DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Oregon shooting: Gunman dead after college rampage

Why not? Not a smart-ass question, I just mean explain the reasoning.

I hoard guitars, does that make me irresponsible? Well, don't ask my wife.

I think the problem is who knows?

Not you in particular, but I don't think it's unreasonable to wonder.

If someone next door keeps their windows shaded and have suspicious looking people visiting for brief amounts of time do you automatically assume they're making meth or growing pot?

Here's a couple of facts from a completely biased article.

Complete article
Rally Invites ‘Fellow Patriots, Veterans, Bikers, Rednecks And Good Ol’ Boys’ To Anti-Islam Protest



This reminds me of the armed support the guy who was having his cows graze on government land received.

It also reminds of the guys who show up at restaurants with rifles.

I understand the idea is they believe they have "the right", but in these cases should they?

Old fashioned values had laws like don't spit on the sidewalk or don't shout, "FIRE!" in a theater.

Shouldn't there be political discussions about whether our society wants to allow this type of expression of rights?

There's people who don't think gays should be allowed to parade, but I don't hear any expression of violation to society's values when people show up with guns to support their rights.

As much as we want to blame media (news-not TV shows or movies), violent video games and the mentally ill, I have to wonder what's going on to suggest it's fine to protest with weapons.

I need a bigger gun room Mine is full.

Well, maybe the fact that there aren't any shootings at any of these armed protests? We're told that the proliferation of guns in America is a major factor ini gun violence yet:

-We never hear about Wild West shootouts at NRA rallies
-We have yet to hear about a whole Starbucks getting riddled with bullets during one of those Open Carry events (btw, I think those guys are idiots)
-And outside of the odd negligent discharge, I haven't heard of a mass shooting at a gun show.

But, if people think the media endorses these shoot outs then don't armed protests encourage people to shoot others when they have a cause in their mind to protest?

This guy shot people to protest against Christians. Others have sited women for their cause for using a gun to settle their complaints.

If groups of people arrive with guns, many times high powered ones, when protesting doesn't that encourage others that using guns is a valid form of protest?

Again, I'm not trying to be smart-ass, I just think it's worth discussing.

One is a protest, one is a crime.

I don't always agree with the method these protesters take. I feel they often do more harm than good, but as with anything in this country, if you want it changed, or want it protected, you protest the issues peacefully.

Problems really occur when peacefully is undone by a few hotheads, troublemakers or more likely opportunists. (IE: Ferguson riots).

The biggest issue in this country is not the ownership of guns, or even the ownership of guns by people who go off the deep-end. The biggest issue is the lack of respect for others and the value of human life.

If your so mad at the world and feel your life is worthless, get help or just kill yourself. There is no honor or respect in taking innocent lives.

We as a society need to do a better job of not alienating those that are different, and reach out to those who appear distressed.

I love how they're trying to keep that psycho from getting headlines, attention and etc. His name shouldn't be spoken and his actions shouldn't be publicized so much.

One psycho sees all the attention another psycho gets, they then crave and want that attention. So, they then plot their own crazy.

News media, IMO, plays a role in the # of massacres.

Thanks Florida, although we're not completely together I like the discussion.

I still think it's more than news media coverage. I think all of our media glorifies guns and violence.

I just watched Avengers Ultron movie last night and even I think that stuff is exciting.

I know you're not being a smart-ass. It is a good question.

I think what you may be doing though is blurring the distinction between motive and means.

Does having a gun make it easier to inflict violence on another person? Significantly so! What was the old saying: God didn't make all men equal, Samuel Colt did?" A person proficient with a firearm closes the gap between a 70 yr old 5'3" 105 lb woman and her 6'4" 300lb male attacker. No one denies how empowering possessing a firearm can be.

But a gun doesn't make you hate women or Christians.

As to your question about these rallies: no, I don't think that they send the message to go out and use your gun. Even if you go back to Charleton Heston and his "cold dead hands" speech, the people at these rallies still fall in to that 1st group of people I talked about when defining what I see as 2 different gun cultures in this country. Through all the pomp and bluster, they still are promoting the use of a firearm as a defensive tool.

IMO movies, tv, video games, criminal culture, etc send a much more powerful and direct message that the proactive use of a gun will solve your problems than a bunch of knuckle heads at a Starbucks does.

I'm not comparing guns to cars in an absolute sense, but as an illustration that claiming that there is a number of maximum guns that is "reasonable" for one person/household to have is meaningless. This guy would have been able to do what he did with just one gun. Sure he brought multiple guns to the school, but he didn't even fire the AR-15. He mostly used pistols. The only way to stop this guy from shooting would be to prevent him from owning any guns at all and ensure he couldn't access a single one (I support action on this btw).

