Active-shooting incident reported at community college in Oregon

[bigblue]

What restrictions are there on buying and owning cars? Is there something I'm missing?

There are plenty of EPA and safety restrictions on cars but this line of argument is a red herring: Cars are not protected by the Bill of Rights.

 

[bill o]

There are plenty of EPA and safety restrictions on cars but this line of argument is a red herring: Cars are not protected by the Bill of Rights.

You're reading way too much into the question.

 

[kevin9]

Classic progressive Kettle (il)logic here:

It's impossible, but measures can be put into place to deter it. The problem with more guns for more people is:

A) Not everyone will fight back, there was a carrier on the grounds during the Oregon shooting.

This is a Nirvana Fallacy argument. Worst case the outcome is no different than before.

B) Everyone having a gun = everyone near that person having potential access. This kid had access because of this reason, Adam Lanza, etc.

Two for one here: Appeal to probability, and False equivalence fallacies. Just because people could have access does not mean someone who should not have access does. The comparison to Sandy Hook is not valid in this argument as the Oregon shooter bought and owned the guns he used whereas Lanza stole his.

So I don't know what the answer is but everyone having guns and banning all guns aren't the answers either. Too many people are stupid for everyone to have guns, that's when morons leave them around loaded and kids shoot people.

And finishing up with a real trifecta of illogic: Casting one side of the argument as "everyone has a gun" is a straw man. The "leaving guns around argument" misses the point. "Too many people are stupid" and it's for the children are just false generalizations and appeals to emotion.

Step back from the progressive illogical narrative. Start with the idea of gun-free zones: They do not work. In fact they do the opposite of what is claimed; creating free-victim zones that facilitate criminal behaviors. Then consider that further restricting legal ownership in effect creates more gun-free areas, not less. That's just a start.

 

[Squire]

And yet the reality is that our nation is constantly renegotiating the limits of the 2nd Amendment (and all the others as well). Whether or not you like that it's happening doesn't stop it from being a fact.

The FACT is that the People may accept the FACTUAL oppression of their rights until they IN FACT can't tolerate it any more. And then the FACT that they are armed results in an armed Revolt. Is that what you want?

 

[ChevyGuy91]

Please don't turn this into a "cars are a right" thread, it is fun enough pistol whipping control hungry statists as it is.

 

[Cloverleaf Firearms Group]

Someone doesn't like the reality of freedom. It's ugly and beautiful at the same time.

 

[Periphery]

Classic progressive Kettle (il)logic here:
This is a Nirvana Fallacy argument. Worst case the outcome is no different than before.
Two for one here: Appeal to probability, and False equivalence fallacies. Just because people could have access does not mean someone who should not have access does. The comparison to Sandy Hook is not valid in this argument as the Oregon shooter bought and owned the guns he used whereas Lanza stole his.
And finishing up with a real trifecta of illogic: Casting one side of the argument as "everyone has a gun" is a straw man. The "leaving guns around argument" misses the point. "Too many people are stupid" and it's for the children are just false generalizations and appeals to emotion.

Step back from the progressive illogical narrative. Start with the idea of gun-free zones: They do not work. In fact they do the opposite of what is claimed; creating free-victim zones that facilitate criminal behaviors. Then consider that further restricting legal ownership in effect creates more gun-free areas, not less. That's just a start.

Okay, no on most of those because you're using them entirely incorrectly. It's not a straw man when people are saying "We need an armed society" which posits everyone as being armed. There is no kettle logic, that doesn't even apply at all. Nirvana fallacy? No, I didn't use anything remotely close to that.

You shouldn't be trying so hard to apply logical fallacies when they don't apply, especially when we're discussing hypothetical fixes and situations regarding an issue.

What restrictions are there on buying and owning cars? Is there something I'm missing?

Read what I said. On THEIR USE IN PUBLIC. If that's what you want for guns you're advocating for gun control.

 

[Jsfitzgerald85]

Read what I said. On THEIR USE IN PUBLIC. If that's what you want for guns you're advocating for gun control.

We have restrictions on use of firearms in public...AKA we cannot just bust out a 1911 and fire into the air in the middle of times square.

 

[Rider]

The problem with these shootings is as they continue and nothing changes, the actual changes that will come will be far, far worse than basic stuff like background checks for private sales. I don't know how we stop nutjobs from having access to guns though.

I read an interesting juxtaposition this morning on National Review: If the government can't find and round up 12 million illegal immigrants, how well do you suppose that they would do rounding up 350 million guns?

 

[jibbr71]

Read what I said. On THEIR USE IN PUBLIC. If that's what you want for guns you're advocating for gun control.

Right, but what you're saying is that I should have to be trained to buy my gun and use it in private. In private is the best place to use your gun, BTW.

