Dinero10 - 2015-10-02 10:48 AM

because it is our 2nd amendment right - and I feel strongly having the ability to protect myself, family, friends, home, livestock
from whom if deemed threatend for my life to protect myself.  Why give them  the odds to be with them, when I can take back
some of my right to protect myself and even up the odds a little.  You have to fight fire with fire and it is a mean world. Crimminals will always
have access to guns (not legally, no background check, sold on the street, blk market etc.) , and i want the right to protect myself.

LMS - 2015-10-02 11:50 AM I think the misconception is that many of the "outlaws" legally acquired the guns they're breaking the law with....not true.  Are there many corrupt and disturbed people living here-yep. 

I find it interesting that many "do not feel safe" without their guns, however, my husband and I have talked several times about someone breaking into our place-I'm not sure the gun swould be where we would head to.....I'm sorry for those that live in places where they don't feel safe every single day.  Why is that??  There are so many "wayward souls" in our country....I'm not sure when it will ever end.  I'm probably very naive but still feel very safe in my home and I sure hope no one takes that away from me. 

OP gun owner ship is just like drinking, working etc.  To be a good gun owner you need to be responsible, just like drinking, working and we all know people who can't even be responsible at work-how in the world would they be a good gun owner??  But that doesn't mean I shouldn't be able to own a gun......a lot less to do with laws and more to do with taking a real close, hard look at the mentality of our country. 

Bibliafarm - 2015-10-02 11:05 AM


I feel safe in my home. I am in a great small town with horses and land. But if someone decided to break into my home.. I like to know I have a way to protect myself and Yes Id shoot them dead.

without a way to protect myself what would I do? get raped, beat up, or murdered..  

svincent - 2015-10-02 11:14 AM Forgot to add: You are obviously uneducated about both guns AND American gun laws (I'm saying this in a friendly tone, computers just make everything b!tchy, but truly I am smiling and typing this in a friendly manner). We can't just walk into Walmart and buy an AK47. What you are calling "assault" weapons are actually AUTOMATIC weapons, you pull the trigger once and bullets keep coming for as long as you hold. We can't buy these. The only access to automatic weapons that the public LEGALLY has is for automatic firearms manufactured before 1986. The firearms still in circulation are PROHIBITIVELY expensive for the public. They are in private, high-end collections, not being carried around on Joe American's hip. After 1986, automatic weapons have only been LEGALLY available to law enforcement. These are CLASS 3 weapons, and require EXTREMELY strict background checks to purchase. My husband has undergone this background check and I can tell you they DIG, and if they find even the TINIEST deviation from sanity or law-abiding citizen, you are denied; you must also then get approval from the Sheriff, and be cleared by the ATF. Class 3 weapons include suppressors, full auto, short barreled rifles, flame throwers, mortars, etc. MANY firearms, are SEMI-automatic. You load it, and then you pull the trigger every time you want to shoot. As fast as you can pull, is how fast the gun will function. These are your double-action revolvers, 1911s, Glocks, etc. These differ from things like a pump shotgun that requires a pump action to load each round, or a single-action revolver that requires that you pull the hammer before pulling the trigger to fire each round. The term "assault weapon" is a very VAGUE term that has different working definitions depending on the situation. ETA: I emphasized LEGALLY in this because that is what matters. Criminals will always have illegal access to whatever they want. That is not the issue when talking about gun laws. Gun laws only applies to law-abiding citizens.

Bibliafarm - 2015-10-02 11:05 AM I feel safe in my home. I am in a great small town with horses and land. But if someone decided to break into my home.. I like to know I have a way to protect myself and Yes Id shoot them dead.



without a way to protect myself what would I do? get raped, beat up, or murdered..  

svincent - 2015-10-02 11:14 AM

Forgot to add:

You are obviously uneducated about both guns AND American gun laws (I'm saying this in a friendly tone, computers just make everything b!tchy, but truly I am smiling and typing this in a friendly manner). We can't just walk into Walmart and buy an AK47.

What you are calling "assault" weapons are actually AUTOMATIC weapons, you pull the trigger once and bullets keep coming for as long as you hold. We can't buy these. The only access to automatic weapons that the public LEGALLY has is for automatic firearms manufactured before 1986. The firearms still in circulation are PROHIBITIVELY expensive for the public. They are in private, high-end collections, not being carried around on Joe American's hip. After 1986, automatic weapons have only been LEGALLY available to law enforcement. These are CLASS 3 weapons, and require EXTREMELY strict background checks to purchase. My husband has undergone this background check and I can tell you they DIG, and if they find even the TINIEST deviation from sanity or law-abiding citizen, you are denied; you must also then get approval from the Sheriff, and be cleared by the ATF. Class 3 weapons include suppressors, full auto, short barreled rifles, flame throwers, mortars, etc.

MANY firearms, are SEMI-automatic. You load it, and then you pull the trigger every time you want to shoot. As fast as you can pull, is how fast the gun will function. These are your double-action revolvers, 1911s, Glocks, etc. These differ from things like a pump shotgun that requires a pump action to load each round, or a single-action revolver that requires that you pull the hammer before pulling the trigger to fire each round.

The term "assault weapon" is a very VAGUE term that has different working definitions depending on the situation.

ETA: I emphasized LEGALLY in this because that is what matters. Criminals will always have illegal access to whatever they want. That is not the issue when talking about gun laws. Gun laws only applies to law-abiding citizens.

LMS - 2015-10-02 11:21 AM I'm not saying your response to what would happen if someone came into your home, is wrong, My point is that there was a time where a good yell, or a slap/punch would be enough to take care of a situation. 



I find it very sad that a gun is the go to item, that people don't have enough respect for each other.

 

More spankings (or a$$ whoopings) and more respect.



