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

[Huckleberry]

If you think having guns allows the public to avoid government oppression you are sorely mistaken.

The US has the most powerful military in the world. What are handguns and semiautomatic rifles against drones, bombers, vx poison gas and nuclear weapons? If the government wanted to oppress its citizens there wouldn't be much we could do about it through the use of force.

"The FP-45 Liberator
The FP-45 Liberator was a pistol manufactured by the United States military during World War II for use by resistance forces in occupied territories.
...
Design
The FP-45 was a crude, single-shot pistol designed to be cheaply and quickly mass-produced. It had just 23 largely stamped and turned steel parts that were cheap and easy to manufacture. It fired a .45 caliber pistol cartridge from an unrifled barrel. Due to this limitation, it was intended for short range use, 1–4 yards (0–5 m). Its maximum effective range was only about 25 feet (7.6 m). At longer range, the bullet would begin to tumble and stray off course.

Wartime use
The Liberator was shipped in a cardboard box with 10 rounds of .45 ACP ammunition, a wooden dowel to remove the empty cartridge case, and an instruction sheet in comic strip form showing how to load and fire the weapon. Extra ammunition could be stored in the pistol grip. The Liberator was a crude and clumsy weapon, never intended for front line service. It was originally intended as an insurgency weapon to be mass dropped behind enemy lines to resistance fighters in occupied territory. A resistance fighter was to recover the gun, sneak up on an Axis occupier, kill or incapacitate him, and retrieve his weapons."
(source)

 

[Alate_One]

"The FP-45 Liberator
The FP-45 Liberator was a pistol manufactured by the United States military during World War II for use by resistance forces in occupied territories.

Yeah that was 70 years ago. The US has slightly better weapons now . . .you think? Also there are other ways to resist (and probably more effective ones) than just firearms. Cyber attacks spring to mind.

 

[jeffblue101]

So if you're pro-life you should be anti-gun. It's as simple as that.

lets be clear here, are you advocating that we get rid of the second amendment?

 

[PureX]

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?

The solution would be to regulate gun ownership and use through education, testing, and licensing similar to the way we regulate the operation of motor vehicles. If citizens want to own assault weapons, and/or carry sidearms like soldiers or police, they should undergo the same training and testing that soldiers and police must undergo. And they should be held to the same ongoing testing and educational standards to maintain their licenses.

Everyone has the right to own a gun, but not everyone has the ability to do so responsibly, and safely. So we need to set up a system of oversight that identifies and precludes those who are not able to own and use guns responsibly, and safely, while allowing those who can to do so.

But this idea, and this whole discussion, is irrelevant so long as the gun manufactures can legally bribe the congress to continue doing nothing. And can continue to propagandize the public with threats of government incursions on basic civil liberties. The truth is that the various corporations that now routinely bribe the Congress and control the laws they write are a far a greater threat to our liberty and well-being than any politician ever was. And the ongoing death count due to the 'firearm free-for-all' that the gun lobby maintains in this country is ample proof of that.

 

[Huckleberry]

So the only point to having a gun is really making you feel better. And I can understand that feeling, firearms are powerful weapons. And having power makes you feel powerful and therefore safer.

Unfortunately research shows that having a gun in the home raises the risk of homicide and suicide by guns. Having a gun in the home can turn an argument deadly and make suicide that much easier.

* A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year.[130]

* According to the CDC, there were about 18,498 gun-related accidents that resulted in death or an emergency room visit during 2001[131] (the earliest year such data is available from the CDC[132]). This is roughly 27 times lower than the CDC's 1994 estimate for the number of times Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes.[133]

[131] Calculated with data from the following sources:
a) Dataset: "Unintentional Firearm Gunshot Nonfatal Injuries, 2001, Disposition: All Cases." U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. Accessed September 1, 2010 at http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/nfirates2001.html
Number of injuries = 17,696
NOTE: "Disposition" is defined as "Where the injured person went when released from emergency department"
b) Dataset: "Unintentional Firearm Deaths, 2001." U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. Accessed September 1, 2010 at http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html
Number of Deaths = 802
CALCULATION: 17,696 + 802 = 18,498

[132] As of September 1, 2010, CDC's "Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System" (http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/) has accidental death rates from 1994 (the year that would be ideal to compare to the CDC survey regarding the number of Americans who use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes). However, it does not have nonfatal, accidental injury rates for any earlier than 2000, and the 2000 data is not reliable: "Annualized national estimates are based on emergency department visits from 7/1-12/31 2000. Therefore, estimates may be affected by seasonality." Thus, Just Facts is using the earliest year possible, which is 2001.

[133] CALCULATION: 498,000 / 18,498 = 26.9
NOTE: In keeping with Just Facts' Standards of Credibility, we are giving preferentiality to figures that are contrary to our viewpoints by citing all gun-related accidents (within and outside the home) for comparison with the D.C. council committee's claim that, "[fo]r every intruder stopped by a homeowner with a firearm, there are 4 gun-related accidents within the home."
(source)

There are strong correlations with gun availability and gun deaths worldwide.

:duh:

Are you confusing "gun deaths" with "deaths"? Or are gun deaths somehow so terrible that you'd rather eliminate them in favor or other types of violent death?

So if you're pro-life you should be anti-gun. It's as simple as that.