- - - Updated - - -

I read an interesting juxtaposition this morning on National Review: If the government can't find and round up 12 million illegal immigrants, how well do you suppose that they would do rounding up 350 million guns?

They'll actually try? at least until the body count gets too high.

 

[ChevyGuy91]

I read an interesting juxtaposition this morning on National Review: If the government can't find and round up 12 million illegal immigrants, how well do you suppose that they would do rounding up 350 million guns?

Well this argument assumes .gov actually wants to find and remove the illegals.

 

[Squire]

I read an interesting juxtaposition this morning on National Review: If the government can't find and round up 12 million illegal immigrants, how well do you suppose that they would do rounding up 350 million guns?

Well, because of background checks, they know who has the guns. By definition, the illegal immigrants are undocumented, so they don't know where they are hiding.

 

[bill o]

Read what I said. On THEIR USE IN PUBLIC. If that's what you want for guns you're advocating for gun control.

But there are already laws against setting up a target on Newbury St. and practicing a triple Bill drill. Who is arguing for the right to fire guns in public? Your line of reasoning is very confusing.

 

[Periphery]

But there are already laws against setting up a target on Newbury St. and practicing a triple Bill drill. Who is arguing for the right to fire guns in public? Your line of reasoning is very confusing.

What? I'm not arguing for anything, you said it should be like cars and I pointed out the flaw in that plan considering you have tons of laws and regulations and fees regarding cars in public. That's it.

 

[Rider]

Is it assumed that 100% complete and total removal of all restrictions on gun ownership is the only acceptable position to be a respected member of this community?

By taking this position, you're stating clearly: "I'm in a very small minority of Americans and for the purposes of making gun policy I should be ignored." Is that actually what you want?

Are you part of the 'small minority' of liberals calling for the death of every man, woman, and child who is a member of the NRA, or is a gun owner more generally?

The idea that there should be few restrictions on firearms ownership is neither new nor is it particularly extreme, except perhaps because you and Hillary Clinton both said it. You are both coming at this from the perspective that restricting the rights of everybody will reduce the number of evil acts that occur, despite the overwhelming evidence that the suggested acts do not, will not, and have not worked.

With respect to your first question, you can have whatever opinions you want on this forum, but if you disagree with the prevailing views(this is a gun forum, and many of us have fought hard the past few years to maintain our current freedoms in MA), you had damned well better be able to defend those views intelligently. You also better be able to take the heat. We have several dyed in the wool progressives on here. On a good day, maybe two of them can use both facts and logic together and make an argument. (I'll just leave that there ;p)

 

[Pete85]

multiple times.

Only until the threat is stopped.

 

[ChevyGuy91]

Only until the threat is stopped.

I wouldn't lose any sleep if you threw a few extra at him for good measure.

 

[modernhamlet]

and that is the problem, its complete B.S. No other right comes under constant attack like 2A. Every year, new attacks are launched against it with further attempts to constrain it.

Plenty of rights are constantly "under attack". The Supreme Court addresses questions of law pertaining to the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 14th, etc. almost every year.

So here's the thing... you don't want the statists to attack the 2nd Amendment. But you reject out of hand any potential ally that doesn't possess the same purity of belief that you possess. You're cutting off your nose to spite your face.

The FACT is that the People may accept the FACTUAL oppression of their rights until they IN FACT can't tolerate it any more. And then the FACT that they are armed results in an armed Revolt. Is that what you want?

No, but it's pretty clearly what many absolutists want. Or at least pretend to want on the internet.

You don't have to accept the oppression of your gun rights. They're already oppressed. We are fortunate to live in a nation, unlike Australia, where disarmament isn't and shouldn't ever be on the table. I'm certainly glad that's the case.

But I want to live in society, not anarchy. A society with completely unregulated gun ownership is anarchy. You think the cops are over-militarized now? Imagine if citizens could easily own fully-automatic weapons.

