle "mental health"? No one has figured that out.
Even if your suggestions are workable (I don't even see one that is). How many 10's of thousands of people are you going to hire.
The guns are out there and (as you said) will never be collected. It will not be possible to screen people (mentally) and as a result not allow them to have a gun. You can't put a cop in every crowd.
Best a person can do is take care of himself. Learn how to defensively use your weapon and conceal carry.
Oh yea..maybe get guns out of the criminals' hand.
Disarming people in this country is not going to happen.
Quote:
-Types of guns CIVILIANS are allowed to own. (based on PROVEN type of need / use - yearly checks if special need still exists)
What do mean on "proven type" Who will determine that. What if my gun's don't meet this nebulous "type". I would have to give them up?? Like DISARMED??You said that is not possible.
Quote:
-NUMBER of guns, say you own 1 gun for 5 yrs and if you're still being a responsible gun owner and everything seems ok still, THEN you get to apply to own ONE MORE gun.
Wow generous of you!!! Folks that are into target shooting many times use many types of guns. Hunting..same thing. Hunting varmits, small game, deer, bear will require any number of guns. In addition husband/wife...must they share or can they have separate guns. In many cases each wiol require different guns.
Quote:
-AMOUNT of ammunition that CIVILIANS can buy at ONE time.
So I make 10 trips per day. Seriously....lackl of ammunition will never make or break a mass shooting.
Quote:
-YEARLY MANDATORY checks of background, mental health, criminal activity etc. If you don't show up, your permit and gun(s) are GONE.
What is the "etc" How will you handle "mental health"? No one has figured that out.
Even if your suggestions are workable (I don't even see one that is). How many 10's of thousands of people are you going to hire.
The guns are out there and (as you said) will never be collected. It will not be possible to screen people (mentally) and as a result not allow them to have a gun. You can't put a cop in every crowd.
Best a person can do is take care of himself. Learn how to defensively use your weapon and conceal carry.
Oh yea..maybe get guns out of the criminals' hand.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: 97tbird
It is MAINLY a gun issue. Not a mental health issue. THAT is used as an argument every time, IMO. If the mentally ill didn't have such easy access to guns the possibility of them taking so many innocents with them will go down.
Sure there are other means, but not as easy as this.
Disarming people in this country is not going to happen. CONTROL is what is needed:
-Types of guns CIVILIANS are allowed to own. (based on PROVEN type of need / use - yearly checks if special need still exists)
-NUMBER of guns, say you own 1 gun for 5 yrs and if you're still being a responsible gun owner and everything seems ok still, THEN you get to apply to own ONE MORE gun.
-AMOUNT of ammunition that CIVILIANS can buy at ONE time.
-YEARLY MANDATORY checks of background, mental health, criminal activity etc. If you don't show up, your permit and gun(s) are GONE.
These countries don't have mentally ill people or what?
That's all good intentioned. But the 2nd Amendment also says the right "......shall not be infringed". Some of those ideas you have are more on the infringement side of things.
It is MAINLY a gun issue. Not a mental health issue. THAT is used as an argument every time, IMO. If the mentally ill didn't have such easy access to guns the possibility of them taking so many innocents with them will go down.
Sure there are other means, but not as easy as this.
Disarming people in this country is not going to happen. CONTROL is what is needed:
-Types of guns CIVILIANS are allowed to own. (based on PROVEN type of need / use - yearly checks if special need still exists)
-NUMBER of guns, say you own 1 gun for 5 yrs and if you're still being a responsible gun owner and everything seems ok still, THEN you get to apply to own ONE MORE gun.
-AMOUNT of ammunition that CIVILIANS can buy at ONE time.
-YEARLY MANDATORY checks of background, mental health, criminal activity etc. If you don't show up, your permit and gun(s) are GONE.
These countries don't have mentally ill people or what?
That's all good intentioned. But the 2nd Amendment also says the right "......shall not be infringed". Some of those ideas you have are more on the infringement side of things.
Last edited:
Yep - That was a VERY rough sketch of quick "solutions" that came to my mind, as I agree that disarming people is not a solution.
And I didn't specify, but I did NOT mean number of guns per household - I meant per PERSON, so to answer Al: no, I didn't mean sharing guns.
Also, if the gun doesn't meet what you need it for legally, you simply don't get to own it - so there's nothing to give up in the first place, because it will be checked DURING buying process. For existing guns, need-based criteria will have to be proven. of course, TYPE was loosely used - it will have to be more specific, and if the need is true and honest for some type of use, I am sure there will be a way to prove it.
And I didn't specify, but I did NOT mean number of guns per household - I meant per PERSON, so to answer Al: no, I didn't mean sharing guns.
