Oregon Community College Shooting - What law (if any) could have prevented it?

[glorydaz]

Alright, here it is. My solution to the school shooting deal that I think will be acceptable to both sides of the argument.

There are around 100,000 schools in the US. There are an insane number of unemployed US military vets. The numbers vary so much(300,000 to 900,000 from a quick search), so basically there are plenty of vets for my plan. Lets find vets that need/want jobs. Lets brush up their training again, and have a qualification for them. Lets stick 2-3 veterans ARMED and in some sort of uniform in front of schools with radios, lawn chairs and smiles. IF an active shooter situation occurs, the veterans at that school radio for nearby vets to head over for back up. If armed, trained soldiers in front of schools isn't deterrent enough, at least that would have a faster(immediate) response than we are currently seeing. PAY these vets a significant LIVING wage, give them a medical plan, and lets go. This way, we don't need to add to the teacher's workload, we don't have to have the "training" argument, and WE START PROTECTING OUR CHILDREN. I'd love to see this happen, and it kills two birds with one stone. I've been saying it for a couple of years, but haven't tried to put it out there.

Exactly. Many vets have tried to volunteer to do just that, but they aren't allowed. How stupid is that? They would feel useful. They would be useful. They already know what to do. Trained, armed, experienced and able to protect the children......the perfect solution.

Problem - Too easy....too much common sense required from the powers that be....and it would take away the left's argument that this country should be gun free.

 

[Totton Linnet]

You realize they are in their 70s now, best to go with Gulf vets they are only in their 50s

 

[Eric h]

All you have to do is listen to Progressive Liberals. They want to take away guns, and they want to shut up everyone who disagrees with them.

It's a blueprint for tyranny.

Relax, chill, you guys hold the trump card, you are always going to win. People with guns want their rights, and they have guns.

People without guns want their rights, but they don't have guns, stands to reason who is going to win.

Same argument for nuclear weapons, countries live in fear, so they have big bombs, bigger bombs just means more power, no one can tell the USA to get rid of their hardware. But the USA can flex its muscles and tell smaller countries to disarm.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Relax, chill, you guys hold the trump card, you are always going to win. People with guns want their rights, and they have guns.

People without guns want their rights, but they don't have guns, stands to reason who is going to win.

Same argument for nuclear weapons, countries live in fear, so they have big bombs, bigger bombs just means more power, no one can tell the USA to get rid of their hardware. But the USA can flex its muscles and tell smaller countries to disarm.

And it will be the people with the guns and bombs that save your butt when evil people are trying to kill folks without guns and bombs.

 

[Greg Jennings]

A gunman opens fire and kills at least 10 at the Umpqua Community College in Oregon.

President Obama made a statement saying congress should enact gun control laws.

So I want to know....

What law could have prevented yesterday's tragedy?

I have racked my brain on this very question and I can't come up with anything other than posting a few armed guards on every campus. Maybe....just maybe.....that could've helped. Perhaps it wouldn't have, but it couldn't have hurt

 

[glorydaz]

You realize they are in their 70s now, best to go with Gulf vets they are only in their 50s

We're not talking about the guys with walkers. :chuckle:

There are lots of fresh vets who can't find work in this Obama economy. And, there are lots of vets who have been trained and served without being in any conflict.

So, yesterday there was a threat against my granddaughter's middle school posted on the internet. It specified a "shooting", and was quickly removed. But not before the cops had been informed. My daughter was upset and called the cops who said they would be posting two armed guards and searching the lockers. She opted to keep her child home, anyway, as did some other parents. I told her it wasn't worth it, especially when I heard how upset she was.

Her school is unique in that it is completely fenced and locks it's gates when the bell rings. If you're late you can't get in. That's good, but very few schools have such a simple defence as fences and gates......and a couple of armed guards. How hard is that?

 

[Eric h]

And it will be the people with the guns and bombs that save your butt when evil people are trying to kill folks without guns and bombs.

Were the hundred thousand dead Iraqi civilians killed by evil people? America and Britain should take some responsibility for those deaths.

I don't want anyone using guns on my behalf, I was against Britain going to war against Afghanistan and Iraq. A hundred thousand dead civilians and two million refugees, we have made the world a dangerous place with guns and bombs.

Jesus said, love and pray for your enemy, he did not say kill them after you have prayed.

 

[Huckleberry]

Were the hundred thousand dead Iraqi civilians killed by evil people? America and Britain should take some responsibility for those deaths.

