shooting at an oregon community college, at least 10 dead

[MessiahDecoy123]

You know this problem would be simple if most mass shooters were easily flagged schizophrenics but I'd say most of these shooters are far more normal than most people like to admit.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

To me the compromise seems obvious. Make it a hell lot harder to get guns. Stringent background checks. A national database, etc.

Easier said than done when most gun lovers despise and distrust the federal government.

 

[Unbreakable Lex]

You know this problem would be simple if most mass shooters were easily flagged schizophrenics but I'd say most of these shooters are far more normal than most people like to admit.

They all had warning signs. But it goes both ways.

It's just as easy to get a gun as it is to truly offend someone and find yourself in the middle of a civil suit or harassment claim or some crap if you speak up and mention flags about people that may have mental health problems.

That leads to apathy and the one with mental health drifting into obscurity. And that guy that has been raising flags and quietly calling for help goes unnoticed until he's shooting up a public setting.

 

[Snow Queen]

Is there a psych eval before you get a gun down there?

 

[Unbreakable Lex]

Is there a psych eval before you get a gun down there?

Nope. There are differing levels of ease to obtain a gun in the US depending on where you go to get one. They type of gun also warrants different restrictions.

You can get a shotgun or a rifle pretty easily almost anywhere. But anything else requires a background check. Unfortunately, the background check only looks at criminal history so most flags would be missed.

Felons or those that have domestic violence charges have restrictions.

 

[Snow Queen]

Nope. There are differing levels of ease to obtain a gun in the US depending on where you go to get one. They type of gun also warrants different restrictions.

You can get a shotgun or a rifle pretty easily almost anywhere. But anything else requires a background check. Unfortunately, the background check only looks at criminal history so most flags would be missed.

Felons or those that have domestic violence charges have restrictions.

If I need to go through 18 months with a psychiatrist to get some damn medication, I think a psych eval isn't asking much for a gun.

 

[Unbreakable Lex]

If I need to go through 18 months with a psychiatrist to get some damn medication, I think a psych eval isn't asking much for a gun.

I believe 90% of America agrees with you.

Unfortunately, K Street (Lobbyists) runs America and the NRA has the best.

 

[Teelie]

Insanity. I used to be a second amendment supporter. But after seeing these reactions after such horrid tragedies, I'm now a supporter of ending the second amendment all together.

You can support the 2nd Amendment without blindly and viciously adhereing to a poor intereptation of it that allows for no limitations or restrictions based on the reality of the modern world.

Though trying to reach a compromise with some of these gun rights advocates is next to impossible

 

[blueharvest]

Interesting graph comparing firearm related deaths vs terrorism related deaths in the United States.

https://tribwtic.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/gun-deaths-v-terrorism.jpg

 

[Unbreakable Lex]

You can support the 2nd Amendment without blindly and viciously adhereing to a poor intereptation of it that allows for no limitations or restrictions based on the reality of the modern world.

Though trying to reach a compromise with some of these gun rights advocates is next to impossible

That second sentence is where I'm at. There's overwhelming evidence here. It's like arguing with someone that thinks Climate Change is a joke or that Jesus rode a raptor.

F people with these views. I'm not 100% against them. They are freaked that they will lose it all, I say we have them lose it all!

But seriously, this country would never make people give up their guns. The majority of these mass murders, save for Sandy Hook, got their firearm not to far before they committed the atrocities. So that's what we want to prevent.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Easier said than done when most gun lovers despise and distrust the federal government.

Yes, but normal people outnumber gun lovers 10 to 1. Call your congressman.

 

[AndrewGilkison]

I said it in the reporter/camera man murder thread. There is nothing in the second amendment that says we can't regulate guns. "Well-regulated militia" pretty much says we can.

Our gun laws and regulations need to reflect the country we live in now, not as it existed in 1776. The Aurora theater shooter got a ton of his ammunition from a website that didn't even ask for his drivers license, let alone a background check. No reason that should be acceptable.

 

[terry78]

10 day waiting period? But I'm angry now!

 

[Shikamaru]

Sure. But you specifically mentioned Australia, which confiscated guns.

I had to Google this to check its accuracy. Indeed, Australia did confiscate about 650,000 guns. I'm not sure if doing that in the States would be a good idea.