Also, if the gun doesn't meet what you need it for legally, you simply don't get to own it - so there's nothing to give up in the first place, because it will be checked DURING buying process. For existing guns, need-based criteria will have to be proven. of course, TYPE was loosely used - it will have to be more specific, and if the need is true and honest for some type of use, I am sure there will be a way to prove it.
Originally Posted By: 97tbird
Yep - That was a VERY rough sketch of quick "solutions" that came to my mind, as I agree that disarming people is not a solution.
And I didn't specify, but I did NOT mean number of guns per household - I meant per PERSON, so to answer Al: no, I didn't mean sharing guns.
Also, if the gun doesn't meet what you need it for legally, you simply don't get to own it - so there's nothing to give up in the first place, because it will be checked DURING buying process. For existing guns, need-based criteria will have to be proven. of course, TYPE was loosely used - it will have to be more specific, and if the need is true and honest for some type of use, I am sure there will be a way to prove it.
"Need" based? Wow. I don't like that idea at all. The 2nd Amendment isn't about proving to a government official what you need a weapon for. That allows them to question and determine a persons need...not the individual.
Yep - That was a VERY rough sketch of quick "solutions" that came to my mind, as I agree that disarming people is not a solution.
And I didn't specify, but I did NOT mean number of guns per household - I meant per PERSON, so to answer Al: no, I didn't mean sharing guns.
Also, if the gun doesn't meet what you need it for legally, you simply don't get to own it - so there's nothing to give up in the first place, because it will be checked DURING buying process. For existing guns, need-based criteria will have to be proven. of course, TYPE was loosely used - it will have to be more specific, and if the need is true and honest for some type of use, I am sure there will be a way to prove it.
"Need" based? Wow. I don't like that idea at all. The 2nd Amendment isn't about proving to a government official what you need a weapon for. That allows them to question and determine a persons need...not the individual.
Looking at that graph I wonder on a percentage population basis if you compared Montana or Wyoming with Illinois. Would Montana be more like Norway in the graph. This graph isn't fair to some states/areas of the US I would think. Just my opinion.
What I am trying to say (sorry for the inappropriate initial use of words) by NEED is not the amount/proof/authenticity of need, but the specific type of USE when purchasing - as in, Hunting, home defense/self defense, as examples of various uses, where a certain type of firearm is deemed appropriate and has MEANINGFUL use.
Sorry - I didn't mean that one should be questioned on actual NEED to own a gun. I should have said specific type of use it's needed FOR, rather.
Sorry - I didn't mean that one should be questioned on actual NEED to own a gun. I should have said specific type of use it's needed FOR, rather.
Originally Posted By: 97tbird
Also, if the gun doesn't meet what you need it for legally, you simply don't get to own it - so there's nothing to give up in the first place, because it will be checked DURING buying process. For existing guns, need-based criteria will have to be proven. of course, TYPE was loosely used - it will have to be more specific, and if the need is true and honest for some type of use, I am sure there will be a way to prove it.
But remember all "Types" of guns are out there. So If I have a couple dozen in my "household"..who will tell me what type me or my wife needs, how will they do this? It is just flat out not workable IMHO. And if by some miracle that j would get sorted out. Then what. Now multiply this over 10'sof millions of households. And bear in mind a search warrant would be needed. Also note "in theory" the Government maintains no records with respect to who owns what gun(s)
And I came up with these "problems" immediately..now subject these items to thousands of Lawyers...
But its all irrelevant anyway your suggestions are not enforcable bc of the 2nd Amendment And some States (Like Pa) go further: " The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned. " in addition the U.S.Second Amendment: "shall not be infringed."
Also, if the gun doesn't meet what you need it for legally, you simply don't get to own it - so there's nothing to give up in the first place, because it will be checked DURING buying process. For existing guns, need-based criteria will have to be proven. of course, TYPE was loosely used - it will have to be more specific, and if the need is true and honest for some type of use, I am sure there will be a way to prove it.
But remember all "Types" of guns are out there. So If I have a couple dozen in my "household"..who will tell me what type me or my wife needs, how will they do this? It is just flat out not workable IMHO. And if by some miracle that j would get sorted out. Then what. Now multiply this over 10'sof millions of households. And bear in mind a search warrant would be needed. Also note "in theory" the Government maintains no records with respect to who owns what gun(s)
And I came up with these "problems" immediately..now subject these items to thousands of Lawyers...
But its all irrelevant anyway your suggestions are not enforcable bc of the 2nd Amendment And some States (Like Pa) go further: " The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned. " in addition the U.S.Second Amendment: "shall not be infringed."
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
