According to the Nation Master website, the United States and Yemen have the most guns per capita, and yet the US is 63rd in the rates of homicides by the statistics of Nation Master.
Nancy Lanza was a collector of automatic weapons also, but could not defend herself
against her mentally unstable son, Adam Lanza who was the shooter at Sandy Hook Grade School. He killed his mother first, before shooting people at the school.
Do we not have laws that punish people who allow their weapons to fall into the hands of mental disturbed persons in their own households? Perhaps licenses and insurance are the answer.
Nancy Lanza was a collector of automatic weapons also, but could not defend herself
against her mentally unstable son, Adam Lanza who was the shooter at Sandy Hook Grade School. He killed his mother first, before shooting people at the school.
Do we not have laws that punish people who allow their weapons to fall into the hands of mental disturbed persons in their own households? Perhaps licenses and insurance are the answer.
3
What if the simple fact of the matter is that freedom is costly, and the right to free speech, which allows the media to sow the opiate that poisoned this young man’s mind -- along with other copycat school mass murderers -- is the price we have to pay for freedom?
Otherwise, we should be regulating the media, telling them how to report on this story, since the primary motivation of this person was to become famous. After all, cyberspace, where everyone can hear you whisper, was the vehicle he used to make his pronouncement.
The gun thing? That’s the secondary tool.
The primary goal here was infamy, for which First Amendment rights were indirectly abused in order to disseminate the message that achieved the purpose. Second Amendment rights were employed to gather the tools needed to execute the deed required to create that message.
This was an act of rights abuse, which is the price of living in a free society. Yet most of the people in this thread, it seems, are willing to give up one right, while absolving the other.
Two inextricably intertwined rights are at play here. If we’re willing to give up our natural right to self-defense today because it makes us falsely feel unsafe, it’s inevitable that we’ll eventually allow all of our rights to be eroded in the same manner for a feeling of security that will never come. Moreover, and ironically, we’ll go from being the governed to the ruled.
Otherwise, we should be regulating the media, telling them how to report on this story, since the primary motivation of this person was to become famous. After all, cyberspace, where everyone can hear you whisper, was the vehicle he used to make his pronouncement.
The gun thing? That’s the secondary tool.
The primary goal here was infamy, for which First Amendment rights were indirectly abused in order to disseminate the message that achieved the purpose. Second Amendment rights were employed to gather the tools needed to execute the deed required to create that message.
This was an act of rights abuse, which is the price of living in a free society. Yet most of the people in this thread, it seems, are willing to give up one right, while absolving the other.
Two inextricably intertwined rights are at play here. If we’re willing to give up our natural right to self-defense today because it makes us falsely feel unsafe, it’s inevitable that we’ll eventually allow all of our rights to be eroded in the same manner for a feeling of security that will never come. Moreover, and ironically, we’ll go from being the governed to the ruled.
3
The fictional Archie Bunker once famously suggested that "to stop plane hijackings the airlines should just pass out guns to all the passengers." Who could have predicted that Archie's advice would now be adapted for the situation in Roseburg?
A wiser alternative would be for the president to use his authority to control guns as provided in the Second Amendment and in Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution. The president's specified power to "command" the militia, necessarily includes the authority to direct its fire as well as to "command" the weapons used, including how they are purchased, maintained, stored and protected. It would be illogical and self-defeating to give the president the power to tell the militia when and where to fire their arms and at what targets but withold from him the power to determine how those arms should be stored, managed and tracked.
Moreover, it would be absurd to declare that there can be no effective management and control of the fire-arms used to murder children in their classrooms, while stating -- as the text of the Second Amendment does -- that the sole constitutional justification for the militia and its right to bear arms is that the militia is "necessary to the security of a free state." Not even Archie Bunker, himself, would go there.
A wiser alternative would be for the president to use his authority to control guns as provided in the Second Amendment and in Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution. The president's specified power to "command" the militia, necessarily includes the authority to direct its fire as well as to "command" the weapons used, including how they are purchased, maintained, stored and protected. It would be illogical and self-defeating to give the president the power to tell the militia when and where to fire their arms and at what targets but withold from him the power to determine how those arms should be stored, managed and tracked.
Moreover, it would be absurd to declare that there can be no effective management and control of the fire-arms used to murder children in their classrooms, while stating -- as the text of the Second Amendment does -- that the sole constitutional justification for the militia and its right to bear arms is that the militia is "necessary to the security of a free state." Not even Archie Bunker, himself, would go there.
2
Half of Americans - gun owners and non-owners alike -- believe that stricter gun control laws would give the government greater overall power over individuals. See, Pew Research report, 2013.
Defense against government power over individuals is the reason the founders enacted the 2d Amendment.
Throughout history, the inability of individuals to defend against government authority has enabled dictatorships, pogroms and government oppression and tyranny of all kinds.
Registration of firearms ownership may be as good as inviting government to seize those weapons. The difference between registering firearms and motor vehicles is that automobiles and trucks are not tools of defense against oppression; Chinese and Iranian citizens own cars.
What can Americans do to preserve their God-given liberties if they surrender their nuclear option against government: the right to fire back when the Redcoats stage a reprise?
Defense against government power over individuals is the reason the founders enacted the 2d Amendment.
Throughout history, the inability of individuals to defend against government authority has enabled dictatorships, pogroms and government oppression and tyranny of all kinds.
Registration of firearms ownership may be as good as inviting government to seize those weapons. The difference between registering firearms and motor vehicles is that automobiles and trucks are not tools of defense against oppression; Chinese and Iranian citizens own cars.
What can Americans do to preserve their God-given liberties if they surrender their nuclear option against government: the right to fire back when the Redcoats stage a reprise?
6
I will never understand this way of thinking. Life isn't an action movie. Getting into a gun fight with someone is a losing proposition.
1
Have you ever been in a gun fight? Have you ever been beaten up, robbed, had your life in danger? Ever watched a mugging and asked if you could do something about it? I bet you're the one who lives bring the victim. Using up Dr's time, supplies, psychiatrists ( who could be helping the really bad people) and other state agencies like the police and medical response, crime scene investigators, etc when you could've prevented or stopped the crime before or at the very early stages of the crime. Need I say more?
1
Guaranteed loosing proposition if the other guy is the only one with a gun...
4
I see places that where its really hard to own a gun works so good. Just one look at Chicago shows just how great the system works....
7
Ever since President Obama was elected on a promise of stricter gun control measures, the number of guns in the hands of Americans has increased exponentially. Each time a mass murder has occurred during his tenure, he has called for more gun-control, employing the euphemism, "gun-safety legislation," with other advocates of stricter control of their fellow Americans joining in the chorus. And every time the chorus has been heard, Americans by the tens of thousands have rushed to the store to buy a gun or stock up on ammo before lawmakers might stop them. As a result the number of guns in the hands of Americans has exploded.
The definition of insanity is repeating the same mistakes over and over again and expecting different results. There are now so many guns in the hands of the people that any measure of effective gun control (people control) is bound to be rejected by a congress of politicians who would like to be reelected.
The definition of insanity is repeating the same mistakes over and over again and expecting different results. There are now so many guns in the hands of the people that any measure of effective gun control (people control) is bound to be rejected by a congress of politicians who would like to be reelected.
3
And all the while the gun crime rate continues to decline
3
I live in a city where my friends and a good number of people do not own guns. I like it that way. You could not pay me enough money to get me to move to a pro gun state.
3
And that my fellow American... Is you're right. Let the rest of us who are responsible take that urgency on for you
5
90% of the comments that I have read on here points fingers at the tool. Why is it that in today's society it is logical to blame an inanimate object and not the person? Have we become so self-absorbed that we have no concept of personal responsibility?
Some have commented that the 2nd Amendment was intended for muzzle-loaded weapons only and that the Founding Fathers had no conception of today's firearms. Did they conceive the internet and TV for exercising our 1st Amendment rights? You do not have the luxury of picking and choosing which Amendments you want someone else to follow. In the writings of Jefferson, Madison and Washington, just to name a few, they spelled out the need to have a well-armed militia consisting of able-bodied men from each state. It was to protect the people from an overbearing government, which is what they had just won their independence from. Maybe they did have the foresight to see the future?
A majority of the issue with today's society is the lack of teaching the value of human life, as well as taking responsibility for our own actions. The media, entertainment industry and society in general has glorified violence and tells us that we all are victims of something. If you look at where these "killers" come from, I bet you will find a majority are from broken homes. We have become so easily persuaded into throwing away our families that appear to be broken without trying to fix them. Are we okay with showing our kids that they are disposable?
Some have commented that the 2nd Amendment was intended for muzzle-loaded weapons only and that the Founding Fathers had no conception of today's firearms. Did they conceive the internet and TV for exercising our 1st Amendment rights? You do not have the luxury of picking and choosing which Amendments you want someone else to follow. In the writings of Jefferson, Madison and Washington, just to name a few, they spelled out the need to have a well-armed militia consisting of able-bodied men from each state. It was to protect the people from an overbearing government, which is what they had just won their independence from. Maybe they did have the foresight to see the future?
A majority of the issue with today's society is the lack of teaching the value of human life, as well as taking responsibility for our own actions. The media, entertainment industry and society in general has glorified violence and tells us that we all are victims of something. If you look at where these "killers" come from, I bet you will find a majority are from broken homes. We have become so easily persuaded into throwing away our families that appear to be broken without trying to fix them. Are we okay with showing our kids that they are disposable?
7
What you are advocating is a lot more difficult and probably expensive than, just buying a gun. But you're right.
1
You're straight up buying the nail... Continuing on is that the left is wanting to take away responsibility, take away being responsible for having a family. It's all a joke to have Christ in your life, etc. The left is literally killing everyone off
2
As Archie Bunker famously suggested during an "All In The Family" episode: "The best way to stop plane hijackings is very simple -- just pass out guns to all the passengers." Who would have thought then that Archie Bunker would become the role model for college students in Roseburg?
An alternative would be for the president to use his constitutional authority to control guns provided in the Second Amendment and in Article II, Section 2. Since the president is authorized to "command" the militia, he certainly has the authority to direct its atacks and its fire as well as to "command" the weapons used and how they are used, as well as how they are purchased, maintained, stored and protected. It would be illogical and self-defeating to give the president the power to tell the militia when and where to fire their arms and at what targets but withold from him the power to determine how those arms should be stored, managed and tracked.
Moreover, it would be absurd to declare -- as the text of the Second Amendment does -- that the sole constitutional justification for the militia and its right to bear arms is that the militia is "necessary to the security of a free state," while maintaining that there can be no effective management and control of the firearme used to murder children in their classrooms. Not even Archiie Bunker, himself, would go there.
An alternative would be for the president to use his constitutional authority to control guns provided in the Second Amendment and in Article II, Section 2. Since the president is authorized to "command" the militia, he certainly has the authority to direct its atacks and its fire as well as to "command" the weapons used and how they are used, as well as how they are purchased, maintained, stored and protected. It would be illogical and self-defeating to give the president the power to tell the militia when and where to fire their arms and at what targets but withold from him the power to determine how those arms should be stored, managed and tracked.
Moreover, it would be absurd to declare -- as the text of the Second Amendment does -- that the sole constitutional justification for the militia and its right to bear arms is that the militia is "necessary to the security of a free state," while maintaining that there can be no effective management and control of the firearme used to murder children in their classrooms. Not even Archiie Bunker, himself, would go there.
2
An alternative would be for the president to use his constitutional authority to control guns provided in the Second Amendment and in Article II, Section 2. Since the president is authorized to "command" the militia, he certainly has the authority to direct its atacks and its fire as well as to "command" the weapons used and how they are used, as well as how they are purchased, maintained, stored and protected.
====================
Sorry, but you are looking at the wrong part of the Constitution. Those responsibilities are given to Congress in Article I Section 8:
The Congress shall have Power -
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
====================
Sorry, but you are looking at the wrong part of the Constitution. Those responsibilities are given to Congress in Article I Section 8:
The Congress shall have Power -
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
3
So what are the chances of being in a place where a mass shooting will happen? What are the chances of an outside terrorist attacking and killing Americans. As President Obama pointed out last week, we spend all kinds of money trying to keep terrorists out of the U.S., but chances are higher that you could die here in the U.S. with a firearm more so than an outside terrorist.
According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention FastStats, 16,121 deaths are from homicide, or deaths per 100,000 population : 5.1
Also according to the CDC the leading cause of death here in the U.S. is heart disease at 611,105. Death by cancer is 584,881. Deaths by chronic lower respiratory diseases is 149,205.
It seems that by the above statistics, rather than buy more firearms to "protect" themselves, Americans should take better care of their body health by choosing healthier foods and exercising more!
According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention FastStats, 16,121 deaths are from homicide, or deaths per 100,000 population : 5.1
Also according to the CDC the leading cause of death here in the U.S. is heart disease at 611,105. Death by cancer is 584,881. Deaths by chronic lower respiratory diseases is 149,205.
It seems that by the above statistics, rather than buy more firearms to "protect" themselves, Americans should take better care of their body health by choosing healthier foods and exercising more!
In other words, nothing to worry about.
"Many in the Roseburg, Ore., community said the shooting rampage had only increased their belief in the importance of owning guns."?
Isn't that the same sort of "logic" that says 1 + 2 = 100? (instead of "-7" the number of people killed)
Isn't that the same sort of "logic" that says 1 + 2 = 100? (instead of "-7" the number of people killed)
1
Nearly forty years ago I had to wrestle a handgun away from a man who was pointing it
at my head. I realized then if I was to ever be safe I better protect myself. I have had a gun on me ever since. There is no substitute.
at my head. I realized then if I was to ever be safe I better protect myself. I have had a gun on me ever since. There is no substitute.
6
Cliff hanger... We want to know what happened.
so do you think you could have pulled your gun and accurately shot this man before he pulled the trigger?
4
Car accident kill 1000 times more than gun violence a year. It is a universal problem ignored by stupid law makers. Nobody should be allowed to own a car! There should only be government trained, qualified professional drivers on the road!
4
But we have all kinds of regulations regarding cars. You need a license, for example, you need to wear seat belts, you can´t drive a car if you are under age, you can´t drink and drive. There are traffic rules. But let´s not do anything at all about the gun massacres, occurring now about once a week.
2
Zejee, how many people are liked by illegally driving a vehicle because they were dunk? How many people killed by hammers and other "nonviolent; instruments? That's right, ALL which are permitted as tools of trades and supposed rights of ownership. None of which are rights to own, exercise ownership of or need proficiency tests... But yet, they surpass "gun violence", (which by the way is a media talking point that merits zero statistics). How many times do toy hear about a mother saving herself and children by having a gun? Zero. Why? Because why would you call 911 and report nothing happened? Driving a vehicle is a privilege, not a right. Owning a firearm, is a right, protected by the constitution and given to us by my almighty, who I call God the eternal father. Now, the next time you see someone speeding, driving without a belt on, driving without lights.. You better be on that phone with 911 because the that if someone MIGHT be breaking the law and MIGHT cause serious damage to themselves or someone else.
BTW, "mass shooting" is defined as 3 or more injured in at one time.
BTW, "mass shooting" is defined as 3 or more injured in at one time.
Actually, Tyler, there were almost equal numbers of gun deaths and traffic deaths in the US in 2013: 33,804 by car and 33,636 by gun. You should really check your facts before you spout off in a national forum.
1
There is irony in the fact that this week we have spent time discussing how Congress spent $4.5 mill. on the Benghazi hearings that essentially produced nothing, while over the same time period spent Congress nothing on how we might reduce the 33,000 gun-related deaths we suffer each year.
2
I'm guessing you're not following the same need I am...
1
A study from the CDC shows that the people who want firearms to protect themselves have evidence to back their position:
Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.
http://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1?page=
Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.
http://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1?page=
5
I'm old enough to remember being taught in school that "the winning of the West" was a great accomplishment of civilization and involved gun use regulation. As the Earps said in Tombstone a hundred years ago "No guns in town!" Seems like we're going backwards.
2
Keep in mind that we can not cover every contingency in schools or anywhere else. A perfect example are terrorists. Saddam Hussein is dead. After 9/11 all airports, passengers, and luggage are searched, the pilots cabin is locked, and Osama Bin Laden is dead. This means no more terrorists attacks, right? Homicidal maniacs will always find a weapon, be that a gun, a knife, a bomb, an airplane, biological, chemical, or whatever.
4
I agree with the reader's statement that the 2nd amendment is being misinterpreted and taken totally out of context by a gun-happy minority in this country. And this abuse of the 2nd amendment violates me, my grandchildren, my children and all peace loving individuals constitutional rights. We must support those aggrieved families and any leaders who have the strength to enact laws that will help protect those rights. It seems the gun happy would have us revert to the "wild west" of the past by arming every individual possible and just let them all shoot it out. We seem to not learn our lessons well from history, and our future generations suffer for it.
2
These people are all suffering the effects of severe and very real trauma-- which is not necessarily the optimum moment to make rational decisions of any kind. What they require is immediate intervention and appropriate therapy. They need more guns like more (as unfortunately the case literally is, in this suffering community) holes in the head.
3
In Japan and England were guns are more or less not present in the populus, I feel far more safe st all times than I do most days in America. That said, if everyone owns a gun, everyone needs to he ready to use it, and no mistaken shootings? Perhaps a non-lethal defensive projectile weapons, if you like... how about an imobilizing net gun?
Not a bad idea, but it won't stop an active shooter. BTW, all of the Japanese police force train hours a day in multiple forms of hand to hand combat, martial arts. They may prove competency before they're even selected to the academy.
more than the guns, it is the gun culture of america which must change -- the entire cowboy mindset that the default solution to any "real american's" problem is with a bullet.
it doesn't look ready to change anytime soon, what with the big bucks of gun manufacturers; defense contractors; hollywood and video game producers; and the sports/industrial complex standing in the way in order to keep their cash cow producing.
only when the idea of being a gun owner carries the same negative cachet as say, cigarette smoking does now will we be on the way to a cure for this "patriotic" sickness.
it doesn't look ready to change anytime soon, what with the big bucks of gun manufacturers; defense contractors; hollywood and video game producers; and the sports/industrial complex standing in the way in order to keep their cash cow producing.
only when the idea of being a gun owner carries the same negative cachet as say, cigarette smoking does now will we be on the way to a cure for this "patriotic" sickness.
2
I want to live in a United States that is not overpopulated by thoroughly irrational, uneducated individuals with the intellectual capacities of gnats. Is that too much to ask?
8
Sorry, but there is no way to get rid of all the liberals.
5
Oh yeah. conservatives, who deny evolution and dont like contraception, and want every disgruntled man in the US to have ready access to guns, are really smart. LOL.
2
What do you expect when police cannot protect citizens but instead, kill them?
1
Early reports of the massacre in Umpqua stated that those students who were present and carrying guns chose not to use them (wisely) to avoid being mistaken for the attacker by the police responding to the call.
So then what is the value of carrying a gun in a confused situation like a mass shooting? Do people wishing for a gun of their own really think they have the skills and reflexes to respond like a trained military sharpshooter?
There are many emotional feelings about these events but
more guns and more insurance is not the answer. Clear thinking is.
So then what is the value of carrying a gun in a confused situation like a mass shooting? Do people wishing for a gun of their own really think they have the skills and reflexes to respond like a trained military sharpshooter?
There are many emotional feelings about these events but
more guns and more insurance is not the answer. Clear thinking is.
3
In my country, regular citizens are not allowed to have guns. The only ppl who do are the Police, Defence, Business people who must get a license and Criminals. Every single day, in a country of 1.2 million, at least one person dies from getting shot either in robbery, gang violence or just spite! The average home is barricaded like a jail, and car tracking and cctv businesses have become a booming industry. Bandits no longer need to rob in the night, many are comfortable with doing their deeds in broad daylight too - pouncing on people who might just be leaving or arriving home to and from work! I envy the USA right to bear arms and wish I had that right too!
4
That has nothing to do with undergoing a background check .
They want to own a gun fine but if they're crazy they can't.
They want to own a gun fine but if they're crazy they can't.
1
Repeal the 2nd Amendment so that we can eliminate this silly notion that firearms are a birthright for Americans. This will make gun ownership, possession, and use a privilege, and it will allow our legislators to enact common-sense safety laws, including requiring registration, licensing, and insurance.
3
There are processes in place to amend the constitution. You have to get 2/3 of state legislatures to agree. Good luck!
Thanks for your support. We're counting on Iowa to join us!
Stupid, stupid, stupid Americans.
Many of these shootings have been at schools--so we're going to allow
everyone in schools to be armed to the teeth? Kindergartners?! I can see English lit class: "To be or not to be..." Religious Studies: "Love thine enemy as thyself...thou shalt not kill." American History: hmmm...that one might explain our latest lunacy.
Many of these shootings have been at schools--so we're going to allow
everyone in schools to be armed to the teeth? Kindergartners?! I can see English lit class: "To be or not to be..." Religious Studies: "Love thine enemy as thyself...thou shalt not kill." American History: hmmm...that one might explain our latest lunacy.
2
There have been 146 school shootings since Sandy Hook. More guns? Please, this is not the answer.
4
I'm a community college instructor and we had "Active Shooter Training" at the beginning of the semester. All faculty and staff were required to attend one of the four sessions that were held over a four day period. The speaker was incredibly bombastic, demonstrated and had us run through disarming a shooter while we threatened one another with replica AK-47s and shotguns.
He was less than focused and consistently waxed philosophical on the decline of American culture and the importance of Christianity as well as decrying the "wimp" factor he sees endemic to the millennial generation (of which I'm marginally a part).
Growing up in the shadow of Columbine and the spate of school shootings that marred the early 2000s I still don't have a definitive stance on "gun control." There's something much more deeply wrong with us as a nation and it isn't video games, it isn't guns, it isn't any of that. I wonder if as long as we legitimize some kinds of violence, we'll have all kinds of violence.
He was less than focused and consistently waxed philosophical on the decline of American culture and the importance of Christianity as well as decrying the "wimp" factor he sees endemic to the millennial generation (of which I'm marginally a part).
Growing up in the shadow of Columbine and the spate of school shootings that marred the early 2000s I still don't have a definitive stance on "gun control." There's something much more deeply wrong with us as a nation and it isn't video games, it isn't guns, it isn't any of that. I wonder if as long as we legitimize some kinds of violence, we'll have all kinds of violence.
7
You mean the sort of violence perpetrated on victims who then patiently wait on the floor after dialing 911?
Mr. J, will you at least use the training in an attempt to protect students who call you professor or not?
I'm sorry your class wasn't more helpful. I voluntarily attended a class offered by my university which was taught by the campus police and focused on making yourself and others safe in an active shooter situation. We learned such things as effective ways to barricade doors and what kind of information is most helpful to the police when calling 911 in these situations. We also learned how to distract and disarm a shooter without weapons and what to do after the shooter is disarmed. The training was very focused and offered without bombast or philosophical or political commentary. It was very helpful and has been taken now by many members of the community here, both within the university and outside, including by many of our local public school teachers.
The training I took was quite helpful and I strongly recommend it to others. Sadly, your experience shows that not all training opportunities are equal.
The training I took was quite helpful and I strongly recommend it to others. Sadly, your experience shows that not all training opportunities are equal.
A person who encourages a mentally delusional person to take up shooting as a hobby should be considered an accessory to murder if that person goes and shoots people. Jindahl blames the father of the Roseburg shooter; I blame the mother who was actually living with and encouraging her son in his delusional world.
11
I agree with celidth. A mother who encourages her socially isolated and mentally unstable son to play with guns as a way to stay close to him should be answerable for the crimes that result. A pretty common denominator in recent shootings is mother as enabler. We should be thinking about how to punish that type of behavior.
2
Firstly, if the Supreme Court said owing guns is a constitutional right, so be it, but no right is unbounded. We have the right to free speech, but this does not mean we can yell fire at a public theatre when there is none. We have freedom of religion, but it does not mean you can take illegal drugs. Let's get sensible about gun control!
Secondly, I think it's time to take a serious look at taxing guns and ammunition like we do cigarettes. Use the revenue to help pay for the loss to victim's family and loved ones, for starters.
Secondly, I think it's time to take a serious look at taxing guns and ammunition like we do cigarettes. Use the revenue to help pay for the loss to victim's family and loved ones, for starters.
2
People are waking up to the fact that the victims are the only ones obeying gun control laws. It's time to ban gun free zones everywhere that doesn't have airport level security.
7
Law-abiding citizens need to be able to carry guns. They need to be able to buy those guns without pesky background checks. They need to be able to use those guns without bothersome proficiency tests.
The system works great.
Not.
The system works great.
Not.
2
A shooting happens, people get scared and want to protect themselves, they get a gun. The next shooter gets a little more hyped up… gets another gun to add to his arsenal. The NRA and weak congress members tell people that the only way to stop a guy with a gun is to have a bigger gun. So people want cannons. The situation keeps getting cranked up, tension increases, minds close… crank, crank, crank.
Bang you're dead.
Bang you're dead.
2
Lots of conversation here about gun regulations, insurance, and licensure. It seems the readers and NYTimes are suggesting that this would stop gun violence or at least deter it.
How does having insurance for a gun stop these crazy people looking for their moment of fame as a mentally ill person? If this guy in OR had insurance, how does that stop him? He is going to think twice about shooting kids on a campus because his premiums might go up? Or is the insurance company going to be held liable to pay restitution to families? What is the price of a life, especially one so young?
And to have a license - how does that stop someone like this? Quick answer, it doesn't. And it wouldn't have stopped any of the other mass killings, including Sandy Hook.
So what are readers really saying? They don't want regulations, they want the ability to get a gun so onerous as to stop gun ownership. They want the cost of insurance, licensure, and back ground checks to be so high as to limit the ability of most to even have a gun in the first place. Of course, then readers will be crying about how only the '1%' can afford guns and 'that's not fair.'
When the end game sought by one extreme is 'no guns,' the other extreme will fight tooth and nail for no regulations whatsoever. Is it no longer possible for us as a nation to have compromise? On anything?!
How does having insurance for a gun stop these crazy people looking for their moment of fame as a mentally ill person? If this guy in OR had insurance, how does that stop him? He is going to think twice about shooting kids on a campus because his premiums might go up? Or is the insurance company going to be held liable to pay restitution to families? What is the price of a life, especially one so young?
And to have a license - how does that stop someone like this? Quick answer, it doesn't. And it wouldn't have stopped any of the other mass killings, including Sandy Hook.
So what are readers really saying? They don't want regulations, they want the ability to get a gun so onerous as to stop gun ownership. They want the cost of insurance, licensure, and back ground checks to be so high as to limit the ability of most to even have a gun in the first place. Of course, then readers will be crying about how only the '1%' can afford guns and 'that's not fair.'
When the end game sought by one extreme is 'no guns,' the other extreme will fight tooth and nail for no regulations whatsoever. Is it no longer possible for us as a nation to have compromise? On anything?!
3
Like most if not all pro-gun advocates, you misstate the position of those you oppose.
No one is "taking your guns". What they are asking for is firstly, some evidence based research from a health and safety perspective as to what steps can be taken to make gun ownership safer. Do you not wonder WHY the NRA and others that advocate your views continue to block such efforts? Does that not sound just a little troubling to you? What are you afraid that the research might determine - that there is this "compromise" position that you seem to argue for?
Secondly, does it not concern you just a little bit that the incidence of such mass slaughter and violent gun death continues to "distinguish" America from all other civilized first world countries? Once again, do the gun rights advocates not look at the big picture of American "exceptionalism" in terms of gun deaths and even wonder why that may be the case? Or is it just a "cost of doing business" in America.
I applaud your call for finding common ground. But when you so quickly dismiss possible solutions and yourself appear to be against any common sense regulation, licensure or safety measures, I fear that your idea of compromise may be the same as the NRA's and Comgress.
No one is "taking your guns". What they are asking for is firstly, some evidence based research from a health and safety perspective as to what steps can be taken to make gun ownership safer. Do you not wonder WHY the NRA and others that advocate your views continue to block such efforts? Does that not sound just a little troubling to you? What are you afraid that the research might determine - that there is this "compromise" position that you seem to argue for?
Secondly, does it not concern you just a little bit that the incidence of such mass slaughter and violent gun death continues to "distinguish" America from all other civilized first world countries? Once again, do the gun rights advocates not look at the big picture of American "exceptionalism" in terms of gun deaths and even wonder why that may be the case? Or is it just a "cost of doing business" in America.
I applaud your call for finding common ground. But when you so quickly dismiss possible solutions and yourself appear to be against any common sense regulation, licensure or safety measures, I fear that your idea of compromise may be the same as the NRA's and Comgress.
2
Does anyone really believe that if this person did not have a gun, he still would not have affected a mass killing?
Ask the Israelis if it is possible without guns. I think they have a long history dealing with mass killings perpetrated without a gun.
Ask the Israelis if it is possible without guns. I think they have a long history dealing with mass killings perpetrated without a gun.
I teach English at a community college and have excused my classes today to protest the vulnerability of our classrooms and offices. It is a day of reflection for both myself, my colleagues and my students. Gun violence as occurred at Umpqua is extremely rare in the rest of the civilized world. We need to study why. Most countries I've visited and lived in have much stricter regulation of weapons. Most have a better safety net--guaranteed health care, including mental health. I'm sure there are other factors as well that create a more civil society. Even countries where citizens have many weapons, such as Canada, have far fewer incidents of mass violence and shootings in general. We need to study and make appropriate changes in our society--the "new normal" of reoccurring mass murder and continuous shootings is abhorent and unacceptable.
Note to NYT: Accuracy is important. Don't write "Carolyn Kellim sells handguns and ammunition out of her home" when, while she may sell handguns, your photo shows only long guns.
Note to NYT: Accuracy is important. Don't write "Carolyn Kellim sells handguns and ammunition out of her home" when, while she may sell handguns, your photo shows only long guns.
1
If you'll look to the case on the right you'll see a display of handguns.
3
If I was paying tuition at your school I would file a formal complaint against you and demand a refund for this class. I pay to learn English, not be subjected to your political posturing.
1
"gotta get a gun"
That seems to be the main response toward the urge to feel powerful and safe for many people.
Just what the gun salesmen wanted, of course.
That seems to be the main response toward the urge to feel powerful and safe for many people.
Just what the gun salesmen wanted, of course.
4
When Oregonians start over-reacting, we can say that we surely are doomed.
1
You can also just carry pepper spray and a Taser. They work, too.
2
I hope that is facetious...
I hope Ms. Devon Paasch from Roseburg, OR. sees this comment. Ms. Paasch, there's not a single law that would have prevented this from happening. There is NO new gun laws needed. I can tell you however what does need to change and where laws could come in handy. (1) this guy had been admitted to a mental hosp. If it was legally mandatory for that information to be reported to the FBI, this guy would not have been able to purchase a firearm. He would have been flagged. (2) start holding people like his mother, whom he lived with, as an accessory to murder. She knew about his mental health problems. She knew he'd been admitted to a mental hosp for some months and she knew when he did not take his meds he was not controllable. (3) his other family members knew but still bought him numerous firearms. Again, if he'd been flagged and they did that, they could be charged with an accessory to murder. (4) There were people on his FB page that were encouraging him to do this act, they too should be held as an accessory to murder with the knowledge of his intent and failure to report it. This is where things need to change. There are already over 22,000 firearm laws on the books. Not a one of them would, or did, prevent this from happening. This country, and politicians, like it or not, need to address the mental illness in this country.
2
Yes, and a big step toward addressing mental illness in this country is reversing the process of "Deinstitutionalization" that has occurred over the past 30 years. We need to be building more psychiatric hospital facilities-and stop closing those that already exist-and it should be easier for a judge or psychiatrist to be able to place a person in such a facility when they are felt to be a danger to themselves or others.
1
Why did the writer point out that Ms. Skinner's son has autism?
More guns are not the answer. Ben Carson talked about storming the Oregon shooter like a Rambo. I assume the guy with his multiple guns could get lots of rounds off very quickly. The one person who did act was hit 7 times. I recall an experiment where a classroom was primed for"an attack." It did not go well even with advance warning. When a shooter with a high capacity weapon gets the drop on you ,that is definitely not a good thing. Look at the Tennessee case where the 11 year old killed the 8 year old with a shotgun easily picked up by the CHILD. Contrary to gun nuts like the NRA and Limbaugh,having more guns in the US has not made us safer compared to the rest of the civilized world.
5
With millions of Americans possessing guns, including many concealed carry, why hasn't one massacre been stopped or even slowed by a vigilante? More guns is a Putin kind of answer.
2
The whole "good guys with guns" argument is shot full of holes by the fact that the gunmen in these cases are always neighbors, classmates, and members of their communities who walk among them every day. If it were possible to tell the good guys from the bad, they'd identify potential shooters and disarm them before they can kill. But you can't legally take the guns away from someone just because you suspect they might go on a rampage. You can only act after the fact. So more arms will only make for better massacres.
The reason policing works is because policemen wear uniforms and are professionally trained to use firearms and quickly identify offenders. So unless you're prepared to send the whole community to the police academy, arming everyone is a recipe for disaster. How are you supposed to tell who the "good guys" are if everybody in the room starts shooting? If everybody with a gun reacts, they're just going to end up killing each other because they can't tell the players without a scorecard. Police are trained to react to shots fired. But without a uniform and training in the heat of the moment, how do untrained citizens know how to tell the offender from all the other shooters? They can't. Anyone shooting a gun becomes fair game. They're just gonna end up killing a lot of innocent bystanders.
The reason policing works is because policemen wear uniforms and are professionally trained to use firearms and quickly identify offenders. So unless you're prepared to send the whole community to the police academy, arming everyone is a recipe for disaster. How are you supposed to tell who the "good guys" are if everybody in the room starts shooting? If everybody with a gun reacts, they're just going to end up killing each other because they can't tell the players without a scorecard. Police are trained to react to shots fired. But without a uniform and training in the heat of the moment, how do untrained citizens know how to tell the offender from all the other shooters? They can't. Anyone shooting a gun becomes fair game. They're just gonna end up killing a lot of innocent bystanders.
1
This is America. We have guns. It is an inalienable right in the constitution. get used to it or move to Canada. I like the idea of a license and insurance though.
1
It is not an "inalienable right."
Inalienable refers to the Declaration of Independence where the only three rights deemed inalienable were "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" (and even those were considered "debatable" which was why the DoC didn't end there).
The Constitution doesn't have any "Inalienable" rights. It has Amendments and a process to make more of them. And less of them as well.
And if a large enough majority of people vote to reduce the number of guns, well then, this is a democracy, and the Constitution gives US the right to Ammend the rules. Then perhaps you will be the ones who need to choose to get used to it, or move to Somalia!
Inalienable refers to the Declaration of Independence where the only three rights deemed inalienable were "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" (and even those were considered "debatable" which was why the DoC didn't end there).
The Constitution doesn't have any "Inalienable" rights. It has Amendments and a process to make more of them. And less of them as well.
And if a large enough majority of people vote to reduce the number of guns, well then, this is a democracy, and the Constitution gives US the right to Ammend the rules. Then perhaps you will be the ones who need to choose to get used to it, or move to Somalia!
2
We in Canada will embrace all rational, responsible Americans who want to escape the gun-toting "inalienable right" craziness and live a better kind of freedom.
2
There are a lot of rights in the Constitution that are trashed and betrayed and officially changed. Why not gun rights?
These poor people in OR need to arm themselves with the facts about guns. Not guns. Those interviewed are wrong about the facts. That tells me that the anti gun groups need to lean heavily on the facts. Inform people. And the media needs to publish the facts. NYTimes does a decent job of this. They all can do more. Fox and Limbaugh and La Pierre et al have blood on their hands because they are the ones that spew forth lies about the gun issue. Shame.
3
Reading these comments, it seems that those that fervently support the right to bear arms like to -- or maybe need to -- tell themselves that having a gun maximizes their ability to control what happens to them, while those that think that '2A' was the Framers' only major blunder have concluded that life is much too uncertain and that we humans are much too unpredictable for the possession of modern firearms -- incomparably more efficient and lethal than in 1791 -- to be an automatic right, as opposed to a solemn privilege that has to be earned through professional training and proof of both moral and mental health. And, moreover, that anyone that owns or sells an illegal gun should face sentences that are in line with murder charges, since that's what they're unquestionably aiding and abetting.
And, for me at least, it's pretty self-evident that those that support stricter controls have it right, having based their decision on evidence-based rational thought rather than on wishful thinking and raw emotion.
And, for me at least, it's pretty self-evident that those that support stricter controls have it right, having based their decision on evidence-based rational thought rather than on wishful thinking and raw emotion.
2
I'm in favor of reasonable gun regulation and I strongly believe that background checks should be required for all gun sales. I also believe that some level of training and certification should be required for a concealed carry permit. However, I do not believe that any such regulation will prevent these shootings perpetrated by young men who are poorly socialized and disconnected from their communities. I work at a large Midwestern public university which offers a "Violent Incident Survival" class. I have taken the class, and I believe that it goes much farther toward making me safe in such a situation than I would be if I had a gun in my purse. The ultimate, but very difficult solution, of course, is to identify, reach out, and intervene with these young men before they go over the edge. It breaks my heart to think of the level of pain they must be experiencing to lead them to commit these atrocities.
2
@a democrat, gun control measures may not prevent all the mass shootings, which are like a social and health epidemic, but if you compare the U.S. to countries that have gun control in place, or you compare states within the U.S., you will find a strong correlation between gun control and lower rates of gun violence. 33,000 Americans annually are dying from gun shots. As horrific as mass shootings are, lowering that 33,000 number should be our real target.
3
I don't disagree with you, but political and constitutional realities suggest that we need to pursue avenues other than "taking away the guns" in order to lower that number. As proponents of each side of this issue becomes more firmly entrenched in their extreme positions, there must be some middle ground where we can find other ways to make an impact.
Earlier Times articles describe this community of 22,000 as close-knit yet struggling economically. Unemployed and underemployed adults flock to the community college seeking to acquire marketable skills, as do more traditional-age college students. Most of the available jobs, however, are elsewhere in the state - in the non-rural, "blue" regions.
This resonates with me since I grew up in a "red" community of similar size, also close-knit and similarly religious and conservative. However, my childhood community was not (then) economically depressed. There were plenty of factory jobs as well as a range of other working-class employment opportunities (auto mechanics, appliance repair, etc). My town also fostered a a healthy range of college-educated and professional residents. And, significantly, guns were not a big part of this local culture. Some people hunted, but fishing and boating were much more popular. My dad owned a shotgun, but I had no interest in it and it hardly factored into my thinking one way or another. I don't remember anyone (there doubtlessly were some people) who were into guns in any extreme way. The fear of gun violence was pretty non-existent.
Does this offer a window onto a solution to the amassing of guns (other than legal regulation)? Does economic prosperity and ample life opportunities naturally provide an inoculation against the kind of paranoid gun culture we are now seeing? I suspect it does. And maybe this is where we can all agree.
This resonates with me since I grew up in a "red" community of similar size, also close-knit and similarly religious and conservative. However, my childhood community was not (then) economically depressed. There were plenty of factory jobs as well as a range of other working-class employment opportunities (auto mechanics, appliance repair, etc). My town also fostered a a healthy range of college-educated and professional residents. And, significantly, guns were not a big part of this local culture. Some people hunted, but fishing and boating were much more popular. My dad owned a shotgun, but I had no interest in it and it hardly factored into my thinking one way or another. I don't remember anyone (there doubtlessly were some people) who were into guns in any extreme way. The fear of gun violence was pretty non-existent.
Does this offer a window onto a solution to the amassing of guns (other than legal regulation)? Does economic prosperity and ample life opportunities naturally provide an inoculation against the kind of paranoid gun culture we are now seeing? I suspect it does. And maybe this is where we can all agree.
1
We protect our president with GUNS.
We protect our banks with GUNS.
We protect our airports with GUNS.
But we protect our children's school with a sign that says:
THIS IS A GUN FREE ZONE!
And then when something happens, we dial 911 and request help from officers that carry GUNS.
We protect our banks with GUNS.
We protect our airports with GUNS.
But we protect our children's school with a sign that says:
THIS IS A GUN FREE ZONE!
And then when something happens, we dial 911 and request help from officers that carry GUNS.
3
The grim reality is that the gun control battle was lost years and years ago. With 300 million guns in America, you will always have easy access to guns. It's a vicious cycle that no one can stop.
No leader in this country has the political will nor the power to stop the increasingly frequent and senseless killings.
No leader in this country has the political will nor the power to stop the increasingly frequent and senseless killings.
1
@ Yuwei Lei, I think you underestimate the United States of America. Getting effective regulation of gun ownership and use in place will be difficult, yes. But this country has done more difficult things in our history. Winning independence and building a new democracy. Ending slavery. Surviving the Great Depression. Joining other nations to win World War II. Much more difficult.
2
Americans feel so much safer with a gun in spite of having more gun deaths per capita than the civilised countries. Billions are spent on homeland security to keep the airlines safe from hijackers.
Since 9/11 it has been the passengers and not the billion dollar Homeland Security that stopped the hijackers.
So why don't Americans demand their constitutional right to carry a gun and feel safe in airports and on planes? There'd be no need for the TSA, saving billions and trips would be shortened by an hour or two . Of course, as with school shootings, any extra gun deaths caused by this convenient and money saving move would just be the price one has to pay to live ln freedom and feel personally safe.
Since 9/11 it has been the passengers and not the billion dollar Homeland Security that stopped the hijackers.
So why don't Americans demand their constitutional right to carry a gun and feel safe in airports and on planes? There'd be no need for the TSA, saving billions and trips would be shortened by an hour or two . Of course, as with school shootings, any extra gun deaths caused by this convenient and money saving move would just be the price one has to pay to live ln freedom and feel personally safe.
I like that Freudian slip: "..than the civilized countries."
Very true. We do have more gun deaths than the civilized countries. Because we're not civilized.
Very true. We do have more gun deaths than the civilized countries. Because we're not civilized.
The "when everyone has a gun, everyone will be safe" crowd overlooks the nitwit factor here. Fill a room with mouse traps and put a ping-pong ball on each. Take a single black ball and drop it into the traps. Watch them go off. How many are "collateral damage"?
1
The problem is not responsible--mature, sane, self-controlled, intelligent, friendly, helpful--owning guns--to hunt or to protect themselves from the other kind.
The problem is irresponsible--immature, insane, unintelligent, unfriendly, unhelpful--people owning guns--lethal weapons from afar--sometimes WMDs.
Now what sort wants them to have easy access to guns?
The problem is irresponsible--immature, insane, unintelligent, unfriendly, unhelpful--people owning guns--lethal weapons from afar--sometimes WMDs.
Now what sort wants them to have easy access to guns?
1
Ok, heres the solution- and it's Constitutionally correct. Every state will have a "well regulated militia" per the constitution and every gun owner will have to serve in that militia - training and be vetted by the state, then they will Constitutionally be allowed to own and carry a gun.
Just like Israel or Switzerland :
" Switzerland - The vast majority of men between the ages of 20 and 30 are conscripted into the militia and undergo military training, including weapons training. The personal weapons of the militia are kept at home as part of the military obligations. However, generally not permitted to keep army-issued ammunition, but compatible ammunition purchased for privately owned guns is permitted. At the end of military service period the used gun can be converted to a private gun after a weapon acq.permit has been granted (fully automatic weapons will be rebuilt into semi-auto.)