Regardless, my point still stands about gun control going forward. I think implementing a universal background check on gun purchases starting today would go a long way.

This isn't how the Supreme Court interprets the second amendment, however.

The point is that it should alter its interpretation to a more reasonable one, just as they've consistently doing throughout each decade with various issues. That's kinda the whole idea behind any reform.

It's almost important to note why "a well regulated militia" became part of the amendment in the first place. Contrary to what a lot of people believe (even on the left), it wasn't so citizens could overthrow the government. It was the opposite. The idea was to permit soldiers of the US militia to keep their arms in case of outside invasions (arms which, btw, were granted to them by the state). The intent was just as much to protect the safety of the whole populace as it was to maintain the safety of the individual, if not even moreso. Not to mention that the "arms" of back then were nothing compared to the arms we have now. When we factor those reasons into account, there's no good reason (IMO) to believe having a more reasonable amount of gun control is in any way unconstitutional.

Many states already have universal background checks... including Oregon. The problem is that inconvenience isn't going to stop someone from mass murder.

The idea is that it would reduce gun death rates to "normal" levels like in the rest of the Western world. Canada and Norway are right behind the States when it comes to gun owners but don't have the same degree of severity by comparison (adjusted to their population but that should go without saying).

Firearms are also more likely to put people in danger to themselves and their families than to any outside third party. This is especially true when it comes to suicide (pills would usually give you more time to rethink). Thus even if mass murders continued at the same rate (which I don't think they would), gun deaths in general would still drop.

I don't mean to put words in your mouth, but surely you can see the issue in the idea that not being able to completely avoid mass murders means no action should be taken whatsoever to reduce them.

 

[Shikamaru]

Common sense regulation on guns faces a stiff test from too many Americans who have their sense of identity linked with their weapons. They want firearms that civilians logically shouldn't have and to take them into places where they logically shouldn't be. It's going to be a long fight to beat that kind of belligerence, but these continued slaughters are proof that gun laws absolutely must change.

History shows that even if it takes an eternity, progress does eventually occur. This is especially true of American history if you ask me.

You know this problem would be simple if most mass shooters were easily flagged schizophrenics but I'd say most of these shooters are far more normal than most people like to admit.

There's something deeply disturbing about the idea that any random Joe could do these sorts of things. It's not exactly a comforting thought, and that's why we hear blanket statements a lot of the time like "Oh, that's just another crazy person."

 

[ThePhantasm]

I don't mean to put words in your mouth, but surely you can see the issue in the idea that not being able to completely avoid mass murders means no action should be taken whatsoever to reduce them.

Sure, and I'm not advocating inaction at all.

I'm simply skeptical about the suggested solutions that I often see. I think they would have a rather negligible effect.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

Lead Sheriff in Oregon Massacre Investigation Wiped His Sandy Hook Conspiracy, Pro-Gun Posts From Facebook

Sheriff John Hanlin, who is leading the investigation into the mass shooting at Umpqua Community College in Oregon where at least 10 people were killed, had previously shared a widely debunked Sandy Hook conspiracy video in addition to multiple anti-gun regulation posts on Facebook. All of which Hanlin apparently began deleting less than an hour ago.

In the since-deleted post, which refers to a video positing that the parents seen grieving in the wake of Sandy Hook were actually hired “crisis actors,” Hanlin wrote:

This makes me wonder who we can trust anymore... Watch, listen, and keep an open mind.​

The video also makes the claim that the Sandy Hook shooting was in fact a government false flag operation, with the media assisting in obscuring what “actually” happened.

Although Hanlin has since either deleted or set his posts to private, we were able to get screenshots of much of the Sherriff’s pro-gun propaganda before he began cleaning house.

For instance, public Facebook shares also included a story titled “COLUMBINE STUDENT’S FATHER 12 YEARS LATER!!” The post describes a speech Darrell Scot, the father of one of the victims of the Columbine High School shootings, gave at a small House subcommittee meeting (not at a special session of Congress as the post claims). Most notably, the post seems to attribute the Columbine massacre to a lack of prayer in school while simultaneous discouraging calls for stricter gun control:

And when something as terrible as Columbine’s tragedy occurs—politicians immediately look for a scapegoat such as the NRA. They immediately seek to pass more restrictive laws that contribute to erode away our personal and private liberties. We do not need more restrictive laws. Eric and Dylan would not have been stopped by metal detectors. No amount of gun laws can stop someone who spends months planning this type of massacre. The real villain lies within our own hearts.

