Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Education News

10 Confirmed Dead In Shooting at Oregon's Umpqua Community College 1165

CNN and other sources report that an attacker, now in custody, shot and killed a reported ten people, and wounded another 20, at Oregon's Umpqua Community College, about three hours south of Portland, and described by CNN as "technically a gun-free zone." Students are being evacuated to a nearby fairgrounds, and local authorities advise anyone to avoid the area of the college. Wikipedia editors are also quickly compiling information about the attack. More news on the attack is still breaking; expect updates here.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

10 Confirmed Dead In Shooting at Oregon's Umpqua Community College

Comments Filter:
  • Gun Free Zone (Score:4, Insightful)

    by tripleevenfall ( 1990004 ) on Thursday October 01, 2015 @03:55PM (#50638103)

    Seems like it means "opposition-free zone"

    • Re:Gun Free Zone (Score:4, Insightful)

      by JustAnotherOldGuy ( 4145623 ) on Thursday October 01, 2015 @04:12PM (#50638281)

      Seems like it means "opposition-free zone"

      I like to think of it as a target-rich "victim zone".

  • Here we go again (Score:5, Insightful)

    by i_ate_god ( 899684 ) on Thursday October 01, 2015 @04:00PM (#50638143)

    Anti gun lobbyists will say this is because of guns.

    Pro gun lobbyists will say this is because there weren't enough guns

    The rest of the world will look at America and wonder "what social/economic/cultural problem exists where there can be a few mass shootings a year?"

    Everyone will argue for a month or so. John Oliver might say something about it. But after a month, everyone will forget this has happened. Then, several months later, there will be another mass shooting in the US and the cycle repeats itself.

    • by FlyHelicopters ( 1540845 ) on Thursday October 01, 2015 @04:06PM (#50638225)

      Anti gun lobbyists will say this is because of guns.

      It isn't, it is because someone was a nutjob and decided to go out in a blaze of something-or-other...

      Pro gun lobbyists will say this is because there weren't enough guns

      Sadly that isn't likely true either, other than the shooter might have not tried it at all if he knew there were armed people on campus.

      http://usatoday30.usatoday.com... [usatoday.com]

      Finland has guns, but little gun crime. I suspect Finland has neither a melting pot of people that the US has and that it has a much better public health system for the poor and disadvantaged than the US does.

      The United States doesn't lock up its crazy people and doesn't provide a reasonable option for their mental health treatment.

      • by x0ra ( 1249540 ) on Thursday October 01, 2015 @04:19PM (#50638367)
        qualifying the shooter as "nutjob" is pointless, the only relevant question is what *made* him become a shooter ?
      • by marsu_k ( 701360 ) on Thursday October 01, 2015 @04:56PM (#50638877)

        Finland has guns, but little gun crime. I suspect Finland has neither a melting pot of people that the US has and that it has a much better public health system for the poor and disadvantaged than the US does.

        As a Finn, I must note (as was also mentioned in the article you linked, but this being /., probably not noticed) that hunting is a still moderately popular, at least in more rural areas. And those who hunt most likely have several rifles. Getting a hand gun requires joining a gun club at the very least. Those hunting rifles, they can be absolutely lethal, but not the optimal choice for mass killings. And while the Finnish economy may be crumbling as we speak, at least currently both social security and mental health services are available for those that require it (the latter in the form of medication, should you prefer therapy you better be able to pay for it or wait quite a while, or be an university student, they have their own health care).

        Still, in terms of guns/capita, Finland ranks rather high. Also in homicides/capita. The homicides are mostly people drunk someplace indoors, an argument arises, someone takes a knife from the kitchen. Or along those lines, the streets are rather safe. But we as a nation are prone to both alcoholism and (perhaps due to said alcoholism) violent behaviour. I dread to think what the situation would be if hand guns were more readily available. So personally, I don't think guns should be banned altogether, but heavily regulated.

    • by tripleevenfall ( 1990004 ) on Thursday October 01, 2015 @04:07PM (#50638233)

      Media glorification of the incident?

      A desire by someone who's life is falling apart to be famous?

      An opportunity for people to escape their problems, while making people feel sorry for them for being "mentally ill"?

    • Re:Here we go again (Score:5, Informative)

      by SumDog ( 466607 ) on Thursday October 01, 2015 @04:16PM (#50638335) Homepage Journal

      A few? Dude have you looked at http://www.dayssincethelastmassshooting.com/history/

      We haven't made it out of the double digits since 2014!

  • by ebusinessmedia1 ( 561777 ) on Thursday October 01, 2015 @04:00PM (#50638149)
    This has become a regular event in America. We can lay a lot of responsibility for this at the feet of the terrorist NRA and the corrupt legislators they pay off, with both these latter groups little more a bunch of bootlickers to the gun manufacturers. There are more than 300 MILLION guns in this crazy nation - so many that *anyone* who wants to get a gun can get one, one way or another. America is FOURTH in death by gun, after Thailand, Nigeria and Colombia; that's the company we keep. We have more murders by gun than any developed (and many undeveloped) nations. It's a national disgrace. More people have died by gunshot in America than were killed in all our wars! The NRA *actively* lobbies to defeat laws that will keep guns out of the hands of mentally ill persons, and on and on. It's a national disgrace. What about the rights of the 100's of thousands of people that have been murdered by gun in America - what about them?
  • Sandy Hook (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Mr_Silver ( 213637 ) on Thursday October 01, 2015 @04:11PM (#50638265)

    Dan Hodges [twitter.com] said it best:

    In retrospect Sandy Hook marked the end of the US gun control debate. Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over.