What a messed up world there is out there.



I'm sure my eyes will be opened soon enough, that warm fuzzy safe feeling I have about my state will probably change sooner than I want. 

komet. - 2015-10-02 9:24 AM


.... I would like to add to this.... PLEASE name one gun crime committed in the USA in the last 50 years that had a criminal with a true (automatic) weapon.

LMS - 2015-10-02 12:21 PM I'm not saying your response to what would happen if someone came into your home, is wrong, My point is that there was a time where a good yell, or a slap/punch would be enough to take care of a situation. 

I find it very sad that a gun is the go to item, that people don't have enough respect for each other.
 
More spankings (or a$$ whoopings) and more respect.

What a messed up world there is out there.

I'm sure my eyes will be opened soon enough, that warm fuzzy safe feeling I have about my state will probably change sooner than I want. 

cheryl makofka - 2015-10-02 9:23 AM

I am also a Canadian and I haven't read up on the specifics of this shooting so I don't know of the individual had legal weapons or not.

Don't kid yourself in canada if someone wants a gun, they can find a gun or build a gun without a liscense.

I had the opposite reaction. I think schools should consider giving teachers guns and the appropriate training to use deadly force of someone opens fire.

I seen an article today about the man who received 7 shots when he charged the shooter. He is a hero and I cannot remember his name

Nateracer - 2015-10-02 11:27 AM I posted this to someone's FB this morning. I didn't feel like typing it all again. 



No one in their RIGHT mind goes out with intention to kill someone. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. I live with around 10 guns, they haven't tried to kill me or anyone else. Gun control isn't the answer. Mental health support is what is needed. Mental health in the background check information would be helpful. Background checks are mandatory unless you have a permit to carry. Permits require a background check before they are issued. If you are mentally unstable, but have committed no crimes, you still have a clean background check. If you are a teen who committed underage crimes, those go away when you are 18, which is how old you have to be to get a permit. So it's NOT a GUN issue. It's a SYSTEM issue in which people who are unstable, but at the time are crime free, are able to get the guns. They could build bombs, they could stab people, they could hijack a plane, etc, but the SYSTEM doesn't tell the seller that they are mentally ill. The OTHER problem with mentally unstable people is they may not know they have mental health issues or won't admit they have issues and they won't see a doctor, so no record is there period. But it is NOT a GUN issue. 

komet. - 2015-10-02 10:02 AM OK let us start with gun control and gun free zones. This attack occurred in a "gun free zone".. So all law abiding citizens were sitting ducks for this guy.... NOW WAIT!! There were students there that HAD firerearms.... but to pull them out and use them would have made them just as culpable as the shooter. As a Canadian, you have always had us 'gun toting Americans' defending ... not only your southern border.... But our missiles protecting you from the USSR to the north!! So.... Do you have anything else you don't like about the USA? We retain our gun rights to protect us from people Like Obama... Sure we get crazy people once in a while... Like you don't??

jkrm - 2015-10-02 9:59 AM

Thanks everyone for your replies and opinions and keeping it civil and respectful.   I guess what I'm trying to understand then is why does this seem to happen so often in the United States versus other countries?  Yes it does happen in other countries and has even happened here in Canada, but not near as often or as violently as the states.  Why?  I do realize compairing Canada to the U.S. is apples to oranges due to population numbers but even compared to other countries it seems to happen so much more in the states.  Does it boil down to health care, education, social economic issues?  How much does media play a roll in this with sensationalizing it?

If gun control is not the answer, what is.  We as a whole humane race need to fix this.

 

Bibliafarm - 2015-10-02 11:02 AM  How do we know it doesnt ? our media does make it more glamourous etc.. but we arent in those countries so it might be happening ..I catch glimpses of voilence there on aol alot.. I know alot are getting bombed.

ruggedchica - 2015-10-02 1:11 PM The right to keep and bear arms is one of the founding principles of our country.   That goes down and our whole country goes with it in my opinion.  



If someone wants to go shoot a place up you can darn sure bet they will find a way whether they can purchase a gun legally or not.  I'm sick of being pc and calling these mass murderers mentally ill, there are lots of mentally ill people who do not do these kinds of things...to me they are something completely different and have no concern for the wellbeing of others whatsoever. 

 

svincent - 2015-10-02 11:07 AM As a teacher, my opinion would be that this is a HUMANITY issue. The internet and social media has allowed bullying to go SO FAR BEYOND bloody noses and name calling. When I was in school, I was bullied mercilessly - but not when I was at home. I went home, I played with my horses, and I got a few hours away from the a$$holes of middle school. Today, kids can't ever get away from the bullies. They are at school and then they are at home via social media. Outsiders are made to feel invisible, while at the same time a focused target for VICIOUS bullying. Parents tend to be very disconnected from their children, hugely in part to technology. Parents don't see the pain that their children are enduring, OR the pain that their children are inflicting. SO MANY parents are failing to parent and raise decent human beings. Homes across the country are broken, divorce is the NORMAL, children are growing up in single-parent households (NOT bashing single parents, just acknowledging that being one is A HUGE JOB for one person), and then seeking refuge online in a forum full of strangers. That is not healthy behavior for anybody, MUCH LESS for somebody with mental instabilities. This is not a gun issue, this is a humanity issue - and I don't have the answer. ETA: If you want "real" news and not the polarized media of Fox, MSNBC, CNN, etc. Watch BBC news. You will see HORRIFIC news, the US isn't the only place this happens - we just happen to have EXCELLENT media coverage.

jkrm - 2015-10-02 10:16 AM


I did a search this morning on mass school shootings world wide.

Yes it does happen in other countries but in searching this morning it is far more previlant in the U.S.