Israel: To obtain a firearms license, an applicant must be a resident for at least three consecutive years, pass a background check that considers the applicant's health, mental, and criminal history, show a genuine reason for possessing a firearm, and pass a weapons course. All holding firearms licenses must renew them and re-take a shooting course at a range every 3 years and pass a psych exam every 6 years. They must have a safe at home in which to keep the firearm. License holders for self-defense purposes may own only 1 handgun, and given a lifetime supply of 50 bullets for home.
Just like Israel or Switzerland :
" Switzerland - The vast majority of men between the ages of 20 and 30 are conscripted into the militia and undergo military training, including weapons training. The personal weapons of the militia are kept at home as part of the military obligations. However, generally not permitted to keep army-issued ammunition, but compatible ammunition purchased for privately owned guns is permitted. At the end of military service period the used gun can be converted to a private gun after a weapon acq.permit has been granted (fully automatic weapons will be rebuilt into semi-auto.)
Israel: To obtain a firearms license, an applicant must be a resident for at least three consecutive years, pass a background check that considers the applicant's health, mental, and criminal history, show a genuine reason for possessing a firearm, and pass a weapons course. All holding firearms licenses must renew them and re-take a shooting course at a range every 3 years and pass a psych exam every 6 years. They must have a safe at home in which to keep the firearm. License holders for self-defense purposes may own only 1 handgun, and given a lifetime supply of 50 bullets for home.
6
Grew up down the road a bit from Roseburg - our high schools were in the same athletic conference as Roseburg - it's a good place.
I am sorry for your loss - and *really* proud how of you are responding to it.
By all means, be courteous when the president visits - even if he is pandering, trying to distract everyone from the Trans Pacific Partnership issue and doing all he can to erode your remaining civil liberties.
Doesn't mean you shouldn't let him know exactly how you feel about his actions, though..
This makes me proud of Roseburg, too - although the response is not at all unusual in the part of the state. (That would be NW State of Jefferson, of course!)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olPkAYsNmQY
I am sorry for your loss - and *really* proud how of you are responding to it.
By all means, be courteous when the president visits - even if he is pandering, trying to distract everyone from the Trans Pacific Partnership issue and doing all he can to erode your remaining civil liberties.
Doesn't mean you shouldn't let him know exactly how you feel about his actions, though..
This makes me proud of Roseburg, too - although the response is not at all unusual in the part of the state. (That would be NW State of Jefferson, of course!)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olPkAYsNmQY
1
I, too, grew up down the road from
Roseburg in a town in their football conference. I, too, hope the town honors the president. This article irritates me because it panders to the Wild West redneck image of our state. Many Oregonians support gun control laws and have enough intelligence to recognize that our state has one of the highest rates per capita of mass shootings incidents. We have to turn the tide of violence. No action on gun control has accomplished just that—nothing. I'm ready for this to change.
Roseburg in a town in their football conference. I, too, hope the town honors the president. This article irritates me because it panders to the Wild West redneck image of our state. Many Oregonians support gun control laws and have enough intelligence to recognize that our state has one of the highest rates per capita of mass shootings incidents. We have to turn the tide of violence. No action on gun control has accomplished just that—nothing. I'm ready for this to change.
2
This just reinforces my impression that guns are (mostly) for cowards.
2
Something about the letter J today. By the way, many gun owners are veterans who have endured disabilities like you since coming home.
We're not safer when everyone is carrying a gun. Too many road rage and other emotional outbursts that a percentage of our community can't manage internally or reliably. Why can anyone buy a gun at a gun show? Doesn't that negate the entire screening process supposed to ' protect' us?
4
After 9/11 fear and panic lead to the foolish invasion of Iraq. Buying a gun is the same type reaction. Fear and panic leads to buying more guns - leads to more death
1
Plano, TX is said to have more legal guns than people. Plano is also said to have among the lowest murder rates in the US, perhaps the World. Would Obama take the guns from the citizens of Plano?
4
When a drunk driver kills someone in an "accident" we blame the driver, not the alcohol companies. However, gun related crimes always seem to be blamed on the gun, not the perpetrator. Additionally, the NRA is being targeted as an accomplice for this tragedy when none of it's 4 million members are to blame.
People want to arm themselves because self defense is a God given right and all the laws in the world won't stop criminals.
People want to arm themselves because self defense is a God given right and all the laws in the world won't stop criminals.
3
There is an obvious public goods problem here. There is no logical inconsistency with a desire to have the absolutely strictest gun control (up to and including a complete ban) and a desire for an individual to want his/her own gun in the absence of such control. One can certainly argue that the potential negative consequences of gun ownership for the individual will still outweigh the benefits, even in the absence of control (which is why I don't have one). But that is a something of a separate question from the question of consistency. It is well past time to get very serious about gun control. If the second amendment is a problem, repeal it! Man gave us this amendment, not god.
Here is an absolutely horrifying solution to the problem of gun violence in America. First, let those of us who believe that guns are an anathema to civilized society treat gun ownership like some sort of hellish super storm. Let us then gather enough supplies, say a weeks worth, maybe two, to stay safely in our homes. Then pass unrestricted conceal and carry laws. Every state. Coast to coast.
Then, buy earplugs. Turn up the music. Stay away from the windows.
The storm should blow itself out in a couple of weeks. The number of 2nd Amendment worshippers should be greatly reduced.
Clean up will be messy, but, by and by, civilized society will breath easier.
Then, buy earplugs. Turn up the music. Stay away from the windows.
The storm should blow itself out in a couple of weeks. The number of 2nd Amendment worshippers should be greatly reduced.
Clean up will be messy, but, by and by, civilized society will breath easier.
What a sad, sick and defeatist country we've become.
1
Insanity!
These mass killings have a commonality which the anti-gun advocates fail to accept. In all these tragedies the murderer was known to be mentally unstable; and nothing was done by authorities to constrain these individuals from obtaining or owning a weapon.
It should be legal to prevent the mentally unstable from possessing firearms. Accomplishing a change to our laws demands a recognition that not all citizens have the right of the 2nd Amendment; and furthermore - a lessened right to privacy and protection from the government. This is the argument and method proposed by the NRA; and not just that radical institution.
Effectively implementing this restriction requires a national database of the mentally unstable and national adherence to the rule. The gun control advocates need to accept that they will never be able to restrict gun rights for the general populace; and that attempting laws in that direction are misplaced, and wouldn't work anyway. The danger has been identified; so go after it.
It should be legal to prevent the mentally unstable from possessing firearms. Accomplishing a change to our laws demands a recognition that not all citizens have the right of the 2nd Amendment; and furthermore - a lessened right to privacy and protection from the government. This is the argument and method proposed by the NRA; and not just that radical institution.
Effectively implementing this restriction requires a national database of the mentally unstable and national adherence to the rule. The gun control advocates need to accept that they will never be able to restrict gun rights for the general populace; and that attempting laws in that direction are misplaced, and wouldn't work anyway. The danger has been identified; so go after it.
1
You start off with a mischaracterization, many gun control advocates do accept that these mass killings are perpetrated by mentally ill individuals. That is why we are proposing regulations (e.g. More thorough background checks) to keep guns out of these individuals hands.
We are a society gone mad. The inmates (read NRA) are running the asylum.
Common sense gun regulations: Ban all "assault rifles" and magazines over 6 bullets. Require all guns in the U.S. to be registered. Require all gun owners to be licensed. If anyone is found with an unregistered gun, an assault rifle, or without a license, they go to jail.
Common sense gun regulations: Ban all "assault rifles" and magazines over 6 bullets. Require all guns in the U.S. to be registered. Require all gun owners to be licensed. If anyone is found with an unregistered gun, an assault rifle, or without a license, they go to jail.
1
Seventy one. I learned how to shoot a rifle in the Army. I have never shot a pistol or a shotgun. I have never owned a gun, and have never lived in a house where there was a gun. I am seriously contemplating buying a gun for protection.
3
I think it's a normal reaction after such an experience to think of owning a gun.
I live in Nairobi - Kenya and in September 2013 I was in the Westgate mall with my then 3 year old daughter when they attacked it. I was on the first row, having coffee on the terrace where the terrorist attack started. We were very lucky to survive this attack without being hurt. My first reaction after the attack was to own a gun. During the first month following the attack, I spent a lot of time thinking of how to protect myself and my daughter, how to make sure that if anything like that happens again or if my house gets robbed I'll be able to protect my daughter and myself. When I started to recover from the trauma, I realized the danger of having a gun at home or of having armed guards or walking around with a gun and I forgot about the idea. My point is that people need time to have a reasonable reaction after such a trauma, it might not be the best moment to talk to them about having new laws to restrict access to guns.
I live in Nairobi - Kenya and in September 2013 I was in the Westgate mall with my then 3 year old daughter when they attacked it. I was on the first row, having coffee on the terrace where the terrorist attack started. We were very lucky to survive this attack without being hurt. My first reaction after the attack was to own a gun. During the first month following the attack, I spent a lot of time thinking of how to protect myself and my daughter, how to make sure that if anything like that happens again or if my house gets robbed I'll be able to protect my daughter and myself. When I started to recover from the trauma, I realized the danger of having a gun at home or of having armed guards or walking around with a gun and I forgot about the idea. My point is that people need time to have a reasonable reaction after such a trauma, it might not be the best moment to talk to them about having new laws to restrict access to guns.
5
1. Despite the roar from the right, no one wants to "take away our guns".
2. Ok, so now you have a gun. When do you carry it and where? And is it always loaded and ready for use? Do you plan to sleep with it, too?
3. Ok, now we are all armed and packing. Do we feel safer in the movie theater, college classroom, dormitory? Is that anxious-looking fellow in the back who is also armed a nascent shooter? How do we tell? Or do we need a gun "check room" in every building?
Guns, no guns. We will not be truly safe until we restore a sense of community and inclusion in this country. The divisiveness, income inequality, social inequality and sense among many that society views them as surplus sucks empathy from us. We have much more work to do than just regulate or promulgate guns.
2. Ok, so now you have a gun. When do you carry it and where? And is it always loaded and ready for use? Do you plan to sleep with it, too?
3. Ok, now we are all armed and packing. Do we feel safer in the movie theater, college classroom, dormitory? Is that anxious-looking fellow in the back who is also armed a nascent shooter? How do we tell? Or do we need a gun "check room" in every building?
Guns, no guns. We will not be truly safe until we restore a sense of community and inclusion in this country. The divisiveness, income inequality, social inequality and sense among many that society views them as surplus sucks empathy from us. We have much more work to do than just regulate or promulgate guns.
Once again we watch from the UK open mouthed as peoples first response is more guns! Coming from a country where even the police for the most part are unarmed it seems inconceivable and illogical that increasing the number of guns in peoples hands can be the right answer. You lose a US citizen every 40 minutes to the bullet. In the UK there were less than 50 deaths from guns last year. And please don't say "guns don't kill people, people kill people". If I got into a fight in the UK the worst that could happen is I get hit by a fist (or rarely a knife). My chances of walking away alive almost 100%. If one of us had a gun, or both of us, one of us would be dead. It's that simple. How to change 200 years of US culture and love of guns, an up-hill long long battle but for your sake and your children's sake surly its worth trying.
2
Loneliness, ignorance, mental instability, myths, violence in TV, games, and guns. TV shows about serials criminals, jails, predators animals.
So, some people are just under paranoia. Some people believe in a prophecy, about a coming Islamic dictator that will impose the sharia low. Some others, think the dictator will be a Marxist one, that will take our freedom; so they keep buying weapons, in order to fight and rebel when this dictator takes power in the USA.
-Other people believe we should arms ourselves against criminals
-Still there are people, that believe that in the near future, we will experience a financial crisis, most of the population will lose their jobs, and famine will result, so they store weapons and food.
And some others believe that foreign people, by the millions will start coming to our borders, to steal our jobs, property and change our culture
In this times of drones, bacteriological & nuclear weapons, no guns or rifle will protect us from a mythical dictator, or hungry masses.
People should read more (good books), exercise more, and joining a group, take a course to find friends and socialize more.
We should, also, create groups for autistic people and the mentally ill, so they will also have the opportunity of making friends, among themselves and be happy.
A happy person, does not get obsessed with unforeseen dangers, mythical dictators, or the accumulation of weapons.
Some people are just too lonely.
So, some people are just under paranoia. Some people believe in a prophecy, about a coming Islamic dictator that will impose the sharia low. Some others, think the dictator will be a Marxist one, that will take our freedom; so they keep buying weapons, in order to fight and rebel when this dictator takes power in the USA.
-Other people believe we should arms ourselves against criminals
-Still there are people, that believe that in the near future, we will experience a financial crisis, most of the population will lose their jobs, and famine will result, so they store weapons and food.
And some others believe that foreign people, by the millions will start coming to our borders, to steal our jobs, property and change our culture
In this times of drones, bacteriological & nuclear weapons, no guns or rifle will protect us from a mythical dictator, or hungry masses.
People should read more (good books), exercise more, and joining a group, take a course to find friends and socialize more.
We should, also, create groups for autistic people and the mentally ill, so they will also have the opportunity of making friends, among themselves and be happy.
A happy person, does not get obsessed with unforeseen dangers, mythical dictators, or the accumulation of weapons.
Some people are just too lonely.
After each mass shooting, the media asks the local public about gun control, as if a neighbor of a neighbor of the shooter, some with 3rd grade educations, have become experts overnight. Meanwhile, the best information out there about stopping mass shootings remains secret. The FBI has done extensive research to profile mass killers. Their purpose is to identify potential mass killers before they do damage. If we had access to this information policy makers would have hard evidence to guide policy decisions. But the FBI won't share this information for fear it will help potential shooters avoid detection. I think we all should have access to this information. Better to pass sound laws than to play cat and mouse with some madman lurking in the wings.
1
Unbelievable! The rate of death by guns in the US is 7 to 20 times what it is in other developed countries where gun control exists. But many Americans still want to add more guns!!!
3
People need leadership otherwise they are susceptible to emotion and fear. They will behave rationally, but only if they feel safe. People do not feel safe and their leaders are not leading. Vote only for Demcrats until both sides of the aisle get the message.
We are off the rails with our personal arms races. Pretty soon we will all be armed. A logical outcome of this is those of us who don't want to have guns will have to get them because we need to protect ourselves from the NRA inspired militias.
Owning a gun to protect yourself under ALL circumstances only works if you are prepared to carry it EVERY day and train hard to respond when and if the moment ever comes that you will need to use it. The best way to become proficient in high stress shooting is to join a club that hosts combat sport shooting events on a regular basis, reload your own ammunition and attend as often as you can. Very few people can make that commitment. A gun is not a magic wand, its like a combination of a complex tool and a musical instrument. It takes training and practice to master its proper use. Most important of all, it requires a very steady nerve and the ability to remain calm under extreme pressure.
“That’s why we have guns: We don’t have the government dictating when to get on our knees,” said Ms. Kellim, 86.
Is it possible the American Genocide, the clearing an entire continent of its indigenous peoples, has left generations of Americans with blood on their hands and nothing but the "Federal Government" to project their fear of retribution onto?
Is it possible the American Genocide, the clearing an entire continent of its indigenous peoples, has left generations of Americans with blood on their hands and nothing but the "Federal Government" to project their fear of retribution onto?
The Gun Manufacturers are celebrating along with Dr. Carson, just one of their many Republican spokesmen. No one stops to think about what kind of world we have created in our own country, where we have surrendered our freedom to fear and the obsession with the need to possess a gun.
What specifically would have possibly stopped this tragedy? If the mother had faced up to the son's emotional state and sought treatment and that treatment had been available. If the mother had secured her guns, and properly secured his. The reality is though that the absence of availability of firearms would not stop someone with intent to do harm. Other weapons are available such as bombs, automobiles, etc. In the specifics of this situation one or more trained individuals armed in the classrooms could have brought a quick end to the attack. Knowledge of the fact that there were armed people prevalent on campus could have possibly been enough to prevent the initiation. However, for those who have strong intent, as stated, there are many options. The suicide vest is popular in some areas of the world. It is the human beings, not the inanimate objects that are the issue.
I teach at a community college. If someone ever came into my classroom armed, intent on doing harm, I want a gun. Having a gun would make my students and me safer than any gun-control scheme ever could. What makes it so effective is deterrence. Society is safer when the bad guys don't know who’s armed. The perpetrators don't want to risk being surprised by an armed opponent, shot from behind cover, incapacitated, and not be able to escape via suicide. It makes it way too risky for them to commit the act in the first place. That's the beauty of it.
Gun-control is like trying to unscrew a light bulb by rotating the house - extremely impractical. Wherever it's been used, it's increased violent crime. When the U.K. enacted its Firearms Amendment of '97 virtually banning firearms, homicide rates skyrocketed until '07 when they increased incarceration rates. They still suffered a mass shooting at Cumbria. How would gun-control ever be effective? By going door-to-door searching 100s of millions of people's homes to confiscate all firearms? Airport-style security on campus complete with checkpoints and searches?
Criminal Justice Departments already train peace officers. They can get together with campus police to create a training regimen and procedures to coordinate with armed faculty and students in an emergency, including realistic drills.
We need to overcome our fears and preconceptions regarding firearms in society. It's really the only effective path to safety and security.
Gun-control is like trying to unscrew a light bulb by rotating the house - extremely impractical. Wherever it's been used, it's increased violent crime. When the U.K. enacted its Firearms Amendment of '97 virtually banning firearms, homicide rates skyrocketed until '07 when they increased incarceration rates. They still suffered a mass shooting at Cumbria. How would gun-control ever be effective? By going door-to-door searching 100s of millions of people's homes to confiscate all firearms? Airport-style security on campus complete with checkpoints and searches?
Criminal Justice Departments already train peace officers. They can get together with campus police to create a training regimen and procedures to coordinate with armed faculty and students in an emergency, including realistic drills.
We need to overcome our fears and preconceptions regarding firearms in society. It's really the only effective path to safety and security.
2
It's one thing to have a gun in the house to protect your family. I support that with the obvious common sense controls - background check, registration, mandatory training, liability insurance. It's another to have every Tom dick and Sally carrying a concealed gun everywhere. I am not going to entrust my and my family's lives to these people's skill, perceptions or judgments. These are lay people who do not have the education, training, accountability, experience etc. Would you feel safe around them if they all had guns? This is nonsensical, I cannot believe it even needs debate.
2
Liability insurance is common sense? You just disarmed all poor people trying to protect their families. What do you have against poor people? If anyone needs self-protection it is them, not the elite; many of whom have armed security details like Hillary Clinton.
What a surprise, out of 20 "NYT Picks" in the comments section 19 of them are anti-2nd amendment. The times does not even make the attempt to give a balanced view on this topic. Also, all the comparisons to driving and cars are not valid since driving is a privilege and firearms ownership is a right.
4
None of these people will be able to actually USE their guns properly and will probably be shot trying to "help" in most situations. If their guns come with 100 hours of range time and professional instruction, and if they revisit the range every week or more, then maybe they have a chance. Ask anyone who has been in the military how they learned to handle and shoot properly and accurately.
Suppressors, which almost anyone with a thousand dollars can buy, do NOT work like the sound-effect people in films and TV make them sound, and they only actually work for about 15K rounds before they have to be serviced. And, they are LOUD, even with subsonic ammo.
If you choose to pull a gun on someone, you better be ready to use it or you will not win. Also, think about military people who REFUSE to fire in battle; a person has to be ready to deal with the long-term consequences of shooting someone. This is why law enforcement people have to sit at a desk for a while after a shooting. Ask one in your town and then decide if you are a person who can kill another human being and live a normal life afterward. Ever hear of PTSD?
Remember, TV and films are not real life. They are cold mediums; being involved in a shooting is hot (see Marshall McCluhan). Most Americans are not ready to pull the trigger, and if they do, they will not be accurate. This is a recipe for disaster, but NRA management is only interested in cash for their personal pockets. Your rights have nothing to do with it.
Suppressors, which almost anyone with a thousand dollars can buy, do NOT work like the sound-effect people in films and TV make them sound, and they only actually work for about 15K rounds before they have to be serviced. And, they are LOUD, even with subsonic ammo.
If you choose to pull a gun on someone, you better be ready to use it or you will not win. Also, think about military people who REFUSE to fire in battle; a person has to be ready to deal with the long-term consequences of shooting someone. This is why law enforcement people have to sit at a desk for a while after a shooting. Ask one in your town and then decide if you are a person who can kill another human being and live a normal life afterward. Ever hear of PTSD?
Remember, TV and films are not real life. They are cold mediums; being involved in a shooting is hot (see Marshall McCluhan). Most Americans are not ready to pull the trigger, and if they do, they will not be accurate. This is a recipe for disaster, but NRA management is only interested in cash for their personal pockets. Your rights have nothing to do with it.
3
-Some people in our society believe in a prophecy, regarding a coming Islamic or Marxist dictator; and they keep buying weapons, so they can fight and rebel when this dictator takes power in the USA.
Other people believe we should arms ourselves against criminals
Still other people believe a financial crisis is coming and we are all going to lose our jobs, and a famine is coming, so we should buy weapons to defend ourselves from hungry thieves.
And others believe that foreign people, by the millions will start coming to our borders, to steal or jobs and property.
In this times of drones, bacteriological & nuclear weapons, no guns or rifle will protect us from a mythical dictator, or hungry masses.
We should start telling people to stop believing inll of this nonsense, and start buying good books, exercise more, and take a course to find friends.
We should, also, create groups for autistic people and the mentally ill, so they also have the opportunity of socializing among themselves and be happy.
A happy person, does not get obsessed with unforeseen dangers, mythical dictators, or weapons.
Some people are just too lonely.
Other people believe we should arms ourselves against criminals
Still other people believe a financial crisis is coming and we are all going to lose our jobs, and a famine is coming, so we should buy weapons to defend ourselves from hungry thieves.
And others believe that foreign people, by the millions will start coming to our borders, to steal or jobs and property.
In this times of drones, bacteriological & nuclear weapons, no guns or rifle will protect us from a mythical dictator, or hungry masses.
We should start telling people to stop believing inll of this nonsense, and start buying good books, exercise more, and take a course to find friends.
We should, also, create groups for autistic people and the mentally ill, so they also have the opportunity of socializing among themselves and be happy.
A happy person, does not get obsessed with unforeseen dangers, mythical dictators, or weapons.
Some people are just too lonely.
It's a too easy and plain lazy to characterize Roseburg as "a rural town where shots at rifle ranges echo off the hills and hunters shoot deer and elk through the fall." I have spent a lot of time in this town and have never heard gun shots echoing or seen people with guns chasing deer and elk down the street.
If the reporters bothered to actually talk to a cross section of people from Roseburg, they would find people who don't own guns, don't intend to buy one now, and are for gun control.
Roseburg has problems because of the timber industry slow down and lack of jobs and funds for things most communities take for granted, from adequate public health services to a fully functioning public library.
They also struggle with a growing population of mentally ill homeless people self-medicating with illegal drugs who have fallen out of society. The local social services, churches and private citizens try to offer them help but what they offer isn't enough.
One thing I never see mentioned after these tragic mass murder/suicides is that in the majority of cases these young men are often left unsupervised on psychotropic drugs. The United States has a problem with guns, no doubt, but they also have a problem with mental health care and until something is done about it we will see more of these kinds of crimes.
If the reporters bothered to actually talk to a cross section of people from Roseburg, they would find people who don't own guns, don't intend to buy one now, and are for gun control.
Roseburg has problems because of the timber industry slow down and lack of jobs and funds for things most communities take for granted, from adequate public health services to a fully functioning public library.
They also struggle with a growing population of mentally ill homeless people self-medicating with illegal drugs who have fallen out of society. The local social services, churches and private citizens try to offer them help but what they offer isn't enough.
One thing I never see mentioned after these tragic mass murder/suicides is that in the majority of cases these young men are often left unsupervised on psychotropic drugs. The United States has a problem with guns, no doubt, but they also have a problem with mental health care and until something is done about it we will see more of these kinds of crimes.
2
There's a science lesson to be learned from the idea of having more guns on college campuses. Very soon, a young student-wingnut will have drunk enough beer to think it a great idea to squeeze off a couple of rounds at the moon. The consequent crossfire will go a long way toward proving the truth of Darwinism.
1
How sad.
I keep hearing that if more people had guns the sort of mass murder we have witnessed in Oregon, and many other places, would not happen. Armed bystanders would stop the killer. I have not heard of an actual incident in which this has happened. However, the rampage in the Arizona mall in which Gabby Giffords was shot was halted. How? The shooter ran out of ammo, stopped to load a fresh clip, and was overpowered by bystanders, who did not have weapons. This is what gun control is. No regulations ban, outright, the ownership of guns. They regulate it. The NRA narrative implies that ultimately people will not be allowed to own guns. Totally false. The NRA is an industry lobby. ANY regulation is resisted, because it might result in a 2 0r 3 0r 4% drop in sales. This includes extended clips, background checks, and everything in between. The NRA whips people into a frenzy by misrepresenting the facts. But here is one more fact. If a loved one of mine is killed by a person with military type weapons with extended round capabilities I will hold the NRA and specifically Wayne La Pierre responsible. And act accordingly.
1
My reaction to American insanity was to retire as an expatriate to the south of France 12 years ago.
Do Americans have any idea how deranged they appear to average citizens around the world?
The irony to America's violent gun culture and paranoia is that the country is destroying itself from within rather than from foreign born terrorist attacks!
Do Americans have any idea how deranged they appear to average citizens around the world?
The irony to America's violent gun culture and paranoia is that the country is destroying itself from within rather than from foreign born terrorist attacks!
1
The Roseburg people who want more guns need to have their heads examined... either that or they are certifiable idiots. More guns=more murder, mayhem, and massacres, not to mention 'accidents'. Another case in favor of the entomologist's contention that cockroaches are more successful life forms than humans. Me, I don't want any nut carrying a gun anywhere near me or mine. Get 'em off the streets. Get 'em out of homes. Get 'em out of the hands of anybody who hasn't a license for them, isn't a member of a state militia (what the 2nd amendment was really all about), doesn't keep them locked when not in use, and is allowed to carry them only on the way to target shooting or hunting.
2
The only product the NRA has for sale is fear, and the American sheeple are buying it by the truckload. When did we become a nation of fearful little mice?
2
I wonder how these people buying a gun now would have prevented this school shooting; or prevent the next one.
2
Concerning their safety, security and wellbeing perhaps people have two mindsets, the social and the personal. Socially, the majority agree that owning and/or carrying a gun is not conducive to a safe environment in their community. But when individuals experience what those people experienced, when they realize that the most unobtrusive, shy, unassuming and apparently harmless guy in the neighborhood, school, or workplace can suddenly start killing people right, left and center, they might think that had they carried a Glock in a holster perhaps they could have saved their own life and the lives of friends and relatives. It’s a very sad and complex situation.
1
At least John Parker had the presence of mind to realize that if he used the gun he was carrying to attempt to intervene, he would be confused with the shooter by an arriving SWAT team. So what does this do to the NRA's contention that the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun?
1
If the free and unfettered right to keep and bears arms is such a great idea, why are guns not allowed in courts and in in the halls of Congress? I have to have a prescription to obtain controlled substances like Oxycontin or morphine. If my doctor is too liberal with his/her prescription pad their practice is called to the attention of the DEA. Same with pharmacies. If I try to buy more than a maximun amount of allergy medicine, my name pops up and the sale is restricted. At the very least the same should be true of firearms. And just like some medications are only appropriate for use in a hospital setting, I think military grade wapons should be limited to the military. Just as you don't have to believe in gravity to trip and fall, believing guns make you safer is a false belief. Congress should climb out of the pockets of the NRA and allow NIH and other federal agencies to do comprehensive studies and compile clear data. And this should not be a "states rights" issue. The very poorly written and interpreted 2nd amendment needs to be redefined within the context of the times we live in and the weaponry available on our open market.
1
I sympathize with the 19-year-old, Mr. Vicari. His response to almost being shot is a desire to arm himself so the next time he's not so helpless. It's a natural response to fear, and something I experienced myself -- I was stabbed and almost killed a few years ago, and it took a while before I felt safe enough to walk down the street without feeling the need for some sort of protection. I remember laying in bed hearing noises outside of my bedroom door, wishing I had something more than a lamp at arm's length, just in case.
But I got over it, and moved on, and I don't feel that daily life is a threat. What I don't understand is why anyone would choose to live in a world where they feel threatened enough to carry a gun on their person. It changes the way you interact with the world, how you view other people and handle situations. It's not a pleasant place to be, and I feel sorry for those people who live in that world.
But I got over it, and moved on, and I don't feel that daily life is a threat. What I don't understand is why anyone would choose to live in a world where they feel threatened enough to carry a gun on their person. It changes the way you interact with the world, how you view other people and handle situations. It's not a pleasant place to be, and I feel sorry for those people who live in that world.
3
It's as simple as this: Guns are a health hazard. The presence of a gun is a risk. If a gun isn't present, the risk of injury is reduced. The paranoia (myth) of personal protection is what drives sales. So the question is how to counter that paranoia. I believe the way to do it is to keep repeating: guns are a health risk. If a gun is present the risk of injury increases. If a gun is not present the risk of such injury is absent. I think we'll finally get background checks through Congress because of this.
11
The College was a gun-free zone.
What's the result?
What's the result?
Prayers and buying more guns will not prevent gun violence and mass shooting is the direct outcome from the availability of guns – more guns results in more fatality. The argument over 2nd amendment against gun control is a matter of interpretation by the court. The US congress can explicitly amend the definition of “militia” to be military personnel and law enforcement officer only or exclude assault weapon from the definition of “gun” to forestall future litigation related to gun regulation. Constitutions is not a rigid but a fluid document and has been revised, modified and reinterpreted since the founding of this republic.
Once more we start the talk. Had this happened in a place that wasn't a gun free zone. How many would have died or would it have even happened there? We need to figure that out. I personally dislike guns but find myself wanting to learn to shoot.
2
Until gun owners get shot in the kind of wild west, everyone's-got-a-gun, armed democracy they envision in their towns, the proliferation of guns and gun violence will only continue.
1
Repeal & relate the Second Amendment.
It's a matter of survival.
It's a matter of survival.
Perhaps the all the various legislative bodies should make murder illegal, that would certainly solve the problem.
2
I have to ask why gun owners are so scared. Is it because there is no participatory governing going on in these United States? Is it because we are no longer a united Nation? It seems that instead we need to work on participating in uniting ourselves with our differences by acting in our local governments and quit holing up with our guns arming ourselves against one another.
I fear we will not remain a United Nation unless we act on this.
I fear we will not remain a United Nation unless we act on this.
1
Technology--and the American Right Wing--have combined to dominate our lives and discourse. Armed, trained--and dedicated and skilled--individuals were helpless to stop the deaths of 12 at the US Navy Yard or 13 at Fort Hood. More arms are not the answer. Even if we all carry AK47s, bullet proof our windows, and hire security to cover us as we run to our cars, these massacres will continue. The Founders would be horrified at the weaponry we carry.
1
If I lived in a community where I was at risk because of some crazy carrying a concealed weapon then I'd want to carry also. But if I lived in a country with adequate gun control laws I wouldn't; nor even think about it. Or be concerned about the terrible cost of inadequate weapons control as a public health issue.
1
I am in favor of new legislation of firearms in all states America
1
So most folks in Roseburg double down on the need for lots of arsenal in the household. We'll just have to see how that works for them.
who wouldn't? or we can always wait until some legislation is passed. Right after health care and education issues are looked at....
nahhh I'll just go out and get my gun, even cops say it's a good idea!
nahhh I'll just go out and get my gun, even cops say it's a good idea!
I think the way the Swiss handle this makes good sense. An appropriate version for the USA would constitute a saner set of rules for gun ownership and still support the Second Amendment (in regard to that explicitly mentioned well-regulated militia). Note that Switzerland has a relatively high rate of gun ownership (though below ours) yet has one of the lowest rates of gun crime.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland
There's a straightforward reason that people with guns are more likely to shoot someone or be shot.
1
I would like to say that in an ideal world there would be no need for firearms. But as a person who has worked with livestock my entire life there are times when chronically ill or injured animals need to be euthanized. Veterinarians cannot legally provide the kind of drugs they use when they kill your beloved cat or dog to rank and file citizens farmers and ranchers, and paying a vet every time you need to do this would mean financial ruination.
Therefore I would prefer using a bullet to a sledge hammer or any other slower, more painful, more inhumane method for ending the suffering of animals which must be culled.
But beyond the occasional use I also put firearms to hunting game and controlling varmints in the absence of apex predators, I understand the fears of the people in the wake of such shootings as occurred in Rosewood: normal, law-abiding people who would never use a firearm in any way to harm or injure the innocent, but who would rather have a gun and not need it than need a gun and not have it.
If all these posters are serious about comparing the right to keep and bear arms to owning and driving a vehicle, licencing and taxing them beyond the point of sale, how would they feel about doing the same for the only other right that the founding fathers placed numerically above the Second Amendment-- freedom of speech and of conscience?
I might point out that even with vehicle ownership, you don't need tags, insurance, or license driving on private property.
Therefore I would prefer using a bullet to a sledge hammer or any other slower, more painful, more inhumane method for ending the suffering of animals which must be culled.
But beyond the occasional use I also put firearms to hunting game and controlling varmints in the absence of apex predators, I understand the fears of the people in the wake of such shootings as occurred in Rosewood: normal, law-abiding people who would never use a firearm in any way to harm or injure the innocent, but who would rather have a gun and not need it than need a gun and not have it.
If all these posters are serious about comparing the right to keep and bear arms to owning and driving a vehicle, licencing and taxing them beyond the point of sale, how would they feel about doing the same for the only other right that the founding fathers placed numerically above the Second Amendment-- freedom of speech and of conscience?
I might point out that even with vehicle ownership, you don't need tags, insurance, or license driving on private property.
2
With this kind of thinking, it seems clear a great many Americans have partly lost their minds.
1
Those poor, misguided people... they fail to realize that the attacker will get his/her shot in first, and put the victims at a disadvantage before they realize they have to use their guns! It is a lose-lose situation, any way one looks at it. The only safe society is one without guns. But if that won't happen, having gun owners carry insurance is a great idea!
2
Lets tighten gun laws, esp, for those under 25. However, in tandem with this, we need to address violent video games, and violent TV shows. I mentor a 2'nd grader and his favorite activity, which he pursues late into the night is "Call of Duty".
2
Once again, a red-state mind set makes people act against their own interests.
Do the rights of the gun owner trump the rights of the massacred?
Do the rights of the woman trump the rights of the unborn?
These aren't that far apart. And the answer is, both of the former should be regulated in certain ways to help care for defenseless human beings. If it means paying insurance for fire-arms, if it means registering in a well-regulated militia in order to possess fire-arms, if it means banning abortions except in case of rape/incest/life of mother, if it means making birth control more widely available and sexual education more helpful, if it means offering more extensive financial support for single or poor pregnant women and new mothers, for all of the above, I'm in.
Do the rights of the woman trump the rights of the unborn?
These aren't that far apart. And the answer is, both of the former should be regulated in certain ways to help care for defenseless human beings. If it means paying insurance for fire-arms, if it means registering in a well-regulated militia in order to possess fire-arms, if it means banning abortions except in case of rape/incest/life of mother, if it means making birth control more widely available and sexual education more helpful, if it means offering more extensive financial support for single or poor pregnant women and new mothers, for all of the above, I'm in.
The POTUS has proven to be the best firearms salesman in history.
1
It is a shame that our society is so terribly polarized on this issue, as well as that the understandable emotion of it obscures some of the subtleties of each situation. Senator Sanders' nuanced position helps to capture some of the subtleties, in my opinion.
Though I have no proof, the Umpqua shooter fits a profile of young men who may well have been taking (especially just starting or just stopping) prescription drugs which carry the risk of causing the person taking them to become agitated, suicidal and/or homicidal. Such cases are catalogued on the website called "SSRI Stories". Though antidepressants are among the biggest causative drugs, there are other classes of drugs that can also trigger such behavior. It's a shame that this particular wild card is so often overlooked, though the pharmaceutical industry is happy that it is. And what to do about it is also an extremely difficult aspect of some of these cases; as difficult as the gun issue itself.
Though I have no proof, the Umpqua shooter fits a profile of young men who may well have been taking (especially just starting or just stopping) prescription drugs which carry the risk of causing the person taking them to become agitated, suicidal and/or homicidal. Such cases are catalogued on the website called "SSRI Stories". Though antidepressants are among the biggest causative drugs, there are other classes of drugs that can also trigger such behavior. It's a shame that this particular wild card is so often overlooked, though the pharmaceutical industry is happy that it is. And what to do about it is also an extremely difficult aspect of some of these cases; as difficult as the gun issue itself.
1
OK gun rights advocates, you won. You won decades ago, starting in the 60s. You've won again by convincing most of us our only hope is to continue to arm ourselves against each other.
Now, how many Americans have died at the hands of "terrorists" vs. at the hands of another American with an arsenal having a bad day?
I should expect the NRA and other second amendment faithful to call for an end to our expensive and essentially losing overseas battle against terrorism.
The money we save can go towards arming elementary school students and elderly women at their bingo games. You never know when an American practicing their right to have military grade munitions might show up and make their statement.
Now, how many Americans have died at the hands of "terrorists" vs. at the hands of another American with an arsenal having a bad day?
I should expect the NRA and other second amendment faithful to call for an end to our expensive and essentially losing overseas battle against terrorism.
The money we save can go towards arming elementary school students and elderly women at their bingo games. You never know when an American practicing their right to have military grade munitions might show up and make their statement.
1
Changing habits and culture is difficult for everyone, but...
What can you expect after decades of NRA-GOP brainwash propaganda?
“That’s why we have guns: We don’t have the government dictating when to get on our knees”
Chilling...
What can you expect after decades of NRA-GOP brainwash propaganda?
“That’s why we have guns: We don’t have the government dictating when to get on our knees”
Chilling...
1
So if increased attention and focus on mental health issues and not gun control is the solution to these mass shootings why has there not been a rush of legislation reflecting this? Wouldn't increased spending and higher quality services at our state mental institutions be a good thing for society? With increased numbers of doctors, psychologists and social workers per resident? Wouldn't such emphasis reduce the horrendous case loads the social workers at our social service agencies be a good thing as well?
It seems like if one listens to the rhetoric of politicians this is something that could get bipartisan support? Instead of complaining about or stymeiing gun control efforts and laying the blame of mental health and doing nothing - actually do something worthwhile? If folks still go out and commit massacres at least we have better social services and we have done something to remedy the gross societal problems caused by the Reagan mental health cuts.
The problem is either mentally ill gunmnen or gun control. Small government mavens will have to pick one.
It's embarrassing that no or very few Republican or Democratic presidential candidate has thought of this.
It seems like if one listens to the rhetoric of politicians this is something that could get bipartisan support? Instead of complaining about or stymeiing gun control efforts and laying the blame of mental health and doing nothing - actually do something worthwhile? If folks still go out and commit massacres at least we have better social services and we have done something to remedy the gross societal problems caused by the Reagan mental health cuts.
The problem is either mentally ill gunmnen or gun control. Small government mavens will have to pick one.
It's embarrassing that no or very few Republican or Democratic presidential candidate has thought of this.
1
As an American living in France I can tell you that a good guy with a gun did not stop the bad guys with guns the day of the Charlie Hebdo massacre. People cry about having their guns taken away because deep down, every gun owner aikins himself to John McClain, and they want their opportunity to defend the Nakatomi Plaza. It doesn't work like that. A gun doesn't change a 300lb overweight individual into a super hero. The Charlie Hebdo security agent was battle hardened, experienced and the absolute best man for that job. He didn't even get his gun out of the holster before he was gunned down.
1
I've only got two hands, so bigger and better guns will beat out "more" guns especially since the population has enough guns. What good is that little gun going to do for you? Won't even scare off a teenager.
Texas text books refer to the slave trade as 'importing willing workers into America'. How are we ever going to teach ourselves about the provenance of the Second Amendment. It most certainly does NOT allow for any gun for anyone anywhere anytime. More like requiring what we now know of as the National Guard.
When all the good guys with guns start shooting each other trying to take out the lone bad guy with a gun (who usually commits suicide in these cases) then perhaps the NRA's 'increasing gun sales' mandate will be see for what it is.
When all the good guys with guns start shooting each other trying to take out the lone bad guy with a gun (who usually commits suicide in these cases) then perhaps the NRA's 'increasing gun sales' mandate will be see for what it is.
1
Of course more guns are the answer to protect people from gun violence. How can there be any other conclusion?
11,000 + homicides a year. 30 a day, more or less, unless an event like Roseburg happen. So maybe 25 a day, day in and day out. Why are we so concerned about the rare pockets of mass killings and so unconcerned about the bigger picture?
"I’m sure I’ll have a normal life and never have to go through anything like this..."
That's a pretty hefty piece of denial there from someone who HAS just been through something like this.
That's a pretty hefty piece of denial there from someone who HAS just been through something like this.
The Raygun Education in action. Why anyone thinking they need a gun after this tragedy I don't know but to look back historically it seems to me history isn't given much thought when looking to how much is real and unreal.
1
Stimulating public fear of shootings in the wake of a horrific tragedy appears to be an effective way of confirming irrational fears that government wants to take away one's guns, and of advancing the notion that guns make one safer.
The parallel to the vogue of mass incarceration in response to fear of drugs is inescapable. The implications for the current American penchant for anti-governmentalism is alarming.
The parallel to the vogue of mass incarceration in response to fear of drugs is inescapable. The implications for the current American penchant for anti-governmentalism is alarming.
Make sure the country is flooded with guns, so those without one feel the need to acquire them for protection against all the nuts with guns.
Well played, NRA. Well played.
Well played, NRA. Well played.
What we need is real data on the dangers of guns in homes. With accidental shootings and suicides far outstripping homicides - and way-far outstripping mass shootings - in terms of lives lost each year, I am sure we will find that the dangers of even one gun in the house far outstrip any perceived "benefits," like being the "good guy with a gun" at precisely the right time and place, or being quick on the draw against a "home invader" - previously known as a burglar. Initial studies have indicated that a household may be in graver danger from its own gun(s) than from a criminal's. But those studies were not definitive.
10
Today's Times, Rampage Killings Get Attention, but Gun Violence Is Constant - 90 deaths by gun a day, 60 are suicides.
I would very much like to have a high-powered Ferrari or some similar racing-type, very high speed sports car and have a valid driving license- but owning that car would not make me a Mario Andretti or similar top-tier race car driver highly trained, practiced, and competent to operate it with safety and precision. Owning a high-powered fire arm also would not make me a highly trained, practiced, and competent man-killer- just a danger to myself, my family, and my community. As the N.R.A. mantra goes, "Guns don't kill people-people kill people." In the U.S., according to all the crime statistics, that mantra should be amended to read, "Guns don't kill people- it's people WITH guns that kill people." A Ferrari won't make me a competent racing driver and a gun wouldn't make me a competent man-killer.
It's interesting -- and oh so predictable -- to read through the "NYT Picks" comments. The newspaper and its liberal readers completely disrespect the second amendment. Well, good luck when you need an ally to defend yoiur first amendment rights, then.
1
We should change the name of the country to the United States of Fear. Nothing sells firearms like fea, of the victims and even of the mass murderers.
Yaaaaahhh. Arm the students. Arm the teachers. Wait for the first shooter to arrive and watch all the people run out into the hall and start shooting anyone with a gun. Get me under the desk.
American exceptionalism on display, and it's not a pretty sight.
Sigh...
I just do not understand this sick obsession with guns. And where the hell does all this fear come from?