In the case of a mass shooting, the only reasonable number of guns the perp should have is zero.

While the 2nd amendment exists as it is I don't see where we can do anything but just talk about it. What restrictions can you place that would make sense with the 2nd amendment as interpreted in DC vs. Heller?

No criminal access? Most of these maniacs have no criminal history.
No insane people? Only 1% or so of those considered mentally ill enough to not own a gun have records that would show up in a background check.

Lets not forget that ~40% of gun sales are privately transacted and so don't require any background check or paperwork at all. It would be one thing if we were more open to regulation, but the gun lobby wants no regulation at all, and uses the language of the Constitution to support their claim. I know some folks are scared about data collection but the truth is if the govt wants to take your guns away you are either giving them your guns or will die trying... Honestly the fact that less than 1/3rd of Americans own guns scares me more than data collection because it would be easier to brute force the problem through public opinion and then just corral the dissenters.

Hence the fear about data collection! They can't take them away if they don't know where they are or who has them.

Or a good guy with a gun shoots him before he fires a second time.

The 40% is not an accurate figure. It's based on a survey done nearly two decades ago calling less than 300 people.

FactCheck.org

Of course it doesn't really matter. The world is ending today.



Link

And who said it was?

Not me. I'll be doing a bit more than talking about it from now on. I'm going to be a whistle blower.

Tom Brokaw had a short piece this morning on his morning minute that I heard on the way to work. I am paraphrasing but I thought it was pretty good. He was talking that this should not be a discussion on right to own guns vs. no guns. We have a constitutional right to bear arms. Everything is this country seems to be a "all or nothing issue" and there is less and less intelligent discussion.
We should however address the issue like the campaign to address drunk driving in this country and I thought cigarettes also. We should not politicize violence, not continually run violence 24/7 on mass media. We should continue/expand ways to address bullying, violent video games, mental illness. We should utilize the laws that are already on the books. How many of these shooters fall through the cracks. And there should be a way that if we cant reach the loner in his basement, then we have to find a way to make sure that these kind of events stop happening as much as they are.

Oregon college shooter's mother discussed guns, 'lame' gun control laws in online posts


Published October 07, 2015
·Associated Press
PORTTLAND, Ore. – The mother of a gunman who killed nine people and himself at an Oregon community college allowed her troubled son to have guns and acknowledged in online posts that he struggled with autism, but she didn't seem to know he was potentially violent.

The online writings by Laurel Harper date from between 2006 and 2014 and offer fresh insight into the gunman, 26-year-old Christopher Harper-Mercer, and his relationship with his mother.


The Associated Press didn't speak with Harper about the online postings; a knock on her door went unanswered Tuesday, and her phone's voicemail box was full. However, the postings included an email address that is linked to Harper.

Harper and son shared an apartment outside Roseburg. Investigators have recovered 14 firearms — six found at Umpqua Community College, where the killings occurred, and eight at the apartment. Neighbors of the mother and son in California, where they lived before moving to Oregon in 2013, have said Harper-Mercer and his mother would go target shooting together.

Investigators say Harper-Mercer's mother has told them the son was struggling with some mental health issues.

In her online postings, Laurel Harper talked about her love of guns and her son's emotional troubles but there are no hints of worry that he could become violent.

"I keep two full mags in my Glock case. And the ARs & AKs all have loaded mags. No one will be 'dropping' by my house uninvited without acknowledgement," reads a 3-year-old posting.

She was referring to a Glock handgun and to military-style rifles. A Glock and a military-style rifle were among the weapons seized after the Roseburg shooting rampage.

Laurel Harper wrote in another posting: "I love the long guns & I have an AK-47 en route." She complained about gun-control efforts in "lame states."

She posted several times that her son had Asperger's syndrome, a mild form of autism.

One posting reads: "He's no babbling idiot nor is his life worthless. He's very intelligent and is working on a career in filmmaking."

She wrote that she read aloud to her unborn son from Donald Trump's "The Art of The Deal."

Investigators have not yet said whether they suspect a motive in last Thursday's shooting rampage, where Harper-Mercer killed eight students and a teacher before killing himself.

While living in California, Harper-Mercer graduated from a learning center for students with learning disabilities and emotional problems. His parents divorced when he was a teenager and he lived with his mother.

Harper-Mercer's father, Ian Mercer, still lives in California. Over the weekend he said he had no idea his son had any guns.

