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.
Gun Free Zone (Score:4, Insightful)
Seems like it means "opposition-free zone"
Re:Gun Free Zone (Score:4, Insightful)
Seems like it means "opposition-free zone"
I like to think of it as a target-rich "victim zone".
Re: Gun Free Zone (Score:3, Insightful)
Mexico has very, very strict gun laws.
Tell us all how that's worked out for them.
Re: Gun Free Zone (Score:3)
Nope.
Because all of the law abiding folks aren't carrying a weapon. See definition of " gun-free " zone.
It's unlikely you've ever seen a criminal intent on shooting everything up walk up to the front door, note the gun-free zone sign, and walk away muttering about how one can be a criminal these days with all the damn laws . . . .
Re: Gun Free Zone (Score:4, Informative)
The point of gun-free zones is not to deter bad guys. It is to help prevent good guys bringing guns to places where they aren't needed, getting involved in an argument or whatever, and escalating things to the point where someone is shot. Another reason is to prevent unintentional shootings, either from a malfunction or a dumb accident.
You can argue that it is still not a good idea, but at least be honest enough to acknowledge the real reasons behind the policy.
Here we go again (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Here we go again (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Here we go again (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Here we go again (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Here we go again (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
A few? Dude have you looked at http://www.dayssincethelastmassshooting.com/history/
We haven't made it out of the double digits since 2014!
What about the rights of those injured by firearms (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What about the rights of those injured by firea (Score:4, Insightful)
Gun violence is down across the board.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, it's well known that most anti-gun statistics (such as this one) throw suicides and accidents in for effect.
"For effect"? Suicides and accidents are by far the largest cause of death by firearms, so concentrating only on homicides is utterly misleading. And in the U.S., death rate from firearms huge [humanosphere.org].
Re:What about the rights of those injured by firea (Score:5, Insightful)
What about the rights of the 100's of thousands of people that have been murdered by gun in America - what about them?
What about my right to keep and bear arms?
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
The solution is not banning guns, the solution is a proper public health system and a respect for mental health, and being willing to lock up the mentally ill for treatment.
Re:What about the rights of those injured by firea (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What about the rights of those injured by firea (Score:4, Informative)
The well regulated militia part was about private citizens being able to form their own armed groups for mutual defense.
It had nothing to do with the police, national guard, or anything government run.
Even the SCOTUS has ruled on this.
Re:What about the rights of those injured by firea (Score:5, Insightful)
If a wizard suddenly made it impossible for guns to exist in America; they could not pass across any border, the ones inside the country simply turned into nothingness, do you think the rates of assault and murder would instantly go down?
Yes, I do think that getting rid of the easiest at-a-distance point-and-click method of murder would result in lower murder rates.
Call me crazy...
Or do you think someone can commit mass murder on this scale with knives and baseball bats?
Re:What about the rights of those injured by firea (Score:4, Informative)
1) Before you go around accusing the NRA of being terrorist, ask yourself, which one of them have actually committed a terrorist act?
Timothy McVeigh. Just answering your question.
Sandy Hook (Score:5, Insightful)
Dan Hodges [twitter.com] said it best:
Re:Sandy Hook (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Sit back and watch (Score:5, Funny)
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)
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.
Public Healthcare / Mental Healthcare (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Public Healthcare / Mental Healthcare (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Public Healthcare / Mental Healthcare (Score:4, Insightful)
Even countries with free, universal healthcare have mass murderers. The difference is, they have fewer of them.
Also, guns are very hard to get hold of in Japan. Who knows how many more he might have killed if he had been winding a more efficient tool.
What the hell is wrong with people? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
NRA and gun control (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:NRA and gun control (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
The mental health system needs fixing! (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Some actual statistics (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:Gun-free zone? (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps it means that the law says "no guns allowed, unless you're a criminal and don't care about the law".
Notice all these shootings seem to be happening in "gun free zones"?
Frankly, college students are adults, they should be able to have guns on campus. Why not just make safe gun use and storage one of the first required classes? Rather than try and ban something that isn't going away, teach safe use and respect for guns and life.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Notice all these shootings seem to be happening in "gun free zones"?"
No?
Re:Gun-free zone? (Score:5, Informative)
Yes. The campuses — including this one, the public schools are all legally gun-free. A pop-tart eaten to the shape of a pistol [cbsnews.com] is enough for a kid to be kicked out.
That cinema, where "a joker" killed 12 people [wikipedia.org] — that movie theater was not closest to his house, but it was the only one within a 20-minute drive, that declared itself "gun-free" [foxnews.com].