Earlier this year I was robbed in my home by a man who followed me into my garage while I was unloading groceries. He was not armed and didn't threaten me. The only emotion I felt was astonishment. Not fear. The only change in behavior I have made is to close my garage door while I unload groceries. It never occurred to me that a gun would be a good idea. While I am more watchful, I do not feel afraid. I am not a military or law enforcement person, I am not trained like they are, but I am still not afraid.
I just don't understand where all this fear comes from.
I just do not understand this sick obsession with guns. And where the hell does all this fear come from?
Earlier this year I was robbed in my home by a man who followed me into my garage while I was unloading groceries. He was not armed and didn't threaten me. The only emotion I felt was astonishment. Not fear. The only change in behavior I have made is to close my garage door while I unload groceries. It never occurred to me that a gun would be a good idea. While I am more watchful, I do not feel afraid. I am not a military or law enforcement person, I am not trained like they are, but I am still not afraid.
I just don't understand where all this fear comes from.
1
If the 2nd Was interpreted literally - MANPAD systems would be on display at Wallmart as well. America is an ethical backwater. People can beat their chest hairs all they wish - but when any intellect is employed - More guns, more death from afar. That's just what they were designed for.
Emotions trump good sense, every time. A gun in your home will actually provide "protection", on average, never in your lifetime. Twenty times more likely is that it will injure or kill you or one of your kids. This always happens to "other people", of course - other people who thought the same thing.
17
Love by the sword, die by the sword.
If and when we see another mass murder in Roseburg, the residents should not in any way act surprised.
If and when we see another mass murder in Roseburg, the residents should not in any way act surprised.
Get all the guns you want. Just make the process highly regulated and selective to at least try to prevent psychopaths like this from getting them.
If more guns kept us safer, the U.S. -- with the highest per capita gun ownership on the planet -- would be the safest country in the world.
Clearly, it does NOT work that way, no matter how many people line up to claim it does. Facts are facts.
Countries with stricter gun control don't have mass murders of random innocent people like we do. Counties and states with stricter gun laws have fewer gun deaths per capita than counties and states with more permissive gun laws.
How many statistics does it take? Why doesn't logical, rational thought have any impact on gun ownership fanatics? How many more innocent people have to be killed before politicians and the special interests who buy them off start admitting that we have a problem?
Clearly, it does NOT work that way, no matter how many people line up to claim it does. Facts are facts.
Countries with stricter gun control don't have mass murders of random innocent people like we do. Counties and states with stricter gun laws have fewer gun deaths per capita than counties and states with more permissive gun laws.
How many statistics does it take? Why doesn't logical, rational thought have any impact on gun ownership fanatics? How many more innocent people have to be killed before politicians and the special interests who buy them off start admitting that we have a problem?
1
One overarching problem is that a large swath of Americans - mostly the conservatives who typically identify as Republicans - has abandoned sanity.
Can you believe the nuttiness that passes for rational discussion these days? Trump, Carson, Fiorina - my god.
From guns, to the anti-science, anti-knowledge attitudes and pronouncements we see to the so called leaders to whom they gravitate and worship, there are millions of what I would call "Former Americans" who are no longer in the broad cloth of normal people.
A comedy writer 40 years ago could not have written more ludicrous, sarcastic, laughable scenarios as what passes for standard discourse among these sad clowns.
To all of you extremists (cause that's what you are), you are now Former Americans.
You have forfeited and forsaken the recognized norms of sanity and your countrymen and women reject you.
You are strangers to us now.
Can you believe the nuttiness that passes for rational discussion these days? Trump, Carson, Fiorina - my god.
From guns, to the anti-science, anti-knowledge attitudes and pronouncements we see to the so called leaders to whom they gravitate and worship, there are millions of what I would call "Former Americans" who are no longer in the broad cloth of normal people.
A comedy writer 40 years ago could not have written more ludicrous, sarcastic, laughable scenarios as what passes for standard discourse among these sad clowns.
To all of you extremists (cause that's what you are), you are now Former Americans.
You have forfeited and forsaken the recognized norms of sanity and your countrymen and women reject you.
You are strangers to us now.
1
The answer isn't as simple as buying a gun, folks. Once again, we see that it's necessary to buy more guns, better guns, and bigger guns.
1
Making laws against carrying guns means only law abiding citizens will not have them. Outlaws and crazy people seeking recognition don't abide by the laws and will be armed and very dangerous. It's a felony here in California to have a pistol under the seat of your car. If you see someone coming toward you with a gun in his hand, and you are following the law, you're defenseless and could be murdered. Me...I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
7
How many times has that scenario happened to you.
Carrying your argument to its logical conclusion we should have no laws against anything! We have laws requiring a driver's license, car registration and car insurance in order to legally drive a car. Yet there are those who drive without having these things. If they are caught they are in deep trouble and usually end up in jail. I have known several people who were involved in an automobile accident with an unlicensed, unregistered driver and in each case the police immediately handcuffed the culprit and took him away!
1
Andy Parker has pointed out that Rep. Goodlatte has let 100 bills on gun legislation sit on his desk, refusing to bring them to the floor, and that the ATF is one of the weakest law enforcement agencies, with its funding cut.
This castration of ATF has been going on for 35 years. I for one had forgotten that.
Flashback: How Republicans and the NRA Kneecapped the ATF
Thirty years ago, the National Rifle Association saved its biggest adversary from extinction. It got just what it wanted.
—By Tim Murphy
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/atf-obama-gun-reform-control...
This castration of ATF has been going on for 35 years. I for one had forgotten that.
Flashback: How Republicans and the NRA Kneecapped the ATF
Thirty years ago, the National Rifle Association saved its biggest adversary from extinction. It got just what it wanted.
—By Tim Murphy
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/atf-obama-gun-reform-control...
1
The NRA membership as of 2012 is approximately 3.5 million members. Given there are 322 million of us, that leaves the NRA membership of a grand total of 1%, sound familiar?
Jim Morrison must have been very precedent when he song the words:
"They got the guns
But we got the numbers"
With the recent events at Roseburg, perhaps its time to the rest of Mr. Morrison's lyric to ring out:
"Gonna win, yeah
We're takin' over
Come on!"
Jim Morrison must have been very precedent when he song the words:
"They got the guns
But we got the numbers"
With the recent events at Roseburg, perhaps its time to the rest of Mr. Morrison's lyric to ring out:
"Gonna win, yeah
We're takin' over
Come on!"
Here's the SUNY Albany kegs and eggs riot from 2011. Now imagine that situation with concealed carry.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RNVsil0PEA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RNVsil0PEA
The congress and supreme court require us to allow guns into our lives. So do most state legislatures. Gun organizations like the NRA support them.
But they do not allow guns into theirs.
Let's give them a taste of their own medicine. Let's pass propositions that require gun-toting people to have access to state houses, the capitol, the supreme court and the gun organizations including manufacturers and distributors. California and Oregon both have citizen proposition systems which can easily do this.
To see other common sense steps to save democracy go to YouTube and watch Comedy Party Platform (2 min 9 sec). Then send a buck to Bernie Sanders and invite me to speak to your group. thank you.
But they do not allow guns into theirs.
Let's give them a taste of their own medicine. Let's pass propositions that require gun-toting people to have access to state houses, the capitol, the supreme court and the gun organizations including manufacturers and distributors. California and Oregon both have citizen proposition systems which can easily do this.
To see other common sense steps to save democracy go to YouTube and watch Comedy Party Platform (2 min 9 sec). Then send a buck to Bernie Sanders and invite me to speak to your group. thank you.
2
Right, because more violence is what this nation needs, right?
Mr Vicari is all of 19 .... wow! how wise are we at that age? He'll live to regret his knee-jerk reaction.
one thing I'm sure of - NYT should absolutely STOP publishing the names and photographs of mass murderers.
If nothing else, could you editors please read your own related articles?
Mr Vicari is all of 19 .... wow! how wise are we at that age? He'll live to regret his knee-jerk reaction.
one thing I'm sure of - NYT should absolutely STOP publishing the names and photographs of mass murderers.
If nothing else, could you editors please read your own related articles?
"John Parker Jr., an Air Force veteran, told MSNBC that he was armed when the attack happened but did not intervene. He said SWAT officers might have mistaken him for a killer."
I also recall that when Gabby Giffords was shot, there was a gentleman there with a gun. He, too, stated that he did not intervene for fear of being mistaken for the killer. I don't recall any mass shooting where the killer was taken down by civilian gunfire. The canard that more guns in the hands of civilians would make us safer, is not borne out by the facts.
I also recall that when Gabby Giffords was shot, there was a gentleman there with a gun. He, too, stated that he did not intervene for fear of being mistaken for the killer. I don't recall any mass shooting where the killer was taken down by civilian gunfire. The canard that more guns in the hands of civilians would make us safer, is not borne out by the facts.
27
Last year in the UK according to Guns,com there were 146 deaths we need to change our attitude towards gun control.
1
For disturbed people in search of attention and their place in history, publicity provides it. It's an old story, really; only magnified by today's technology. John Wilkes Booth was quoted: "What a glorious opportunity for a man to immortalize himself by killing Abraham Lincoln ... I must have fame, fame!" and Mark David Chapman, who killed John Lennon said: "I wished someone would write a book about me."
2
So the solution for a frightened people is simply, "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em!" Truly, the NRA and its acolytes have done a stupendous job in scaring the masses into thinking more firepower = more safety. And then we wonder how Donald Trump can be leading in the Republican polls?!?
Keep 'em ignant, and they'll do your bidding for you.
Keep 'em ignant, and they'll do your bidding for you.
4
You're emotional response may be revenge or retaliation or the fear of attack, but time and time again that response has been shown to be ineffective. It's the same way of thinking which has prevented rational though on the Israeli Palestinian issue. It comes down to fear and government/policiticans/big business manipulating that fear. But when you start to look at it rationally you begin to see the truth. What's the truth? More guns doesn't work. You are MORE likely to be hurt or killed by someone you know or a family member than a random crazy or terrorist or gang... And in the big picture, reactionary policies and beliefs NEVER replace discovering the roots causes of violence, be it the Middle East or our own backyard.
1
This sound like advice from a college student with a hangover --
you know, the one who cracks open yet another beer to feel better.
you know, the one who cracks open yet another beer to feel better.
1
Sheer insanity. Guns make you safer, you know, like in a war zone where there are tons of guns? Everyone knows war zones are the safest place on the planet. *sarcasm* If murdering the angels at Sandy Hook didn't wake up this country as to the need for gun control, I'm not sure what it will take. Maybe someone shooting up a nursery full of newborns? Our collective national fetish for guns is idolatry; it is a sin; it is an addiction.
7
Apparently, in the "utopia" of a world where everyone is carrying a gun, fear and homicidal rage will disappear. This is LUNACY!
“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
The "right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" in order to support each state's well regulated militia.
Facts are clearly irrelevant in Roseburg and America because more guns mean less safety. Check the body count.
Civilization itself is under assault when so many guns are present.
“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
The "right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" in order to support each state's well regulated militia.
Facts are clearly irrelevant in Roseburg and America because more guns mean less safety. Check the body count.
Civilization itself is under assault when so many guns are present.
1
"I want to have a gun in the house to protect myself, to protect the people I’m with. I’m sure I’ll have a normal life and never have to go through anything like this, but I want to be sure.”
By buying that gun he is doing a great deal to ensure he won't in fact have a normal life. The odds will greatly increase that he, someone he knows, his child, or God forbid an intruder who actually knows their way around a gun will use it on him. Statistically, for every time a gun is used in the home in self-defense there are four accidents with guns and between 7 and 11 assaults and murders. Go ahead, feel safer. And, on average, die sooner.
By buying that gun he is doing a great deal to ensure he won't in fact have a normal life. The odds will greatly increase that he, someone he knows, his child, or God forbid an intruder who actually knows their way around a gun will use it on him. Statistically, for every time a gun is used in the home in self-defense there are four accidents with guns and between 7 and 11 assaults and murders. Go ahead, feel safer. And, on average, die sooner.
5
Being 100% RESPONSIBLE for your own (or your family's) self defense is as normal, healthy and logical as picking up your own trash, or doing your own dishes and laundry. Where do some people get off thinking "I'll just let the police take care of it". Go ahead, dial 911. They won't get there in time.
If legislation was passed banning all guns in America, criminals would still own and use them. Criminals would still break into your home or business.
In the split second you have to protect yourself from an armed criminal intent on robbing, hurting and possibly killing you, responding with a shotgun works far better than pushing the "pause" button on your TV remote.
Registration, background checks, waiting periods are all good and necessary. In many States, these laws are already in place. To consider completely banning guns from the Public is ignorant, and serves the wrong purpose.
Automatic rifles have been around since WW2, but you didn't see mass killings at schools, even in the 1960/70's. The dot-com advent of ultra violent video games, cyber-bullies, and that everything you need exsists On Line has created a culture of immediate gratification, and zero responsibility.
Education is the key here, not fear. Guns are not the boogy man. Sick people are. And a sick person coming at your with a gun deserves to be shot.
If legislation was passed banning all guns in America, criminals would still own and use them. Criminals would still break into your home or business.
In the split second you have to protect yourself from an armed criminal intent on robbing, hurting and possibly killing you, responding with a shotgun works far better than pushing the "pause" button on your TV remote.
Registration, background checks, waiting periods are all good and necessary. In many States, these laws are already in place. To consider completely banning guns from the Public is ignorant, and serves the wrong purpose.
Automatic rifles have been around since WW2, but you didn't see mass killings at schools, even in the 1960/70's. The dot-com advent of ultra violent video games, cyber-bullies, and that everything you need exsists On Line has created a culture of immediate gratification, and zero responsibility.
Education is the key here, not fear. Guns are not the boogy man. Sick people are. And a sick person coming at your with a gun deserves to be shot.
5
Violent video games are played worldwide and yet you don't see mass shootings in other countries. So much for your narrative.
So let's say you were on of the first police officers to arrive at Umpquah Community College as the shooting was going on. You enter a lecture hall, and see two or three armed individuals trading fire in there. Which one is the bad guy, and which one is the good guy just exercising his Second Amendment rights in self defense? Are you going to wait to figure that out, or are you going to waste all of them?
This idea that school shootings can be solved by more firepower is insane.
This idea that school shootings can be solved by more firepower is insane.
6
There is a little (admittedly uncivilized) part of me when I read stories like this that thinks, "Ok, let those areas of the country arm themselves to the teeth. Let their students and teachers have regular shoot-outs; let their young folks kill each other and their children begin to shoot instead of pushing each other down or hitting (or biting) each other on the playground. Then, just maybe, they will get it."
Uncivilized of me - yes. Not practical because the courts make even states like Illinois allow concealed carry (though for the life of me I do not see "concealed carry" anywhere in the 2nd Amendment). Not charitable because, really, I don't want more young people to die. I just wonder what in tar-nation will bring these folks to there senses.
Uncivilized of me - yes. Not practical because the courts make even states like Illinois allow concealed carry (though for the life of me I do not see "concealed carry" anywhere in the 2nd Amendment). Not charitable because, really, I don't want more young people to die. I just wonder what in tar-nation will bring these folks to there senses.
13
Sigh...and so the cycle continues: violence, fear, guns.
It's like a broken record.
It's like a broken record.
4
The cycle is irresponsible parents, bad kids, irresponsible parents....., but nobody wants to talk about this problem. They would rather point their finger at something else. Besides, this is America, you should be able to raise your kids the way you see fit (or unfit).
1
There is simply no evidence that owning guns makes one safer. I am unaware of a single mass shooting which has been stopped by a non police citizen with a gun despite the ever increasing number of guns, loosening of gun regulations, and concealed weapons permits. It also seems to be a rare event that even an individual crime is prevented by gun owners. Of course we're talking about actual evidence and data which doesn't seem to impact what people believe to the contrary. Despite the horrific nature of the mass killings what is far more common is the day to day gun violence associated with domestic violence, suicide, and gangs. I have no issue with owning guns but clearly more of them has not made us safer and some common sense regulations seem reasonable. Universal & uniform background checks, waiting periods, limiting assault weapons are things most of us could live with. Will it be perfect? No, but better should not be sacrificed for perfect. Or we can continue to make an aspect of American "exceptionalism" a rate of gun violence and murder 10-15 times the rest of the western world.
14
You're not aware of the crimes stopped by guns because this country's liberal media have imposed a news blackout.
There is all sorts of evidence. Take 1st of all the guns that surround the POTUS. Consider too the guns carried by police. And then this example too: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2082210/Sarah-McKinley-Teen-mom-...
There is some evidence, but how can you tell what might have been a mass shooting, if it was stopped? One example is that of Dr. Lee Silverman, in Pennsylvania, who stopped a gunman after he entered the hospital and shot a caseworker. Indications are that the gunman was intent on killing more than that one person, but how do you know for sure? It's not possible to tell how many mass shootings have not happened.
1
Mass shootings are a THING, like suicide bombings are a thing in parts of the world. Now that they're fully an inverted pop phenom/spectacle, they most likely will be increasing, and increasing the body count, as a certain % of young males who are the problem become ever more enchanted with this expression of triumphant, transcendent revenge. Their mental struggles take place within the context of our empire of globally deployed weaponry and vicarious love of carnage. There will be blood.
Americans' patriotic and celebratory gun culture, gazing at sexy industrial hardware embodying fantasies of power, lethality and courage, -that gun-love is all aglow at the embers of the dark side of collective id we cant get enough of.
I believe peace will be a long time coming.
Americans' patriotic and celebratory gun culture, gazing at sexy industrial hardware embodying fantasies of power, lethality and courage, -that gun-love is all aglow at the embers of the dark side of collective id we cant get enough of.
I believe peace will be a long time coming.
9
"Their mental struggles take place within the context of our empire of globally deployed weaponry and vicarious love of carnage."
Yes.
They are also taking place in Ritalin-fried, SSRI-scrambled brains.
Thanks to Big Pharma, the medical/educational/social welfare establishment and their enablers in both major political parties.
Who will all tell you that the REAL problem is guns...
Yes.
They are also taking place in Ritalin-fried, SSRI-scrambled brains.
Thanks to Big Pharma, the medical/educational/social welfare establishment and their enablers in both major political parties.
Who will all tell you that the REAL problem is guns...
1
If we look at the analogy with cars with which a comparable numer of deaths occur each year, we could look to regulations that improve safety: seat belts, air bags, non-skid brakes, high brake lights, turn signals, etc. why not require similar for guns? Locked storage cabinets, gunners licenses, liability insurance, auto-lockout,
12
Our policies on who can drive an automobile (namely: giving 16-year-olds some rudimentary training and putting them in control of two-ton, 80-mile-per-hour battering rams with no follow-up for the rest of their lives beyond a vision exam) are also insane.
That does not excuse our insane gun policies, nor obviate the need for sweeping reform.
That does not excuse our insane gun policies, nor obviate the need for sweeping reform.
1
Let's make sure we keep this in context. Roseburg is in Southern Oregon. While I wouldn't equate that to the sort of survivalist enclaves you see next door in Idaho, to call it conservative would be something of an understatement. The Douglas County Sheriff, John Hanlin, who has become infamous in certain circles for his antipathy towards the very mention of gun control, is nothing if he's not representative of his constituency. Although the shooting at UCC has shined a brighter light on the attitudes about guns in rural communities like Roseburg, to say it's changed them in any way is simply not true. These people have always had the same love affair with their guns that a pig has with the mud.
14
So when you hear a "bump in the night" and feel led to call the cops, do you inform the dispatcher to have the "pigs" disarm before they answer your call?
Gallup found that 63% of Americans agree owning a firearm makes them and their families safer, and that is the highest number ever in the decades they have been asking the question.
People are no longer fooled by studies that claim otherwise and don't control for criminals killing criminals, which is 88% of NY murder and 91% of Baltimore murder and likely at least 75% to 80% nationally. That is an important point for the vast majority of us who are not criminals. Looking at the Harvard study and applying even 50% as a control the results invert and gun owning homes trend safer than unarmed homes.
People are no longer fooled by studies that claim otherwise and don't control for criminals killing criminals, which is 88% of NY murder and 91% of Baltimore murder and likely at least 75% to 80% nationally. That is an important point for the vast majority of us who are not criminals. Looking at the Harvard study and applying even 50% as a control the results invert and gun owning homes trend safer than unarmed homes.
6
I hope the government pursues the shooter's mother as an accessory. A nurse-practioner, she bought her unemployed son thousands of dollars of guns and ammo, took him shooting, and encouraged his interest while aware of his mental issues and bizarre anti-social behavior. Law abiding gun owners should not be penalized for choosing to protect themselves and their families while the culpable skip off with no accountability.
34
She was not a nurse practitioner. She was an LPN - Licensed Practical Nurse. An LPN license typically requires 1 year of education and is a diploma degree. Nurse Practitioners (ARNP or NP) have a clinical doctorate degree and are able to diagnose, prescribe medications and order testing. It's a small point, but it assumes a level of education that she did not have. And I am not saying that education necessarily means you are smarter, better, saner or have better deductive reasoning. Climate change deniers Carson and Cruz are examples of that. I think it is worth clarifying.
i agree. I'm glad they posted your comment for the Times didn't see fit to post similar comments i made yesterday and early Wed. Glad you noticed and spoke up about this. the mother should definitely go to jail.
"Law abiding gun owners should not be penalized ..."
Those of us that would like to see better kept and more accessible records of criminal behavior and mental health issues, along with nationwide and uniform background checks, find it very hard to understand why that 'penalizes law abiding gun owners'.
Those of us that would like to see better kept and more accessible records of criminal behavior and mental health issues, along with nationwide and uniform background checks, find it very hard to understand why that 'penalizes law abiding gun owners'.
So does this mean I can, if in a designated public area, which can also mean community in the area of LaPierre's home, walk around with a fully loaded AR15?
According to him, and has/is frequently demonstrated by one of our home grown nuts (Hartsfield Intl., Wendy's)
According to him, and has/is frequently demonstrated by one of our home grown nuts (Hartsfield Intl., Wendy's)
4
All that gun control advocates are proposing is a workable system for buying and owning guns that assures that gun owners have a basic knowledge of how to operate their guns safely and do not have a mental condition that exposes them to violence and delusions.
There is no reason or logic supporting the possession of more than one or two hunting guns. But some gun collectors have huge arrays of large and small shotguns and automatic weapons that are beyond any need for obtaining food or bodily protection. And many gun buyers make purchases of additional weapons on a monthly frequency. Being "law abiding" as so many gun owners claim they are is a hollow claim when one observes that nearly all of the mass killings of "law abiding" men, women, and children has been done by mentally disturbed "law abiding" citizens.
Surely no one's gun hobby or recreational pastime of shooting tin cans is so important that it's enjoyment should cost the lives of scores of innocent individuals callously selected by deviants as targets.
There is no reason or logic supporting the possession of more than one or two hunting guns. But some gun collectors have huge arrays of large and small shotguns and automatic weapons that are beyond any need for obtaining food or bodily protection. And many gun buyers make purchases of additional weapons on a monthly frequency. Being "law abiding" as so many gun owners claim they are is a hollow claim when one observes that nearly all of the mass killings of "law abiding" men, women, and children has been done by mentally disturbed "law abiding" citizens.
Surely no one's gun hobby or recreational pastime of shooting tin cans is so important that it's enjoyment should cost the lives of scores of innocent individuals callously selected by deviants as targets.
6
We shouldn't expect a person who one week ago was crouching underneath a desk while people in the next room were being blown apart to think rationally about the role that access to guns plays in killing thousands of people each year at the population level. We might however expect that person to have an instinctive reaction toward protection. So the anecdote that opens the article is entirely beside the point. People are dumb in this country because public education has failed them.
Most people in this country do not understand statistics, they don't understand that society necessarily operates at the population level despite indoctrinated American individualism, and they don't understand that humanistic and utilitarian evidence-based development of policy is what fundamentally should drive government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
Most people in this country do not understand statistics, they don't understand that society necessarily operates at the population level despite indoctrinated American individualism, and they don't understand that humanistic and utilitarian evidence-based development of policy is what fundamentally should drive government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
6
A well reasoned, well written reply that sheds some light on the subject. David should be the one wrting for the Times.
1
Modern assault rifles are closer to RPG's than Constitutional-era muskets. Let's get real and ban these along with anything remotely automatic or concealable. These have no hunting/farming application nor are they defensive weapons.
For those naysayers who scream "logistically impossible" -- when has practical implementation ever stopped the right from pushing ideology?
For those naysayers who scream "logistically impossible" -- when has practical implementation ever stopped the right from pushing ideology?
10
An RPG is a single shot shoulder fired mini-cannon type of gadget. Sort of like the "musket" you mentioned. Duh!
As for "assault rifles," all long guns owned by the public are essentially single shot devices, fully automatic guns being quite scarce among the public and requiring a Federal license. Another - Duh!
As for "assault rifles," all long guns owned by the public are essentially single shot devices, fully automatic guns being quite scarce among the public and requiring a Federal license. Another - Duh!
And I will say, "logistically impossible. The criminal element would then be better armed than the honest person. Where's the fairness in limiting honest people to a five shot revolver against an assailant with a 10 shot semi-automatic? Or multiple assailants?
That ship sailed long ago.
That ship sailed long ago.
One of the many problems with this mentality (i.e. everyone owning a gun for self defense) is that it assumes competent marksmanship and appropriate use of a firearm by the defender in a real-world (i.e. highly stressful and often ambiguous) situation. How many people who own guns - even those who routinely practice at firing ranges - can properly and effectively hit a target in a stressful, real-world situation? Just look at how often the police miss their intended targets (search New York Police Department for some laughs) and they are highly trained individuals. Or, for more concrete evidence, just look at the data which show that a gun in the home is more likely to kill the owner than the intruder (suicide, accident or by intruder taking the firearm from the defender). The ubiquitous armament of the citizenry will not necessarily translate into a safer society.
17
Here is a widowed mother who did quite well defending her home ... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2082210/Sarah-McKinley-Teen-mom-...
As someone who has extensive experience with firearms while in the military, the last thing any thinking person should want is a country where there are more firearms out in public. The problem is that most of the people who say they want firearms for "protection" lack the training and experience necessary to properly use a firearm for protection.
In my view, we should require anyone who wants a concealed carry permit to demonstrate some level of judgment and expertise with the actual weapon - perhaps in the type of training course the police often use. That seems a reasonable requirement if someone is to have the ability to carry a concealed firearm. And it is simply absurd that a background check is not required for every firearm sale, including those between private parties.
The larger question, on gun control in general, is difficult because the various suggestions of regulating firearms as we do cars runs afoul of the fact that firearm ownership is explicitly protected by the Constitution as a right, while driving is recognized as a privilege. And there doesn't appear to be much of a middle ground between countries that have far stricter restrictions on firearm ownership, like the UK, and the US. The countries that have far lower rates of firearm deaths also have made it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to own a firearm, and that seems very unlikely to work here in the US.
In my view, we should require anyone who wants a concealed carry permit to demonstrate some level of judgment and expertise with the actual weapon - perhaps in the type of training course the police often use. That seems a reasonable requirement if someone is to have the ability to carry a concealed firearm. And it is simply absurd that a background check is not required for every firearm sale, including those between private parties.
The larger question, on gun control in general, is difficult because the various suggestions of regulating firearms as we do cars runs afoul of the fact that firearm ownership is explicitly protected by the Constitution as a right, while driving is recognized as a privilege. And there doesn't appear to be much of a middle ground between countries that have far stricter restrictions on firearm ownership, like the UK, and the US. The countries that have far lower rates of firearm deaths also have made it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to own a firearm, and that seems very unlikely to work here in the US.
19
Individual firearm ownership was never intended by our founders and every court case for 218 years since our founding interpreted the 2nd ammendment that way.
Ya got that?
That's fact.
Research it.
There are books written specifically about the 2nd ammendment.
The right to individual gun ownership was rebuked three times - every time - it came before the Supreme Court.
Only the present court, with its over-the-top conservatives went AGAINST 218 of legal precident and decided there was an individual right to own a gun.
That was just 7 years ago.
So law depends on the judges.
And someday a more liberal court will go back to 218 years of legal precident and our founders original intent and will rule there is no, and never was a right to individual gun ownership intended by the 2nd ammendment.
Ya got that?
That's fact.
Research it.
There are books written specifically about the 2nd ammendment.
The right to individual gun ownership was rebuked three times - every time - it came before the Supreme Court.
Only the present court, with its over-the-top conservatives went AGAINST 218 of legal precident and decided there was an individual right to own a gun.
That was just 7 years ago.
So law depends on the judges.
And someday a more liberal court will go back to 218 years of legal precident and our founders original intent and will rule there is no, and never was a right to individual gun ownership intended by the 2nd ammendment.
1
Bob- unfortunately many if not most military and ex-military feel like most people in Roseburg do- "show me the guns"! you're a very rare exception, i think and it shouldn't be that way.
Bob makes a critical point, the typical gun owner lacks the competence to use a firearm for protection against an armed threat. I have been a hunter for most of my adult life and served in the military as well. While I consider myself very experienced with a variety of weapons, I do not think that I am in any way prepared to use a firearm in self-defense in a situation like this school shooting.
1
"...where Carolyn Kellim (86 years old) sells handguns and ammunition out of her home, "
And what controls are involved there? What background checks does this lady perform?
And what controls are involved there? What background checks does this lady perform?
7
simple as looking on the BATFE site. She is an FFL. The same controls as an other Federally Firearm Licensed dealer. Full FBI background checks on every sale.
Whether a someone sells from home, or a typical store, they have to be licensed by the Federal government. She has an FFL - Federal Firearms License. She also has to have the ability to access NICS for background checks, and is required to keep records of who she sells to and what guns they buy. She gets this info when the purchaser fills out form 4473, also required by law.
Finally people are starting get to recognize reality from a utopian dream with gum drops and unicorns. Cites and states that have the strictest gun laws also have extremely high levels of gun violence. Bad guys don't follow the law so making gun laws more strict is pointless. Obama's home city is a perfect example. The facts are inconvenient for a rebuttal. Baltimore. ...DC....LA...should I keep going? Molon Labe
4
I count 154 consecutive articles, analysis and editorials by the New York times on gun control and gun issues, with exactly one mentioning US gun murder rate has fallen 65% since the early 1990's.
Pew Research in noting a 49% drop 1993-2014 found most Americans though it was up (google: Pew Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware). The decline picked up again and the FBI UCR for 2014 just published two weeks ago shows an additional 16% decline.
Pew Research in noting a 49% drop 1993-2014 found most Americans though it was up (google: Pew Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware). The decline picked up again and the FBI UCR for 2014 just published two weeks ago shows an additional 16% decline.
its because others states have almost no gun access restrictions, so anyone with good phony out-of-state I.D. can buy guns almost as easily as buying beer... even some states make it hard to buy alcohol than guns.
FACT: places with strict gun controls have lower per capita rates of deaths due to firearms.
"Umpqua Community College’s code of conduct banned guns “without written authorization,” and students said some of their classmates were able to carry guns on campus because they had concealed weapons permits. One of them, John Parker Jr., an Air Force veteran, told MSNBC that he was armed when the attack happened but did not intervene. He said SWAT officers might have mistaken him for a killer."
AND so the point of arming good guys with guns is ...
AND so the point of arming good guys with guns is ...
12
Respectfully that is a stawman. By your logic, the fact that the cops don't prevent every crime means cop are useless?
In fact the low estimate for crimes prevented by gun owners is 500,000 per year and the high estimate is 3 million
In fact the low estimate for crimes prevented by gun owners is 500,000 per year and the high estimate is 3 million
Apparently that we should do away with trained SWAT teams and let good guys with guns protect us.
Eye roll.
Eye roll.
@bonhemiene:
Sorry: non sequitur, sir.
Sorry: non sequitur, sir.
More guns have never reduced crime or gun violence.
6
Actually, we have more guns and weapons and ammo than ever.
And stats on violence, shootings, gun deaths are lower than at any time in history.
Though very tragic, this type of shooting is an extreme outlier and is not common. It's like reading about an airplane crash, and getting all worried about flying -- when the real risk is driving your CAR to work every day.
And stats on violence, shootings, gun deaths are lower than at any time in history.
Though very tragic, this type of shooting is an extreme outlier and is not common. It's like reading about an airplane crash, and getting all worried about flying -- when the real risk is driving your CAR to work every day.
I'm "concerned" about your attitude and those like you. "Though very tragic" is in the same spirit as "stuff happens". At least there are some regulations in place regarding my license to drive and insurance. Outlier? Obviously, news about multiple shootings doesn't quite get to Anywheresville. Blame your local media. Just remember to keep yours locked and away from the kids, OK?
1
"There have been 1,516,863 gun-related deaths since 1968, compared to 1,396,733 cumulative war deaths since the American Revolution. That’s 120,130 more gun deaths than war deaths -- about 9 percent more, or nearly four typical years worth of gun deaths. And that’s using the most generous scholarly estimate of Civil War deaths, the biggest component of American war deaths."
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/aug/27/nicholas-kri...
Gun deaths and car related deaths in the USA between 1999 and 2013 are roughly equal.
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/aug/27/nicholas-kri...
Gun deaths and car related deaths in the USA between 1999 and 2013 are roughly equal.
So ironic that gun nuts argue that having a gun protects them. Besides this incident, in the last year we have seen two city police officers, several state troopers, and numerous military personnel killed by people with guns. All those killed not only had weapons, but were thoroughly trained how to use them to protect themselves. That should be quite enough real world evidence that owning and carrying a gun has no relation to protecting yourself.
6
". . . owning and carrying a gun has no relation to protecting yourself."
Then why do police officers, FBI agents, Secret Service officers, etc., all carry guns?
Then why do police officers, FBI agents, Secret Service officers, etc., all carry guns?
1
How many of those police were actually able to defend themselves. The attacks lately have been ambushes where the policeman was lured to a site with a call to 911, sitting writing a report of gassing up his car while in uniform.
Why is it so difficult to understand the REAL elements of our society that gun violence breeds off of? Look at the horrorific video games our children play, look at the violent movies they watch, listen to the music they listen too -then tell me that guns are the problem. In the meanwhile these other forms of "entertainment " are desensitizing and brainwashing our children. But will any of that stop - no - because the liberal left cries about "free speech".
5
So what's your explanation for the fact that kids in countries without our levels of gun violence play the same horrific video games, watch the same violent movies, and listen to the same kind of music American kids do? Are they just naturally superior to us?
It seems that reasonable people would try find some way to curtail these episodes. Now I am not so sure, and in fact, I am resigned to the ongoing saga of mass killings by unstable individuals. It is just going to happen and it is the gun rights people who make sure that it will.
2
It is the media via incessant coverage who will inspire copycat killings.
With regard to the oh-so-precious-as-it-is Second Amendment: when it was written, guns were single-loading -- and it took some time and expertise to load them -- single-firing machines whose aim was often unsure. It took a great deal of time and practice to become a crack shot -- hence waiting until the shooter could see the whites of their eyes. Those weapons, the ones available at the time, bear little resemblance to the weapons of today. So here is an idea: we make that type of weapon available under the current lack of regulations. Anything more lethal, more easily transported or hidden, any weapon that will deal multiple rounds of death without reloading, we make subject to onerous registration, taxation, and physical and mental examinations of wannabe owners.
5
When the FIRST Amendment was written, the primary form of communication was .... quill writing pen. Printing was done on sheet at a time. Books cost a ton of money and only rich people owned them.
Does that make the FIRST Amendment out of date, and requiring repeal?
Does that make the FIRST Amendment out of date, and requiring repeal?
5
Same could be said of the media at the time of the writing of the 1st Amendment - only hand operated presses, no amplified sound, no mass electronic media to manipulate people and inspire copycat killings via incessant coverage of violence.
1
"Does that make the FIRST Amendment out of date, and requiring repeal?"
Obviously some Democrats do but know it can't happen.Two years ago Harry Reid was pushing for a law to allow the Congress to determine what free speech consists of. The Citizens United decision of the Supreme Court was in view but who knows. Once passed anything could happen with that kind of power.
Obviously some Democrats do but know it can't happen.Two years ago Harry Reid was pushing for a law to allow the Congress to determine what free speech consists of. The Citizens United decision of the Supreme Court was in view but who knows. Once passed anything could happen with that kind of power.
1
A kid throws a rock at another kid in the school yard. How many people think the best thing the teacher could do is give rocks to all the other kids to throw? We do not need more guns in our society, we are already number one in civilian on civilian mass murders for the industrial world. Remove the tools of violence from the reach of those who could lose their temper or self control.
14
The New York Times does an excellent job of reporting the news, including reports of gun violence and related issues. The opportunity to comment as we do in the online edition is also a valuable innovation since the days when the Times was exclusively a print medium. I'm sure that the Times staff and others glean ideas for their work from readers' comments.
In recent years I have risen to the challenge of commenting on the Times' coverage of these mass killings, and once again we have another situation in Oregon. A deranged shooter in the classroom with sufficient ammunition to equip an Army platoon, terrified students, victims in body bags, the injured and wounded crippled for life, the reaction of teachers, administrators, law enforcement, the NRA, local officials, the media and talking heads.
I don't know how many times I have commented here in recent years, probably several dozen times on the subject of gun violence. But I'm tired of this. And I'm tired of being tired. Nothing I can say or write here will make any difference. Nothing anyone says or writes, apparently, makes a difference.
So I won't say anything more here, because I'm just too tired of all of this. But I may comment again when the next mass killing takes place. A deranged shooter in the classroom with enough ammunition to equip an Army platoon, terrified students, victims in body bags, the injured and wounded crippled for life ...
In recent years I have risen to the challenge of commenting on the Times' coverage of these mass killings, and once again we have another situation in Oregon. A deranged shooter in the classroom with sufficient ammunition to equip an Army platoon, terrified students, victims in body bags, the injured and wounded crippled for life, the reaction of teachers, administrators, law enforcement, the NRA, local officials, the media and talking heads.
I don't know how many times I have commented here in recent years, probably several dozen times on the subject of gun violence. But I'm tired of this. And I'm tired of being tired. Nothing I can say or write here will make any difference. Nothing anyone says or writes, apparently, makes a difference.
So I won't say anything more here, because I'm just too tired of all of this. But I may comment again when the next mass killing takes place. A deranged shooter in the classroom with enough ammunition to equip an Army platoon, terrified students, victims in body bags, the injured and wounded crippled for life ...
7
'"We are a weapons family,” Ms. Skinner said. She and Mr. Mintz have a 6-year-old son, Tyrik, who has autism and who also influenced her attitude toward guns. “I like to have the ability to protect myself and my child,” she said.'
Yes, that should work out well. Nancy Lanza and her autistic son Adam plus guns - that led to a good outcome. The autistic-aspergic Laurel Harper and her autistic-aspergic son Christopher Harper-Mercer plus guns - another good mix.
Socially challenged Americans and their love of guns. What could possibly go wrong?
Yes, that should work out well. Nancy Lanza and her autistic son Adam plus guns - that led to a good outcome. The autistic-aspergic Laurel Harper and her autistic-aspergic son Christopher Harper-Mercer plus guns - another good mix.
Socially challenged Americans and their love of guns. What could possibly go wrong?
28
Every few weeks, sadly, we get an answer to that question.
Some of the comments quoted in the article are absolutely nuts. Local gun-dealer Carolyn Kellim said, "“That’s why we have guns: We don’t have the government dictating when to get on our knees."
How is the government telling her to get on her knees? What kind of bizarre fantasy world do these people live in?
How is the government telling her to get on her knees? What kind of bizarre fantasy world do these people live in?
33
"How is the government telling her to get on her knees? What kind of bizarre fantasy world do these people live in?"
The same world that John Jay, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton assumed when they wrote the Federalist Papers #46 to convince the states to ratify the Constitution. They assumed that the people would need defense from the federal government and to do so they would need to be armed.
Anyone who has watched the power of the federal government grow in theo see last 50 years or so doesn't need much imagination to imagine what it would do if there was no control over it. Why, we might become Great Britain.
The same world that John Jay, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton assumed when they wrote the Federalist Papers #46 to convince the states to ratify the Constitution. They assumed that the people would need defense from the federal government and to do so they would need to be armed.
Anyone who has watched the power of the federal government grow in theo see last 50 years or so doesn't need much imagination to imagine what it would do if there was no control over it. Why, we might become Great Britain.
Reminds me of a book " Extraordinary Popular Delusions snd the Madness of Crowds".
"That’s why we have guns: We don’t have the government dictating when to get on our knees,” said Ms. Kellim,," who sells guns and ammunition. No, I guess people like Mr. Harper-Mercer will be dictating that.
33
It's important to acknowledge that Sandy Hook did NOTHING to slow the sales of guns, but in fact accelerated their manufacture and sale significantly across the US. 20 children shot dead in their classroom would not-COULD NOT have happened if the US had limited guns as other civilized countries do. How is it possible that a pre-requisite to LIVING a life of American freedom, is unfettered devotion to instruments of death?
18
Even if not one new firearm were ever again sold in America, there would still be hundreds of millions of guns circulating in this country. Ridding this country of guns would be much harder even than deporting the more than 10 million foreign nationals who are here illegally (which the conventional wisdom suggests couldn't be done even if we wanted to). There may be a variety of things that can be done to reduce gun violence here, but ridding our nation of guns is absolutely positively not one of them. Comparisons to Australia, etc., are inapposite. In order to move the discussion forward, we need to acknowledge that "limiting guns" in any meaningful way is impossible due to the combined effects of our cultural and legal heritage and the fact that there are already so many firearms in circulation here.
According to a USA Today tally, mass shootings killed 487 Americans from 2000 to 2014, an average over of 35 deaths per year over a 14-year period. The question of whether lives could have been saved if the victims of mass shootings had been armed comes up after every mass shooting. The recently released FBI Uniform Crime Report for 2014 provides an answer. Expanded Homicide Data Table 1: Justifiable Homicides shows that firearms were used in 442 of the nation’s 444 justifiable homicide incidents that occurred in 2014. These are self-defense case in which civilians in fear for their lives—not police—successfully used guns to defend themselves. The number does not include the more numerous cases in which assailants were wounded instead of killed or frightened away. Extrapolated over a 14-year period, firearms used in self defense might save about 6,199 lives.
1
No. Extrapolated over a 14-year period, firearms used in self defense end 6,188 lives.
You also seem to imply that the mass shooting deaths are the only untimely ones caused by firearms.
You also seem to imply that the mass shooting deaths are the only untimely ones caused by firearms.
Okay and guns involved in over 33,000 suicides and deaths from crimes every year. Extrapolate that.
And all you had to do was ignore the 30,000 killed in other than mass shootings. Every year. I'll let you multiply by 14.
It's pretty much 50 - 50, isn't it.
Grandma Kellim should take all her guns, ammunitions, night tables, over the counter medications, and guest linens and make a lovely lawn ornament for the world media. She seems as common as a Stamper; maybe a movie of the week if she captures some market share
2
In the early 1970's, the show "All In The Family" was the rage.
In one episode, Archie Bunker, the lovable, laughable conservative opined on how to deal with the prevalence of jet hijackings at that time. (Yes kids that happened a lot!)
Archie's solution?
Hand out guns to all the passengers before the flight!
It was hysterical at the time.
Thoughts like that were considered lunatic and it made for a good laugh.
That was about the time gun manufacturers realized there was good money in convincing the Americans that they should all arm themselves. In 1970, nobody made a big deal out of the 2nd ammendment baloney we hear today. Just wasn't done… but the NRA, abandoned it's traditional role as hobby organization and gun safety group and became the shill of the drug, I mean gun pushers.
