The Oregon shooting thing
This doofus took two handguns and a rifle to Umpqua Community College yesterday and if any of the news reports are to be believed, he killed about ten people and wounded a score. According to Yahoo News, he lined up his victims and asked them their religious preference and then shot all of the Christians. But, according to his online profile, he didn’t adhere to any religion;
[…]’s disdain for organized religion was evident in his social media posts and profiles. He also used the screen name “IronCross45” and had a dating profile at the site spiritualprofiles.com where he listed his interests as the “internet, killing zombies, movies, music, reading.”
“Not Religious, Not Religious, but Spiritual,” he answered about himself on the site. As for a partner, he said “Pagan, Wiccan, Not Religious, but Spiritual” were qualities he desired.
He did express some admiration for […] who shot up the TV news crew in Virginia a few weeks ago. According to the LA Times a relative told them that this fellow had “joined the Army at one point”. I doubt that, given his young age, he was very successful in any military training. What you don’t hear very often, though is that there was an actual Army veteran, Chris Mintz, who was shot seven times when he charged this scrawny shit. Mintz is recovering in the hospital, I guess he had an angel on his shoulder.
The President, of course, took to the airways to politicize the event, blaming all gun owners for the act of one person, before there were many details about the shooting.
Obama reiterated his frustration at the failure of the Republican-controlled Congress to back new gun control measures, and threw down the gauntlet to lawmakers.
“Prayers are not enough,” he said. “We can actually do something about it, but we’re going to have to change our laws.”
“This is a political choice we make,” Obama said. “This is not something I can do myself. I have to have a Congress and state legislatures and governors who are willing to work with me on this.”
“Something”. Be specific, Mr. President, if you want to have a discussion about gun control.
In fact, Oregon just recently passed laws that Congress didn’t – requiring background checks for every purchase of firearms in the state. So the president is barking at the moon – Oregon had his laws in place and it didn’t prevent the shooting.
The Oregon gunman had nothing in his past that would have prevented him from passing a background check, if authorities are to be believed at this point. So, I guess the only thing the President really wants now is banning firearms from all Americans. Since he wasn’t specific in his little speech, I can only assume that’s what he meant.
By the way, Umpqua Community College, is not a “gun-free zone”. They allow concealed weapons in accordance with Oregon State Law – they are a “shall issue” state, but they have no reciprocity agreements with any other state. In other words, in order for an out-of-stater to carry concealed, you have to apply for a CCW license from the local sheriff. In that regard, they are a “may issue” state. Oregon doesn’t require a permit to buy a gun nor do they require gun registration – neither of which affect the commission of crimes with a firearm, anyway.
I’m hearing some reports that are rumors at this point, that there were armed students who were ordered to “shelter in place” when they tried to respond to the gunfire. But, like I said, that’s a rumor and I don’t think anyone could order me to shelter while people were dying and I had the means to to stop the killing.
Category: Barack Obama/Joe Biden, Guns
Here’s hoping that Chris Mintz fully recovers.
Too bad he didn’t body slam this fuck into the ground. Nothing would have been more satisfying than slamming his coconut into the ground over and over.
Fuckhead.
Let me remind you, there is no place for vigilantism.
Reacting with force to a crime in progress is not vigilantism
Exactly. If someone is trying to kill me, I will use all force to stop that threat. If I have to hit his head on the ground until he passes out, so be it. Any satisfaction from such action is just a bennie.
GDC uploaded some sarcasm…
I left off the sarc tag. Sorry guys, I regretted the post as soon as I hit the button. I too wish Mr. Mintz a speedy and full recovery, and I did not intend to diminish his actions.
I was making an inelegant sarcastic reference to the body slamming that took place in Afghanistan is which an SF SFC was driven from the ranks.
I will go and reset my Sarcasm Detection Meter right this minute!
Sheesh! My only excuse is that it’s too early!
“Not enough coffee yet!” is my favorite morning excuse! 😀
Welcome to my world.
Concur. I am almost wondering if we’re not getting to the point with mass shhotings as we were on 9/12 – from that day forward anyone wanting to hijack a plane HAD to face the new reality that the people I. That plane weren’t going to sit there any more and be meekly slaughtered. They were going to face a hundred or so people who were going to try and take the bastard down.
Maybe the word needs to start going out that we should start riding up and charging these monsters. Maybe they need to start thinking about the possibility that they won’t go out in a media halo, but instead be torn to shreds by people who have had enough. I know it would take a drastic change in thinking, but we’ve got to do something.
Mike
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Tianjin flight 7554:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tianjin_Airlines_Flight_7554
Two of the hijackers DIED as a result of passengers resisting.
Of course, a Uighur rights group claimed it was all a misunderstanding over a seat dispute. Just ignore the explosives they had on board with them and that they said they were going to hijack the plane.
“We were holding the explosives for a ‘friend'”….
One of our Children is in CC. With the rules and restrictions, all of our Children have reviewed this. We have an active plan at Home, just as we have Fire Drills. Will any of these events happen? Most likely not – however I don’t want to be the tearful Parent who says “I never expected it to be my Child / Home / Neighborhood.”
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=r2tIeRUbRHw&feature=player_embedded
Why are we forever looking for a rational response to these events from the gun grabbers? Of course the Scrotum Shaver says the answer is more gun laws. Of course the D talking points were distributed before the first victim was received at the hospital. This is what they do, time and time again. It’s a key element of all propaganda, repeating a message until the dolts at whom the message is aimed adopt it as truth and begin demanding foundation-shaking change. In this instance, that means altering the 2nd Amendment’s application and meaning. It wouldn’t take much to do so, given the composition of the court and the ages of the conservative justices. In my view, it will happen, just as marriage between sodomites is now a fundamental right, just as killing babies is a privacy right, just as coerced health care insurance is a tax.
Agreed. Just as there is no right to self defense enumerated in our Constitution, per Sonia.
In watching the CPD’s response to an uptick in gun-related violence and deaths in the City by the Lake, just this year alone, the one thing I noticed was that the rather dimwitted CPD Chief McCarthy didn’t rattle on about gun control and more gun laws this time.
Eventually, if the surf hits the shore hard enough, it wears away the rock.
No plan survives first contact; but if the school hadn’t issued lock down or shelter in place orders and someone else was injured then they would have had hell to pay explaining that. Personally I would have hoped some of the armed students would have defied the order, but I wasn’t there so I can’t comment and I refuse to arm chair quarterback them for their action or lack thereof. What a worthless piece of shit.
Agreed. Against this kind of shitbaggery, shelter-in-place is generally the best of bad options. Those sheltered in place can do at least a little bit to barricade themselves in classrooms and other somewhat-defensible places, rather than stampede through the asshole’s line of fire. Of course this plan has weaknesses, especially if the asshole has accomplices and if there’s no rapid armed response, but it’s the best of crappy options.
That being said, CCW holders should be exempt from this plan, and such an exemption would actually improve the plan’s overall survivability, as it cuts down on the potential number of innocents in the crossfire.
Additionally, there’s a choice on the part of the CCW holder: do you go hunting an unknown number of shitbags packing unknown weaponry across a community college complex with long sight lines and lots of hiding places with just your pistol? Or do you sit tight in your somewhat-defensible classroom with your pistol trained on its single point of entry and let the assholes who may or may not have you outnumbered and/or outgunned come to you where you at least have one or two advantages? Neither answer is right or wrong, both are are making the most of a shirt situation and are aimed at defending yourself and others, but it’s a tactical choice. Depending on the variables, I could see myself going both ways.
IMHO…if armed, the best option is to shelter in place, gather the sheep about you and get on your cel phone to communicate your position and abilities to the authorities. Then prepare to defend your position. The last thing first responders need is another armed individual, no matter how good his intent, wandering about hunting the true bad guy…in the confusion the wrong guy could get shot.
Heard a guy who was an armed vet studying with some other armed vets who did “shelter in place” because they did not want to get in the way of the police on the scene. He said they were headed toward the fire, but were ask to get in side and “protect their position”
“No plan survives first contact”. And after an event with this scale of news coverage, the quality of information (actual information, not “news” or “talk”) is low for a while. Speaking for myself I withhold judgement and keep my big mouth shut until information quality improves. Y’all should do what you think is best.
For reference, the documents about the Newtown shooting painted a different story than the original noise, errr “news”. The documents about the Ferguson shooting were a lot different from the original noise. I have studied both of those documents and it is my opinion that it takes a while for the facts to filter out.
Jonn, I applaud your decision to not print the shooter’s name. I agree with you and with the Douglas County sheriff – don’t publicize them. That is what THEY want. But I must ask, what sort of sick asshole wants to be famous for something like this?
