Gunman opens fire at Oregon college in mass killing

[Shooby]

More people have been killed by GOVERNMENT. Communist Atheistic Totalitarian regimes.

[swamp]

Oct 2, 2015 10:33:54 GMT -5 Shooby said:

More people have been killed by GOVERNMENT. Communist Atheistic Totalitarian regimes.

having fun trolling?

[ArchietheDragon]

how many times has the pope shot anyone?

[Opti]

Hmmm ... so easy to forget the Mafia?

ncronline.org/news/global/italian-catholic-church-scrambles-explain-role-lavish-mafia-boss-funeral

[Shooby]

Trolling what?  The POINT of our Founding Fathers wanting us to bear arms was precisely to protect ourselves from our OWN govt. Hello?

[djAdvocate]

Oct 2, 2015 10:33:54 GMT -5 Shooby said:

More people have been killed by GOVERNMENT. Communist Atheistic Totalitarian regimes.

that is for others to worry about.  we have our own problems. 

[djAdvocate]

Oct 2, 2015 12:05:47 GMT -5 Shooby said:

Trolling what?  The POINT of our Founding Fathers wanting us to bear arms was precisely to protect ourselves from our OWN govt. Hello?

that wasn't why Jefferson wanted the 2nd amendment.  he wanted it so that there would be no standing armies, which he considered the greatest danger to democracy that there is.  he was right.

[Shooby]

If you don't wish to own a gun, then don't own one. Pretty simple.  You know, free choice and all.

[happyhoix]

Oct 2, 2015 9:53:32 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

One of the problems of the mentally ill (or even just angry people) with weapons and expressing violent threats is family, friends and acquaintences afraid to report these threats to the powers that be.  They are afraid the person may be arrested,  involuntarily committed for their mental issues, or even harmed by the individual, and do not want to be held responsible for same.  Some of these single and mass killers had vocally expressed their anger and intentions, even if somewhat vague, and no one said or reported anything.  

We need to start taking these threats seriously.

Another problem is that sometimes these people report their relatives and are told nothing can be done.

A deranged young man got into a confrontation with a female police officer in the town where I work several years back, and he got her gun away and killed her. She was only in her mid twenties. The man's family, who lived several states over, came to town and made a public apology for what their son did - but although he was violent, paranoid and delusional, he was over 18 and his parents were unable to find a facility that would keep him. He refused to live at home and instead hitchhiked and wandered around. His family knew sooner or later, he would get in an altercation and either get killed or kill someone else.

We do need to take these things seriously, and provide adequate treatment and/or confinement for people who are mentally ill and violent. It's not good enough to wait for them to actually do something horrible, and then slap them in jail.

[Tennesseer]

Oct 2, 2015 10:25:20 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Oct 2, 2015 10:23:33 GMT -5 Shooby said:

Funny how we use guns to protect criminals at the Court House. We use guns to protect our money. But, we don't want to use guns to protect our children. Go figure.

still waiting for an answer to post 47.  got one?

I assume you stopped holding your breathe as you are still posting.

[happyhoix]

Oct 2, 2015 12:23:12 GMT -5 Shooby said:

If you don't wish to own a gun, then don't own one. Pretty simple.  You know, free choice and all.

I also want to keep deranged, violent people from owning guns. 


Sometimes the needs of society overshadow the rights of the few. This is why we make drivers pass a vision test and a driving test before they are allowed to drive. We don't want any old jackass out there behind the wheel of a car. And if you let a drunk/unpermitted/blind/incompetent person borrow your car and he kills a bus full of nuns, you're on the hook for it - should be the same for people who let deranged violent people get their hands on guns, too.

Pretty damn simple, unless you've sucked down the NRA Kool Aid to the point you think any limits of gun ownership is a threat to liberty and the American way.

[whoisjohngalt]

Oct 2, 2015 4:20:58 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

Oct 2, 2015 0:26:43 GMT -5 Shooby said:

So what? The notion that more laws is going to stop any of this is a serious delusion. There are millions of guns in this country. That is reality. Wishing that more laws will change that is a pipe dream.

The longest journey still starts with a single step.

As long as it is the step in the right direction.

[happyhoix]

Oct 2, 2015 12:36:31 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

Oct 2, 2015 12:23:12 GMT -5 Shooby said:

If you don't wish to own a gun, then don't own one. Pretty simple.  You know, free choice and all.

I own a gun. Three of them in fact. I am in favor of tighter rules for gun purchases. Absolutely.

It is not an infringement of any right. Simply apply when you want to buy a weapon, and wait for the background check to come back. Then you can have your weapon.

Unless you.....

Are a felon.

Have been convicted of a violent crime.

Have a mental condition which can potentially make one violent.

