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

[Angel4Truth]

So, if 64 percent of all gun violence is suicide, and then 75 percent of whats left happens in only 5 percent of all US adresses, then there are hunting accidents, etc, seems quite a different picture emerges.

The vast majority by far here uses them appropriately. Seems we need to start cracking down in those 5 percent neighborhoods. :think:

Oh but thats right, we try to, then the cops get blamed for doing their job and the criminals get celebrated and empowered....

 

[glorydaz]

Oft repeated overly simplistic statement. Consider this: Criminals are lazy. If they weren't lazy they wouldn't be criminals. If they were smart and inventive enough to build guns and bombs, they'd be inventing and building things and making a living. There are occasional unabombers, but compared to the run of the mill point and shoot criminals, there's no comparison.

You CAN build your own gun, you CAN build a bomb in your basement, but by increasing the amount of effort required you will decrease the number of people that will do it. Why? because people, and especially criminals, are lazy.

They aren't too lazy to go out and steal. They aren't too lazy to knock a cop over the head or gun down a cop and take his weapon. They aren't too lazy to rob some drug dealer who got guns from Mexico. They are never too lazy to do what it takes to make money. They just don't want to spend all day at a minimum wage job.

 

[Ktoyou]

:thumb: I think people hunt more in the US also than they do in the UK too.

Seems a lot of things are being ignored by the "take away the guns' crowd.

yes, and there is this reason.

“The priority of fame is more common and stronger in the U.S. than perhaps in any other culture in the world,” Lankford said. And at the same time, “the distinction between fame and infamy seems to be disappearing.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ptionally-american-problem-of-mass-shootings/

 

[glorydaz]

So, if 64 percent of all gun violence is suicide, and then 75 percent of whats left happens in only 5 percent of all US adresses, then there are hunting accidents, etc, seems quite a different picture emerges.

The vast majority by far here uses them appropriately. Seems we need to start cracking down in those 5 percent neighborhoods. :think:

Oh but thats right, we try to, then the cops get blamed for doing their job and the criminals get celebrated and empowered....

If we tied up and gagged all the libs, we could make short work of the bad guys. :chuckle:

 

[Angel4Truth]

yes, and there is this reason.

“The priority of fame is more common and stronger in the U.S. than perhaps in any other culture in the world,” Lankford said. And at the same time, “the distinction between fame and infamy seems to be disappearing.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ptionally-american-problem-of-mass-shootings/

Good point.

 

[Ktoyou]

And here we go

Kates and Mauser clarify that they are not suggesting that gun control causes nations to have higher murder rates, rather, they “observed correlations that nations with stringent gun controls tend to have much higher murder rates than nations that allow guns.”

The study goes on to say:

…the burden of proof rests on the proponents of the more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death mantra, especially since they argue public policy ought to be based on that mantra. To bear that burden would at the very least require showing that a large number of nations with more guns have more death and that nations that have imposed stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions in criminal violence (or suicide). But those correlations are not observed when a large number of nations are compared across the world.
The paper resurfaced at a time when Boston itself has been looking for ways to combat gun violence, and gun-related deaths, after a sharp uptick in shootings in the city this year.

As of July, more than 100 people had been impacted by shootings in Boston in some way, and more than 17 people had been killed in the city by someone with a firearm. The increase in incidents showed a nearly 30 percent increase in gun-related deaths compared with the same time period in 2012. That number has gone up slightly since then.

In order to quell the violence, officials have been mulling a gun buyback program, and increasing community outreach, but based on Harvard’s latest findings, that may not be the answer.

While the research published by Harvard may show a direct correlation between lower gun-related incidents and less stringent laws, and Boston, specifically, is experiencing an alleged gun crisis, overall, stricter rules on firearms in Massachusetts has seemingly led to fewer deaths, according to the latest data available, putting the state in the second to last slot for the lowest number of reported fatalities nationwide.

But when it comes to examining nations as a whole, the Harvard study suggests otherwise. “If more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death, areas within nations with higher gun ownership should in general have more murders than those with less gun ownership in a similar area. But, in fact, the reverse pattern prevails,” the authors wrote.
http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/...d-gun-study-no-decrease-in-violence-with-ban/

 

[Angel4Truth]

If we tied up and gagged all the libs, we could make short work of the bad guys. :chuckle:

:thumb: :chuckle:

 

[glorydaz]

:thumb: I think people hunt more in the US also than they do in the UK too.

Seems a lot of things are being ignored by the "take away the guns' crowd.

Yep, lots of people hunt. Even lots of the liberals I know hunt. And many do believe in self-defense as well.

 

[Quetzal]

Question for the thread: What is your opinion on background checks prior to gun purchases? I know some states have them, but do you think if this was applied across the board it would help at all? Why or why not?

 

[Angel4Truth]

Question for the thread: What is your opinion on background checks prior to gun purchases? I know some states have them, but do you think if this was applied across the board it would help at all? Why or why not?

Define specifically what you mean by 'background checks' to check for?

 

[Quetzal]

Define specifically what you mean by 'background checks' to check for?