In denial much?
Re:Gun-free zone? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Gun-free zone? (Score:5, Informative)
here's the guy announcing the shooting... [archive.moe]
(sorry for hijacking the thread)
Re: (Score:3)
This is something I can agree with mi on. People are the problem. Guns are the solution.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes. The campuses — including this one, the public schools are all legally gun-free. A pop-tart eaten to the shape of a pistol [cbsnews.com] is enough for a kid to be kicked out.
That cinema, where "a joker" killed 12 people [wikipedia.org] — that movie theater was not closest to his house, but it was the only one within a 20-minute drive, that declared itself "gun-free" [foxnews.com].
In denial much?
So what you're saying is that all (or virtually all) campuses are gun free, so the fact this specific campus is gun free is pretty much meaningless.
Re:Gun-free zone? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: Gun-free zone? (Score:5, Informative)
What about those taking places on military bases? Those are technically gun-filled zones.
Wrong. They are not allowed to carry on base. Weapons are locked away in storage. Soldiers on base are defenseless against these types of attacks, which is why they are so effective.
Re: Gun-free zone? (Score:5, Informative)
What about those taking places on military bases? Those are technically gun-filled zones.
Actually, they're not. Firearms are locked in the arms room unless training is taking place. All ammo is locked in a different area. Every round is accounted for.
You are also not allowed to have firearms on post for day to day things (personal), those have to be registered with post security.
13F20L7 Operation Iraqi Freedom 07-08 Balad/Taji
Re:Gun-free zone? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, an Illiberal web-site running an op-ed aiming to convince populace into obediently surrendering their rights. Surprise...
They fail, though. The only thing they even claim is "not a single case includes evidence that the killer chose to target a place because it banned guns". But they all (or most) did happen in a gun-free location. How do I know? Simple, if it weren't so, MotherJones would've highlighted this fact in the very title. They did a commendable job putting the 62 mass-shotings incidents over 30 years together [motherjones.com], but, curiously, do not have a boolean column "Gun free zone Y/N" in it...
But the shooter picking a place because it is gun-free is only part of the problem. There is no one there to stop him — whether he was cunning enough to count on that or not.
Re:Gun-free zone? (Score:5, Insightful)
The places with the highest rates of gun violence all have bans on guns
Incorrect. Places like Japan, Australia, Canada, UK, on and on all have strict gun control laws and very low rates of gun violence.
Re:Gun-free zone? (Score:4, Insightful)
Israel has very low rates of gun violence too, but many people are packing. And soldiers always carry their rifles — even when going to beach for R&R — with two magazines each. It is not uncommon to see a girl in a bikini guarding a gun-pyramid, while her girlfriends are swimming, for example...
Whatever the reasons for lower gun-violence in Japan or Israel or what have you, the ban on weapons is certainly not the only reason. Whether it is even a contributing factor is not at all obvious.
Re:Gun-free zone? (Score:5, Insightful)
Israel has very low rates of gun violence too, but many people are packing. And soldiers always carry their rifles — even when going to beach for R&R — with two magazines each. It is not uncommon to see a girl in a bikini guarding a gun-pyramid, while her girlfriends are swimming, for example...
Whatever the reasons for lower gun-violence in Japan or Israel or what have you, the ban on weapons is certainly not the only reason. Whether it is even a contributing factor is not at all obvious.
Israel is in an active war zone, this tends to change things a lot.
Japan, Australia, the UK and other countries with sane gun laws have murders, but almost no mass killings. The reason for this is the lack of firearms, whether you like to admit it or not, the abundance of guns is directly correlated with a high number of shootings. This is true for a lot of countries where guns are abundant (whether they're legal or not).
Re:Gun-free zone? (Score:5, Informative)
> the homicide rate in Australia is almost exactly the same before and after the ban. This has been well debunked. http://www.factcheck.org/2009/... [factcheck.org] According to the Australian Institute of Criminology, a government agency, the number of homicides in Australia did increase slightly in 1997 and peaked in 1999, but has since declined to the lowest number on record in 2007, the most recent year for which official figures are available.
Yeah, that debunking has been well-debunked too... violent crime has been decreasing in all first world countries, and using other countries as a control shows that Australia's violent crime is higher than it should be.
Re:Gun-free zone? (Score:5, Insightful)
The places with the highest rates of gun violence all have bans on guns.