Suddenly it was our solemn American duty to own guns.
The explosion of guns led to the massive gun death we see.
Mostly between families and friends, suicides and gangs.
I mean go figure…300 million guns and people get killed by guns! How the heck can that be!
And incredibly, Archie's asinine idea has become NRA dogma.
Guns for every passenger on airline America!
Most Americans reject it as the nonsense it is.
Just wait till they are properly organized with the tools of social media and the ability to swamp legislators with mass opinion.
Lots of unemployed politicians.
In one episode, Archie Bunker, the lovable, laughable conservative opined on how to deal with the prevalence of jet hijackings at that time. (Yes kids that happened a lot!)
Archie's solution?
Hand out guns to all the passengers before the flight!
It was hysterical at the time.
Thoughts like that were considered lunatic and it made for a good laugh.
That was about the time gun manufacturers realized there was good money in convincing the Americans that they should all arm themselves. In 1970, nobody made a big deal out of the 2nd ammendment baloney we hear today. Just wasn't done… but the NRA, abandoned it's traditional role as hobby organization and gun safety group and became the shill of the drug, I mean gun pushers.
Suddenly it was our solemn American duty to own guns.
The explosion of guns led to the massive gun death we see.
Mostly between families and friends, suicides and gangs.
I mean go figure…300 million guns and people get killed by guns! How the heck can that be!
And incredibly, Archie's asinine idea has become NRA dogma.
Guns for every passenger on airline America!
Most Americans reject it as the nonsense it is.
Just wait till they are properly organized with the tools of social media and the ability to swamp legislators with mass opinion.
Lots of unemployed politicians.
12
You do know TV shows are fiction, right?
Check out the real world and how Israel stopped all hijackings. Hint: It had nothing to do with setting up a TSA like agency.
Check out the real world and how Israel stopped all hijackings. Hint: It had nothing to do with setting up a TSA like agency.
1
The producers, directors, writers and actors for that series never dreamed that one day our supreme court would, in the Heller decision, finally snap nearly total gun control from their progressive fists.
I seriously don't believe this onslaught of people now wanting to buy guns will do anything to stop these mass shootings. Many of them are are preplanned and happen within seconds. How many of these new gun owners will be in the right place at the right time to kill the gunman??? How many of these new inexperienced gun owners will end up shooting innocent victims by just wildly shooting in the vicinity of the shooter. People who carry guns are not sitting in the dark movie theater or class with their finger on the trigger because these shooting happen in seconds and it would take these new gun owners to walk around with their fingers on the trigger to have any hope. More guns in inexperienced, scared peoples hands is definitely not the answer.
11
So... I live 2 miles away from UCC where the shooting happened last week. Thank goodness my family and I were out of town and I wasn't up at the school... but my thoughts are with the families who were unfortunate enough to be there.
In most of the mass shootings the gun laws talked about wouldn't have prevented any of them (as far as I've seen). So yes, it's a normal response to want to do something to make us feel good about trying to stop mass shootings. But these shootings don't tend to be ones where the person just snapped one day and decided to shoot people. These young guys research shootings, plan, deliberate... for months. Making someone wait a month won't do anything.
I'm completely fine w/ laws that make people wait, require background checks, limit magazine sizes, assault rifles, fine w/ screening for mental disorders, etc. But the majority of these shootings wouldn't have been stopped by these laws. So what's next then? Take the 300million guns away? Or, get real and look at the hard answer. It tends to be men under 30, isolated, desensitized to violence from music / movies / news / games, didn't learn empathy because lack of social interaction... etc. It's going to take decades to "solve" this. But these gun laws won't solve it. The American family unit of 50 years ago is dying. Guns were all over the place 50 years ago too, where were the mass shootings? The main difference is the moral & family fabric of America have eroded - and it's sad seeing it happen
In most of the mass shootings the gun laws talked about wouldn't have prevented any of them (as far as I've seen). So yes, it's a normal response to want to do something to make us feel good about trying to stop mass shootings. But these shootings don't tend to be ones where the person just snapped one day and decided to shoot people. These young guys research shootings, plan, deliberate... for months. Making someone wait a month won't do anything.
I'm completely fine w/ laws that make people wait, require background checks, limit magazine sizes, assault rifles, fine w/ screening for mental disorders, etc. But the majority of these shootings wouldn't have been stopped by these laws. So what's next then? Take the 300million guns away? Or, get real and look at the hard answer. It tends to be men under 30, isolated, desensitized to violence from music / movies / news / games, didn't learn empathy because lack of social interaction... etc. It's going to take decades to "solve" this. But these gun laws won't solve it. The American family unit of 50 years ago is dying. Guns were all over the place 50 years ago too, where were the mass shootings? The main difference is the moral & family fabric of America have eroded - and it's sad seeing it happen
32
There were not guns all over the place 50 years ago.
They've been pushed on us like drugs from the NRA - the front men for the death merchants gun manufacturers.
And what a coincidence that gun deaths were not as common then!
Amazing right!
They've been pushed on us like drugs from the NRA - the front men for the death merchants gun manufacturers.
And what a coincidence that gun deaths were not as common then!
Amazing right!
How about we end private ownership of handguns?
That way, if you see someone carrying a long gun down the street you (we) know to avoid them.
That way, if you see someone carrying a long gun down the street you (we) know to avoid them.
"Guns were all over the place 50 years ago too, where were the mass shootings? The main difference is the moral & family fabric of America have eroded - and it's sad seeing it happen"
There wasn't the mass media hammering each shooting to death thereby inspiring copycats. The old black and white 19' tube TV wasn't as hypnotic nor as intense as the modern LED flat widescreen version. Nor was the media as adept at dramatizing each killing. Search on: copycat killings media coverage.
There wasn't the mass media hammering each shooting to death thereby inspiring copycats. The old black and white 19' tube TV wasn't as hypnotic nor as intense as the modern LED flat widescreen version. Nor was the media as adept at dramatizing each killing. Search on: copycat killings media coverage.
On Megyn Kelly's show on Fox tonight, a former FBI agent was patiently explaining to viewers how they should plan in advance how to deal with a mass shooting when they're at such places as schools and movie theaters. Our country is not falling apart-- it's already fallen apart.
18
Perhaps the citizens of Roseburg will choose to further arm themselves vs. trying to rein in the availability of guns. That's their prerogative. But I personally would choose to live where guns are more tightly controlled because I believe it results in fewer deaths.
But that's where our 2nd amendment and the Supreme Court's reading of it frustrates me. Gun owners are granted rights that interfere with my rights to choose to live in a city, town, or state that wants to regulate them. Why don't my rights to safe living take precedence? Why isn't this part of the discussion with the Supreme Court, and Congress?
But that's where our 2nd amendment and the Supreme Court's reading of it frustrates me. Gun owners are granted rights that interfere with my rights to choose to live in a city, town, or state that wants to regulate them. Why don't my rights to safe living take precedence? Why isn't this part of the discussion with the Supreme Court, and Congress?
12
So then by the same logic you should be able to live in a segregated neighborhood because you think you have a right to live in the kind of community you want. And you should be able to bar mixed race couples from patronizing your business because you have a right to your own property being managed the way you want, etc.
No, the Constitution guarantees every citizen a right to bear arms and you don't have a special personal right to ignore the Constitutional rights of others.
No, the Constitution guarantees every citizen a right to bear arms and you don't have a special personal right to ignore the Constitutional rights of others.
Congress will not seriously address gun control as long as all of the mass murders are angry white males. Most of the strict gun control laws were enacted in the 1960s and 1970s in response to the Black Panthers and other black militant groups. As soon as a black male in his 20s engages in a mass shooting, the rhetoric will be different.
10
It's not terribly surprising to me that people in Roseburg would embrace their guns all the more after the tragedy at Umpqua Community College. Roseburg is about 3 1/2 hours down I-5 from Portland, and in many ways, a world away. And to be fair, I'm sure there are plenty of people in the Portland metro area who have similar attitudes; they may just not be as open about it. After we've had a school shooting and a mall shooting here in recent years, and it's not as if there has been some huge increase in support for stricter gun control here.
I know that nothing any "liberal elitist" could say or do could ever change the minds of people who think this way; and they certainly will never change mine. But I'm pretty sure that more guns in Roseburg or anywhere else will also mean more accidental shootings, more suicides, and possibly more mass shootings. The Daily Kos website has a "Gun Fail" feature that every so often lists all of the crazy gun accidents that have happened, and it's astonishing how many people accidentally shoot themselves, their spouses or their kids every week in this country.
If I didn't have to worry about being in the wrong place at the wrong time and getting shot by the next Adam Lanza or Christopher Harper-Mercer, I'd be happy to leave the gun lovers to their (in my opinion) delusional world.
But as far as I'm concerned, your right to own a gun stops where the bullet pierces my flesh.
I know that nothing any "liberal elitist" could say or do could ever change the minds of people who think this way; and they certainly will never change mine. But I'm pretty sure that more guns in Roseburg or anywhere else will also mean more accidental shootings, more suicides, and possibly more mass shootings. The Daily Kos website has a "Gun Fail" feature that every so often lists all of the crazy gun accidents that have happened, and it's astonishing how many people accidentally shoot themselves, their spouses or their kids every week in this country.
If I didn't have to worry about being in the wrong place at the wrong time and getting shot by the next Adam Lanza or Christopher Harper-Mercer, I'd be happy to leave the gun lovers to their (in my opinion) delusional world.
But as far as I'm concerned, your right to own a gun stops where the bullet pierces my flesh.
14
"your right to own a gun stops where the bullet pierces my flesh."
Very generous of you. Maybe I'm just being selfish, but I'd prefer that it stop at some point prior to the trigger being pulled.
Very generous of you. Maybe I'm just being selfish, but I'd prefer that it stop at some point prior to the trigger being pulled.
If the citizens of Oregon (and other states) would like to protect themselves from this type of craziness, they need to pass some very strict regulation and licensing laws. If they aren't serious, then let them be subject to an environment that promotes fear and paranoia...and probably more copy cat mass killings. The Congress isn't going to do anything (as long as the Republicans control the House).
2
Great idea. Gunbelts for all kids and bullet-proof glass bubbles for all teachers, and raise taxes across the board to pay for this. It will stimulate the economy, and drastically lower rates of violent crime in America...possibly to only double what most of the rest of the civilized world achieves with sensible gun control regulations.
3
The definition of insanity. I have no problem with gun ownership, but there is something else going on now: gun worship. I grew up with people who hunted but there was never this singular love affair with weapons. And, the reality is, if the government wants to come for you, they have nuclear warheads, helicopters, stealth fighters and more. The idea that a semi-automatic weapon will give you cover is also crazy.
18
I am taken aback that some folks in this community have already made it clear the President of the United States is not there ally and probably should not visit. He isn't coming to take your guns away, to the rest of the Country your suffering means something and the mass shooting at your community college is a National tragedy, not a local problem. He represents all Americans who grieve and share a collective sorrow with you.
As much as certain politicians can ruffle my feathers, I understand the difference between politicians being respectful and understanding, verses exploiting for personal gain.
President Obama is going to Roseburg for all us as a Nation. We all care deeply about your losses.
17
There are two subjects under all this talk: one is, owning guns. It' s legal to own a gun and people now believe that the authorities are not going to keep us safe from violence in public places or in our homes. The second subject is "gun control." It is only sensible that if we own and depend on guns, we should be schooled in their use and licensed to own them. Separate the two subjects and you may find that people are more in agreement than it sometimes seems in the media.
If there were fewer firearms in the houses, there would be fewer firearms in the streets. Make owners liable for weapons they buy and sell.
Let me see if I got this straight: A mass murderer lives in a town for two years and accumulates a large stockpile of weapons and ammunition. He is obviously extremely weird. No one likes him. AND, no one has the guts to just talk to the guy and maybe defuse him a little before all this happens. But, after he's killed a whole slew of people, the majority of the town folk decide that owning a gun and backing a sheriff who asserted that Newtown was staged so that Obama could take everyone's guns away is the best way to respond to the situation?!
16
The problem with stricter regulations, gun-owners' insurance, psychological profiles, and so forth is that none of these things will stop people with enough determination to get their hands on unregistered, illegal firearms. The issue is the extraordinary number of weapons currently in the U.S.—enough, in fact, to arm every man, woman, and child. That's the problem that needs to be addressed. Otherwise, we should all get accustomed to regularly reading accounts of these massacres.
8
That is certainly one of the problems but there are many more as well.
It is the primary problem. Remove the legal firearms and you will remove the illegal firearms. Or, do illegal firearms appear out of the ether?
Elephant lover, I have to respectfully disagree: access to firearms is almost certainly the chief driver of our shamefully high rate of firearms violence. And until we address it in a meaningful way -- I'm talking about cutting off manifacturing and buying back everything we can get our hands on to take it out of circulation -- we will not see meaningful change.
This article saddens me so much. The NRA, at heart a trade association, has been undeniably successful in convincing far too many Americans to prop up the murder-weapon industry, to buy guns as a simultaneous, contradictory act of patriotism and a statement of hard-won freedom from the bogeyman's grip of "government."
The NRA isn't promoting freedom and safety, it has totally warped people's minds. America is rapidly losing its status on this globe as a safe, admirable, forward-thinking nation. With every new horrific massacre--on top of an already shameful decade-plus of ongoing war and militarization--other countries further question our health and sanity.
The NRA isn't promoting freedom and safety, it has totally warped people's minds. America is rapidly losing its status on this globe as a safe, admirable, forward-thinking nation. With every new horrific massacre--on top of an already shameful decade-plus of ongoing war and militarization--other countries further question our health and sanity.
8
I say pick a few states and let the dog catch the car. Sell them in vending machines. Sell bullets in 7-11s. Heck, put them next to the candy bars at the checkouts. Go for it. Just not my state, and I'm not visiting, thank you very much.
4
Dude, they already sell guns over the counter at Walmart.
Arrest the mother. After Sandy Hook she is as culpable as her son.
15
Fully agree and by the way where is she? Since the episode no mention whatsoever of her whereabouts and what she has to say.
3
More guns, more killings. Simple math.
8
"The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms and was adopted on December 15, 1791, as part of the first ten amendments contained in the Bill of Rights."
[See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Cons...]
The year 1791 was 15 years after the Declaration of Independence, 24 years before the British sacked and burned Washington, D.C., and 224 years before the present. The Framers had no intellectual framework or concept of the perverse inventions of Colt, Remington, Winchester, Gatling, Norden, Little Man, Fat Boy, the will of Teller and invention of the Hydrogen bomb. A rather unimpressive march toward self-immolation.
Proponents and backers of the Second Amendment seem to be ignorant of the time frame and reasons for passage of Amendment II, the course of American History and a reality-based perspective on technology and the moral illegitimacy of weapons to kill humans. Their world view may change abruptly at the instance of a premature dawn brighter than a thousand suns.
[See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Cons...]
The year 1791 was 15 years after the Declaration of Independence, 24 years before the British sacked and burned Washington, D.C., and 224 years before the present. The Framers had no intellectual framework or concept of the perverse inventions of Colt, Remington, Winchester, Gatling, Norden, Little Man, Fat Boy, the will of Teller and invention of the Hydrogen bomb. A rather unimpressive march toward self-immolation.
Proponents and backers of the Second Amendment seem to be ignorant of the time frame and reasons for passage of Amendment II, the course of American History and a reality-based perspective on technology and the moral illegitimacy of weapons to kill humans. Their world view may change abruptly at the instance of a premature dawn brighter than a thousand suns.
This is a prime example of people doubling down on stupid.
8
The US constitution is an 18th century relic written by the new world equivalent of feudal overlords. It has to be either significantly revised in order to bring it in line with the 21st century world or it should be replaced all together.
5
You'll find that a trifle difficult Mx S. The Amendment provisions of the very document you condemn are quite onerous and require super majorities of Congress as well as the number of States needed to pass. Recall that there are more red States than blue ones.
It may turn out that the only way to achieve your half-baked goal would be by armed revolt, in which event, you may look more kindly upon the Second Amendment.
Another, less draconian avenue, would be the appointment of one (or two for the aging Ms. Ginsburg) more young "living Constitution" liberals on the Supreme Court - the ones who think it's appropriate to just make things up based, not a more democratic process of ratification or even precedent, but what feels good at the moment. Given the appointed and life time tenure status of these individuals, I would suggest that that is a most undemocratic alternative.
Today, you approve of what they approve of. But, some day you may not.
It may turn out that the only way to achieve your half-baked goal would be by armed revolt, in which event, you may look more kindly upon the Second Amendment.
Another, less draconian avenue, would be the appointment of one (or two for the aging Ms. Ginsburg) more young "living Constitution" liberals on the Supreme Court - the ones who think it's appropriate to just make things up based, not a more democratic process of ratification or even precedent, but what feels good at the moment. Given the appointed and life time tenure status of these individuals, I would suggest that that is a most undemocratic alternative.
Today, you approve of what they approve of. But, some day you may not.
1
There is a process for amending the constitution, but you will need to get 2/3 of state legislatures to agree. Good luck.
1
Scalia and the rest of his pals on SCOTUS support this gun craziness. The relatives of the victims need to write lots of emails to these judges pointing out what they have started and maintained: lots of dead for their twisted interpretation of the Bill of Rights.
5
Trade in guns for books, a better educated society....we lack the culture and education to stop thinking that we need guns in our society.
6
With guns people kill people.
Hard for the people of Roseburg to see that the solution to mass killings in schools might be taking away guns?
Is it that they don't know anything?
Never read that societies without guns have much lower violent crime rates?
d-dumb dumb.
Hard for the people of Roseburg to see that the solution to mass killings in schools might be taking away guns?
Is it that they don't know anything?
Never read that societies without guns have much lower violent crime rates?
d-dumb dumb.
5
Maybe it's something in the water there.
"The blade itself incites to deeds of violence."
--Homer
A nation of slow learners?
--Homer
A nation of slow learners?
12
Being him, I would think absolutely different way: I would think that it would be better if this guy hadn't opportunity to buy this gun. If there is no gun, there is no need to buy guns to defend your life and life of your folks
1
So maybe this community invited this tragedy by their love of guns. These things seem to happen in very conservative communities where guns are worshipped as the solution to all problems.
Please keep your guns in your community and shoot each other if that's the way you want to live.
Please keep your guns in your community and shoot each other if that's the way you want to live.
4
Keeping this simple. Repeal the second amendment. The healing starts now.
5
I assume you do not understand our form of government, being from Portugal, but the Second Amendment is just as sacred as the First Amendment, or any others.
Amending the Constitution is a very difficult process (on purpose) and must be ratified by 3/4ths of the States. Most US States are red states.
It is very unlikely to happen.
Amending the Constitution is a very difficult process (on purpose) and must be ratified by 3/4ths of the States. Most US States are red states.
It is very unlikely to happen.
Will President Ben Carson decline protection from the Secret Service?
6
It seems to me that people in the "more good guys with guns" crowd think that Harper must have known long in advance that he'd one day shoot up a school...otherwise what would make him any different from any of the "good guys" today? In other words, the good guy today has no way to predict that he'll become the bad guy tomorrow.
4
What made him different? His diagnosis with a neurological disorder for one thing.
Unbelievable!!!!! More guns equals more innocent lives lost. I would rather save one life at the cost of incovience of all gun owners. Obviously there are many who don't give a damn about a life saved. So much for pro life
5
Cognitive dissonance always seems to "win"
2
Both our Senators here in PA have "A" ratings with the NRA.
I wrote them and challenged them to turn those "A" rating into "F" NRA ratings before the next gun massacre, otherwise the blood of those victims will be on their hands.
I wrote them and challenged them to turn those "A" rating into "F" NRA ratings before the next gun massacre, otherwise the blood of those victims will be on their hands.
5
It would require some very strict regulation indeed to prevent these mass shootings. Nothing I've heard being proposed would have prevented Adam Lanza's mother or Christopher Harper-Mercer's mother from obtaining the weapons they amassed. What's missing in my opinion is a campaign like the anti-smoking campaign that exposes the ignorance of the gun fetish. The NRA provides a tidal wave of misinformation about the virtues of gun ownership that goes unchallenged.
Most of these mass shootings are carried out by mentally ill young men. If one of these personality types happens to fit your son, it is ignorant to have firearms anywhere near them. I can name three friends right now who are in this situation with sons that exhibit troubling behavior and yes they have guns in the house. They refuse to believe that having guns accessible in the home increases the risk of a tragedy.
Cigarettes used to be "cool", but because of a long campaign to educate people on the true risks of smoking, cigarette smoking is now considered to be foolish. We need to do the same with guns. Unless you're a farmer with a need for a gun, or a responsible sportsman who enjoys hunting with a basic rifle, having all these guns around makes everyone less safe.
Most of these mass shootings are carried out by mentally ill young men. If one of these personality types happens to fit your son, it is ignorant to have firearms anywhere near them. I can name three friends right now who are in this situation with sons that exhibit troubling behavior and yes they have guns in the house. They refuse to believe that having guns accessible in the home increases the risk of a tragedy.
Cigarettes used to be "cool", but because of a long campaign to educate people on the true risks of smoking, cigarette smoking is now considered to be foolish. We need to do the same with guns. Unless you're a farmer with a need for a gun, or a responsible sportsman who enjoys hunting with a basic rifle, having all these guns around makes everyone less safe.
8
The problem with owning guns is just this: Unless you train and train and train on the use of the weapon, given an emergency the outcome may not be what you had hoped Given that our municipal police do not always use good judgement and sometimes kill innocents, what makes you think you can protect yourself with merely owning a gun? Gun ownership requires a state of responsibility not usually considered, or adhered to by those who arm for defense. Gun safety. Do not shoot without verification. Be cool, not irrational in the line of an emergency. Can you qualify? Are you willing to take responsibility to react in the heat of the moment, and kill an innocent person? There is much more to gun ownership, than just arming oneself. Often missed in the frenzy of knee jerk reaction.
1
This would almost make sense if there ever was a "good guy with a good gun" at one of these mass mascaras. There never is - NEVER. Why doesn't anyone ever say that out loud? More guns more killings - come on people think about it - esp. assault gun owners where were you when these most recent victims were killed. On the internet - making sure your rights weren't taken away like the right to live that these nine victims no longer have.
3
Media does not highlight stories without a body count, that is why you.never hear of them.
The Second Amendment says you can own a gun, but says absolutely nothing on when and how to use it or regulating the devil out of the owner.
3
The Second Amendment says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Any limitations or restriction on the right to bear arms is a infringement. We need to change the amendment.
Nobody is taking my guns away. Nobody.
1
Nobody cares. Nobody.
wow. do you need a machine gun to satisfy some deep personal character trait? I've had legally purchased guns for years, shotgun, lever action 30-30---- why does anyone need automatic weapons except for some infantilized rambo-dirty harry fantasy??? i guess those dead children in connecticut and oregon and virgina tech and.......are just a tv reality show/video game fantasy.
3
It's nonsensical to try to limit the number of guns an American can own, but we should at least be consistent with how we incorporate guns into our lives, as we have done with cars, which used to have to enter towns with people in front warning that a car was coming.
Every vehicle we drive for even 10 feet in this country has to be inspected annually, registered and insured. In addition, whoever owns these vehicles has to have the appropriate driving license for each of them. Guns kill at least as many humans in the USA as cars and trucks do, so they should, therefore, be inspected, registered and insured just as cars etc. are.
For those people who want to hunt with guns, this isn't a big deal. Most of my neighbors in way upstate NY also believe that this isn't a big deal because it's just one shotgun or rifle. Nobody I know hunts with AK-47s, and can't understand why any person would want to have guns that are meant only for killing other human beings in a time of war.
Why do so many Americans feel the need to buy, and brag about, their military-type weapons which crazy folks in our great land then use to kill thousands of us each year? This is MADNESS!
Every vehicle we drive for even 10 feet in this country has to be inspected annually, registered and insured. In addition, whoever owns these vehicles has to have the appropriate driving license for each of them. Guns kill at least as many humans in the USA as cars and trucks do, so they should, therefore, be inspected, registered and insured just as cars etc. are.
For those people who want to hunt with guns, this isn't a big deal. Most of my neighbors in way upstate NY also believe that this isn't a big deal because it's just one shotgun or rifle. Nobody I know hunts with AK-47s, and can't understand why any person would want to have guns that are meant only for killing other human beings in a time of war.
Why do so many Americans feel the need to buy, and brag about, their military-type weapons which crazy folks in our great land then use to kill thousands of us each year? This is MADNESS!
4
Guns do not kill as many people as cars.
Furthermore, homicide (with guns or without) do not, and have not in the last ten years, cracked the CDC's top ten list for causes of death in the US. Suicide has.
Furthermore, homicide (with guns or without) do not, and have not in the last ten years, cracked the CDC's top ten list for causes of death in the US. Suicide has.
More guns don't equal safety. How many shootings have occurred on military bases?
2
Responding to gun violence by getting more guns is like responding to sunburn by sunbathing more often.
2
Sixty years living in and around NYC and I do not know anyone who has ever been hurt or even threatened by a gun. Fewer not more guns is the answer.
3
The only sure thing about having more guns is that the more guns there are, the higher your chances of getting shot by one.
7
This is the fundamental issue this nation seems unable or unwilling to grasp.
Dr. Carson said - with a straight face -that gun control is the beginning of tyranny, citing Hitler supposedly taking guns away from all.
He seems to forget that strict gun control became the law of the land after the Weimar Republic"s first parliament made strict gun control the law of the land for the population at large in 1919.
The Austrian paper hanger actually reversed that law by allowing all members of the NSDAP unlimited access to guns without registration, while at the same time prohibiting Jews and other 'undesirables' ones to possess any arms.
As a native of Germany, I feel like like exploding every time I have heard right-wingers on these shores tell me that if Germany had not 'banned guns' , Jews could have defended themselves in their homes with guns while the SS was knocking down their doors and the holocaust would never have happened.
It seems that all of the Republican wannabe presidential candidates are only experts in spewing platitudes, while - at the same time - being completely unaware of historical facts.
He seems to forget that strict gun control became the law of the land after the Weimar Republic"s first parliament made strict gun control the law of the land for the population at large in 1919.
The Austrian paper hanger actually reversed that law by allowing all members of the NSDAP unlimited access to guns without registration, while at the same time prohibiting Jews and other 'undesirables' ones to possess any arms.
As a native of Germany, I feel like like exploding every time I have heard right-wingers on these shores tell me that if Germany had not 'banned guns' , Jews could have defended themselves in their homes with guns while the SS was knocking down their doors and the holocaust would never have happened.
It seems that all of the Republican wannabe presidential candidates are only experts in spewing platitudes, while - at the same time - being completely unaware of historical facts.
10
If your brilliant purpose is to have guns because of the idiotic 2nd Amendment "in order to be able to rise against an abusive government which let's say gives up your rights to transnational corporations, then your guns are useless.
Your guns are only useful to kill your neighbors and yourselves, because unless you have been living in a cave the last 70 years you must know the Army and other armed forces of this country have nuclear bombs since 1945 and since a few years ago they have robotic weapons systems already deployed such as the Phalanx system which can function without any soldiers, as well as drones that are developing in that direction too.
So stop your paranoia before you hurt yourselves anymore.
Your guns are only useful to kill your neighbors and yourselves, because unless you have been living in a cave the last 70 years you must know the Army and other armed forces of this country have nuclear bombs since 1945 and since a few years ago they have robotic weapons systems already deployed such as the Phalanx system which can function without any soldiers, as well as drones that are developing in that direction too.
So stop your paranoia before you hurt yourselves anymore.
4
Why do we continue to make it easy for bad guys to obtain guns?
2
One of these days, we are going to reap the harvest of this kind of thinking, with causalities caught in the chaotic cross-fire between mass murderers, armed vigilantes, and law enforcement, who won't be able to tell the one from the other. Doubtless the response from the gun nuts and from the NRA shills for the gun industry still will be that everyone needs to buy and stockpile even more guns and ammunition.
In my life, I have never yet heard, among my acquaintance, of a gun deterring a crime; just people who have shot themselves, deliberately and accidentally, and who have shot friends and loved ones, deliberately and accidentally.
I have great sympathy for sport hunters and range marksmen. But if you carry a gun in public for "protection," you are in essence insisting that I and everyone else, without our having the least say so, trust you with our lives. Who made you that worthy? Yourself with some dollars at a gun store? Please, step up here on this chair and put your head in that noose. Trust me, though you don't know me. I assure you the chair is solid and I would never kick it out from under you.
In my life, I have never yet heard, among my acquaintance, of a gun deterring a crime; just people who have shot themselves, deliberately and accidentally, and who have shot friends and loved ones, deliberately and accidentally.
I have great sympathy for sport hunters and range marksmen. But if you carry a gun in public for "protection," you are in essence insisting that I and everyone else, without our having the least say so, trust you with our lives. Who made you that worthy? Yourself with some dollars at a gun store? Please, step up here on this chair and put your head in that noose. Trust me, though you don't know me. I assure you the chair is solid and I would never kick it out from under you.
11
We are only inches away from developing the replacement for the gun. Can't wait for it to happen. I'm all in on it. Guns are a stupid machine that needs replacement ASAP. It is only a mater of time.
Folks in Roseberg are ultra-right wing. They detest the liberals who dominate the government in Oregon.
2
The guns of the paranoid are only useful to kill their neighbors and themselves. Try to keep that in mind.
3
So often the people who reject the idea of restrictions on gun ownership mention protecting themselves against government. This mystifies me. Are they really planning on shooting a federal marshal? Or ATF agent? Or military member? Or local police? When people talk of defending themselves against government I have news for them - the Feds have bigger guns, more of them, and the folks who use them are far more trained than any regular person will ever be. And they use them, when they break into your house at 3 AM, with fearless utter confidence (I know this from experience). No rifle, no pistol, no firearm in the hands of the homeowner is going to be worth squat against an armed federal agent, not to mention the legal consequences of pumping them full of holes. Get real people. It's not the government you are afraid of. Stop lying to yourselves.
5
I do not know the legal laws about owning guns. Owning guns is in the constitution. How about a referendum this next election if this nation really need gun possession. It shows the double standard of this nation. This country denounce mass destruction like chemical and biological warfare as well as nuclear deployment but can not control killings from guns in their home.
funny many of these people who oppose firearms live in their Lilly white neighborhoods and feel content that the police will protect them. I moved out west many years ago and response time of the police can be almost immediate or can take up to one half hour. The courts have ruled that the police are under no obligation to show up in a prescribed amount of time after you call them. My wife and I have taken several defensive firearms classes and I had my first firearm when I was ten years old. Several years ago a firearm saved my life when my car broke down on a remote road. I believe people who are so opposed to firearms should put a sign in their window "This is a gun free house".
2
There seem to be two major issues driving people towards ownership of the sorts of guns designed to kill people. Some people want them because they are scared of the federal government, and some people want them because they are scared of other people with guns designed to kill people. The federal government also has tanks, jets, helicopters and missiles, so good luck defending against that. Also, to those scared of others with guns: if we outlawed guns designed to kill people, there would be little reason to be scared. I'm not saying this is an easy problem to solve, but the easy solutions people seek (more guns; weak ineffectual restrictions) just aren't going to work.
1
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
I am not a constitutional expert, but why is the first clause "a well regulated Militia necessary to the security of a free State," which addresses the relationship between guns and the government (Militia, State) barely acknowledged, while the second clause "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." is accepted as the accurate interpretation of the meaning of this amendment?
I am not a constitutional expert, but why is the first clause "a well regulated Militia necessary to the security of a free State," which addresses the relationship between guns and the government (Militia, State) barely acknowledged, while the second clause "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." is accepted as the accurate interpretation of the meaning of this amendment?
2
As long as a gun exists at all, no law in the world is going to prevent someone intent on having one from getting one. Heck, we can't even legalize cannabis, but, we can have guns around anywhere we want.
The way individual members of bonobo, chimpanzee, orangutan and gorilla communities interact with each other is a good example for humans to learn from. Respect and cooperation between individuals instead of fearmongering, distrust and paranoia.
4
There's a big difference between gun control by banning sales, and gun control by confiscating hundreds of millions of guns already out there, going house to house and tossing them for guns will be a bloodbath.
And they are wrong. Oregonian had some maps on where gun deaths occur in the US by county. Overwhelming in the heart of the gun violence advocate areas.
Roseburg/Douglas County s an area at much higher rate of gun death than Portland/Multnomah county because residents believe guns make them safer when the facts are guns are a threat to safety. Douglas County elects GOP/TeaParty reps who block gun control and actually make the same crazy claim that guns make them safe when their guns are the threat.
The Douglas County stats prove it. Common sense, effective gun control in other advanced nations proves it, where gun death and injury are 10% that of the US.
http://projects.oregonlive.com/ucc-shooting/gun-deaths
Roseburg/Douglas County s an area at much higher rate of gun death than Portland/Multnomah county because residents believe guns make them safer when the facts are guns are a threat to safety. Douglas County elects GOP/TeaParty reps who block gun control and actually make the same crazy claim that guns make them safe when their guns are the threat.
The Douglas County stats prove it. Common sense, effective gun control in other advanced nations proves it, where gun death and injury are 10% that of the US.
http://projects.oregonlive.com/ucc-shooting/gun-deaths
4
For those who think that governing is only negotiating and compromise, and the the common citizen has no need for (or free access to) firearms, go tell the next Chairman Mao or General Secretary Stalin. Government is the exercise of power.
To Keep and Bear Arms is about the defense of Life and Liberty. Freedom is not the norm, it is hard and expensive.
To Keep and Bear Arms is about the defense of Life and Liberty. Freedom is not the norm, it is hard and expensive.
Maybe only women should be able to own guns. I don't remember a mass shooting that was ever perpetrated by a female.
Then again, there have been lots of these mass shootings.
Then again, there have been lots of these mass shootings.
4
We recently drove south from Washington to California. We stopped in Roseburg on the way down to buy gas and lunch. We stopped in Roseburg on the way back north to buy gas again. We'll never stop in Roseburg again. Too dangerous there. Too many people who have no sense who think it's smart to have lots of guns around.
5
Most people do not think logically as the people's opinions expressed in this article demonstrate. They refuse to believe in irrefutable probabilities, and instead go with their gut emotional reaction. Ironic since their reaction makes their lives less safe, when their intention is make it safer, and apparently they do not have the analytical skills to understand the error in their thinking.
The presence of any gun always and only increases risk for all within range. Human efforts to mitigate that risk are subject to failure. The desire to buy a guy after a tragic shooting is a classic example of how people misunderstand and miscalculate risk. It's as if after a traffic accident people decided they need to just drive more.
1
"The presence of any gun always and only increases risk for all within range"
Does this also apply to the police and other creatures of the government or just to "ordinary" people?
Does this also apply to the police and other creatures of the government or just to "ordinary" people?
this only reiterates that scared people buy guns.
people who are unafraid recognize they won't matter and go about their lives.
people who are unafraid recognize they won't matter and go about their lives.
Too bad there isn't some place similar to the USA that has strict gun laws. If we had that we could actually have some factual data about how much "safer" people are when everyone owns a couple of guns.
The number of people killed each year in the USA is many times the number of people killed in the bombing of the WTC.
The number of people killed each year in the USA is many times the number of people killed in the bombing of the WTC.
1
" If we had that we could actually have some factual data about how much "safer" people are when everyone owns a couple of guns."
Reportedly Chicago, with a density of one gun per 20 people, is much less safe than Montana with a density of three guns per person.
Reportedly Chicago, with a density of one gun per 20 people, is much less safe than Montana with a density of three guns per person.
Sure, that must have worked somewhere right! It sure hasn't worked in the US where there are more guns than citizens. And, with more people buying guns than ever does anyone feel safer?
1
The honest fellow who admitted that he had a gun, but didn't use it, was likely just one of several who were licensed to carry.
Here are the criteria that you need to meet in Douglas County (not too hard):
http://www.dcso.com/concealed_handguns.asp
According to the sheriff's annual report, in 2014 Douglas County processed 2101 concealed handgun license applications -- roughly one for every third citation that they processed, or every third dog license in the county.
If you extrapolate that rate over 10 years, 1 out of 5 Douglas Co. residents could have concealed-carry permits.
Others have mentioned the risk to innocent bystanders. The other big problem with concealed weapons is that it still takes presence of mind and substantial courage to use one, even if you're a "good guy."
History is full of accounts of soldiers who were armed to the teeth, but wet their pants and ran when they met an equally well-armed enemy. In most of these shooting incidents, the "concealed-carriers" are outgunned.
When someone bursts into a room with a military-style rifle, are you going to make yourself a target by digging in your pants, then try to draw and fire your puny pistol? Probably not, unless you're very brave and/or willing to sacrifice your own life at long odds.
No doubt a few brave people apply for concealed-carry permits, but most applicants are driven by their own fears. Not the kind of people you'd count on, to risk their lives for someone else.
Here are the criteria that you need to meet in Douglas County (not too hard):
http://www.dcso.com/concealed_handguns.asp
According to the sheriff's annual report, in 2014 Douglas County processed 2101 concealed handgun license applications -- roughly one for every third citation that they processed, or every third dog license in the county.
If you extrapolate that rate over 10 years, 1 out of 5 Douglas Co. residents could have concealed-carry permits.
Others have mentioned the risk to innocent bystanders. The other big problem with concealed weapons is that it still takes presence of mind and substantial courage to use one, even if you're a "good guy."
History is full of accounts of soldiers who were armed to the teeth, but wet their pants and ran when they met an equally well-armed enemy. In most of these shooting incidents, the "concealed-carriers" are outgunned.
When someone bursts into a room with a military-style rifle, are you going to make yourself a target by digging in your pants, then try to draw and fire your puny pistol? Probably not, unless you're very brave and/or willing to sacrifice your own life at long odds.
No doubt a few brave people apply for concealed-carry permits, but most applicants are driven by their own fears. Not the kind of people you'd count on, to risk their lives for someone else.
4
I won't be moving to Roseburg.
1
This is why I love living in America. "Stuff Happens" all the time. Massacre at a school. Call for tight gun laws. Massacre at a movie theatre. Call for tighter gun laws. Call and response. Balance of powers. It is a perfect (late) Democracy.
I live in Colorado, hunt and own gun A Colorado Hunters Safety Class is a class where a person learns and demonstrates the safe use of firearms. In Colorado, a person has to have a Hunters Safety card to get a hunting license. You have to have no such card to buy a gun and slaughter a bunch of kids in a school.
How long can the NRA and it gun owning members support gun ownership without any limits, accountability or responsibility in the face of mass-slaughter. Their arguments are irresponsible and adolescent.
I am beginning to view the NRA much in the same light as the KKK; another group that felt their views were pure and just, saw themselves as patriots, and felt no disgrace or shame while skirting accountability.
How long can the NRA and it gun owning members support gun ownership without any limits, accountability or responsibility in the face of mass-slaughter. Their arguments are irresponsible and adolescent.
I am beginning to view the NRA much in the same light as the KKK; another group that felt their views were pure and just, saw themselves as patriots, and felt no disgrace or shame while skirting accountability.
11
In an attempt to draw distinctions between hunter and non-hunting gun owners, where there is none, misrepresentation is of yourself more than the NRA.
sorry, what you are saying doesn't apply in the Umpqua slaughter, for the guy was well trained, according to his mother in how to use firearms... read her comments about how she frowned on the novices who would show up at the gun range. she enabled her son to collect guns, ammo and body armor knowing full well of his dangerous mental condition, yet no charges have been brought against her. Training with the use of guns doesn't make a difference in most cases, the Connecticut shooter was also trained- and his "well meaning" mother also helped him out.
How predictable that this kind of argument would come out as the shock of what happened wears off. This is the pro gun backlash that we have all come to expect. We are in a vicious cycle, something we have all expected after a tragedy like this. There is no intellect left in most of this country. Maybe the US should be two separate countries.
Following on my previous comment which might take time to be vetted (due to both length and an included link), here's a shorter version:
Likely 1 in 5 Douglas Co. residents have permits to pack heat. Just one guy (Mr. Parker) was honest enough to admit that he was carrying a firearm but didn't use it, out of fear for his own safety. If you try to use a concealed handgun in that situation, you're putting yourself at elevated risk of becoming a target.
Not many people have that presence of mind and bravery, especially when you consider that most people who apply for concealed-carry permits do it out of a sense of fear, just to save their own skins.
As a gun owner myself, I've had exactly one situation where I brought it out when I thought my family could be at risk, from a convicted felon who had threatened our neighbours (a relative of theirs) after they fingered him for a drug violation that included children. He was known to be well-armed, complete with night-vision equipment.
It turned out that I was mistaken. Someone else showed up, oblivious to the tense situation. The sheriff sent out their SWAT team,and the Vietnam vet who lives up the hill had his .45 ready, and all for no reason.
So these days I just keep the trigger lock on, and keep the key well hidden, far from the gun. It's too easy to make mistakes by rash thinking.
Likely 1 in 5 Douglas Co. residents have permits to pack heat. Just one guy (Mr. Parker) was honest enough to admit that he was carrying a firearm but didn't use it, out of fear for his own safety. If you try to use a concealed handgun in that situation, you're putting yourself at elevated risk of becoming a target.
Not many people have that presence of mind and bravery, especially when you consider that most people who apply for concealed-carry permits do it out of a sense of fear, just to save their own skins.
As a gun owner myself, I've had exactly one situation where I brought it out when I thought my family could be at risk, from a convicted felon who had threatened our neighbours (a relative of theirs) after they fingered him for a drug violation that included children. He was known to be well-armed, complete with night-vision equipment.
It turned out that I was mistaken. Someone else showed up, oblivious to the tense situation. The sheriff sent out their SWAT team,and the Vietnam vet who lives up the hill had his .45 ready, and all for no reason.
So these days I just keep the trigger lock on, and keep the key well hidden, far from the gun. It's too easy to make mistakes by rash thinking.
2
Believe it not, I do not own any guns. I was born and raised and have lived most of my life in the South, except for 2 years when I went to grad school at the University of Washington (Go Huskies!).
I do not understand the fascination with guns. In fact I believe that most people, especially men, who own then have self-esteem problems as the gun makes them feel like a man (just like owning a pick up truck and driving as fast as possible regardless of the weather conditions).
However, the Constitution of the US guarantees Americans the right to bear arms. Granted that section of the Bill of Rights was written in the late 18th century, following the American Revolution. Given the fact that those words will probably never be repealed from the Constitution, other means will be needed to curb this problem.
In closing, I want to relate to the NYT an event here in the Nashville related to guns. Recently, an 8 year old girl was shot dead by an 11 year old boy because she would not let him play with her puppy. He shot her dead with double barreled 12 gauge shot gun. The boy is in juvenile detention under a $500,000 bond, facing the possibility of being tried as an adult. In this case, I believe the parents of the boy need to held culpable for his crime, for their failure to secure the weapon, and for instilling an environment in which this child decided that killing another child was a solution to settle a difference.
Needless to say this is a complicated issue.
I do not understand the fascination with guns. In fact I believe that most people, especially men, who own then have self-esteem problems as the gun makes them feel like a man (just like owning a pick up truck and driving as fast as possible regardless of the weather conditions).
However, the Constitution of the US guarantees Americans the right to bear arms. Granted that section of the Bill of Rights was written in the late 18th century, following the American Revolution. Given the fact that those words will probably never be repealed from the Constitution, other means will be needed to curb this problem.
