Multiple fatalities reported at Umpqua Community College shooting in Oregon

Status
Not open for further replies.
To be quite frank it's time gun ownership became a privilege and not an inherent right. There should be extensive background checks, classes to take and extensive training

extensive mental tests also.

I don't think it's safe for a person like kama there to own fire arms. He thinks him owning fire arms is more important than human lives.

In my book, somebody that thinks like that, is unstable and should not be allowed to own fire arms.
 
New laws wont do shit, its all or nothing.

You know, at least familiarize yourself with the system and the laws. The framework for effective gun control is already there. Look at how NFA and Class 3 items are handled. You can count the number of incidences on one hand with the latter. It's really just the NRA standing in the way of common sense laws at this point. People that jump straight to a total ban are being completely unrealistic.
 
So you're saying reforming and improving our mental health system isn't important, nor a valid way to curtail shooting & suicides?

While I don't agree that it isn't important - I don't see it as a valid way to curtail shootings. Its too hard to diagnose these issues beforehand.
 
Also, guys and gals, lets continue the discussion even after the 2 day cycle of them talking about it on the news. Its like the push for gun controls fades away as the news moves on to another topic.

Lets stop letting the issue fade away, rather you are pro or anti. I'm tired of these shootings, but I'm also tired of there having to be a spark for people to talk about it.
 
What if

Hear me out on this

We focused on gun control and mental health

At the same time

Or you could just focus on the guns.

The difference between every country in the world and USA when it comes to mass shootings isnt the lack of psychiatric care but the presence of guns.
 
What is your solution though?
Background checks, licenses and mandatory locks.

The mental health deal is a slippery slope that I don't think that people are ready for. How would you know if someone suffers from mental health? A database? Card carry? That's rough.
 
I'll admit, I'm a an extremely selfish person. I give zero fucks about anyone other than my family and close friends.

That's fucked.

Don't know what else to say.
Background checks, licenses and mandatory locks.

The mental health deal is a slippery slope that I don't think that people are ready for. How would you know if someone suffers from mental health? A database? Card carry? That's rough.

Background checks and licenses are fine - they just have be super strict. I think it should be WAAAAAY harder to own a gun than get a drivers license. I think it should take months. I think you should have to take classes. (I'm for a total ban though)
 
Someone on here once asked me snarkily if it was wrong to distrust the government because I questioned the validity of the right to bear arms, as if I was questioning his actual universal right to be free. But surely the government has already proven that you can't trust it, you ALREADY have a gun, and other citizens have millions of guns yet they do nothing about it, and I have a feeling they never will. So the excuse that having guns is some kind of backup plan for when democracy and basically society fails is hilariously deluded.

You like owning things that are solely designed for killing, and people suffer for it every year because you are a selfish prick that you wouldn't give them up to have a better country. That's mostly what that is about.

I should be clear, I don't own a gun and don't plan to. And if I did it sure wouldn't be to "fight the government when the time comes".

I just don't think it's as insane an idea as I used to.
 
Background checks, licenses and mandatory locks.

The mental health deal is a slippery slope that I don't think that people are ready for. How would you know if someone suffers from mental health? A database? Card carry? That's rough.

There's a system in place for reporting mental health issues to the agencies that do background checks for guns. It's just not used nearly enough, and in general too many people never go to the mental health pros in the first place, and they are the only one's who can report issues.
 
Boohoo it's too hard so why even try.

this country behind on the trash.

I'm not saying there shouldn't be tougher gun laws. I'm saying it's illegal to take away all the guns, and it's the second closest thing to a political impossibility in the US to repeal the Second Amendment.

Any solutions have to assume the Second Amendment will still be in effect.

You can get as mad about it as you want, but that is the reality.
 
As a gun owner and big supporter of 2nd amendment rights, we need more regulation and control. This shit needs to stop.

Why do you support 2nd amendment rights? I feel like your attitude is at odds with your "this shit needs to stop" statement.

If you really wanted it to stop, you'd cease to support the 2nd amendment and own guns imo.
 
Can't say I'm familiar with constitutional law but isnt there a way to repeal parts of the second amendment?
Should just take it out of the national constitution and leave it up to the states to decide their own gun laws
 
Can you give me a source or citation for this? I want to use it in upcoming and inevitable debates with gun friends and I'd like to have some hard proof.

http://shootingtracker.com/wiki/Mass_Shootings_in_2015


Note this from a washington post article on it:

The tracker comes in for some criticism because its definition is broader than the FBI's definition, which requires three or more people to be killed by gunfire.

Gun defenders will often latch on to this, and try to make the debate about the definitions, and simply ignore the numbers/the tracker since they are "not mass shootings".
 