What total nonsense. The country with the highest rate of gun deaths in the world is - according to wikipedia - Honduras. Up until 2007, carrying guns, concealed or otherwise, was completely legal in this country. Today it is still legal to purchase and own firearms. So, no ban.
Some others on the list have bans, but it's clear that there is no correlation between ownership rates, legal status, and death rates. So, banning guns doesn't stop people getting killed, and widespread gun ownership doesn't either. You can point to counterexamples in both cases. America has the highest rate of gun ownership, and while it doesn't lead the world in gun-related deaths (it's only at number thirteen, mainly behind fairly lawless countries I'd argue, but that's a tough call), it's certainly up there.
America does however lead the world in mass shootings [wikipedia.org] - and that list doesn't even include school massacres (How is that even a thing? It's a serious question). Mass shootings are something different to regular gun violence. We're not talking about armed robberies, or criminals shooting each other down in the street. We are talking about crazy people. I don't think there's any reason to believe that America is home to more crazy people than anywhere else - I've been there plenty of times and Americans as a rule are polite, hospitable, pleasant and reasonable. It's a nice place.
So why do crazy people in America have such easy access to deadly weapons?
Re:Gun-free zone? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Gun-free zone? (Score:4, Interesting)
It's also worth noting that if Virginia were a nation, it would be number 2 on that list.
Re:Gun-free zone? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Gun-free zone? (Score:4, Informative)
If that means that a few law-abiding citizens can't get access to an M-16 for entertainment purposes, than so be it.
Mission accomplished then. No law-abiding citizen may have access to an M-16 for entertainment purposes. Now there are certain organizations that may have access to an M-16 for business purposes, but no citizen may own one. Does that mean your gun control agenda has been completed, or do you want to do more?
Re: Gun-free zone? (Score:5, Insightful)
What is Mexico's fault is restricting their citizens' ability to defend themselves from criminals while also having a corrupt and ineffective police force. Fortunately, some politicians and citizens are trying to change that. http://www.vice.com/video/the-... [vice.com]
Re:Gun-free zone? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, there are a lot of gun free / highly-regulated countries with far less gun crime than the US. Maybe you should dis-empower citizens from making bad decisions / accidents. Oh, well. Slashdot, the land of libertarians, out of my cold dead (more likely dead than most countries) hands. Just wait a few more years and school shootings will be as passe and hum drum as rockets being lobbed over the Gaza / Jerusalem border.
Re:Gun-free zone? (Score:5, Informative)
It's why the Onion's Satire just reads like more sad news these days.
Year old, but continually appropriate:
‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens
http://www.theonion.com/articl... [theonion.com]
Re:Gun-free zone? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you really going to compare 2nd and 3rd world countries with a 1st world country? If you take the drug countries and war thorn countries out you're left with the US being in 1st place.
So in the US you have a 0.003% chance of being killed in your lifetime (based on average age of 82)
Compare with Canada (a direct neighbor with similar lifestyle BUT with gun control). You have a 0.0004% chance of being killed in your lifetime.
This means you are 7 times more likely to die from homicide in the US than in Ca
Re:Gun-free zone? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Gun-free zone? (Score:4, Insightful)
There are also ones, where guns are very widely spread and yet gun-violence is lower than here.
But we don't need to go abroad — simply compare, say, Chicago, IL, where even a museum [thenewamerican.com] could not get permission to display a WW1-era rifle, with Austin, TX, where guns are easy to get... The strictness of the anti-gun laws and "regulations" (all of them obviously unconstitutional, BTW) simply does not correlate with gun-violence.
The entire US has this law known as "the 2nd Amendment", which declares arms-possession a right to be taken away from the bad, not a mere privilege to be granted to the good.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You mean like the one that happened in Sydney?
http://news.slashdot.org/comme... [slashdot.org]
Lies about Australia (Score:4, Interesting)
They did not have that many to begin with, but there were two unrelated mass-shootings in Australia in 2011 — in addition to massacres not involving a fire-arm. So much for "complete lack" [wikipedia.org].
Re:Gun-free zone? (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps it means that the law says "no guns allowed, unless you're a criminal and don't care about the law".
That is exactly what it means. I wish I had mod points, they'd be yours.
When will people understand that only law-abiding people pay any attention to laws? When will they grasp the concept that labeling something a "gun-free zone" doesn't magically do ANYTHING?
Criminals will still have guns and they'll still bring them into a "gun-free zone" no matter how many signs are posted.
