Active-shooting incident reported at community college in Oregon

[bill o]

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

It's amazing. There are actually adult men out there who want other adults to make up rules that micromanage their own lives. It's a state of perpetual childhood.

 

[atilla]

It's amazing. There are actually adult men out there who want other adults to make up rules that micromanage their own lives. It's a state of perpetual childhood.

i wouldn't call 'em "men". servants, subjects at best.

 

[Periphery]

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.
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 may think you're being hypothetical, but it's real to us. Whether hypothetical or real, logic still applies.
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"). The shoe fits.

My position is actually reasonable, and the debates are extreme and the evidence is right here in this thread that if you are for anything other than no restrictions you're a statist. How am I framing it that way when people are clearly stating it as such?

That isn't a nirvana argument, again, because it's true and goes straight to the argument that more/everyone being armed will stop these events from happening. So it directly responds to something people state repeatedly.

None of my arguments are inconsistent with any of the others. At all. You may just be having a hard time understanding them, though they are pretty straightforward.

I asked what do we do to stop these events and got numerous non-answers like "Shoot them" or "arm everyone" and I addressed the issues with those. There are no logical fallacies there at all. You're just seeing what you want to see, and putting on the blinders.

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.

What? I didn't say anything about mouthbreathers.

 

[ChevyGuy91]

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.

That's scary, I don't want to think about that.

 

[allen-1]

i wouldn't call 'em "men". servants, subjects at best.

"modern men"; wasn't there an article recently in that rag you read?

 

[atilla]

My position is actually reasonable, and the debates are extreme and the evidence is right here in this thread that if you are for anything other than no restrictions you're a statist. How am I framing it that way when people are clearly stating it as such?

That isn't a nirvana argument, again, because it's true and goes straight to the argument that more/everyone being armed will stop these events from happening. So it directly responds to something people state repeatedly.

None of my arguments are inconsistent with any of the others. At all. You may just be having a hard time understanding them, though they are pretty straightforward.

I asked what do we do to stop these events and got numerous non-answers like "Shoot them" or "arm everyone" and I addressed the issues with those. There are no logical fallacies there at all. You're just seeing what you want to see, and putting on the blinders.

What? I didn't say anything about mouthbreathers.

you seem to have clearly identified the problems... i ask again: what's the solution?

the mouthbreather comment was from the other statist we're piling on, no worries.

 

[bill o]

i wouldn't call 'em "men". servants, subjects at best.

Agreed. Sub-beta or omega male perhaps?

 

[Periphery]

you seem to have clearly identified the problems... i ask again: what's the solution?

the mouthbreather comment was from the other statist we're piling on, no worries.

Well the main solution is ending the war on drugs, but American society is diseased and screwed and that is what causes these shootings at their heart, not guns. But to claim everyone is capable of owning guns safely because you or I are I is insanity.

Agreed. Sub-beta or omega male perhaps?

There are no such things as alpha and beta males, and furthermore those are thoughts espoused by many that commit school shootings.

 

[modernhamlet]

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.

I agree with all of the above. But I'm the enemy.

 

[ChevyGuy91]

Well the main solution is ending the war on drugs, but American society is diseased and screwed and that is what causes these shootings at their heart, not guns. But to claim everyone is capable of owning guns safely because you or I are I is insanity.

If someone is such a danger to society that their rights should be stripped, then they have no place in society and should be removed.

 

[Rider]

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.
...

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.

Well, like I said in a previous response, a lot of people here have found that the left views 'compromise' as more restrictions on our rights. No one, once, ever, has said to me, 'you know, we recognize that the AWB has had no impact on violence involving firearms, and in fact these weapons are almost never used in crime, so let's repeal that law. Also, what do you think about restricting availability of firearms to the mentally ill only after a transparent proceeding that ensures due process?' But I have had a MA politician ask me what else I am willing to give up in order to appease her constituents.

Hence my joining the cold, dead hands alliance. There really isn't anything to negotiate. Obama stated clearly that he wants to confiscate all firearms. I state 'NO!'

 

[jibbr71]

Well the main solution is ending the war on drugs, but American society is diseased and screwed and that is what causes these shootings at their heart, not guns. But to claim everyone is capable of owning guns safely because you or I are I is insanity.

