Oregon CC shooting

[dan_bgblue]

Doc, 5 mins is a lifetime when their is a nut loose with a gun/guns in a crowded classroom. The shooter could easily get off 100 shots in that time.

[Doc]

Doc, 5 mins is a lifetime when their is a nut loose with a gun/guns in a crowded classroom. The shooter could easily get off 100 shots in that time.

What would you suggest, a pillbox in every room?

Or get rid all guns, as in 100% of them. That would work too however that thing called the constitution makes that difficult

[KeithKSR]

Eliminate gun free zones and you eliminate the target of most of these murders. The talk of mental health sounds good, but you cannot deny people their right to privacy in the process.

[CitizenBBN]

I agree. IMO we should have armed guards on campus. I'd also have them gun free with the exclusion of those armed security guards.

When seconds matter the police are only minutes away.

I've really never understood why campuses are "gun free". the theory in secondary schools is that somehow a kid may find a gun somewhere (presumably by being a good pickpocket), but what's the issue on a college campus? How is it unsafe to have a gun there but safe everywhere else in town?

Given the overall positive results we've seen with concealed carry, IMO the only place that should be banned from carry is one that has hardened security on its own. Things like court houses, where you have to go through metal detectors. Otherwise, if we're just talking a "no guns" sign, all you're doing is clearing the path for a lunatic or criminal who will never observe that sign, cutting down on chances to stop them before they do more harm.

So IMO you put hard security in secondary schools b/c they are usually in more monolithic structures that can be secured, and on campuses you allow carry and beef up armed security as well.

Security design is never about making something impenetrable. it's about making it so much work the thief goes elsewhere. Same here, make the softest targets harder, raise the bar and make it harder for them to do significant harm before they get dropped by either security or a citizen prepared to defend himself.

[CitizenBBN]

Eliminate gun free zones and you eliminate the target of most of these murders. The talk of mental health sounds good, but you cannot deny people their right to privacy in the process.

The "mental health" solution isn't about reporting and denying guns, it should be about simply getting more help for people who need help. More availability and more costs covered for those who can't afford to seek help. Make it easier for them to get help without regard to whether they are a risk to others or not, and we will help the situation.

I'm not a fan of entitlements, but in a world where more than half the federal budget is now health care, the slice of that allocated to mental health versus keeping someone alive but in a coma an extra day is really out of whack in its priorities. Both in terms of quality of life for the respective patients and in the benefit to those around the person and in society in general.

If we're going to spend the money let's spend it with priorities that address the mental as well as physical health of people. that is where the problem lies now, you can get all kinds of health care for a broken toe, not so much for depression.

[CitizenBBN]

Applying the rules in place would have made no difference in almost all the cases.

well, it would have in the case we're currently discussing:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/09/30...tcmp=obnetwork

The kid got the guns from his father. his father PASSED multiple background checks despite having a domestic violence order against him that should have gotten him denied.

As I've said here many times, the order never got reported to NICS b/c the states are not good at reporting domestic violence and mental competence results to NICS. It was issued by a "tribal court" (I assume a native american court) but was never put in any databases.

The same thing happened with the Louisiana movie shooter, who had been ruled incompetent by a court in Georgia but the order was never put in the database.

Guys, the details of data management matter. They sound mundane, and as if it's not a solution, but simply doing the right data entry that was agreed to by the NRA and everyone else decades ago would in fact make a difference and cost us absolutely nothing politically.

We could accomplish this improvement a lot faster if the Administration and anti-gun forces gave a damn about making things better and got behind the effort.

This guy faces 10 years in jail btw b/c he lied on his 4473 forms. I've also mentioned here that the ATF barely even tries to prosecute those people (and I've posted the stats, it's stunningly low, about 114 or something like that a year) and no doubt only did in this case b/c of the profile of the situation.

Will it make the problem go away? No, nothing short of confiscation and restriction of the Bill of Rights will do that (and even that won't be 100%), but we need to take the easy steps first and do all we can that doesn't further erode our liberties before we take more of them away. Enforce the laws and see how we do. What's so hard for that to get everyone behind?

