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

No it won't. Schools with armed teachers and guards haven't helped.

Sorry for being so demanding earlier. Could you please explain your reasoning?

Why should I explain a rationalization? The pro gun side never explains any rationalization on why gun registration and more stringent gun control laws on all purchases won't help.

Because saying strong claims on the internet without any backing isn't a way to have a discussion. Especially when you've been rebuffed on that question.

Also, gun registration is the stupidest idea I've heard in a week. And considering all the nonsense regarding the House's speaker search that has happened this past week, I'm not easily impressed. That would be a very major privacy breach. It would be absolutely horrible for many reasons, but the one you could relate to the most, would be that it'd set a horrible precedent for what is legally obligated to be shared knowledge with the government.

As far as more stringent gun control laws go, many of us are all ears.

So, you don't agree that most mass shootings happen in gun free zones? Wow.


And what are these "more stringent" gun control laws you speak of? Limit magazine capacity? I'll show you a video on that. Limit automatic weapons? Already illegal. (for about 99 percent of the people)

Maybe murder should be illegal? Oh....it already is.
Making the use of a fire arm in the act of a felony illegal? Yup, we have that, too.

But, you won't agree that mass shootings happen in gun free zones more often than not, unless I agree that more stringent gun control law could help prevent these shootings?


One really "neat" idea I've heard bandied about is requiring gun owners to insure their guns. That would be an easy way to basically tax law abiding gun owners out of ownership. Let's face it, who's going to insure not the weapon, but the act? No company.

Oh, by the way, shootings happen by - brace yourself for this: People that don't obey the law anyways.

Drunk driving laws have been in effect in the US since about 1906, over the last 30 years they have gotten a lot more strict, legal limits have come down and punishments have gone up.... since then, alcohol related driving deaths have gone down fairly significantly... because laws got more strict, people were oppressed into wearing seat belts, cars got safer, people have pushed for greater awareness especially among young people, etc..

Yet when it comes to guns, the gun owners are willing to entertain all kinds of ideas as long as they don't involve changing the laws... because that obviously won't work... at all.

Mass shootings have happened in schools with armed teachers and armed security guards. It didn't help prevent it.

Having more stringent gun laws has been ignored, so there is no substantial proof that it wouldn't help prevent it.

The simple fact that criminals don't care about laws defies your logic.

Yes, people have become more aware of the ills of drunk driving and the safety of wearing seat belts. People have begun to act more responsibly. Alcoholics and the irresponsible continue to drive drunk though.

We have every kind of Gun Law on the books yet here we are.
Do you think Criminals and Lunatics care one crap about those laws?
Do you think those running around in Chicago give one crap that Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the Nation? Do think the 15 year old with a gun cares that the law says his having a gun is illegal?

Well we don't have every kind of gun law or we wouldn't be talking about it. The only way this is going to get better is for every American to do there part to help identify the problems and to speak up. Anything less and some fall through the cracks and bang bang more dead.

The whole "Gun laws only hurt the law abiding" stuff just doesn't ring true anymore. I read somewhere the other day (mainstream media...not advocacy site) that the US is effectively averaging a mass shooting PER DAY (Mass shooting being defined as two or more people injured or killed if I recall). PER DAY.

This doesn't happen in other Western countries to this frequency. Hell, in ANY country.

I realize the right to bear arms is constitutional. I realize is a dearly held privilege by the American people. But when you screw up enough, privileges are removed. And with mass shootings only increasing, that time has to be coming.

I'm sure someone will point out that its a right not a privilege. And really, I suppose I can't argue with that from a legal definition. But seriously my southern neighbours, enough is enough.

Privileges? It's a right, not a privilege.

I disagree with your first statement.

However, what are the gun laws in Canada? (I have no idea, this isn't a "set up" question.)

and, with somewhere between 100 million and 300 million guns in the U.S., how would we enact anything similar to Canada? (again, I don't know what the laws are there, I don't know about shootings there. etc.)

Never mind you! You can't even spell Neighbors right!

I'm not so sure about that. Well, strictly speaking you are obviously correct, but what about the effects that laws have on things besides whether or not a person is 'breaking the law'?

Think about this: What weapons are almost invariably used in mass shootings? It's almost always the most readily available semi-automatic weapons with the highest or close to highest capacity that is commonly used. Think double stack pistols and sometimes AR-15s.

