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

We have an armed populace, more arms than any other populace. We also have more gun deaths than any other populace.

Who wants to live in a country where every place is armed?

It kinda sounds like a police state.

I have not been to Iraq or Afghanistan, but I have the utmost respect for those who have. I'm not sure what the point of the question is anyway-- did I say something that was incorrect?

Anyway, among friends and family who have fought in Iraq/Afghanistan, all were more worried about IEDs than insurgents with AK-47s. That was a unanimous opinion and it seems like Swish would agree with that here.

Limiting magazine capacity would make a difference. Most of these shooters (all of them actually) are pathetic losers, most are not physical specimens by any stretch and them getting caught while reloading (say bumrushed by even one guy) is probably the end of most mass shootings.

It may not take much to become proficient at reloading but one still has to reload! You are a police officer, correct? Based on that fact alone, I think you have a seriously warped view of the capabilities of the average shooter. You train and have to practice regularly to qualify and to just generally be good at your job. In my CCW class, many of the people had never even shot their guns. Range time was pretty terrifying actually, because a lot of the people simply had no idea what they were doing (forget about speed of reloading, I just don't want to get covered with the muzzle.)

What gun do you carry on duty, anyway? You say that the effect of magazine capacity is negligible at best, yet I doubt you are carrying any sort of single stack pistol (except maybe as a backup.) What about your AR-15? 20 round magazines are cheaper, more reliable, and less obtrusive than 30 rounders, yet obviously the extra rounds are useful enough that is the standard.

Most laws don't deprive the law abiding of means to defend themselves.

Does a 10 round magazine limit deprive the law abiding citizen the means to defend him/herself?

Put another way, has there ever been a home defense or self defense situation in the United States where a private citizen had to fire more than 10 rounds to survive? Has anyone ever had to even reload to defend themselves?

These seem like silly questions. Of course it has happened, right? I bet it has somewhere yet I have never actually read of it happening. If it had, I would think that they would be posted all over the internet as evidence of why standard-cap/high-cap magazines are needed. For example, I seem to recall you have posted several threads on this board in the past where civilians have defended themselves with guns (likely by firing one or two shots, which is pretty much what always happens when someone fires in realistic self-defense scenarios.)

Gun boards in particular will always post articles of scenarios where for an example, an old lady defended her home with a gun. That's great and all, I've just never seen one where someone had to fire more than 10 rounds. I mean just post one so that I look silly and wrong. There's gotta be one somewhere!

I know it's only a small thing. Make that change, and there will still be mass shootings, occasionally a lot of people will die, and some will have even put the effort and expense to getting those 17 and 30 round magazines which were supposed to be banned in the first place. I still think many won't, and less people will die needlessly as a result. If people would just acknowledge that fact, and say that is tragic but gun rights are too important to erode, then so be it. The part that bothers me is when people act like you can shoot as many people with 10 round magazines as you can with 30 round magazines or 100 round drum magazines or whatever. It's like there is a disconnect with reality, or rather not wanting to concede a small point because it's inconvenient to the overriding goals. Heck, there was a thread on here a while back where some were arguing that a person could kill as many people with a machete as they could with an AR-15. It's possible they were being facetious but it sure didn't seem like it.

I think that is the whole point. And part of the problem of the debate. People are quick to look at a visible solution, but truth is, the problem is much deeper than guns or guns owners.

Why create more laws that don't solve the problem. Rather, we should stop and look at what the problem truly is and find a real way to solve it, or at the very least, mitigate it.

As was said by earlier in the thread, we didn't stop DUI, we curbed it's effects, and not by restricting the responsible drivers and drinkers, but by making things safer and consequences harsher.

In 1984, oddly enough the year I turned 18, the national drinking age was instituted at 21.. many places were 18 before that. A big part of the problem was the ability of YOUNG PEOPLE to make responsible decisions. Laws were passed that began to allow the authorities to go after the bars that allowed people to get too drunk so bars started to crack down on people. Bars started being more strict with requiring ID, states set up different style of license for kids under 21 to make it easier. Parents were charged if it was determined that they were the ones who allowed underage people to drink...

A lot of things changed and I know because it was at a time in my life where I was trying like hell to get into bars but wasn't old enough.

