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

[This Charming Manc]

Just a question at what point does the one or two armed guards on a campus starting shooting at a would be assailant?

or are we suggested one in each classroom?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

No law can stop a tragedy like this, but two measures would greatly reduce the incidence of mass shootings and murder in general:
First, redact gun regulations. Encourage people to carry.

I agree with that completely however we are talking about Oregon here. I highly doubt very many Oregon liberals are going to get a gun no matter how much we encourage them.

Second, institute the death penalty to be enforced swiftly and painfully. If would-be murderers saw how they would end up, they would be deterred from acting.

I agree with that as well.

And in this case the perpetrator did in fact receive a very swift death sentence.

 

[glorydaz]

I agree with that completely however we are talking about Oregon here. I highly doubt very many Oregon liberals are going to get a gun no matter how much we encourage them.

That would be true of Eugene and Portland, maybe, but we have lots of rednecks in this state. Roseburg would have plenty of gun toters if they were allowed to carry on campus.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Guards would be good if there were enough guards to be sure one was in the right place at the right time.

I don't think having more armed people would solve the problem. What if the shooter comes in the back and the defender is in the front and a shoot out starts, who is in the middle? If there are more than one defender then what? Finally, when the police arrive on the scene and they have 5 or 6 people with guns drawn, how do they determine who is the threat and who is not?

What if you walk onto a campus and every 10th person is armed. You look around at all those people carrying guns and wonder, which one of those people is just a normal person exercising their rights and which one is the angry soul wanting to take their anger out on the first person who wishes them a good day? That is why I don't carry. I'm not trained in threat assessment and I do not want to be considered a potential threat by somebody who is a little more trigger happy than they should be to carry a gun.

I support the second amendment and I think people should have the rights described therein. That said, if you are going to carry a gun you had better be very well versed in the law about what happens after you draw your gun and fire it. The right to bear arms and actually taking a shot at somebody are two very different things under the law.

 

[This Charming Manc]

Wow someone has thought about this rather than beating there chest and being jingoistic.

Guards would be good if there were enough guards to be sure one was in the right place at the right time.

I don't think having more armed people would solve the problem. What if the shooter comes in the back and the defender is in the front and a shoot out starts, who is in the middle? If there are more than one defender then what? Finally, when the police arrive on the scene and they have 5 or 6 people with guns drawn, how do they determine who is the threat and who is not?

What if you walk onto a campus and every 10th person is armed. You look around at all those people carrying guns and wonder, which one of those people is just a normal person exercising their rights and which one is the angry soul wanting to take their anger out on the first person who wishes them a good day? That is why I don't carry. I'm not trained in threat assessment and I do not want to be considered a potential threat by somebody who is a little more trigger happy than they should be to carry a gun.

I support the second amendment and I think people should have the rights described therein. That said, if you are going to carry a gun you had better be very well versed in the law about what happens after you draw your gun and fire it. The right to bear arms and actually taking a shot at somebody are two very different things under the law.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

That would be true of Eugene and Portland, maybe, but we have lots of rednecks in this state. Roseburg would have plenty of gun toters if they were allowed to carry on campus.

That's encouraging.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Guards would be good if there were enough guards to be sure one was in the right place at the right time.

Any armed guard anywhere near that school would have been better than none.

Armed guards would do (at minimum) two things....

1. Help deter crimes like this because shooters would know in advance there would be armed resistance.

2. Help reduce the amount of casualties dramatically. It takes several minutes for the cops to show up and those are the moments when these shooters are doing the most of their damage. If an armed guard is already on premises (even if he's in the opposite side of the building) it's still a quicker response than waiting for the police to arrive.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Just a question at what point does the one or two armed guards on a campus starting shooting at a would be assailant?

or are we suggested one in each classroom?

I can't understand your question.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Any armed guard anywhere near that school would have been better than none.

Armed guards would do (at minimum) two things....

1. Help deter crimes like this because shooters would know in advance there would be armed resistance.

Unless the shooter is familiar with the location and knows the schedules of guards. The shooter could easily be on the other side of campus or building from the guards. For an average college classroom building, being o the opposite side represents a fair distance.

2. Help reduce the amount of casualties dramatically. It takes several minutes for the cops to show up and those are the moments when these shooters are doing the most of their damage. If an armed guard is already on premises (even if he's in the opposite side of the building) it's still a quicker response than waiting for the police to arrive.

Again, only if the guard in near bye. If a shooter walks into a classroom and starts shooting with a semi-auto gun and the guard is on the opposite side of the building, it could easily take that guard several minutes to arrive. How many shoots can a semi-auto gun fire in 2 or 3 minutes?

Red Rocks Community College and University of Colorado at Boulder both have armed police forces for their respective campuses. Given the size of those campuses, even with a car, an officer can still be several minutes away.

