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

Ultimately we will all live in the world we create. Why should we leave it up to the kids to fix? Are we not the adults?

But hey, on the bright side, at least Johnny Focknuts can go out on Saturday and obliterate some aluminum beer cans with his high powered, overcompensating toys... and you know, keep them in case he has to someday stare down an Abrams tank that is coming for him.

That's interesting. I did not know that-- maybe it will be something to read up on some other day.

To be honest, I don't know what I think about that. On one hand, it seems like overkill. On the other hand, a school shooting a day in this country (or however often it happens-- too much) isn't acceptable to me either.

We the adults have created this collapsing Society we now live and die in. Enough already!

Hope lies in the future.

Johnny facing the Abrams will not be alone. The Abrams may just be there to support him and the millions like him. Uncle Mike just might be driving that beast. Cousin Jimmy just flew his squadron of F-16's to Canada to wait things out.
America Baby! All enemies, DOMESTIC and Foreign if it ever comes to that.
Man up!

fwiw the trade off to security is freedom. I'd much rather be free than safe.

You ain't no kid and are free to protect yourself. We need to protect the kids.

That hasn't worked.

Then end childhood hunger and give them free medical care.

It was proven when someone posted the link to the armed guard at Columbine. So you're wrong.

I always like how the anti-gun part of the populace just automatically believe the police and military are little more than drones to be used by the federal government. Doesn't anyone ever think those guys will find those orders unconstitutional?

Maybe if we can just kill off enough people, then we can start building for that future... good plan, sounds familiar, short dude, mustache...

Meanwhile, let's just absorb the 2000 +/- kids that are murdered each year so that some day in the future we might be well enough armed to fight a war that may or may not ever happen... another good plan....

I think you should start with all your ideas on how we can have a "safer" America as you envision it without the law abiding people of this country giving up their guns.

Please use bullet point format.

Except when you consider the little guy with the uniform and toothbrush mustache confiscated guns, especially from the people he didn't like. That sounds more familiar.

That's the funny thing that keeps coming up. I'm not here to defend DC, but where has he or anyone with any moderation suggested giving up all your guns?

I'm a firm supporter of the second amendment right to bear arms. But all I've seen is people who refuse to have any fruitful discussions about it without the "Us vs Them" mindset.

I feel that with between 2,000,000 and 3,000,000 firearms already in our nation, that further gun control legislation is a moot point at this juncture. The cat has long since been out of the bag here.

I do however feel that if the current laws on the books were streamlined to be effective and mental background checks were thorough, it would help a great deal.

While as stated, I'm a big supporter of our second amendment rights, I don't feel constructive conversations without everyone kicking and screaming would be a bad thing.

I'm just kidding around with DC, Pit.

Too late to back off of your vicious and defaming attack now.

j/c

I'd like to see the breakdown of murders in the u.s. in this manner: gang bangers/drug shootings vs. "mass" shootings.

I'd like to see the breakdown of what/who is responsible for more shootings.

I get that using "mass shootings of innocent children" is used to tug at heartstrings. I get it. What's that phrase? It's a hot topic? It's a buzz phrase?

Let's see where the majority of the problem lies.

Let's look at cities with the most stringent gun control laws. What happens in cities where guns are banned, or extremely "limited" by law.

My point about Iraq and Afghan was that there is a massive technological gap between the armaments of modern militaries such as our military and the cave dwelling goat herders. The goat herders seem to be doing a pretty good job. So I don't readily accept the pre-determined outcome that if one day the Fed's move against the people that its all over.

To your points about training: so far we've been lucky that we haven't had a person proficient at reloading/clearing jams, or an actual combat vet doing these mass shootings.

Ass for a warped view of the average shooter: maybe I do. But that's because when we train for active shooter type situations, we err on the side that they DO know what they are doing and that they are proficient. When responding to something like that, I can't assume that they guy is a pathetic loser that finally came out of his mom's basement because the last 10 shooters were. HEre are my only assumptions responding to something like that:

1) The shooter has a plan
2) The shooter has a belief that he can execute that plan
3) The shooter has the ability, proficiency, and means to carry out that plan.

No one will know if he's Adam Lanza or Rambo until after the shooting stops.

As to what I carry: Currently the S&W M&P .45 (LOVE IT!! <3 <3) It is a single stack, 10+1 (plus extra mags). My patrol rifle is a S&W M&P 15. With that I have at least 2 30 rd mags.. (filled to 28 because everyone knows you don't top of a 30rd mag because it'll likely jam/misfeed). Most agencies carry a .40 pistol as their duty weapon (Glock, S&W, Sig...)


Why do I need so many rounds? Why do I need a rifle that I can hit someone 300yrds away w/ iron sights? I figure because at minimum it puts me on generally even footing with what's out there.

What 40 is saying here has merit, because what he's talking about is setting a legal limit to capacity, you are setting a legal precedent. Legal precedent is what is used to take laws further and to apply them to broader issues then what they were originally intended for. There is no actual rational or reasonable reasoning to set a limit at 10. That is nothing but an arbitrary number. If you don't need some kind of basis for limiting it to 10, why should the next proposal need any basis to limit it to 5? If your limit is 5, then why not say we should be limited to revolvers instead and out law semi-auto pistols?

