MORE THAN A DOZEN REPORTEDLY KILLED IN SHOOTING AT OREGON COMMUNITY COLLEGE

[Gronthaing]

Uh, nope. It's not the guns. It's the people who are crazy who need help.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1199724.msg12592897#msg12592897

Can crazy people or drugs be blamed for it all? Don't other countries have the same problems but with less people being killed like that?

Most of them, yes. Rarely do you see someone who's mentally healthy and not taking drugs go on a mass-murder spree. Even the president is saying to stop allowing those who have mental issues from getting guns. That's where the problem lies, but it's not the cause, it's a symptom.

I don't expect sane people would do things like this. But other countries have crazy people too. They just don't have an easy way for people to get guns. And maybe it's a symptom like you say but wouldn't some regulation help stop this problem? Looks like that is better than nothing.

The cause is that we have so many mentally unstable people in the country who snap. Most people are on a drug or 2 and side effects happen also. But I think it's partly because Big Pharma is pumping them out and doctors are getting kick backs and no one wants to solve issues, they want to curb symptoms, so that they'll keep making money.

Don't know if that is the source of the problem. For example didn't australia have a big problem with guns too until they restricted who could get them?

[1715439579]

1715439579

[1715439579]

1715439579

[MakingMoneyHoney]

Uh, nope. It's not the guns. It's the people who are crazy who need help.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1199724.msg12592897#msg12592897

Can crazy people or drugs be blamed for it all? Don't other countries have the same problems but with less people being killed like that?

Most of them, yes. Rarely do you see someone who's mentally healthy and not taking drugs go on a mass-murder spree. Even the president is saying to stop allowing those who have mental issues from getting guns. That's where the problem lies, but it's not the cause, it's a symptom.

I don't expect sane people would do things like this. But other countries have crazy people too. They just don't have an easy way for people to get guns. And maybe it's a symptom like you say but wouldn't some regulation help stop this problem? Looks like that is better than nothing.

So we agree the problem is people who are mentally unstable. The United States obviously have more crazy people (which could arguably be because of the pills/side affects and other things). Because if someone is crazy and wants to kill people, they won't stop because they can't get guns. They'll get something else.

This guy went crazy and didn't want to kill people but wanted to destroy some buildings:

"Marvin Heemeyer was an American welder and an automobile muffler repair shop owner most known for his rampage with a modified bulldozer. Outraged over the outcome of a zoning dispute, he armored a Komatsu D355A bulldozer with layers of steel and concrete and used it on June 4, 2004 to demolish the town hall, the former mayor's house, and other buildings in Granby, Colorado. The rampage ended when the bulldozer got stuck in the basement of a Gambles store he was in the process of destroying. Heemeyer then killed himself with a handgun." (link) - https://youtu.be/PZbG9i1oGPA?t=5m38s

People are inventive. If there's a need (in their crazy minds) then they will find a way to do something about it.

The cause is that we have so many mentally unstable people in the country who snap. Most people are on a drug or 2 and side effects happen also. But I think it's partly because Big Pharma is pumping them out and doctors are getting kick backs and no one wants to solve issues, they want to curb symptoms, so that they'll keep making money.

Don't know if that is the source of the problem. For example didn't australia have a big problem with guns too until they restricted who could get them?

I don't know about Australia's guns. I do know some people in other countries feel like sitting ducks because they can't protect themselves from the crazy people now.

Criminals will still be able to get guns. We should solve the problem from the beginning not try to bandage wounds.

[Gronthaing]

So we agree the problem is people who are mentally unstable. The United States obviously have more crazy people (which could arguably be because of the pills/side affects and other things). Because if someone is crazy and wants to kill people, they won't stop because they can't get guns. They'll get something else.

I don't know if america has more crazy people than other countries. And maybe they would use something else to kill others. But not having easy ways to do it helps.

This guy went crazy and didn't want to kill people but wanted to destroy some buildings:

"Marvin Heemeyer was an American welder and an automobile muffler repair shop owner most known for his rampage with a modified bulldozer. Outraged over the outcome of a zoning dispute, he armored a Komatsu D355A bulldozer with layers of steel and concrete and used it on June 4, 2004 to demolish the town hall, the former mayor's house, and other buildings in Granby, Colorado. The rampage ended when the bulldozer got stuck in the basement of a Gambles store he was in the process of destroying. Heemeyer then killed himself with a handgun." (link) - https://youtu.be/PZbG9i1oGPA?t=5m38s

People are inventive. If there's a need (in their crazy minds) then they will find a way to do something about it.

Not everyone can get an armored bulldozer. Inventive ways to kill people are harder than picking up a gun and shooting.