Also- tightly regulate re-sales of existing weapons. This is almost more important, because used weapons are often sold, traded or otherwise transferred in ways that make them totally invisible.

Any weapon that is sold or otherwise transferred in any violation of the law should be destroyed.

Sounds like a sound, practical thing to do, so you know it will never get done.

The vocal minority will howl like wolves at how un-American it is.

[imawino]

Oct 2, 2015 9:18:01 GMT -5 Shooby said:

This ain't Europe and this aint' Canada.  I have already addressed this point .  But, if you think you are going to blink and all the guns are going to go Poof, that isn't happening.

Pretty sure we are all aware this ain't Europe or Canada, but thank you so much for addressing that point. Where did you read that someone wanted to bring in Jeannie to wiggle her nose and make things go poof? Would you like to actually offer up a coherent thought or just continue lobbing out gems like "so what? this ain't Canada! kill zone, kill zone! liberals!"?

[imawino]

Oct 2, 2015 5:04:56 GMT -5 Shooby said:

  As for Canada doing "something right", that may be. But, that doesn't necessarily translate to America. We have a very fierce culture of Independence and self sufficiency. And, our founders WANTED Americans to be able to protect themselves from tyrannical governments who would try to take their weapons. Sorry you don't like that, but that is the way it is. And, there are plenty of nations where citizens can't have guns who are being killed with guns. So, no you can't just "oh look at Canada", blah, blah. The problem is liberal cultural rot and atheism and annihilation that has taken hold so that shooters see no purpose to live and don't even fear God.

This is one of the most ignorant and offensive things you've ever written.

How many of the mass shootings in the US to date were carried out by Atheists?  Liberals?    You'll need to back up this claim.

[whoisjohngalt]

Oct 2, 2015 8:57:48 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Oct 2, 2015 8:27:21 GMT -5 @sroo4 said:

I don't know...what other constitutional rights are you ok with taking away from mentally ill people?  Freedom of speech?  Cause ya know they just say crazy stuff.   Illegal search and seizure... Cause ya know they could have dangerous things on them... like the guns they now can't have.  How about that religion stuff... maybe forcing God or Buddha on them will cure the crazy.  

What shall we define crazy as?  Is it anything that is listed in the DSM-5?   You might want to rethink that,  because you do know gay was considered crazy at one point... what else have they gotten wrong?

Quite a leap there, suggesting that I want to deprive all mentally ill people from freedom of speech and freedom of religion just because I want to prevent some of them from being armed.

I want to deprive mentally ill people with violent tendencies from having access to weapons. That's all I want to do.

This isn't a constitutional issue. It's a safety issue. You wouldn't let toddlers or old people with dementia have guns, either. Why would you think it's ok to allow mentally ill people who have expressed violent statements have weapons? 

Not all mentally ill people. The bulk of MI people are either not murderous or they are on medication that controls their destructive thoughts. I only want to target those people that end up on the nightly news with their googly eyes, looking bat shit crazy, and all their neighbors are telling the media "Yep I knew sooner or later he was going to blow."

This is exactly like the bartender law. A bartender can sell alcohol to an alcoholic, as long as the alcoholic isn't smashed already. A bartender is only obligated to stop one type of person from buying more alcohol - the person who is already falling down drunk.

The person living with someone with a mental illness is not obligated to keep his weapons locked up if that person is not exhibiting murderous intent. But if you have a lot of weapons and your son is clearly delusional and obsessed with first person shooter video games, you should have a legal obligation to prevent your son from being able to get at your guns.

For instance, in the Sandy Hook case, the mom had a stash of weapons at the house where her clearly troubled son lived. Wouldn't it have been nice if she kept all those guns in a gun safe at the shooting range? We could ask her, but she was the first person her crazy ass son killed, before he took his guns to the elementary school.

 

The ONLY way to do that is to have them watched 24/7 bc even if you completely limit someone's ability to buy a gun legally, it is way too easy in US to buy one illegally.  And no laws can help with that.

[ken a.k.a OMK]

You can't even get a drivers license until a certain age, passing a test, getting a license and demonstrating you can drive safely following the rules.

Guns? The all powerful NRA would never allow these regulations. Politicians bend to the NRA because if they go after you with their money you won't get elected.

I have no issue with hand guns for self defense or rifles for hunting. I do have a problem with the fire power of some of these weapons people own and how they feel the need to walk around in public places showing them off.

[imawino]

Oct 2, 2015 10:22:11 GMT -5 Shooby said:

Oct 2, 2015 9:51:23 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

so, we should resign ourselves to dying ten at a time? 

that's so comforting.