In closing, I want to relate to the NYT an event here in the Nashville related to guns. Recently, an 8 year old girl was shot dead by an 11 year old boy because she would not let him play with her puppy. He shot her dead with double barreled 12 gauge shot gun. The boy is in juvenile detention under a $500,000 bond, facing the possibility of being tried as an adult. In this case, I believe the parents of the boy need to held culpable for his crime, for their failure to secure the weapon, and for instilling an environment in which this child decided that killing another child was a solution to settle a difference.
Needless to say this is a complicated issue.
3
Tomorrow's News Today!
Dateline: Anytown Community College, Texas
Authorities today are still sorting through the carnage that took place in the main study hall at Anytown Community College when a deranged gunman started shooting in the hall and several other students returned fire. Police arrived at a confused firefight and contributed to the deaths and wounded, killing several of the students who were mistakenly shooting at the wrong person. Two policemen were killed after the shooting started.
The original shooter was only wounded and will survive.
Dateline: Anytown Community College, Texas
Authorities today are still sorting through the carnage that took place in the main study hall at Anytown Community College when a deranged gunman started shooting in the hall and several other students returned fire. Police arrived at a confused firefight and contributed to the deaths and wounded, killing several of the students who were mistakenly shooting at the wrong person. Two policemen were killed after the shooting started.
The original shooter was only wounded and will survive.
4
Everyone over the age of 5 should be required to carry a gun in a holster like the old west - that's the ticket to a true second amendment implementation.
1
While it's true that gun ownership was widespread in the old West, gun violence was not. I recall reading an authoritative history of cattle drives recently by an author who was actually on those drives. He wrote that few of the men driving the cattle wore guns. One who did wanted to shoot a rattlesnake once and found that his gun had not been fired for so long that it wouldn't fire anymore and threw it away.
The "Gunfight at the OK Corral" really did happen, but it was the exception rather than the rule, it involved paid authorities (the Earps) and outlaws (the Cowboys), and it was followed by a sensational trial.
Things are MUCH more violent today, and for a good reason: there are many, many more guns.
The "Gunfight at the OK Corral" really did happen, but it was the exception rather than the rule, it involved paid authorities (the Earps) and outlaws (the Cowboys), and it was followed by a sensational trial.
Things are MUCH more violent today, and for a good reason: there are many, many more guns.
I'm familiar with Roseburg. I have stopped over many times (I-5) and stayed there several times. For the most part, these are really nice people.
I think what is missing is the picture of what happens when a shooting incident turns into a circular firing squad. As an infantry officer and combat veteran, (RVN-'71) I know full well what happens when a firefight erupts and trained but inexperienced infantrymen try to "light up" their perceived enemies.
Untrained civilians have no fire discipline and the only thing that can possibly happen is an elevated body count...most of them not the targets of the original shooter.
This is not an issue to be solved by more guns but by a rational and enlightened view of the Second Amendment and by requiring qualification, insurance and semi-annual re-certification; it isn't infringing on your right to bear arms...it simply ensure that you are qualified as a member of a "well-regulated" militia.
I think what is missing is the picture of what happens when a shooting incident turns into a circular firing squad. As an infantry officer and combat veteran, (RVN-'71) I know full well what happens when a firefight erupts and trained but inexperienced infantrymen try to "light up" their perceived enemies.
Untrained civilians have no fire discipline and the only thing that can possibly happen is an elevated body count...most of them not the targets of the original shooter.
This is not an issue to be solved by more guns but by a rational and enlightened view of the Second Amendment and by requiring qualification, insurance and semi-annual re-certification; it isn't infringing on your right to bear arms...it simply ensure that you are qualified as a member of a "well-regulated" militia.
6
I see no reason whatsoever for owning a gun for protection because o evidence support the idea that owning a gun prevents gun violence. Some people hunt and target shoot, but I see no reason that these people should have access to military style weapons or even handguns designed to be concealed. No one needs to carry a concealed weapon unless a part of a law enforcement agency. The Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms only insofar as a militia is needed to defend the state. We now have standing armed forces to do that, so a correct reading of the plain English sentence that is the Second Amendment that supposedly guarantees the right to own firearms is no longer valid. What's with the people who think they need guns? What kind of a view of the world we live in do they have? If you are one of those people you need to ask yourself why you want to own a gun when there is no evidence to support a claim that it makes you safer. As far as I am concerned, seeing you with a gun makes me considerably less safe. Why should I think that someone carrying a gun is not a threat to me? Carrying a gun implies that the carrier is ready to use it. How can I know that that carrier is sane and not intending harm to others?
How about a law banning the transportation of guns through public space unless the gun is in a case which is securely locked? All concealed weapons are banned.
How about a law banning the transportation of guns through public space unless the gun is in a case which is securely locked? All concealed weapons are banned.
2
Who really wants a nation, heavy with unskilled shooters and an immature mind where they still hold child-like fantasies? I don't.
I haven't been to the movies in a year. I worry more about some idiot that thinks they are going to save the day by shooting an innocent in the face... oh wait - that already happened.
I haven't been to the movies in a year. I worry more about some idiot that thinks they are going to save the day by shooting an innocent in the face... oh wait - that already happened.
Could someone explain why there weren't any mass killings in schools or churches or movie theaters in the 1950s or 60s or 70s or 80s. Guns were available in those decades, maybe even more available then now. There were certainly mentally unbalanced individuals. What was different then? There was no internet back then. No social media. And no cable news blasting the same stories hour after hour 24/7.
5
There were plenty of mass shootings, and regular shootings. You don't remember them because there was no social media or cable news to make them a national event.
"Guns don't kill people, people kill people." So it goes with the NRA. Simple and tired logic for a time long since past. Our relationship to guns, and concept of what a gun is, in our society has changed in the last generation. As a citizenry a growing proportion of us are no longer mentally predisposed for unfettered access to weapons. These individuals must be identified on the front end. We rightly expect our law enforcement officers to be highly trained in the legal, tactical, and usage of weapons, as well as undergoing psychological exams. And a variation of same should be required of citizens who desire to carry with confidence. So many things in life require certifications and what makes this any different. As retired law enforcement I would feel much more comfortable knowing that citizen carriers had a modicum of training so they too do not add to the problem in these situations. This in no way impinges on the Second Amendment's right to bear arms for those that truly desire to understand the awesome responsibility that goes with carrying a weapon.
Who here could have identified the shooter as a bad guy with a gun prior to his committing a massacre?
No one, that's who, and the division - good guys with guns and bad guys with guns - is as silly as it seems. People are not born into bubbles in which they stay permanently and from which we can draw clear and precise predictions about who is good or bad.
Accordingly, in its grammatical ambiguity, the Second is a failure and needs to be amended or repealed. The US is a qualitative experiment, after all, and qualitative experiments often change in medias res. Gun ownership has become a public safety issue, and thus meets the requirement for those amendments or repeal.
It is time to ignore the protesters to regulations and move forward with the well-regulation currently called for by the Second until it can be amended or repealed.
No one, that's who, and the division - good guys with guns and bad guys with guns - is as silly as it seems. People are not born into bubbles in which they stay permanently and from which we can draw clear and precise predictions about who is good or bad.
Accordingly, in its grammatical ambiguity, the Second is a failure and needs to be amended or repealed. The US is a qualitative experiment, after all, and qualitative experiments often change in medias res. Gun ownership has become a public safety issue, and thus meets the requirement for those amendments or repeal.
It is time to ignore the protesters to regulations and move forward with the well-regulation currently called for by the Second until it can be amended or repealed.
3
Unfortunately these people are just morons. It would have been very easy to keep guns out of the hands of a weird, broke loner who lived with his mom, just like it would have been very easy to keep guns out of the hands of Adam Lanza. These weren't master criminals, they only had guns because of how easy it is to get them in America. We need action now. This is out of control, and the opinions of those who don't get that should be disregarded.
7
More guns in the hands of civilians means that more guns will be stolen from cars and homes. It happens all to often that someone leaves a gun in their car to go into a place that prohibits guns only to have the car broken into and the gun stolen. Same thing with home invasions.
To many civilians are careless of where they keep guns because they want them handy to shoot down imaginary bad guys.
To many civilians are careless of where they keep guns because they want them handy to shoot down imaginary bad guys.
6
If guns made people safer, America would be the safest place on Earth.
28
Excellent Mr. Adam Johnson !!!
The fact your lucid statement has never been published in the headlines of any newspaper just show how coward the media of this country is.
The fact your lucid statement has never been published in the headlines of any newspaper just show how coward the media of this country is.
1
Recall the words on Wilhelm Tell in the eponymous drama by Friedrich von Schiller: "I want my right hand, when I want my bow" (transl. Theodore Martin).
The German original is better: "Mir fehlt der Arm, wenn mir die Waffe fehlt" -- "I lack my arm, when I lack a weapon".
The German original is better: "Mir fehlt der Arm, wenn mir die Waffe fehlt" -- "I lack my arm, when I lack a weapon".
1
We (the voters) have to change the way election campaigns are financed before anything will change regarding guns and violence. The NRA (and many others) finance the campaigns and congress answers to them, not you.
The United States Congress does not care about you.
The United States Congress does not care about you.
6
So a veteran did not intervene, even though he had a gun. And for good reason, thinking the police might mistake him for the shooter. The way people react, he might even be shot by a fellow student. People who buy guns are all bravado, but this is the reality. You will very rarely be in the position to actually use your gun. It is more often and danger to yourself and others. Better to leave it at home.
12
Why don't non-lethal weapons suffice for self-defense? Disabling an attacker is enough; there is no need to kill him. Non-lethal weapons can be fired more freely than guns, with less risk to bystanders, and be carried by more people.
2
“The Second Amendment is one sentence. It reads in its entirety:
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Its foggy wording and odd locution stand out in the Constitution. Lawyers and scholars debate its commas and clauses. For 218 years, judges overwhelmingly concluded that the amendment authorized states to form militias, what we now call the National Guard. Then, in 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court upended two centuries of precedent"
“Debate still burns about the Framers’ intent and the original meaning of the Constitution. Surprisingly, there is not a single word about an individual right to a gun for self-defense in the notes from the Constitutional Convention. Nor with scattered exceptions in the records of the ratification debates in the states. Nor on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives as it marked up the Second Amendment.”
Excerpt From: Waldman, Michael. “The Second Amendment.”
The NRA interpretation is a sham designed to support the gun industry. NRA is like drug pusher working for the poison producers. They collude to bring misery.
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Its foggy wording and odd locution stand out in the Constitution. Lawyers and scholars debate its commas and clauses. For 218 years, judges overwhelmingly concluded that the amendment authorized states to form militias, what we now call the National Guard. Then, in 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court upended two centuries of precedent"
“Debate still burns about the Framers’ intent and the original meaning of the Constitution. Surprisingly, there is not a single word about an individual right to a gun for self-defense in the notes from the Constitutional Convention. Nor with scattered exceptions in the records of the ratification debates in the states. Nor on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives as it marked up the Second Amendment.”
Excerpt From: Waldman, Michael. “The Second Amendment.”
The NRA interpretation is a sham designed to support the gun industry. NRA is like drug pusher working for the poison producers. They collude to bring misery.
5
Clearly, owning guns is not working. Perhaps what we need to do is follow the cold-war principle of mutual assured destruction (MAD). A bazooka, a tank and (in this day and age) an armed drone for every man, woman and child should do the trick.
4
There is absolutely no data to support the strange idea that owning guns makes people safer. I found statistics that showed there was a greater chance of me shooting someone accidentally, if I carried a weapon, than for me to actually stop a crime.
This sort of idea has no merit – if it ever did.
This sort of idea has no merit – if it ever did.
5
Pro-gun folks like to state that this is a mental health issue. I'm beginning to agree. You've got to be crazy to have a loner son who has trouble interacting with people and decide getting him involved with guns would be a good idea. And you've got to be even crazier to think arming people with even more guns after someone murders a bunch of people will somehow make your community safer, in spite of the mountain of evidence to the contrary. So yeah, it's a mental health issue. Everyone who 's desperately in love with guns needs to have his head examined.
12
If more guns make us safer, then why does the U.S. have the highest rate of homicides by firearms than any other industrialized country in the world?
7
Clearly a case where people are acting against their best interest, motivated by fear.
3
Fear has been the Republican Party best friend through the last 35 years.
2
Too bad Congress stifled research into gun safety back in 1996, because if they hadn't, Roseburg would know better. It was back in 96 when the CDC found that guns at home tripled the chance of being murdered, and more than quadrupled suicide. After that finding, NRA pushed Congress to defunding gun safety research. Since then all we've had is never-ending NRA propaganda, fraud and misrepresentation, funded and run by gun manufacturers, whose only concern is profit, the lives of hundreds of thousands of men, women and children lost to gun violence since then be damned.
Recently, former Representative Jay Dickey, Republican from Arkansas, who was the NRA point man in Congress at the time, expressed regret for having spearheaded the ban on gun safety research. "If we had somehow gotten the research going, we could have somehow found a solution to the gun violence without there being any restrictions on the Second Amendment," Dickey recently told the Washington Post.
Tomorrow Democrats are going to offer legislation to close the trade show loopholes where most criminals get their guns. Let's see if the Republicans will do the right thing finally; or whether they will be cowards in the face of NRA pressure until they leave office, like Mr. Dickey was.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/jay-dickey-gun-violence-research-ame...
Recently, former Representative Jay Dickey, Republican from Arkansas, who was the NRA point man in Congress at the time, expressed regret for having spearheaded the ban on gun safety research. "If we had somehow gotten the research going, we could have somehow found a solution to the gun violence without there being any restrictions on the Second Amendment," Dickey recently told the Washington Post.
Tomorrow Democrats are going to offer legislation to close the trade show loopholes where most criminals get their guns. Let's see if the Republicans will do the right thing finally; or whether they will be cowards in the face of NRA pressure until they leave office, like Mr. Dickey was.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/jay-dickey-gun-violence-research-ame...
7
This is madness. There is no liberty if we all have to be armed everywhere, every day. How is that compatible with the ideal of America the founders had?
The killer in this instance was discharged from the Army after less than one month in service for attempting suicide. That seems something a background check could have flagged as a problem in a reasonable, free and sane society.
The killer in this instance was discharged from the Army after less than one month in service for attempting suicide. That seems something a background check could have flagged as a problem in a reasonable, free and sane society.
5
We hear a lot from gun proponents about freedom and protection but not so much about what guns do to our way of life. What it means to be constantly surrounded by them. Take the suggestion of more guns on campus. What kind of learning environment is fostered by people being afraid all the time, unable to freely debate controversial or contentious issues in an environment conducive to intellectual discussion? Who would want to go to school with the heavy cloud of metal detectors, guns, and fear hanging over every conversation? What does that do to our psyche? To our furtherance as a species? I'm so glad I went to college before most of these issues became a reality and I'm sad that we're all being held hostage to nonsense "solutions" such as are being implemented by people who obviously don't think about these issues at all.
2
It seems absurd that every product, except guns, is subject to the nation's/each state's product liability laws. As another reader pointed out, cars have seat belts, Airbags, etc. What product isn't subject to a measure of regulation commensurate with the danger it presents? And yet the right to possess guns, whose highest, best and most efficient purpose is to kill/maim, is considered to be inviolable because our Supreme Court has dropped the ball by failing to consider its constitutional role in context.
3
This has always been part and parcel of Roseburg's self-image and identity. The mere thought of adapting and changing means ceasing to exist. In this case, the identity of the community precedes the individuals who make it up.
2
I agree. I grew up in Roseburg - had an idyllic childhood swimming and fishing with family and friends (I was not, as it happens, a gun enthusiast). But when I became a man I put away childish things. I discovered meaning in life beyond puerile pursuits and moved away to study art, literature, philosophy, history, science, politics - all of the weighty interests through which great cultures are anchored, and built a meaningful life elsewhere.
My experience, however, is that "Roseburgs" exist everywhere. It is not exceptional in its lack of firm fundament - burgs like this exist everywhere. Unfortunately Roseburg does, as a community that has a relationship to the second amendment that is best understood as a fetish, represent the mind-set that keeps this nation from fully realizing the more aspirational parts of its founding charter.
My experience, however, is that "Roseburgs" exist everywhere. It is not exceptional in its lack of firm fundament - burgs like this exist everywhere. Unfortunately Roseburg does, as a community that has a relationship to the second amendment that is best understood as a fetish, represent the mind-set that keeps this nation from fully realizing the more aspirational parts of its founding charter.
1
Results of a society's lack of ethics to enable senseless murder of its children with callous indifference to its responsibilities for posterity. It is Sodom and Gomorrah played to the tunes of the NRA. 2nd Amendment stomps the 5th Commandment every time. Until Roseburg finds its soul, it will only inherit the sound of wind where children's voices were once heard.
2
The country is falling apart because there are so many people who would prefer to double down on problems rather than solve them. These folks are a sad mixture of defeatism and impotent rage. Even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, they all think they will be Rambo shooting away and saving the day. The reality is, of course, that seasoned professionals (military and police) can't do this with any precision. It is all some infantile fantasy divorced from real life. Sadly, "infantile fantasy divorced from real life" describes too much of our national mood.
6
As much as it pains me to say it, I can have little sympathy for people who are wedded to such a two-dimensional, counter-productive world view. Evidently the fact that the shooter's mother stockpiled weapons can be easily ignored and the whole sorry mess put down to either an act of god or "bad people will do bad things"(making good people do stupid things?) The accompanying photograph of the shopper looking at the display of high-capacity magazine semi-automatic rifles says it all about their culture and mentality. With folks like this the NRA can't lose.
4
As much as I am a supporter of controls on guns through the registration process and on limits in the types of weapons that can be owned, and especially a supporter of making firearms companies liable for the damages inflicted by their wares, at the end of the day I don't think that guns per se are the issue. The issue is a fanatical segment of the population who are so enamored with and wedded to their guns as a lifestyle that they insist on open carry in every public venue, the most rudimentary requirements for background check and would even arm their mentally impaired son as this mother did. I keep reading that the majority of Americans support prudent gun laws--when are we going to stop allowing these nattering yahoos to twist the second amendment into a vehicle for boosting their troubled self image and world view? The NRA is a cancer on rationale discourse in this country--but our politicians lack the will to chart a saner course and for some reason--beyond me--there is not the massive shift in public sentiment that we have seen on other social issues like smoking and marriage equality. Perhaps the shift in the social fabric is causing some to circle the wagons more tightly around their gun rights, I can only hope that like other forms of entrenched extremism, it typically indicates the beginning of the end for a failed system.
3
Vast majorities tell pollsters they want more gun control. Yet when it comes to the poll that counts - in the voting booth - large numbers of them vote for candidates vehemently opposed to gun control. Others can't be bothered to vote at all.
We need to quit blaming the NRA.
We need to quit blaming the NRA.
I just completed ALICE training, how to prepare for an active shorter event, for my job. The cops who gave the training said that even having an armed uniformed police officer standing right next to you is only an illusory sense of security. "Cops get executed," he said. "And they're trained to respond to violent people." So what chance does an armed citizen have in that terrifying scenario?
I'm a gun oener but I have no illusions about my skills. I would not engage a madman unless he was right on top of me and, not having the opportunity to flee, left me in a "I'm probably goons die anyway" situation. Too many gun owners have little teaming to even hope to prevail in such a situation. For many, a gun is a talisman they hope will ward off evil and that they will somehow magically rise to the occasion when the lead starts flying. I guess a false sense of security is better than none at all.
I'm a gun oener but I have no illusions about my skills. I would not engage a madman unless he was right on top of me and, not having the opportunity to flee, left me in a "I'm probably goons die anyway" situation. Too many gun owners have little teaming to even hope to prevail in such a situation. For many, a gun is a talisman they hope will ward off evil and that they will somehow magically rise to the occasion when the lead starts flying. I guess a false sense of security is better than none at all.
4
No. A false sense of security is WORSE than none at all.
So now Oregon is added to my list of states not to visit. The insanity over guns is indeed a contagion...a mental one. If Jamie Skinner thinks shooting at a range is fun, then maybe she should do what her former boyfriend did, sign up and serve the country in the military. Then, she might know how to safely handle a weapon. Keep in mind that the assailant always has the advantage regardless of the weapons at the site where the assault is taking place. He/she picks the time, the place, and the victims. As was reported in the NYT and other publications, several students there were armed legally under Oregon law. Yet they did not move toward the gunfire simply because the police and a SWAT team were on their way. Dressed in civilian clothing, they could just as easily been identified as the shooters. It is never as simple as drawing your weapon and firing. This isn't Tombstone and there is no Wyatt Earp today.
8
The shooter in Roseburg, Oregon and the shooter in Newtown, Connecticut who killed 20 young kids, 6 teachers and his mother (who was also an avid pro-gun person - what I would call a "gun nut") were two peas in a pod.
Both were loners. Both had mothers who enabled their bizarre behavior and took them shooting.
This is a syndrome that does not become apparent until the shooter totally loses it. Part of the problem is that people who know these sickos fail to take any action that would help to keep guns out of the hands of these kinds of antisocial personalities (like reporting them to the appropriate authorities, so the present background check laws would at least slow them down).
We need laws that prevent such sick individuals from acquiring guns, plain and simple. NRA, are you listening? (Probably not.)
We already have approximately one gun for every man woman and child in this country. Will two per person make us any safer? I do not think so.
Both were loners. Both had mothers who enabled their bizarre behavior and took them shooting.
This is a syndrome that does not become apparent until the shooter totally loses it. Part of the problem is that people who know these sickos fail to take any action that would help to keep guns out of the hands of these kinds of antisocial personalities (like reporting them to the appropriate authorities, so the present background check laws would at least slow them down).
We need laws that prevent such sick individuals from acquiring guns, plain and simple. NRA, are you listening? (Probably not.)
We already have approximately one gun for every man woman and child in this country. Will two per person make us any safer? I do not think so.
6
I've been spending a great deal of time in Japan this year where guns are virtually non existent. I can't fully express how safe I felt there. Returning to the U.S., one feels a palpable sense of aggressiveness, boorishness and barbarity. Meanwhile, Japan is a place where young schoolchildren are able to commute via train to and from school without adult escort, but with an assured sense that they are safe and protected by the society at large. As a fifty-five year old, I have a vague recollection of feeling that sort of safety in my own childhood--but I find it downright tragic that children today have been robbed of that sense of security. If I had children, I would seriously think about raising them in a less violent culture than ours as I don't see any chance that the NRA is going to lose significant political power here any time soon.
6
Some of the people quoted in the article seem to live in fantasy-land. I own a firearm. Although I do not claim to be an expert, I know enough that accuracy and sound judgment in a chaotic situation will be difficult.
There are plenty of examples of trained military and law enforcement officers making mistakes in chaotic situations. One need only look at friendly fire incidents throughout military history or mistaken police shootings. So the idea of a bunch of weekend warriors gearing themselves up for shoot-outs on school campuses and shopping malls seems absolutely nuts to me.
There are plenty of examples of trained military and law enforcement officers making mistakes in chaotic situations. One need only look at friendly fire incidents throughout military history or mistaken police shootings. So the idea of a bunch of weekend warriors gearing themselves up for shoot-outs on school campuses and shopping malls seems absolutely nuts to me.
7
The rash of mass shootings is not caused by loose gun control. Controls are no more lax today than they were for many years before the rash of shootings began.
'Those of us old enough to remember know that what is new this century is a far more militaristic federal government. While preaching non-violence to citizens our last two presidents have assumed the authority to lead our military into "preemptive"war against a far weaker country in which thousands of innocent people were killed by our military; our government has assumed the authority to assassinate our own citizens with explosives delivered by drones, and to continue to kill innocent people with drones; our federal government has done everything it can to militarize our local police officers; we hunt down individuals like bin Laden and kill them like dogs; we hero-worship young military men and women who kill on command. We are a culture of violence today to a greater extent than even in our own violent past.
If our political leaders want to end gun violence, they would be well advised to look first to their own role in glorifying violence. Blaming gun laws is silly.
'Those of us old enough to remember know that what is new this century is a far more militaristic federal government. While preaching non-violence to citizens our last two presidents have assumed the authority to lead our military into "preemptive"war against a far weaker country in which thousands of innocent people were killed by our military; our government has assumed the authority to assassinate our own citizens with explosives delivered by drones, and to continue to kill innocent people with drones; our federal government has done everything it can to militarize our local police officers; we hunt down individuals like bin Laden and kill them like dogs; we hero-worship young military men and women who kill on command. We are a culture of violence today to a greater extent than even in our own violent past.
If our political leaders want to end gun violence, they would be well advised to look first to their own role in glorifying violence. Blaming gun laws is silly.
1
So, they just upped the chance of somebody else being killed in Roseburg. Mass shootings make the headlines, but the real slaughter is in the home and on the street. As studies show, the majority of people killed by guns are killed, not by a stranger, but by somebody they know. Wives and girlfriends are now in more danger. Maybe they should their own gun to defend themselves against hubby or boyfriend. He could have his gun under his pillow while she has her gun under her pillow. A lot of gun fatalities are kids. Suicides make up more than half of gun deaths, so the guy who buys his shiny new gun has a high chance of being the guy who blows his own head off. And we have to think of more than fatalities. Think of all the maimed and wounded.
6
Let's just make sure everyone is armed, then this could be our Armageddon. Idiocy! Nothing learned here or in many other places.
2
Roseburg is not nyc. They hunt, they ride atv's, they log for a living. NYT readers acting shocked over the fact that Roseburg citizens support gun rights just reflects an insulated point of view.
2
Nice try- and you even give your home state as CONNECTICUT- what excuse do you have lined up for Newtown? The hunter's defense is a bit out of date. No one is talking weapons appropriate for hunting anymore; even the NRA has given up that lie. They are stupidly equating owing weapons with protection against other people with weapons. If no civilians had weapon then that kind of solves the issue of needing to protect oneself against others with weapons. And it avoids the decision making concerning who you should open fire on before YOU THINK they will shoot you. And it avoids the messy issue of incorrect judgment and shooting an innocent gun-toting neighbor or dealing with the collateral damage from poor marksmanship and automatic weapons. Their is no absolute correlation between riding ATV or logging and owning a gun on the chance you think you might have to kill someone. We simply have allowed ourselves to become STUPID.
Brilliant people do brilliant things !!!
Chalk another one for "American Ingenuity."
Chalk another one for "American Ingenuity."
4
At what point do we, as a society, reject the current distorted, anachronistic interpretation of the 2nd amendment — the sole purpose of which was actually to allow state governments to field armed militia in the event the nascent central government wasn’t able to field an army?
11
And despite your representation, fact or friction?. the 2nd Amendment still does not read, "...the right of the Well Regulated Militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
FACT - so far this year, there were 296 incidences where 2 or more people were killed in shootouts. 33,000 Americans every year we are losing to gun violence. It’s just an incredible number. All the evidence suggests that we can do something about it. And we’re not going to get that number to zero, but if we can reduce it by 1 percent, that’s saving 330 lives. If we can reduce it by 10 percent, that’s saving 3,300 lives a year. That’s as many people as died on 9/11.
FACT - We regulate cars, auto licenses, fishing, food production, marketing and sales, buying and renting a house, going to school, getting a job...almost eveything but owning a gun. That's absurd.
Countries and states that have gun control have much much less violence.
It's time for each one of us to ask our politician what they are doing about gun control. If, they say nothing; we need to vote them out.
FACT - We regulate cars, auto licenses, fishing, food production, marketing and sales, buying and renting a house, going to school, getting a job...almost eveything but owning a gun. That's absurd.
Countries and states that have gun control have much much less violence.
It's time for each one of us to ask our politician what they are doing about gun control. If, they say nothing; we need to vote them out.
13
You're lumping in all the suicides, Jim. That is about two thirds of your total. And Western nations with stricter gun control than the US also have higher suicide rates. Fact: you do not have a constitutional right to an auto license. But guns are still not an unlimited right, and all kinds of guns have been curtailed in the us since the National Firearms Act of 1934.
"Umpqua Community College only banned guns 'without written authorization,' and students said many of their classmates carried concealed weapons."
And somehow, someway, the solution is more guns.
Because the solution is always more guns.
And very soon, on another campus, or another church, or another shopping mall, another group of victims will fall, sacrificed on the altar of the NRA and the 2nd Amendment.
"How many deaths will it take till we know, that too many people have died..."
And somehow, someway, the solution is more guns.
Because the solution is always more guns.
And very soon, on another campus, or another church, or another shopping mall, another group of victims will fall, sacrificed on the altar of the NRA and the 2nd Amendment.
"How many deaths will it take till we know, that too many people have died..."
9
Ah, the sickness of it all. Must we tolerate the dementia of the proliferation of gun ownership and violent death? Why must we be silently complicit in, be shouted down by, the rants of the so-called Second Amendment "gun rights" advocates?
10
More guns is the answer? Can you possibly be serious?
20
When I read something like this I wonder if, again, if this country just isn't going to hell in a hand basket. More guns - oh yes that really solves the problem - hah!
13
These people are fools.
26
Brilliant, move, Roseburg.
One needs to go only as far as the math of more lethal anything––guns, barrel bombs, Fourth of July fireworks, pilgrims visiting Mecca––in a given area to predict future results.
As the density of potentially lethal objects increases, the chance for destruction to occur goes in which direction, up, down or sideways?
Duh.
Fortunately for you Roseburg, you're immune to the laws of probability.
Good luck. You're going to need it.
One needs to go only as far as the math of more lethal anything––guns, barrel bombs, Fourth of July fireworks, pilgrims visiting Mecca––in a given area to predict future results.
As the density of potentially lethal objects increases, the chance for destruction to occur goes in which direction, up, down or sideways?
Duh.
Fortunately for you Roseburg, you're immune to the laws of probability.
Good luck. You're going to need it.
11
People who rush out to buy guns when something like this happens scare the heck out of me. We are truly a country divided on this.
11
At least 6 good guys with guns around Ronald Reagan and James Brady before both were taken down
http://i.politicomments.com/p3
And the shooter was tackled, not shot.
But hey, let the insane mass killings continue. Who needs evidence?
http://i.politicomments.com/p3
And the shooter was tackled, not shot.
But hey, let the insane mass killings continue. Who needs evidence?
16
"“I like to have the ability to protect myself and my child,” she said."
This person cannot differentiate reality from what she sees on tv. And it's a good example of the Dunning-Kruger effect: Persons who are the least capable have the greatest sense of competence. She thinks she can bring Rambo style competence to some hypothetical situation.
Pitiful.
As long as so many Americans continue to live in a fantasy world, there will be no gun-control.
This person cannot differentiate reality from what she sees on tv. And it's a good example of the Dunning-Kruger effect: Persons who are the least capable have the greatest sense of competence. She thinks she can bring Rambo style competence to some hypothetical situation.
Pitiful.
As long as so many Americans continue to live in a fantasy world, there will be no gun-control.
8
Chicago has some of the strictest gun control laws in the country and yet has one of the highest per capita murder rates. When will we learn that criminals, gang members, and the mentally ill do not obey laws?
2
It may be, Incredulous, that all the name calling, and other venting, might be directed at the law abiding, sane gun owner. Not just the NRA. Because the gun fear lobby may wish to somehow punish them for daring to not be afraid of guns.
On the other hand, the liberal/leftist mind is usually more kindly predisposed, absent any current arrests towards the criminal, and criminally insane.
How dare the sane and law abiding tempt them.
On the other hand, the liberal/leftist mind is usually more kindly predisposed, absent any current arrests towards the criminal, and criminally insane.
How dare the sane and law abiding tempt them.
It doesn't help that Chicago is surrounded by states with less restrictive laws. It's not like every vehicle is searched on the way into the city.
True, but Illinois does not have strong gun laws and the last time I checked, Donald Trump has not built a wall around Chicago.
I think that's enough paint and you can figure out the rest of the picture.
I think that's enough paint and you can figure out the rest of the picture.
ROSEBURG itself is no longer the victim but the very problem, and not one of its deranged citizen who took up readily available arms to slaughter his fellow townspeople. The fact that this community fully embraces the NRA credo that everyone must be armed so everyone will be safe and protected from others who are armed only guarantee that our great national disgrace will continue ad infinitum...or at least to the grave. Our national nightmare still lies ahead if the Roseburgs of this country have learned nothing at all about how the profligacy of guns leads to the inevitability of their misuse. Political reform seems not only impossible, but useless.
8
ok i will go against the grain here
but has anyone reported that this guy wasnt supposed to have a gun? has it been illustrated or shown that he was unfit or that he circumvented the law in order to have a gun?
if none of these things are the case then why are we focusing on MORE gun legislation to restrict weapons??? seems the issue isnt what law could have prevented him from using a gun in his rampage but rather addressing the issues that motivated him to go on the rampage in the first place;
but it seems a simpler solution is to harp on what new laws are needed on already pretty restrictive laws.
but has anyone reported that this guy wasnt supposed to have a gun? has it been illustrated or shown that he was unfit or that he circumvented the law in order to have a gun?
if none of these things are the case then why are we focusing on MORE gun legislation to restrict weapons??? seems the issue isnt what law could have prevented him from using a gun in his rampage but rather addressing the issues that motivated him to go on the rampage in the first place;
but it seems a simpler solution is to harp on what new laws are needed on already pretty restrictive laws.
anyone know if the shooter's mother can be held liable for damages for providing weapons and training to her son knowing he had mental problems?
7
She well should be.
Since most of these losers kill themselves, rarely does anyone do time for their crimes.
Idea: Any adult who lives on the premises where (1) a firearm is present and (2) a male age 15-50 is resident will be charged as an accessory for any crime said male commits with said firearm.
Since most of these losers kill themselves, rarely does anyone do time for their crimes.
Idea: Any adult who lives on the premises where (1) a firearm is present and (2) a male age 15-50 is resident will be charged as an accessory for any crime said male commits with said firearm.
That, sadly, will play out in the courts.
She certainly should be. She should have never received a permit or been allowed to own a gun since she has a disorder.
After these recurring massacres, we keep hearing pro-gun advocates say, "If only there were a Good Guy with a Gun there, s/he could have stopped the Bad Guy with a Gun. If only it were that easy.
As it turns out, there WAS a "good guy with a gun" present -- see the story. Mr. Good Guy, upon reflection, DECLINED to engage the Bad Guy, after considering that the police would quickly arrive, and would be just as likely to shoot HIM as not, not having any clue as to just who was a Good Guy.
There are 2 morals to this sad story: A) Good Guys with guns don't offer any significant protection against deranged maniacs with a gun (or guns), and B) cops arriving at a mass shooting scene are trained to regard anyone with a gun as a threat to be immediately "neutralized,", i.e., shot dead. They will leave it to the investigators to ask questions later.
As it turns out, there WAS a "good guy with a gun" present -- see the story. Mr. Good Guy, upon reflection, DECLINED to engage the Bad Guy, after considering that the police would quickly arrive, and would be just as likely to shoot HIM as not, not having any clue as to just who was a Good Guy.
There are 2 morals to this sad story: A) Good Guys with guns don't offer any significant protection against deranged maniacs with a gun (or guns), and B) cops arriving at a mass shooting scene are trained to regard anyone with a gun as a threat to be immediately "neutralized,", i.e., shot dead. They will leave it to the investigators to ask questions later.
10
OI wonder how safe the citizens of Roseburg would feel if they all knew that there were NO guns in their town.
I don't know if it is possible to pass an ordinance banning possession of guns. If so, then all new residents could receive a visit from law enforcement to explain the ordinance, and an offer to either destroy any gun or store it safely at the municipal depot.
How safe would the residents of Roseburg feel then?
I don't know if it is possible to pass an ordinance banning possession of guns. If so, then all new residents could receive a visit from law enforcement to explain the ordinance, and an offer to either destroy any gun or store it safely at the municipal depot.
How safe would the residents of Roseburg feel then?
3
Please, please explain to me why a private citizen needs an assault rifle like the Del-Ton assault rifle the Oregon shooter used. Why?
5
So he can shoot his English professor and his classmates, obviously. And the town of Roseburg is good with that. It just makes you want to give up.
Statistically, it's very simple: the more guns you have around, the more gun deaths you will have. In fact it is well documented that a gun kept in the home for protection is many times more likely to kill or injure a family member than to protect one. In many of these school killings even people close to the shooter had no idea he had it in him, so how are the rest of us supposed to know which one he is before it is too late.
Do people really think that the answer is to have everyone bring an AK-47 to class? If so, I'd want to be very careful about making a sudden move to get up and go to the bathroom.
Do people really think that the answer is to have everyone bring an AK-47 to class? If so, I'd want to be very careful about making a sudden move to get up and go to the bathroom.
3
Truth is a cleanser.
Let's move the conversation about guns and the 2nd ammendment toward a more accurate interpretation.
NOT the interpretation of the NRA and their lords - a gun industry which profits on our madness and delusion.
The madness feeds on itself.
Read a great history book called, "The Second Ammendment" by Michael Waldman.
A few points:
- the ammendment was a nod to states which feared centralized power of the federal government and a standing centralized army (some even saw the Constitution as part of that centralized power).
States wanted to maintain their more local militias as protection from tyranny like the British rule.
Thus the guarantee in the 2nd ammendment which refers to "well regulated militias."
There is tons of interpretation about the "right of THE PEOPLE (the general people not individuals) to keep and bear arms". "Keep and bear" is a whole topic of interpretation. Keep where? At home? At a local "well regulated" armory?
- all Supreme Court rulings (two in the 19th century and one in 1939) REFUTED the right of individuals to own unregulated guns. Only the current extremely right wing majority on the court revised these precedents -activist judges!
But even Scalia, the most conservative, said that some regulation of firearm sales was allowed.
We have been duped by gun makers who value money more than lives. Just like cigarette makers fooled us. We beat them.
We'll beat gun makers too.
The truth and majority decency is on our side.
Let's move the conversation about guns and the 2nd ammendment toward a more accurate interpretation.
NOT the interpretation of the NRA and their lords - a gun industry which profits on our madness and delusion.
The madness feeds on itself.
Read a great history book called, "The Second Ammendment" by Michael Waldman.
A few points:
- the ammendment was a nod to states which feared centralized power of the federal government and a standing centralized army (some even saw the Constitution as part of that centralized power).
States wanted to maintain their more local militias as protection from tyranny like the British rule.
Thus the guarantee in the 2nd ammendment which refers to "well regulated militias."
There is tons of interpretation about the "right of THE PEOPLE (the general people not individuals) to keep and bear arms". "Keep and bear" is a whole topic of interpretation. Keep where? At home? At a local "well regulated" armory?
- all Supreme Court rulings (two in the 19th century and one in 1939) REFUTED the right of individuals to own unregulated guns. Only the current extremely right wing majority on the court revised these precedents -activist judges!
But even Scalia, the most conservative, said that some regulation of firearm sales was allowed.
We have been duped by gun makers who value money more than lives. Just like cigarette makers fooled us. We beat them.
We'll beat gun makers too.
The truth and majority decency is on our side.
11
There is a sharp divide between the rural gun culture folks and the city folks who know what it is like to feel unsafe with gun crazies and criminal types around. You can't say the term gun "control" without the gun enthusiasts freaking out--a reaction bordering on castration anxiety. Fear that the government will disarm them, when they have grown up with guns, which might be like fearing the government will take away your beloved dog.
Gun "safety" seems like a more reasonable term to get rural and urban folks at least talking with each other, but somehow gun "safety" signifies liberalism and the nanny state--because guess who has worked diligently to condition the American mindset not only against the word "control" but also "safety."
How about gun "responsibility"? Would that work? Don't most of us want dangerous things only in the hands of responsible people and to have some rules of the road--like we do with driving cars?
Can we talk?
Gun "safety" seems like a more reasonable term to get rural and urban folks at least talking with each other, but somehow gun "safety" signifies liberalism and the nanny state--because guess who has worked diligently to condition the American mindset not only against the word "control" but also "safety."
How about gun "responsibility"? Would that work? Don't most of us want dangerous things only in the hands of responsible people and to have some rules of the road--like we do with driving cars?
Can we talk?
10
PB, yes we can talk. But your suggestion that gun enthusiasts freak out (and fear castration) does not help. I could equally suggest that most gun-phobic liberals wet their pants at the sight of a gun, and even the suggestion of encountering a live weapon is enough to make them cower in fear. See?
As an alternative, I suggest "Gun Guys", by Dan Baum, as one way to look for common ground, and possible productive actions. See the interview by the NYT's Joe Nocera here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/07/opinion/sunday/nocera-what-gun-lovers-...
As an alternative, I suggest "Gun Guys", by Dan Baum, as one way to look for common ground, and possible productive actions. See the interview by the NYT's Joe Nocera here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/07/opinion/sunday/nocera-what-gun-lovers-...
Probably the biggest obstacle to dialogue is the well-intentioned folks who use terms like "gun nut" and demand that everyone be completely disarmed. I'm not on the armed side and certainly am no supporter of the NRA. In fact I'm not backing either side. I just want to see common sense laws put in to place throughout the nation. (Connecticuts laws are fairly reasonable.) I also want to see the laws regarding privacy opened up so background checks will uncover mental illness, history of suicidal or homicidal ideation, neurological impairment or psychotropic medication use.
I can see that this argument has become even more contentious than the abortion debate where each side digs in their heels and insults the other side. Their positions become more and more outlandish. (I find the folks who insist that a woman should be able to abort a full term baby on the day before delivery just as irrational as the NRA. There's no reasoning with either position.) Unfortunately the extremists have drowned out the voices of reason on both issues and made rational dialogue impossible.
Calling women who just want to control their fertility murderers is comparable to calling responsible gun owners "gun nuts" or casting aspersions on their manhood. It does no good and prevents progress.
I can see that this argument has become even more contentious than the abortion debate where each side digs in their heels and insults the other side. Their positions become more and more outlandish. (I find the folks who insist that a woman should be able to abort a full term baby on the day before delivery just as irrational as the NRA. There's no reasoning with either position.) Unfortunately the extremists have drowned out the voices of reason on both issues and made rational dialogue impossible.
Calling women who just want to control their fertility murderers is comparable to calling responsible gun owners "gun nuts" or casting aspersions on their manhood. It does no good and prevents progress.
If I use logic as opposed to rely on emotions, limiting the availability of guns in general will not decrease mass shootings. First, most of the mass shooters use legally-purchased guns (or steal legally-purchased guns, but that is not as often). As long as it’s legal to buy a gun in general, mass shooters will be able to get their hands on as many as they feel/think they need. Second, overwhelming number of mass shooters commits a suicide by the time the first responders arrive to the scene. This tells me that the main objective, the underlying cause for mass shootings is the suicide of the mass shooter. Murdering others in the process is similar to hesitation cuts, etc… Deaths of others make it irreversible for the shooter. Those mass shooters, who are hesitant about suicide, pick their targets to make their crimes particularly heinous. Limiting the number of guns that are available to suicidal people may decrease the number of mass shootings or suicides in general. But this angle is not easy to spin politically.. Plus, most people are uncomfortable thinking/talking about suicides. And no politician will ever run on the suicide prevention platform – it’s just too dark for the voters to handle. All this talk about gun insurance, this and that, is just immature gleeful reaction to the question that is too difficult for anyone..
1
False "Uuuu" if you bother to read the number of shootings in countries with rational gun control such as Japan, the U.K., Germany, Sweden, and many others you will maybe notice there is a big difference with the dumb use of guns in this country.