Re: (Score:3)
"Gun free" is not intended to be a message to criminals. It is a message that in an area where guns are allowed to be carried on the streets, that they must be left behind when entering certain areas. Ie, in my home you can not bring your gun, no matter how much you whine that I will be safer if you bring your guns inside. Schools may be public but they are allowed to make restrictions on who or what can enter. Learning is easier when there are not a lot of open carry advocates walking around intimidati
Re: (Score:3)
I've never seen a home with a sign out front that says "this is a gun free home."
I wonder why that is.
Re: (Score:3)
Perhaps it means that the law says "no guns allowed, unless you're a criminal and don't care about the law".
That is exactly what it means. I wish I had mod points, they'd be yours.
When will people understand that only law-abiding people pay any attention to laws? When will they grasp the concept that labeling something a "gun-free zone" doesn't magically do ANYTHING?
Criminals will still have guns and they'll still bring them into a "gun-free zone" no matter how many signs are posted.
It's not meant to deter specific planned mass shootings.
It's meant to avoid spontaneous unplanned shootings. And sometimes, if you're lucky, snag a criminal whose gun got noticed.
The way to deter mass shootings is to move away from the gun culture in general.
Re:Gun-free zone? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
When will people understand that it's not the law, it's the enforcement that matters. A gun free zone means you can put in checks to make sure people don't bring guns in. Like metal detectors at airports, which are actually pretty effective at keeping weapons off planes.
Gun control is not about expecting criminals to obey the rules. That's dumb, only someone making a straw man argument would suggest it. The point is to make guns much harder to obtain and to make it easier to take them away from people when
Re:Gun-free zone? (Score:5, Insightful)
Annnd this is exactly what mod points are NOT for. They are not "I agree with you" tokens.
"That's just like, your opinion, man."
Seriously, I'll use my mod points however the fuck I like, Mr Mod Point Policeman.
Re:Gun-free zone? (Score:5, Funny)
And someone looking to shoot at people is not going to be deterred by a Class-C felony weapons charge.
"You know, I was going to shoot 25 people and get gunned down by police / incarcerated for the rest of my life, but that 15-day jail sentence for the weapons charge is just too much of a risk to take."
Re: (Score:3)
crime is binary. Either you break the law with a specific action or you do not. There is no "sort-of" or other grey area here. You're talking like you can be a little bit pregnant. You are, or you're not.
Re:Gun-free zone? (Score:5, Insightful)
Frankly, college students are adults, they should be able to have guns on campus.
Not all college students are mature enough to own a gun responsibly. As a young college student, I could've solved a vast array of social problems with a gun, either for myself or the whole campus. It wasn't until after I left school, worked a decade and came back to school to learn computer programming that I had the maturity to deal with school, especially since I was working 80 hours a week, taking classes at night and teaching Sunday school.
Re:Gun-free zone? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Gun-free zone? (Score:5, Insightful)
again with the gun free zone myth.
again with the reminder that almost no place is actually chosen on that basis, but rather that almost all targets/locations are chosen on the basis of a personal connection between the shooter and the location or someone at that location (workplace/school, boss/collegue, ex-spouse/boyfriend/girlfriend/etc).
again, you wont care because facts aren't something youre interested in
Re:Gun-free zone? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Gun-free zone? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, in all fairness ... there are plenty of other countries that are gun-free and others that allow citizens to carry guns and in both cases there are far fewer gun-related deaths than in the US.
Methinks this has very little to do with gun laws (I'm not for or against them). Maybe the US has some sort of social/cultural problem.
Re: (Score:3)
Notice all these shootings seem to be happening in "gun free zones"?
Yep, 'cause the shooters are 100% cowards. Arm more people? Wrong. There will ALWAYS be somewhere where you can't have guns, so the cowards will end up there. The answer my friend is to stop the cowards getting the guns.
"But we need them to be able to form a militia to keep our rights".
That worked out well:
http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21599349-americas-police-have-become-too-militarised-cops-or-soldiers [economist.com]
Re:Gun-free zone? (Score:5, Insightful)
People like you are the problem (Score:5, Insightful)
The answer is less guns, not more.
A right to guns does not even make sense, civilians would stand no chance against the US military. Besides, if people didn't rise up after the snowden revelations and rampant corruption, it's unlikely they are going to.
NO, the answer is health care. Plenty of other countries have more guns per capita than the US and don't suffer these issues. You know why? Because people are looked after and get the help they need, rather than some nonsense ridiculous purely free market approach.
The fact that in almost all of these incidents the shooters had mental issues should give you morons some type of hint....now, are you going to take it?