I don't want anyone using guns on my behalf, I was against Britain going to war against Afghanistan and Iraq. A hundred thousand dead civilians and two million refugees, we have made the world a dangerous place with guns and bombs.

Jesus said, love and pray for your enemy, he did not say kill them after you have prayed.

None of this addresses Knight's point unless you're also saying you don't want anyone using guns and bombs in your defense. So, you don't want that? What if your country is invaded by those intending to wipe out you and yours? You don't want the military interceding on your behalf? What if a criminal intends to kill you? You don't want law enforcement interceding on your behalf?

 

[Eric h]

None of this addresses Knight's point unless you're also saying you don't want anyone using guns and bombs in your defense.

That is exactly what I said in my last post.

What if your country is invaded by those intending to wipe out you and yours?

Iraq did not ask to be invaded, yet my country along with America, did just that.

You don't want the military interceding on your behalf?

No, any peace made with a gun, will have to be kept with a gun, look at the mess Iraq is in now.

What if a criminal intends to kill you? You don't want law enforcement interceding on your behalf

I have been threatened with a knife and punched, I did not press charges.

 

[Huckleberry]

That is exactly what I said in my last post.

Iraq did not ask to be invaded, yet my country along with America, did just that.

No, any peace made with a gun, will have to be kept with a gun, look at the mess Iraq is in now.

I have been threatened with a knife and punched, I did not press charges.

It would safe to say you're a pacifist then? And that you'd be willing to deny everyone else all the defenses you would deny yourself? Military, law enforcement and self defense?

 

[glorydaz]

Iraq did not ask to be invaded, yet my country along with America, did just that.

Germany didn't ask to be invaded, either, but I'm sure most people are glad Hitler is gone.

No, any peace made with a gun, will have to be kept with a gun, look at the mess Iraq is in now.

Iraq is a mess because Obama didn't finish what was started.

I have been threatened with a knife and punched, I did not press charges.

Whoop de doo. So you just gave the guy a pass so he could go to the next poor victim without any fear of retribution. :nono:

 

[moparguy]

A gunman opens fire and kills at least 10 at the Umpqua Community College in Oregon.

President Obama made a statement saying congress should enact gun control laws.

So I want to know....

What law could have prevented yesterday's tragedy?

"everyone of the age of 21 and up shall be required to test with and exhibit competence and safety with a firearm (in order to have the civil rights of voting or being in any state job or office, a person must comply with this law) and SHALL be required to carry and judiciously USE said firearm in the event of any other person perpetrating great bodily harm or death upon others" in the so-carrying person's presence. Failure to do so shall be counted pusillanimity and constitute grounds for the loss of all civil privileges. Any person who unreasonably uses force and appeals to this law shall suffer the appropriate civil and criminal penalties.

Furthermore, no state nor public entity may hinder a person's ability to carry out the duty outlined in this statute, after said person has complied with the training and safety and carry parts of this law, in any way excepting they provide armed, competent, and safe security equal to that which they are hindering.

Those selling firearms SHALL be allowed to deny anyone the sale of a firearm; Those training SHALL be allowed to deny training. Those selling firearms or giving said training may still be held liable for gross negligence on their part in exercising judgement on who to withhold or give training and sales of firearms to."

I ain't no lawyer or legislator; what's above is just a silly idea, nothing more. I certainly don't think it'll happen - and I haven't thought out the ramifications beyond the general idea that it might suppress things like what happened at the college recently in oregon.


Of course, this is only a COULD have; it wouldn't guarantee these events would be stopped. It's probably not even in line with our constitution. It certainly isn't in line with our cowardly society at large (yes, sheepdogs, I know you're out there).

http://www.rkba.org/comment/cowards.html

I wish people would realize that every time they could reasonably resist these evils, it's good that they do so. Acquiescing to the guy who's got you at gunpoint says to him that your shoes or whatever are equal in worth to your life. It also says to him that people will give him whatever he wants if he threatens their lives - or other people's lives. You are responsible for reinforcing his evil thinking.

It's certainly appropriate and understandable to be scared senseless when someone threatens your life in a meaningful way. Which is exactly why we ought to think these things out BEFORE they happen, so when we're scared we REACT without thinking the RIGHT way. Hello, "Let's roll," anyone? Running INTO the towers instead of OUT of them? That kind of moral good happening quickly enough to make a correct outcome of any type takes a LOT of positive reinforcement and careful consideration beforehand. Most of us are chickens at heart. It takes a lot to suppress this.