...if you ignore all the lives that guns save in the hands of common citizens.

 

[jeffblue101]

The US has the most powerful military in the world. What are handguns and semiautomatic rifles against drones, bombers, vx poison gas and nuclear weapons? If the government wanted to oppress its citizens there wouldn't be much we could do about it through the use of force.

I think this topic deserves its own hypothetical thread that discusses US Army vs US Population in depth. but,your comparison is not as simple as you state. For example how would the army feed itself, would the us Army even consider launching nuclear and chemical warfare on their own land in which they also have to sleep and eat in. in Iraq and Afghanistan and other relatively small war theaters that the US army has engaged in which Gorilla warfare was used and that style of warfare gave the army all sorts of trouble, now just imagine that same style of warfare over much larger and tougher terrain with more armed, skilled and educated militia. Such a fight would be any thing but easy. Other issues would include defection rates of soldiers to the civilian side etc..

 

[Huckleberry]

Yeah that was 70 years ago.

First, that's irrelevant.
Second, it's wrong. Rebels do this all the time, because it works. It's how rebellions get started.

The US has slightly better weapons now . . .you think?

Weapons which will soon be in the hands of the rebels.

Also there are other ways to resist (and probably more effective ones) than just firearms. Cyber attacks spring to mind.

Irrelevant.

 

[Stripe]

If you think having guns allows the public to avoid government oppression you are sorely mistaken.

If you think ranting nonsense will distract people from the reality of what I said, you're probably right. However, smart people will see right through your rabbit trail and ignore it. :up:

So the only point to having a gun is really making you feel better. And I can understand that feeling, firearms are powerful weapons. And having power makes you feel powerful and therefore safer.

It's called liberty. We know you hate it.

There are strong correlations with gun availability and gun deaths worldwide.

Therefore, something. :idunno:

 

[musterion]

You're making the perfect the enemy of the good.

No. The lying leftists who dupe people into surrendering their guns do that by saying disarmament IS the perfect.

The perfect (as perfect as possible) is that armed law-abiding citizens be free to defend themselves against armed law-breaking criminals. Unless you have your own armed security force, take away that right and there is no "good."

 

[musterion]

lets be clear here, are you advocating that we get rid of the second amendment?

Alate will never let you nail him down on that issue but the answer is "yes."

 

[jeffblue101]

Are you confusing "gun deaths" with "deaths"? Or are gun deaths somehow so terrible that you'd rather eliminate them in favor or other types of violent death?

"gun deaths" is label that liberals use to convince other liberals that gun ownership is "bad". if you actually analyze the data sets gun deaths comprise of suicides which are not acts of violence against other people, when you remove suicides from the equation no correlation can be made from gun ownership between gun homicides between states and between other countries.

Gun Ownership vs. Murder Rate

http://mark.reid.name/blog/gun-deaths-vs-gun-ownership.html

as for suicides per wiki

such is the human condition completely unable to save its self from its own destruction apart from Jesus.

 

[This Charming Manc]

No its not, ive never said that, i've never said it claimed on here.

Your either delusional or joining ACW's ill spout any rubbish to prove my point club.

Go look at stats without agenda

It's not supposed to happen at all. That's how it's always sold. Stop being deliberately obtuse.

 

[This Charming Manc]

Haven't you noticed that the US has significantly more guns and significantly higher murder rate that the pack of every other first world country on the left hands side?

http://mark.reid.name/blog/gun-deaths-vs-gun-ownership.html

 

[jeffblue101]

Haven't you noticed that the US has significantly more guns and significantly higher murder rate that the pack of every other first world country on the left hands side?

haven't you noticed that no other countries show such a correlation, so its the culture not the ownership

 

[jeffblue101]

what is really sad is that countries with the most restrictive gun ownership and lowest homicide rates have the highest suicide rates in the world.

 

[musterion]

No its not, ive never said that, i've never said it claimed on here.

Your either delusional or joining ACW's ill spout any rubbish to prove my point club.

Go look at stats without agenda

Calm down. I didn't say YOU said it. You need to have tea and crumpets or go to mosque or whatever you disarmed people do over there now to soothe yourselves.

 

[jeffblue101]

 

[musterion]

That will be shrugged off as irrelevant by a few chart-citers here.

 

[patrick jane]

That will be shrugged off as irrelevant by a few chart-citers here.

Not me, it looks convincingly like the more registered lawful guns there are, the less the gun crimes. -

 

[Angel4Truth]

Guns used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year -- or about 6,850 times a day. [1] This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives. [2]

Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker.[3]

* As many as 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse.[4]

* Even anti-gun Clinton researchers concede that guns are used 1.5 million times annually for self-defense. According to the Clinton Justice Department, there are as many as 1.5 million cases of self-defense every year. The National Institute of Justice published this figure in 1997 as part of "Guns in America" -- a study which was authored by noted anti-gun criminologists Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig.[5]

* Armed citizens kill more crooks than do the police. Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to 606).[6] And readers of Newsweek learned that "only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The 'error rate' for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high."[7]

* Handguns are the weapon of choice for self-defense. Citizens use handguns to protect themselves over 1.9 million times a year. [8] Many of these self-defense handguns could be labeled as "Saturday Night Specials."

https://www.gunowners.org/sk0802htm.htm