Re:People like you are the problem (Score:4, Interesting)
The answer is less guns, not more.
This part of your post is wrong. More guns, less guns, won't make any difference, has nothing to do with the issue. It is just a sideshow.
NO, the answer is health care. Plenty of other countries have more guns per capita than the US and don't suffer these issues. You know why? Because people are looked after and get the help they need, rather than some nonsense ridiculous purely free market approach.
This is where you're correct.
I'm a far-left "you can have my guns when you take them from my cold, dead hands" type...
However, it is embarrassing that we don't have a free national health care system. We can afford 11 nuclear aircraft carriers, the largest most powerful military in the world, yet we have a horrible patchwork health system that does a crap job taking care of people in general.
Re:People like you are the problem (Score:5, Informative)
This is flat out wrong. High school kids should not be able to access automatic firearms for which you should have specialized training to use in the first place.
Your comment implies a lack of understanding about guns in general.
I have found, not always, but often, that anti-gunners don't actually know that much about guns.
Your "automatic firearms" comment is a bit of an issue... Do you mean "select-fire" weapons? Semi-automatic weapons? What?
And what "specialized training" is required to use an AR-15 rifle vs. a hunting rifle vs. a handgun vs a shotgun?
If I knew I was going to be shot, I'd much rather be shot by an AR-15 than by most hunting rifles. The single round from a hunting rifle is likely to drop me dead to the floor, while I could survive most 5.56mm rounds that don't hit a vital organ.
BTW, I owned a gun in high school, a .22 rifle that I owned since I was 8 years old when I was given it for my birthday. I've been shooting since then, having learned first at summer camp then at gun ranges later on.
My 9 year old son has his own rifle already and my daughter has one waiting for them. There is nothing scary or dangerous about that, because they respect the weapons and have seen what they do and have a respect for life that too many people lack these days.
And yes, both rifles are locked up, they can't get them out when they want to of course, but they are theirs to use at the range and to take with them when they leave home.
Re:People like you are the problem (Score:5, Informative)
The answer is less guns, not more.
I'm sorry, but I can't let such words go unchallenged.
The answer is fewer guns ;)
Re: Gun-free zone? (Score:5, Insightful)
A mass shooting at a firing range?
You are full of shit.
Gun Free Zone means where the victims can't have guns.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I think the firing range comment was about:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/03/... [cnn.com]
Which was most likely a result of PTSD, as they were at the range trying to help the vet get through his PTSD issues.
Re: Gun-free zone? (Score:5, Interesting)
Exercised restraint due to the large crowd.
This is a good point that gets overlooked a lot.
You'd be a complete fool to try and return fire against a target that you have not identified in a crowd. You're just as likely to add to the problem as to solve it, and even might end up being mistaken for the active shooter yourself.
I have many guns, I sometimes carry a gun (I have a CHL in Texas). I would never, ever, ever draw my gun and fire at someone unless I had a clear and open line of fire, I was 100% sure of my target, and I was directly saving lives by stopping someone who was clearly intent on killing innocent people.
If there are other people either in front of or behind him, around him, or I'm unsure of the situation, I would not draw and fire.
I'm both legally and morally responsible for every round I put downrange, I would never wish to place an innocent in harms way.
I own and carry guns responsibly, I am not "Rambo", and real life is NOT a movie.
Re: Gun-free zone? (Score:4, Insightful)
I would never, ever, ever draw my gun and fire at someone unless I had a clear and open line of fire, I was 100% sure of my target, and I was directly saving lives by stopping someone who was clearly intent on killing innocent people
Wow that is a great attitude to have. Good on ya. /notsarcasm The US is so lucky to have a licensing system in place that guarantees all gun owners have the same do no harm philosophy and basic competency in handling firearms. Oh wait, I'm thinking of the license required to cut hair (http://www.beautyschoolsdirectory.com/faq/state_req.php). Pretty much anybody not recently incarcerated can have as many guns as they want in the US which is why we need our politicians to spend so much time and effort fighting gun control. /sarcasm
Re: Gun-free zone? (Score:4, Insightful)
Exercised restraint due to the large crowd.
This is a good point that gets overlooked a lot.
You'd be a complete fool to try and return fire against a target that you have not identified in a crowd. You're just as likely to add to the problem as to solve it, and even might end up being mistaken for the active shooter yourself.
I have many guns, I sometimes carry a gun (I have a CHL in Texas). I would never, ever, ever draw my gun and fire at someone unless I had a clear and open line of fire, I was 100% sure of my target, and I was directly saving lives by stopping someone who was clearly intent on killing innocent people.