1
Sadly, this community appears to have already reaped what it sows... And, I think it's relevant that Nancy Lanza, the mother of the Newtown killer, who was killed by her son, was a lover of guns, as is this killer's mother. It's a nightmare mix when delusional, unstable people have been led to believe there is security in owning lots of guns, and then they can buy them easily and repeatedly without regulation. Conservatives' bizarre logic and misreading of the 2nd Amendment have truly reached murderous and idiotic proportions.
6
let's do an experiment.
lets have half the states allow open carry of firearms ubiquitously with no controls and the other half of the states limit gun use to firing ranges and licensed hunting. Then see which states suffer form increased gun violence and which don't. Its the only way to really know what will work.
lets have half the states allow open carry of firearms ubiquitously with no controls and the other half of the states limit gun use to firing ranges and licensed hunting. Then see which states suffer form increased gun violence and which don't. Its the only way to really know what will work.
Some folks believe that all guns and gun owner's should be registered and carry insurance. Really? What happens when a crime is committed and the police reach into their data base to see who owns firearms like the ones used in the crime? Will innocent citizens suddenly be stopped in their cars or have their homes searched? Will they be detained, placed in handcuffs, held without bail or be determined to be a person of interest? Will there be a mid-night raid by heavily armed swat team members? Will all of the guns in the zip-code be confiscated and tested to see if the gun used in crime is one of the registered firearms?
Suggesting that everyone register their guns is beyond reason. It guarantees that the government or local police will abuse their discretion. There was also a group that wants to register all persons who purchase ammunition. Good grief! There are millions of hunters and other gun owners who purchase ammunition throughout the year. What happens if an ammunition owner dies? Do you want to track that too? Maybe a family member will use the box of .22s to plink tin cans? Are you going to make that criminal?
Don't regulate guns. Don't register firearms and ammunition. Let's go after the criminals, the mentally ill, the drug dealers, the gang-bangers and the terrorists groups and organizations. Go after the street thugs and muggers.
And let's preserve the right of self-defense. Let's not be a nation of victims.
Americans have the right of self defense.
Suggesting that everyone register their guns is beyond reason. It guarantees that the government or local police will abuse their discretion. There was also a group that wants to register all persons who purchase ammunition. Good grief! There are millions of hunters and other gun owners who purchase ammunition throughout the year. What happens if an ammunition owner dies? Do you want to track that too? Maybe a family member will use the box of .22s to plink tin cans? Are you going to make that criminal?
Don't regulate guns. Don't register firearms and ammunition. Let's go after the criminals, the mentally ill, the drug dealers, the gang-bangers and the terrorists groups and organizations. Go after the street thugs and muggers.
And let's preserve the right of self-defense. Let's not be a nation of victims.
Americans have the right of self defense.
"Let's not be a nation of victims."
Agreed. But who comes across as more of a helpless and traumatized victim in this troubled nation of ours than an impassioned gun rights advocate?!
Agreed. But who comes across as more of a helpless and traumatized victim in this troubled nation of ours than an impassioned gun rights advocate?!
Even if everyone packs a concealed weapon and is prepared to use it-- a questionable situation at best for society--shooters will always have the advantage of surprise. And since then philosophy can only lead to an arms race, then shooters such as these will make sure to show up armed with automatic.
Since we don't encourage air travelers to carry weapons, then perhaps schools everywhere, like airports everywhere, simply have metal detectors and guards.
Would it be expensive? Yes, but there is a way to pay for it and other costs to society for having firearms: tax the ammo. Pilots have to pay taxes on aviation fuel,which helps pay for the national air traffic system. Drivers pay gas taxes to help maintain roads. There are taxes to offset the costs of cigarette smoking, and taxes on liquor.
Statistics show that having a gun in the home only increases the likelihood of a household member being shot. If all of society is armed, then people will start shooting at any kind of perceived threat, real or imagined.
Taxing ammo is a reasonable way start covering the harm done by gun violence. But a society-wise arms race? This is the realm of fantasy and simply more death.
Since we don't encourage air travelers to carry weapons, then perhaps schools everywhere, like airports everywhere, simply have metal detectors and guards.
Would it be expensive? Yes, but there is a way to pay for it and other costs to society for having firearms: tax the ammo. Pilots have to pay taxes on aviation fuel,which helps pay for the national air traffic system. Drivers pay gas taxes to help maintain roads. There are taxes to offset the costs of cigarette smoking, and taxes on liquor.
Statistics show that having a gun in the home only increases the likelihood of a household member being shot. If all of society is armed, then people will start shooting at any kind of perceived threat, real or imagined.
Taxing ammo is a reasonable way start covering the harm done by gun violence. But a society-wise arms race? This is the realm of fantasy and simply more death.
3
It's past time that liability insurance is required to be purchased by gun owners. I've read that Chris Mintz's friends are crowd-funding to cover his medical expenses. It's time that the survivors are no longer victims a second time when it comes to paying the expenses for their recovery. And time for gun owners to put some of their money on the line in the form of annual insurance. Maybe they'll think twice about locking away their precious guns and how they're used.
Gun owners like to counter with the idea that this "infringes" in their ownership. If that's the case, then let's also discuss the concept of how they fit into a "well-regulated militia."
Gun owners like to counter with the idea that this "infringes" in their ownership. If that's the case, then let's also discuss the concept of how they fit into a "well-regulated militia."
3
Why is it that the people with the most power and authority in our society -men- are the ones who seem to be the most fearful?
4
Ask sheriff Hanlin or any Republican presidential candidate if they would welcome anyone who could obtain legally an assault rifle to bring it into their office anytime or at any event held outside and watch how fast they come up with their own "gun control".
1
I can tell you this from my travels to Southern Oregon, that is an extremely conservative hunting rich part of the State of Oregon. They like their guns and they are not friendly to a Democratic President..It doesn't surprise me that they see more guns as the answer. Portland, Salem, Eugene, Corvallis are the liberal and population bastions of the state but the rest of the state is red and pro NRA,
3
The tragic irony about all this is that, much as we might have disliked this or that administration over the years, the Founders deathly fear of 'tyranny' that was very understandably instilled in them by the British has turned-out to be unfounded, with our fellow arms-bearing 'militiamen' proving to be far more of a threat to life and limb than some putative power-grabbing President, whether said 'militiamen' are gunning people down in the street, in movie theaters, in malls, in schools, or in colleges.
1
Man, this is sad. No logic, no facts, just emotion. Fear has taken over. I'm embarrassed for them and scared for the rest of us.
8
For me, this is the way the NRA thinks about us, the people, and about themselves: Profit is our motto and, yes, we succeeded very well. In 1935 we began a massive radio campaign to create the "necessity" of buying/having guns and we also successfully attached our economic interests to the Constitution. Yes, we despise you all and, yes, we firmly believe in the great role of propaganda to persuade people like you to support our profits, and yep, we succeeded! It's just propaganda, you people, it's just psychological warfare (oh well yes, it's also war, so please bear with us the continuous massacres of citizens, it is just collateral damage).
3
It's amazing, the misunderstandings about the Constitution that never go away, repeated over, and over again in comments to gun related articles. And the Times is ostensibly the most erudite liberal forum in the nation.
Talking about the Bill of Rights as if they were under the control of some Department of Motor Vehicles analog.
Ignoring the fact the US Constitution and Bill of Rights were ratified in a day where the severely mentally ill were sequestered away from society. And that even the most modern mental health institutions were either radically reduced in size or closed all together by the 1990's. And that the severely mentally ill often wander the streets with little more than a bottle of pills and a pat on the head from the mental health profession.
We've set the crazy free, so we need to curb the Constitutional rights of the sane, now.
Arguing that single shot muskets should be all that is legal, because that is all the framers knew; as if that would not automatically limit freedom of speech on all modern communications technology
And my favorite, mandatory insurance. You know, making the exercise of Constitutional rights all but impossible for the poor. Like Poll Taxes during the bad old Jim Crow era.
And the Times awards such failed ideas Editors Picks.
Politics as usual.
Talking about the Bill of Rights as if they were under the control of some Department of Motor Vehicles analog.
Ignoring the fact the US Constitution and Bill of Rights were ratified in a day where the severely mentally ill were sequestered away from society. And that even the most modern mental health institutions were either radically reduced in size or closed all together by the 1990's. And that the severely mentally ill often wander the streets with little more than a bottle of pills and a pat on the head from the mental health profession.
We've set the crazy free, so we need to curb the Constitutional rights of the sane, now.
Arguing that single shot muskets should be all that is legal, because that is all the framers knew; as if that would not automatically limit freedom of speech on all modern communications technology
And my favorite, mandatory insurance. You know, making the exercise of Constitutional rights all but impossible for the poor. Like Poll Taxes during the bad old Jim Crow era.
And the Times awards such failed ideas Editors Picks.
Politics as usual.
4
So your solution is to curb the constitutional rights of the crazy?
Why I, an old pacifist who has never owned a gun, oppose more gun laws: Same reason I oppose drug laws or capital punishment...does not work.
War and economic injustice are the root causes of violence.
Set an example for people by shutting down the wars and standing up for peace.
You cannot achieve a peaceful society by setting up a police state.
You will only achieve the opposite...power based upon fear leads to violence.
War and economic injustice are the root causes of violence.
Set an example for people by shutting down the wars and standing up for peace.
You cannot achieve a peaceful society by setting up a police state.
You will only achieve the opposite...power based upon fear leads to violence.
2
Your opinion has been demonstrated to be incorrect by every country in which there are strict gun laws and no mass shootings.
1
how can you possibly say gun laws don't work? Look at the rest of the developed world with tighter gun laws, and they have significantly fewer mass shootings.
Peter Aldhous's piece in at Buzzfeed quoted this sobering, and not-unsurprising statistic;
"Analyzing 14,000 incidents involving personal contact between perpetrator and victim from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), David Hemenway of the Harvard School of Public Health and economist Sara Solnick of the University of Vermont found that a gun was brandished in self-defense on only 127 occasions. And doing so didn’t reduce the likelihood that the victim would be injured — although it did lessen the chance of property loss."
If the residents of Roseburg think arming themselves to the teeth is the answer, they should take note....
"Analyzing 14,000 incidents involving personal contact between perpetrator and victim from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), David Hemenway of the Harvard School of Public Health and economist Sara Solnick of the University of Vermont found that a gun was brandished in self-defense on only 127 occasions. And doing so didn’t reduce the likelihood that the victim would be injured — although it did lessen the chance of property loss."
If the residents of Roseburg think arming themselves to the teeth is the answer, they should take note....
29
The concept that a fully armed populace will lead to a safer environment is sheer lunacy.
23
Ergo, the problem in the U.S. And why we are doomed.
5
I don't understand why more laws and regulations are bad for gun ownership but necessary for voter rights. Literally a handful of people commit voter fraud each year while, in that same time frame, thousands more reveal themselves to be irresponsible gun owners.
Why the double standard where piling on laws and regulations are concerned? Why does the logic for the application of laws vary? Why do we create more laws to go after the ten people who commit voter fraud each year but shrug indifferently at the thousands who fetishize things that go boom?
Why the double standard where piling on laws and regulations are concerned? Why does the logic for the application of laws vary? Why do we create more laws to go after the ten people who commit voter fraud each year but shrug indifferently at the thousands who fetishize things that go boom?
9
Yes surely when the students and the teachers start firing at who knows where and at who knows who, the outcome will be better. And the motives. I was once a teacher and thankfully never thought a moment about this but if I was told I needed to carry a gun to teach, I'd have said I am sane and this is insane, so no thanks.
4
Time to get down to business. Quit messing around. The second amendment has been misinterpreted, by the highest court in the land. Militias should be armed? Okay, but what does that mean? That individuals should be able to buy a personal arsenal? Really? I don't think so. Did our founding fathers foresee automatic rifles? No. How many deer does one need to take down on one hunting outing? Twenty? Time to grow up, country - we need to stop this madness! Repeal the second amendment. Replace it with guarantees for hunters and 18th century muskets. Let's get those petitions circulating. Way too much is more than enough. Let's solve this.
3
If you are thinking about arming yourself for the first time I ask you to give some more consideration to the kind of society your children and nephews and nieces - and their children, too - might find themselves in if lots of folks also begin to carry arms in their daily lives. Is it possible that your kids' fears will end up being far greater and even more even real than your own?
Give some thought to the incidents of road rage or just really rude driving you've witnessed. What if most people carried guns while driving? Do you think the number of terrible tragedies and terrible mistakes on the roads might multiply?
Consider simply the complete misunderstandings you've seen in life that caused someone to become very angry and to lose his or her composure, only later to find that they needed to reconsider... Think of all the people you've known and seen who just flat don't think very well - people who are much like children, intellectually and emotionally, even when they're 40 - or 80. Consider also the people who could not aim too well under stress, or whose eyesight is not what it once was.
What if all of those people carried guns? Would the world be an even scarier place? Might there be a much greater number people with horrific regrets from which they would never recover? And a lot more people who are dead but shouldn't be? And an even greater number of families who have only memories when they should have had someone to hug and to love for decades more?
Give some thought to the incidents of road rage or just really rude driving you've witnessed. What if most people carried guns while driving? Do you think the number of terrible tragedies and terrible mistakes on the roads might multiply?
Consider simply the complete misunderstandings you've seen in life that caused someone to become very angry and to lose his or her composure, only later to find that they needed to reconsider... Think of all the people you've known and seen who just flat don't think very well - people who are much like children, intellectually and emotionally, even when they're 40 - or 80. Consider also the people who could not aim too well under stress, or whose eyesight is not what it once was.
What if all of those people carried guns? Would the world be an even scarier place? Might there be a much greater number people with horrific regrets from which they would never recover? And a lot more people who are dead but shouldn't be? And an even greater number of families who have only memories when they should have had someone to hug and to love for decades more?
1
How do people feel about being required to take a course and a test to be able to vote? Or how about a government document certifying that you are responsible enough to use your free speech rights? This is a free society and you are judged after you commit a crime not before. Bad things happen in free societies and it is the mark of a responsible citizen that they recognize that freedoms have inherent costs associated with them. What I find insane is that people on the left do not even ask why these people are doing these things and what their motivations may reflect about our society...they think it will all be fixed by taking away Constitutional freedoms. That is not the response of a responsible thinking citizen.
1
This is right about the time where the left would say, "It's legal and my right. End of discussion."
2
"freedoms have inherent costs associated with them."
At what point do the costs become too high? We Have over 10,000 homicides by guns ( suicides add another 19,000 gun deaths). Apparently, you feel that's tolerable. Would you feel the same if it doubled? Tripled? If a massacre occurred in your city? In a school near you? If a loved one was shot dead?
I've been to other countries which don't allow every psycho to own an arsenal. The people I've met in those countries did not appear to be oppressed. If more guns make society safer, with 300 million guns, we should be among the safest in the world. Have you heard? We're not.
At what point do the costs become too high? We Have over 10,000 homicides by guns ( suicides add another 19,000 gun deaths). Apparently, you feel that's tolerable. Would you feel the same if it doubled? Tripled? If a massacre occurred in your city? In a school near you? If a loved one was shot dead?
I've been to other countries which don't allow every psycho to own an arsenal. The people I've met in those countries did not appear to be oppressed. If more guns make society safer, with 300 million guns, we should be among the safest in the world. Have you heard? We're not.
1
"How do people feel about being required to take a course...to be able to vote? ...about a government...certifying...you are resonsible enough to use your free speech rights?"
Two words: False Equivalence.
Your rights to vote or speak freely don't have the potential to end my life.
And by your reasoning you are saying, "Of course, there should also be NO tests, waiting periods, or other roadblocks to a woman's constitutional right to privacy in seeking an abortion!" RIGHT?
Two words: False Equivalence.
Your rights to vote or speak freely don't have the potential to end my life.
And by your reasoning you are saying, "Of course, there should also be NO tests, waiting periods, or other roadblocks to a woman's constitutional right to privacy in seeking an abortion!" RIGHT?
1
As the owner of a wine and liquor store in Brooklyn I am often cold-called by companies offering to get me a concealed permit. I always tell them I'm not interested.
"But you're a business owner in The City! You could get one no problem! Don't you want that added security?"
No I don't actually. The only thing having a gun would do for me is make me nervous that if I was being robbed it would increase my chances of being shot if the robber found out I had one. On the other hand, would I really want to pull a gun on someone if they were robbing me? NO! Take the money, all of it. Take the iPad we use as a register. Take my wallet, tie me up, whatever. Nobody needs to die for robbing my store.
And what if the robber had a bunch of friends or belonged to a violent gang or something? Would I want to stand in my shop after headlines ran showing who I was?
There are tons of guns and it's only increased the madness. Please somehow lets start reducing the overreaching political power of the NRA.
"But you're a business owner in The City! You could get one no problem! Don't you want that added security?"
No I don't actually. The only thing having a gun would do for me is make me nervous that if I was being robbed it would increase my chances of being shot if the robber found out I had one. On the other hand, would I really want to pull a gun on someone if they were robbing me? NO! Take the money, all of it. Take the iPad we use as a register. Take my wallet, tie me up, whatever. Nobody needs to die for robbing my store.
And what if the robber had a bunch of friends or belonged to a violent gang or something? Would I want to stand in my shop after headlines ran showing who I was?
There are tons of guns and it's only increased the madness. Please somehow lets start reducing the overreaching political power of the NRA.
11
Guns don't protect you, no matter what diehards (!) say.
When was the last time a responsible armed citizen stopped a mass murderer?
NEVER. We have armed, trained and (hopefully) screened and qualified peace officers to protect us. We should all be very afraid of untrained, possibly inebriated, drugged or mentally unbalanced people roaming around with firearms. NO. Screen all gun buyers, anywhere in public firearms are sold or traded. No one is "coming to take your guns away". That would be impossible. Gun registration and licensing is a good thing for all of us, and the NRA does NOT represent responsible firearm owners.
When was the last time a responsible armed citizen stopped a mass murderer?
NEVER. We have armed, trained and (hopefully) screened and qualified peace officers to protect us. We should all be very afraid of untrained, possibly inebriated, drugged or mentally unbalanced people roaming around with firearms. NO. Screen all gun buyers, anywhere in public firearms are sold or traded. No one is "coming to take your guns away". That would be impossible. Gun registration and licensing is a good thing for all of us, and the NRA does NOT represent responsible firearm owners.
2
Hell, I think we should have duels again! Let's go get Wyatt Earp back in the saddle and have some real law and order! The only problem is he died almost a century ago. And so should of our romance with the gun. Deep down in the dust there, away from civilized communities.
3
Anyone else catch the irony of The Times explaining gun control? Patronization and righteousness abound...Why is the existence of evil in the world left out of these conversations? Do people really think these shootings are simply the result of mental illness? How degrading to those with true mental illness. I can't recall any version of the DSM citing mass shootings as the component of a true mental illness. If it is, then folks, we are doomed - because there isn't any treatment for this sort of thing. To pretend otherwise is , well, pretentious.
1
I recently exchanged emails with an old friend who works in the security department of a private Upstate university. He said that the university will not let its sworn officers carry guns because the idea of armed officers conflicts with university politics. That seems too bad. Since one cannot assume there will never be an active shooter on a campus, it seems odd to make sure the campus security force is powerless to stop an incident. I'm not suggesting students get pistol permits. But the professional security force should have arms.
Until the good people of this country take to the streets shouting "Enough!" the carnage will continue.
Clever, persistent, and omnipresent propaganda makes that eventuality highly unlikely.
This is your America.
Clever, persistent, and omnipresent propaganda makes that eventuality highly unlikely.
This is your America.
5
I agree with the comments advising that if you own a gun you must buy insurance and using one require a license. I'll go further and advise that the license issuance be dependent on taking a mandatory gun use and safety class every two (2) years and a background check and psychiatric exam before your license is issued and repeated every five (5) years that you own a gun.
The mis-application and interpretation of the 2nd Amendment has created a nightmare situation wherein every gun owner thinks they have a right to own a gun (or 2 or 5 or 10) and have turned it into a battle cry for heavens sake. It's all about them and to heck with the consequences for anyone else.
I'd like to see all assault rifles and the like banned; they have no place in civilian life at all. These guns were designed to kill people; if you want to play with them, join the armed forces and serve your country honorably.
The mis-application and interpretation of the 2nd Amendment has created a nightmare situation wherein every gun owner thinks they have a right to own a gun (or 2 or 5 or 10) and have turned it into a battle cry for heavens sake. It's all about them and to heck with the consequences for anyone else.
I'd like to see all assault rifles and the like banned; they have no place in civilian life at all. These guns were designed to kill people; if you want to play with them, join the armed forces and serve your country honorably.
4
We have already shown that the Second Amendment is open to interpretation. Nowhere does it mention guns, it mentions only "arms". Given that, I should be able to own any type of armament (bombs, nuclear, what ever I can lay my hands on). Since the government (meaning the citizens' representatives) have declared some of those items illegal to own, I find no reason to believe that they could not also find other items (automatic rifles, assault weapons, etc) illegal. It is only in the last 20 years or so (with the neocon movement) that the so called 'strict interpretation' of the 2nd amendment has taken hold.
4
Despite your attempt at snark, you are correct. The 2nd amendment details what government can NOT do, which is infringe upon our right to keep and bear arms.
We're back to the wild west. The only difference now is the guns are much more sophisticated and deadly.
7
According to some Americans, we're back to the pre-Revolutionary War days.
2
AACNY: There was no US Constitution during the pre-Revolutionary War days.
I have rarely seen an article from the NYT treat Conservative and liberal viewpoints equally. I am really impressed by your reporting. State the facts, pros and cons of each side, and let people think about it.
This is excellent journalism.
This is excellent journalism.
So this is what life has become in 2015.
I used to watch John Wayne westerns, where everyone had a gun holster with 2 six-guns, and the slightest provocation would result in someone being shot to death in the streets. I guess we are now going to return to that lifestyle.
I am old, and won't have to live with this insanity too long, but I feel sorry for the young.
I used to watch John Wayne westerns, where everyone had a gun holster with 2 six-guns, and the slightest provocation would result in someone being shot to death in the streets. I guess we are now going to return to that lifestyle.
I am old, and won't have to live with this insanity too long, but I feel sorry for the young.
1
As things stand now, it's apparent that so long as the present interpretation of the 2nd Amendment stands, presence in the United States is implied consent to compulsory participation in mass shootings, whenever someone acts on her/his deranged notion to go on a murderous rampage. Any place, any time, any one.
Is this what we really want?
To date this year, there have been 297 mass shootings on record.
< http://shootingtracker.com/wiki/Mass_Shootings_in_2015 >
Is this what we really want?
To date this year, there have been 297 mass shootings on record.
< http://shootingtracker.com/wiki/Mass_Shootings_in_2015 >
If the only way we can protect ourselves is to reach for a gun and our security blanket at night is a reassuring caress of a trigger then America has truly lost her soul.
4
The gun lobby in this country has done an absolutely flawless job in convincing people that ALL gun control is bad. Even common sense stuff isn't touched with a ten-foot pole because of the political fallout. Why does all gun control scare these citizens that wish to buy guns. Certainly there is some middle ground that would make sense to these people, They'll never get the chance to exercise that common sense however, because they've been conditioned that any refining of the laws is out to take their guns away. Wake up, and help create laws make sense and make us safer. There are steps we can agree on and take.
1
No surprise. That crazy killer was an anomaly. In general, legally acquiring a gun makes an individual more rational and law abiding. So, if more people buy guns, everyone is safer. How do I know this?
Simple. Would anyone want me to have the right to buy a gun if they don't trust that I will always be rational, even-tempered and respectful of law and authority? Of course not. Yet, my fellow Americans insist that I have that right. Americans are not stupid. It is therefore clear that gun ownership ensures mental stability. If everyone bought a gun we would be almost completely safe. Almost, because we all know that stuff happens now and then. Americans are not stupid.
Simple. Would anyone want me to have the right to buy a gun if they don't trust that I will always be rational, even-tempered and respectful of law and authority? Of course not. Yet, my fellow Americans insist that I have that right. Americans are not stupid. It is therefore clear that gun ownership ensures mental stability. If everyone bought a gun we would be almost completely safe. Almost, because we all know that stuff happens now and then. Americans are not stupid.
Anomaly? There have been more mass shootings, defined as 4 or more people being shot in a single episode, than there have been days this year (297 mass shootings, 280 days, so far in 2015). That's an average of more than one a day.
"Now and then"? There have been 3 more mass shootings AFTER the Oregon incident.
"Now and then"? There have been 3 more mass shootings AFTER the Oregon incident.
of course Americans are not stupid. Some are brainwashed, such as you and sprout nonsense. If we subscribe to the logic that more guns, the safer the country would be, then, America should be one of the safest countries in the world. Well, she isn't. Europe is the safest, where getting a gun is next to impossible. If there are more guns around, we"ll vie with Brazil and Central America for the most murders. But, of course, that's what the NRA and her co-conspirator, ISIS want. They both aim to kill as many Americans as possible. The NRA is much, much more successful at it
The cat is already out of the bag! There a billions of guns in the world and an estimated 10 billion rounds of ammunition manufactured each year. Anyone wanting a gun can get one easily, either through legal means or the black market. It's just like drugs. We pass lots of laws and create controls and the drug problem has only worsened. None of the current laws or proposed laws will keep guns out of the hands of the bad guys or the mentally ill. The average response time for a 911 call in this country is 10 minutes. That's enough time to unload hundreds of rounds. The people of Roseburg are correct. If you want to protect yourself, you have to learn to do it yourself. Suggesting required insurance or licenses or holding periods or completely banning guns will not stop mass murders. Period. Cocaine and heroin are completely banned in the U.S. Lot's of good that does. If you don't want to face reality, then don't get a gun and hope the police get there before the shooting starts. Good Luck!
3
I find it heartening that so many people from all over the country are backing
up what I think and feel about this issue. We must be able to predict with some kind of regularity, either by background checks or mental health evaluations, which people who own guns might have the propencity to become mass murderers. The sheer number of guns out in society already ensures that innocent people are going to get killed.....so we must balance that reality with background checks and insurance requirements hand in hand with required training in handling arms of all types.
up what I think and feel about this issue. We must be able to predict with some kind of regularity, either by background checks or mental health evaluations, which people who own guns might have the propencity to become mass murderers. The sheer number of guns out in society already ensures that innocent people are going to get killed.....so we must balance that reality with background checks and insurance requirements hand in hand with required training in handling arms of all types.
2
The people quoted in this article who say that guns make them safer presumably believe the same thing that countless others before them have believed: it won't happen to me; in fact, I'm protecting against it.
Mrs. Harper-Mercer is on record in that regard. The ones who mistake family members for burglars surely believe they're protecting their loved ones, until they turn the lights on, that is, by which time it's too late. Then there are the 11-year-olds who use a family gun to kill a neighbor over puppies. I'm sure those folks thought they were responsible family-protecting gun owners, too.
Gun denial is like vaccine denial: there aren't enough facts in the world to convince many Americans about the reality of this problem, because many Americans simply don't want to know. The only solution is to pass laws that force change. I'm not sitting on my hands waiting for that one, though.
Mrs. Harper-Mercer is on record in that regard. The ones who mistake family members for burglars surely believe they're protecting their loved ones, until they turn the lights on, that is, by which time it's too late. Then there are the 11-year-olds who use a family gun to kill a neighbor over puppies. I'm sure those folks thought they were responsible family-protecting gun owners, too.
Gun denial is like vaccine denial: there aren't enough facts in the world to convince many Americans about the reality of this problem, because many Americans simply don't want to know. The only solution is to pass laws that force change. I'm not sitting on my hands waiting for that one, though.
2
I don't see why I should be forced to carry an instrument of death on me at all times simply because it's so easy for sociopaths and psychotics to get their hands on one. Nor can I say I would respond appropriately when faced with one of those people. And I definitely can't say I trust anyone else around me to respond appropriately either. In short, this idea that we can have a functioning, peaceful society by loading everyone to the hilt is simply madness.
2
How the gun industry create more sales; provide money and work to reduce legislation on controls, sell more weapons, have more massacres which gins up more fear which sells more guns etc. Not unlike the Pharma industry sell massive quantities of drugs with it's blanketing of TV adds after it managed to buy enough votes to remove the no-advertising obstacles.
Blaming mental illness for gun violence is a pretext to deflect from the larger issue of uncontrolled gun ownership.
The Roseburg shooter's mother was proud of her son's collection and knowledge of guns. The Charleston shooter was gifted a gun by his father. Both shooters were obviously mentally disturbed that their parents chose to ignore.
This is not surprising; they were just following parental instincts. They knew that their children had a handicap and resorted to guns to help them deal with the harsh world better.
Mental illness is real and needs to addressed, but it needs to be done outside the context of gun violence. Expecting family members and neighbors to report mentally disturbed gun owners is not practicable and is not a winnable argument to reduce gun violence.
The Roseburg shooter's mother was proud of her son's collection and knowledge of guns. The Charleston shooter was gifted a gun by his father. Both shooters were obviously mentally disturbed that their parents chose to ignore.
This is not surprising; they were just following parental instincts. They knew that their children had a handicap and resorted to guns to help them deal with the harsh world better.
Mental illness is real and needs to addressed, but it needs to be done outside the context of gun violence. Expecting family members and neighbors to report mentally disturbed gun owners is not practicable and is not a winnable argument to reduce gun violence.
I wonder how other countries manage so well, without an obsessive need to have guns, a possession which in this nation seems to over ride all common sense. Even highly trained police officers can fire mistakenly when afraid, and sometimes do not hit their targets as accurately as they would like.
The chances that someone in a home with a firearm is more safe is untrue, as a gun is often used in the heat of an argument, in domestic violence or in the case of a young child gets ahold of a gun and kills himself or someone else. Statistically, it is generally much less safe to have a gun in a home.
If the NRA and its ilk have their way, every person would be packing heat everywhere they went, to the shopping mall, to college, or even to church. Some members of our society have become unthinking souls, flinching at every creak in their homes and fearful of everyone whom they see who is not someone that they know.
America, scared to death and expecting the worst.
The chances that someone in a home with a firearm is more safe is untrue, as a gun is often used in the heat of an argument, in domestic violence or in the case of a young child gets ahold of a gun and kills himself or someone else. Statistically, it is generally much less safe to have a gun in a home.
If the NRA and its ilk have their way, every person would be packing heat everywhere they went, to the shopping mall, to college, or even to church. Some members of our society have become unthinking souls, flinching at every creak in their homes and fearful of everyone whom they see who is not someone that they know.
America, scared to death and expecting the worst.
3
If we assume that hunting and shooting sports are acceptable, then that leaves the issue of using a firearm for self-defense as the main question to consider. Although there are government and military applications for the use of weapons for offensive purposes, these typically are used in the ultimate defense of nations. Only criminals and despots use weapons strictly offensively.
So, are we right to defend ourselves and others from violent physical attacks when we are able to do so and should we consider a firearm as a legitimate means of defense?
Can we agree that felons and those with mental illness should not be allowed to own firearms. Can we also agree that there needs to be a comprehensive way to ensure that felons and those with mental illness cannot purchase weapons.
Owning a firearm is a prudent means of increasing your personal security but it is by no means the source of that security.
So, are we right to defend ourselves and others from violent physical attacks when we are able to do so and should we consider a firearm as a legitimate means of defense?
Can we agree that felons and those with mental illness should not be allowed to own firearms. Can we also agree that there needs to be a comprehensive way to ensure that felons and those with mental illness cannot purchase weapons.
Owning a firearm is a prudent means of increasing your personal security but it is by no means the source of that security.
1
Cars kill more people than guns. Ban cars...
Again:
Guns are made for the sole purpose of killing. Cars can be used as weapons but are not made for that purpose.
As such, the two variables - guns and cars - are incomparable.
How many millions of times that does that have to be pointed out before it sinks in?
Guns are made for the sole purpose of killing. Cars can be used as weapons but are not made for that purpose.
As such, the two variables - guns and cars - are incomparable.
How many millions of times that does that have to be pointed out before it sinks in?
2
Guns are made to kill, cars are not.
Ban poverty, violence and ignorance, now.
There ought to be a law...
There ought to be a law...
I keep saying it but I'll say it again. Make buying a gun as difficult as getting an abortion. After a person asks to buy a gun, make him wait 72 hours. During that 72 hours make him see an ultrasound of a vicious gunshot wound. Have a doctor speak to him about the nature of gunshot wounds and describe how the person's own family will be more likely to be killed by the gun in the home than by a stranger's gun. Tell the potential buyer about alternatives to guns. And spread the gun stores as far apart as the abortion clinics are. The states that have only one clinic should have only one gun store.
20
Do we need a Planned Gun Ownership organization? Would that public awareness of gun violence could have the same negative effect on gun deaths as campaigns of abortion awareness have had on abortion rates.
2
More than 300 million guns are owned privately in the US. That makes, on average, close to 1 gun per person, including children. If more guns made people safer, why do we have such a high number of gun deaths and mass shootings in this country?
2
No wonder Ben Carson is rising in the GOP polls. He shares the apparently common delusion that it is the victims' own fault they were shot, while he (Carson) claims he would have instantly and heroically organized a counter-offensive to neutralize the shooter. A man who has never served in the military or law enforcement, mind you, is claiming to have a skill set he simply does not possess, but this being is a mass delusion is apparently not confined only to fantasists running for president.
9
I'm sorry but this reaction is so misguided. I don't understand how these people think they possess the lightning quick reflexes (let alone carrying around a loaded rifle or handgun all day long) to avert an attack by a determined, armed, mentally unstable person in their midst. You might get lucky once in a blue moon but realistically speaking, arming yourself to the teeth is not going to make one bit of difference. Deterrence doesn't work either since typically, these lone wolf shooters are suicidal and expect to die anyway.
5
Maybe it is time to split into two countries, hopefully in a peaceful manner, but people who insist on living in a certain way should and the rest of us can live in a sane world.
And I'd live in a wealthier happy country. Lawrence Wilkerson, Colin Powell's chief of staff gave a speech recently in Texas where he explained that without the money the coasts provide the south (and Oregon and Wyoming, etc) would be like Bangladesh. We support these crazy people.
And I'd live in a wealthier happy country. Lawrence Wilkerson, Colin Powell's chief of staff gave a speech recently in Texas where he explained that without the money the coasts provide the south (and Oregon and Wyoming, etc) would be like Bangladesh. We support these crazy people.
7
Hopefully there is no risk of future dementia or mental illness in those that promote gun ownership for safety. I say this because my senile neighbor, who owned a gun, almost killed my baby sitter when she thought it was an intruder. She heard noises at night in my backyard and decided to be a "good neighbor". Fortunately, she did not have good aim or eyesight.
Having a gun at home only raises the risk of accidents (and suicides). It also provides for a nice possession for those that break in.
Having a gun at home only raises the risk of accidents (and suicides). It also provides for a nice possession for those that break in.
5
One of the worst things my family had to do when our father was diagnosed with dementia was to find all his guns and dispose of them, so he wasn't at risk of, for example, shooting our mother in the middle of the night thinking she was an intruder. He had been a very responsible gun owner, a recreational hunter and shooter, a good shot. He was very safety conscious, taught me how to shoot, and always kept guns and ammunition separated. He didn't, however, lock them up. And he had a handgun. We couldn't take the risk that he might hurt himself, our mother or someone else, so we got the guns out of there. Families need to take responsibility for the guns in their homes when someone who has access to them is not of sound mind.
Sitting here in Canada, I am dumbfounded by the reaction to this terrible and senseless massacre - the solution is more guns. One letter writer stated he was convinced he family was safer because he had an AK-47 and other high-powered guns. Woe to anyone who trespassed on his home. Perhaps we should say woe to America and the irrational fear that permeates the country and leads to the killing each year of 33,000 of its citizens. There is no other highly developed country in the world that would permit this.
The president I admire the most, Franklin D. Roosevelt, stated the following:
"So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance."
Surely, in the name of all that is decency, American needs gun controls.
The president I admire the most, Franklin D. Roosevelt, stated the following:
"So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance."
Surely, in the name of all that is decency, American needs gun controls.
9
Within the last day a woman with a concealed pistol license shot an accused shoplifter in the parking lot of a Home Depot in Michigan after seeing security guards chase the accused. This is what happens when lots of people start carrying weapons. Not the kind of society that I want. Vigilante justice, where you can get the death stance for theft--decided by who ever is carrying.
I hope she is punished. I'm glad she missed. Things must change. It's become more than just protection. For many it seems its a fetish.
I hope she is punished. I'm glad she missed. Things must change. It's become more than just protection. For many it seems its a fetish.
12
Corrections--She shot "at" the accused shoplifter. She missed. Also "death sentence"
@Deb - there also was a recent incident of an armed "good guy" who tried to intervene in a carjacking at a gas station and ended up shooting the hostage in the head.
The crooks got away. The hostage is on life-support. The "good guy" picked up the empty shells and drove off.
Stuff happens.
The crooks got away. The hostage is on life-support. The "good guy" picked up the empty shells and drove off.
Stuff happens.
I live in Oregon. Douglas County has been hit so hard by the loss of money from the timber industry that they have had to cut back dramatically on county police, who serve much of the county due to the unincorporated areas that do not have municipal police forces. It's a different environment. Another thing not mentioned (and is very relevant) is that Douglas County is right in the Golden Triangle in Oregon, which is an area that's been great for growing large commercial marijuana operations. So, people do arm themselves because that brings some shady characters into the area. There's actually specific criminal entities that operate there that I won't name because who wants to get on their radar, but they exist. A friend of mine is an attorney from Eugene and when he has to go down there, he packs, and you might too.
A conservative approach to guns in our society. If we must accept murder and violence in our country because of the Second Amendment we should, at a minimum, treat guns like automobiles. A potentially lethal consumer product. Require all operators to have licenses. Require all operators to carry insurance, including liability. Have stiff penalties for those who do not follow the law. Delimit the places they may be used and clearly indicate proper usage. Similar to speed limits, limit the number of weapons and amount of ammunition that may be carried in a densely crowded area, or near a school. Require safety features, inspections, registration, etc. Track incidents and deaths. Respect non-users (i.e. pedestrians) safe zones, like cross-walks and have strong penalties for violating them. Clearly, there is not an exact comparison. Cars are designed to provide safe means of transportation; guns are engineered to kill. Community designated, accepted protections against dangerous products. Requiring insurance for all guns will help reveal the true cost of gun violence as insurance adjusters tally the cost of murder and maimed victims. This will provide little comfort to those who lose loved ones, but may encourage more responsibility.
3
For me, what's important is (1) a gun-carrying student didn't intervene because of rationally considering the risks to himself - so doesn't that poke big holes in arguments that such shootings won't occur if regular people are carrying? (2) Shouldn't the people that gave the shooter guns be considered accomplices, since he was obviously mentally disturbed for a long time? (3) Would school shootings (why suicidal people choose to gun down innocent people at schools is intriguing...but perhaps they had bad experiences at schools themselves and that needs to be in the conversation) be diminished by anything aside from greater airport-like security at schools; (4) The US had an assault weapons ban for 10 years which a cowardly Congress refused to renew - and I've not seen anybody make a good case that the US was a worse place to live during those ten years - so why not at least bring that back - we've been there and there were not documentable adverse effects on anybody's freedoms - the ones that count for actual freedom to live productively and in peace.
2
A well regulated militia should include regulations such as safety training and testing, registration of the weapon in national database and transfer of registration when resold, background check for criminal, addiction, mental history, gun liability insurance, and I like the Canadian system requirement that requires third party references as part of a gun purchase. Total time is somewhere between 30 -60 days. What we have now is no regulation at all, which would seem to be a violation of the constitution, and thats without even getting into the definition of a militia.
My father was Canadian born and told me once that when growing up in Calgary, Alberta that it was mandatory for all boys entering high school to be able to demonstrate breaking down and cleaning of a Lee/Enfield army rifle and then shoot it accurately. I found that amazing but it was the prairie country and just before WW2. To this day, Canadians have a somewhat high percentage of gun ownership with almost 30 for every 100 people. But they seem to do OK with the regulations.
My father was Canadian born and told me once that when growing up in Calgary, Alberta that it was mandatory for all boys entering high school to be able to demonstrate breaking down and cleaning of a Lee/Enfield army rifle and then shoot it accurately. I found that amazing but it was the prairie country and just before WW2. To this day, Canadians have a somewhat high percentage of gun ownership with almost 30 for every 100 people. But they seem to do OK with the regulations.
3
To every one who thinks that if the people in the classroom had all had a concealed weapon, they'd be alive today--that is a naive idea that is unsupported by science and that bastion of liberality, the U.S. military. Studies show that in most emergencies, people freeze up and literally cannot think or act. That's why soldiers and police spend months learning and re-learning automatic responses that enable them to overcome panic and respond quickly to gunfire. Only in Hollywood movies do kindergarten teachers yank out guns and shoot bad guys dead.
6
Sometimes, the seemingly rational solution is a bad solution at the aggregate level. A government who tightens its belt during an economic slowdown makes the economy worse (explained frequently by Prof Krugman). I was taught during the Great Depression, farmers tried to make more money by producing more, ironically leading to further price decline. A modern day analogy might be installing more AC's as the earth warms, thus hastening the warming even more.
5
Who would want to sit or teach in a college classroom where a selection of other people you don't really know may be carrying weapons - concealed or showing? You wouldn't know a thing about their training, their attitudes about safety, their use of drugs or alcohol, etc, etc. And you certainly wouldn't know up front if another person harbored the kind of intense resentment and anger focused on some other group. I would be petrified to sit or have a child sit in the classroom imagined, ala old west saloon.
5
It is highly relevant that there was an armed civilian close by when the shootings occurred last week. His conclusion that the police would have, on arrival, assumed he was the murderer and shot him on sight was entirely correct.
99% of the public, being untrained and unaccustomed to emergency situations, would not know how to handle themselves with a gun in the middle of a mass killing. This isn't the movies. Would a gun be potentially helpful to someone caught in such a situation? Yes, but an average of 20,000 people die from the flu every year and who runs around thinking of that danger all the time? More than 30,000 die in car crashes, but we all get in cars all the time without a second thought about the danger.
Reasonable measures to limit access to weapons will help, but they are not THE answer to randomized gun violence. There is no one answer.
The horrible reality about gun violence is that, if caught in the middle of it, there is very little one can do to counter act it. This is what creates the overreaction of, "I'm getting a gun." A small group of people, if they could agree on action, could rush a shooter (most would die) and stop him. Such coordinated action in total chaos is almost impossible.
Anything that can slow a shooter can ultimately result in stopping him. Even a paintball gun, firing rapidly at the eyes, could be useful, but, again, police arriving on the scene would represent a real danger to anyone trying to use one in that manner.
99% of the public, being untrained and unaccustomed to emergency situations, would not know how to handle themselves with a gun in the middle of a mass killing. This isn't the movies. Would a gun be potentially helpful to someone caught in such a situation? Yes, but an average of 20,000 people die from the flu every year and who runs around thinking of that danger all the time? More than 30,000 die in car crashes, but we all get in cars all the time without a second thought about the danger.
Reasonable measures to limit access to weapons will help, but they are not THE answer to randomized gun violence. There is no one answer.
The horrible reality about gun violence is that, if caught in the middle of it, there is very little one can do to counter act it. This is what creates the overreaction of, "I'm getting a gun." A small group of people, if they could agree on action, could rush a shooter (most would die) and stop him. Such coordinated action in total chaos is almost impossible.