The alternative is Virginia Tech.  The alternative is Chicago that Obama so conveniently ignores.  He's had 6 years to do "something".  But, standing at the pulpit and "scolding" with his "angry eyes" is the only thing he is capable of.  The only way to beat a bully is to punch him in the nose.  Weak incompetence will be crushed.  Weak incompetent liberal policies that have resulted in the breakdown of society, family and religion are what has caused these mass shootings.

the only alternative you can think of to being gunned down 10 at a time is being gunned down 32 at a time?? 

[Tennesseer]

Oct 2, 2015 12:45:08 GMT -5 imawino said:

Oct 2, 2015 5:04:56 GMT -5 Shooby said:

  As for Canada doing "something right", that may be. But, that doesn't necessarily translate to America. We have a very fierce culture of Independence and self sufficiency. And, our founders WANTED Americans to be able to protect themselves from tyrannical governments who would try to take their weapons. Sorry you don't like that, but that is the way it is. And, there are plenty of nations where citizens can't have guns who are being killed with guns. So, no you can't just "oh look at Canada", blah, blah. The problem is liberal cultural rot and atheism and annihilation that has taken hold so that shooters see no purpose to live and don't even fear God.

This is one of the most ignorant and offensive things you've ever written.

How many of the mass shootings in the US to date were carried out by Atheists?  Liberals?    You'll need to back up this claim.

You're not exactly new here...so you must have had some Proboard outages from time to time and missed some posts.

[Tennesseer]

Oct 2, 2015 12:45:24 GMT -5 ken a.k.a OMK said:

You can't even get a drivers license until a certain age, passing a test, getting a license and demonstrating you can drive safely following the rules.

Guns? The all powerful NRA would never allow these regulations. Politicians bend to the NRA because if they go after you with their money you won't get elected.

I have no issue with hand guns for self defense or rifles for hunting. I do have a problem with the fire power of some of these weapons people own and how they feel the need to walk around in public places showing them off.

[Virgil Showlion]

I think we would all do well to emulate the Amish response at the West Nickel Mines school shooting:

On the day of the shooting, a grandfather of one of the murdered Amish girls was heard warning some young relatives not to hate the killer, saying, "We must not think evil of this man."   Another Amish father noted, "He had a mother and a wife and a soul and now he's standing before a just God."  Jack Meyer, a member of the Brethren community living near the Amish in Lancaster County, explained: "I don't think there's anybody here that wants to do anything but forgive and not only reach out to those who have suffered a loss in that way but to reach out to the family of the man who committed these acts."

A Roberts (the shooter) family spokesman said an Amish neighbor comforted the Roberts family hours after the shooting and extended forgiveness to them. Amish community members visited and comforted Roberts' widow, parents, and parents-in-law. One Amish man held Roberts' sobbing father in his arms, reportedly for as long as an hour, to comfort him. The Amish have also set up a charitable fund for the family of the shooter.  About 30 members of the Amish community attended Roberts' funeral, and Marie Roberts, the widow of the killer, was one of the few outsiders invited to the funeral of one of the victims.

Let's not hate the shooter or give any glory to his actions by poring over his motivations. It suffices to say a man committed evil acts and will face justice for them. For Christians, this is an opportunity to emulate the faith of the Amish. For all of us, it profits us nothing to dissect the specifics of the shooting.

[Tennesseer]

Oct 2, 2015 12:55:03 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

The media needs to stop running non-stop coverage of these sick fucks for days on end, mentioning their name every two minutes, and giving them the fame they crave. I don't give a shit what the asshole in Oregon's name was. I don't need to see his family or acquaintances on TV talking about his life, childhood, or whatever. He's a sick deranged fuck, now he's dead, may he be dry raped by a cactus every day on hell.

No gun regulation required.

Imagine how many fewer school shootings we would have had if the media never mentioned the names of the shooters from Columbine.

Maybe so. But you would still have the history of the Columbine shootings. And in the end, the shooter's name would be known, especially if they lived and went to trial and were convicted.

[imawino]

Oct 2, 2015 12:52:17 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Oct 2, 2015 12:45:08 GMT -5 imawino said:

This is one of the most ignorant and offensive things you've ever written.

How many of the mass shootings in the US to date were carried out by Atheists?  Liberals?    You'll need to back up this claim.

You're not exactly new here...so you must have had some Proboard outages from time to time and missed some posts.

oops.  I accidentally left off a word.  It should have read one of the most ignorant and offensive things you've ever written TODAY. 

[Tennesseer]

Oct 2, 2015 12:58:19 GMT -5 imawino said:

Oct 2, 2015 12:52:17 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

You're not exactly new here...so you must have had some Proboard outages from time to time and missed some posts.

oops.  I accidentally left off a word.  It should have read one of the most ignorant and offensive things you've ever written TODAY. 

This deserves three.

[ken a.k.a OMK]

Dark and Virgil. 