[KeithKSR]

well, it would have in the case we're currently discussing:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/09/30...tcmp=obnetwork

The kid got the guns from his father. his father PASSED multiple background checks despite having a domestic violence order against him that should have gotten him denied.

As I've said here many times, the order never got reported to NICS b/c the states are not good at reporting domestic violence and mental competence results to NICS. It was issued by a "tribal court" (I assume a native american court) but was never put in any databases.

The same thing happened with the Louisiana movie shooter, who had been ruled incompetent by a court in Georgia but the order was never put in the database.

Guys, the details of data management matter. They sound mundane, and as if it's not a solution, but simply doing the right data entry that was agreed to by the NRA and everyone else decades ago would in fact make a difference and cost us absolutely nothing politically.

We could accomplish this improvement a lot faster if the Administration and anti-gun forces gave a damn about making things better and got behind the effort.

This guy faces 10 years in jail btw b/c he lied on his 4473 forms. I've also mentioned here that the ATF barely even tries to prosecute those people (and I've posted the stats, it's stunningly low, about 114 or something like that a year) and no doubt only did in this case b/c of the profile of the situation.

Will it make the problem go away? No, nothing short of confiscation and restriction of the Bill of Rights will do that (and even that won't be 100%), but we need to take the easy steps first and do all we can that doesn't further erode our liberties before we take more of them away. Enforce the laws and see how we do. What's so hard for that to get everyone behind?

States should be required to report or risk losing federal funding.

[KeithKSR]

The "mental health" solution isn't about reporting and denying guns, it should be about simply getting more help for people who need help. More availability and more costs covered for those who can't afford to seek help. Make it easier for them to get help without regard to whether they are a risk to others or not, and we will help the situation.

I'm not a fan of entitlements, but in a world where more than half the federal budget is now health care, the slice of that allocated to mental health versus keeping someone alive but in a coma an extra day is really out of whack in its priorities. Both in terms of quality of life for the respective patients and in the benefit to those around the person and in society in general.

If we're going to spend the money let's spend it with priorities that address the mental as well as physical health of people. that is where the problem lies now, you can get all kinds of health care for a broken toe, not so much for depression.

Mental healthcare is an example of healthcare in our country since 2009. Access to services is limited.

[Doc]

well, it would have in the case we're currently discussing:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/09/30...tcmp=obnetwork

The kid got the guns from his father. his father PASSED multiple background checks despite having a domestic violence order against him that should have gotten him denied.

As I've said here many times, the order never got reported to NICS b/c the states are not good at reporting domestic violence and mental competence results to NICS. It was issued by a "tribal court" (I assume a native american court) but was never put in any databases.

The same thing happened with the Louisiana movie shooter, who had been ruled incompetent by a court in Georgia but the order was never put in the database.

Guys, the details of data management matter. They sound mundane, and as if it's not a solution, but simply doing the right data entry that was agreed to by the NRA and everyone else decades ago would in fact make a difference and cost us absolutely nothing politically.

We could accomplish this improvement a lot faster if the Administration and anti-gun forces gave a damn about making things better and got behind the effort.

This guy faces 10 years in jail btw b/c he lied on his 4473 forms. I've also mentioned here that the ATF barely even tries to prosecute those people (and I've posted the stats, it's stunningly low, about 114 or something like that a year) and no doubt only did in this case b/c of the profile of the situation.

Will it make the problem go away? No, nothing short of confiscation and restriction of the Bill of Rights will do that (and even that won't be 100%), but we need to take the easy steps first and do all we can that doesn't further erode our liberties before we take more of them away. Enforce the laws and see how we do. What's so hard for that to get everyone behind?

Except I've heard over and over and over and over by you and every nra card carry gun toting individual that criminals DONT FOLLOW THE RULE. So why should this person just not get his gun somewhere else?

Oh, and I agree with all you nra card carrying gun toting individuals. I think if his dad didn't have a gun, he would gotten one himself

[KeithKSR]

Except I've heard over and over and over and over by you and every nra card carry gun toting individual that criminals DONT FOLLOW THE RULE. So why should this person just not get his gun somewhere else?

Oh, and I agree with all you nra card carrying gun toting individuals. I think if his dad didn't have a gun, he would gotten one himself

If he had absolutely no access to a gun he would find another method. Those intent on harming others will find a way.