Because for their “fame” the ends justify the means. They don’t have any concern or care about how to get there, they just want it.
Good point about waiting. Look how quickly everyone rushed to appreciate Clockmed for what he did? Then later, “ohhhh, that’s not as big a deal.”
What an absolute fucking nightmare for the victims. To be unarmed and captured by this little coconut head prick.
Does anyone know if the lunatic killed himself or was it the qrf?
I’ve heard reports that he was killed in a shootout with police. I’m not sure if that’s been confirmed, however.
Douglas County Sheriff John Hanlin said at a Thursday news conference that officers exchanged gunfire with the shooter and that “he is deceased.”
Hanlin didn’t say whether the shooter was killed by officers or took his own life.
http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/story/30166394/sheriff-gunman-in-oregon-college-shooting-killed-in-exchange-of-gunfire-with-police
Good Riddance to the little shit, his assumption of room temperature will save taxpayers the expense of feeding, clothing, and housing him as well as trial costs and lawyer fees.
I’m actually torn on this one about 50/50. It is easier to just dirt nap the scumbag.
But at the same time, life in maximum security prison for the nutball is thought provoking. Along with that, there might be worth in psychologists / psychiatrists getting into his head to see where this mass-shooter thought process comes from. (Especially if it will help stopping the blame of firearms for everything)
Hundreds of thousands spent to house him, feed him and give him medical care for the rest of his life, not to mention the trial costs just to send him there, or pennies on the dollar for a couple rounds of FMJ or JHP.
I know which I prefer.
B. Hussein 0bama and the left tell us NOT to judge all muslims based on the actions and statements of a few, yet they judge ALL Gun Owners based on the actions and words of kooks and criminals that get ahold of firearms in violation of at least a dump truck load of existing laws that go largely unenforced, LIBERALISM IS A MENTAL DISORDER.
Case in point: one Commissar.
Aw, see, now you did it. Now he’s going to come over here screaming and frothing at the mouth lecturing us on how cowardly we all are for not using our real names and all that other shit.
or “Ж“, the commentator formerly known as ….
You people just can’t help yourselves can you?
With that sanctimonious little dickweed? No.
Then quit crying that he should go away every time he shows up and makes the majority of you look like intellectual infants.
You can’t have it both ways.
You should explain that to your “buddy”, that he can’t cry, stamp his feet, tell everyone he’s taking his toys and going home, then keep coming back.
And if “intellectual infant” means countering while you and your pals are prattling on your tired and debunked talking points, well, count me among that number, toots.
He’s not my buddy. I think most of what he says is wrong. Just also think he’s smart.
You’re confusing educated with smart. I’ve known people who were HS dropouts who were smarter than PhD’s.
Yea, of all the things you have said I doubt that the most.
http://www.collegedropoutshalloffame.com/index.htm
He started it, we finish it.
You continue it you mean. Makes you no better then the ones who “start it”.
Which is your right of course, just end up embarrassing yourselves when you can’t stand toe to toe with him intelligently. It’s just insult after insult. Usually of the thinly veiled homosexual variety like this is grade school.
I engaged him in civil discourse right up until he started being an unabashed shitbird about it. I can “stand toe-to-toe intellectually” with him easily enough, as Lars is nowhere near as smart as he thinks he is. But since he invariably answers disagreement by being a self-righteous asshole, why bother?
The SCOTUS indicated that public exposure and ridicule are the best response to Stolen Valor. Seems to me that they’re the best response to abject idiocy, too.
That seems doubly true when the one perpetrating the idiocy is or should be smart enough to know better.
Oh, look! It’s the herald of Lars.
To answer the question. No.
Maybe Lars could find employment as a hostage negotiator.
He could bore the living crap out of them with verbal diarrhea so that they’d forget their hostages and want to shoot him instead.
Or themselves. I can see it now, “WE CAN’T TAKE ANY MORE OF THIS IDIOT, *BANG!*…”
Well played Miss. You’re my hero today.
I concur!! Nothing is going to stop a criminal/hoodlum/coward/shitbag/lunatic (take your choice) from acquiring weapons and committing horrific acts if that is truly his intent. To deny ANYONE the means to defend themselves is abhorrent!!! I pray the survivors have a speedy recovery! That has to be the most terrifying feeling in the world…. To have the means to protect yourself but, denied the right to carry it… As you stare down the barrel of a fucking murderer!
In the last several years, in EVERY case of mass shootings, it has taken place in a Gun Free (Victim Rich) Zone.
I KNOW!! Let’s get rid of the Gun Free Zones!!
Yeah! That’s it!
No, the answer is to make the Gun Free signs larger since obviously the piece of shit must not have seen them.
/sarc off
Gaby Gifford’s shooting took place in a shopping center.
One thing that is true of all mass shootings – there was a media mass frenzy publishing every tiny detail of the shooters in every case. I think that’s what the f****** little cowards want. I agree with the sheriff who said he would never dignify the shooter by using his name – ay time anyone does this sort of thing they should be black-holed and instead of becoming famous, should become non-entities in name as well as in fact.
Not just in a shopping center, but during a public event, something where law-abiding CCW licensees are forbidden from packing.
Reminds me of an episode of NCIS where the serial murderer wanted to be “famous” so he ended up getting captured and was eager to be famous for the crimes he committed.
Gibbs got his identity considered a “National Security” issue so he couldn’t be famous.
It would be a worthy effort for any and all mass shooters and serial killers in real life.
In the intel/pattern of life category:
It seems like, after a long drought, when I finally see .22 ammo in quantity for sale at the major chains, there’s a mass shooting event.
And that’s me not whining about lack of ammo on the shelves… just noticing a pattern.
I’m getting mixed signals about firearms possession on campus.
‘Umpqua Community College is a posted Gun Free Zone but allows concealed carry under Oregon law. The college security page states the following:
“Possession, use, or threatened use of firearms (including but not limited to BB guns, air guns, water pistols, and paint guns) ammunition, explosives, dangerous chemicals, or any other objects as weapons on college property, except as expressly authorized by law or college regulations, is prohibited.
Possession of knives with a blade longer than 4” is prohibited.
Brandishing weapons is prohibited.
Misuse of personal defensive weapons – e.g., pepper spray, etc. is prohibited. The owner is responsible and accountable for any misuse of these devices.”’
So it’s a Gun Free Zone that allows concealed carry, but prohibits the possession of firearms?
Color me confused.
I’m confused, too.
Does that mean that pepper spray can’t be used for self-defense on that campus? Does that mean that self-defense is not allowed or condoned by the administration?
They aren’t very clear on those limitations, you see, so someone like me could have a field day with it.
Oregon law is complicated. The college cannot ban CC on the campus itself however they can restrict you from bringing a weapon into their buildings. So as a CCW you may traverse the campus however you would be forbidden to enter the college owned buildings. Of course the idiocy in that type of policy is that it assumes that a person concealing a weapon would abide by a sign that says “no weapons allowed on premises”
That was my take-away from the info I got about the CC. Yes, you can carry concealed, but no, you can’t enter our buildings. Their policy states “buildings and facilities” or similar wording, does that mean you can walk your weapon onto campus, but you can’t possess it in their parking lots?
That ‘can’t enter buildings carrying concealed’ comes off as having to do with public liability, and the cost of the insurance coverage that goes with it. In the 2007 shooting at Virginia Tech, the court ruled that VA Tech was not liable for failing to warn students about the shooter during the shooting.
https://lawreview.law.lsu.edu/2014/03/24/va-supreme-court-virginia-tech-not-liable-for-failing-to-warn-students-during-2007-mass-shooting/
The school administration did not send out an emergency alert via cell phones or computers. The families of 2 students who died sued the school for that failure. Nonetheless, the school still had to cover liability claims by the families of the student who were killed or injured.
The context of ‘carry’ campus but ‘no carry’ in buildings’ most likely has something to do with it. They are obligated to warn students, but their rule leaves students vulnerable and unable to protect themselves in something like this.
In the Oregon incident, the shooter entered a filled classroom after shooting through a window and hitting the teacher in the head. There was no warning from the school admin for several minutes, the police were slow to arrive (well, NOT as slow as Chicago cops), and in addition, I don’t see anything in the article that says the shooter was a student.
All of these things make the school liable for what happened, including the Army vet who attempted to stop the shooter and got both legs broken in the attempt.
“The owner is responsible and accountable for any misuse of these devices.”
If only this were really true for those that use “guns” against others.
I missed the part where the President blamed all gun owners for this or any shooting.