I don't know about Australia's guns. I do know some people in other countries feel like sitting ducks because they can't protect themselves from the crazy people now.

Criminals will still be able to get guns. We should solve the problem from the beginning not try to bandage wounds.

Maybe. I don't know if we agree on what the source of the problem is. But if there is over-prescription of drugs or something that should be addressed. But why is regulation a problem? Doesn't it already happen in some ways? For example is it legal for people to have rocket launchers and stuff like that?

[Spendulus]

....For example didn't australia have a big problem with guns too until they restricted who could get them?

No. 

They played the emotional card after a single grisly event, in order to take away all the guns.

[MakingMoneyHoney]

Maybe. I don't know if we agree on what the source of the problem is. But if there is over-prescription of drugs or something that should be addressed. But why is regulation a problem? Doesn't it already happen in some ways? For example is it legal for people to have rocket launchers and stuff like that?

Yes there is a lot of regulation on guns. That's why it's silly to be debating taking away the guns from people who follow the law like it solves anything. The criminals still get guns.

[Spendulus]

Maybe. I don't know if we agree on what the source of the problem is. But if there is over-prescription of drugs or something that should be addressed. But why is regulation a problem? Doesn't it already happen in some ways? For example is it legal for people to have rocket launchers and stuff like that?

Yes there is a lot of regulation on guns. That's why it's silly to be debating taking away the guns from people who follow the law like it solves anything. The criminals still get guns.

Look, you know there'd be lots of advantages to taking away the guns.  First of all, that'd mean we could collect more taxes - they wouldn't have to spend money on guns and bullets.  And all of our police would be so much safer.  Sure, there'd be some complaining from the usual complainers - people who notice increases in rapes and murders and assaults, those kinds of people.

But hey, it's not about people LIKING our controlling their lives so we get the maximal cash and good stuff from them.  Think in terms of herding the cattle.  How would that work if the cattle all had guns and could shoot each other?  Or even worse, if they decided to shoot us?

[Wilikon]

Roseburg resident Says Obama Not Welcome After UCC Shooting Remarks

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=66&v=xL1ZEgGlKnQ

[Wilikon]

Roseburg Beacon Publisher: Obama WILL NOT Be Welcomed at Umpqua College Funerals


Published on Oct 5, 2015
David Jacques, publisher of the Roseburg Beacon, told Bill O'Reilly on Monday that the people of Roseburg would not welcome Barack Obama if he came to town to politicize the funerals of the Umpqua College shooting victims.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-fS9SBLTGk

[Wilikon]

Roseburg, OR Residents Organize Protest Against Obama’s Visit: “Defend Roseburg – Deny Barack Obama”



The anointed one his majesty king 0bama and the White House have announced a Friday arrival in Roseburg, Oregon in the wake of Oct 1st's horrific tragedy at UCC.

Polarizing as usual, Mr 0bama has insisted on politicizing the event as a conduit for increased executive orders on gun control via means of his pen, and his phone.

This blatant disrespect of the victims families, the community and the town of Roseburg, Mr 0bama's administration is flying not just the 747 that is airforce one to Oregon, but a three helicopter team of Sikorsky's that make up HMX-1, known as Marine one to travel to Roseburg at the taxpayers expense.

We need a lot of people. Please come show your support for Roseburg, not the little man who has no respect for the constitution.


https://www.facebook.com/events/1642689462646090/

[RodeoX]

What is wrong with people that can't live with others who think differently? Sad. At least we have the right to carry protection against these nuts.

Unless you are a security guard, with no gun, on that campus.

That is why these people choose a campus. It is a safe zone for active shooters. The victums in this case followed the mindless training they received. That is they shut the classroom door and pretended everything will be ok. In the end it takes guns to stop an active shooter and anything less is self delusion.

[MakingMoneyHoney]

Video: Facebook For Idiots: "Super Hero" Chris Mintz Fooled America For A "Merry Christ Mess".

"The Umpqua College Shooting Hoax has really upset me this time and for a fraud (insert Chris Mintz here) to take everyone's money and run from a weak on-line crowd sourcing sight really bothers me and I have to expose a fraud hoax affiliated with Facebook and GoFundMe on top of an American gun control shooting hoax agenda. "

[silverleafy]

What is wrong with people that can't live with others who think differently? Sad. At least we have the right to carry protection against these nuts.

Unless you are a security guard, with no gun, on that campus.

That is why these people choose a campus. It is a safe zone for active shooters. The victums in this case followed the mindless training they received. That is they shut the classroom door and pretended everything will be ok. In the end it takes guns to stop an active shooter and anything less is self delusion.