This is from Connecticut, just as an example of something I had in mind:

Certificate of Eligibility for Pistol and Revolvers or Long Guns or Ammunition required to purchase handguns, long guns or ammunition, respectively. Applicants must complete an approved safety course, and pass a NICS background check prior to issuance of certificate. Certificates of Eligibility are granted on a Shall-Issue basis to qualified applicants, and are valid for five years. There is a 14-day waiting period for the purchase of long guns, with exceptions for peace officers, Active-Duty military members, and holders of carry permits. With the passing of Public Act 13-3, hunting licenses (which take approximately 12 hours to complete versus the eight hours the NRA Basic Pistol Course takes) may no longer be used to purchase ammunition or long rifles. Long guns and ammunition purchased outside of Connecticut are not subject to the long gun and ammunition eligibility requirements (even if one is a CT resident) other than the two week waiting period must be observed for long gun transfers out of state, unless one has a valid hunting license or carry permit.

(Emphasis is mine)

 

[Quetzal]

To be fair, not sure exactly what a NICS check involves. I will make a point to look into it in the morning.

 

[Angel4Truth]

To be fair, not sure exactly what a NICS check involves. I will make a point to look into it in the morning.

Ok, ill answer you when you tell me what you think they should be checking for.

 

[Ktoyou]

Question for the thread: What is your opinion on background checks prior to gun purchases? I know some states have them, but do you think if this was applied across the board it would help at all? Why or why not?

Personally, I think it is imperative. I also think having a permit is a good idea. I have a permit in three states, and Texas acknowledges one state, so I can carry there legally.

I would further argue that we need more stringent, but regulated mental health information. Crimes are correlated with this, as well criminal records, which we are doing well.

The highest murder rates occur in large urban areas, while in smaller towns, where citizens are more likely presumed armed, the rates of violence, other than domestic, are lower.

Since the topic is mass murder, let's keep in mind, they are not deterred, since they often kill themselves. If one looks into the issue, we see they are not usually the legal procurers of the weapons; it is other relatives, and parents who are not securing their weapons.

 

[lifeisgood]

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?

None!

Only the shooter's belief in Jesus Christ and what He did at the Cross of Calvary, for it would have changed the shooter's heart.

 

[Quetzal]

Ok, ill answer you when you tell me what you think they should be checking for.

Alright, got something for you. (Regarding the NICS Checks from the above example.) It checks three databases (National Crime Information Center (NCIC), the Interstate Identification Index (III), and the NICS Index.) looking for what appears to be criminal activity. The following activities make them illegible:

Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
Is under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
Is a fugitive from justice;
Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance;
Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution;
Is illegally or unlawfully in the United States;
Has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
Having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced U.S. citizenship;
Is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner;
Has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.


If any of the above is true, they cannot do the following:

Shipping or transporting any firearm or ammunition in interstate or foreign commerce;
Receiving any firearm or ammunition that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.

Whacha think?

(Source for those interested)

 

[Angel4Truth]

Alright, got something for you. (Regarding the NICS Checks from the above example.) It checks three databases (National Crime Information Center (NCIC), the Interstate Identification Index (III), and the NICS Index.) looking for what appears to be criminal activity. The following activities make them illegible:

Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;

needs to be more specific, someone who was convicted once of drinking and driving, for example could be sentenced to this.

Needs to be more specific.

Is under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;

Violates innocent till proven guilty

Is a fugitive from justice;

Could be used to label someone unfairly. Innocent untill proven guilty.

Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance;

So anyone who might have become addicted to a painkiller from an injury, etc.. should never be able to hunt?

Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution;

Too broad, this could be abused also.

Is illegally or unlawfully in the United States;

agree

Has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;

Disagree, the green beret who beat a child rapist was discharged, there is no reason he shouldnt be able to have a gun.

Having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced U.S. citizenship;

agree

Is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner;

Agree but not for life, this could be abused, by false reports of stalking.

Has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

Disagree that misdemeanor crimes should weigh in period, only felonies. (pretty sure felons are already barred)

 

[Greg Jennings]

They're still human beings, many also of European descent (which are the vast majority of mass shooters). I don't see any reason for "culture" to make a difference when dealing with gun violence.

Our cultural problem as a nation is we aren't willing to even try *any* type of new gun laws in response to these disasters.

We just throw up our hands and pretend that guns are simply a part of the natural environment that we have to put up with. They're like tornadoes or something. :sigh:

I'm fine with more strict gun laws so long as responsible people are able to access firearms. I think the problem is much harder to solve because most of these attacks are committed with illegally acquired weapons. More strict gun laws won't have any impact whatsoever on illegal gun ownership (except maybe to make illegal gun sales go up). The only possible solution I see to stopping these attacks is to have a few armed and highly trained guards hired to protect designated gun-free zones.

 

[Ktoyou]

Read here.

 

[Ktoyou]

I too disagree with this one. 'Has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. '

A man could be charged with slapping his wife, while not the appropriate action, taking away right to bear arms is purely punitive.