shooting at an oregon community college, at least 10 dead

Well, sure. People will do anything if you throw enough money at them.

But the law needs to be changed. Which I just don't see happening.

The truth is, both sides will argue until they're blue in the face, but in the end nothing will change, and another mass shooting will happen. This is what we've become in the society.
 
If you really want to solve this, you have to throw out the Second Amendment. That's a starting point.

Disagree. I think the best starting point would be to establish that 1) a majority of the American people want gun control, including most responsible gun owners, and 2) having gun control is by no means contradictory to the second amendment.

If anything, the second amendment does endorse a form of gun regulation (hence "a well regulated militia"). That's because the original intent behind the second amendment, at its core, was a form of gun control. The idea was that soldiers of the militia (with weapons granted to them by the militia) could keep their weapons whenever they returned home from war in case of an emergency invasion by Britain or other foreign forces. It wasn't to "overthrow the government" as the conservatives claim, it was for the exact opposite reason. When you factor that in there's no reason to suspect the Founding Fathers would have been against gun control today.
 
Last edited:
Disagree. I think the best starting point would be to establish that 1) a majority of the American people want gun control, including most responsible gun owners, and 2) having gun control is by no means contradictory to the second amendment.

If anything, the second amendment does endorse a form of gun regulation (hence "a well regulated militia"). That's because the original intent behind the second amendment, at its core, was a form of gun control. The idea was that soldiers of the militia (with weapons granted to them by the militia) could keep their weapons whenever they returned home from war in case of an emergency invasion by Britain or other foreign forces. It wasn't to "overthrow the government" as the conservatives claim, it was for the exact opposite reason. When you factor that in there's no reason to suspect the Founding Fathers would have been against gun control today.

The sort of gun control you want will do virtually nothing to stop these sorts of shootings.
 
The sort of gun control you want will do virtually nothing to stop these sorts of shootings.

That's not the gun control I want. The point is that the idea of having gun regulation in general is by no means contradictory to the Second Amendment, and the founders wouldn't be against it. Both the Founding Fathers and the current Left had/has reasonable interpretations of the Second Amendment for their respective times.
 
Last edited:
Background checks. This guy would have passed it. He had a clean record. Hell, he did pass them. So do most of these shooters.
 
I just want both the left and right try to agree on something for once, and the US government has a hard time doing that even when there's tragedy. Whatever the solution is, if there is one, I wish we could be united and TRY to do something about this, or just be on the same page.
 
Neither side will accept that they have flaws in their logic.
 
Someone here, or some place else, said that in our extreme political climate, it's a bit of a joke now.

I'm not anti-gun, but what's NRA's position in all of this? Unless it's not being publicized, I think they're not doing enough to say anything about these shootings. Before anyone says 'that's it's not their responsibility' I think they do. They have so much pull in the government that's it's a sad joke.
 
I've seen people already on here that seem to go 100% left or 100% right on issues. I find it hard to believe someone could TRULY believe every single possible view that a particular party holds. It's kind of like watching sheep. :o Same thing with Obama haters vs Obama lovers. Can't seem to give him credit for a single thing on the hater side, and can't seem to admit faults on the lover side. Messed up sheep.
 
Background checks. This guy would have passed it. He had a clean record. Hell, he did pass them. So do most of these shooters.

It's not just a matter of background checks, but having stronger background checks.

Here in Canada, we don't do just check someone's criminal background or sanity via files and medical papers. We go as far as to directly contact the friends and family members of a gun purchaser to make sure everything is fine. The process could take over a year.

This guy bought 14 guns without anyone close to him ever knowing (not even his parents). That's highly suspicious. By Canadian law, he probably wouldn't have been able to get his hands on them. Or at the very least it would have been way harder for him.
 
Last edited:
By Canadian law, he'd have been arrested already for trying to get that many. :p
 
Yes but in America you have a right to privacy. And how would that work with someone like Adam Lanza? His mother bought the guns. Then he shot her and took them. Some of this guy's guns belonged to family members too.

The fundamental problem is you have too ****ing many guns, and you can get to them too easily.
 
In Canada you have the right to privacy too. It doesn't violate your privacy any more than checking your facebook account does. They basically ask you questions like "has he/she said anything regarding going on a killing spree, wanting to kill someone, etc.?"

They don't ask you for your internet search history or anything like that. It's similar to the regulations our cops get to make sure they don't abuse their own power (though unlike with the police where it's consistent, once you get a gun you're pretty much good to go).

Adam Lanza's mother was a nutcase. She believed another American revolution was just around the corner. She trained both herself and her son to use firearms for that sole purpose.
 
Last edited:
It's not just a matter of background checks, but having stronger background checks.

Here in Canada, we don't do just check someone's criminal background or sanity via files and medical papers. We go as far as to directly contact the friends and family members of a gun purchaser to make sure everything is fine. The process could take over a year.

This guy bought 14 guns without anyone close to him ever knowing (not even his parents). That's highly suspicious. By Canadian law, he probably wouldn't have been able to get his hands on them. Or at the very least it would have been way harder for him.

I'd be down with that.
 
Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton is set to unveil a sweeping gun control proposal Monday.
 
I just read that they released the shooter's manifesto today, so is this a thing now with all these shootings?
 
It's interesting, the father is firmly in the anti-gun camp. Alleges he didn't even know his son had guns?
Although it's a bit unsettling how he somewhat separates himself, and worse his son from the chain of responsibility.
His son was an adult and fully responsible, but still when is the last time he saw or checked in with his "special needs" 13 different gun owning son, who he recognizes had "mental health issues"

[YT]A1IWC1s-EE4[/YT]
Also has anyone interviewed the mother?
Who I think the shooter actually lived with?