Anything that can slow a shooter can ultimately result in stopping him. Even a paintball gun, firing rapidly at the eyes, could be useful, but, again, police arriving on the scene would represent a real danger to anyone trying to use one in that manner.
68
I agree with you that 99% of the public are untrained and would not know how to handle themselves in a live conflict. The other 1%, like me, are well trained in the use of handguns, have concealed carry permits, and practice frequently. I also disagree with the assumption that police arriving on the scene are a danger to the "good" guys armed and attempting to stop the assailant. They are well trained to discern the difference. And, there have been numerous cases where an assailant was stopped by a citizen carrying a weapon. The people of Roseburg understand this and their solution is to increase the 1% to a much higher number. And I agree.
"99% of the public, being untrained and unaccustomed to emergency situations, would not know how to handle themselves with a gun in the middle of a mass killing."
Absolutely correct. Let's not forget that shooters were also able to inflict mass casualties on US military bases multiple times - places that are full of highly trained marksmen. And even they couldn't stop it. The element of surprise combined with ubiquitous guns puts all of us at a disadvantaged position in our everyday lives - unless Americans are now ok walking down streets the same way the military clears a building, slowly looking around corners and darting from protected hiding place to protected hiding place...Not me. I'd rather give up the second amendment than live in a perpetual war-zone.
Absolutely correct. Let's not forget that shooters were also able to inflict mass casualties on US military bases multiple times - places that are full of highly trained marksmen. And even they couldn't stop it. The element of surprise combined with ubiquitous guns puts all of us at a disadvantaged position in our everyday lives - unless Americans are now ok walking down streets the same way the military clears a building, slowly looking around corners and darting from protected hiding place to protected hiding place...Not me. I'd rather give up the second amendment than live in a perpetual war-zone.
1
The chances of anyone being shot in a mass killing are incredibly small, figure something like .00001% and you wouldn't be far off. Therefore, the chance that the 1% who would not only be well trained but able to overcome the massive load of adrenaline that would surge into the body, distorting judgement and the ability to hold a weapon properly would be, perhaps, on the order of .00000001%. For myself, I would rather be well prepared and have those skills not needed, but if that meant carrying a gun all or most of the time, I'd have to say no.
Guns don't kill people, military empires kill people.
1
Gun control, now...starting with the police.
2
Ms. Carolyn Kellim, perhaps in his warped, psychotic world, Christopher Harper-Mercer may have been protecting himself from classmates he thought were planning to shoot him. Using your logic, you should applaud him for what he did. He was only protecting himself. Maybe the next time it happens, the shooter will be an upstanding citizen with no mental problems but just made an honest innocent mistake of judgement of what others were about to do to him/her.
1
Two responses to these massacres: One is to take away guns, eliminating them entirely. Another is to arm oneself to protect against the massacres' happening again. The latter is actually the more rational given the unlikelihood of eliminating all guns.
The very thorny challenge is to keep guns out of the hands of killers but leave them in the hands of law-abiding responsible citizens. Ms. Schmidt is right. There is no foolproof way to keep guns away from criminals or would be mass-killers, but that doesn't mean we should try.
The very thorny challenge is to keep guns out of the hands of killers but leave them in the hands of law-abiding responsible citizens. Ms. Schmidt is right. There is no foolproof way to keep guns away from criminals or would be mass-killers, but that doesn't mean we should try.
1
Correction: "...but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try."
Nonsense.
One would be hard-pressed to find a significant amount of people who are calling for the repeal of all guns.
Sorry, but most of us do not want to have to be armed as a matter of daily course, and it is ludicrous to call for such a dangerous and un-thinking arrangement.
We need to well-regulate, as the Constitution requires.
One would be hard-pressed to find a significant amount of people who are calling for the repeal of all guns.
Sorry, but most of us do not want to have to be armed as a matter of daily course, and it is ludicrous to call for such a dangerous and un-thinking arrangement.
We need to well-regulate, as the Constitution requires.
2
Saffron Lejeune:
Nonsense? Hardly. If I might borrow a typical rejoinder, "If you don't want to be armed, don't get a gun."
Nonsense? Hardly. If I might borrow a typical rejoinder, "If you don't want to be armed, don't get a gun."
1
Students prob shouldn't have guns, concealed w permits included. Fine.
But the President of this college disallowed armed police on campus. He has blood on his hands.
No college campus should be without highly trained, armed police.
Why wouldn't a loony target a place where he knows he can shoot freely for half an hour? He wouldn't target a police station or FBI softball game.
But the President of this college disallowed armed police on campus. He has blood on his hands.
No college campus should be without highly trained, armed police.
Why wouldn't a loony target a place where he knows he can shoot freely for half an hour? He wouldn't target a police station or FBI softball game.
6
What kind of country have we become when one of our citizens is able to write this sentence: "No college campus should be without highly trained, armed police." What a violent, deranged, paranoid country we've become. Do you even realize how sickening and frightening that sentence is? College campuses? But what about movie theaters: we've had two recent mass murders there. And what about beauty salons; post offices; offices in general since so many shootings happen at work places; churches; restaurants...lets face it...we need armed guards and citizens packing weapons everywhere in this country. Perhaps what it will take for this lunacy to stop will be for the tourism industry in the US to dry up completely. No one from anywhere in the world coming here for a vacation because they're terrified that they'll be murdered.
Really? Tell that to the victims of the attack on the Army recruiting office.
The kind of thinking behind the above post, that there are certain inviting targets where people are not armed, is very shortsighted. Almost everywhere we go, thankfully, there are no guns, except those worn by police officers. Many nations exist without armed police everywhere and, in England for example, police must pass special tests and have years of experience before being allowed to carry firearms. Here, police get them right out of the police academy.
I grew up around guns because my family lived on a very rural farm for five important years of my childhood. I do not fear them, nor do I hold them in a worshipful place of high value. They are not the key to "freedom". Even when I lived in a higher crime area of DC, I chose not to have a weapon in the house. This is not passivity in the face of danger, rather it is based on the realization that being armed is no guarantee of safety and is, in fact, something that creates an immediate heightened danger in most situations.
The idea that mentally ill mass shooters are deliberately picking "soft targets" is most likely the creation of the NRA. More guns equal more safety? How about we make an effort to nurture a more peaceful, less violent society where guns are not necessary? Is the goal of our society otherwise to be able to shoot anyone at any time?
I grew up around guns because my family lived on a very rural farm for five important years of my childhood. I do not fear them, nor do I hold them in a worshipful place of high value. They are not the key to "freedom". Even when I lived in a higher crime area of DC, I chose not to have a weapon in the house. This is not passivity in the face of danger, rather it is based on the realization that being armed is no guarantee of safety and is, in fact, something that creates an immediate heightened danger in most situations.
The idea that mentally ill mass shooters are deliberately picking "soft targets" is most likely the creation of the NRA. More guns equal more safety? How about we make an effort to nurture a more peaceful, less violent society where guns are not necessary? Is the goal of our society otherwise to be able to shoot anyone at any time?
These poor people are ignorant and frankly nuts.
11
Can the Oregon State Attorney General bring charges against Mrs. Skinner, the Roseberg killer's mother, for aiding and abetting her son's killings by providing him the guns and ammunition? And would this course of action not assist in pressuring the NRA, whacko gun owners (as opposed to responsible owners), and weak-kneed politicians to relent?
9
If residents want their town to be the wild wild west with everyone carrying a gun regardless of their mental state (especially since they require no background checks) then let them. The conservative politicians pushing this agenda will be the last people to visit this town, they'll be tucked away in Washington nice & safe. Will they bring guns to the Cinema, Restaurant, Bars, Schools, Hospitals,Churches?
4
So basically what we can expect in the future is a mentally deranged person with a gun will start shooting and kill 3 people (0 wounded) before the 12 Yosemite Sams packing their shoot'n irons will then gun down the initial shooter plus 3 Sams and 15 unarmed bystanders (wounding 30 others). Stand your ground laws means no one will be held accountable for those 18 manslaughters. #freedom.
13
We will only find success in addressing America's collective mental illness about guns when we acknowledge how murderous we are in relation to other civilized nations. Among OECD nations we have 30% of that body's population and 90% of firearms-inflicted deaths. We are sick, folks, ans we'll fail to heal until we face-up to our disease.
If a foreign power were responsible for an annual citizen death toll of 30,000+, we'd be at war. Look what happened after a one-time-only death toll of one-tenth that number on September 11, 2001. We're still paying that misadventure and will continue to do so as long as the eye can see.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
If a foreign power were responsible for an annual citizen death toll of 30,000+, we'd be at war. Look what happened after a one-time-only death toll of one-tenth that number on September 11, 2001. We're still paying that misadventure and will continue to do so as long as the eye can see.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
2
Someone coined the term fuzzy math for George W. Bush's spending cut proposals. These people have fuzzy thinking -- to be polite.
4
The tragic consequences of us being armed to the teeth by "good guys with a gun" is time and time again apparent although we refuse to see it. Just ask Michael Dunn, who tragically shot Jordan Davis and would have shot 4 other teenagers in a car over playing their music too loud. I would bet he was a good guy with a gun before he let racist rage overcome his best judgment. Ask the retired police officer who got into a huge argument in a movie theatre about a patron speaking too loud....the patron ended up dead. I bet he was "a good guy with a gun" before he let pride or cruelty overcome his best judgment. Many more of these tragedies happen in our communities than we care to know. It's time we grow up and take some of these weapons off the streets.
5
And, of course, there are the "good guys with the gun[s]" who find out their wives have cheated on them ... Or maybe just imagine that their wives have cheated on them ....
Tell me why a person needs an arsenal of 14+ weapons, why a non hunter, non rancher/farmer needs multiple semi automatic long guns. The farmers/ranchers/hunters I know have a hand gun, a varmint rifle, a couple of shotguns for birds and a rifle or two for deer/elk/bear/cougar. None are semi automatic. If all purchased weapons were recorded in a national registry, the 'accumulators' of weapons might trigger appropriate questions. The ban on assault rifles needs to be reinstated.
14
So should other activities such as fishing or bicycling require insurance as well ? People want to compare owning a gun to owning a car, but if only hunters are required to obtain insurance, would that be discrimination?
Perhaps I've missed it, but I haven't heard of mass classroom murders via fishing rod. Perhaps you are trying to make a terrible joke?
It seems to me that the most strident promoters of unbridled gun ownership rights assume that position to ensure that the objects of their personal fetish are always available.
4
All I can see in my mind eye about the burg in Oregon is a circular firing squad. If you are living back of beyond and you are that scared of the world, what's the point of being alive. Again, I run through the pro gun comments, mostly from men, and I wonder why they are so frightened of the world. I've been around longer than I would like to say, lived in a couple of major cities for many years, traveled for work, traveled at night, and I have never owned or wanted to own a gun. The aim of the disordered people is that everyone be armed and then they will feel justified in their anxiety and obsession. Maybe President Obama is wasting his time in the town. Sounds like they are incapable of any rational thought.
11
Yep, they all sound like they are scared/making up for some perceived inadequacy in themselves.
Live by the gun, die by the gun. The more you embrace violence and teach your children that it is a legitimate way of solving your problems, the more you will suffer from it in return. Unless you genuinely lack a soul, that is.
6
If guns are a means of protecting oneself and family this is not embracing violence, so there should not be an issue...
This country will become unrecognizable to me if so many people are armed and we start reporting on one another to the authorities (see related article about the contagion interpretation of mass shootings). As Mr. Parker in this article points out, someone shooting during a mass shooting may be mistaken for the original gunperson, not to mention that they may end up killing innocent bystanders. This seems to create new problems as it tries to solve another problem. And as far as I can tell from the discussion in the related article about contagion and reporting people to authorities, such reporting is for the sake of the community and doesn't seem to include helping the reported person reintegrate into society -- I see such an attitude as building more social and community distrust. Between NSA surveillance, more gun ownership, and reporting on people, we sound like a hunkered-down society, not the open society in which I grew up. I think we are letting the "bad guys" win by whittling away at our society from within it by our own "legal" actions of surveillance, more guns, and reporting on others (without a constructive objective).
4
This story shows what an incredible job the NRA is doing.
Someone with far more guns on hand than they could possibly need kills a lot of innocent people. The community responds by recognizing they need to buy even more guns to feel safe.
Cha-ching!
The NRA has done a darn fine job of feeding the coffers of the gun industry. And the coffins of the mortuary industry, as well.
Someone with far more guns on hand than they could possibly need kills a lot of innocent people. The community responds by recognizing they need to buy even more guns to feel safe.
Cha-ching!
The NRA has done a darn fine job of feeding the coffers of the gun industry. And the coffins of the mortuary industry, as well.
21
The fact that he had many guns was not the problem. One gun could easily be used to kill many in a school setting. VA Tech was the worst gun murder in US history. The killer used a normal handgun and standard capacity magazines.
4
I think you may be missing my point, which was targeted at both the violent crime and the community reaction. The NRA has evangelized the idea that you need more guns to protect people who have guns. The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun -- that's their perspective. This was espoused quite clearly after Sandy Hook. And look where it's gone from there -- concealed carry on campus, etc. Intense lobbying against any gun control measures. The propaganda linking patriotism, freedom, and gun ownership, a tidy little inseparable triad that supposedly connotes "real" American values. And look at how well the gun companies have been doing. Coincidence? I think not.
Did you even attempt to investigate who the NRA are and what the are about? Based on your comments, obviously you have not....
The reason the N.R.A. has fought aggressively and successfully to be exempt from product liability insurance is because if gun owners were required to carry a reasonable amount of insurance per gun that they own, Americans would be required to carry an additional $300,000,000,000,000.00 in insurance to cover the potential harm that their gun might cause. If gun manufacturers were responsible for covering the insurance on guns prior to sale, perhaps they would keep better track of them and less would wind up in the black market. Assuming a million dollars of insurance was paid out per gun death on average, gun insurers would have to pay out approximately $3.3 billion in claims annually. A pittance. The industry would profit 100 fold from gun insurance premiums. Or, people could simply decide they don't need that many guns.
24
Isn't this exactly the type of proposal that Bernie Sanders opposed for Vermont? There's nothing wrong with requiring gun owners to be responsible for paying for the potential harm their gun might cause.
2
Maybe the insurance industry lobby should take on the NRA.
Mr. Vicari wants a gun at home for protection. This is exactly the same logic that led the killer's mother to have guns around the house --- and to teach her child about guns. She wanted to feel safe too. This massacre is unlikely to have happened without a robust gun culture in her home. Sudbury MA, Sandy Hook, and now Roseburg... when will we learn that guns and children on the autism spectrum --- even "adult" children --- do not mix.
14
So Roseburg wants more guns! Can't believe this. Nine people died and many more injured with one person having a gun. So what happens when everyone is toting a gun? Is'nt it more people with guns results in a multiplication of numbers of dead and injured besides the fact that no man will be left standing. This knee jerk reaction is exactly what has to be prevented and fast.
5
So they think they need more guns. I think the people of Roseburg brought about what happened to their community with their gun-loving culture.
4
I find it very interesting that so many people here who have never even held a gun, much less gone through the process to acquire one, have such a strong opinion about this issue.
You know what would have stopped the Oregon tragedy? An armed security guard or an armed teacher. And for those about to say that there would be "accidents" and hurt more than it would help, then you're saying that mass shootings aren't frequent enough of an issue to warrant any change. in that case there is no need to pass additional gun control regulation. cant have it both ways folks.
You know what would have stopped the Oregon tragedy? An armed security guard or an armed teacher. And for those about to say that there would be "accidents" and hurt more than it would help, then you're saying that mass shootings aren't frequent enough of an issue to warrant any change. in that case there is no need to pass additional gun control regulation. cant have it both ways folks.
5
They're called teachers because they are trained to teach, not engage in gun battles with armed-to-the-teeth lunatics. Oh and armed security guards are usually called "police." Unless you are calling for police in every classroom--good luck paying all those police salaries--your proposals are ridiculous nonsense.
9
Most people have no idea how to get licensed or handle a gun. The licensing process can be very rigorous, especially in New York. Unfortunately, the more ignorant and fearful people are about guns, the less likely their proposals are to actually work.
The challenge is to find something that actually works rather than makes everyone feel safer when they are not (Jeb's vs. Obama's approach). The people most likely to find proposals that work are those that are not frightened to death of guns.
The challenge is to find something that actually works rather than makes everyone feel safer when they are not (Jeb's vs. Obama's approach). The people most likely to find proposals that work are those that are not frightened to death of guns.
2
An armed guard might have stopped it but wouldn't have prevented it. The shooter would have got any number of shots off before the guard jumped into action. There would still have been deaths. Not a solution.
My friend just called me after getting home from Roseburg on a grocery run. He said it is a mad scene there.
Main Street has every storefront covered with banners and giant signs, expressing love, telling Obama to go home. The Fred Phelps (rip) Family is there to scream down the funerals and there are heavily armed 2nd Amendmenteers strolling down Main Street. Add to it all, The Press, both National and International, and the folk who live there who are just trying to do their business, like my friend.
What a zoo.
To the People of Roseburg: I regret your loss. I regret your chaos. Breathe deeply and know that next week it will be better, maybe not by much, but you are a strong community. Haul each other along until then.
My best to you.
Main Street has every storefront covered with banners and giant signs, expressing love, telling Obama to go home. The Fred Phelps (rip) Family is there to scream down the funerals and there are heavily armed 2nd Amendmenteers strolling down Main Street. Add to it all, The Press, both National and International, and the folk who live there who are just trying to do their business, like my friend.
What a zoo.
To the People of Roseburg: I regret your loss. I regret your chaos. Breathe deeply and know that next week it will be better, maybe not by much, but you are a strong community. Haul each other along until then.
My best to you.
2
"D. C. Miller Lafayette, LA 3 hours ago
A strict constitutional constructionist should agree that what the framers had in mind for the right to bear arms was a muzzle loading single shot 5 foot long gun with ball ammunition. All other weapons including bombs, and rifles should be strictly regulated."
I guess "First Amendment Freedom of the Press" should only be printed on typeset and rolled on ink. I have heard this argument before by "Pick and Choose" people who only support the Constitutional Amendments that they agree with and shun the ones they don't like. I personally would protect all of them regardless of my personal position.
A strict constitutional constructionist should agree that what the framers had in mind for the right to bear arms was a muzzle loading single shot 5 foot long gun with ball ammunition. All other weapons including bombs, and rifles should be strictly regulated."
I guess "First Amendment Freedom of the Press" should only be printed on typeset and rolled on ink. I have heard this argument before by "Pick and Choose" people who only support the Constitutional Amendments that they agree with and shun the ones they don't like. I personally would protect all of them regardless of my personal position.
2
How about we treat every man (or woman) who wants to buy a gun like every woman who wants to get an abortion-- mandatory 48-hour waiting period, parental permission, a note from his doctor proving he understands what he's about to do, a video he has to watch about the effects of gun violence, an ultrasound... (just because). Let's close down all but one gun shop in every state and make him travel hundreds of miles, take time off work, and stay overnight in a strange town to get a gun. Make him walk through a gauntlet of people holding photos of loved ones who were shot to death, people who call him a murderer and beg him not to buy a gun. Then these two constitutionally protected rights would be treated about equally. And no woman getting an abortion has ever mowed down a roomful of bystanders in mere seconds. (thanks to a friend's facebook posting for much of this.)
29
The next time a massacre by a deranged maniac happens in a gun-friendly place like Roseburg, or so many other places in America, I'm sure that gun advocates will decide that having even more armed personnel around would not have prevented it and reconsider their stance on having ever more armed civilians around at all times. But somehow I doubt it.
2
If everyone in that classroom carried a concealed gun, they would be alive today. In this society, the only security is a firearm.
1
What about the rights of citizens to feel safe without owning a gun? Can you name any place with heavily armed citizens where your deterrence philosophy has worked? Because there are plenty where it hasn't-Bosnia, Afghanistan, Sudan, Somalia. All have lots of armed citizens and a very high rate of violence and gun deaths. Some evidence to the contrary, please??? Even in the Wild West of last century, guns had to be checked in with the sheriff when folks came into town.
I'm happy to report that you obviously live in a far scarier society than I do.
If everyone in that classroom carried a concealed gun, they'd have shot each other.
If everyone in that classroom carried a concealed gun, they'd have shot each other.
Background checks, waiting periods, closing loopholes and the like are all sensible steps, but ultimately marginal ones. This is a supply problem. If you manufacture millions of firearms and tens on millions (hundreds? billions?) of round of ammunition each year, they are going to make their way -- through theft, negligence and the black market -- into the hands of people who will do horrific things with them.
There is no dividing line between weapons made for upstanding citizens and those made for murders. They are the same guns, and as long as we are addicted to the former, we will pay the price for the latter. In this respect, even the most responsible, law-abiding gun owner is complicit in gun violence. They (and the rest of us) must decide if their right to a firearm trumps the rights of those gunned down every year. We can change -- it'll be long, hard, and expensive, but we can -- but it will require harder and more drastic choices than we seem comfortable discussing.
There is no dividing line between weapons made for upstanding citizens and those made for murders. They are the same guns, and as long as we are addicted to the former, we will pay the price for the latter. In this respect, even the most responsible, law-abiding gun owner is complicit in gun violence. They (and the rest of us) must decide if their right to a firearm trumps the rights of those gunned down every year. We can change -- it'll be long, hard, and expensive, but we can -- but it will require harder and more drastic choices than we seem comfortable discussing.
98
Alcohol is exactly the same in this regard. It is widely available and most people use it responsibly. However it contributes to about 88K deaths per year, almost 3X that of guns. Many of these people are innocent victims, not just the alcohol abusers. So are the responsible alcohol consumers complicit because they desire a product that can lead to abuse and death? Does their desire to drink trump the right of those who want to live?
We have already decided that our right to carry our guns wherever we want trumps other Americans' rights to go out in public and not have to worry about being shot. Individual rights are of absolute importance to us, and we've turned the collective right of public safety into a privilege only a limited few are allowed to enjoy.
We've made our coffin, but we have yet to lie in it.
We've made our coffin, but we have yet to lie in it.
Respectively disagree.
It's the 2nd Amendment...we ignore 'well regulated militia' and 'people' vs a person. We now have individuals stock piling arsenals...they are not 'well regulated' --when we change the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment (which really only changed recently to mean individuals) we'll no longer be 'infringing' on anyones rights.
It's the 2nd Amendment...we ignore 'well regulated militia' and 'people' vs a person. We now have individuals stock piling arsenals...they are not 'well regulated' --when we change the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment (which really only changed recently to mean individuals) we'll no longer be 'infringing' on anyones rights.
Stupid is as stupid does. Let's arm everyone! Last man, woman or child left standing wins.
6
It is the Constitution of the United States which specifically and clearly defines the role of firearms in our country: ownership of arms is linked to personal service in a Militia, well regulated by Congress. Here is what our Constitution has to say- Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15 - Congress has the power "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions". Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16 Congress has the power "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress". And of course, the Second Amendment itself, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". Militias - as originally envisaged in the late 1700s - bear no relevance to the world we live in today. They no longer exist in the United Sates anymore. Not because of any legislation, but because the people themselves see no need for them anymore. Our perceptions on ownership of firearms today need a re-evaluation. How many more people need to die in the United States because of the hubris of a few gun-toting fanatics?
9
The fact that we no longer need militias does not in any way alter the fact that the 2nd Amendment tell the government that it cannot interfere in the right to bear arms. Certainly we can amend the Constitution or future Supreme Courts will interpret it differently. But only obeying the laws that make sense sets a very dangerous precedent.
“That’s why we have guns: We don’t have the government dictating when to get on our knees,” said Ms. Kellim.
But it's okay for a twisted freak like whatzisname dictate to you when to get on your keens?
Or for the other freak to dictate to first-graders and elementary school teachers to do the same?
I don't understand this thinking. I just don't.
But it's okay for a twisted freak like whatzisname dictate to you when to get on your keens?
Or for the other freak to dictate to first-graders and elementary school teachers to do the same?
I don't understand this thinking. I just don't.
11
If you can't control anything, at least you can control a fantasy in which you role play. I get it. Dumb, but I get it.
2
We are the government. A government of the people by the peoole and for the people. We make laws.
And we enforce laws. No guns for felons or minors or on commercial planes. Do you agree?
And we enforce laws. No guns for felons or minors or on commercial planes. Do you agree?
Our intrepid Florida legislators are currently working to pass both open carry and guns on college campuses. I think it may be time those of us who aren't crazy shift gears and start demanding 100% open carry, with the provision that concealed carry be essentially eliminated. Then we will be instantly able to identify everyone who needs to armed to carry out normal daily activities and vote with our feet out of whatever restaurant, retail store, movie theater, etc. these people show up at. And we need to tell the businesses on our way out the door why we are leaving. At least with open carry I believe they will be required to have safeties, holsters, etc. Maybe then we'll get a private sector solution to the problem. I live in the gun-nut part of Florida and know lots of them; they are all inexplicably paranoid, needing to feel powerful, believe this somehow gets back at Obama, and/or actively harboring fantasies were they heroically intervene in a terrorist attack or other crime. They scare me a lot more than the criminals in the worst parts of town. I can generally avoid them.
9
All the evidence shows that having guns at home increases, and does not decrease, the odds of a family member dying (largely by massively increasing the odds of successful suicides but also due to accidental gunshots).
But everyone is a unique snowflake, so the clear evidence that we have is completely irrelevant, which is why people will continue to take actions absolutely contrary to their own interests, and lash out angrily at those who point this reality out.
But everyone is a unique snowflake, so the clear evidence that we have is completely irrelevant, which is why people will continue to take actions absolutely contrary to their own interests, and lash out angrily at those who point this reality out.
8
All of the evidence also shows that the vast majority of the 100M households with a gun never have a suicide or a gun accident. The fact that guns make it more common does not mean that we have an epidemic.
The solution is to reduce the suicide rate (more than half of the deaths) and promote greater gun safety to reduce the number of gun accidents. When the suicide rate falls, so do suicides by gunfire.
Every gun owner should be required to carry heavy insurance on every gun they own. Seriously heavy insurance would have folks thinking twice on these arsenals they own.
20
Make gun owners liable for damage, injury, or death caused by their gun, no matter who fired it. Same as for car owners. You want to own a gun, you're responsible for what people may do with it.
Why does the US have mass shootings frequently while the rest of the civilized world has them almost not at all?
Consider:
The US did this:
Doctors Without Border "reported that its hospital building was hit four or five times at intervals of about 15 minutes. No other building was hit, 'so we do not have doubts this building was targeted.'”
[snip]
"the bombing continued for 30 minutes after the aid group called military officials in Kabul and Washington to tell them they were striking a hospital."
The US is the only country to ever use atomic weapons on another country and neither city it bombed was a military target. Additionally, there was discussion at the time, and since, that the purpose of the bombing was more as a warning to the Soviet Union that as a military necessity to end the war--250,000 people killed as a propaganda ploy.
The US was founded on genocide and slavery and the slave holders always worried about an uprising by the slaves. Uprisings by the ancestors of slaves is still a fear among many white Americans and the police forces and judicial system of the country are still geared toward oppression of those ancestors.
The US killed about 3 million civilians during the war on Vietnam. Its sanctions regime after the war against recently former ally Saddam Hussein led to the deaths of about a million Iraqi civilians.
Why wouldn't a significant percent of the citizenry have a devotion to weapons of death?
Consider:
The US did this:
Doctors Without Border "reported that its hospital building was hit four or five times at intervals of about 15 minutes. No other building was hit, 'so we do not have doubts this building was targeted.'”
[snip]
"the bombing continued for 30 minutes after the aid group called military officials in Kabul and Washington to tell them they were striking a hospital."
The US is the only country to ever use atomic weapons on another country and neither city it bombed was a military target. Additionally, there was discussion at the time, and since, that the purpose of the bombing was more as a warning to the Soviet Union that as a military necessity to end the war--250,000 people killed as a propaganda ploy.
The US was founded on genocide and slavery and the slave holders always worried about an uprising by the slaves. Uprisings by the ancestors of slaves is still a fear among many white Americans and the police forces and judicial system of the country are still geared toward oppression of those ancestors.
The US killed about 3 million civilians during the war on Vietnam. Its sanctions regime after the war against recently former ally Saddam Hussein led to the deaths of about a million Iraqi civilians.
Why wouldn't a significant percent of the citizenry have a devotion to weapons of death?
3
americans think rambo and dirty harry were real people
1
Isn't it odd that as negatively as you have painted our history that much of the world still wants to come here? We are still the greatest nation on earth. I am proud to call it home.
And if you own property here or just about anywhere else, at some point it was stolen from someone through the use of force. Are you comfortable living on property that people died so that you could end up living there?
And if you own property here or just about anywhere else, at some point it was stolen from someone through the use of force. Are you comfortable living on property that people died so that you could end up living there?
We won't be truly safe until every man, woman, and child in this country is packing a gun. Preferably a fully automatic military-style assault rifle with a 30-cartridge clip. And bullet-proof vests and helmets. I mean, everybody should have a bullet-proof vest and helmet, right? Might as well throw in a few grenades, too. Then we'll all be safe. The reason the rest of the world doesn't have mass shootings every week should be obvious to anyone. It isn't that they aren't awash in guns, like we are. It's that they don't have mentally ill people. Duh!
5
It is extremely difficult to get a fully automatic weapon. You can't buy one that was manufactured before 1986. Those start at $15K - $20K for one that is not in great condition. If you are thinking of AR15 like rifles, those are not fully automatic and are no more dangerous than grandpa's deer rifle.
Anyone who has viewed Steven Spielberg's classic movie Sugarland Express--which is based upon an actual incident that took place in Texas in 1969--and observed the outcome of "some armed to the teeth good guys assisting the police" in capturing two wanted criminals, totally understands that the belief that having armed civilians intervene in emergent situations involving rogue shooters will mitigate deaths and injuries is lunacy.
3
It's especially sad and ironic that the Roseburg massacre occurred at the local community college, because it's obvious that the trigger-happy citizens of this burg need all the education they can get. Having more and more guns does not make you any safer, it will just increase the number of accidental shootings, suicides, and murders. And their largely inhospitable response to the prospect of the President calling upon the victims of this tragedy proves just how ignorant they are.
11
"Umpqua Community College only banned guns “without written authorization,” and students said many of their classmates carried concealed weapons. One of them, John Parker Jr., an Air Force veteran, told MSNBC that he was armed when the attack happened, but did not intervene. He said SWAT officers might have mistaken him for a killer."
This is undeniable truth. I've always said that if armed citizens started pulling guns in situations like this that there would be more dead, not less. That's why law enforcement officers wear uniforms, to distinguish them from the bad guys. I mean jeeze, even the U.S. military doesn't allow just anyone to carry a weapon on base.
This is undeniable truth. I've always said that if armed citizens started pulling guns in situations like this that there would be more dead, not less. That's why law enforcement officers wear uniforms, to distinguish them from the bad guys. I mean jeeze, even the U.S. military doesn't allow just anyone to carry a weapon on base.
12
I heard something different. I heard that John Parker chose to save himself rather than take the risk that he might get shot. He valued his own life over those of the 9 victims.
That is a despicable assertion, Bill. You have zero idea what was going on in his mind.
I truly wish more police and military would advise the general public that confronting a gunman requires specialized training. The three Americans who successfully prevented an attack on a Paris passenger train had military training. Chris Mintz was a Marine. In order to use a gun for self defense, you need specialized training.
7
Sad but not surprising. This is a community that gave birth to and elected Sheriff John Hanlin, who spread the scurrilous, heartless lies that the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary had been faked and the distraught parents on the news were paid actors in government propaganda. Roseburg residents better pray that no one spreads the same conspiracy theories about their dead, now that they've seen a massacre up close.
15
So is this how the end of humans on this planet might take place. Everyone is armed to the teeth and eventually we pick each other off until there's no one left.
3
The saddest part of this article is the belief expressed that having a gun on you protects you when all the data shows that it is only likely to result in your death. To Mr. Viccari who is thinking about buying a gun please don't. If someone with a gun wants you dead, you won't have time to even remember you are carrying one, and unless you are a battle hardened veteran, no amount of training can prepare you to immediately kill another human being in the face of potential danger. It just doesn't work that way, not now not before and not never.
8
The sentiment expressed in this article is amazing counterintuitive reasoning when it's proven that less guns in society makes one safer. Everyone ignores the number of suicides committed annually due to the proximity of this particular weapon of convenience. Our western mentality is mind-boggling in its base stupidity and reaction to possessing a weapon of which its sole purpose is to kill another human being. Yet we claim to be one nation under god. It gives one pause to think, but we don't.
Australia, New Zealand and Great Britain provide examples that having fewer guns in society is healthy and doesn't threaten our liberty. But, these examples fall on deaf, arrogant ears of obtuse defiance.
Australia, New Zealand and Great Britain provide examples that having fewer guns in society is healthy and doesn't threaten our liberty. But, these examples fall on deaf, arrogant ears of obtuse defiance.
5
Shouldn't people be able to decide whether they live or die? Certainly guns are the most effective means to suicide. Yes, we should help people who might change their minds, but the determined should be allowed to leave when they want.
The problem is that guns are a cultural icon, even a fetish, for the under-educated and rural poor in America, and that's who makes up the NRA. No amount of education or reason will change the minds of people who can barely read and write. Have you seen the low literacy of the posts on the NRA Facebook page? We are talking about low functioning people here. People with high IQs may own guns, but they do not join the NRA. As a result, the NRA is easily able to manipulate its rather dull membership. The result is an organization populated by a large number of puppets. That is not an organization that one should try to reason with. They need to be legislated out of existence.
7
Does the phrase "dumb as dirt" come to mind here. Many Americans need a powerful education (all the studies and systematic reviews on such issues as guns in homes vs no gun in the home, unlocked guns vs locked, loaded vs unloaded, etc,) to bring their thinking out of the dark ages on this violent epidemic. Does "1984" explain this insanity?
3
I am educated and have read many studies. Yes of course having a gun in the home provides a higher opportunity for it to be used in a negative fashion. But I have nobody who is high risk in my home and I take proper precautions. Given that 100M homes have guns, the rate of abuse is actually pretty low.
So the police responded in 5 minutes? Wonder what they would have done if they had encountered a few dozen people openly displaying weapons during a massacre? John Parker, the Air Force vet who was on campus and was carrying said it best. "SWAT officers might have mistaken him for a killer." How is LE supposed to discern shooter from non-shooter in a split second when both have guns visible? They won't.
5
I'd be upset and angry too if national-level politicians attempted to exploit a tragedy in my town of residence to pursue a political agenda, without any real concern as to the people dead or the thoughts of the people alive.
If Gun Control, Inc. didn't pursue any gun violence as if it is a photo op this would be less of an issue.
And let's be blunt. President Obama has presided over the deaths of many, many people while in office, in military campaigns and otherwise. He has no concern whatsoever about a handful of people killed in a shooting in Oregon beyond the ability it gives him to opportunistically photo-op in front of his base.
If Gun Control, Inc. didn't pursue any gun violence as if it is a photo op this would be less of an issue.
And let's be blunt. President Obama has presided over the deaths of many, many people while in office, in military campaigns and otherwise. He has no concern whatsoever about a handful of people killed in a shooting in Oregon beyond the ability it gives him to opportunistically photo-op in front of his base.
1
They don't call it America's cultural sickness for no reason. We are the only peer civilized nation that suffers from it..
Like drunk driving was yrs ago...condoned...
There are hopeful signs though... despite all the hype from the extreme right wing gun lobby, family ownership of guns is actually down from a high of about 50% to a low of about 30%, and ironically the south has led the way in the decline according to nat. public opinion polls that track this over time and is the gold standard.
Like drunk driving was yrs ago...condoned...
There are hopeful signs though... despite all the hype from the extreme right wing gun lobby, family ownership of guns is actually down from a high of about 50% to a low of about 30%, and ironically the south has led the way in the decline according to nat. public opinion polls that track this over time and is the gold standard.
6
That 50% to 30% statistic is something that the very liberal GRSS puts out. Yes it does appear that it is gradually going down, but not that much. Gallup shows that the current rate is 42% compared to 43% in 1972.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx
from 1960 till today it is a 8% drop..and not a tremendous increase like the extreme right wingers would like us to believe, others national polls shows a much bigger drop...the average is usually 50% down to around 1/3 from 1960...
1
Firearms were used to kill 8,124, or 68 percent, of the nation’s 11,961 murder victims in 2014. (Most of the other 3,837 victims were stabbed, clubbed, beaten, kicked or stomped to death.) Americans have over 300 million guns. This means about 0.002 percent of America’s firearms are used each year in homicides. So, we need to confiscate three thousandth of one percent of U.S. firearms. This wouldn’t reduce the number of murders by 68 percent, since there would be an increase in the number of people stabbed, clubbed, beaten, kicked or stomped to death. But we would probably see a significant dip in murders for perhapshalf a decade, until the wizards of lethal gadgetry devise new ways of killing people. The assertion that more gun ownership leads to more gun violence is debatable. Virtually all gun violence is intraracial rather than interracial. According to the Washington Post, “The new research also suggests a paradox: While blacks are significantly more likely than whites to be gun homicide victims, blacks are only about half as likely as whites to have a firearm in their home (41% vs. 19%). Hispanics are less likely than blacks to be gun homicide victims and half as likely as whites to have a gun at home (20%).” The only solution is to create a society in which fewer people turn homicidal
2
why are you just looking at murder statistics? Over 30,000 people die annually from gun violence in the US. Decreasing the prevalence of guns, and instituting some additional controls on gun purchases and on high-capacity quick-firing guns would save a lot of lives right here in the US.
Years ago, researching a Sociology paper at UNH, I found a scholarly treatise by a Scandinavian author-- on the nature of male behavior. A fasc-inating read. This report suggested male homo sapiens is the most dangerous animal on earth & can only be safely controlled by "secret male societies" under strict control of older, alpha males to teach them, not to be less brutal (impossible) bur through training consciously inculcate young males as to when/where brutality can appropriately be used in civilization: war; contact sports; hunting for food/recreation. That this training begin no later than age 7. The report posited mandatory training in isolation from women&kids, something unconsciously provided by groups-- boy scouts, boarding school, military, male clubs, men-only contact sports, male professions, etc. & that these offered a certain amount of protection; however, he projected these groups would soon break down, along with protection men's isolation from society provided, as women clamored for equality&young, unindoctrinated men&women questioned institutions of war & marriage. At the time, I thought this was a very interesting justification for hanging on to status quo. Now his words seem more true: Too many men, gorged on non-stop, violent entertainment, wearing real & pretend uniforms think of themselves as Wyatt Earp or Genghis Kahn; fearful&unconscious they roam the world looking for weaker creatures to tear apart.
4
I wonder how many people from Roseburg read the NYT's article "On the Mother of the Oregon Gunman" or anything about Adam Lanza's mother. It shows how deeply gun culture has worked its way into the psyches and personalities of so many people in this country. It is unimaginable that any single mother anywhere else in the world, trying her best to cope with a son who has severe difficulties would do so by buying him guns and training him in their use.
17
Do any of these individuals read the statistics on this issue? Rarely, does a gun protect you in your house; more frequently, however, a gun will harm someone in your house.
1
I grew up in a hunting family--not like the person who killed Cecil the Lion--but my father taught us that we only killed animals for food. My father and later, my husband, killed rabbits, squirrels, deer and they were prepared as food just like the hogs, chickens and cattle we raised for the same purpose. We knew, and our children knew, that all guns were assumed to be loaded and were kept out of the reach of children until they knew the danger and respected what a gun can do.
I was an adult before the first mass shooting and I do believe we have a mental health problem in our country. But guns don't kill people by themselves. They have become a tool in the hands of youth who have been desensitized to violence by video games and gang wars in our cities. I shudder to think of the consequences of living as a private citizen without guns. There is not a shred of doubt in my mind that MY family is safer because we have an AK-47, several high-powered deer rifles, a shotgun, and a couple of handguns in our arsenal. Many of these are guns that have been passed down for generations and that accounts for the number we have. If a criminal were to break into our home, it would be his last mistake.
I was an adult before the first mass shooting and I do believe we have a mental health problem in our country. But guns don't kill people by themselves. They have become a tool in the hands of youth who have been desensitized to violence by video games and gang wars in our cities. I shudder to think of the consequences of living as a private citizen without guns. There is not a shred of doubt in my mind that MY family is safer because we have an AK-47, several high-powered deer rifles, a shotgun, and a couple of handguns in our arsenal. Many of these are guns that have been passed down for generations and that accounts for the number we have. If a criminal were to break into our home, it would be his last mistake.
45
You sound exactly like the people in Roseburg. For the life of me, I cannot understand the mentality that makes you believe you NEED an AK-47 or, for that matter, an arsenal. You have crossed the line from using hunting rifles to hunt for food to building an arsenal of weapons you think you need.
21
Do you have an alarm system? Telephone near where you sleep? Do you walk around your house constantly armed?
Would you like to play some domestic war games (no lethal weapons allowed--it's a game)?
Do you know that at some times of the night each of us is so deeply asleep that someone could pretty much kick your door down and walk right in (unless you have an alarm system of some kind).
Or perhaps a dog: but then you don't need all your guns.
Would you like to play some domestic war games (no lethal weapons allowed--it's a game)?
Do you know that at some times of the night each of us is so deeply asleep that someone could pretty much kick your door down and walk right in (unless you have an alarm system of some kind).
Or perhaps a dog: but then you don't need all your guns.
11
His last mistake in that you would buck the extreme odds and dispatch him? Or the much more likely statistical outcome that your guns are stolen so he now has nothing to worry about? Or the other more likely, but tragic, outcome that someone in your family grievously injures someone else in your family, thereby causing so much suffering that a break-in seems like a relief?
13
There is no viable reason to own a gun, other than in the hunting of legal game, or in the defense of your own life. And defending your life with a gun is less likely than being struck by lightning, even with over 300 million guns in the US
A gun in the home is far more likely to be stolen, used for suicide, harm a child accidentally, be used in violence between family members or be wrongfully discharged than to be used to defend your life. The statistics on this are overwhelming!
A gun in the home is far more likely to be stolen, used for suicide, harm a child accidentally, be used in violence between family members or be wrongfully discharged than to be used to defend your life. The statistics on this are overwhelming!
11
Statistics mean absolutely nothing when someone is breaking into your house at 3 am. Would you rather have a gun or not in that situation?
I've never understood how a loaded gun is going to do me any good if I wake up to a stranger standing in my bedroom. If it's kept in any remotely safe way, it's not going to help. Now an alarm system or a dog...
2
Not. I would rather have a cell phone by my bed and call 911. A large dog would also be good.
1
It's almost impossible to figure out exactly what's going on, who the shooter is, and to decide to use deadly force, when you are in a situation like this. Even the police have a hard time figuring out what's up. There's virtually no way a private citizen in the middle of a massacre is going to be able to respond appropriately, which is why it never happens. As the article states, there was at least one person in the school who was armed, but he decided not to use his weapon because he didn't want the police to think he was the shooter. The idea that more weapons is the answer is a fantasy.
But our current focus on mass shootings is distracting us from the real problems, statistically, of gun violence in our country. Gun violence is primarily a problem of homicide of young African-American males, and suicide of middle-aged and older white men. Mass shootings, as affecting as they are, are statistically a minor blip. And they require very different answers to the situations that are actually killing a lot of people.
Let's focus on the real problems -- homicide and suicide among these groups -- and try to find answers that are appropriate to them.