There are far more deadly weapons out there than that. Can you imagine a shooter having an AR-15 with an under barrel grenade launcher? machine gun? flame thrower? military grade explosives? Why aren't those being used? I would argue it's that they are either illegal or they it takes a significant amount of effort and cost (class 3) to obtain. They just take whatever guns their parents own or buy them at the local gun shop. That's pretty much it.


It's funny you mention the bit about limiting magazine capacity. I think that's actually one of the things that actually makes sense to consider (please note the words 'to consider'). Obviously for this to make any difference at all, the supply of those things would need to dry up over time. If they are costly and hard to obtain, most of the would-be shooters will probably not use them. Say there was a 10 round limit on magazine capacity (like in the Clinton-era AWB), I imagine some of the would be mass-killers would be less emboldened and would not come up with and follow through with a plan to begin with, and those who did would kill less people.

I'm sure you could probably pull up a bunch of videos on youtube of exceptionally skilled shooters reloading in a second or less, with perfectly set up rigs that make reloading seem trivial. Yet even for these exceptionally skilled shooters, there is still more time reloading and less time shooting. This would be obviously moreso the case with some of these school shooters, many of whom have little experience with firearms at all.

What about for general gun usage (hunting, self-defense, fighting off zombies/aliens/foreign invaders/whatever other fantasies people have these days)? I've read of many hypothetical scenarios involving multiple armed attackers and all that stuff, yet I have never read an account of a private citizen needing more than 10 rounds in a home defense or self defense situation. I'm sure it has happened. With a hundred million gun owners in the country, you would think it would happen more often yet if it has ever happened, it is exceedingly rare.

A small group of people with a cache of small arms can't fight off the local police station, let alone a modern army with some of the incredibly advanced technology that is available now. So I'm not sure how much validity there is to that. I think if anything, by far the most reasonable concern simply has to do with how valuable rights are. So say the federal government puts into effect a 10 round magazine capacity limit, I firmly believe that less people will die in mass shootings. Is that worth partially eroding an important right? I don't have a great answer to that. Several years ago I probably would have scoffed at this whole post yet now I'm leaning more toward it being a pretty good idea.

Small thinking on your part...

American Hunters – The World’s Largest Army

Thoughts on Hunters, this is an interesting slant on things. The world’s largest army; America’s hunters! I had never thought about this, but a blogger added up the deer license sales in just a handful of states and arrived at a striking conclusion:

There were over 600,000 hunters this season in the state of Wisconsin. Allow me to restate that number: 600,000. Over the last several months, Wisconsin’s hunters became the eighth largest army in the world: more men in arms than in Iran. More than France and Germany combined. These men and women deployed to the woods of a single American state, Wisconsin, to hunt with firearms, and no one was killed.

That number pales in comparison to the 750,000 who hunted the woods of Pennsylvania and Michigan’s 700,000 hunters, all of whom have now returned home safely. Toss in a quarter million hunters in West Virginia and it literally establishes the fact that the hunters of those four states alone would comprise the largest army in the world. And then add in the total number of hunters in the other 46 states. It’s millions more.

The point? America will forever be safe from foreign invasion with that kind of home-grown firepower. Hunting, it’s not just a way to fill the freezer; it’s a matter of national security. That’s why all enemies, foreign and domestic, want to see us disarmed. Food for thought, when next we consider gun control.

Overall it’s true, so if we disregard some assumptions that hunters don’t possess the same skills as soldiers, the question would still remain, what army of 2 million would want to face 30, 40, 50 million armed citizens? For the sake of our freedom, don’t ever allow gun control or confiscation of guns.

http://nation.foxnews.com/2013/11/04/american-hunters-%E2%80%93-world%E2%80%99s-largest-army

The U.S. is pretty much the only country in the world with significant force projection capabilities. e.g. most active aircraft carriers are American.

But hypothetically, any military that can get past the U.S. military is not going to be stopped by a scattered group of hunters with their shotguns and rifles, just like a rag tag group of guys in the middle east with their Kalashnikovs are no match for the U.S. military.

Also military power grows exponentially with increasing technology, which is why our military has been pretty much untouchable for the last few decades (good training and such helps as well of course.)