Canada has had 16 school shootings dating back to 1894.  The vast majority were only only resulted in one or two deaths.  Once resulted in 15 deaths.  Again I realize we do not have the same population.

Other countries around the world do have them.  And yes they are typically broadcast on the news.  Probably not as sensationalized as the U.S. ones but they are usually on the news.  

LMS - 2015-10-02 10:21 AM


I'm not saying your response to what would happen if someone came into your home, is wrong, My point is that there was a time where a good yell, or a slap/punch would be enough to take care of a situation. 

I find it very sad that a gun is the go to item, that people don't have enough respect for each other.
 
More spankings (or a$$ whoopings) and more respect.

What a messed up world there is out there.

I'm sure my eyes will be opened soon enough, that warm fuzzy safe feeling I have about my state will probably change sooner than I want. 

Bigfoot - 2015-10-02 10:20 AM

I'm concealed carry now. I used to think only idiots, and gun freaks were concealed carry. The world is a crazy place, and I'm on the road with rodeo all hours of the night. It's just best to carry. It used to feel funny, now it doesn't. It feels normal, in fact I wouldn't dream of going anywhere but the court house, or an airplane ride with out it. People that shoot unarmed citizens are cowards. More people carrying=more cowards backing down.

RidenFly - 2015-10-02 11:31 AM The largest army in the world are the armed citizens of the U.S.  Each time something like this happens I start questioning all of it just like the rest of us do, but in the end, the foundation and backbone of being free rest solely on the ability of the private citizen to defend itself against enemies foriegn and domestic.  These mass shooting are copy cat cowards that walk into places where they don't expect a fight.  You don't see these chicken shizt pulling a stunt like this in sportman's warehouse.   I don't know what the answers are other than quit treating them like they are sick and just start publically hanging them to send a clear message for any other nut job who wants his fifteen minutes of fame. 

classicpotatochip - 2015-10-02 12:24 PM

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=M1u0Byq5Qis

I think this will help.

Anniemae - 2015-10-02 10:35 AM

I don't believe anyone has an answer to the problem of school shootings. There have been 19 shootings at schools this year alone (40 shootings last year).  Many I hadn't even heard about - the national news didn't pick them up (or I just didn't hear about them) for whatever reason. I find this incredibly heartbreaking and sad.   The reasons for the shootings are as varied as the locations and the victims. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States

Yes, we have the right to bear arms as clearly defined in the 2nd amendment. This is indisputable. 
Would stricter requirements to obtain guns legally reduce this number?  Maybe, maybe not.  Guns are easily obtained through non-legal means.  Unfortunately, the facts show most (not all) cases of shootings, the guns have been obtained legally.
Current background check regulations won't ferret out those with emotional illness or even some mental illness due to Hipaa rules/regulations.  Or those with such illnesses, never seek help, therefore are never identified. How can they rule someone out, if they've never been identified?
Is training/arming students/teachers the answer?  I highly doubt that would be effective, as even more may be killed wounded by crossfire.  Being trained/armed is one thing, being able to react accordingly under extreme duress is at an entirely different level.  The natural instinct is to flee, few try to stop the assailant and many of those are killed or maimed.  

There is not a one size fits all answer.  These horrific tragedies keep occuring, we keep having the same arguments, throwing out the same rational/excuses (all sides) and nothing changes. Then another school shooting occurs and we jump back on the merry-go-round, argue the same points and end up at square one.  The only difference is more innocents have been killed...   At some point enough will be enough, we, as a nation haven't gotten there yet....  May God bless all of us!    


 
 

jkrm - 2015-10-02 12:59 PM Thanks everyone for your replies and opinions and keeping it civil and respectful.   I guess what I'm trying to understand then is why does this seem to happen so often in the United States versus other countries?  Yes it does happen in other countries and has even happened here in Canada, but not near as often or as violently as the states.  Why?  I do realize compairing Canada to the U.S. is apples to oranges due to population numbers but even compared to other countries it seems to happen so much more in the states.  Does it boil down to health care, education, social economic issues?  How much does media play a roll in this with sensationalizing it?



If gun control is not the answer, what is.  We as a whole humane race need to fix this.



 

fatchance - 2015-10-02 10:50 AM

What comes to mind everytime is that these low lifes go to where they know it is a gun free zone. They are chickens, they need to feel power, so they kill many. Just think if that ex military man had a gun he would have saved lives, guns also can save lives. IMHO We need to do away with gun free zones. Then maybe our schools wouldn't be a shooting gallery.

svincent - 2015-10-02 11:55 AM 100% agree. The only thing that stops a bad man with a gun is a good man with a gun.

svincent - 2015-10-02 12:58 PM "This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future." - Adolf Hitler, 1935 And we all know how well that turned out. Whoever said the largest army in the world is the armed American public is 100% correct. Hitler's first step in carrying out the Holocaust was to DISARM the public.

svincent - 2015-10-02 12:55 PM


100% agree. The only thing that stops a bad man with a gun is a good man with a gun.

Nateracer - 2015-10-02 11:27 AM I posted this to someone's FB this morning. I didn't feel like typing it all again. 



No one in their RIGHT mind goes out with intention to kill someone. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. I live with around 10 guns, they haven't tried to kill me or anyone else. Gun control isn't the answer. Mental health support is what is needed. Mental health in the background check information would be helpful. Background checks are mandatory unless you have a permit to carry. Permits require a background check before they are issued. If you are mentally unstable, but have committed no crimes, you still have a clean background check. If you are a teen who committed underage crimes, those go away when you are 18, which is how old you have to be to get a permit. So it's NOT a GUN issue. It's a SYSTEM issue in which people who are unstable, but at the time are crime free, are able to get the guns. They could build bombs, they could stab people, they could hijack a plane, etc, but the SYSTEM doesn't tell the seller that they are mentally ill. The OTHER problem with mentally unstable people is they may not know they have mental health issues or won't admit they have issues and they won't see a doctor, so no record is there period. But it is NOT a GUN issue. 

jkrm - 2015-10-02 10:34 AM   As a Non-American citizen (I'm Canadian) I honestly for the life of me can not understand the continued adamant stand - that it seems the majority (not all of course) of my American friends and neighbours have (and even some Canadians) - that it is your right to buy, carry and use guns - at all costs.  



