Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
^^^^ Have you noticed that all of these killings take place in GUN FREE ZONES? And you want to make the whole country into one?
THIS WAS NOT THE CASE IN THE UMPQUA COMMUNITY COLLEGE SHOOTING
The Oregon court of appeals ruled in 2011 that public facilities - like a community college - cannot ban concealed carriers with a valid CHL. They can ban guns in general but not up to date CHL holders - who are not supposed to announce they are carrying since it would no longer be "concealed." That would be brandishing and cause to lose their license.
It's unclear what Umpqua Community College's policy regarding concealed carry was because their website is down keeping us from viewing their handbook. Although college policy would not trump state law in any case.
There were concealed carriers on campus at UCC the day of the shooting. Sean Hannity interviewed one Air Force veteran who was in the veteran's center at the time of the shooting, but not anywhere near the building where the shooter was so was in no position to help.
Gun free zone or not, it's unlikely that any concealed carrier would be in the position to respond effectively without putting more at risk. From the information I've seen so far, the shooter executed the teacher then made some demands of the students before shooting them. He was well armed and at the ready. A concealed carrier would have have to react very quickly to outshoot him. An attempt by a concealed carrier to take him out probably wouldn't have helped anything.
If you have a gun you have to be ready and in the most of these situations, it would be very hard to anticipate.
A gun free zone is typically a toothless policy and in Oregon it's a don't ask don't tell situation because a CHL holder is not supposed to brandish anyway.
I did not read this entire thread, but feel I need to make a comment.
For once (and the only time) I agree with President Obama on the need to do something regarding guns.
He made a hell of a lot of sense today in reaction to the killings in Oregon.
How many more have to die before something is done?
Enough is enough.
Bob.
Please share your idea on what gun laws should be in place that would have prevented this and other tragedies like it.
Please share your idea on what gun laws should be in place that would have prevented this and other tragedies like it.
For starters, the congress could address the gun issues by voting to repeal the second amendment.
Now I know that takes time, but at least it would be a start.
All of us know that will never happen because the NRA has funded just about every congress person's campaign, so there is no way congress will go up against the NRA.
Times have changed, and perhaps it is time for the constitution to change to reflect life today, not what was a hundred years ago.
My solution, repeal that amendment.
Make it a federal law that only law enforcement, and the military are allowed guns, and any person found with a gun would get an automatic 25 year jail sentence, and if a gun was used in the commission of a crime, life in prison without parole.
Tough answer to this growing problem of guns, but tough times require tough solutions.
For starters, the congress could address the gun issues by voting to repeal the second amendment.
Now I know that takes time, but at least it would be a start.
All of us know that will never happen because the NRA has funded just about every congress person's campaign, so there is no way congress will go up against the NRA.
Just stop... please
It's not going to happen and for good reason.
It will come out that:
1. the guns were legally purchased (by the shooter)
2. he was legally able to own the guns he had
3. all the proper, legal channels and processes were followed to buy the guns (he had a background check, waiting period, etc)
4. he was crazy
All this bull**** people say about "common sense gun laws" is just codespeak for gun confiscation and banishment
It's been said here multiple times and I will say it again, no law other than prohibiting guns would have stopped this
Obama is so ridiculous when he says stuff like this
For starters, the congress could address the gun issues by voting to repeal the second amendment.
Now I know that takes time, but at least it would be a start.
All of us know that will never happen because the NRA has funded just about every congress person's campaign, so there is no way congress will go up against the NRA.
Times have changed, and perhaps it is time for the constitution to change to reflect life today, not what was a hundred years ago.
My solution, repeal that amendment.
Make it a federal law that only law enforcement, and the military are allowed guns, and any person found with a gun would get an automatic 25 year jail sentence, and if a gun was used in the commission of a crime, life in prison without parole.
Tough answer to this growing problem of guns, but tough times require tough solutions.
Bob.
All you need to do this is 2/3 both houses of congress and 3/4 the states.... good luck on your mission.
1. Propose An Amendment
Either Congress or the States can propose an amendment to the Constitution.
Both Houses of Congress must propose the amendment with a two-thirds vote. This is how all current amendments have been offered.
2. Ratify An Admendment
Regardless of how the amendment is proposed, it must be ratified by the States.
Three-fourths of the State legislatures must approve of the amendment proposed by Congress, or
Three-fourths of the states must approve the amendment via ratifying conventions. This method has only been used once, to repeal Prohibition (21st Amendment).
Regardless of how the amendment is proposed, it must be ratified by the States.
Three-fourths of the State legislatures must approve of the amendment proposed by Congress, or
Three-fourths of the states must approve the amendment via ratifying conventions. This method has only been used once, to repeal Prohibition (21st Amendment).
Well, I did say it would take time
It was stated in one of the post above the guns were purchased legally etc.
If there were no guns to purchase, this terrible event would never have happened, and all the other mass killings would never have happened.
That is a rather simple deduction, and any one who can't see, and understand that has to be blind to the obvious.
It was stated in one of the post above the guns were purchased legally etc.
If there were no guns to purchase, this terrible event would never have happened, and all the other mass killings would never have happened.
That is a rather simple deduction, and any one who can't see, and understand that has to be blind to the obvious.
Bob.
Seriously this is your solution?
The best solution is to restrict the constitutional rights of law abiding citizens?
How many other rights would you be willing to relinquish?
Perhaps we could be much more harsh in our sentencing for any violent offenders and stop allowing them to plea down and then get out early?
Wouldn't THAT be a good place to start?
"if there were no guns to purchase"... ?WOW
Because we, as a nation, have demonstrated so much success in eradicating drugs right? 30 years of the "War on Drugs" and we haven't made a dent. But somehow we will magically eradicate all guns?
The best solution is to restrict the constitutional rights of law abiding citizens?
How many other rights would you be willing to relinquish?
Perhaps we could be much more harsh in our sentencing for any violent offenders and stop allowing them to plea down and then get out early?
Wouldn't THAT be a good place to start?
"if there were no guns to purchase"... ?WOW
Because we, as a nation, have demonstrated so much success in eradicating drugs right? 30 years of the "War on Drugs" and we haven't made a dent. But somehow we will magically eradicate all guns?
I NEVER stated it would happen, but it should happen.
Without guns, none of these mass killings would have taken place.
I don't believe you, or any of the gun enthusiast could argue that point.
I NEVER stated it would happen, but it should happen.
Without guns, none of these mass killings would have taken place.
I don't believe you, or any of the gun enthusiast could argue that point.
Bob.
Oh really?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Three Wolves In Snow
Jose Gonzalez - Bronx, NY 1990
murdered 87 people. Weapon: two matches and gasoline
Andrew Kehoe - Bath, MI 1927
murdered 37 children. Weapon: dynamite
Bellevue Massacre - Alex Baranyi Jr. and David Anderson - Bellevue, WA January 03, 1997
murdered 4 Cause: Strangulation, blunt force trauma, stabbing
Broken Arrow Killings - Robert Bever and Michael Bever - Broken Arrow, OK July 22, 2015
murdered 5 Weapons: Knives, hatchets
Deltona massacre - Troy Victorino, Robert Cannon, Jerone Hunter, and Michael Salas - August 6, 2004
murdered 6 Cause: bludgeoned their victims to death
Maksim Gelman stabbing spree - Maksim Gelman - February 11 to February 12, 2011 NYC
murdered 4 wounded 5 Cause: stabbing
The OKC bombing - April 19, 1995
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