    • Re:Sandy Hook (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Jiro ( 131519 ) on Thursday October 01, 2015 @04:20PM (#50638391)

      I can only imagine someone saying this after 9/11. "Once America decided that allowing terrorists to kill people was bearable, it was over."

      Gun control after a mass shooting is exactly as bad as terrorism control after a terrorism attack. It's the perfect time to propose a measure that isn't actually going to help save anyone but does a great job of cracking down on people's rights, and pass it based on outrage.

  • by RyoShin ( 610051 ) <(tukaro) (at) (gmail.com)> on Thursday October 01, 2015 @04:11PM (#50638275) Homepage Journal

    This being the internet, and specifically Slashdot, I look forward to a well-mannered, reasonable discussion about the event and surrounding possibilities with absolutely no moderator bias intervention, political fervor, or anyone being referred to as a "fuckwad".

  • For the Record (Score:3, Interesting)

    by DumbSwede ( 521261 ) <slashdotbin@hotmail.com> on Thursday October 01, 2015 @04:22PM (#50638411) Homepage Journal

    Oregon has some of the Nation’s most liberal gun laws Gun Laws in Oregon [wikipedia.org]

    I personally do not advocate the total abolition of guns, but in light of the repeated incidents of gun violence and mass shoots, it would seem to make sense to review what works and what doesn’t work in preventing these sad events.

    For those that support total bans, this put those in areas where police protection or assistance is miles away at an awful disadvantage to criminals.

    For those that resist even the most minimal of background checks and waiting periods, you are so devoted to your Gun ideology that you can’t see there is a middle ground that can save lives.

    For those that scream we need to be able to stop authoritarian governments should things go wrong, that boat had sailed sometime in the early 20th Century. You aren’t going effect political change with guns – period. This group especially worries me, as they include some of the most rabid bigots you will ever run into, and are convinced the rise of minorities in America is a precursor to the end of times and a plot by the New World Order.

    We need to do something better and I’m I’m tending to tighter controls not less.

  • by FlyHelicopters ( 1540845 ) on Thursday October 01, 2015 @04:24PM (#50638431)

    This situation will never really be fixed until the US wakes up to the fact that it is the only modern nation in the world that doesn't have a proper public healthcare system with guaranteed access to all, regardless of ability to pay.

    Those of you who know me, know that I'm a far-right conservative, "they can take my gun from me from my cold, dead hands" type.

    That being said, it is time for a national single payer health care system for everyone from birth to death, with no signups, memberships, co-pays, or anything else. Take all the money from medicare, medicaid, social security, etc. and put it into a national health service.

    We have police and fire paid for by taxes, we have roads and airports paid for by taxes, we have a military, public education, and a hundred other things paid for by taxes. We have LONG since past the time of small government, yet we don't provide for the health of our citizens.

    I would repeal ObamaCare and replace it with a national single payer health system. That isn't a popular idea among far-right conservatives, but it is time to do it.

    People who have mental health issues need to be able to seek treatment. That is the only thing that is going to stop this sort of thing, we have people who are unstable who roam the streets and are untreated. They do something like this and everyone screams about guns.

    It isn't about guns, it is about mental health care and access to it.

    • by Orgasmatron ( 8103 ) on Thursday October 01, 2015 @05:16PM (#50639123)

      Well, the goal for the last 50 years has been to wreck the US healthcare system to the point that single payer would become politically viable.

      Personally, I'd rather roll it back than expand it. The roll-back has certain advantages, like not being coercive, and is already underway. Doctors and clinics that only take cash are on the rise, for example.

      The health issue isn't quite right though. Most of these shooters wouldn't have been in therapy or treatment, much less institutionalized, and it wasn't because they couldn't afford to go.

      Personally, I think it had something to do with our grand experiment. We've replaced our traditions, which, by definition were tested by experience to create a workable system, with, well, nothing. We have no families, no religion, no community, no education and no culture. Plus, we feed our children (everyone, really) a steady diet of shit and lies.

      I have no idea what was wrong with this guy, but quite a few of these shooters appeared to be lashing out at the lies they were fed.

  • by yodleboy ( 982200 ) on Thursday October 01, 2015 @04:29PM (#50638515)
    And i don't necessarily mean the shooter. If early reports prove accurate "The night before the attack, the alleged shooter appears to have had a conversation with others online about his intentions, the source said."