I want to live in a society where, through the rule of law, we continue as we have for more than 2 centuries, to protect our rights as citizens, while still working to address those ills of society that can be addressed. We have 3 major societal problems that center on gun violence:
1. Mass murder via gun - It's a ****ing drop in the bucket. And it's stupid as hell to think this should be a priority for us. But the media and sheeple glom on this stuff because it's scary and viceral. And then they pass stupid laws that won't do a damn bit of good because they don't understand the problem, but don't have anyone "reasonable" pushing back against them. This is how the AWB was passed. What a stupid stupid law. One that I still live under today, sadly. And will it stop anyone? Of course not. Because the root cause is angry men who have been left behind and alienated by societal changes, who feel like their best option is to kill a bunch of people and die famous. 10 bullet mags aren't going to heal those men. But do we have the political will to build a society that doesn't alienate these men? Of course not. We sigh and blame "mental illness" or some other bogeyman.
2. Standard issue murder via gun - Dense living, poverty and inequality driven, "what do I have to lose?" gun violence. The thing many of you simply go full racist on, rather than asking how the hell we can actually solve the problem (keep the guns out of the hands of criminals). How do we solve the problem of inner city youths shooting one another? Let's see... ending the war on drug, ending the school to prison pipeline, working toward a school system that doesn't suck, and basically returning to the point we were a few decades ago, where your current social position didn't decide where your future social position would be.
3. Suicide - Another issue that you and I both know isn't about guns. It's about having fewer suicidal people. And that means better mental health care.

If you really care about your gun rights, then get active in trying to solve some of the problem above that get ignored in favor of the "quick fix" (doesn't fix a thing) gun control law du jour. All I ever see here is "that's their problem, not my problem". Well it IS your problem. Because those problems are WHY your 2nd amendment rights are under attack.

 

[atilla]

But I want to live in society, not anarchy. A society with completely unregulated gun ownership is anarchy. You think the cops are over-militarized now? Imagine if citizens could easily own fully-automatic weapons.

shit like this right here.

okay so the streets ran red with blood pre-may 1986?

come the **** on, chad.

 

[Pete85]

I don't have one, but blindly banning/giving everyone guns aren't solutions either and people keep screaming those as if they are.

The is no one solution that will stop mass murderers. There are some things that can be done to reduce the number though.

1. Eliminate gun free zones. It's been shown time after time that people bent on mass murder tend to avoid places where their victims may be able to fight back.
2. Don't release the name of the perp in a mass murder situation. A lot of these people are looking for the infamy that comes with being a mass murderer. If they don't get that, they have less reason to commit their atrocity.
3. Offer psychological help to people who may be at risk. I'm not saying that we should lock everyone up in the looney bin, instead just make it known that help is available and where to get it. This should also involve people in the person's life suggesting they get help if they think they need it. Several of the recent mass murderers had people who admitted after the fact that they were afraid when this person was around because of the way they acted.
4. Stop placing the blame for these atrocities on anyone except for the killer. Blaming the NRA or gun owners or congress for not passing more gun control or anyone else doesn't do anything productive and only lets the bad guys know that if they commit their atrocity that they aren't going to bear the brunt of the blame in the majority's eyes.

There are probably many other things that can be done as well that don't trample anyone's civil rights that can help to prevent mass murders.

 

[Jsfitzgerald85]

So here's the thing... you don't want the statists to attack the 2nd Amendment. But you reject out of hand any potential ally that doesn't possess the same purity of belief that you possess. You're cutting off your nose to spite your face. .

No im rejecting the hands of people who will sell my rights out at the first chance... I.E. FUDDs. The type who are like, "im a gun owner but no one should have AR-15s because if you cant hit a deer with the 1st shot, you shouldnt be shooting"

They type who will always bend over backwards and allow my rights to slowly erode away into nothing. "oh well if we compromise here, then its compromise here...

When do we stop compromising? ITS OUR RIGHT. Guess what, if you keep giving away pieces of the cake as a compromise, sooner or later, there wont be any cake left!!!!! Any person who is willing to sell out my rights....ISNT MY ALLY.

But I want to live in society, not anarchy. A society with completely unregulated gun ownership is anarchy. You think the cops are over-militarized now? Imagine if citizens could easily own fully-automatic weapons.

you mean like pre-1986?

 

[ChevyGuy91]

Because those problems are WHY your 2nd amendment rights are under attack.

The 2nd Amendment is always under attack because .gov does not want us to be armed. These shootings are just convenient happenings to twist people into accepting that fact under the guise of safety. Fortunately, the majority of the US isn't buying it anymore, regardless of what you guys may think.

 

[atilla]

The 2nd Amendment is always under attack because .gov does not want us to be armed. These shootings are just convenient happenings to twist people into accepting that fact under the guise of safety. Fortunately, the majority of the US isn't buying it anymore, regardless of what you guys may think.

wait, you mean 90% of americans don't support additional anti-gun legislation?!

mind blown!!!

 

[modernhamlet]

Are you part of the 'small minority' of liberals calling for the death of every man, woman, and child who is a member of the NRA, or is a gun owner more generally?

Of course not. I'm trying to become a gun owner myself. Now Wayne LaPierre I can do without, but to each their own...

The idea that there should be few restrictions on firearms ownership is neither new nor is it particularly extreme, except perhaps because you and Hillary Clinton both said it. You are both coming at this from the perspective that restricting the rights of everybody will reduce the number of evil acts that occur, despite the overwhelming evidence that the suggested acts do not, will not, and have not worked.