As I sat this morning watching news coverage of yet another mass school shooting in the states.  I realized I have honestly and sadly become numb to them.  I remember vividly when Columbine happened and sitting glued to the tv and crying as I watched parents, who lost children share their stories.  Then I watched again the horror of the Connecticut shooting of so many innocent little ones. I was sure after that mass killing of children views would change.  But nothing has changed. 

 

Time after time I sit and watch news coverage of these mass shootings in my neighbouring country and shake my head.  I have to be honest here, as an outsider looking in I don't get it.  I don't.  Every time there is a mass shooting the argument begins over gun control.  Again I hear it is your constitutional right to bare arms.  But as was pointed out in a radio show (yes Canadian radio show) was that not written over 200 years ago when life was very different and you were in fact at war with England and that it pertained to protecting your country from invasion from other countries mainly - England.  Now it seems to me that you are in fact at war with one another.



Yes I know, I know I've heard it - guns don't kill people, people kill people.  However, I see people (I'll be it usually mental ill) with very easy access to guns killing people.  Lots and lots of people, including very innocent youth.

 

 I do not understand (please help me) why any average American citizen needs access to the guns that you all have access too.  Why do you need assault guns that typically are meant for military.

 

 I confess I don't know guns at all ( I'm honestly quite afraid of them).  With that being said we do own guns.  I couldn't tell you what they are (I'm guess some 22's and a shot gun).  My husband and son's hunt and being on a farm we do need guns for the occasional time we have to humanely put an animal down or shoot a skunk or porcupine.  But that's it, that's all we own.

 

 As a Canadian I can't walk into a store tomorrow and buy a gun.  I have to take a gun safety course, I have to take courses and get a license to be able to purchase a gun (that would be 22's and shot guns).  If I want a pistol the regulations are very, very, very strict.  I (to my knowledge) can not buy any sort of assault (I think that's what they are called- that shoot a lot at one time) rifle.  And quite frankly why on earth would I need one.

 

As I type this my local radio talk show is again discussing another mass shooting in America.  Again the host and callers are shaking their heads at the American mentality of your right to bare arms at all costs.  I in Canada, just don't get it.

 

I'm not an Obama fan.  I just don't think he is a great President however on his views on gun control needed in the U.S. I confess I agree with him.

 

I realize the problem isn't guns per say.  The problem is larger than that, mental illness being one of them.  But keeping guns out of the hands of people with mental illness needs to be looked at and if implementing some form of gun control does that and prevents these continuous mass shootings why on earth would you not be in favour of that. Yes, even at the expense of your God Given Right. Canada has forms of gun control in place.  Yes I'm still able to own guns (or my husband and son's do).  They have hunting guns, guns for shooting injured sick animals and I suppose if we absolutely needed, those same guns could be used to protect us or our property.  Our gun laws do not prevent honest hard working law abiding citizens from owning guns but they do slow down a mentally ill person from being able to walk into a store today from buying a gun that can shoot a lot of people in a short amount of time, then going out and using it.

 

I do agree the biggest issue is obviously mental health and that's a whole other can of worms but I personally believe figuring out how to keep all your guns out of the hands of people with mental health issues would be a start.

 

I'm not meaning to start a war here.  I'm just sharing my point of view from an outsider looking in, watching the news and not understanding the complete gun mentality that American's seem to have.  And I confess I have many fellow Canadian that share the same views.

 

Hope we can keep this post civil.  I just am trying to understand how implementing some gun control laws will affect negatively on your day to day life.

 

svincent - 2015-10-02 8:55 AM

Criminals are CRIMINALS. Passing gun laws that restrict ownership for law-abiding citizens will change NOTHING, except make law-abiding citizens more vulnerable.

If even ONE person had had a concealed weapon at Umpqua Community College yesterday, like the Army veteran who was shot five times after he rushed the gunman, the death toll probably would not be what it is. If that man had had a firearm instead of his body to protect himself and his fellow students with, he probably would have stopped the shooter completely.

We need to stop trying to legislate people into behaving. It doesn't work. Criminals DON'T care, so the general population needs to be allowed to defend themselves.

As a parent, I WOULD. NOT. HESITATE. to put my children in a classroom with a TRAINED and ARMED educator. Given the choice between trained and armed or not - I would choose the trained and armed teacher EVERY TIME. As an educator, I would feel SO MUCH safer if I was allowed to be armed at school. The first thing I do when I walk into a new classroom (I work as a substitute when I can get a babysitter, I'm normally a stay-at-home-mom) is mentally go through the classroom: where can I cram the kids should an active shooter situation occur? What in this room can I use to barricade the doors? What in this room can I use as a weapon? Where is the best place for ME to stand to put MYSELF between the shooter and my students? If I were permitted to carry in the classroom, the answers to all of those questions would get significantly easier.

Should teachers and staff be allowed to just carry guns at school? No, absolutely not. Staff should undergo military-esque training, learn methods for protecting their students, methods for holding a position under fire, etc.