Or, in shorthand: Newsflash, life is terminal, therefore we're all gonna die. Choose to die doing moral good; and you can't beat evil by being evil too, you beat evil by doing good.

Really really shorthand: those who have a reasonable chance to stop evil should. We should make ourselves ready and capable to do so on some level or the other.

 

[Greg Jennings]

Germany didn't ask to be invaded, either, but I'm sure most people are glad Hitler is gone.

Iraq is a mess because Obama didn't finish what was started.

You're obviously welcome to your opinion, but you won't find really anyone outside of Dick Cheney who thinks that invading Iraq was a good idea in hindsight. Saddam was an evil evil man, but for all his faults he knew how to run a country in that region of the world. He used fear to keep all of the warring terrorist groups and religious sects in line. As we found out after we deposed him, those groups just don't really have civil discussions with each other, but instead fight and kill each other if they're not kept in check by a tyrannical leader. Iraq is not a first world country, and a dictator is exactly what it takes to run it.

Pinning Iraq on Obama just isn't accurate. Could he have handled it better? Sure. But he was handed an unworkable situation to begin with. The moment we deposed Saddam we sealed that country's fate and secured ISIS's rise to power.

Hitler's Germany on the other hand WAS a first world country. It didn't need (and in fact was hurt by) a tyrannical leader. So comparing Hitler's Germany and Saddam's Iraq just isn't a very clean comparison

 

[Eric h]

You're obviously welcome to your opinion, but you won't find really anyone outside of Dick Cheney who thinks that invading Iraq was a good idea in hindsight. Saddam was an evil evil man, but for all his faults he knew how to run a country in that region of the world. He used fear to keep all of the warring terrorist groups and religious sects in line. As we found out after we deposed him, those groups just don't really have civil discussions with each other, but instead fight and kill each other if they're not kept in check by a tyrannical leader. Iraq is not a first world country, and a dictator is exactly what it takes to run it.

Pinning Iraq on Obama just isn't accurate. Could he have handled it better? Sure. But he was handed an unworkable situation to begin with. The moment we deposed Saddam we sealed that country's fate and secured ISIS's rise to power.

Amen, couldn't have said it better.

Hitler's Germany on the other hand WAS a first world country. It didn't need (and in fact was hurt by) a tyrannical leader. So comparing Hitler's Germany and Saddam's Iraq just isn't a very clean comparison

Germany invaded Poland, a cause for a just war, Iraq invaded Kuwait, again the cause for a just war. No such justification for the Second Gulf War though. Invisible WMD's, that might have had a range of four hundred miles, if they existed, and Mr Bush on a crusade.

I am against war, there is very little I can do, other than voice an opinion, people in power who control armies, make the decisions.

 

[Eric h]

And it will be the people with the guns and bombs that save your butt when evil people are trying to kill folks without guns and bombs.

As MrDeets pointed out in an earlier post, There are an insane number of unemployed US military vets. The numbers vary so much(300,000 to 900,000 from a quick search). This is yet another reason; that I do not want people fighting on my behalf.

These men and women come back damaged from war, they have done things and seen things that people should not have to do. Many of them cannot adjust to civilian life and families, they find it difficult finding jobs. Booze, drugs and medication become a way of life for many of them.

I have met soldiers in the UK, after they have served in Afghanistan and Iraq. This is a terrible thing to say, but I almost feel the lucky soldiers, are the ones that come back in a body bag, their suffering is over.

 

[Dan Emanuel]

You're obviously welcome to your opinion, but you won't find really anyone outside of Dick Cheney who thinks that invading Iraq was a good idea in hindsight...

I don't think we've reached "hindsight" yet on that 1.

...Saddam was an evil evil man, but for all his faults he knew how to run a country in that region of the world. He used fear to keep all of the warring terrorist groups and religious sects in line. As we found out after we deposed him, those groups just don't really have civil discussions with each other, but instead fight and kill each other if they're not kept in check by a tyrannical leader. Iraq is not a first world country, and a dictator is exactly what it takes to run it...

I disagree. This to me is tantamount to believing that the people in those country's are subhuman, and deserve a dictator.

...Pinning Iraq on Obama just isn't accurate. Could he have handled it better? Sure. But he was handed an unworkable situation to begin with. The moment we deposed Saddam we sealed that country's fate and secured ISIS's rise to power...