 

[patrick jane]

All it takes is a few hand picked folks at campuses or public meeting places that are trained and licensed to be armed. Always have at least one person trained and armed on duty at all times. They could be from the already existing staff or even volunteers

i am a firm proponent of conceal/carry because training classes are required and background checks are done. good law-abiding citizens must be armed and prepared in this world today. churches too, which we discussed after that mass killing

 

[CabinetMaker]

All it takes is a few hand picked folks at campuses or public meeting places that are trained and licensed to be armed. Always have at least one person trained and armed on duty at all times. They could be from the already existing staff or even volunteers

i am a firm proponent of conceal/carry because training classes are required and background checks are done. good law-abiding citizens must be armed and prepared in this world today. churches too, which we discussed after that mass killing

Which building? Note, the distance across campus is measured in miles.

 

[Ktoyou]

In reality, any measure of gun control would not make any difference. What may help is to hold parents more responsible for safe-keeping firearms. Too many people fail to lock up their weapons; a safe is best, yet a simple lock-box will work, as well a trigger lock.

Any gun control measure only effects those good citizens who obey the law, not the black market where guns used in street crimes are usually procured. For those good citizens, a little care is all that is needed. If we need any laws they should focus on individual gun control, not attempts to alter the means of legal ownership.

 

[ok doser]

What law could have prevented yesterday's tragedy?

:think:

Spoiler

Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

 

[Stripe]

Any armed guard anywhere near that school would have been better than none.

Armed guards would do (at minimum) two things....

1. Help deter crimes like this because shooters would know in advance there would be armed resistance.

2. Help reduce the amount of casualties dramatically. It takes several minutes for the cops to show up and those are the moments when these shooters are doing the most of their damage. If an armed guard is already on premises (even if he's in the opposite side of the building) it's still a quicker response than waiting for the police to arrive.

I agree that armed guards would have helped in this situation, but legislating for such measures is writing defeat into law. Lawmakers should prepare laws from an idealist's perspective, ie, make rules as if there wasn't a murder epidemic to deal with.

 

[ebenz47037]

I'm confused. Those two statements seem to contradict each other.

If an armed guard "could have prevented it", then that's good right?

Not really. An armed guard could have stopped this guy, if he was alert and prepare for the incident and if the guy wasn't ready to do anything in order to get as many victims as possible. If there was more than one armed guard, there would be more of a possibility of stopping this incident.

I've read of many incidents where the shooter/s who would stop at nothing to kill as many people as possible. The survivors of those incidents would talk about the heightened senses of the killer/s. The way I read them, the killer/s were ready for pretty much anything.

I'm not a gun control nut. I don't believe that we need more gun laws (we should enforce the ones we have, instead, if we keep all of them). In fact, I think we have too many gun laws at this time.

 

[genuineoriginal]

If the Militia was reenacted, then every able-bodied citizen of Oregon between the ages of 16-60 would own and be allowed to carry their own firearms, be trained in the use of their own firearms and emergency response, and know and train with the other people in their area that are also in the militia under the same commanders.

One part of the Militia act would have to include prohibitions on the carrying of weapons by anyone that is not a registered member of the militia of the state of Oregon and prohibitions against membership in the militia for non-residents of Oregon.

With a strong militia comes a freedom from terrorists like the Oregon Community College shooter.

 

[This Charming Manc]

There were two actually.

The first how many armed guards would be needed to ensure a school is safe? Are we suggesting one per school or one per classroom?

The other is at what point would an armed guard deem a student to be a threat?

If they bring a weapon onto campus?
If they draw a weapon campus?
Or after they shoot a weapon on campus?

Some more questions,

What legal powers do these security guards have? What level of training?
What level of weapons do they need? If citizens can get hold of assault weapons and body armour do the guards need likewise?
Are they expected to defend against assault weapons with a .9mm pistol?

Do we want armed government police patrolling our schools?
What implications would it have for freedom in schools?
What avenues for abuse of power does this open?

As you can see from my questions you will be unsurprised to see i'm not warm to the idea. I think the concept of putting more guns in the hands of the "good guys" creates issues however well intentioned.

Therefore I look to see how can we get weapons out of the hands of the bad guys.

I can't understand your question.

 

[musterion]

Do we want armed government police patrolling our schools?
What implications would it have for freedom in schools?
What avenues for abuse of power does this open?

You're in the almost totally disarmed U.K. and you're asking us?

 

[musterion]

Back when I was somewhat liberal on a few matters of life, I would be shocked at hearing older folks say, "A big problem with this nation is that we don't kill enough people anymore." As I near 50, I now see the wisdom in that. Public executions were not done for the sake of sheer spectacle. It was so Mom and Dad could say to little Johnny as he watched someone get The Drop, "See, Johnny? That's what will happen to you if you _____, so don't be a criminal."

 

[journey]

Criminals and crazy people don't obey the law, so no law could have prevented this.