As a stay-at-home-mom, you can bet that I am MORE than capable and willing to protect my children by any means necessary, and when I am in a classroom I would do the same. I have been through one "threat" of a student bringing a gun to school and during our staff meeting with local police to discuss the threat, every. single. teacher besides myself and ONE other, said that they would just get into the corner with the kids and pray. Why? "Because what else are we supposed to do?" was the answer. I found it not only sad that teachers feel so helpless to stop violence, but also TERRIFIED at the thought that they didn't have the confidence to at least TRY to stop the shooter.

Not all staff needs to be armed, even just a few would help. If you were a criminal and you were planning on committing a crime like this, would you pick an armed target ready to defend itself? Or a target where you KNOW there are no weapons, and the victims have no means to defend themselves? Right. THAT is why we need to not ban guns. We need to EDUCATE people on guns and their proper use, but not ban them.

svincent - 2015-10-02 12:58 PM "This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future." - Adolf Hitler, 1935 And we all know how well that turned out. Whoever said the largest army in the world is the armed American public is 100% correct. Hitler's first step in carrying out the Holocaust was to DISARM the public.

jkrm - 2015-10-02 11:59 AM Thanks everyone for your replies and opinions and keeping it civil and respectful.   I guess what I'm trying to understand then is why does this seem to happen so often in the United States versus other countries?  Yes it does happen in other countries and has even happened here in Canada, but not near as often or as violently as the states.  Why?  I do realize compairing Canada to the U.S. is apples to oranges due to population numbers but even compared to other countries it seems to happen so much more in the states.  Does it boil down to health care, education, social economic issues?  How much does media play a roll in this with sensationalizing it?



If gun control is not the answer, what is.  We as a whole humane race need to fix this.



 

Nevertooold - 2015-10-02 12:31 PM


Because the US has a population of over 300 million. Compare the % of killings next to our population versus the % of killings in other countries to get a real comparison.

 

Nevertooold - 2015-10-02 12:31 PM


Because the US has a population of over 300 million. Compare the % of killings next to our population versus the % of killings in other countries to get a real comparison.

 

classicpotatochip - 2015-10-02 12:24 PM https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=M1u0Byq5Qis I think this will help.

hoofs_in_motion - 2015-10-02 2:23 PM


 

OregonBR - 2015-10-02 3:13 PM

The word coming out is that he targeted Christians.  Asked them to stand up and say what religion they were. The ones that said Christian, he shot in the head. The ones that didn't say or said some other religion he shot in the leg.   Digest that for a moment.  

jkrm - 2015-10-02 12:00 PM

 Komet, I asked if we could please debate this topic civil. All other responses to date are that -civil. I have not felt attacked personally for my opposing view by the other posters. We may disgagree but they did not attack me, my views or my country. They disagreed and stated their views. 

I personally felt attacked by your comment.  And felt like my country was being attacked.

OregonBR - 2015-10-02 2:17 PM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pELwCqz2JfE&feature=player_embed...
Great link.

For America if you would take out the stats from Detroit, Chicago, Baltimore, New Orleans and Washington DC. We would be at the very bottom. All of these are liberal run cities with the strictest gun laws in our country.

Obama lied through his conference today and no one says a word. Of course he also said that Putin is weak...He's weak like ISIS is JV. We need to wake up.  

streakysox - 2015-10-02 7:57 PM Dr Ben Carson said it pretty well today. Gun laws are for honest people. There is nothing that terrorists like better than a bunch of unarmed targets.

streakysox - 2015-10-02 7:57 PM

Dr Ben Carson said it pretty well today. Gun laws are for honest people. There is nothing that terrorists like better than a bunch of unarmed targets.

BARRELHORSE USA - 2015-10-02 8:40 PM

I take it all in a different direction ...

Look at all the wussy juries and judges that give life in prison to all of our criminals instead of the death penalty and carrying out the death penalty in a very timely manner.

Prisoner's attorneys should not be able to hold a death row inmate for 20 and 30 years doing appeals and nonsense at the expense of the tax payers. Don't kid yourself the attorneys are making a bundle off of delaying death penalties while sitting on their butts.... i.e. I am an attorney and I get $1000/ month on each and have 10-20 inmates as their public defender ... I would delay their death anyway I could while doing as little as possible to bring them to justice ..

If quick justice was meted out to criminals and jails and prisons were self sustained by the prisoners growing their own food, making their own clothing and marching them around in military style with no perks ....... you would see a great change in the number of felons and criminals ..

Then there are the drugs for ADHD people that are coming of age that have been zombies all of their lives ...... look at the shooters we have had ... all of them have been on prescribed drugs and decided not to take them anymore ... and no one wants to nail the schools, parents, doctors, especially psychiatrist handing out drugs like they are candy when a good butt whooping is all most of these kids need ..

GUNS AREN'T THE PROBLEM ... IT IS OUR MUNDANE MENTALITY ON SEEING THAT CRIMINALS ARE DELT WITH IN A HARD AND FAST COURT AND PRISON SYSTEM TO PUT THE FEAR IN THE OTHER WANNABE CRIMINALS THAT WE TRAIN TO BE CRIMINALS WITH OUR HIDDEN JUVENILE COURT SYSTEM ...

AND .. I find it odd that our government and law enforcement always comes up with the lone wolf nonsense on every major crime committed against American citizens ...

Bibliafarm - 2015-10-02 9:04 PM

Thats true but there are also alot of guilty and admitted guilt or know for a fact they did it and they sit in prison being fed clothed and all that other stuff.. hang them !

komet. - 2015-10-02 10:10 PM

Simple English!!!

svincent - 2015-10-02 9:31 AM Chris Mintz is his name. He's doing well, recovering nicely, but will have to undergo A LOT of physical therapy and probably have to relearn how to walk. God bless him and his bravery.

svincent - 2015-10-02 9:55 AM

Criminals are CRIMINALS. Passing gun laws that restrict ownership for law-abiding citizens will change NOTHING, except make law-abiding citizens more vulnerable.