Not that this guy isn't responsible for his own actions, but these things (mental instability) don't happen in a vacuum. people know this is going on.

And if the guy had no job? Who was paying for all these guns?
Did the mother he lived with also not know her "special needs" son was amassing guns, what he was getting into?
 
Last edited:
It's interesting, the father is firmly in the anti-gun camp. Alleges he didn't even know his son had guns?
Although it's a bit unsettling how he somewhat separates himself, and worse his son from the chain of responsibility.
His son was an adult and fully responsible, but still when is the last time he saw or checked in with his "special needs" 13 different gun owning son, who he recognizes had "mental health issues"

[YT]A1IWC1s-EE4[/YT]
Also has anyone interviewed the mother?
Who I think the shooter actually lived with?

Not that this guy isn't responsible for his own actions, but these things (mental instability) don't happen in a vacuum. people know this is going on.

And if the guy had no job? Who was paying for all these guns?
Did the mother he lived with also not know her "special needs" son was amassing guns, what he was getting into?
I find it funny the dad is in the anti-gun camp now but was the one who initially got his son into target shooting on the weekends. He's trying to distance himself and seemingly his son from blame by saying the guns made him do it. If anything, it's fully on him and his ex-wife for not seeing the signs of their son's problems and stopping him from collecting so many weapons.
 
I find it funny the dad is in the anti-gun camp now but was the one who initially got his son into target shooting on the weekends. He's trying to distance himself and seemingly his son from blame by saying the guns made him do it. If anything, it's fully on him and his ex-wife for not seeing the signs of their son's problems and stopping him from collecting so many weapons.
Link :huh:
These articles seem to suggest the mother.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...agged-weapons-online-report-article-1.2383689
Who was herself stockpiling fire arms.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/exclusive-mom-ore-shooter-stockpiled-guns-article-1.2384460
 
Last edited:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/06/us/mother-of-oregon-gunman-wrote-of-keeping-firearms.html?_r=0

Ms. Harper, who divorced her husband a decade ago, appears to have been by far the most significant figure in her son’s troubled life;

Unlike his father, who said on television that he had no idea Mr. Harper-Mercer cared so deeply about guns, his mother was well aware of his fascination.

In fact, she shared it: In a series of online postings over a decade, Ms. Harper, a nurse, said she kept numerous firearms in her home and expressed pride in her knowledge about them, as well as in her son’s expertise on the subject.

She also opened up about her difficulties raising a son who used to bang his head against the wall, and said that both she and her son struggled with Asperger’s syndrome, an autism spectrum disorder.

In an online forum, answering a question about state gun laws several years ago, Ms. Harper took a jab at “lame states” that impose limits on keeping loaded firearms in the home, and noted that she had AR-15 and AK-47 semiautomatic rifles, along with a Glock handgun. She also indicated that her son, who lived with her, was well versed in guns, citing him as her source of information on gun laws, saying he “has much knowledge in this field.”

Law enforcement officials have said they recovered 14 firearms and spare ammunition magazines that were purchased legally either by Mr. Harper-Mercer, 26, or an unnamed relative. Mr. Harper-Mercer had six guns with him when he entered a classroom building on Thursday and started firing on a writing class in which he was enrolled; the rest were found in the second-floor apartment he shared with his mother.

Neighbors in Southern California have said that Ms. Harper and her son would go to shooting ranges together

Ms. Harper said that her own son “was, among other things, a head-banger” when he was younger and was initially given a misdiagnosis of attention deficit disorder.

the gunman’s mother sometimes confided the difficulties she had in raising her son, including that she had placed Mr. Harper-Mercer in a psychiatric hospital when he did not take his medication.

Not sure why the mother; buying, training, and supplying guns to her [jobless] and "among other things, a head-banger” son(her words) , isn't at least partly liable or accessory to these murders?

If she is buying and stockpiling these weapons, isn't she also responsible for who uses them and for what?
 
Last edited:
The mother appears to be more at fault than anyone else. She not only raised him but assisted him in his gun collecting, training and knowledge.

The father claimed to have never held a gun let alone support his son in using them. And there is also plenty of redirect blaming it onto him as if he was responsible for it rather than the mother he lived with, who had far more influence on him and was the one behind his gun ownership. We don't know the status of the father-son relationship but it certainly isn't stopping some people from assuming the father was neglient, absent or bad.

All of this though is just another way to try to absolve guns as a problem and place all the blame on mental illness or bad parenting.
 
Now what they could do is regulate the absolute **** out of ammunition. Let people own whatever firearm they want, but legally not be allowed to purchase/store more than X conservative amount of ammo.
There are already plenty of state and federal laws regarding ammo. Some of the laws include:

- limiting the amount of ammo one can purchase a day
- banning certain types of ammunition
- some states (including Illinois!) require separate permits for purchasing ammo
- if you are not legally allowed to own a firearm for what ever reason (illegal alien, mental disability, felony, commitment to a mental hospital voluntarily or not, etc), you're not allowed to buy ammo (some states like Illinois even say that if you have a misdemeanor, you can't possess/purchase ammo)
 
This will keep happening, nothing will ever change and America will always be far ahead of the rest of the countries in gun-related homicides. Because we won't make any changes and because the NRA has too deep of pockets and too many people in government in those pockets as well.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,286
Messages
22,079,282
Members
45,880
Latest member
Heartbeat
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"