Every President has to deal with what his (so far) predecessor left for him. Thats just part of being the President. His job is the same as every Presidents job. Deal with what you were handed, and deal with what occur's while in office. President G.W. Bush didn't ask for 9/11 or for the financial crisis to occur. He responded as best he could, and thats what every President would have done. Its been President Obamas job to deal with what President Bush left him. Calling it "unworkable" is making excuse's. If the President of the United State's cannot "work" with what he (so far) has, then I don't think he will go down in history as a very effective President. No hard feeling's. President Kennedy had a far less "workable" situation I.M.O. and he managed our way through it. President Obama doesn't have a Bay of Pig's problem to solve in Iraq.

...Hitler's Germany on the other hand WAS a first world country...

Germany wasn't a destitute and impoverished African or Far Eastern country, no, but don't forget that they were financially destroyed and were being destroyed by the treaty ending W.W.I. Unemployment was sky high, and German's were in real trouble when Hitler maneuvered his way into power. His economic program's actually moved the needle, which is why German's came to adore him. Iraq was not like this.

...It didn't need (and in fact was hurt by) a tyrannical leader. So comparing Hitler's Germany and Saddam's Iraq just isn't a very clean comparison

I agree. See above.


DJ

1.1
​

 

[Greg Jennings]

I don't think we've reached "hindsight" yet on that 1.

Jeb Bush would disagree with you there

I disagree. This to me is tantamount to believing that the people in those country's are subhuman, and deserve a dictator.

No you misunderstood. Nobody deserves a dictator. Ideally nobody would have them and everyone would love each other and never kill. But obviously that's not how it goes. Some countries are not modern enough to be controlled any other way besides fear. That's where a dictator comes in.

Every President has to deal with what his (so far) predecessor left for him. Thats just part of being the President. His job is the same as every Presidents job. Deal with what you were handed, and deal with what occur's while in office. President G.W. Bush didn't ask for 9/11 or for the financial crisis to occur. He responded as best he could, and thats what every President would have done. Its been President Obamas job to deal with what President Bush left him. Calling it "unworkable" is making excuse's. If the President of the United State's cannot "work" with what he (so far) has, then I don't think he will go down in history as a very effective President. No hard feeling's. President Kennedy had a far less "workable" situation I.M.O. and he managed our way through it. President Obama doesn't have a Bay of Pig's problem to solve in Iraq.

We were already in Iraq when Obama took office, Bush was supposedly warned of an impending attack on the Trade Center in early 2001 and didn't take it seriously enough, and Iraq was about as unworkable as situations get. There was no possible way to get out without the region falling into chaos, but at the same time there was no financially feasible way to stay there. I don't like Obama myself, but Iraq isn't his fault.

 

[JPPT1974]

You never deserve a dictator. Just really that name is so heinous. Well Iraq is nearly in the past. As it is being forced on Afghan now recently.

 

[Eric h]

And it will be the people with the guns and bombs that save your butt when evil people are trying to kill folks without guns and bombs.

I heard a horrible statistic today, there have been 5,273 US military deaths since 1999.

Since 1999, there have also been around 128,000 suicides amongst US veterans, that is around 8,000 per year, 22 per day, almost one an hour.

People with guns pay a high price, and the country they serve, seems to fail them in their time of need.

It seems MrDeets may have had a point about employing vets as school guards.

 

[whitestone]

If there could be some type of legislation that could have prevented this or not at Oregon or not is I think a very good question. On one hand I think no,on the other yes. Why is that none of us drive to work,appointments ect. in the a.m. or afternoon and do not see the police at the crosswalks or school zone's reduced speed limit without seeing armed officers. We see in most schools "school resource officers" on armed patrol already https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_resource_officer

Oregon C.C. by state law and by policy of O.C.C. only had a security guard armed with pepper spray http://www.oregonlive.com/education/index.ssf/2015/10/after_umpqua_community_college.html so an armed officer was not present.

In others they were present and it did no good,at Columbine they had an armed guard http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/21/columbine-armed-guards_n_2347096.html At Sandy Hook there was no school resource officer present http://www.desertsun.com/story/news/education/2014/07/18/michelle-gay-sandy-hook/12823187/ Virginia Tech. has a police dept. http://www.police.vt.edu/VTPD_v2.1/home.html


At some point in in the madness of trying to reason through what to do it's apparent that this both takes place with or without armed guards. It does seem reasonable to have armed guards on campus but what then do we say about the shootings where they were present when these shootings took place?

If they are already at the crosswalks,if they are already present watching for people speeding through the school zones,if they are already inside most schools armed and trained then how are these nuts getting past them? Its seems apparent that someone with intent to do harm to the defenseless will watch and plan their crimes around when these armed police/s.guards are on break/lunch,not present,ect.