If even ONE person had had a concealed weapon at Umpqua Community College yesterday, like the Army veteran who was shot five times after he rushed the gunman, the death toll probably would not be what it is. If that man had had a firearm instead of his body to protect himself and his fellow students with, he probably would have stopped the shooter completely.

We need to stop trying to legislate people into behaving. It doesn't work. Criminals DON'T care, so the general population needs to be allowed to defend themselves.

As a parent, I WOULD. NOT. HESITATE. to put my children in a classroom with a TRAINED and ARMED educator. Given the choice between trained and armed or not - I would choose the trained and armed teacher EVERY TIME. As an educator, I would feel SO MUCH safer if I was allowed to be armed at school. The first thing I do when I walk into a new classroom (I work as a substitute when I can get a babysitter, I'm normally a stay-at-home-mom) is mentally go through the classroom: where can I cram the kids should an active shooter situation occur? What in this room can I use to barricade the doors? What in this room can I use as a weapon? Where is the best place for ME to stand to put MYSELF between the shooter and my students? If I were permitted to carry in the classroom, the answers to all of those questions would get significantly easier.

Should teachers and staff be allowed to just carry guns at school? No, absolutely not. Staff should undergo military-esque training, learn methods for protecting their students, methods for holding a position under fire, etc.

As a stay-at-home-mom, you can bet that I am MORE than capable and willing to protect my children by any means necessary, and when I am in a classroom I would do the same. I have been through one "threat" of a student bringing a gun to school and during our staff meeting with local police to discuss the threat, every. single. teacher besides myself and ONE other, said that they would just get into the corner with the kids and pray. Why? "Because what else are we supposed to do?" was the answer. I found it not only sad that teachers feel so helpless to stop violence, but also TERRIFIED at the thought that they didn't have the confidence to at least TRY to stop the shooter.

Not all staff needs to be armed, even just a few would help. If you were a criminal and you were planning on committing a crime like this, would you pick an armed target ready to defend itself? Or a target where you KNOW there are no weapons, and the victims have no means to defend themselves? Right. THAT is why we need to not ban guns. We need to EDUCATE people on guns and their proper use, but not ban them.

jkrm - 2015-10-02 8:34 AM

  As a Non-American citizen (I'm Canadian) I honestly for the life of me can not understand the continued adamant stand - that it seems the majority (not all of course) of my American friends and neighbours have (and even some Canadians) - that it is your right to buy, carry and use guns - at all costs.  

As I sat this morning watching news coverage of yet another mass school shooting in the states.  I realized I have honestly and sadly become numb to them.  I remember vividly when Columbine happened and sitting glued to the tv and crying as I watched parents, who lost children share their stories.  Then I watched again the horror of the Connecticut shooting of so many innocent little ones. I was sure after that mass killing of children views would change.  But nothing has changed. 
 
Time after time I sit and watch news coverage of these mass shootings in my neighbouring country and shake my head.  I have to be honest here, as an outsider looking in I don't get it.  I don't.  Every time there is a mass shooting the argument begins over gun control.  Again I hear it is your constitutional right to bare arms.  But as was pointed out in a radio show (yes Canadian radio show) was that not written over 200 years ago when life was very different and you were in fact at war with England and that it pertained to protecting your country from invasion from other countries mainly - England.  Now it seems to me that you are in fact at war with one another.

Yes I know, I know I've heard it - guns don't kill people, people kill people.  However, I see people (I'll be it usually mental ill) with very easy access to guns killing people.  Lots and lots of people, including very innocent youth.
 
 I do not understand (please help me) why any average American citizen needs access to the guns that you all have access too.  Why do you need assault guns that typically are meant for military.
 
 I confess I don't know guns at all ( I'm honestly quite afraid of them).  With that being said we do own guns.  I couldn't tell you what they are (I'm guess some 22's and a shot gun).  My husband and son's hunt and being on a farm we do need guns for the occasional time we have to humanely put an animal down or shoot a skunk or porcupine.  But that's it, that's all we own.
 
 As a Canadian I can't walk into a store tomorrow and buy a gun.  I have to take a gun safety course, I have to take courses and get a license to be able to purchase a gun (that would be 22's and shot guns).  If I want a pistol the regulations are very, very, very strict.  I (to my knowledge) can not buy any sort of assault (I think that's what they are called- that shoot a lot at one time) rifle.  And quite frankly why on earth would I need one.
 
As I type this my local radio talk show is again discussing another mass shooting in America.  Again the host and callers are shaking their heads at the American mentality of your right to bare arms at all costs.  I in Canada, just don't get it.
 
I'm not an Obama fan.  I just don't think he is a great President however on his views on gun control needed in the U.S. I confess I agree with him.
 
I realize the problem isn't guns per say.  The problem is larger than that, mental illness being one of them.  But keeping guns out of the hands of people with mental illness needs to be looked at and if implementing some form of gun control does that and prevents these continuous mass shootings why on earth would you not be in favour of that. Yes, even at the expense of your God Given Right. Canada has forms of gun control in place.  Yes I'm still able to own guns (or my husband and son's do).  They have hunting guns, guns for shooting injured sick animals and I suppose if we absolutely needed, those same guns could be used to protect us or our property.  Our gun laws do not prevent honest hard working law abiding citizens from owning guns but they do slow down a mentally ill person from being able to walk into a store today from buying a gun that can shoot a lot of people in a short amount of time, then going out and using it.
 
I do agree the biggest issue is obviously mental health and that's a whole other can of worms but I personally believe figuring out how to keep all your guns out of the hands of people with mental health issues would be a start.
 