You know in fact that at least one student was armed?

John Parker, a 36-year-old military veteran, was on campus during the tragic and terrifying Oregon mass shooting at Umpqua Community College Thursday, and he was carrying a concealed handgun. But in interviews after the incident, he explained why he did not attempt to intervene and take down the killer himself.
http://www.inquisitr.com/2465730/oregon-shooting-john-parker-armed-vet-on-ucc-campus-says-shooting-killer-would-have-been-bad-idea/#MSsKO5jL92azrurR.99

Anyways, I will recognize that the security personnel should be trained in firearm use and should have access to one should such an emergency go down. I do think that it's not exactly necessary for campus security to be armed 24/7, but that's debatable.

[MakingMoneyHoney]

Video: Oregon UCC: Event Busted Wide Open! Chris Mintz busted!!

[RodeoX]

What is wrong with people that can't live with others who think differently? Sad. At least we have the right to carry protection against these nuts.

Unless you are a security guard, with no gun, on that campus.

That is why these people choose a campus. It is a safe zone for active shooters. The victums in this case followed the mindless training they received. That is they shut the classroom door and pretended everything will be ok. In the end it takes guns to stop an active shooter and anything less is self delusion.

You know in fact that at least one student was armed?

John Parker, a 36-year-old military veteran, was on campus during the tragic and terrifying Oregon mass shooting at Umpqua Community College Thursday, and he was carrying a concealed handgun. But in interviews after the incident, he explained why he did not attempt to intervene and take down the killer himself.
http://www.inquisitr.com/2465730/oregon-shooting-john-parker-armed-vet-on-ucc-campus-says-shooting-killer-would-have-been-bad-idea/#MSsKO5jL92azrurR.99

Anyways, I will recognize that the security personnel should be trained in firearm use and should have access to one should such an emergency go down. I do think that it's not exactly necessary for campus security to be armed 24/7, but that's debatable.

No. I did not know that. Although he could not really respond legally anyway. He said he was "quite a distance away from the building the shooter was in". Your CC licenses does not give you the right to respond to a crime, only protect yourself and others from a threat "in your immediate presence".
Moving to the threat and shooting could be called murder.

[MakingMoneyHoney]

Video: Mainstream News actually used Sandy Hook footage for their coverage of this Oregon shooting

Sandyhook white sign in the image, and "Chris Harper Mercer" on the channel 5 info on the bottom....

[subSTRATA]

What is wrong with people that can't live with others who think differently? Sad. At least we have the right to carry protection against these nuts.

Unless you are a security guard, with no gun, on that campus.

That is why these people choose a campus. It is a safe zone for active shooters. The victums in this case followed the mindless training they received. That is they shut the classroom door and pretended everything will be ok. In the end it takes guns to stop an active shooter and anything less is self delusion.

You know in fact that at least one student was armed?

John Parker, a 36-year-old military veteran, was on campus during the tragic and terrifying Oregon mass shooting at Umpqua Community College Thursday, and he was carrying a concealed handgun. But in interviews after the incident, he explained why he did not attempt to intervene and take down the killer himself.
http://www.inquisitr.com/2465730/oregon-shooting-john-parker-armed-vet-on-ucc-campus-says-shooting-killer-would-have-been-bad-idea/#MSsKO5jL92azrurR.99

Anyways, I will recognize that the security personnel should be trained in firearm use and should have access to one should such an emergency go down. I do think that it's not exactly necessary for campus security to be armed 24/7, but that's debatable.

No. I did not know that. Although he could not really respond legally anyway. He said he was "quite a distance away from the building the shooter was in". Your CC licenses does not give you the right to respond to a crime, only protect yourself and others from a threat "in your immediate presence".
Moving to the threat and shooting could be called murder.

adding onto that, for CC license holders, using their firearm should be a last resort to protect yourself and others. having a firearm does not make or obligate one to be a hero and run into a building guns blazing; people really seem to forget this fact.

in addition, there is also this:
"Parker also noted that the SWAT team on the scene could have easily mistaken him, or anyone else with a drawn weapon, for a shooter — a mistake which likely would have resulted in police shooting him.
“If we had our guns ready to shoot they could think we were the bad guys,” Parker said in the interview."

this guy did the smart thing; even if he did manage to charge in there without having the SWAT mistake him  for the shooter, he likely could have made the situation worse by intervening.

[Wilikon]

Father of Oregon Shooting Victim: We Will Not Be Attending Obama’s Exploitive Gun Control Visit…

Tomorrow President Obama is scheduled to visit Rosenburg, Oregon, where 10 people were killed last week at Umpqua Community College by a deranged killer who happened to use a gun to carry out his crimes.