To those of you who would point your finger at the NRA — I give to you a sincere challenge.. Dare to examine your own heart before casting the first stone! My daughter’s death will not be in vain! The young people of this country will not allow that to happen!​

This in addition to considerable amounts of pro-gun propaganda, such as the this post likening gun-related deaths to those killed in car accidents:

Or this post calling for less gun regulation in general, with the apparent implication that it’s what our founding fathers would have intended:

And this Tea Party photo drawing comparisons between those calling for stricter gun control to notorious dictators (in addition to President Obama):

Although he’s now apparently covering his tracks on social media, Hanlin hasn’t shied away from publicly voicing his second amendment support in the past. In the month after the Newton shooting, Hanlin penned a letter to Vice President Joe Biden, in which he wrote:

[The first purpose of this letter is] to make a formal request that you NOT tamper with or amend the 2nd Amendment. Gun control is NOT the answer to preventing heinous crimes like school shootings. Any actions against, or in disregard to our U.S. Constitution and 2nd Amendment rights by the current administration would be irresponsible and an indisputable insult to the American people.

The second purpose of this letter is to make notification that any federal regulation enacted by Congress or by executive order of the President offending the Constitutional rights of my citizens shall not be enforced by me or by my deputies, nor will I permit the enforcement of any constitutional regulations or orders by federal offices within the borders of Douglas County, Oregon.​

http://gawker.com/lead-sheriff-in-oregon-massacre-investigation-wiped-his-1734344410

So a nutjob is leading the investigation. How will the other nutjobs come up with their crazy conspiracy if one of their ilk is the man in charge of the coverup?

 

[Octoberist]

Well..

 

[The Shape]

I said it in the reporter/camera man murder thread. There is nothing in the second amendment that says we can't regulate guns. "Well-regulated militia" pretty much says we can.

Our gun laws and regulations need to reflect the country we live in now, not as it existed in 1776. The Aurora theater shooter got a ton of his ammunition from a website that didn't even ask for his drivers license, let alone a background check. No reason that should be acceptable.

Correct.

I don't believe guns should be banned, but there must be some kind of comprehensive database of gun owners and there must be more regulation. This guy had legally obtained 13 guns by the age of 26.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

There's something deeply disturbing about the idea that any random Joe could do these sorts of things. It's not exactly a comforting thought, and that's why we hear blanket statements a lot of the time like "Oh, that's just another crazy person."

Gun lovers don't want to admit that screening for crazy people isn't enough. You have to screen for many other traits that they might have themselves.

And.the general public doesn't want to admit that the next mass murderer could be a seemingly normal person right around the corner.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Yes, but normal people outnumber gun lovers 10 to 1. Call your congressman.

About half the country support pro-gun Republicans.

 

[Prison Mike]

Well..

 

[The Shape]

Screening for people with criminal backgrounds is something that I'm sure helps. Screening for crazy people isn't necessarily "enough", but it is something that would also help. People with documented mental health issues or anxieties should not be able to legally possess lethal weapons, just as blind people or people with special needs and certain disabilities are not be allowed to drive automobiles or fly airplanes.

Beyond that, though, I do feel there should be limits to the amount of weapons people can legally obtain. The second amendment states that we have the right to bear arms, but it doesn't specify how many "arms", nor does it state that we should be able to have an unlimited amount of weapons.

Why did this person need 13 guns? Why do some people need even more than one gun? The truth of the matter is that they don't, and when someone attempts to purchase their second or third or thirteenth gun, there should be checks in place that not only prevent them from doing so but also alert local law enforcement to this person's actions and possible intentions so an investigation can be made. I think it's crazy that red flags aren't raised more often in cases like this.

I don't know much about the process for obtaining a gun, but the craziest thing is that it varies from state to state and there are different levels of ease/difficulty in doing so.

 

[ThePhantasm]

What would a limit to the amount of weapons accomplish? You can only shoot a max of two at a time anyways.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

A federal, nationwide database with strict background checks will never happen. Too many right wingers would seriously see it as a tyrannical government conspiring against them. It would be the birther conspiracy times a thousand.

And I'm not even sure it would greatly reduce gun violence with 300 million guns in circulation.