It goes on and on, and anyone who thinks that people wouldn't try it are fooling themselves.

eh, no.

if that was the case, why no complaints about companies limited our 1st amendment rights?

seems like we pick and choose which rights we want free reign on.

because when you become an employee you are entering in to a voluntary relationship, where the balance of power is in the hands of your employer because they sign your pay check. you agree to their rules. a company has a vested in terest in the image and message it portrays, you as an employee do not get to change that for them.

I can see there becoming an argument that companies are starting to cross a line though. Before it used to be that most places didn't care what you did on your free time, or what causes you took up. You know this, in the military we could go to political rallies and such, but we weren't allowed to be in uniform. It used to be enough for a program to put up the warning "the following opinions don't neccesarily reflect such and such company etc etc"

Now with social media, you can say or do something, with no mention of who you work for, but all it takes is one person to point out where you work and now all of a sudden your job is roped in to something that neither you nor they intended them to be.

As private individuals we limit other people's Rights all the time. A person can't come on to or remain on my property if I don't wish them to. Heck, I don't even have to justify why I let some people in my house and not others.

Here's an argument against magazine capacity: the law abiding citizen defending him or herself will be reloading while the law breaker will still be shooting.

if you need that many rounds to neutralize a target before reloading, maybe you shouldn't have a gun in the first place.

Someone with your training can make that statement. Not average joe or Joan.

Just for facts: NYPD did a study, found police had a 30% hit rate when suspect was not firing back, dropped to 18% when the suspect was shooting back.

http://nation.time.com/2013/09/16/ready-fire-aim-the-science-behind-police-shooting-bystanders/

Ever hear of Carolyn Gudger?

30 percent?

thats absolutely pathetic.

Devil, wth bro.

I think you misinterpreted some of my points, and maybe even my motivation behind those points.

Agreed that there really haven't been any mass shooters who have been proficient at reloading/clearing jams. It would be scary if some of these guys were actually skilled shooters or actual combat vets.

That is kind of the point though. I'm not so concerned about skilled shooters or actual combat vets. Based on my experience, people who shoot and train regularly are some of the nicest and most respectful people around. I am more worried the occasional sociopathic, violent loner, who wants to take his frustrations out on the world. These are not people who regularly train or shoot. It's just that they can take regularly available firearms and be extremely deadly with them, even with little or no training. They can take their parents guns, or come up with a grand and buy a gun along with a backpack full of magazines and ammo and it turns out that they can kill a lot of people with an AR-15 or Glock 17 or whatever. There's a big difference between a very skilled shooter, who is shooting at paper and filming a YouTube video (which can be re-filmed if needed) compared to an unskilled shooter in the heat of an actual attack with adrenaline skyrocketing-- of course these guys are going to have jams and difficulty reloading.

If they were using 10 round magazines instead of 30 round magazines, they would be much less deadly. That was pretty much my point. It doesn't mean we have to actually have to limit magazine capacity to 10 rounds, or have a limit at all. I just want people to acknowledge that there *is* a difference. Put all the facts on the table and let's go from there. That's all.

I know that you can't assume these guys are going to be unskilled, pathetic losers. That would be an insane assumption. It had to do with what I wrote above. It wasn't a reflection on how I think you should perform your job.

Is the S&W M&P 45 really a single stack? I figured if there was any chance you were indeed carrying a gun that was a single stack, it would have to be in 45. But even a full-sized 1911 usually has a 7 round magazine.

I know you need to carry a lot of rounds. You may get into a shootout at some point-- that is just the reality of being a police officer. That just doesn't happen with private citizens though. Like I'm running away from a gun fight and as I've written previously in this thread, I have literally never heard of a situation where a private citizen has had to fire more than 10 rounds in self-defense. As I've written before, I'm sure it has happened. It is easy to come up with scenarios where it would-- multiple attackers, missed shots,etc. My only point is that these are hypothetical-- they don't actually happen (or that they are exceptionally rare.)

Shooting a moving person, is much more difficult than shooting a stationary paper target. That is the part many people forget when they puff up their chest and claim they would just shoot and attacker/intruder. Factor in trying to avoid innocent targets and the task becomes even more difficult.

Shooting a running deer and missing the trees is good practice for the situations you describe. Any good hunter can do this.
Ain't no thang.

Most "good hunters" I know would never shoot at a running deer...

Do it with a pistol, and see how accurate they are.

You want from the hip or can I aim?

That's why pump shotguns are so good for home defense. If they don't run when they hear you cock it, they deserve to be made a mess of.

We've had relatives stay a few days at our home to later find out they where caring firearms while visiting and didn't bother mentioning that little tid bit to us. My wife went nuts when she found out! Thank god it was her side of the family. I wonder now how many irresponsible gun owners do this to their relatives and friends as well.

Perhaps some self reflection is needed when even your guests feel the need to arm themselves in your home.

Stop acting like a lunatic.


So you don't think a homeowner has the right to know?

Maybe you should post a 'Gun Free Zone' sign outside your house.

Ok I'll get on that.

Good idea. That way no one will bring a gun into your home unless of course if the want something.

I would never bring a gun into someones home without their knowledge, that is impolite. Besides, I need the extra pocket space for their silverware.

Sure you wouldn't. I'm betting many here have done that. Or left firearms in the car. IMO that is irresponsible gun ownership.