Looks to me like a lot of things were done to limit how easily people could get their hands on alcohol, laws were changed to not just punish the person who was drunk but also the people who made it possible for him to get drunk... there are options to consider but the NRA is totally unwilling to consider any of them.

The NRA understands that giving the left the opportunity to make a law limiting the capacity of a magazine to 10 in a high profile legal argument would only lead to the left amending that law, down the road, to a capacity of 5, then 2, then 1. All those amendments are done behind closed doors and out of the public limelight without fanfare.

We give up nothing to the left. Nothing.

Why didn't you mention a sizable percentage that only own hunting bows and other primitive weapons and those who want nothing to do with any army?

That is an outrageous assumption by the NRA that they use to spread fear to gun owners that the gov't is coming to take away your guns. Nobody wants to take your friggin guns away.



Can you tell which right wing politician said that? Its not just the liberals and democrats. Close to 90% of the U.S. population believe this.

I agree with this. Look back through the yrs. All the laws that they passed about one thing or another. It's getting to be where no one has much of a choice anymore. I guess that's the way some people want it. It's all about the control

Who's they? And what thing?

Bingo!

Because a sizable percentage ALSO own primitive weapons, few have ONLY.

And you know this how? And what about those that won't join you're imaginary army.

I know I heard this somewhere before...Hmmmmm

The Nazis encouraged children especially, to report anything "suspicious" that they might hear their teachers or parents say and report it to their Nazi youth leader or directly to the Gestapo. The 'Report your neighbor' theme was used by American film makers at the time to illustrate the difference in the climate of freedom found here in American versus the heavy hand of fascist repression found in Nazi Germany.

http://educate-yourself.org/cn/kirwansnitchculture15dec10.shtml

Our gov't is not encouraging me or you to do anything and many of our children are the ones doing the shooting. Go ahead and stay silent. I'm not.

See as how you think average joe citizen can buy an "AK-47 Machine Gun" and go hunting with it, you really should.

This is the same exact stubburn, pig-headed, counterproductive approach that the left uses when defending why a 14 year old shouldn't have to tell a parent or guardian they are pregnant and getting an abortion. This fictitious fear that if we give an inch, they will come take everything away that we hold dear.

It's childish, it's immature, and it's largely the reason we are where we are... because of this "us against them" approach that Fox News and CNN has led both sides to believe exists... when it doesn't. It's also completely counter to what the founding fathers who wrote the precious second amendment, had in mind when it came to governing this country.

Two kinds of people, those who are part of the problem and those who are part of the solution... and unfortunately, in the good ol' USofA, the 10% that are part of the problem are allowed to get in the way of the 90% that want to be part of the solution.

No more pig-headed and counterproductive than you guys trying to solve people problems by blaming guns and law abiding citizens for our Nations woes.

Now go back to fixing mental illness and confiscating guns while simply placing an armed guard at the door could solve the problem of kids getting killed at school.

Common Sense before Liberal Agenda Please!
Lives over Dollars Please!

Ok, awesome.. you have now protected the school. They will go shoot up the community college or the church or the stadium or the convention center or the public library or the public park or the day care.. you going to put guards everywhere?

Already proven that doesn't solve the problem. So stop saying it will.

You can't "solve" this problem. They're already outliers, and you cannot truly reduce them to zero. You cannot prevent this crime without taking away guns from everyone lol

in the "greatest country in the world" we have accepted that periodic random mass killings at elementary schools is acceptable and something we cannot stop.

I say we protect kids wherever they are trapped, undefended and vulnerable. Adults are responsible to defend themselves.

Throughout the world we accept this. There are mass killings even in countries where the citizens are not permitted to have guns.

you just can't stop a lunatic, hell bent on killing people. You can only redirect his method.

Or limit the number of lives he claims with an armed guard to challenge or stop him.

Wrong. Not acceptable. We only lack the will to placed an armed guard at the scene. Money over Lives is the call of the greatest country in the world.
Shame!

I'm familiar with this attitude. It is the thing I like least about politics, both sides do it, but the GOP really has it down pat.

I like what Mark Cuban has to say about it (not having to do with guns, just the above attitude in general):

http://www.businessinsider.com/mark-cuban-republican-party-big-problem-2015-8



I'm with Mark on that. I would prefer to be a Republican. I believe in small, smart government, and wholly believe in personal responsibility.