Holy shit....left field called, they want that comment back.

There are no such things as alpha and beta males, and furthermore those are thoughts espoused by many that commit school shootings.

Spoken like a one worlder, someone who thinks participation ribbons are a good thing.

 

[atilla]

Well the main solution is ending the war on drugs, but American society is diseased and screwed and that is what causes these shootings at their heart, not guns. But to claim everyone is capable of owning guns safely because you or I are I is insanity.

There are no such things as alpha and beta males, and furthermore those are thoughts espoused by many that commit school shootings.

no it's not. if people are that much of a danger why are they not incarcerated? why haven't they already been killed when they've ****ed with the wrong person?

the solution here is not to punish everyone because there are some crazy mother****ers running around, the solution is to give people the ability to protect themselves and their families from said crazy mother****ers wherever they are.

ever since there have been people, every once in awhile some neurons zig when they should have zagged. early on cavemen would see one of their buddies trying to **** a fruit tree and then going after their women or neanderthal babies--what did they do? why, they caved his head in with a rock because he was broken and a threat.

 

[Periphery]

If someone is such a danger to society that their rights should be stripped, then they have no place in society and should be removed.

Agreed, but this does nothing to prevent shootings by anyone who is planning to kill but just hasn't done it yet.

 

[modernhamlet]

Well, like I said in a previous response, a lot of people here have found that the left views 'compromise' as more restrictions on our rights. No one, once, ever, has said to me, 'you know, we recognize that the AWB has had no impact on violence involving firearms, and in fact these weapons are almost never used in crime, so let's repeal that law. Also, what do you think about restricting availability of firearms to the mentally ill only after a transparent proceeding that ensures due process?' But I have had a MA politician ask me what else I am willing to give up in order to appease her constituents.

Hence my joining the cold, dead hands alliance. There really isn't anything to negotiate. Obama stated clearly that he wants to confiscate all firearms. I state 'NO!'

You know, I recognize that the AWB has had no impact on violence involving firearms, and in fact these weapons are almost never used in crime, so let's repeal that law. Also, what do you think about restricting availability of firearms to the mentally ill only after a transparent proceeding that ensures due process?

First for everything I guess?

 

[Jsfitzgerald85]

Agreed, but this does nothing to prevent shootings by anyone who is planning to kill but just hasn't done it yet.

so what do you propose? What do you want to do to stop someone who has not done anything wrong previously?

 

[atilla]

Agreed, but this does nothing to prevent shootings by anyone who is planning to kill but just hasn't done it yet.

yo, tom cruise called and he wants his minority report back.

you're talking about pre-crime, son. prosecute ALL the individuals.

c'mon.

 

[Horrible]

Well, like I said in a previous response, a lot of people here have found that the left views 'compromise' as more restrictions on our rights. No one, once, ever, has said to me, 'you know, we recognize that the AWB has had no impact on violence involving firearms, and in fact these weapons are almost never used in crime, so let's repeal that law. Also, what do you think about restricting availability of firearms to the mentally ill only after a transparent proceeding that ensures due process?' But I have had a MA politician ask me what else I am willing to give up in order to appease her constituents.

Hence my joining the cold, dead hands alliance. There really isn't anything to negotiate. Obama stated clearly that he wants to confiscate all firearms. I state 'NO!'

I hear a lot of talk about "compromise" and "common ground".

First off, compromise is NOT a one-way street. The antis that want more gun laws seem to think that compromise means instead of taking away all my rights, they will only take half of them. Anyone that speaks of compromise needs to be asked what THEY are willing to GIVE UP?!

com·pro·mise
ˈkämprəˌmīz/Submit
noun
1.
an agreement or a settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concessions.
"an ability to listen to two sides in a dispute, and devise a compromise acceptable to both"
synonyms: agreement, understanding, settlement, terms, deal, trade-off, bargain;

Common ground. My thought on this is that all common ground has been swallowed up by the left via 1934, 1968 (NRA supported this!), 1986, 1994, 1998, 2013 (MA), etc. Yet they still are coming back for more!! Anyone who says that they do not want total disarmament of the civilian population is either ignorant of this history or a fu(kin liar!!