[CitizenBBN]

Except I've heard over and over and over and over by you and every nra card carry gun toting individual that criminals DONT FOLLOW THE RULE. So why should this person just not get his gun somewhere else?

Oh, and I agree with all you nra card carrying gun toting individuals. I think if his dad didn't have a gun, he would gotten one himself

He very well could have, but then the conclusion is no gun laws at all. Honestly I'm not sure it would be any worse as far as felons or nuts having guns, but that's not going to fly either.

[BrassowFan]

There are some great thoughts and opinions on both sides of the discussion and I don't pretend that I've thought through the issue but I do think that we as a country need to consider the level of violence and number of incidents that we have compared to other first world nations, and then look to figure out what we're doing wrong.

[Doc]

He very well could have, but then the conclusion is no gun laws at all. Honestly I'm not sure it would be any worse as far as felons or nuts having guns, but that's not going to fly either.

That's not the conclusion I drew. I've drawn no conclusion because to be honest I have no answer. I believe those who think they do are just blowing smoke, and all smoke does is confuse the issue whether it's from the left or right. Believing every American walking around with a loaded 6 shooter on his hip is as idiotic as trying to rid the country of guns IMO. Dumping $$$ into mental health will have zero effect IMO and is a smoke screen to divert and make it appear as if something of substance is being done. That's fine because I don't have an answer

[CitizenBBN]

There are some great thoughts and opinions on both sides of the discussion and I don't pretend that I've thought through the issue but I do think that we as a country need to consider the level of violence and number of incidents that we have compared to other first world nations, and then look to figure out what we're doing wrong.

It's odd b/c in some ways we have less violence. Britain for example is relatively gun free but has more overall violent incidence, i.e. people getting beat up. Of course the gun free part works a lot better on a tiny island too.

Violent crime is steadily declining, and IMO the reasons why are so multi-faceted it's impossible to pin it all on any one area of law or socio-economics. It's a lot of things all interacting.

[BrassowFan]

It's odd b/c in some ways we have less violence. Britain for example is relatively gun free but has more overall violent incidence, i.e. people getting beat up. Of course the gun free part works a lot better on a tiny island too.

Violent crime is steadily declining, and IMO the reasons why are so multi-faceted it's impossible to pin it all on any one area of law or socio-economics. It's a lot of things all interacting.

Violent crime is in decline but I haven't seen anything to say that it's due to the availability of guns, in fact, I think that the anti-gun movement also increased during that same period - which I don't believe is a correlation.

Some attribute the decrease in violent crime to the incarceration rates but there are theories out there ranging from legalized abortion, aging population, to even unleaded gasoline. The truth is that despite a lot of money spent on studying, there's not a single explanation that really explains why it's happening.

All that said, while violent crime has declined dramatically since the 80's, mass shootings have been on a sharp increase and cannot be a separate conversation. There is clearly a problem and when tools that allow people to kill on a mass scale are so readily available, multiple things need to be done to address.

[KeithKSR]

Violent crime is in decline but I haven't seen anything to say that it's due to the availability of guns, in fact, I think that the anti-gun movement also increased during that same period - which I don't believe is a correlation.

Some attribute the decrease in violent crime to the incarceration rates but there are theories out there ranging from legalized abortion, aging population, to even unleaded gasoline. The truth is that despite a lot of money spent on studying, there's not a single explanation that really explains why it's happening.

All that said, while violent crime has declined dramatically since the 80's, mass shootings have been on a sharp increase and cannot be a separate conversation. There is clearly a problem and when tools that allow people to kill on a mass scale are so readily available, multiple things need to be done to address.

Locales that have bought into the anti-gun movement have a much higher incidence of violent crimes. Locales that have liberalized concealed and open carry have had the greatest violent crime decreases. The correlations exist, the reasons for the correlations are likely far deeper than many imagine, or want to imagine.

[ukblue]

The guy was asking each person were they a christan? If they replied yes he shot them and if no he walked on. If this person had got lose in the white house reckon how many people would of been shot?

[jazyd]

The guy was asking each person were they a christan? If they replied yes he shot them and if no he walked on. If this person had got lose in the white house reckon how many people would of been shot?

None