I don't like the idea behind "don't give an inch". That is how Barack Obama beats Mitt Romney. Maybe the Republicans should learn that occasionally it's ok to give a little bit on an issue, even if they don't want to, just to not alienate the sensible moderates. I personally won't vote for Hillary or Sanders or whoever the Democrats put out there, but I don't want to vote Republican as long as the status quo is what it is. I will vote 3rd part or sit it out, but I won't vote for someone who thinks like that as a matter of principle (call me head-headed too.)

Just remove that part of the Republican party. Just admit that sometimes everybody gets something wrong. If there's an issue where there is overwhelming scientific consensus, defer to that instead of playing hardball politics.

While I'm at it, stop sending our bravest young men and women to die in wars with questionable national value, get the religious folks into the 21st century (the new pope is doing pretty well actually) and you're pretty far along in fixing what's broken in the Republican party. just my opinion anyway.

You cannot control everything. Car crashes still happen despite rules being set up to stop it. We could, however, make cars illegal and thus no one would could crash their car, but the tradeoff isn't there. The same can be said of the gun control debate.

Oh, of course they don't, but el-presidente' wanted to take away bullets.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2560750

As promised, President Obama is using executive actions to impose gun control on the nation, targeting the top-selling rifle in the country, the AR-15 style semi-automatic, with a ban on one of the most-used AR bullets by sportsmen and target shooters.

They are looking for loopholes, plain and simple. What good is a gun without bullets, huh? The federal government has tried and will continue to try to take away our rights. It makes us easier to rule, when they should be administrating our government in the way the people want.

I agree. Schools should be hardened a bit. There's a certain balance there between cost/freedom of privacy and protection. Here's a rough idea in my head:

Take an average sized school, have there be two main entrances--one at the front, one at the back. All doors and windows should be reinforced. At each main entrance have some kind of metal detector, or body scanner, or something. I don't even really know what's out there? Something unobtrusive, where you could catch a guy with two guns and 400 rounds of ammunition walking in, before he gets loose in the school. Have a police officer at each entrance and all of a sudden the school is not such an easy target anymore. I don't think that costs all that much money to implement (then again, I haven't really thought this through all that much.)

Haven't been to school in Florida have you? Most are open-air-schools, no hallways, classrooms open to a covered walkway.

Most look like prisons now. Not long after Columbine, they put up 8' chain link fences all the way around them with barbed wire.

Any mass shootings in those fortified Florida schools lately?
No?
Success!

We kill each other at a rate of about 4 to 5 times that of most of the rest of the civilized world.... in fact we are closer to a lot of rogue nations than we are to other developed countries with varying degrees of gun control.. They have not accepted it at the same level we have accepted it.

My comment had nothing to do with varying levels of acceptance between geographical location.

It goes back to my earlier comment that a lunatic will find a way to carry out their nefarious plans.

The US just seems to have a larger share of lunatics.

Doesn't mean we should just sit back and let it happen, but again, going back to an earlier comment I made..



But I can tell you, neither side is listening to what the other is saying, both have an notion of what they interpret the other side to be saying, and arguing based on that.

That's what I want. This is EXACTLY the kind of world I want my kids and grandkids to grow up in... ah, the great feeling of security and safety and comfort as every 7 year old girl and boy gets to school in their uparmored, windowless school bus, say good-bye to the pistol toting bus driver, pass through the tall barbed wire gate to the CAC, where they exchange pleasantries with the two guys standing there with M-16s as they pause to have their backpacks searched, taking off their shoes and emptying their pockets into the little bucket, maybe pat the head of the bomb sniffing dog sitting beside the conveyor belt with the x-ray scanner on it as the backpack and tub of personal items pass through, then its one last pass through the metal detector where they collect all of their belongings, get it all put back together and head through the double reinforced, windowless steel doors to a fun day of learning at the Sunny Days Elementary School....

It's going to be awesome... and everybody will feel SOOOOOOO safe.

Is that how you interpreted what I said? If so, you just proved my last sentence to be so true.

You can live in the World of What Should Be or you can Face the World as it is.

Choose.

Perhaps those students who survive this time will come up with the Fix. They can't do that if they are victims of an insane man's actions.

Nope, kind of extrapolating on the "if we make any concessions at all, then we will lose everything" notion... if we start with fences and guards, will we not logically end up where I described?