If anything he blamed all Lawmakers and he’s right.
In all seriousness are you kidding about the gun laws thing or just being silly
Hypothesis confirmed
Agreed. Lawmakers everywhere that have voted to restrict US citizens’ right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense and the defense of others have much blood on their hands.
Yes because allowing everyone to have a gun would stop the morons from using theirs.
It’s a non-point. There are already guns everywhere and we have shootings every day. Police carry everyday and are gunned down at whim. More guns isn’t the answer. Simple point of the matter is not everyone can be trusted with a firearm so we have a responsibility to do whatever we can to prevent them from having\getting them.
It seems in every mass shooting, the perp has gotten the guns no matter what inane laws are on the books. Either they passed the background checks, which is what anti-gunners claim need to be tightened (without offering as to how that should be done, but it’s a nice soundbite), or they have done it through other illegal ways, like a straw purchase (the Columbine shooters come to mind for that one). The only thing that is consistent is that whenever there’s a mass shooting, the anti-gunners think that there needs to be more gun laws. We have enough gun laws; the problem is that the anti-gunners can’t figure out that the only ones following them are the law abiding people.
You say more guns aren’t the answer; it depends on the question. Why does everyone have to have so many nukes? It’s called MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) and it is the same policy that you suggest isn’t the answer, when it comes to guns. Did you know that in Chicago, over Labor Day weekend, more people were killed, combined, than in this “mass shooting”?
If you don’t want to have a gun, that’s your business, but your business better leave my business alone.
You lost me at “there are already guns everywhere”. It’s as if you have never heard of gun free zones, or you’re incredibly stupid.
What a shame. I had high hopes for you, but you turned out like all the rest.
GDC – the concept of “personal accountability” is probably foreign to him… “punish all for the misdeeds of a few” seems to be SOP for SJW’s.
Negative. The majority of mass shootings in the recent past – such as the one yesterday, plus Sandy Hook and Columbine – have occurred where lawful possession of weapons by qualified citizens WAS BANNED OR GREATLY LIMITED BY LAW OR LOCAL POLICY. In each case, one or two armed adult citizens in the area could easily have either averted tragedy or greatly minimized its scope. Lawmaker action, which mandated “gun free” zones and/or otherwise restricted possession of firearms by law abiding citizens, was responsible for that situation. Criminals by definition don’t give a sh!t about following the law. Ergo, “gun free zones” merely equate to “soft targets”. Further, it was liberal lawmakers who (1) pushed for the de-institutionalization and “mainstreaming” of the batsh!t crazy (oops – sorry, the “mentally impaired”) back in the 1960s and 1970s. In many places, they also passed laws making it much more difficult for mentally disturbed people to be committed. Now, it’s damn near impossible in some places to get someone who is a clear danger to himself and/or others involuntarily committed BEFORE they commit an act of violence. Adam Lanza’s own mother knew he was unstable and was trying to have him committed – and could not, because he was (1) and adult, and (2) had not yet committed a violent act. Finally, existing gun law already prohibits felons and those with a history of severe mental illness (e.g., who have been institutionalized) from purchasing firearms. However, expanding this is EXCEPTIONALLY problematic. For example: should seeing a doctor once for depression be a ban? How about having a prescription for an antidepressant? How about conviction for misdemeanor traffic offenses (some are indeed misdemeanor crimes) or drunk and disorderly? How about the famous crime of “creating a public nuisance”? Historically, authoritarian regimes have often used their legal systems and bogus “involuntary mental health treatment” to stifle political dissent. Only someone who believes a police state preferable to a free society would go down that path. Lastly, remember: when seconds count, the police are only minutes away. (In Detroit, on average that’s roughly an hour’s worth… Read more »
Nice try Hondo, but they don’t get logic. You are using rational thought against a sentiment that is essentially, “every time a gun is manufactured a kitten dies”.
Yeah, I keep forgetting that they’re immune to logic, and believe Rainbows and Pixie Dust will fix everything. My bad.
Don’t forget the Skittle-shitting Unicorns that fart rose petals….
I’m not immune to logic, just not good at seeing some when none exists in any given argument. 😉
I love it when you tell us how smart you are. Keep talking.
And yet, you keep spouting illogical nonsense here. Do you not bother to read your own comments? Or do you simply not give a damn about being thought a fool?
Pot, kettle, you know the rest. Majority of your responses are the Internet version of the old lawyer trick: bury them in paperwork.
Say a lot but really say nothing.
What a dick
C, you focus on more guns or less guns, on more rules or less rules. It isn’t the number of guns or the number of rules – neither of those matters, it is something else.
If there was a relationship between the degree of regulation and the number of weapons and the crime rate then Chicago and Washington DC would be safe places. They have rules prohibiting guns but lots of people have them anyway and lots of the same people get killed. Places with few rules also have relatively high firearm death rates regardless of the number of weapons. It is something else. If you armed everyone or absolutely no one, it wouldn’t make much difference. Don’t agree? Explain Chicago and Washington DC.
Focusing on the rules while thinking that it is going to help is counterproductive and bad because you expend energy on something that doesn’t matter while failing to expend energy to find the right thing and expend energy there. You dilute your political support by trying to disarm people like me who think that I have a right to defend myself and who has never committed a crime with a gun. Find the right thing and you will get support. Focus on the wrong thing and you will have many opponents – like me.
But Hondo, they haz good intentions!!!
And as we all know, it’s completely unfair to judge Prog policies by anything other than what they intended and how what they propose makes them feel.
Because judging what actually happens by the results reveals that consequences are often unintended and/or perverse and that makes them feel bad, which is unfair because they had good intentions (and then it’s circular reasoning and emotional rationalization all the way down).
The road to hell likewise has good intentions. The destination, however, rather sucks.
Clong is, unfortunately, serious.
Comprehension seems to be something Clong and Lars are struggling with.
Yes, I have noticed that more than once. I don’t know what Clong’s strong suit is but I know what it’s not.
Not a floor painter.
I think the most important take away from his speech was this…
We know that other countries, in response to one mass shooting, have been able to craft laws that almost eliminate mass shootings. Friends of ours, allies of ours. Great Britain. Australia. Countries like ours.
Now gee, what were those laws that were crafted in the aforementioned countries and how do they square with the lefts constant claim that “Obama doesn’t want to take away your guns”?
Let’s put it out there, so we can discuss it, shall we? You say “blame the lawmakers”? Is that because they haven’t repealed the Second Amendment? Is that what you are asking for? A complete gun ban? BECAUSE NOTHING ELSE, NO OTHER LAW, TO THIS POINT HAS WORKED.
Then we keep trying until one does. It’s too important. And yes I would support the right amendment(or whatever) dealing with or changing the 2nd. The “I don’t go anywhere without my gun” people are part of the proble as well.
BWAA_HAHAHA!!! GREAT sarcasm!!! Damn, one would almost think you actually espouse such a dickheaded approach “let’s stop criminals and loonie by disarming their potential victims!!” Man, that is some funny shit… almost had me convinced you had your head so far up there you could see daylight again. Oughta post a spew alert.
Seriously, the dude just lost any shred of credibility he thought he had with that stupid fucking statement. Just keep making laws until we can legislate morality?…wait didn’t the left tell us we couldn’t legislate morality? I mean think about what a liar President Obama is he claimed the states with the strongest gun laws have the least gun deaths? Demonstrably false.
We can’t force people to be moral. We can teach them though through education and prevent them from arming when that doesn’t stick.
Not everyone is responsible enough to have a gun. That’s just the world we live in.
And our laws recognize that fact, but nooooo…let’s not keep the guns out of the hands of those who aren’t supposed to have them. Let’s do like Big (Army/Navy/whoever) does and punish everyone for the fuckups of a VERY few.
Not everyone is responsible enough to be “Press” but they so often hide behind that Amendment when it suits them.
Please. Majority of people(non police) who wear a gun everywhere allowed by law do so more for feeling like a tough guy and less then for protection. Just part of the problem.
You’re every bit of a pompous shit-for-brains as Lars!
Is he defending the shooter yet?
It would not surprise me.
Fight the power, C. Long!
DA MAN is keepin’ his ass DOWN!!!
Yes, she is, GT.
And when’s the last time you actually saw someone doing open carry of a pistol in public?
I’m not talking about on the news, I mean IN PERSON.
Oh, and I’m still waiting for you to tell us who exactly was e-mailing you. I’m still throwing the BS flag on anyone here divulging your e-mail address.
Every single day. I see more handguns on belts then cellphones.
What state is this, again?
The only state this is happening is in his state of mind. Dude is delusional, I can hear him telling his psychiatrist “I see guns everywhere”
And you havent once had to take cover from someone randomly firing into the crowd? Hmmm….
You didn’t finish that. It goes “I see guns. I see them all the time, everywhere. And they don’t even know they’re guns.”
Kentucky. And 9 times out of 10 it’s some slack-jawed yokel in line at the Walmart buying a cart full of food with his EBT card. I’m expected to be ok with someone who lacks the intelligence needed to support a family(or at least stop having kids somewhere around the 6th) with a gun around mine? Nah.
Well if they have an EBT card, then they must keep their smart phone in their pocket to keep their belt free for their fire arm.
Free gov phone no doubt.
That is funny. I live in Kentucky, and travel all over the state fairly regularly, and I don’t see all of these armed “slack-jawed yokels” you speak of. What county is this? I do know many people who conceal carry, however, and, like all populations, some are not responsible enough, but most are. So whose opinion, between the two of us, is correct?
Michael, are you pro gun and carry?
And conceal is only a word. Again goes back to the tough guy aspect.
clong, you’re so full of shit your eyes are brown, son.
State of Confusion, maybe?
And how many of those guns have magically jumped off the belt and started firing at you?
The better question is How many could if the owner was so inclined?
Flawed logic has killed more people than guns, but I see you don’t let that stop you.
“The better question …”
What fucking arrogance. Why is it the “better” question C. Long? Because you say it is?
“The completely moronic and irrelevant question is: How many could if the owner was so inclined?”
There, I fixed it for you. No charge for the colon.
Wow what an amazing statement of equal parts arrogance and ignorance. You have not a fucking clue as to any given persons reason for concealed carry and you trot out that bullshit statement absence any proof. Or perhaps you’ve seen the same (made up) polls the President and his band of gun banners love to quote.
I carry a gun from time to time and I do so because I am not a tough guy. I am nearly 70 and walk with a cane. In my youth I could handle two or three untrained thugs or one man with a gun. I carry today because I fit a victim profile and would be an easy mark for the feral youth of the big city. My gun is an insurance policy that make me safe and puts the goblin at risk. I have five loads of .44 Special in a snub nosed revolver that the perp will never see until it has gone off in his face. I refuse to engage in a physical confrontation with a man who would kill me without remorse. So go take your generalizations and fuck yourself.
PS The large city in this case is the same town where Shorty, the 80 year old vet was beaten to death by two teens a couple of years ago.
Hear, hear-the protestations of the grabbers about firearms being some sort of “tough guy wannabe” crutch reflect their delusions, not the reality of those who are trying to defend themselves on a daily basis. They don’t have any rational arguments so they try personal attacks-straight out of Rules for Radicals.
Roger, I hear what you are saying. I’ll point out that said I most not all.
Of course there are responsible handgun owners. Just like their are responsible nuclear powers. Do they justify having theirs by letting everyone else have them too?
It’s a sad fact of life, often American life, that the ones who do bad get to dictate how the ones who do good live.
It’s a sad fact of life, often American life, that the ones who do bad get to dictate how the ones who do good live.
What is that? The lowest common denominator theory of individual rights? Anyway, no thanks, the perverse idea that some small minority of individuals might abuse their rights should have no impact on the rights of the rest of us. Punish them for their violations and be on guard for them always, but do not transgress against the guiltless for their crimes.
Hey I didn’t say it was right just said it was true. I don’t pretend to know all the answers but if it turns out taking guns from everyone(just being dramatic)is the only way to curb gun violence…..well wouldn’t it be irresponsible not to seriously consider that plan?
Ahh, so the mask slips just a little bit. Would you or would you not support the repeal of the Second Amendment and what would be your plan with regard to those law abiding American citizens currently in possession of firearms?
Hello? Did you not see the link I posted elsewhere in this thread showing that violent crime has been halved over the last quarter of a century? Violence is being curbed and it has happened concurrently with greater concealed carry by citizens. Maybe those two thing are related and maybe not, but in no way do those facts support taking firearms from the law abiding.
If you aren’t sure of the link between the two you posting it as evidence of something was just a waste of time.
It certainly shows that more guns do not equal more violence though-doesn’t it? Pretty weak tea for the grabbers. You’re just trolling now dude.
Did I say more guns equaled more violence? Are you?
If “more guns do not equal more violence” then why does it matter if individuals are carrying?
Because not everyone who carries\owns\posses can be trusted to do so. Hence……all the shootings
Since it appears that the vast majority of those of us who do carry apparently can be trusted to do so responsibly, it seems illogical and foolish to deny us our rights due to the actions of a deranged few.
I would agree if all other methods have been tried first.
“If you aren’t sure of the link between the two you posting it as evidence of something was just a waste of time.”
What fucking evidence to support any of your “beliefs” have you posted? It’s quite obvious that you didn’t even read what Jonn originally posted above, but that didn’t stop you from flapping your gums. But tell us how smart you are again. Keep talking.
“All other methods”?!? What the hell does that even mean? Are there no limits to what you somehow think the government can accomplish? Does “all other methods” mean something like maybe we should all have our own personal policeman assigned to us (and pray to God that we can trust him). What has been done is to recognize the individual right to armed self defense. That has not required some omnipotent, semi-magical government to exhaust any and every other potential course of action.
Just stop.
That is not a true statement Long. Never tried to be a tough guy because of a gun. The problem is the bad guy that have guns who don’t give a dam about laws.
Hey Clong-head, how about the dump truck load of existing laws that prohibit what he did? More laws aren’t the answer, vigilance and enforcement can help, but disarming law-abiding people WILL NOT WORK, my harebrained fungus-head!
Well since the violent crime rate has been steadily decreasing over the past 25 years or so, I’d say what we are doing is working pretty well.
http://www.statista.com/statistics/191219/reported-violent-crime-rate-in-the-usa-since-1990/
But, of course, during that same time the right to concealed carry has also increased dramatically, so maybe the “I don’t go anywhere without my gun” people (as you call us) are a better solution than the generally ineffective and perverse actions of a bunch of meddling, corrupt, self-serving, insulated, D.C. placeholders and their bureaucratic allies.
Bingo. National laws regarding concealed carry began loosening (e.g., more and more states mandating issuance of permits to all that qualify – e.g., “shall issue”) circa 1986. Not long afterwards, crime rates began dropping nationally.
I do not think the two declines are independent of one another and due merely to coincidence.
I love that map-and the more green we see on it the better!!!
Meh. I’d settle for all “shall issue” with legally-mandatory reciprocity like we have for drivers’ licenses.
Even so, I don’t think we are going to see any spate of mass shootings in Constitutional carry states. And frankly, I don’t see any reason for people who have done nothing wrong to have to pay the government for a license so that they can carry with them the means to protect themselves as they go about their daily business.
In theory I agree with you. Just as in theory, I think that no drivers’ licence should be required for an adult owning a car to drive it.
In practice . . . I can live with an individual being required to display a certain level of training and ability before being legally allowed to take either out among the public.
Then repeal the 2nd amendment. Simple.
I think those two things are superficially similar, but that similarity does not stand up to close scrutiny. When I am driving on the public roads I pose a certain danger to others due to accidents of crashes (and many more are killed each year due to automobiles than firearms) and because those are public roads (paid for and maintained at public expense) then the government has the authority to require me to have a license. But I can be out and about on my own business either walking or riding my bike then I pose almost no danger to others and there is no need for me to be licensed. If I am carrying my firearm for my own safety then I pose no danger to others until I decide to use it (and I probably won’t). Until I do, I should not be subject to any criminal or civil liabilities and if I do then I should be. But because I have shown myself to be no danger to others with my firearm I do not think that I should have to seek permission just to carry it on my person.
The SCOTUS has long held that no Constitutional right is absolute, and that the government can – for sufficient and compelling reason – restrict their exercise. Even religious practices can be curtailed if public need to do so is compelling enough. The classic hypothetical example would be human sacrifice.
When carrying concealed, you do indeed pose a danger to the public – e.g., your use of the weapon to defend yourself poses a threat to innocents nearby. The threat may be small, but it is decidedly not nonexistent. That risk is much higher if an individual has neither experience nor training in the proper use of a firearm – just as it is when someone who has not passed a driver’s test and demonstrated their proficiency at handling an automobile drives.
In either case, I can live with the government providing a licensing requirement before allowing operation of either device among the general public. At home or on private land, neither would be required.
In a perfect world, such a requirement would be unnecessary. But the last time I checked, the world wasn’t perfect.
As the map above indicates several states have already decided that the government should take no role in restricting the right to go armed of citizens who have committed no crime or otherwise shown themselves to be untrustworthy.
I might pose a small danger to others with my bicycle, but the government has decided that danger is not sufficient to require me to be licensed when I am our for a ride and I think that constitutional carry states have decided that the danger posed by the law abiding who choose to arm themselves in public is similarly small.
Oh, and I have no confidence in the SCOTUS to protect the rights of the people or to correctly interpret the Constitution. Kelo showed what charlatans they are. A system that seems to come down to the whims of Anthony Kennedy on any given day is difficult to take seriously.
True, but also irrelevant. If one or more states wish to allow unrestricted concealed carry, more power to them. That’s fine with me too.
However, last time I checked Federalism says that states can have different laws, provided they’re consistent with the Constitution. In this case, a state determining that it requires a permit for concealed carry may well pass Constitutional muster. To my knowledge, it hasn’t yet been tested in court, but I haven’t researched that aspect of concealed carry. Yet.
You have a point regarding Kelo. That decision is IMO morally wrong and is an abomination of the first rank – as was the ACA decision.
Unfortunately, the SCOTUS is the system we have for the foreseeable future. And I can’t really think of a better way to perform that necessary function.
My original point was “the more green on that map the better”. That’s not inconsistent at all with Federalism. Legislators in those states have determined that the state should stay out of this aspect of their citizen’s lives. May their example flourish.
The loosening of restrictions is part. Three Strikes laws and other sentencing requirements is another part. Put them all together, and you’ll have a good case for why violent crime rates in this country are near 50-year lows.
I’d add the link to this Harvard paper showing evidence of how gun control is counter-productive to both murder and suicide rates within the US and internationally.
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf
A story was done on it here at TAH a year or two ago and I always reference it. Funny thing is that I never get any “oh that’s not true!” or dissenting opinions about it.
Say a raccoon is getting into my trash. To solve this problem I buy both a lock for the bin and a magic totem. Did both have equal parts to do with keeping my trash out of the yard? Crime has gone down for various reason, more people with guns least among them.
Or as grownups say, correlation is not necessarily causation.
But sometimes it is.
Let’s say guns are like the trash can lock, and let’s say your ideas are moronic.
Interested in seeing your proof to the contrary. On not. Keep talking.
You might want to say that first part loudly and so the whole class can hear it. 😉
Yeah, that’s what I figured. You have no data or analysis to the contrary.
Hypothesis confirmed.
No one here asserted that there was a cause-and-effect relationship between the two, Long.
I expressed my opinion that the two were not coincidental. That is not the same as asserting that one is the direct cause of the other.
You really do need to brush up on elementary logic.
Stupid analogies are stupid!
If the totem frightens away the raccoon, then it works (like the plastic owl I have in my yard).
If the raccoon thinks my trash can is unsafe for him, much like the way the criminal thinks my house or person is unsafe because I might be armed, then the effect I wanted is accomplished.
Like I said, you’re trolling and it’s obvious.
It was purposely stupid. As stupid as saying more guns prevent crime while ignoring other aspects like education and better jobs etc etc
But crime has gone down. Whatever those other variables may by-and I do not deny them-that fact alone makes it impossible to argue that the greater likelihood of ccncealed carry by citizens has been worse for our nation.
. . . other aspects like education and better jobs . . .
I guess that is why colleges now spend much of freshman year teaching skills that used to be taught in the last two years of high school, and why it’s so easy for young people to find a job today.
I’m going to add to Hondo’s observation that at the university where my sister teachers, 95% of the incoming freshman class tests to poorly on basic English skills and math that they are required to take remedial English and remedial Math.
That alone says the current education platform does not work.
We are asked not to judge all muslims by the acts of a few extremists, but we are encouraged to judge all gun owners by extreme acts of the few.
Especially if the totem happens to be soaked in bobcat, wildcat, or mountain lion p!ss prior to being mounted. (smile)
I wonder if we can derive the scent of honest work to spray on our homes to frighten off criminals?
Unfortunately, that’s what attracts them. It’s called “the sweet smell of success” – which is remarkably similar to that of something called “money”.
I agree with you that this is important, vitally so. I don’t agree about folks who carry their guns with them wherever they go, that they are part of the problem. I can think of only one mass shooting where a potential victim returned fire, and that was in a mall shooting (I think). So one of two things is happening: either folks carrying concealed during these episodes either run for it and/or simply don’t engage the killer, or they don’t exist in the first place. So no, I don’t think they’re the problem.
If we decide to ban guns, we better have a very clear idea of why, and how that will change our nation. And we have enough criminals on the street that are heavily armed, that chaos could reign if we don’t anticipate a large surge in criminal activity when law abiding citizenry is disarmed across the board. But the fact is, we’ve put every possible law in place to attempt to stem these killings, and nothing has worked.
So if they lack the conviction to use them to help, why carry them at all? Points back to the tough guy comment I feel.
And I disagree concerning every possible law. Just because we haven’t found an answer yet doesn’t mean one doesn’t exist.
Just because we haven’t found an answer yet doesn’t mean one doesn’t exist.
“Do something!” (some hysterical nitwit somewhere cried)
“This is something,” C. Long thinks to himself, “Let’s do this.”
Ok, so we await your detailed plan to end gun violence….you have given a bunch of non committal vague statements about laws and accused those if us that carry of doing so because we want to be tough guys. What is your DETAILED PLAN to end such incidents as the one that happened yesterday and the DAILY shootings that take place daily in some of the most gun restrictive areas in the US, e.g. Washington DC, Chicago, etc.
Again I said most not all. If the comment offends you then I can guess which category you fall in.
So, the detailed plan is? Ban guns? Go Australia style? Start out with a registration and eventually end with confiscation of nearly all firearms? What is YOUR DETAILED PLAN dude? Empty phrases such as we must do something are useless.
I never said I have all the answers. Just the answer to guns isn’t more guns. All I can hope to do is keep the conversation going and put my vote forward for those that may have a solution. Hopefully a republican haha
So…..short answer, no plan? If you want to have the conversation keep going then you have to be willing to exchange ideas. You let it slip earlier in another post that in your opinion if taking guns away from everybody would address/stop most shootings you would not be against it. That is a position and would be considered part of a plan to address so called gun violence. It is not one that I would support but it appears that it would be one you would support? Yes? So I’ve started your plan for you do you want to continue the conversation or just keep saying you don’t have all the answers but you know that more guns isn’t one of your answers?
Yes yes you do have to be willing to exhange ideas. Say that part again loudly for the class as well.
Oh and it wasn’t some slip. I stand by that comment. I would support all guns being made illegal outside of professionals if it came to that. I just don’t think it has to.
Fine. Then feel free to emigrate to Australia, Europe, or Mexico – if they’ll take you.
Never said you had all the answers…. well it is true that you have no data. Also true that you either can’t recognize, or purposely deny logic. Where’s the value in “exchanging ideas” under such conditions?
I shouldn’t have to move to another country because mine won’t do what’s necessary to protect me. We put men on the moon, we can solve this problem. Just don’t want to.
Protection?! You want your government to PROTECT YOU?? C.Long, I’m not sure if that’s the way you meant to put that or not, but let me be the first to reassure you that the LAST thing you want is for your government to exert enough control over your life to PROTECT you. You do realize that, don’t you?
Pinto, not quite sure what you are saying.
A government’s idea of ‘protection’ is to institute policies of surveillance and control.It has absolutely nothing to do with YOU being kept safe from harm. The difference is subtle, but it is there.
Sounds dramatic Pinto but beyond what we may have read in 1984, the government can protect its people without controlling their every move. Just requires hard work and compromise.
You place way too much faith and trust in the intelligence, actions and motivations of distant legislators and bureaucrats C. Long.
Better them then the gun toting populace.
Our lawmakers are only distant if we let them be. I’ve spoken to my congressman and Senator multiple times. Just have to make the effort.
Only one Senator, I’ll let you guess which haha
And I speak to my fellow “gun totin” citizens daily. Further, I know and live among them. You having spoken to your congressman or Senator does not mean that they have your best interests at heart. Citizens that live amongst each other must work together for their common good. But pols and bureaucrats have shown all too often that the good of the citizenry is only a small consideration in their decision making.
That reads a lot like biased generalization to me. They do a lot of good as well.
They certainly take a lot of credit for good things that happen, yes.
MK75Gunner, you expect an answer from someone who does not have one. There is NO single answer, but as I said in my comment below about choice, no one is forced to have a weapon.
It is a choice.
I’m talking with you C. Long I cannot control what others do. Ive offered you the opportunity to engage in an exchange of ideas on what it is exactly you would propose, outside of “something”, to address so called mass shootings and gun violence. Let’s say you were a legislator and were to write a bill what exactly would it include?
I’ve said before I don’t wholly know what will work I just know what doesn’t based on Evidence and common sense.
If I were to hazard a guess I would say the plan should include more education, tougher criminal sentences for proven bad apples, a steep very steep , like a biblical end of times, increase in ammo costs. Just a few off the top of my head.
More expensive Ammo Clong? Who do you think you are, Chris Rock? He had that as part of his comedy act in the 90s.
How about along those lines we make the internet more expensive so people can’t afford to try stunts like this that would make them famous?
Not reall a Chris Rock fan but sounds like he was right at least on that one point.
You don’t need a gun until someone kick in you door!! Then SHTF, your in trouble!!!
It’s against the law to murder someone, it’s against the law to shoot someone, it’s against the law to shoot at someone, it’s against the law to possess a weapon with unlawful intent, it’s against the law to pass the boundaries delineated by Gun Free Zone signs. It’s against the law to lie on a 4473. What other laws would have an impact, Clong?
Even Ж wasn’t that stupid.
C Long that is crazy. I’m a Democrat but also a CCW gun owner. “Sooner or later we all must die. Warriors choose to do so on their feet, standing between their enemies and those they hold dear. With a weapon in their hands. Cowards choose to do so on their bellies. Unarmed.”
Gun Control Laws and the politicians that pass them merely aid, abet, and embolden violent criminals and kooks by assuring them via legislation that law-abiding pros will be conveniently unarmed VICTIMS. Look at Chicago, LA, and NJ as just three examples of that versus the per capita violent crime rate in say, Kennessaw, GA where a local ordinance requires at least one gun in each law-abiding household. Gun Bans and “Gun-Free Zones” assure criminals and kooks a smorgasbord of unarmed victims.
http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2015/10/obama_on_oregon_school_shootin_1.html
So the notion that gun violence is somehow difference, that our freedom and our constitution prohibits any modest regulation of how we use a deadly weapon, when there are law abiding gun owners all across the country who could hunt and protect their families and everything do everything that they do under such regulations, doesn’t make sense.
(snip)
And I would particularly ask America’s gun owners who are using those guns — properly, safely, to hunt, for sport, for protecting their families — to think about whether your views are being properly represented by the organization that suggests its speaking for you.
———————————
Maybe not directly, but in so many words, yeah, he’s saying just that.
I would add to my previous post this; was Obama not a “law maker?” So does he assign any blame to himself? No need to answer, we already know what the answer is. He had control of the House and the Senate in his first two years as President and yet he and other Dems offered not one bill aimed at “common sense gun safety”, whatever the fuck that is supposed to mean. He trots out the same old bullshit about doing “something” and yet we never hear what exactly that something is. Why don’t all these wailing, hanky clutching ghouls just come out and say what they really want, an Australian style banning and confiscation of weapons from citizens? Because, despite the oft repeated leftist lie that “the majority of Americans, including gun owners” want “common sense gun safety reforms” it just isn’t true. It’s like the commonly accepted lie the left repeats that 90% of NRA members back universal background checks. No such poll has ever been conducted by the NRA, and yes I do know because I have been a lifetime member for over 20 years and that poll only exists in the mouths and minds of the lying left. But hey, never let a good crisis go to waste…
And let’s do talk about gun bans, shall we?
The gun laws in Chicago are extremely stringent, yet gun-related deaths have risen by 21% this year, to date, and gun violence has increased as well.
Where does the relationship between restriction of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves and a rise in violent crimes AND the acquisition and use of illegal guns NOT become glaringly evident?
CRIMINALS DO NOT BUY THEIR GUNS IN GUN SHOPS.
THEY DO NOT OWN GUNS LEGALLY.
THEY DO NOT HAVE FIREARMS LICENSES.
THOSE GUNS ARE GIVEN TO THEM BY OTHER CRIMINALS.
Is that simple enough for the ignorant who want to deny that reality?
A major source of guns on the street held and used by criminals is the drug industry, which is wildly out of control in most cities, including Chicago.
Drug dealers can and do get all the weapons and ammo they want and distribute them to gangs who work for them.
Anyone who denies this reality needs to have a certified reality check.
I’m also sure that drug dealers will give their customers a “fix” in exchange for stolen firearms, no questions asked, has THAT also been outlawed?
I almost forgot. Police evidence lockers are GREAT sources for weapons, AND cash.
http://www.oneidadispatch.com/general-news/20150217/audit-guns-drugs-money-missing-from-madison-county-evidence-locker
http://www.necn.com/news/new-england/Police-Drugs-Guns-Cash-Missing-From-Evidence-Room-289412731.html
These are just two of many, many similar stories. In case of the Vermont theft, the perp who did it was a cop in charge of the evidence locker. Well, la-de-da!
CAN I GET AN AAAAAAAA-MEN FOR SISTER EX-PH2 !!!
AMEN, Sistah!
Too bad he lied about the basis for his recommendation. He said that stricter gun laws results is fewer shootings, which vividly not the case in Illinois, New York, Baltimore and DC, at least.
He says he’s bored with saying the same thing, over and over. Perhaps if he would bother to listen to the ongoing conversation about how to protect our schoolchildren, he would learn something, and not keep replaying the same, old, ineffective lines.
Valerie! Illinois is the state.
Chicago is a city.
People sometimes do get the two mixed up.
If strict Gun Laws and gun bans are the panacea for violent crime that Clong-head and the left say they are, places like Chicago, Baltimore, DC and Mexico would be crime-free Utopias!
“…he lined up his victims and asked them their religious preference and then shot all of the Christians.”
First off, I’m asking this question out of frustration, not blaming the victims. But what the hell is going on inside these people’s heads? The first question, the first gunshot, the first body slumping to the floor, and they KNEW what they were going to get. And NOBODY attempted to defend their own life??? After fifteen years of random, mass violence all over the world, and people still don’t understand or don’t believe this could happen to them? So people just stood there and waited to be executed? I can’t even wrap my mind around that. If anybody can explain this, please do so, because this makes absolutely no sense to me at all.
It’s dominance, PN.
He was aggressive and dominant.
Most of the time, this intimidates people who are easily frightened. He was able to dominate those victims the way you would dominate a horse, except that neither you nor I would expect the horse to just line up to be shot or go running off a cliff to its death.
I think this is the source of the term ‘sheep’ for the general public. They do whatever they are told, even if it doesn’t make sense. You and I would be scanning around for a way to stop this, even if it meant running right at the gunsel.
These people just lined up to be executed because he had a gun.
Even though a lot of people talk big “I would have done this” etc the reality is not upsetting or instigating the idiot with the gun is a valid option. Maybe the most valid. What’s more important, being a hero or being alive? Just standing there isn’t giving up, it’s a survival mechanism.
Well apparently at least one guy didn’t subscribe to your survival mechanism. Of course this was a former Soldier who ran to the gunfire rather than die a helpless victim. Same could be said for the American Servicemen that ran to the sound of gunfire during the terrorist attack in France. Maybe you could use your incredible powers of insight and observation to explain those away.
funny thing is, the train hero would have been on that campus if he wasn’t doing his thing on Dancing with the Stars.
Clong, you are a massively uninformed individual.
What is MOST IMPORTANT is stopping someone from hurting and/or killing other people, regardless of the cost to oneself.
If you think that it’s about getting a medal, you are nothing but a fucking, self-centered piece of shit asshole.
You should be ashamed of yourself for saying what you said, but since you HAVE no shame, it’s a moot point.
I think you need to tell him how you really feel….
Trust me, she held back. PH-2 has a very colorful vocabulary at her disposal.
Clong, sorry but I’m not going to trust my survival to the mercy of someon who has already killed in cold blood. If you want to, that’s your choice. It’s a stupid choice, but you don’t seem to bright anyway so there’s that.
As stupid as picking a fight with someone already shown he can and will kill? I didn’t say it was necessarily the best choice, just that it was as valid as any given the circumstance.
At that point, doing nothing is merely accepting death without a struggle. The man has already proven he will kill, and you’re now on the list to be killed.
When the options are fight (at admittedly long odds) for one’s life or meekly accept death without struggle, a free man will fight. They may or may not be successful – but they will at least try to preserve their life and freedom.
A serf, in contrast, will accept whatever their master grants them as their fate.
It’s sad that there was apparently only one free man among those shot. Had several rushed him simultaneously, innocent lives might have been saved.
Some may say free others may say foolish…
What do you say? As I recall, you are not afraid to speak your mind… so I heard.
I challenge you to state your case on the issue, back it up with facts, data, and logic.
I know it is not your style but forcing your ideas on me with brute intelligence isn’t really working.
You are a fucking douchebag. Only a complete ass such as yourself would look at someone who put their life on the line for someone else and say that they were a fool.
I hope you never end up in a situation that your cowardice costs you someone you love.
I didn’t say he was a fool, might I suggest some reading comprehension training.
I call BULLSHIT clong
Picking a fight? The fight was already brought to their doorstep. They didn’t “pick” a fight with the worthless son-of-a-bitch, he came in to kill them.
If you want to stand there with your thumb up your ass that is your choice, but I would rather be killed by at least trying to fight back.
That’s your choice and I respect it.
Reality is if you’re ambushed (caught in the kill zone) your only alternative to dying in place is to assault thru!
First of all, everybody needs to slow down a little here. Whether you realize it or not, C. Long may have just put out a pretty important viewpoint. Opposite to how I and most others on here would think — but a viewpoint of enormous importance.
C.Long: you said, “not upsetting or instigating the idiot with the gun is a valid option.” I would say that is possible — until he starts shooting. Then you know that that option has gone away.
You said: “What’s more important, being a hero or being alive? Just standing there isn’t giving up, it’s a survival mechanism.” And again I would say, UNTIL THE SHOOTING STARTS. Then standing there is no an option geared toward survival. Heroism has nothing to do with a situation like this, because the people are already entangled in the action. Heroism has an added condition of going forward willingly into danger, with the option not to do so. In the scenario of being cornered and faced with ‘fight or die,’ there are no heroes. Simply survivors.
Bingo. Once the shooting starts, it’s no longer some kind of “negotiation”. It’s now kill-or-be-killed combat.
There are also a raft of studies and statistics showing that in violent confrontations like rapes, the folks who do not resist tend to wind up dead MORE than those who do resist, and by a wide margin.
And I strongly disagree with that. Conflicts can and do end all the time without there being a last man standing. Maybe we have forgotten that after decades of war.
It is true that wars end without all but one of the combatants dying. That is also irrelevant.
Until such a situation ends (war or – as we had here – an individual committing mass murder), both situations are indeed “kill-or-be-killed combat”. The mass-murder situation is merely a bit one-sided regarding casualties.
No amount of wishful thinking on your part can change that fact.
That’s not only ignorant it’s dangerous thinking.
“That’s not only ignorant it’s dangerous thinking. Because I say it is. And I’m a smart guy. I’m smarter than you.”
There, fixed it for you C. Long.
I knew I should have listened to Father John Majewski.
You’re hopeless. As the Warden said: “Some men, you just can’t reach.”
Hey Clong-head, you’re saying the solution is to take guns away from the law-abiding part of the American populace? That’s just the situation right now in Mexico where only the well-connected and the criminals have guns, and it isn’t exactly a crime-free utopia now, is it? I rest my case, jello-head!
Except you don’t know that the shooter is there to take as many lives as possible? Maybe he is targeting certain people and will harm only those that prevent that. That is to say people who get in the way. Look at the Columbine shooting. Those two let others go who did not resist. They also shot some that didn’t either. The point is both paths, fighting or not, are not only valid but have the potential to be the correct choice. Here’s hoping we never have to find out first hand.
C. Long you can think this is faux tough guy bullshit if you like, but if I survive under circumstances where I might otherwise have fought and saved others, I would probably end up unable to look myself in the mirror until I eventually threw myself off a bridge.
Character counts! It’s what shows when you are in the most difficult of circumstances. And I sincerely hope that if such a situation ever arises I am strong enough to die fighting like the man I think I am (and certainly wish to be) than to survive through cowardice.
Your choice and I respect it. I just don’t agree with dying unnecessarily as a mark of being a man.
Your choice and I respect it. I just don’t agree with dying unnecessarily as a mark of being a man.
That’s your word and your qualifier. At that moment the only information available to me is that my life and the lives of others are in danger, If you somehow believe that it is then unnecessary for a man to respond with action I don’t even begin to know how to respond to you.
Just curious; are you a current or former member of the Military?
That question is for C. Long
I’ve answered that question multiple times.
And apparently I never saw your answer otherwise I wouldn’t have fucking asked….whatever guy. And yes I did, 30 years, retired W3 Warrant Gunner, USCG. Was a qualified Boarding Officer, MLE Instructor, Small Arms Instructor, operated and maintained everything from .22 Caliber target pistol all the way up to a 5″ 38 Caliber Gun Mount.
True, but beside the point. Since some have apparently not seen your previous answer – what’s the harm in enlightening them.
The reason I asked was because it seems to me that the majority of the board here all have the same instinct/feeling. If faced with dying on there knees or on their feet they will choose the latter. Except for C. Long, who it seems to want to fence straddle and couch his responses in qualifiers regarding being in that position. Seeing as how I believe nearly all the members responding in the positive as to going down fighting are current or former Military members I just wondered how one guy would have such a different view and if it was due to lack of Military service. That’s all, no ulterior motives.
I fail to see how it’s germane to the conversation. I see it only as a method to change the subject to ground more familiar. Do only vets get to speak about gun violence? I mean the whole “brother” aspect being tossed around is pure bull. After all L. Taylor is a officer and vet and nobody treats him with any common decency. So to produce the information on prompt is simply irrelevant and waste of time. Asked and answered.
So…no. Your reading comprehension is pretty weak. I’m trying to figure out why you hold the views you do and if there is a correlation between those that have served and those that don’t. It’s called debate guy, can’t debate something if we don’t volunteer information in order to examine why it is things are they way they are. It seems like the majority of the board is former or current Military and generally pro 2nd Amendment except you. That would be cause for examination as to our differences in how we view the 2nd Amendment and guns n general. But you’re to much of a fucking coward to actually engage in unfettered debate so I’m done with you. Go seek solace from your alter ego Lars.
But I have provided the information. I just don’t see the point in providing it on prompt every time person x wants to change the subject.
You won’t know if it was necessary or not until it is over. If it was necessary and you choose wrong that you are dead wrong.
I think that your position could be stated, “If a man was shooting at me and I killed him I would never know if it was necessary. It would eat me up.”
If he is shooting, then it IS him or me. I would regret killing him but I could live with it. I didn’t start the fight and I don’t plan to die over the uncertainty.
The Buffalo just stood there. How did that work out as a survival mechanism? Even sheep run from the wolf. A Honey Badger will fight a lion and chase it off. I would rather be dead than meekly allow any man to shoot me without a fight.
And that’s your choice. Maybe Not right, maybe not wrong, just yours.
He’s obviously not a fan of Zapata, RiR. In fact, it appears his philosophy may well be the opposite of Zapata’s.
For the average human being, perhaps they would be. Flight, Fight, or Freeze is a valid psychological circumstance.
However, we are veterans. We are not sheep. Yes, I would fight back just as most of us would. If I might die, it’ll be running at the gunman. I won’t get shot in the ass.
Wow, were you an advisor to the people being herded onto freight cars for their trips to the east a number of years back, over in Europe? Don’t do anything, maybe they won’t gas you?
That▲▲▲ was addressed to Clong.
Invoking Nazism is like using the word retard as an insult, says more about you then it does me.
Actually, no it doesn’t. I took your comment to mean that you didn’t think anyone should fight for their life. You know, just passively accept death, even though you know what’s coming.
Well then you took it wrong. For the uptenth I’ll say it again, that both are valid choices and it’s not up to us to decide for another. It sounds tough to say “I’d rather die fighting”. Maybe that’s just hot air and maybe it isn’t. Regardless, choosing not to fight back is still a choice. Situation dictates which works for you.
*situation and convictions
It’s the training, PN. Our schools indoctrinate students to obey arbitrary and capricious rules. It is no surprise that, without counter-training, they would be passive.
Training indeed. As I noted previously, the ones that didn’t meekly surrender were all either former or Active Servicemen. Their training kicked in and they did something about it.
It may be training for some, but in my case, it’s personal experience.
SO GLAD TO HEAR THIS….
Chris Mintz is out of surgery, awake and lookin good! According to family….7 gunshots in total!
https://www.facebook.com/Oregon.Roseburg/photos/a.409478078508.185367.270101858508/10153372715468509/?type=3&theater
COOOL! Whattaguy!
…and he’s got a hairy chest, too!
*Goes to Amazon to see if I can buy a chest wig.*
<3 <3 <3
Awesome!!!!
“Courage is the first of human virtues because it makes all others possible.”
(Some old dead Greek that the campus commissars say we shouldn’t pay any attention to in our more enlightened modern era)
That is indeed good news. Prayers for a speedy recovery, Mr. Mintz.
That’s great!!!
And another Obama fallacy–as Hondo, et al, have pointed out here many times, there is a direct correlation between LACK of gun laws and gun deaths/crime.
IOW, Obama was once again wrong. America is not the only advanced country to have mass shootings. America’s violent crime rate is in fact LOWER than most of the industrialized world. And gun laws, no matter how many are passed, don’t result in fewer deaths.
Aristotle said, “Both oligarch and tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of arms.” True 2400 years ago, true today.
matter of fact, you can slice and dice the data a few different ways – by ethnic group, by city, etc. and you find that there is a small number of fairly well defined groups who commit a hugely disproportionate amount of crime. Logically one would think we should concentrate change efforts on those groups – but such a suggestion is politically incorrect and would draw incredible heat from the liberal class.
With the inevitable cry of raaaaaaaaaaaacist……
But we have a black president. That was supposed to ‘change’ everything and make all their lives better. I ‘hope’ that’s what I heard during election campaigns, I could be wrong?
I’ve only seen one report, but apparently he had a few radical Muslim sites on his social media pages.
“If I hade a son”
That guy.
Slaughtered like cattle under the altar of libtardism.
WHY I CARRY DAILY. MY LIFE IS WORTH MORE THAN LIBTARD FEELINGS.
Not according to C. long. You’re only carrying to feel like a tough guy. He has amazing powers of observation and insight that allow him to read your inner most thoughts.
I’m surprised the accusation of compensating for having a small penis hasn’t come out.
Sad.
My thoughts to the victims and their families.
So as it appears we have exactly one individual here that seems to think laws/regulations etc, will prevent these things from happening I ask that he give us his detailed plan for “common sense gun safety”, to use the empty rhetoric of the left. Keep in mind Oregon requires universal background checks for all firearm sales, including private transactions, so you can skip that part of your plan.
I’m seeing this Reddit group’s count of mass shootings everywhere this morning, so here’s the link again.
Those mouth-breathers?
Maybe while Obama is trying to take away our guns via legislation, he can take the keyboards away from drooling idiots as well.
one gun control group on wensday issued a apology about the data they issued on mass shooting that almost doubled the numbers because it was taking in to account gang activity in fact one city alone Obummers home town accounts for about 16 percent
Oregon was the 12th state in the country to require universal checks for both handguns and rifles. The criminal and mental health checks are meant to determine whether a person is legally prohibited from owning a firearm for legal reasons including felony convictions, misdemeanor domestic violence convictions or commitments to a mental institution.
A couple of things to bring to this table:
– The former college president stated that the security officer on the campus was unarmed and that this was an issue that school had took up during the last year (middle of the page):
http://seattle.cbslocal.com/2015/10/01/oregon-community-college-shooting/
I wonder how many of the college faculty are now “proud” about their decision?
– There were some reports that the shooter had gone one to social media and announced his intentions on Wednesday night and was “egged on” to do it in the name of the “beta uprising” (whatever the fuck that is):
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34423387
IMHO – One phone call to authorities about this crap could have stopped it in its tracks… ONE FUCKING PHONE CALL! I’m guessing that none of the assholes that egged the shitstain on have any remorse on what they did to fuel this…
Also, the shooter’s mom is a nurse in the Roseburg area… if she was at the local hospital, she must have had to help with treating the wounded. Hopefully someone is looking out for her… the Hell she must be going through now has to be unbearable.
4chan? Hmm. So, that means he was more likely than not an anarchist, a political “Progressive”, or a outright leftist.
Why am I not terribly surprised to hear this?
I don’t think so, Hondo. His name on that portrait is likely his online name, too: Ironcross45.
He was looking for a partner with no religion, just spiritual. ‘No religion’ means no organized religion.
He’s some kind of Naziholic.
I do feel sorry for his mother because she will get a backlash from the public about what HE did, when she had nothing to do with it.
Perhaps. But don’t forget, Nazis were autocratic Socialists.
Are you sure about ythe campus not being a gun free zone? I have seen several places that the most up-to-date posted security policy states, and I quote, “Possession, use, or threatened use of firearms (including but not limited to BB guns, air guns, water pistols, and paint guns) ammunition, explosives, dangerous chemicals, or any other objects as weapons on college property, except as expressly authorized by law or college regulations, is prohibited.”
Is there a BB Gun exemption for visiting Color Guard? Just wondering.
Lately it seems to me that for every violent act commited in this country the respones is the same, More Gun Control, which will accomplish nothing. We already have laws for that, the real issue appears (to me at least) to be the reporting of individuals with serious mental health issues, which opens up a whole new can of worms. But mental health, whether diagnosed or undiagnosed, is the common denominator.
For mass shootings, I agree that mental illness plays a huge role. For single murders, murder/suicide, or murders during crimes I’m not so sure that’s the case.
The problem as I see it is how to deal with mental illness vis-a-vis a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution. We already have laws that require those who’ve been committed in the past to report that when purchasing a weapon. I have no problem with those adjudged mentally incompetent by a court of law being banned.
But I have very strong reservations when it comes to prohibitions based on less than that – e.g., if a person is “deemed crazy” by local authorities or medical personnel alone. Ditto “Baker hold” (or equivalent) detainees.
Bans imposed under those conditions are, in effect, allowing someone/something other than the legal system to permanently deny basic Constitutional rights – and the 14th Amendment seems to require “due process of law” before than can happen. It’s also hugely more subject to abuse.
And don’t get me started about letting VA bureaucrats make “mental competency decisions”. Short version: “due process” my ass.
An automobile can kill others as easily as a firearm, and driving is NOT a right guaranteed by the Constitution. However, I’m pretty sure most states don’t permanently ban anyone who was institutionalized and later released from ever having a driver’s license in the future. And I’m also reasonably sure they don’t do that for people under a psychiatrist’s care or taking psychoactive drugs, either.
Be interested in hearing your thoughts on the issue. I don’t pretend to have the answers; this problem is indeed a “wicked” one.
I think we should be very clear about one thing in this discussion about guns/no guns.
No one in any state that allows private gun ownership is FORCED to own guns by any law in any state in this country.
It is a personal choice, not a requirement.
Because of the large numbers of very small an pre-teen kids in my neighborhood, I choose to NOT own any kind of ballistic weapon. We have a quiet, peaceful neighborhood and we are KEEPING it that way. The kids play safely in the streets. Their parents are right there watching them. I might have to stop them from taking the robin’s nest out of the tree outside my window, but they are in a very safe area.
However, IF I get out on the trails to hike, because of the number of assault incidents in recent months and the uptick in coyotes, which are not shy or peaceful critters, I can and do choose to carry pepper spray. It will go up to 10 feet, which is enough to disable someone. That stuff is nasty and I have good aim.
Disabling someone gives me a chance to smack him hard with my hiking staff (Gandalf envies me) and knock him down and sit on him, hogtie him with dental floss, and wait for the pohlease to show up and take him away.
It’s my CHOICE.
This is something that those who think more laws are the answer DO NOT UNDERSTAND.
NO ONE IN THIS COUNTRY IS FORCED TO OWN A WEAPON OF ANY KIND. IT IS A CHOICE.
You’re my Hiking Hero Ex.
Just hope that you don’t run into one of the few who are immune to pepper spray. Some dopers, some drunks and whack jobs sometimes smile and just wipe the pepper spray off and continue doing whatever they were doing.
Sometimes it’s just the startle effect. The same thing can be done with a water pistol and some vinegar. It’s harmless but it startles.
A) The National Guardsman who was involved in the train affair overseas goes to this college, but he was at a filming for Dancing With The Stars down in Cali at the time.
B) The college has rules about not carrying inside the buildings, even though it isn’t a gun-free campus. You can be disciplined by the university, but not law enforcement, for carrying.
C) The veteran who was shot is expected to make a full recovery. Both of his legs were broken, so he’ll have to relearn to walk through physical therapy, but the rest of the bullets missed all vital organs.
D) The shooter posted what he was going to do online for the past week, including the night before warning his friends not to go to school and the day of with a “10 minute warning.” However, nobody paid attention.
E) The campus security guards were unarmed! Their training for active shooter on campus was to shelter in place and call the cops.
Has anyone noticed that John Cornyn introduced a bill over a month ago strengthening reporting for mental health issues and the Democrats refuse to work for its passage because it “doesn’t do enough”? Meaning “it doesn’t mandate universal background checks, registration databases, and confiscation?” So much for trying sensible ideas…
David, please see my comment on ‘Guns are a choice’ above.