I'm not meaning to start a war here.  I'm just sharing my point of view from an outsider looking in, watching the news and not understanding the complete gun mentality that American's seem to have.  And I confess I have many fellow Canadian that share the same views.
 
Hope we can keep this post civil.  I just am trying to understand how implementing some gun control laws will affect negatively on your day to day life.
 

Anniemae - 2015-10-02 10:38 PM

I have yet to read a solution on how to keep guns out of the hands of the emotionally/mentally disturbed. How could LEO identify and stop this guy, stop him from obtaining 7 guns legally...  or stop any of the school shooters this year?  

komet. - 2015-10-02 10:10 PM

Simple English!!!

cheryl makofka - 2015-10-03 9:43 AM


With the more information that is coming out, it sounds like this was religious persecution, not because he was mentally ill

streakysox - 2015-10-03 10:32 AM






His brother in law said he had some mental issues. He was wearing body armour and had enough ammunition for a long exchange of gunfire. Along with mental issues there is lack of regard for human life. Sounds to me like a Muslim wanna be.

crapshooter - 2015-10-02 10:47 PM


His cousin started a gofundme for him, in 13 hours already to $485,000.  Both his legs are broken.

 https://www.gofundme.com/s75ge9y4

komet. - 2015-10-03 3:41 AM

You don't seem to understand.... Almost ALL the people here (unlike me) are female..... and a goodly number of them C,C (Carry, Concealed)
I've never met a more dangerous bunch of women in my life!! Not only can they tame wild stallions... They can SHOOT you too!!!

pinx05 - 2015-10-03 12:00 PM   and there are probably more CC than you know.

Anniemae - 2015-10-02 10:38 PM

I have yet to read a solution on how to keep guns out of the hands of the emotionally/mentally disturbed. How could LEO identify and stop this guy, stop him from obtaining 7 guns legally...  or stop any of the school shooters this year?  

Anniemae - 2015-10-02 11:38 PM I have yet to read a solution on how to keep guns out of the hands of the emotionally/mentally disturbed. How could LEO identify and stop this guy, stop him from obtaining 7 guns legally...  or stop any of the school shooters this year?  

Bibliafarm - 2015-10-03 12:10 PM  Mentally Ill dont shoot because your christain.. I dont believe it for a second..sicko yes.. mentally ill no..he was  pathetic to know who to shoot.. so mentally ill no..

sodapop - 2015-10-03 2:34 PM If he hated Christians, why wouldn't he just go shoot up a big church during a packed service?  I don't think anyone killing others should get off of a murder charge, but I think people who kill others are not in their right mind.  They are surely crazy and mentally ill to want to kill.  Not mentally ill as in pleading an insantity plea to get a lesser charge, but people with no conscience or concern for human life must have something wrong with them.  Don't they? If they are a sicko, doesn't that mean they are mentally unstable because they will do just about anything with no concern for others? 

sodapop - 2015-10-03 3:34 PM If he hated Christians, why wouldn't he just go shoot up a big church during a packed service?  I don't think anyone killing others should get off of a murder charge, but I think people who kill others are not in their right mind.  They are surely crazy and mentally ill to want to kill.  Not mentally ill as in pleading an insantity plea to get a lesser charge, but people with no conscience or concern for human life must have something wrong with them.  Don't they? If they are a sicko, doesn't that mean they are mentally unstable because they will do just about anything with no concern for others? 

sodapop - 2015-10-03 12:34 PM If he hated Christians, why wouldn't he just go shoot up a big church during a packed service?  I don't think anyone killing others should get off of a murder charge, but I think people who kill others are not in their right mind.  They are surely crazy and mentally ill to want to kill.  Not mentally ill as in pleading an insantity plea to get a lesser charge, but people with no conscience or concern for human life must have something wrong with them.  Don't they? If they are a sicko, doesn't that mean they are mentally unstable because they will do just about anything with no concern for others? 

OregonBR - 2015-10-03 3:46 PM


Only he knows why he chose where he did to carry out his "suicide by cop".  He was a student at the school and he was enrolled in that class.  He had all his guns (14 of them) obtained legally or they were gifts.  He was disenchanted with organized religion. I'm not sure where he was from. In Oregon there is a background check required on all legal handgun purchases (I had to submit my information when I bought my pistol). The school's "gun free zone" doesn't trump concealed carry permits.  There were people on campus who had CCP's and were packing. But they were not in this classroom.  The elapsed time between the realization that there was a shooter until the Roseburg police showed up at the campus was 5 minutes. They found and engaged the shooter in the following 2 minutes. 2 minutes after that he was "neutralized".  The ME said the official cause of the shooter's death was suicide. That's what I remember from watching the news conference from this morning. It's on Fox news if you want to watch it.  I have no solutions, but I know disarming the citizens is NOT the solution.    

Bibliafarm - 2015-10-03 3:43 PMits time we stop making excuses for these monstors.  

OregonBR - 2015-10-03 3:46 PMOnly he knows why he chose where he did to carry out his "suicide by cop".  He was a student at the school and he was enrolled in that class.  He had all his guns (14 of them) obtained legally or they were gifts.  He was disenchanted with organized religion. I'm not sure where he was from. In Oregon there is a background check required on all legal handgun purchases (I had to submit my information when I bought my pistol). The school's "gun free zone" doesn't trump concealed carry permits.  There were people on campus who had CCP's and were packing. But they were not in this classroom.  The elapsed time between the realization that there was a shooter until the Roseburg police showed up at the campus was 5 minutes. They found and engaged the shooter in the following 2 minutes. 2 minutes after that he was "neutralized".  The ME said the official cause of the shooter's death was suicide. That's what I remember from watching the news conference from this morning. It's on Fox news if you want to watch it.  I have no solutions, but I know disarming the citizens is NOT the solution.    

komet. - 2015-10-03 3:04 PM


Only in your dreams does a CC trump a 'gun free zone'!!!