Quick reminder that during WW2 America's military thought the idea to distribute guns to citizens as a way to fuel resistance fighters so they created the FP-45 Liberator.

Quick reminder that the Revolutionary War soldiers were literally just citizens and Britian obviously overpowered them.

We most definitely caused them problems with sniping, though.

The FP-45 Liberator-- the gun with zero documented occurrences of the weapon being used to actually fuel resistance fighters

And much has changed in warfare in the last quarter of a millennium.

Once again you are thinking small. That great and powerful American Military is us. It is our children and grandchildren, our cousins nieces and nephews. You really think they would slaughter 10 or 20 million family members for a tyrannical government? Not hardly.

I'm not sure what you are talking about. Can you elaborate?

lol who commits treason and leaves a paper trail? Especially about what guns get shot.

And much changed since the Revolutionary War and WW2. That doesn't make guns any less dangerous. Just because you have an M16 and I have a 9 doesn't make my gun any less dangerous. This isn't a card game where your gun cancels out my own. Guns are weapons for a reason.

Who commits treason and leaves a paper trail? Well for starters, all the signers of the Declaration of Independence

Look, all I'm saying is that in the 21st century, no amount of men carrying rifles can stop a fully equipped, modern army. Some might disagree with that but I think it's a fairly obvious point. It is what it is. It doesn't mean small arms can't contribute to that goal or that there aren't other uses for them.

The difference your missing here though is that while the DWI laws have gotten tougher, the penalties are what got tougher.

No where was a person's access to cars or alcohol restricted.

Have you been to Iraq or Afghanistan???

And to your point about limiting magazine capacity actually making a difference... negligible at best. It doesn't take much to become proficient at reloading. But let's say it did slow the shooter down... and then what? He gets bum rushed and stabbed with a pencil???

have you? what CHS said is absolutely right.

anyway, so today a 2 year shot the grandma.

and when people say "do criminals care about gun laws". thats a good point.

so why have ANY laws, since criminals will be criminals, right?

you realize in order for somebody to be that efficient with reloading, they'd have to have a vest with attachments on or strapped to the leg?

the average person can not reload fast at ALL.

these what if scenario's you guys go through are mind boggling.

If you get a chance, go back a couple pages and if you'd be willing, read my post about the 2 different "gun cultures" there are in America.

The mass shootings you are talking about that happen daily are in our urban inner cities (who also have the toughest gun control laws).

People don't talk about needing new gun laws when it comes to those "mass shootings", only when there events like here in Oregon where its easier to make it a political issue.

you gonna respond or nah?

Yup! Finally got back round to it.

(good to have you back BTW).

1) Yes, I have been to Iraq. I won't claim to have any combat experience (I've been in more s**t as a cop than when I was overseas), and while I know the Taliban and insurgents have access to automatic weapons and RPG's etc... the fact remains there is a massive technological gap between the weaponry used by our modern military and their IED's.

My point being, I don't buy the notion that if our gov't did decide to openly act against the People that it's over before it started.

2)As for reloading:

I agree that the average person is not fast at it. But that's because the average person doesn't practice. It doesn't take a lot to become proficient if you spend enough time doing it.

I disagree that you need things like vests and drop legs (I WISH I could wear those at work! But the Chief says its not friendly enough ). What you need is to have your extra magazines in easily accessible places. Certainly those things make it much easier, but I wouldn't say they were necessary.

Out of curiosity, did you get a chance to read my post about 2 different gun cultures? I was hoping to get your take on it.

Sorry, but mag size make little difference (that's what she said )



A practiced shooter can change mags very quickly and efficiently.

i'll address the military/civilian aspect first.

OK, what CHS is saying is that a straight up military versus any armed civilian population isn't gonna end well for civilians. at all. actually, it'll be a complete slaughter.

And it being against Americans makes no difference. This isn't 1776, where all the weapons were more or less equal and everybody had to pack the powder after a single shot.

Civilians don't have tanks, grenades, RPG's, aircrafts, etc.

And that's the point with regards to iraq/afghan. the ONLY reasons they killed as much soldiers as they have is because of the geneva convention, ROE's and EOF's.

you said you been downrange so you know what i'm talking about.

for those of you who don't:

ROE - Rules of Engagement
EOF - Escalation of Force.

so EOF basically means if somebody is throwing rocks, you can't shoot them with a 50 cal.