 

[modernhamlet]

Agreed, but this does nothing to prevent shootings by anyone who is planning to kill but just hasn't done it yet.

Not much will though. They're right on that point. Mass shootings get the anti's panties in a bunch, but they aren't but a pointlessly tiny (if emotionally triggering) drop in the bucket. And mass shootings are (compared to suicides and regular crime murder) the least likely to be reduced by any existing or proposed gun laws. It's nanny state bullshit.

 

[ChevyGuy91]

Agreed, but this does nothing to prevent shootings by anyone who is planning to kill but just hasn't done it yet.

So you want to persecute someone for a crime they have not committed? Free societies are inherently dangerous, the only thing you can do is be prepared to defend yourself.

 

[bill o]

There are no such things as alpha and beta males, and furthermore those are thoughts espoused by many that commit school shootings.

Yet all these mass shootings are committed by a trout-shouldered omega male. Show me one mass shooter who was a successful, confident, grown man. But guns are surely the problem, right?

 

[jibbr71]

Agreed, but this does nothing to prevent shootings by anyone who is planning to kill but just hasn't done it yet.

You've just touched on the crux of the matter. THERE IS NOTHING YOU'RE GOING TO DO TO PREVENT SOME ******* FROM DOING THIS. NOTHING.

All you can do is stop them when they do, as quickly as possible. That generally involves shooting them in the face, multiple times. People need to stop impeding my ability to do this.

 

[Periphery]

You've just touched on the crux of the matter. THERE IS NOTHING YOU'RE GOING TO DO TO PREVENT SOME ******* FROM DOING THIS. NOTHING.

All you can do is stop them when they do, as quickly as possible. That generally involves shooting them in the face, multiple times. People need to stop impeding my ability to do this.

There are things you can do to stop plenty from doing them. Will it stop all? No, but it can stop some. Doing nothing but going "Oh just wait for them to happen and defend yourself" isn't a solution.

 

[atilla]

There are things you can do to stop plenty from doing them. Will it stop all? No, but it can stop some. Doing nothing but going "Oh just wait for them to happen and defend yourself" isn't a solution.

i think i'm on the fourth time i've asked you this... and what is your solution?

and god damn it don't come back with that pre-crime shit again.

 

[jibbr71]

There are things you can do to stop plenty from doing them. Will it stop all? No, but it can stop some. Doing nothing but going "Oh just wait for them to happen and defend yourself" isn't a solution.

Give me something that will stop 2 out of 10. Please. I'm all ears.

 

[Periphery]

i think i'm on the fourth time i've asked you this... and what is your solution?

and god damn it don't come back with that pre-crime shit again.

Fixing American society as I already said, as it is at the root of most of the problems. End the war on drugs, etc. Again, I said this.

 

[Jsfitzgerald85]

There are things you can do to stop plenty from doing them. Will it stop all? No, but it can stop some. Doing nothing but going "Oh just wait for them to happen and defend yourself" isn't a solution.

like what? How do you stop a person with no criminal history? You cant, because until they do something wrong. You cant touch them. Innocent Until Proven Guilty. The best thing to do is to eliminate soft targets. Eliminate Gun Free Zones.

 

[jibbr71]

Fixing American society as I already said, as it is at the root of most of the problems. End the war on drugs, etc. Again, I said this.

Ok, I think we've hit the wall here. You're out of your ****ing mind. How is 'ending the war on drugs' going to stop mass shootings? And by 'end the war on drugs', what do you mean? do you mean make all drugs legal? that seems to fly in the face of your statist nature. Or do you mean make all drugs illegal? because, you know....

 

[atilla]

Fixing American society as I already said, as it is at the root of most of the problems. End the war on drugs, etc. Again, I said this.

i agree with ending the war on drugs, i completely agree. however if you follow the money... yeah, that ain't gonna happen. too many people are getting too rich off the backs of others.

and as jibbr asked--please clarify, all legal or all illegal?

 

[bill o]

Fixing American society as I already said, as it is at the root of most of the problems. End the war on drugs, etc. Again, I said this.

Are you a 19 year old Hampshire College student by any chance?