But our current focus on mass shootings is distracting us from the real problems, statistically, of gun violence in our country. Gun violence is primarily a problem of homicide of young African-American males, and suicide of middle-aged and older white men. Mass shootings, as affecting as they are, are statistically a minor blip. And they require very different answers to the situations that are actually killing a lot of people.
Let's focus on the real problems -- homicide and suicide among these groups -- and try to find answers that are appropriate to them.
5
This type of tragedy and the increase on the ownership of the guns are in a vicious circle that reinforce each other. Until Americans stop being selfish by focusing on their own safety and rather, focus on the effect of having hundreds of millions of guns in a country with a population of about 300 millions, this type of tragedy will continue to occur on a regular basis.
5
"Until Americans stop being selfish by focusing on their own safety "
We have a new and expanded definition of selfishness, thanks to you. I prefer to think of it as "self-preservation". If not wanting to die is selfish, so be it.
We have a new and expanded definition of selfishness, thanks to you. I prefer to think of it as "self-preservation". If not wanting to die is selfish, so be it.
I guess we will all die together.
1
People don't realize that they're being manipulated to enrich the gun manufacturing and sales industry. I would hate to be frightened and packing heat all of the time. I never even think about guns.
It's disgraceful to the office of the president and treasonous to say the president is unwelcome in Roseburg. Years ago I was proud that a president visited the community that I lived in even though I disagreed with his politics. They're disrespecting America, not Obama.
It's disgraceful to the office of the president and treasonous to say the president is unwelcome in Roseburg. Years ago I was proud that a president visited the community that I lived in even though I disagreed with his politics. They're disrespecting America, not Obama.
18
Obama is disrespecting America by continually trashing the Constitution. He is not the king, and people are free to express their feelings about him. Or would you like to take away our free speech rights as well?
when i read your comments why do i feel im listening to fox news ?
1
The insane concept of arming the "good guys" may be our nation's mental illness.
Those walking around with guns up their sleeves or tucked in holsters around their waists are the very ones most of us fear.
Hey, I'm a good guy. But I don't know about you.
Those walking around with guns up their sleeves or tucked in holsters around their waists are the very ones most of us fear.
Hey, I'm a good guy. But I don't know about you.
10
So Many in Roseburg in response to these killings object to the president trying to tell them how to do things a little better, maybe tightening up on the mentally ill's ability to buy guns. How ignorant and miseducated can people be. I say we are wasting a lot of tears crying for a community like that. Let's work on trying to protect communities of normal people. Let Roseburg and other communities like that learn tat paranoia and grandstanding are no way to run a community in this day and age.
6
Who is grandstanding? The president is going to go there and suggest a bunch of things that would have not stopped that shooting or any other of the mass shootings like Sandy Hook. And all for political reasons. Who is really doing the grandstanding?
@Mike- these people don't want to think for themselves, instead they think being paranoid all the time is the way to live. I'm beginning to think that even if their own kids were killed by a handgun they would not change their minds as per many a statement by the locals there. Even the National guard guy who said he had a gun in school while the shooting was taking place, decided not to use it in defense of others fearing that the cops might shoot him also... there you go, a gun nut, all talk, no action, being selfish, i bet he is one of those macho guys bragging how he would save the Earth from aliens if given the chance.. Being a local yokel stuck in the boonies is something to avoid completely.
1
Across America wherever there are strict, very prohibitive gun laws the results are always the same. The population, disarmed, cannot defend itself. New York, Chicago, New Jersey and other states and cities have tragic rates of slaughter by gunmen. Most of them get their guns illegally. Chicago, where very strict laws are enforced, just two weeks ago experienced more than 54 shootings and 7 dead in a four day period. The strict gun laws did not protect one innocent civilian. In New York and Baltimore, also bastions of strict restriction of guns, the slaughter continues day after day. Washington DC is another example of gun law failure.
Why must innocent people be denied the right of self defense? Why are there calls for gun registry? Nazi Germany made good use of laws like that to disarm the opposition. America is not Nazi Germany. The citizens of Mexico are disarmed and drug dealers rule with horrific violence.
It is not irrational to defend yourself. It is not irrational to protect your home, car and family.
If you disarm America the criminals will have a field day. We can't dial 911 in the midst of assault or home invasion. School kids should not have to cower in closets or under desks. That is irrational.
Remember how the Nazis overran Europe and slaughtered disarmed Jews and Gypsies. Remember the Warsaw Ghetto. Being disarmed invites tragedy and criminal behavior.
Let the bad guys live in fear. The rest of us want to protect and defend ourselves.
Why must innocent people be denied the right of self defense? Why are there calls for gun registry? Nazi Germany made good use of laws like that to disarm the opposition. America is not Nazi Germany. The citizens of Mexico are disarmed and drug dealers rule with horrific violence.
It is not irrational to defend yourself. It is not irrational to protect your home, car and family.
If you disarm America the criminals will have a field day. We can't dial 911 in the midst of assault or home invasion. School kids should not have to cower in closets or under desks. That is irrational.
Remember how the Nazis overran Europe and slaughtered disarmed Jews and Gypsies. Remember the Warsaw Ghetto. Being disarmed invites tragedy and criminal behavior.
Let the bad guys live in fear. The rest of us want to protect and defend ourselves.
1
Oh that is such utter, utter nonsese all around.
7
I would guess most of the people shot in Chicago were carrying guns at the time or owned guns. Gun play among poor African American gang members has very little to do with the reality of most Americans.
I was born in the South Bronx in 1947. I lived, played and went to school there. My parents were born in Bronx and Brooklyn. I remember a safe, secure, non-violent city. Mom and Dad would take me and my sister on the train almost every weekend from the Bronx, to Manhattan and then on to Brooklyn. We stood alone at night on the platforms waiting for trains. There was never the thought of assault least of all gun fire. We would never, ever have thought of a need for a gun or the right to carry it in self-defense.
This is a different world. The world of my childhood is gone. New York, Brooklyn, Baltimore, Chicago, Philadelphia and other cities are filled with armed criminals. I've lived in all of those cities. It used to be safe and peaceful.
I don't want to ever have to defend myself. I'm not interested in violence.Criminals however, in this world, don't care how much damage they do. I'm now a senior citizen. I can't run fast or easily punch an assailant. I'd much rather live in the world I used to know. Not happening. Criminals are armed to the teeth. That's reality. I now live in gated, retirement community in Florida. The Villages is an armed camp. There is no violence, no gun play, no drive by shootings. We're safe. That is reality. Yes, I have my CCW permit. At night outside The Villages I may carry or not. I am a 1966 Army veteran. I know how to handle my firearm. I don't want to ever, ever use it. But, I will not be a victim. Preserve my right to live without fear.
This is a different world. The world of my childhood is gone. New York, Brooklyn, Baltimore, Chicago, Philadelphia and other cities are filled with armed criminals. I've lived in all of those cities. It used to be safe and peaceful.
I don't want to ever have to defend myself. I'm not interested in violence.Criminals however, in this world, don't care how much damage they do. I'm now a senior citizen. I can't run fast or easily punch an assailant. I'd much rather live in the world I used to know. Not happening. Criminals are armed to the teeth. That's reality. I now live in gated, retirement community in Florida. The Villages is an armed camp. There is no violence, no gun play, no drive by shootings. We're safe. That is reality. Yes, I have my CCW permit. At night outside The Villages I may carry or not. I am a 1966 Army veteran. I know how to handle my firearm. I don't want to ever, ever use it. But, I will not be a victim. Preserve my right to live without fear.
1
"Many in the Oregon community said the shooting rampage had only increased their belief in the importance of owning guns." We live in a SICK SOCIETY, ladies and gentlemen.
13
i'm not surprised at all- i lived in that area for about 2 years and I was born and raised in Manhattan. Self centered arrogance and stupidity dominates in Roseburg and most of rural Oregon.
More guns = more murders. People who don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it.
5
Don't knock it until you have tried it, join a club where fire arms safety is the first and only rule, learn how to safely handle a fire arm, take the extensive training available by qualified instructors, practice at a range and never sit idle as a poor fellow with mental health problems uses you and your love ones for targets. Obey the very strict laws which dictate fire arms ownership and feel safe. And of course get fire arms out of the hands of these disturbed mentally ill individuals, get them the treatment they require.
I have shot since I was a kid. I have a CCW. I have spent a lot of time on ranges. The aggregate effect has been to gradually convince me that a large plurality of the gun owners in this country are incompetent or barely-competent yahoos who have never seriously considered the psychological or legal dimensions of the application of lethal force.
It is precisely my time spent with firearms enthusiasts that persuades me that firearms ownership should be heavily regulated — at least as heavily regulated as motor vehicles, and probably substantially more so.
It is precisely my time spent with firearms enthusiasts that persuades me that firearms ownership should be heavily regulated — at least as heavily regulated as motor vehicles, and probably substantially more so.
3
So sad, these people and their tragically misinformed views.
Number of mass shootings stopped by a good guy with a gun: zero, and holding firm.
Number of mass shootings stopped by a good guy with a gun: zero, and holding firm.
5
Texas, one armed officer defeats two heavily armed assailants with body armor.
not true. a guy with a gun took out a shooter at a hospital in boston several years ago.
I guess that case (singular) proves the rule. Should I bother looking up one of the cases where a family member was shot by accident?
1
These same individuals are also always reminding us of "American exceptionalism" and "how great is America". But at the same time, these individuals are so afraid inside their own (apparently fantastic) country that they feel the need to always "protect themselves" whenever they simply go to the supermarket, movie theater, etc. How great can things actually be then?
6
So play this out. Suppose half the people in the Oregon classroom were armed. Would they have sufficient training, reflexes and courage to reach for their weapon and shoot another human being, no matter how menacing?
And let's suppose that the police, guns drawn, rush into the room. Who do they know who to shoot? Would the armed students be disciplined enough not to immediately start shooting at the police, too?
If the killer is shooting, some of the students are shooting, and the police are shooting, what about those in the classroom who don't have guns? Are they just supposed to die or be wounded by all the gunfire, and regret that they weren't armed so that they could return fire?
Maybe what we need in this mad nation is a law mandating that every citizen be armed at all times and in all places to protect themselves from mad men with lots of guns. Then the only question might be, are we sufficiently "well regulated" to fend off crazy people, government troops, and the jerk next door? Some may be good folks, some bad, but at least everyone, presumably, could shoot and shoot back and keep shooting until lots of blood was spilled and lives lost and the gunfire abates.
And let's suppose that the police, guns drawn, rush into the room. Who do they know who to shoot? Would the armed students be disciplined enough not to immediately start shooting at the police, too?
If the killer is shooting, some of the students are shooting, and the police are shooting, what about those in the classroom who don't have guns? Are they just supposed to die or be wounded by all the gunfire, and regret that they weren't armed so that they could return fire?
Maybe what we need in this mad nation is a law mandating that every citizen be armed at all times and in all places to protect themselves from mad men with lots of guns. Then the only question might be, are we sufficiently "well regulated" to fend off crazy people, government troops, and the jerk next door? Some may be good folks, some bad, but at least everyone, presumably, could shoot and shoot back and keep shooting until lots of blood was spilled and lives lost and the gunfire abates.
6
An aspect of this debate that seldom gets analysis concerns the ability of the gun owner to safely and effectively use that weapon.
I served in RVN and saw more than my share of firefights. Because of extensive training, most troops did ok. However, some froze at the sound of fire or the thought of being fired upon. Others panicked and fired wildly at anything...sometimes their fellow soldiers.
My point is that a person just doesn't know how he or she will react in a live fire situation. It has nothing to do with heroism or cowardice. It has a lot to do with hours, days, weeks, and months of training. This training teaches the person, ideally, to learn to fire at another human being with what's called "fire discipline". How many civilians are willing to spend the time it takes to acquire that discipline?
Imagine, a crowded school or theater with many of the people armed. With the unnerving sound of fire going on, many shooters and only one is hostile, How many people can coolly identify the hostile, draw down on him, aim with accuracy, squeeze the trigger...all while the hostile may be firing at your direction? I think not very many. The likely result? Many shot by accident by "friendly fire", including police officers.
I did all of this 40+ years ago, but the lessons I learned have dimmed. I question whether I could be a disciplined, effective counter force today.
I served in RVN and saw more than my share of firefights. Because of extensive training, most troops did ok. However, some froze at the sound of fire or the thought of being fired upon. Others panicked and fired wildly at anything...sometimes their fellow soldiers.
My point is that a person just doesn't know how he or she will react in a live fire situation. It has nothing to do with heroism or cowardice. It has a lot to do with hours, days, weeks, and months of training. This training teaches the person, ideally, to learn to fire at another human being with what's called "fire discipline". How many civilians are willing to spend the time it takes to acquire that discipline?
Imagine, a crowded school or theater with many of the people armed. With the unnerving sound of fire going on, many shooters and only one is hostile, How many people can coolly identify the hostile, draw down on him, aim with accuracy, squeeze the trigger...all while the hostile may be firing at your direction? I think not very many. The likely result? Many shot by accident by "friendly fire", including police officers.
I did all of this 40+ years ago, but the lessons I learned have dimmed. I question whether I could be a disciplined, effective counter force today.
31
Live by the gun. Die by the gun. What surprises me still is that such incidents cause any surprise. And well-armed people should be forearmed against the grief of loss if and when it comes. Let's move on. There's nothing new to learn here.
3
This month marks the 40th anniversary of my spending a week working in Roseburg, Oregon. There are many places in the world where being an outsider and not knowing anyone make for a poor sense of wellbeing and isolation. Roseburg is one of them and I still remember my return to the coast and how quickly my loneliness wasn't as nearly depressing or debilitating.
The people of Roseburg were kind and courteous but somehow one felt one had green skin and antennae sticking out of one's head. This week America came to Roseburg and their solution is getting further into the cocoon. How sad.
I think of Roseburg's future as a gun free family friendly tourist enclave then I remember the peoples that settled America and how they were looking to get away from the rest of humanity. New York is an aberration, what a silly concept everybody's home away from home the crossroads of the world. The belief that Roseburg and New York can exist in the same richest most diversified country in the world boggles the mind. I think Americans are beginning to realize the dream is over time to wake up, the chasm is far too wide.
The people of Roseburg were kind and courteous but somehow one felt one had green skin and antennae sticking out of one's head. This week America came to Roseburg and their solution is getting further into the cocoon. How sad.
I think of Roseburg's future as a gun free family friendly tourist enclave then I remember the peoples that settled America and how they were looking to get away from the rest of humanity. New York is an aberration, what a silly concept everybody's home away from home the crossroads of the world. The belief that Roseburg and New York can exist in the same richest most diversified country in the world boggles the mind. I think Americans are beginning to realize the dream is over time to wake up, the chasm is far too wide.
4
Oregon is like that pretty much everywhere. I read an article a while ago I cannot recall exactly what the journal was, the quote that sticks is this "It's a bit of a cottage industry in Oregon to encourage travelers to keep on traveling."
As for your NY/OR comparison you lost me.
I have no idea what you are trying to say, and what it does say is nonsensical.
As for your NY/OR comparison you lost me.
I have no idea what you are trying to say, and what it does say is nonsensical.
Not sure what your point is here. The killer wasn't native to Roseburg. You can't be saying Roseburg made him do it.
G,
That is exactly what I am saying. America is a country of outsiders. New York embraced outsiders. I have worked in small cities and towns across Canada and the USA. There are too many places where even if you are born there you are and always will be an outsider. America's strength has been in its ability to turn outsiders into insiders there are too many town, small cities and suburbs where there is no entry into the community. The alienation is a product of paranoia and xenophobia and that is the GOP winning formula. I live in a large village that used to be town before the mill closed. People do not understand that we never felt afraid of Chicago's South Side because we knew the rules. The rules of small towns are particularly difficult to understand and the rules of suburbs even more so.
I have lived in cities and villages all my life but have never understood the proper behaviour for places like Roseburg and that is frighteninjg especially for someone who likes an evening stroll before bedtime.
That is exactly what I am saying. America is a country of outsiders. New York embraced outsiders. I have worked in small cities and towns across Canada and the USA. There are too many places where even if you are born there you are and always will be an outsider. America's strength has been in its ability to turn outsiders into insiders there are too many town, small cities and suburbs where there is no entry into the community. The alienation is a product of paranoia and xenophobia and that is the GOP winning formula. I live in a large village that used to be town before the mill closed. People do not understand that we never felt afraid of Chicago's South Side because we knew the rules. The rules of small towns are particularly difficult to understand and the rules of suburbs even more so.
I have lived in cities and villages all my life but have never understood the proper behaviour for places like Roseburg and that is frighteninjg especially for someone who likes an evening stroll before bedtime.
1
For the sake of intellectual honesty:
It should be known that the “Roseburg Beacon” is a right-wing propaganda publication co-owned by former Republican County Commissioner Marilyn Kittelman, who was almost recalled, and defeated after one term. Mr. Jaques ran her campaign. Jaques was also campaign manager for Art Robinson, the right wing candidate who lost two times to Congressman Peter DeFazio (D)
The primary news publication in the Roseburg area is the News-Review.
It should be known that the “Roseburg Beacon” is a right-wing propaganda publication co-owned by former Republican County Commissioner Marilyn Kittelman, who was almost recalled, and defeated after one term. Mr. Jaques ran her campaign. Jaques was also campaign manager for Art Robinson, the right wing candidate who lost two times to Congressman Peter DeFazio (D)
The primary news publication in the Roseburg area is the News-Review.
13
Are you saying the Roseburg News-Review is "left-wing propaganda publication"?
No, the News-Review, in my opinion, slants to the right but is not extreme.
Well since one in three Americans own guns one would think this would be "enough" if the solution is for more *good guys* to be armed.
On the other hand, we seem to have a problem telling just what constitutes a *good guy* with a gun ... until he (HE, typically not SHE) pulls the trigger and kills someone, in this case multiple someone(s). THEN we seem to have a lot of clarity about the issue. Sadly then it is too late for those on the receiving end of that gun.
I think we should have more of a discussion about that Well Regulated Militia that is Necessary for the Security of a Free State which the Founders saw as the reason for the right to keep and bear arms. I see nothing in the argument by those opposed to gun control about their thoughts on how the militia should be regulated. Why the silence on the issue, and to what militia do they belong? In my mind, a gaggle of gun-totin' Tbaggers isnt what the Founders envisioned.
On the other hand, we seem to have a problem telling just what constitutes a *good guy* with a gun ... until he (HE, typically not SHE) pulls the trigger and kills someone, in this case multiple someone(s). THEN we seem to have a lot of clarity about the issue. Sadly then it is too late for those on the receiving end of that gun.
I think we should have more of a discussion about that Well Regulated Militia that is Necessary for the Security of a Free State which the Founders saw as the reason for the right to keep and bear arms. I see nothing in the argument by those opposed to gun control about their thoughts on how the militia should be regulated. Why the silence on the issue, and to what militia do they belong? In my mind, a gaggle of gun-totin' Tbaggers isnt what the Founders envisioned.
7
The source of the problem is people feeling powerless and worse not having any hope of that changing in the future.
Whatever the particular cause in any individual case the fact is we have less control over how our lives go today than at any time since our founding, unless of course you buy the fantasy of pretending to be an “independent self motivated self sufficient” person.
The destruction of regulation and standards of behavior, encouragement and legalization of predatory practices that used to be considered vice (Loan sharking) at all levels of the economy, the ineffectiveness of government due to de-funding to make it ineffective, etc. Pretty much the whole list of things done to change the US motivated by “patriots” wishing to make America great “again” are the source of the insecurity that each day penetrates further into the lives of more and more people making them less well off and giving them a view of the future that is more of the same.
Do that to a large group and most surely the least stable among them will snap.
Whatever the particular cause in any individual case the fact is we have less control over how our lives go today than at any time since our founding, unless of course you buy the fantasy of pretending to be an “independent self motivated self sufficient” person.
The destruction of regulation and standards of behavior, encouragement and legalization of predatory practices that used to be considered vice (Loan sharking) at all levels of the economy, the ineffectiveness of government due to de-funding to make it ineffective, etc. Pretty much the whole list of things done to change the US motivated by “patriots” wishing to make America great “again” are the source of the insecurity that each day penetrates further into the lives of more and more people making them less well off and giving them a view of the future that is more of the same.
Do that to a large group and most surely the least stable among them will snap.
3
Congress refuses to enact any further gun control legislation, abandoning all of us to the dangers of another shooting in our school, our workplace, or our neighborhood. People realize that, with respect to gun violence, they are on their own in America. With that unfortunate reality in mind, whether or not I agree with it as a personal course of action, buying a gun for protection is not an illogical response to the madness.
Of course, this reminds me of a classic scene from The Simpsons, where the human race voluntarily disarmed itself and was then easily enslaved by space aliens. Humans finally ran off the aliens with a board that had a nail sticking out of its end. And then this...
Kang: It seems the earthlings won.
Kodos: Did they? That board with a nail in it may have defeated us. But the humans won’t stop there. They’ll make bigger boards and bigger nails, and soon, they will make a board with a nail so big, it will destroy them all!
Of course, this reminds me of a classic scene from The Simpsons, where the human race voluntarily disarmed itself and was then easily enslaved by space aliens. Humans finally ran off the aliens with a board that had a nail sticking out of its end. And then this...
Kang: It seems the earthlings won.
Kodos: Did they? That board with a nail in it may have defeated us. But the humans won’t stop there. They’ll make bigger boards and bigger nails, and soon, they will make a board with a nail so big, it will destroy them all!
Humans are so stupid. Americans should know better. More guns equals more tragedy, not less.
19
Give Americans the jobs and salaries they deserve and the fervor about self-armament , brought on by socioeconomic stress and anxiety, will cool. Or just continue pushing gun control and see how little that changes.
7
Who deserves a job? Do you deserve one simply for existing? Employers are not in it for social welfare, despite what liberals try to tell you.
According to a USA Today tally, mass shootings killed 487 Americans from 2000 to 2014, an average over the 14-year period of 35 dearth per year. The question whether lives could have been saved if the victims of mass shootings had been armed always comes up after a mass shooting. The recently released FBI Uniform Crime Report for 2014 provide a clue. Expanded Homicide Data Table 1: Justifiable Homicides shows that firearms were used in 442 of the nation’s 444 justifiable homicide incidents that occurred in 2014. These are self-defense case in which civilians in fear for their lives—not police—successfully used guns to defend themselves. The number does not include the more numerous cases in which assailants were wounded instead of killed or frightened away. Extrapolated over a 14-year period, firearms used in self defense might save about 6,199 lives over a similar 14-year period.
8
"At least 550 people — many of whom were unarmed and/or mentally ill — have been killed by police in the first six months of the year. A Guardian database, which puts the figure at 545, shows Caucasians have been killed more than any other race or ethnic group this year, but blacks and Latinos have been killed at higher rates. Nearly 120 people were unarmed. And by the Washington Post’s count, 461 people have been shot and killed by an on-duty officer.
In June alone, cops killed 75 people. At least 60 of those people were shot."
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/07/01/3675670/many-people-police-k...
Maybe when the government gives up their guns, they can ask the people to do the same.
In June alone, cops killed 75 people. At least 60 of those people were shot."
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/07/01/3675670/many-people-police-k...
Maybe when the government gives up their guns, they can ask the people to do the same.
Let's take "self defense" and "justifiable homicide" out of it for a moment and just look at raw statistics, shall we?
In 2010, guns took the lives of 31,076 Americans in homicides, suicides and unintentional shootings. This is the equivalent of more than 85 deaths each day and more than three deaths each hour.
73,505 Americans were treated in hospital emergency departments for non-fatal gunshot wounds in 2010.
Firearms were the third-leading cause of injury-related deaths nationwide in 2010, following poisoning and motor vehicle accidents. Gun deaths are poised to surpass motor vehicle deaths in 2015.
Between 1955 and 1975, the Vietnam War killed over 58,000 American soldiers – less than the number of civilians killed with guns in the U.S. in an average two-year period.
In the first seven years of the U.S.-Iraq War, over 4,400 American soldiers were killed. Almost as many civilians are killed with guns in the U.S., however, every seven weeks.
Forgive me, then, for not being impressed by your theoretical "extrapolation". I find the real life and death statistics above far more compelling.
In 2010, guns took the lives of 31,076 Americans in homicides, suicides and unintentional shootings. This is the equivalent of more than 85 deaths each day and more than three deaths each hour.
73,505 Americans were treated in hospital emergency departments for non-fatal gunshot wounds in 2010.
Firearms were the third-leading cause of injury-related deaths nationwide in 2010, following poisoning and motor vehicle accidents. Gun deaths are poised to surpass motor vehicle deaths in 2015.
Between 1955 and 1975, the Vietnam War killed over 58,000 American soldiers – less than the number of civilians killed with guns in the U.S. in an average two-year period.
In the first seven years of the U.S.-Iraq War, over 4,400 American soldiers were killed. Almost as many civilians are killed with guns in the U.S., however, every seven weeks.
Forgive me, then, for not being impressed by your theoretical "extrapolation". I find the real life and death statistics above far more compelling.
2
Guns kill 33,000 people a year in the USA. Its not just about the mass shootings, they just get the publicity. 32,500 other people got shot to death last year.
1
If you do not believe gun control can work, just look at what Australia, Canada and Great Britain have done to eliminate such massacres as Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech, Columbine and now Roseburg from happening. Why can't the United States do something? And like those other countries, not trample on anyone's freedom or right to own a gun. You know why? Everyone knows. The NRA has such dominance over our elected representatives in Washington DC. Just as Big OIl, Big Pharma, Big Insurance and so do. If we don't get control of our government pretty soon, we're a has been country. Sorry to say.
6
That is disingenuous. Britain has never allowed free access to guns, Ca is similar to the US in outlook but they also restricted guns long before mass shootings was a thing. Au changed their gun laws after "some high profile multiple murders and a media campaign" (wikipedia) not to stop mass shootings.
Your statement that we should have the same controls as those other countries is followed by an extremely contradictory statement which you seem to think is true...that is that no one's rights or freedoms would be interfered with. Have you read anything at all about what those laws are?
But then again, rather than look at what the situation is, all you want to do is call for a law. And who obeys laws anyway in these situations?
But then again, rather than look at what the situation is, all you want to do is call for a law. And who obeys laws anyway in these situations?
Try to read a bit more carefully. Australia dramatically curtailed private firearms ownership in direct response to the Port Arthur Massacre.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia)
1
Can some politician with a spine introduce a legistlation that requires you to have liability insurance if you need to own a gun? Something to the tune of a millon bucks to start with?
42
Insurance does not cover intentional torts. For example, murder.
4
So you want a tax specifically designed to prevent people from exercising a constitutional right?
So if I shoot a home intruder do I owe him a million dollars?
Something like 300 million guns in circulation in the US has not made anyone any safer. Do these people in Roseburg think another 300 million will make it better?
20
Roseburg will never recover from this tragedy, at least not in the lives of those quoted in this article. As a smaller more distinct community, Roseburg will not have the luxury of anonymity that other communities, such as the Denver suburbs, have in confronting gun violence. It is unfortunate that the pro-gun crowd will intensify and prolong the economic hit that Roseburg is sure to take. What outside source of investment capital would ever invest in such a community, or subject its employees to such backward thinking?
14
Like, if you get cancer the best solution is...more cancer!
Sorry, but these people are addled in the extreme.
Sorry, but these people are addled in the extreme.
19
The people of Roseburg saying they want more guns after this horrific shooting are like people who just witnessed a 20 -ar deadly pile up on the highway, caused by a drunk driver, deciding to buy a bunch of whiskey and get drunk.
10
You have to be kidding! Buy more guns? Every kid at school should be armed? America the Beautiful is becoming a myth. EHM
5
O're the land of the free (access to guns)
and the home of the brave (paranoid)
and the home of the brave (paranoid)
A map from the National Institutes of Health reveals the rate of gun violence in all of the counties in the USA. What is striking about the map is how a high rate of gun violence and a low rate of gun violence correlate with a "red state/blue state" political map. (A few outliers of course, but mostly true.) http://projects.oregonlive.com/ucc-shooting/gun-deaths
Regarding Roseburg, my hometown, I am embarrassed by our County Commissioners who have chosen to divide, rather than unite, our community after this horrific event.
Regarding Roseburg, my hometown, I am embarrassed by our County Commissioners who have chosen to divide, rather than unite, our community after this horrific event.
9
There were armed students on campus and in class at the time of this most recent mass shooting at an American college. The presence of more guns doesn't deter those who set out to commit these crimes and no amount of firearms is going to stop these mass shootings. Why? The element of surprise wins the battle every time. Need an example? In November of 2009, four on-duty, uniformed and armed police officers were killed inside a coffee shop near Seattle, Washington. These officers were ambushed by a lone gunman and not a one of them ever had a chance to reach for their service guns, much less use them in self-defense. These officers were well-trained and had professional experience that civilian firearms owners lack and, despite their professional training and experience, were entirely vulnerable at the time of their executions precisely because the shooter had the element of surprise.
It's time to grow up, America.
It's time to grow up, America.
62
Plus the people with CHL at UCC, mostly former military, had the good sense to know that if they got into a shootout with the killer, law enforcement would have no idea who the "good guys" were. And so they did not engage.
3
The tragedy in Oregon had the sheriff stating that approximately one person per minute was being killed during those terrible moments. Not exactly a hand grenade tossed into a cafeteria for a time line.
The situation about the armed students is not clear, or has been muddled or imprecisely reported. If the student with a gun was on campus, literally, it still might have meant that s/he was several buildings or several blocks away.
So it is very weak inference on your part to conclude that having armed students on campus didn't thwart or minimize the attack.
Recently in Minneapolis a teen age thug stole a weapon earlier in the day, and decided it would be his ticket to advance in his gang membership. He, unfortunately, pulled it on a citizen who had just passed the concealed carry course and was indeed armed. Neither of the intended victims was harmed but the attacker was fatally shot, in self defense. Having a gun AT the scene of where the incident is occurring makes one heck of a difference.
The situation about the armed students is not clear, or has been muddled or imprecisely reported. If the student with a gun was on campus, literally, it still might have meant that s/he was several buildings or several blocks away.
So it is very weak inference on your part to conclude that having armed students on campus didn't thwart or minimize the attack.
Recently in Minneapolis a teen age thug stole a weapon earlier in the day, and decided it would be his ticket to advance in his gang membership. He, unfortunately, pulled it on a citizen who had just passed the concealed carry course and was indeed armed. Neither of the intended victims was harmed but the attacker was fatally shot, in self defense. Having a gun AT the scene of where the incident is occurring makes one heck of a difference.
Presumably they also knew that a pistol is not going to do well against a semi-auto rifle. Particularly given the possibility that the shooter is wearing body armor.
A well-regulated militia requires a well-regulated mentality. Tragically, that seems to be a casualty in Roseburg.
6
A gun should be as hard to get as an abortion. First, the applicant needs to be told there are only 4 or 5 places in the entire state that he or she can go to begin the process. Once there, the applicant should be questioned for 30 minutes as to why he or she wants to buy a weapon, and then be should be shown an hour's worth of photos of gunshot victims, including suicide victims and other victims of all ages, races, sexes and ethnic groups. Then, after filling out paperwork for a permit, the applicant should be told to wait 72 hours before returning for a gun safety course on a shooting range with a trained instructor. (There would also only be 4 or 5 of these in an entire state.) Then the applicant should be examined by a doctor. Following that, the applicant should be forced to run through a gauntlet of anti-gun protestors, with posters and bullhorns. And then the purchase could be completed. Sound familiar? Sound fair?
54
@Boo - Agree 1000%. If abortion is legal, yet staehouse yahoos can create all kinds of nonsensical regulations for "the safety of the woman", why not some regulation for "the safety of gun owners"?
1
The anti-gun crowd is out en-masse I see, as can be expected. They all wail about the need for more gun control or 'getting the guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them'. Please be more specific on what law you would have implemented to keep the gun out of the Oregon shooter's hands. He bought the guns legally. Are you going to stop someone with Asperger's from owning a gun? Say it. Are you going to stop someone on a SSRI psych med from buying a gun? Say it. Be clear on what you are proposing because just shouting for more gun control is only whistling in the wind.
8
Effectively abolishing most private gun ownership sounds like a good start.
3
I'd start by allowing--or actually encouraging--doctors to let parents know that having a gun present in the household of a child with significant mental or behavioral problems is a recipe for disaster, as well as a public health threat. Let's start the conversation there.
6
Ok, let's start here: People who have been involuntarily committed to the psych ward (this guy, by his mother, who also supplied him the guns) should not be able to acquire a gun.
9
There are now too many guns already in the hands of the public. They are very available to anyone. Millions of guns will be passed on to relatives, children of deceased gun owners without any background checks. The horses are out of the barn. The once ridiculous notion that we all carry guns to stop the bad guy is now sounding like it may make some sense although it will lead to mistaken identity shootings by other "good guys" and the police, but we will see how this all plays out. An interesting experiment is underway.
My only suggestion now is truly gun free zones with metal detectors like in court or the airport, and lift the liability ban on gun manufacturers and gun stores. I am not a lawyer and I have no love for litigation, but this would at least encourage some kind of self regulation.
My only suggestion now is truly gun free zones with metal detectors like in court or the airport, and lift the liability ban on gun manufacturers and gun stores. I am not a lawyer and I have no love for litigation, but this would at least encourage some kind of self regulation.
3
The problem in a place like Roseburg is that you can't tell who the bad guy is because they're all white. This is sarcasm of course, but I get the idea when I hear the second-amendment people expressing their beliefs, that they think they can identify good people and bad people on sight. I think many of them simply fear people of other races.
1
We need to launch an aggressive, concerted and widespread education campaign about guns in order to counteract this mentality. #enough!
5
Judging from the gun violence in democrat ruled cities, where the preponderance of murders occur, where gun control laws are the toughest, Roseburg is in no hurry to become anything like East St. Louis, Camden, Gary, Chester, Saginaw, or Flint among a significant number of other towns.
5
Well your assertions are factually incorrect in part or in full. I realize that Chicago is the go-to reference offered up by people like at all times when gun-related crime is at issue but Chicago isn't in the top 10 cities in the U.S. (per capita) for highest rates of gun-related violence/homicide/suicide. There will be more of everything in heavily populated cities precisely because of population density and that is why the per capita basis is used to make comparisons between cities and towns of different sizes and populations. Further, you should be aware that the vast majority of mass shootings committed in the United States have not happened in large metropolitan cities; rather, they have happened in smaller cities and towns across the nation but primarily located in more conservative states (currently and historically). It is those very states (most of them in the southeastern U.S.) that have the most lax gun laws in the nation and the highest rates of gun ownership. You should also be aware that those same states are responsible for the most guns used in crimes in other states like Illinois, precisely because the regulations that govern the purchase of firearms is so lax.
So this problem requires a nationwide solution precisely because we allow open travel inside the U.S. and there is no way for Chicago to keep out guns brought in from Indiana short of building a perimeter wall and having security checkpoints to search for firearms being brought in illicitly.
So this problem requires a nationwide solution precisely because we allow open travel inside the U.S. and there is no way for Chicago to keep out guns brought in from Indiana short of building a perimeter wall and having security checkpoints to search for firearms being brought in illicitly.
4
The highest murder rate does not occur in large cities. It occurs in small towns in the South. The highest per capita murder rate of any state is Louisiana. You're much safer in downtown Oakland than a bar in Baton Rogue.
9
80%+ of Americans live in urban environments. I I might suggest counting violent gun deaths in poor rural enclaves and poor urban enclaves and using percent rather than raw number your ignorance might give way to America's reality. America is no longer the land where the pen is mightier than the sword.
2
It only makes sense to require gun owners to carry liability insurance. I'm a yoga teacher and, in order to work at any reputable studio (and to protect myself as a private teacher), i have to show proof of liability seniors. Especially since I work mostly with seniors, I carry a $2MM/$4MM policy. Now, if I do that as someone teaching yoga, shouldn't that be the rock-bottom for someone capable of taking a life?
28
Absolutely. Because all those mass-murdering lunatics, and psychopathic drug dealers, wouldn't want to get a fine for not carrying liability insurance.
4
I have a few baseball bats in my garage that could easily cause death. You want me to have liability insurance because I own baseball bats?
Last year, I was riding on an train down to San Diego, when I heard the father of two darling little girls and a pretty young wife, in the seats in front of me, selling guns on his phone,. He was assuring the client that if his state wouldn't allow him to mail them to his state, he could have some of his people truck them in to him. I had my laptop open and I typed in his website. There were a bunch of young men, dressed in Army gear, staged in the woods, pretending to be hunting with rapid fire weapons and bullet proof vests, etc. It was laughable and creepy. They looked like they were ready for war, not defending their family or hunting deer. And this cheery dad in front of me, who had just been to Disneyland with his young family, was happily touting his war weaponry and ammo. There's the problem. Follow the money. It has nothing to do with the second amendment. If you can sell war weapons to paranoid people, then even the most unlikely sellers will do it, in an unethical moment! More guns in the hands of paranoid people is not reassuring; it is terrifying! And mothers who take their emotionally troubled children to shooting ranges are also terrifying!
53
It would seem the NRA has achieved the ultimate victory.
8
At last there is reporting done on guns and murders that is realistic at the human level and does not just repeat stereotypic remarks confirming existing political points of view. Americans are afraid. They have been afraid of their fellow americans for over 45 years. (I am a liberal and hate guns.) The 'war on crime' crystallized the fear that started among the urban unrest of the 1960's and was further increased during the 1970's by urban drug and gang crime. Many americans simply believe that a stranger is going to walk into their home or into their life and try to kill them. Period.
Given that fear, it is perfectly rational to seek defense in guns. Simply talking about the 'gun lobby' etc. is pointless. Americans buy guns for a reason. And the article is correct to point this out.
Unfortunately, America has always been a violent nation, particularly when it is threatened. As a nation we stride across the world killing people with impunity. Our police forces kill americans with impunity. And individuals can often kill others with impunity when 'threatened' and when they 'won't back down'.
So what is the prescription? With hundreds of millions of guns in the nation? And fear alive in the land?
Given that fear, it is perfectly rational to seek defense in guns. Simply talking about the 'gun lobby' etc. is pointless. Americans buy guns for a reason. And the article is correct to point this out.
Unfortunately, America has always been a violent nation, particularly when it is threatened. As a nation we stride across the world killing people with impunity. Our police forces kill americans with impunity. And individuals can often kill others with impunity when 'threatened' and when they 'won't back down'.
So what is the prescription? With hundreds of millions of guns in the nation? And fear alive in the land?
3
A frightened and traumatized community is not the ideal place to find clear thinking. Maybe when cooler heads prevail there, the lunacy of more guns will be more evident.
7
This is the reaction to fear that the NRA is striving for. Increased gun sales and increased profits for gun manufacturers is their raison d'etre.
3
Sure, more gun control would be generally helpful, it'd be good to have a license requirement, with passing training and a written test as part of it. Background checks, no more gun trade shows, all that sort of stuff would be great.
It won't stop these mass shootings at all though. These psychopaths have proven they will get guns illegally when they can't get them legally. All the gun control laws people want will not do anything about the availability of illegal guns.
The things about these mass shootings is, they're always carried out by psychopaths, and the psychos always do it in order to get their name, face, and demented manifesto on the front pages and on every TV news outlet for a couple of weeks. And that's exactly what happened with this one. And it will happen with the next one, in a couple of weeks.
I think the only way to cut back on these gun rampages is with mandatory psychological check-ins and treatment for those who need it. Therapy could have found this guy very early and prevented his murderous end.
Lastly, I'd like to stress that I don't own a gun and probably never will. But if I saw someone like this start shooting people, I would do everything in my power to take him down with whatever came to hand. And I don't mean subdue him.
It won't stop these mass shootings at all though. These psychopaths have proven they will get guns illegally when they can't get them legally. All the gun control laws people want will not do anything about the availability of illegal guns.
The things about these mass shootings is, they're always carried out by psychopaths, and the psychos always do it in order to get their name, face, and demented manifesto on the front pages and on every TV news outlet for a couple of weeks. And that's exactly what happened with this one. And it will happen with the next one, in a couple of weeks.
I think the only way to cut back on these gun rampages is with mandatory psychological check-ins and treatment for those who need it. Therapy could have found this guy very early and prevented his murderous end.
Lastly, I'd like to stress that I don't own a gun and probably never will. But if I saw someone like this start shooting people, I would do everything in my power to take him down with whatever came to hand. And I don't mean subdue him.
1
"mandatory psychological check-ins"
Wow.
Wow.
3
That seems like a reasonable requirement to own a highly effective tool for killing.
Dear Joe,
That's right, it's a biggie. Kids have to go to their guidance counselor now, right? That's mandatory. This would be a psychologist instead.
Or we could just do nothing at all to try to intercept these psychos before they go on their killing sprees, and accept the death toll. Those are the major options, like I say, more gun control laws would be fine but would have no effect on mass shootings.
That's right, it's a biggie. Kids have to go to their guidance counselor now, right? That's mandatory. This would be a psychologist instead.
Or we could just do nothing at all to try to intercept these psychos before they go on their killing sprees, and accept the death toll. Those are the major options, like I say, more gun control laws would be fine but would have no effect on mass shootings.
There were a number of concealed carry people at the school. Revealing is the young man packing at the time who told CNN that such wouldn't have helped even in the classroom. If buying a gun makes some people feel good, fine. All they accomplish is making it more likely that they or a family member will die from a gunshot. Their choice. But they should understand that retrieving a weapon, concealed or not, gives a shooter time to take them out. It's a false sense of security and accomplishes little.
More guns is not the answer. If someone is lactose intolerant, drinking more milk just doesn't make sense!
More guns is not the answer. If someone is lactose intolerant, drinking more milk just doesn't make sense!
6
This will understandably have a negative impact for out of state tuition in Oregon schools. If one can avoid such backward thinking, why reside in such commuities.
6
Not everyone is "forward thinking" enough to reside in LA. Or to know how to spell "communities."
I remember driving through Roseburg in the 1980's and seeing the large John Birch Society billboard welcoming my wife and me to town. That is not to diminish the tragedy, but to express little surprise that this is a town that strongly supports gun ownership.
10
If you believe that more guns is the answer, I've got some cigarettes to sell you that aid in digestion and improve overall health.
21
I stopped banging my head against a wall regarding this nonsensical type of thinking that "more guns are better" after Newtown/Sandy Hook. Nope, 20 dead first graders were not enough to convince a majority of legislators to vote for reasonable gun regulations. We will never, ever change. At least not in my lifetime.
9
1. Contrary to common belief, the Supreme Court has no power whatever to review actions taken by the president in accordance with the presidential powers specified in the U.S. Constitution. Marbury v. Madison established the power of the Court to judicially review LAWS passed by Congress and not acts of the president taken under the authority of his or her specific constitutional powers.
2. Under existing law the President, not the Congress, has the right to federalize the state militias -- to call them "into the actual Service of the United States," and when he or she does so, the Constitution makes the president the "Commander in Chief ... of the Militia of the several States...."
3. Supreme Court cases and opinions regarding the constitutionality of gun control LAWS notwithstanding, the president has an independent right (a check and balance right) to interpret the text of the Second Amendment as it is actually written on the page with no obligation to follow or be bound by such tortuous misreadings as Justice Scalia's absurd opinion in Heller.
4. In view of all the foregoing, the president has a specific Constitutional right to command the militia, which necessarily includes the authority to direct its attacks and its fire as well as to command the weapons used and how they are purchased, maintained, stored, protected and tracked as "necessary to the security of a free State."