    There's your problem right there. A person with issues made what might have been a final plea for help the night before and everyone just blew it off. Depending on what he said, at the very least he could have been held for making terroristic threats and possibly had a psych eval. Noooo. No one wants to get involved. It has f-all to do with guns. We'd rather lock up and ignore some guy with 1/2 oz of weed than commit and help the mentally ill. When the U.S. gets serious about mental health and people start getting involved instead of letting their friends self destruct, we'll see these events decrease.

    In the meantime, I reserve the right to defend myself and my family. That doesn't mean playing hero. That means getting them out of harms way. If out of harms way means past an active shooter, then at least we have a chance.
  • by FlyHelicopters ( 1540845 ) on Thursday October 01, 2015 @04:34PM (#50638585)

    The sad thing is there is no reasonable discussion or compromise on either side of gun control. The NRA is one of the largest lobbyists in Washington, but not everything they argue for is good, but they fight everything because the gun-control lobby also will give no ground.

    So both sides dig their heals in and give nothing.

    This is sad and a mistake. One common argument is the "gun show loophole". It is misnamed, because gun dealers have to do background checks, even at gun shows. All it means is that private citizens can buy and sell guns without background checks within the same state, yet they can do this inside or outside of a gun show.

    The fear of all gun transfers being "background checked" and thus having documentation is that sooner or later the US Government will pull an Australia and seize guns, and having records will make that much easier. Right or wrong, that is the fear from gun freedom groups.

    A compromise might be, "amending the constitution to make clear that the ownership and possession of guns by private citizens is a natural god given right that may only be taken away in individual cases by a court of law that rules someone mentally incompetent." In return, all gun transfers get a background check.

    I'm sure some people on both sides would not like even that compromise, but it would be a start. Both sides have to give something, or nothing will happen. We don't live in a nation where one side gets everything and the other side goes home empty handed. Or perhaps we do which is why nothing changes.


    The other issue is that the government doesn't do very much to show that it respects the rights of citizens. Everything about guns is always about more bans, more restrictions. Want to impress the gun freedom side? Perhaps repealing the 1986 ban on select-fire weapons, in return for required background checks on every transfer might be something. It would show a give and take on the issue and that citizens do have rights.

    Another thing they could give would be national concealed/open carry laws, respecting the right of the population to be armed, but in return, require training and safely classes for all gun owners.


    These are ideas and attempts to find a reasonable middle ground, to offer something to both sides and to do something that would actually fix the problem, rather than paper it over with "guns are evil/guns are wonderful" arguments which accomplish nothing.

    • by Sibko ( 1036168 ) on Thursday October 01, 2015 @08:49PM (#50641001)

      The fear of all gun transfers being "background checked" and thus having documentation is that sooner or later the US Government will pull an Australia and seize guns, and having records will make that much easier. Right or wrong, that is the fear from gun freedom groups.

      It's not misplaced. Every "compromise" on guns has just been taking more rights away from gun owners. None of them want any more "compromises" because everyone is well aware what is actually wanted isn't "sensible gun control laws" but the removal of guns from society entirely. People stopped believing the "sensible gun control" rhetoric soon after we had senators like Dianne Feinstein outright say things like,

      "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."

      Which is quite an impasse, because gun owners believe the right to self defense is absolute. Guns are necessary for this, in the future it could be something else, but the principle remains the same. A monopoly on violence by the state and private institution is absolutely unacceptable to them, yet that is what those in favor of gun control want: Guns for the state, guns for the rich and powerful, but no guns for the rest of us schmucks unless we want to be criminals.

  • by ErichTheRed ( 39327 ) on Thursday October 01, 2015 @04:59PM (#50638921)

    I'm from the gun-averse camp, but I'm well aware that nothing can be done to silence the gun lobby in this country. It's in the Constitution, and we're too diverse a country to ever support taking it out. You could have daily mass shootings of 50+ people and the NRA would still defend gun rights, with millions of owners right behind them. Even background check laws will never be strengthened beyond what's there already because people are going to assume the government will be coming for their guns.

    So, it seems to me that the next best thing would be to fix mental health care and make sure everyone has equal access to it. Who knows what happened, but it's most likely someone with an ax to grind who just happened to get triggered today. Right now, there's virtually no state-run inpatient mental health treatment beds outside of maybe the psychiatric ERs. You basically have to be Hannibal Lecter to get committed to an asylum now. There's also not that much support available in the community. Deinstitutionalization was supposed to get people out of the hospital -and- treat them on an outpatient basis, but they forgot the second part when states closed all the asylums.

  • by Sibko ( 1036168 ) on Thursday October 01, 2015 @08:38PM (#50640933)

    https://imgur.com/gallery/CLOx... [imgur.com]

    This covers most of what you'd want to know and look at regarding firearms statistics, both in the US and worldwide. Homicide vs gun ownership, gun assaults vs gun ownership, violent crime vs gun ownership; it compares the states within the US, all the OECD countries, and all countries. It shows what weapon is killing the most people and which people are the ones being killed. It even looks at mass shootings, including per capita rates, and overall number of deaths from mass shootings as a percentage of overall homicides.

    Citations are included in most of everything, and numbers are usually taken from government bodies such as the FBI or CDC.

Disks travel in packs.