"How on earth could he compile 13 guns? How could that happen?" Ian Mercer told CNN on Saturday.

[Deleted]

"How on earth could he compile 13 guns? How could that happen?" Ian Mercer told CNN on Saturday."

Well Ian, he had a irresponsible gun owner as a mother who let him have what he wanted......more guns.

September Sees Record Gun Sales
Some see Democrats’ calls for executive action to restrict guns as cause

BY: Stephen Gutowski
October 7, 2015 3:00 pm

The Federal Bureau of Investigation processed a record number of background checks in the month of September, indicating that gun sales were at an all time high for the month.

The FBI’s National Instant Background Check System processed 1,795,102 applications to buy a firearm in September. That represents a new record: 335,739 more checks than the previous September high set in 2012, or a 23 percent increase.

The number of checks done in a particular month is considered a reliable gauge of how many gun sales have occurred since background checks are required on all sales made through licensed firearms dealers. The actual number of sales is likely higher since multiple firearms can be sold to the same person by a dealer under a single background check. The numbers also do not account for sales between private parties that do not require a background check.

September is the fifth month in a row to set a record for background checks. May, June, July, and August all produced record numbers. The summer of 2015 has seen the most gun sales on record.

The summer has also seen an increase in calls from some Democratic presidential candidates, including frontrunner Hillary Clinton, for new gun control laws. Clinton has said she would use executive orders to implement certain forms of gun control.

The Second Amendment Foundation said Democratic efforts to impose new gun control measures were fueling the sales increases. “We are seeing new record highs in gun sales due to the increased anti-gun rhetoric from Democratic candidates like Hillary Clinton,” said Alan Gottlieb, the group’s founder. “Their push for new restrictions on gun ownership is fueling gun sales.”

“If they really want less guns in private hands they should consider what happens every time they open their mouths.”

Link

For argument's sake, can you or anyone explain to me why

a) a person with Asperger's is incapable of safely handling a gun

and b) why should Autism be considered a mental illness when it isn't?

It is illegal for the federal government to create a gun registry. Sure, we could say that's bull and they'd do an end-run around it, but then you better hope you have only acquired your guns through private means (same with ammo!) Also it's probably a good idea to make sure none of your hunting buddies bought guns through public means either, because it's REALLY easy for a computer to deduce the percentage chance of you owning guns based on your social media friends (I know, I write computer code for a living.) So make sure your buddies aren't on social media, and you should get off Dawgtalkers just to play it safe...

Thinking a gun ban is impossible because of data collection is short sighted (although played often by the gun lobby.) Australia changed gun ownership laws and gave you a period of time to give them back to the state before being considered in violation of said law. Same thing in England after the Firearms Amendment act of 1997. If you didn't surrender your weapons, you just had to hope they didn't come after you. The Nazi's went another way and required permits, but worked to ensure that Jews couldn't get a hold of guns. Also, the Nazi's did that without computers

Claiming we can't have any background checks because of data collection fears is not looking at the whole picture. If you trust the government to not take your guns today, but don't trust them once they want to do a background check, you already lost the battle. Don't trust the government to start with, and you'll quickly realize that things like data collection and paper trails are just more cogs in the machine, and not what you should be concerned with.

Is the margin of success now letting a crazy person own a gun, but as long as he only kills one person? C'mon man, we can do better than that.

Oops, good catch

No, but a lunatic that has intent to kill is usually not noticed until he pulls the trigger. The guy in Norway that shot all the kids on that island started planning his attack in 2002, and carried it out in 2011. He had never been in the psychiatric system, and had gone out of his way to get gun club memberships and training. He didn't have a criminal record, and was completely anonymous until he was caught. His guns were legally acquired under Norway's strict gun laws. It's almost impossible to spot that kind of lunatic before he pulls the trigger.

I've stayed out of this thread because I'm tired of being in threads like this one.

Did you know that since the current president took office, there has never been a period longer than 8 days without a mass shooting (mass shooting being 4 or more, including the antagonist) in this country?

We will never fix this 'problem.' Mass shootings will never go away because there will always be guns. Always. Mass shootings are the collateral cost attached to the freedom to bear lethal firearms in this country. And it's either stupidity or willful ignorance to not see that.

I'm not even advocating gun control of any sort. I'm simply saying to us all that 300 MILLION lethal tools in a nation of 300 million people are going to result in these stories on a regular basis from now on. Death and destruction are what these devices produce. It's their main (and pretty much only) reason for existing.