ROE is like we can't shoot up mosque or schools, and we have to share the roads with civilians, but we don't have to let them in our convoys. Also we can't shoot unless fired upon.

Those two change all the time, but the first real guidelines came around 05-06 i think? something like that.

then you have the geneva convention, which part of it is like this: if you shoot an insurgent, and he is still alive, you MUST render medical aid as if he is an ally, thus making him a prisoner of war.

So if the military was allowed to go knee deep, letting us do whatever, these wars would've been over with.

and that applies to right here in America. I don't care how armed to the teeth Jim bob and his friends from Klantucky is, it takes one bomb from an A10, or one sweep of a 50 cal to end whatever rebellion they hoped they was gonna put on.

2. sure, practice makes perfect, but most people don't.

and remember, we're talking practicing vs real time at moving targets. for example, we practiced a lot at the range, and i was very proficient at reloading and my shot group was tight.

but my first deployment (i was 19) we got into a fire fight, and i was scared, i dropped my 30 round mag on the ground and THEN accidentally kicked it 5 meters away from me cause i was so nervous. straight up train wreck.

as far as having it in easier locations to grab the mag, sure. but once again, we're talking practicing in a calm place compared to actually doing it in a live environment. that takes experience, and with regards to mass shooters, this is a one shot one kill scenario, there are no repeats.

gun cultures. i read it, didn't say anything cause i kinds agreed with it.

my only issue is that it's all tied into each other, so i agree there's a culture, i just don't agree there's two separate ones.

gun violence- whether you wanna hide it in the guise of "responsible" gun ownership", or gangs- is glorified here in america.

it's gone WAY past the idea of defending yourself against tyranny of hunting for food/sport. it's become a way a life.

we've been glorifying guns since at the very least wild wild west movies/shows.

got pop those indians with their crazy bow and arrows.

mafia movies. thug life movies. trouble teens lifetime movies.

we glorify it in our action movies. video games, parades, protest, politics.

it's too the point where most people can't even separate "good guy with a gun" anymore.

for example, a lot of guys in inner cities got their guns legally. a lot did illegally, but you're a cop. you know just as well as i do there's a lot of guys out in the inner cities with legal guns.

so two law abiding citizens start shooting at each other. well who's the bad guy? who's the good guy?

it's to the point that here in America, we justify guns for the use of damn near anything. suicide, homicide, killing the cat that won't shut up at night. somebody stole your girlfriend. your dad didn't tuck you in at night. somebody stepped on your J's.

hell you got drunk and let a round go off and it hit somebody. or hell you got drunk and shot yourself in the foot.

and then we defend the culture by using logical fallacies like "Cars kill people, knives, hammers, bats".

well none of those things were intentionally made to kill/neutralize a target. and even still, if they kill people, then why do you need a gun if you already possess other stuff to kill people with?

All i'm saying is people are blinded by the culture in general. And trying to split the culture into two categories is simply causing another divide in this country, like political parties.

and we already have more than enough divide going around.

sorry for the long winded post.

Actually that's not what I'm saying. While your points might be true, that a competent military would be able to beat a bunch of civilians, it does beat the alternative of massacring the civilians.

Ok I get what you're saying.

But with regards to the US. We aren't competent, were elite.

A battle with civilians would be a massacre.

Probably true, but possibly not.

Hey, we all get long winded at times around here, no worries lol

Your points about ROE's are well taken. I think that also leads in to what CHS just posted... ROE's are put in place because you have a particular objective (even if its a vague one of nation building). But if massacre is your objective, your ROE's go out the window and everything becomes a Free Fire Zone.

IF the gov't turned on us, I guess it all depends on their objective right? Is it subjugation of the people? Or is to kill all conservatives/liberals? If Texas secedes, do the Fed's carpet bomb Houston? I don't know.

But that's getting off topic..

And yeah, you're right, there are a lot of people who have legal guns in the inner city... and I can't think of anyone who has a more pressing need for that level of protection. And its because of those people that I think we have to be careful and really consider who stricter gun laws will impact the most.

I'm sorry arch, but any video that starts with blaming the left is really not gonna be worth the time.

Call me what you want, but I'd rather discuss on here than listen to an editorial.