We've already reported on the repulsed reaction from the community as people who live there continue to reject Obama's visit. Now Stacy Boylan, the father of shooting victim Ana Boylan, is directly speaking out against Obama's visit and has no interest in putting up with his exploitation of the tragedy for political purposes.

"I do believe it was Rahm Emanuel who said 'Never let a good tragedy go to waste,' and I really feel that his [Obama] visit here is to completely to support his gun control agenda. I can't understand why he wouldn't make a mention of the families and the victims. I mean, he did say that it was a tragic incident and I do thank him for lowering the flags but he made it all about gun control. He was very clear about that and we saw this in Sandy Hook and now we're seeing it again and I just question his motives," Boylan said. "I've spoken to my family and for myself and for my family, my daughter and son, on principle I find that we are in disagreement with his policies on gun control and therefore we will not be attending the visit."

"My position on this is that gun free zones are an issue, they're a target for crazy people because they know they're not going to be met with resistance. You know, my daughter said to me, 'What if somebody would have had a gun?' Gun free and gun control takes that option off the table. Somebody doesn't have to use their gun in defense, but to take that option entirely, I don't think that's the right course," he continued.

Boylan said his daughter is recovering from her physical injuries and is still processing what happened.



http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2015/10/07/father-of-oregon-shooting-victim-obama-is-visiting-for-his-gun-control-agenda-not-for-us-n2062550

[silverleafy]

No. I did not know that. Although he could not really respond legally anyway. He said he was "quite a distance away from the building the shooter was in". Your CC licenses does not give you the right to respond to a crime, only protect yourself and others from a threat "in your immediate presence".
Moving to the threat and shooting could be called murder.

Yes, of course. I'm only pointing out the flaw in saying that the shooter targeted the university because it was a place where no firearms were allowed. When it comes to these kinds of shootings, it seems to mostly take place somewhere that the shooter wants to direct anger at. He also had a very important thing to say, something along the lines of "the responders could have confused me for the shooter", something I think is likely to happen in crowded places as well. That's something that helps show that "only a good guy with a gun stops a bad guy with a gun" narrative pushed by lobbyist isn't as important. There was a stat about the vast majority of (mass?) shootings ending before the police (or any "good guy with a gun") interfere. I cant find it, though I found this article about shooting stopped by people on-site.
I understand it's for self-defense, not stopping people from committing crimes. But then, that talking point about the "good guys with guns" always comes up. Sadly, we do need armed campus security, but they have to be careful to have the people protecting the students from that threat be properly trained. Have them know how and when to use it.

[Wilikon]

No. I did not know that. Although he could not really respond legally anyway. He said he was "quite a distance away from the building the shooter was in". Your CC licenses does not give you the right to respond to a crime, only protect yourself and others from a threat "in your immediate presence".
Moving to the threat and shooting could be called murder.

Yes, of course. I'm only pointing out the flaw in saying that the shooter targeted the university because it was a place where no firearms were allowed. When it comes to these kinds of shootings, it seems to mostly take place somewhere that the shooter wants to direct anger at. He also had a very important thing to say, something along the lines of "the responders could have confused me for the shooter", something I think is likely to happen in crowded places as well. That's something that helps show that "only a good guy with a gun stops a bad guy with a gun" narrative pushed by lobbyist isn't as important. There was a stat about the vast majority of (mass?) shootings ending before the police (or any "good guy with a gun") interfere. I cant find it, though I found this article about shooting stopped by people on-site.
I understand it's for self-defense, not stopping people from committing crimes. But then, that talking point about the "good guys with guns" always comes up. Sadly, we do need armed campus security, but they have to be careful to have the people protecting the students from that threat be properly trained. Have them know how and when to use it.

How come the shooter did not target an NRA club or a police station? Because: too many guns. Those p.o.s. are cowards, but not stupid.

[silverleafy]

How come the shooter did not target an NRA club or a police station? Because: too many guns. Those p.o.s. are cowards, but not stupid.

I am going to have to quote myself, I guess: When it comes to these kinds of shootings, it seems to mostly take place somewhere that the shooter wants to direct anger at.

If I remember correctly, he did attend that university. Reminds me of shootings like the one army base that was shot up twice... by the people who had been stationed there.
Now, I would like to (again) state that the security should have had at lease one well-trained official with access to a gun. But the university is not, and never was a gun-free zone. I don't think it would have played a role, and I will agree with you that those P.O.S. cowards are not stupid enough to run into NRA clubs and police stations guns blazing. Does that mean that we should have every school, university and theater to be filled with people with firearms? Because that's a "solution" that I think would yield bad results.