So we should all just stop wringing our hands, spewing 'talking points' at each other, and having conversations about "having open conversations" about guns... and just accept that this isn't really a problem to be solved ...

It's the cost of freedom.

Everything comes at a price.
As a nation, we've already decided that we're OK with the cost. This ongoing deadbate will never go anywhere other than down the same paths it always has, because people miss the point. They refuse to accept the truth... and they fight about the peripheral issues. Mental Health. Gun-free zones, armed personnel in schools.... ALL of it is bullsh and subterfuge.

Here it is, plain as day:

This is America. We want guns. We can have them, and so we do.
Mass shootings, gang drive-bys, lover's quarrels, armed robberies, 'tragic senseless gun-cleaning accidents,' suicide by gun, 'hunting outings gone terribly wrong,' kids shot dead while playing in the garage-

all are part of the cost of having what we want.

Period.



...and that's why I no longer get sucked into gun rights debates.

I've accepted the Real Truth about this issue and our nation.
There's nothing more to talk about because there's nothing new to discuss.

.02

I'm glad you did join the discussion. The more we keep the discussion going the more we create a need for action.

Having grown up in the 60s I keep wondering whatever happened to taking to the streets.

We've seen a little bit of how doing so works with response to young black men getting shot by officers. Now we have personal cameras on officers and IMO it's helped both sides of the issue.

IMO the Tea Party's influence grew when they organized protests.

I think if gun owners took to the streets instead of paying the NRA to lobby then a more successful discussion would happen.

Background checks and gun registries are 2 different things.

I'm cautious about what data gets collected to be part of a background check because too many people pretend to know what they are talking about when it comes to things like mental illness, so much so, that the concept of a mentally ill person is subjective. And don't think for a moment that the gov't would hesitate to take advantage of being able to change and dictate the rules. They are already doing it trying to get as many Vets diagnosed with PTSD as it is. The symptoms of PTSD run a wide spectrum, yet they want the public to believe that anyone with PTSD is half a breath from becoming a homicidal maniac.

There's also the whole privacy issue which gun control advocates have had zero qualms trampling over i.e. wanting to publish the names and addresses of concealed carry permit holders. They got a way with that BS in NY, but not here in NC. CCW permits are issued by the county sheriff, but our State Highway Patrol oversees the overall database. They refused to give over any of that info, as well as they shouldn't have. The best the media could get was publishing an interactive report where you could put in a county or a city or a street and it would tell you how many CCW holders lived in that area.

And no, its not that I trust the gov't not to take my guns today. I know damn well they would if they could.

Except when you consider that the NRA has been working to protect gun rights for a very long time. I would propose that if not for the NRA, we'd already have severe gun restrictions in this country. We've already heard the arguments of SCJ Stevens that proposed changing the 2nd Amendment to "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed". In other words, a citizen would have to report to the government, be approved and under the control of the government to have a gun.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I see our government quickly becoming a totalitarian dictatorship under that ruling.

J/C

Only my opinion but here goes. We need to change the mentality of people not the gun laws or the murder laws.
People used to be ok smoking until we changed the perception of it. It used to be cool to smoke and an alarming number of young people started everyday. Then over the course of a generation through various means it has become un-cool and teen smoking is dropping very quickly. This change in mentality is the only way we are going to reduce gun crime.

Correct, because shortly after "serving in the Militia" is added... "militia" will be redefined as actively serving in the military.

That NY incident where they published all the names is a big reason why I don't think the government is all that interested in keeping the second amendment for the people.



I think it's they would if they wanted to. They definitely could. Maybe you have a compound and armed guards to help you, but it's just me, my wife, and baby. If a platoon of soldiers or a few squad cars of cops showed up at my door ordering me to hand over my guns, I have to think quickly about how I'd want to handle that situation. I'd probably hand em over just to avoid being arrested or worse orphaning my son... Then contemplate moving to another country.

I'm all for limiting ALL lobbying, because it gives too much power to the ones with biggest wallets and I think it's been responsible for ending stuff like getting out in the streets.

I don't know about you, but the 'getting out in the streets' gig does not work lately. It damn sure didn't even slow down the ACA when thousands protested multiple times. I don't have the time or funds to drive up to DC every time there would have to be a rally. The NRA does what it should do, which is defend the 2nd Amendment.

I don't know if the NRA gets major corporate support outside of gun manufacturers, (and I'm not a member) but my guess is that the NRA has the wallet size it does I. Late part due to members who willingly joined the organization and are expecting them to lobby on their behalf.

Rights require responsibility.