The issue is that we need to make it harder for people to get guns because it makes it harder for crazies to get guns, while fine law abiding citizens can still acquire one. If we did ever reach a point were the US said "no guns", I'd be okay with this too. I just don't think it's going to happen, sadly.

The problem with stricter laws is that all it takes is one person to obtain a gun legally and then have it enter a wackos hands. Completely circumvents all the extra guards/restrictions. Putting you back at square one.
 
Obama announces that he' passing a bill that bans future firearms purchases in the country and firearm ownership. It will be done this way--no door to door searches, but a requirement for all firearms to be submitted to your counties newly developed antifirearms government facilities. Like obamacare, if you fail to have your firearm registered as being submitted, you will accrue a fine of 1000 dollars for each firearm. This fine can be administered yearly. After 3 consecutive failures, you will get a fine and then jail time.

I guess thats how it'd be done?
 
You know what I've realized? Sandy Hook conspiracies were pushed so hard back then because it's the one event that could have changed some things. Other countries have responded more aggressively to lesser tragedies, but the good ol' USA ate up enough of "false flag" rhetoric that not only were a literal pile of dead children considered acceptable, it was also flat out denied of ever happening. And with blackest of days now questioned in the American psyche, nothing changed. And it won't.
 
Why do you support 2nd amendment rights? I feel like your attitude is at odds with your "this shit needs to stop" statement.

If you really wanted it to stop, you'd cease to support the 2nd amendment and own guns imo.

It's called compromise. Something you'll need to start doing if you want people to take your argument more seriously.
 
Obama announces that he' passing a bill that bans future firearms purchases in the country and firearm ownership. It will be done this way--no door to door searches, but a requirement for all firearms to be submitted to your counties newly developed antifirearms government facilities. Like obamacare, if you fail to have your firearm registered as being submitted, you will accrue a fine of 1000 dollars for each firearm. This fine can be administered yearly. After 3 consecutive failures, you will get a fine and then jail time.

I guess thats how it'd be done?

Are you from another planet?
 
https://twitter.com/PzFeed?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author

http://www.newsweek.com/active-shooter-reported-umpqua-community-college-oregon-378758

Breaking on major news sites, will update OP with new info as it breaks

If you have any new info PLEASE source it with a link or a TV station.

The current numbers are unofficial, major news sites are reporting the initial reports of 10 dead, 20+ wounded. Other sites are getting information directly from the local police scanners and are getting numbers of 15 dead, 20+ wounded. These numbers are going to fluctuate.

Shooter is said to be detained by police and is not dead.

Are there any details or motives as to why this fuck did it?
 
It's called compromise. Something you'll need to start doing if you want people to take your argument more seriously.

Where has compromise gotten us? I feel like we'll end up (if at all) with some token strengthening of background checks. And shit won't change.

I don't want to compromise with gun owners - because I feel like you are directly causing the problem.
 
Obama announces that he' passing a bill that bans future firearms purchases in the country and firearm ownership. It will be done this way--no door to door searches, but a requirement for all firearms to be submitted to your counties newly developed antifirearms government facilities. Like obamacare, if you fail to have your firearm registered as being submitted, you will accrue a fine of 1000 dollars for each firearm. This fine can be administered yearly. After 3 consecutive failures, you will get a fine and then jail time.

I guess thats how it'd be done?

Sure, that's one way to start another civil war.
 
What is so innate about gun ownership that it should be a right?

Because it's a Constitutional right. That's why. And there are a million legitimate reasons to own a firearm ranging from sporting activities, hunting, self defense, providing future generations for security against tyranny even if we live under a just government, etc. You can't just go around banning every single thing that carries a potential risk in life.
 
These mass killings are never going to stop. One inspires the next and so on and so on. It just seems to have become an accepted part of the culture now. Those in power don't seem to wanna take any steps to even attempt to fix it and the people won't push them hard enough to make them do something. We'll talk about it for a few weeks then quickly move on stop caring until the next one.
 
Obama announces that he' passing a bill that bans future firearms purchases in the country and firearm ownership. It will be done this way--no door to door searches, but a requirement for all firearms to be submitted to your counties newly developed antifirearms government facilities. Like obamacare, if you fail to have your firearm registered as being submitted, you will accrue a fine of 1000 dollars for each firearm. This fine can be administered yearly. After 3 consecutive failures, you will get a fine and then jail time.

I guess thats how it'd be done?
1. Obama can't pass a bill. The Congress has to do that, and the President then agrees. Good luck.
2. This would be an unconstitutional law. It would never hold up in the courts and would be declared invalid very quickly.
3. You're never going to get 3/4 of the states to overturn anything in the Bill of Rights, much less the second amendment.
 
The problem with stricter laws is that all it takes is one person to obtain a gun legally and then have it enter a wackos hands. Completely circumvents all the extra guards/restrictions. Putting you back at square one.

You're not at square one if you've prevented even one death.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom