BREAKING: Mass school shooting multiple victims

[Missourian]

Oregon shooter ‘into occult, wiccan’

Shooter also called himself a "conservative Republican".

Go figure!

A British born Irish Republican...as in IRA...as in The Troubles.

 

[hazlnut]

Media needs to stop reporting that guns were legally owned.

He was in a school for people with psychological issues - Special Ed / emotionally disturbed etc.

If these records were handled properly and if he was honest on application, then he would not have had guns.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I'd like to thank everyone who answered my question. Its just very confusing and really difficult for us in the UK to understand the gun situation in America.

It's difficult for us in the U.S. to understand why you guys throughout Europe are committing cultural suicide by allowing yourselves to be overran by Muslims.

Gee, how well did our American ancestors accept "Paptists" (Catholics), Jews, Italians the "Micks" (the Irish) and the Chinks (The Chinese)? It's difficult for me to understand assholes & bigots like you, and i'm only a 5th generation American.

 

[2aguy]

Media needs to stop reporting that guns were legally owned.

He was in a school for people with psychological issues - Special Ed / emotionally disturbed etc.

If these records were handled properly and if he was honest on application, then he would not have had guns.

not mecessarily...did the place he was at qualify as a memtal institution....and if he was aprohibited person...he still got the guns didn't he....?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Media needs to stop reporting that guns were legally owned.
He was in a school for people with psychological issues - Special Ed / emotionally disturbed etc.
If these records were handled properly and if he was honest on application, then he would not have had guns.

Spoken out of true ignorance.
The law is very specific on when it is illegal to own a gun due to psychological issues; this guy did not meet the criteria.
And so, no amount of record keeping and no background check wold have kept this guy for buying a gun.

 

[JoeB131]

Guns don't make people kill people or commit mass shootings. These nuts seek out ways to kill people. If it wasn't a gun, it would be something else. In the ME, where they probably can't afford to get guns, they use bombs instead. Also very effective way to kill a lot of people at once.

Here's the problem with that.

There's no way this guy could have killed 9 people with a knife or an ax. He might have killed one before they tackled him.

 

[JoeB131]

not mecessarily...did the place he was at qualify as a memtal institution....and if he was aprohibited person...he still got the guns didn't he....?

Yes, he still got guns, which just shows why we need to hold gun sellers to account when they sell guns to a lunatic.

 

[JoeB131]

You want the government to be able to "control" people's rights. The only people that such controls effect are the people that care about the law. Do you really think people who would commit mass murder care or would not find some other way to do as much damage as possible?

Well, let's look at that.

Australia had a case where they had exactly that happen. They banned guns after a mass shooting in 1996. They haven't had a mass shooting since.

There's never been a mass shooting in Japan.

The United Kingdom hasn't had a mass shooting in 16 years.

 

[JoeB131]

Do gun control laws lessen the frequency of mass shootings??? Have any of these measures been effective whatsoever in preventing gun homicides? That is an important question that you need to ask yourself. If the answer is no, then obviously it is NOT the answer to the problem. Of course we are always going to have whackos around. There always have been whackos, but we have a LOT more of them today than ever before because there are more people living in the US than ever before. Why not look at Hollywood which glorifies violence and gore and desensitizes us? Perhaps THAT is the culprit because guns have ALWAYS been a part of American culture.

The problem is, we don't have real gun control laws. We have a few tinkering around the edges that the gun industry largely ignores.

 

[ChrisL]

Do gun control laws lessen the frequency of mass shootings??? Have any of these measures been effective whatsoever in preventing gun homicides? That is an important question that you need to ask yourself. If the answer is no, then obviously it is NOT the answer to the problem. Of course we are always going to have whackos around. There always have been whackos, but we have a LOT more of them today than ever before because there are more people living in the US than ever before. Why not look at Hollywood which glorifies violence and gore and desensitizes us? Perhaps THAT is the culprit because guns have ALWAYS been a part of American culture.

It worked in Australia.

We're not going to let you people have a gun round up here.

In which case the blood of innocents is on your head and hands, and on those of your fellow gun fetishists, since you aren't prepared to even consider any reasonable measures at all to stem the slaughter.

Gun fetishists? Lol. Just because people recognize how important our rights are and that they need to be defended because the government does NOT have the power to grant or take away rights as they see fit. Our rights are not dependent on "feelings."

 

[ChrisL]

You want the government to be able to "control" people's rights. The only people that such controls effect are the people that care about the law. Do you really think people who would commit mass murder care or would not find some other way to do as much damage as possible?

Well, let's look at that.

Australia had a case where they had exactly that happen. They banned guns after a mass shooting in 1996. They haven't had a mass shooting since.

There's never been a mass shooting in Japan.

The United Kingdom hasn't had a mass shooting in 16 years.

Guns don't make people kill. You just want to put a band-aid on the problem. Besides the fact that for all of your rules and regulations, the ONLY people who will be effected are the law abiding.

 

[ChrisL]

You want the government to be able to "control" people's rights. The only people that such controls effect are the people that care about the law. Do you really think people who would commit mass murder care or would not find some other way to do as much damage as possible?

Well, let's look at that.

Australia had a case where they had exactly that happen. They banned guns after a mass shooting in 1996. They haven't had a mass shooting since.

There's never been a mass shooting in Japan.

The United Kingdom hasn't had a mass shooting in 16 years.

A much LARGER problem than mass shootings in this country is gang warfare which brings our national homicide rate up to a ridiculous level.

 

[Iceweasel]

Media needs to stop reporting that guns were legally owned.

He was in a school for people with psychological issues - Special Ed / emotionally disturbed etc.

If these records were handled properly and if he was honest on application, then he would not have had guns.

If that was the criteria no liberal could own a gun.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Do gun control laws lessen the frequency of mass shootings??? Have any of these measures been effective whatsoever in preventing gun homicides? That is an important question that you need to ask yourself. If the answer is no, then obviously it is NOT the answer to the problem. Of course we are always going to have whackos around. There always have been whackos, but we have a LOT more of them today than ever before because there are more people living in the US than ever before. Why not look at Hollywood which glorifies violence and gore and desensitizes us? Perhaps THAT is the culprit because guns have ALWAYS been a part of American culture.

It worked in Australia.

We're not going to let you people have a gun round up here.

In which case the blood of innocents is on your head and hands, and on those of your fellow gun fetishists, since you aren't prepared to even consider any reasonable measures at all to stem the slaughter.

Gun fetishists? Lol. Just because people recognize how important our rights are and that they need to be defended because the government does NOT have the power to grant or take away rights as they see fit. Our rights are not dependent on "feelings."

I make the distinction between normal gun owners and the gun fetishists who are obsessed single issue voters who can't live without their precious penile substitutes.

I defend the right to have firearms but with that right comes responsibility and accountability.

The gun fetishists want to have their guns without taking any responsibility or accountability for what happened in the OP.

Yes, they are accountable and responsible because they have actively obstructed all attempts at reasonable and sane measures to prevent these kinds of tragedies and they are still doing so right here in this thread.

 

[2aguy]

Do gun control laws lessen the frequency of mass shootings??? Have any of these measures been effective whatsoever in preventing gun homicides? That is an important question that you need to ask yourself. If the answer is no, then obviously it is NOT the answer to the problem. Of course we are always going to have whackos around. There always have been whackos, but we have a LOT more of them today than ever before because there are more people living in the US than ever before. Why not look at Hollywood which glorifies violence and gore and desensitizes us? Perhaps THAT is the culprit because guns have ALWAYS been a part of American culture.

It worked in Australia.

We're not going to let you people have a gun round up here.

In which case the blood of innocents is on your head and hands, and on those of your fellow gun fetishists, since you aren't prepared to even consider any reasonable measures at all to stem the slaughter.

Gun fetishists? Lol. Just because people recognize how important our rights are and that they need to be defended because the government does NOT have the power to grant or take away rights as they see fit. Our rights are not dependent on "feelings."

I make the distinction between normal gun owners and the gun fetishists who are obsessed single issue voters who can't live without their precious penile substitutes.

I defend the right to have firearms but with that right comes responsibility and accountability.

The gun fetishists want to have their guns without taking any responsibility or accountability for what happened in the OP.

Yes, they are accountable and responsible because they have actively obstructed all attempts at reasonable and sane measures to prevent these kinds of tragedies and they are still doing so right here in this thread.

Define "reasonable and sane measures." We have addressed all of your sides points, and shown they do absolutly nothing to stop mass shooters or criminals from getting and using guns......we support locking up gun criminals for a long time...which is the only effective way to stop gun crime.

Here are some of the measures suggested....

Licencing all gun owners.

Registering all guns.

Magazine limits.

Universal background checks.

mental health info. for background checks.

Outside of the mental health info. in Background checks...and even that has major problems.....none of the other measures you harp on would have stopped this mass shooting or any of the others. They would not stop the criminals from committing crime with guns.

So how are we unreasonable?

 

[M14 Shooter]

It worked in Australia.

We're not going to let you people have a gun round up here.

In which case the blood of innocents is on your head and hands, and on those of your fellow gun fetishists, since you aren't prepared to even consider any reasonable measures at all to stem the slaughter.

Gun fetishists? Lol. Just because people recognize how important our rights are and that they need to be defended because the government does NOT have the power to grant or take away rights as they see fit. Our rights are not dependent on "feelings."

I make the distinction between normal gun owners and the gun fetishists who are obsessed single issue voters who can't live without their precious penile substitutes.

I defend the right to have firearms but with that right comes responsibility and accountability.

The gun fetishists want to have their guns without taking any responsibility or accountability for what happened in the OP.

Yes, they are accountable and responsible because they have actively obstructed all attempts at reasonable and sane measures to prevent these kinds of tragedies and they are still doing so right here in this thread.

Define "reasonable and sane measures." We have addressed all of your sides points, and shown they do absolutly nothing to stop mass shooters or criminals from getting and using guns......we support locking up gun criminals for a long time...which is the only effective way to stop gun crime.

Here are some of the measures suggested....

Licencing all gun owners.

Registering all guns.

Magazine limits.

Universal background checks.

mental health info. for background checks.

Outside of the mental health info. in Background checks...and even that has major problems.....none of the other measures you harp on would have stopped this mass shooting or any of the others. They would not stop the criminals from committing crime with guns.

So how are we unreasonable?

"Unreasonable".... placing unnecessary and ineffective limits on the rights of the law abiding with the intent to prevent something that cannot be prevented.
Put simply: Anti-gun loons either do not or cannot think.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Do gun control laws lessen the frequency of mass shootings??? Have any of these measures been effective whatsoever in preventing gun homicides? That is an important question that you need to ask yourself. If the answer is no, then obviously it is NOT the answer to the problem. Of course we are always going to have whackos around. There always have been whackos, but we have a LOT more of them today than ever before because there are more people living in the US than ever before. Why not look at Hollywood which glorifies violence and gore and desensitizes us? Perhaps THAT is the culprit because guns have ALWAYS been a part of American culture.

It worked in Australia.

We're not going to let you people have a gun round up here.

In which case the blood of innocents is on your head and hands, and on those of your fellow gun fetishists, since you aren't prepared to even consider any reasonable measures at all to stem the slaughter.

Gun fetishists? Lol. Just because people recognize how important our rights are and that they need to be defended because the government does NOT have the power to grant or take away rights as they see fit. Our rights are not dependent on "feelings."

I make the distinction between normal gun owners and the gun fetishists who are obsessed single issue voters who can't live without their precious penile substitutes.

I defend the right to have firearms but with that right comes responsibility and accountability.

The gun fetishists want to have their guns without taking any responsibility or accountability for what happened in the OP.

Yes, they are accountable and responsible because they have actively obstructed all attempts at reasonable and sane measures to prevent these kinds of tragedies and they are still doing so right here in this thread.

Explain the measures that would have prevented this.

 

[JoeB131]

Gun fetishists? Lol. Just because people recognize how important our rights are and that they need to be defended because the government does NOT have the power to grant or take away rights as they see fit. Our rights are not dependent on "feelings."

One more time.

There are no rights.

There are privileges you have based on what the rest of society thinks is reasonable.

Any fool who thinks he has 'rights' needs to look up "Japanese Americans, 1942".

At one time, people thought that you had a "right" to own slaves. Until people thought that was unacceptable.

There is no good reason for civilians to own guns. None at all. We don't need to hunt for sustinence, you will never overthrow the government with your handguns and a gun is more likely to kill a member of your family than a bad guy.

Now, if you want to keep having the PRIVILEGE of owning a gun, then you gun nuts need to clean up your collective act. People like Mercer, Holmes, Roof, have no business having guns.

If you can't keep guns away from them without keeping them away from the rest of you, I really, really, really don't have a problem with that.

 

[JoeB131]

"Unreasonable".... placing unnecessary and ineffective limits on the rights of the law abiding with the intent to prevent something that cannot be prevented.
Put simply: Anti-gun loons either do not or cannot think.

Except other countries HAVE banned or limited private gun ownership and the HAVE prevented mass shooting incidents. And people in those countries are just as free as we are. Maybe freer.

 

[JoeB131]

Guns don't make people kill. You just want to put a band-aid on the problem. Besides the fact that for all of your rules and regulations, the ONLY people who will be effected are the law abiding.

This doesn't happen in Australia after they put on the "band-aid".

The thing is, you guys keep claiming this sort of thing doesn't work when in fact other countries have done it and it works just fine.

Guns don't make people kill, but they make it a lot easier for people TO kill.