No, I'm coming from the perspective that our rights are already restricted. In my state FAR more than I think they should be. I want to roll back many gun laws.

But because I don't want to roll back ALL gun laws, I'm insulted like I'm some sort of child incapable of understanding a basic lesson. I want to have a conversation about how to actually get our gun rights back effectively. Because sticking your head up your ass and saying "they can take them from my cold, dead hands" isn't effective.

With respect to your first question, you can have whatever opinions you want on this forum, but if you disagree with the prevailing views(this is a gun forum, and many of us have fought hard the past few years to maintain our current freedoms in MA), you had damned well better be able to defend those views intelligently. You also better be able to take the heat. We have several dyed in the wool progressives on here. On a good day, maybe two of them can use both facts and logic together and make an argument. (I'll just leave that there ;p)

I'm still here. And I'm trying to educate myself on the issue. It's just hard to learn when 2/3rds of the conversation involves mouthbreathers with... limited capacity... claiming some sort of intellectual superiority over me.

 

[ChevyGuy91]

wait, you mean 90% of americans don't support additional anti-gun legislation?!

mind blown!!!

While we joke about it, I always laughingly roll my eyes when I read 90% of America want's anything. If that were the case there would be no resistance and law would be past in 35 minutes.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm still here. And I'm trying to educate myself on the issue. It's just hard to learn when 2/3rds of the conversation involves mouthbreathers with... limited capacity... claiming some sort of intellectual superiority over me.

LOL.

 

[kevin9]

Okay, no on most of those because you're using them entirely incorrectly. It's not a straw man when people are saying "We need an armed society" which posits everyone as being armed.

No it doesn't: Only those who wish to exercise their right. And, I suspect no one here would support those who are incarcerated or confined being allowed to have guns. Probably similar for house arrest. On Probation might be a discussion because I imagine some would object to the very idea of probation (one's either jailed/confined or not). There could be a few other restrictions, but far less than now, that many here might support (ex. Can't walk into a gun shop and say "I want to buy a gun so I can kill so-and-so, or to rob a bank"). So no, it is not everyone.

You're arguing for more restrictions on gun ownership, a less armed society. Virtually everyone else here is arguing for the opposite. By casting the debate into 2 extremes, all or none, you're trying to make your position seem reasonable when it is not.

Nirvana fallacy? No, I didn't use anything remotely close to that.

When you said "The problem with more guns for more people is: A) Not everyone will fight back" that's a nirvana argument, saying that it's a problem that some people may not choose to use their gun for in defense of themselves or others. There is no problem. It's called personal choice, something many people lack due to gun-free zones.

You shouldn't be trying so hard to apply logical fallacies when they don't apply, especially when we're discussing hypothetical fixes and situations regarding an issue.

You may think you're being hypothetical, but it's real to us. Whether hypothetical or real, logic still applies.

There is no kettle logic, that doesn't even apply at all.

You've tried to assert multiple flawed arguments (several articulated above), several of are spurious to the question and the other arguments (ex. "when morons leave them around loaded and kids shoot people").

Kettle logic (la logique du chaudron in the original French) is an informal fallacy wherein one uses multiple arguments to defend a point, but the arguments are inconsistent with each other

The shoe fits.

 

[atilla]

I'm still here. And I'm trying to educate myself on the issue. It's just hard to learn when 2/3rds of the conversation involves mouthbreathers with... limited capacity... claiming some sort of intellectual superiority over me.

damn dude, could you possibly be more pompous?

my pomposity meter is seriously off. the. chart. right now.

 

[CWulf]

Pompous? Us mouthbreathers don't understand what that means?

 

[wahsben]

What is bad is wanting other people to dictate your life.

I didn't say anything about the state and perhaps "prove" is a bad word, but it doesn't have to be state mandated to be required. Hell, gun stores could require it. If you leave it up to the individual, most won't do it and it thus it becomes entirely pointless.

Anyway again, being extremist on the issue is just leading us to worse laws getting passed eventually. I'm telling you. They will eventually push and win one day and it'll be bad for all of us and we'll have an Australia situation on our hands.

 

[jibbr71]

I'm telling you. They will eventually push and win one day and it'll be bad for all of us and we'll have an Australia situation on our hands.

I'ma qouted this again, because I'm a mouth breather who can't remember what he's already posted.

I kinda wish they'd stop with all the bullshit and do this already. Call a convention and repeal the 2nd amendment. If this is inevitable, then let's get the party started, so I can either die at the hands of someone trying to take my guns and the rest of my civil liberties, or squash the idea and have the possibility of raising my kid in a free society.