If there are other people either in front of or behind him, around him, or I'm unsure of the situation, I would not draw and fire.
I'm both legally and morally responsible for every round I put downrange, I would never wish to place an innocent in harms way.
I own and carry guns responsibly, I am not "Rambo", and real life is NOT a movie.
So what you're saying is, there's basically zero chance of you ever being able to use your gun in the defense of anyone/anything. So why bother?
If carrying guns was illegal, people would be arrested and banged up just for possession. Push guns underground, and they become much more expensive and risky to buy. Why not just divert all the money and resources in the "war on drugs" into the "war on guns", and it'd be won inside a decade, I reckon.
Re: Gun-free zone? (Score:4, Insightful)
So guns are not the solution to gun violence. Duly noted.
Re:Gun-free zone? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: Gun-free zone? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Gun-free zone? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I wouldn't want to work where any yahoo could wander in packing and I'd have to worry about whether they had any screws loose.
Except, you do and you're just kidding yourself...
Someone with screws loose who intends to shoot people don't tend to care about "no guns allowed" rules...
The campus has its own police force who have guns and are trained to use them.
When seconds count, the police are just minutes away. Why is it that anytime there is a shooting, the first thing the unarmed people do is call people with guns?
Of all the rules at the university where I work, no-guns is among the most sensible.
Nonsense, all it does is tell me that if I bring a gun there, I'm more likely to be the only person with a gun there. It is a stupid rule. If you really want to be a gun free zone, you need the
Re:Gun-free zone? (Score:4, Insightful)
You'd be surprised just how little training most of them actually have. You might be even more surprised how little recurring/refresher training most police get outside of very large cities. Many police fire at yearly range qualifications and that's it. Small to mid-size departments just can't afford it anymore. Even academies are cutting back on firearms training AND lowering the bar in some cases. For police that are 'gun people' they will seek out training and practice at their own expense. As for the rest... a gun is a tool required for the job, they will do the minimum required.
If you want an unsettling indicator, do some googling of officer involved shootings. When one or more officers are firing 10, 20, 30 rounds with reloads and hitting the suspect 3 and 4 times, I think it speaks to the level of skill. Yes, it's a high stress situation, but they are supposed to be trained to handle that too, no? In those situations you will perform like you train. Last training 5 years ago? Guess how you will perform...
Re:Gun-free zone? (Score:4, Funny)
It means no one will bring guns there, because there are signs saying it's against the rules.
It means anti-gun propaganda. (Score:3, Insightful)
What does "technically a gun-free zone" mean?
It means the news media is trying to stretch the "gun-free is safer" anti-gun propaganda in the face of the public becoming aware that gun-free zones are an invitation to mass murder and virtually all mass murders (and much other victimization) now happen in them.
"Gun-free zones" disarm the law-abiding people in them (so they can't shoot back and limit the carnage - and deter it from starting in the first place, turning them into helpless victims, but don't stop
Re:Gun-free zone? (Score:4, Interesting)
I guess it means they were trying not to get shot, trying to establish a safe place, and rejecting the primacy of the gun.
Yeah, and look how well that's been working out for them.
Re: Gun-free zone? (Score:3)
I gotta take a moment to point this out.
The only places where " gun-free " zones work are those places where people with guns are onsite to enforce it. ( Eg: Your courtroom example )
Thus, the declaration of something being " gun-free " is pretty much meaningless unless there is someone there with a gun to enforce it.
Ironic no ?
Re:Description of Shooter (Score:4, Insightful)
What is the description of the shooter? Male? Female Black? Muslim? Mexican? Citizen? Legal Immigrant? Illegal Immigrant?
I would use the description "Criminal", but that's just me.
Maybe scumbag, dirtbag, douchebag, or asshole might be better options...
Pile of wormridden filth works for me too...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You left out WHITE... Most of these idiots are white.
Re:Description of Shooter (Score:5, Interesting)
You left out WHITE... Most of these idiots are white.
Actually, not. It turns out non-white, non-Asian, people are (currently in the US) more prone to mass murder, both offenders as a percentage of their population and as a victim-count per-capita of offender's group's population.
But their victims are more often also non-white, non-Asian, and the attacks generally "aren't news". (When was the last time you heard the national media do a big news event on a drive-by or other mass shooting in the poorer residential areas of Chicago, Springfield, New York City, Philadelphia, or DC?) It's another example of how black (or Chicano, etc.) lives DON'T matter - to the news media.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)