[mmhmm]

Oct 2, 2015 12:36:31 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

Oct 2, 2015 12:23:12 GMT -5 Shooby said:

If you don't wish to own a gun, then don't own one. Pretty simple.  You know, free choice and all.

I own a gun. Three of them in fact. I am in favor of tighter rules for gun purchases. Absolutely.

It is not an infringement of any right. Simply apply when you want to buy a weapon, and wait for the background check to come back. Then you can have your weapon.

Unless you.....

Are a felon.

Have been convicted of a violent crime.

Have a mental condition which can potentially make one violent.

Also- tightly regulate re-sales of existing weapons. This is almost more important, because used weapons are often sold, traded or otherwise transferred in ways that make them totally invisible.

Any weapon that is sold or otherwise transferred in any violation of the law should be destroyed.

I have a gun. Haven't touched the thing since I learned to shoot it several years before my late DH passed away. My son and his sons have guns. My SIL did have a gun but he gave it to his son (legal transfer - now registered in the son's name). None of us have anything in our backgrounds that would preclude our owning guns. That said, I really ought to transfer mine to someone else. I'm not going to use the darned thing. My son cleans it periodically. Then again, I'm also an atheist, so I might just run out and start firing at random strangers any minute now.

[mmhmm]

Oct 2, 2015 13:04:56 GMT -5 @sroo4 said:

Oct 2, 2015 13:02:05 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

I have a gun. Haven't touched the thing since I learned to shoot it several years before my late DH passed away. My son and his sons have guns. My SIL did have a gun but he gave it to his son (legal transfer - now registered in the son's name). None of us have anything in our backgrounds that would preclude our owning guns. That said, I really ought to transfer mine to someone else. I'm not going to use the darned thing. My son cleans it periodically. Then again, I'm also an atheist, so I might just run out and start firing at random strangers any minute now.

Careful.. if you have sleep apnea, caffeine withdrawls, or binge eat you too could be mentally ill. 

LOL! Fortunately, I don't have sleep apnea, don't drink coffee or other caffeinated drinks, and don't binge-eat. Hopefully, that renders me reasonably sane.

[Tennesseer]

Oct 2, 2015 13:01:13 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

Oct 2, 2015 12:57:31 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Maybe so. But you would still have the history of the Columbine shootings. And in the end, the shooter's name would be known, especially if they lived and went to trial and were convicted.

But they don't live and go to trial do they? These are murder suicides. Every time. They're publicity stunts by deranged mentally ill people that want to be remembered. You fight that by not giving them the fame they crave when they commit these atrocious and desperate acts. It's not rocket science.

In yesterday's case it was not a suicide-the police killed him. Maybe he wanted to be killed by the police-we may never know.

The Charleston, SC killing of the nine church members-no suicide there. He tried to escape capture.

Some do kill themselves. Others do not. I wish we could stop more of these suicides from happening so we could get a better understanding of what is going on in their heads and possibly figure out a way to reduce such incidents in the future.

[mmhmm]

Oct 2, 2015 13:09:18 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

If we lived in a culture that didn't release the names of the shooters, only the victims. Didn't focus on the shooter and his motivations, only the survivors and their struggles. Mass shootings would lose their appeal to suicidal nut jobs that want to be remembered. They can only get famous for killing a dozen people if we as a culture get infatuated by people that kill a dozen people.

Over a decade later people still remember the names of the Columbine shooters, but can't name a single victim from that shooting spree. And we're sitting here arguing about gun control. Am I the only person on the planet who thinks we're dealing with this problem completely ass backwards.

No, you're not. There's truth to what you're saying, IMO. I don't know that not releasing the names of the perps in these cases would stop all of them but I do believe it would stem the flow of copy-cat attacks. There are definitely those who do this for the notoriety. I don't think there's much question of that.

[grumpyhermit]

Oct 2, 2015 13:09:18 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

If we lived in a culture that didn't release the names of the shooters, only the victims. Didn't focus on the shooter and his motivations, only the survivors and their struggles. Mass shootings would lose their appeal to suicidal nut jobs that want to be remembered. They can only get famous for killing a dozen people if we as a culture get infatuated by people that kill a dozen people.

Over a decade later people still remember the names of the Columbine shooters, but can't name a single victim from that shooting spree. And we're sitting here arguing about gun control. Am I the only person on the planet who thinks we're dealing with this problem completely ass backwards.

Actually, I don't. I mean I remember bits and pieces about Columbine, but not the shooters names.

I also don't see the mainstream press every putting a gag on shooter info. The act of mass shootings has turned into another form of macabre theater for the American populace; its grief porn. Oh how terrible, oh how tragic, let us pray, let us forgive...and then the whole cycle starts over again.

Not only do I think the the media wouldn't do it, I don't think the population would support it either. They WANT to know about these shooters. And in the internet age, that information is going to get out.