OregonBR - 2015-10-03 3:16 PM http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2012/03/gun_rights_adv... Umpqua Community College, however, was not a gun free zone. A 2011, state court decisionprohibited public colleges from banning guns on campus. The decision stemmed from a suit filed by the Oregon Firearm Education Foundation, a gun rights group. There was an effort to pass a new law to reinstate the ability of public colleges to ban guns. That measure was defeated by gun rights advocates. UPDATE OCT 1, 2015 8:09 PM The conservative site Breitbart and others assert that guns were banned at UCC. This is not true. The student code of conduct bans guns "without written authorization." Under Oregon law, the university could not ban people with a valid concealed carry license from bringing their weapons on campus. (They could ban gun from various buildings and facilities.) Conservative writer Dana Loesch, who initially claimed the campus was a "gun free zone," updated her article to clarify that individuals with concealed carry permits were allowed to bring guns on campus. There was, in fact, someone on campus with a concealed carry weapon at the time of the massacre. A local reporter explained to CNN that it was legal for him to have such a weapon on campus. I learned something too. I thought it was a gun free zone. But it's not because the legislature passed the law saying a CCP allows at gun on college campus'.

hammer_time - 2015-10-03 6:10 PMI'd rather there be more guns and stricter laws/qualifications for obtaining a gun (specific license, training course, waiting period, etc) than leave it up to the people to decide who is or is not crazy and needs institutionalized.  That scares me more than anything!!

hammer_time - 2015-10-03 6:10 PM

I'd rather there be more guns and stricter laws/qualifications for obtaining a gun (specific license, training course, waiting period, etc) than leave it up to the people to decide who is or is not crazy and needs institutionalized.  That scares me more than anything!!

crapshooter - 2015-10-03 8:29 PM

Even if you have mental health care a lot of the crazy people won't go. 

jkrm - 2015-10-02 12:16 PM


I did a search this morning on mass school shootings world wide.

Yes it does happen in other countries but in searching this morning it is far more previlant in the U.S.

Canada has had 16 school shootings dating back to 1894.  The vast majority were only only resulted in one or two deaths.  Once resulted in 15 deaths.  Again I realize we do not have the same population.

Other countries around the world do have them.  And yes they are typically broadcast on the news.  Probably not as sensationalized as the U.S. ones but they are usually on the news.  

OregonBR - 2015-10-03 4:16 PM

http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2012/03/gun_rights_adv...

Umpqua Community College, however, was not a gun free zone. A 2011, state court decisionprohibited public colleges from banning guns on campus. The decision stemmed from a suit filed by the Oregon Firearm Education Foundation, a gun rights group. There was an effort to pass a new law to reinstate the ability of public colleges to ban guns. That measure was defeated by gun rights advocates.
UPDATE OCT 1, 2015 8:09 PM
The conservative site Breitbart and others assert that guns were banned at UCC. This is not true. The student code of conduct bans guns "without written authorization." Under Oregon law, the university could not ban people with a valid concealed carry license from bringing their weapons on campus. (They could ban gun from various buildings and facilities.) Conservative writer Dana Loesch, who initially claimed the campus was a "gun free zone," updated her article to clarify that individuals with concealed carry permits were allowed to bring guns on campus.

There was, in fact, someone on campus with a concealed carry weapon at the time of the massacre. A local reporter explained to CNN that it was legal for him to have such a weapon on campus.

I learned something too. I thought it was a gun free zone. But it's not because the legislature passed the law saying a CCP allows at gun on college campus'.

komet. - 2015-10-03 4:04 PM


Only in your dreams does a CC trump a 'gun free zone'!!!

streakysox - 2015-10-04 12:29 AM

I believe several years ago, someone went into Parliament and started shooting.

streakysox - 2015-10-04 12:34 PM








Not disagreeing with Komet. When I took my CHL I was told that I could take my gun to school and leave it in the parking lot but could not take it in the building. If I were picking up a kid, I could have a gun in the auto. That is with a CHL. When I taught in Shreveport, I asked the cop at school and he said OK but my truck could get broken into so best to leave it at home. A TX school near me has a few teachers selected to carry.

komet. - 2015-10-04 3:10 AM Are you really that stupid??!!!???? The Gun-Free School Zones Act (GFSZA) is a federal United States law that prohibits any unauthorized individual from knowingly possessing a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(25). It was introduced in the U.S. Senate in October 1990 by Joseph R. Biden and signed into law in November 1990 by George H. W. Bush. So.... The students that were there and carrying could do NOTHING without being just as culpable!!!

OregonBR - 2015-10-03 5:26 PM Digging deeper. http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2015/10/02/the-curious-case-of-...
I actually saw the CNN report - they showed an actual photo, stated he was of mixed race and then aired a quick comment from the shooters father (I immediately assumed the mother was black).   There was no mistaking the racial make up of this kid.    

And he grew up in So Cal, attending schools for "special needs" (which is anyone who can't stay in mainstream public schools, regardless of the reason) students. 

Anniemae - 2015-10-04 8:21 PM Komet - you have such a way with words...



The UCC campus was not a gun free zone and Oregon state law allows CCP, even at schools. Fact, several people on the campus were carrying that morning (at least one Vet.) None of these individuals were reported to be in that class, may not of even been in that building. 



As for the Federal law you quoted:



The Supreme Court of the United States subsequently held that the Act was an unconstitutional exercise of Congressional authority under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution in United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995). This was the first time in over half a century that the Supreme Court limited Congressional authority to legislate under the Commerce Clause.