Summations Only

quote:

---

"And by the way, it was a gun-free zone. I will tell you -- if you had a couple of the teachers or somebody with guns in that room, you would have been a hell of a lot better off."

---

Trump was 'sorta correct'. The community college was not a gun free zone. In fact, gun free public college zones are illegal in Oregon. The school can have a policy of not allowing guns on campus, but those rules cannot apply to students who have been issued a concealed carry permit. Those students can carry on campus, and the news reports indicated that there were people on campus doing concealed carry. Given the laws in Oregon, we don't know the current number of guns that there are in the classroom. There may already be one or two guns per classroom.

That is of course your suspicion. Why is anyone other than you responsible for defending or answering you based on your suspicion. Your suspicions are often wrong.For example, the Oregon shooter did not target Christians. While he did ask people about their faith, he simply told those who professed to be Christians that he planned to join them soon. He shot his vicitims regardless of who they were. Does not sound like the shooter was professing any atheist believes with. Quite the opposite.Nonreligious Questions

quote:

---

McGowan told family members that the gunman didn’t specifically target Christians but asked them about faith. The shooter, apparently planning to die during the massacre, told students: I’ll see you soon or I’ll meet you soon.

​

The bottom line? Only two of the nine victims are confirmed to be Christians. While some of the other seven may be Christians, there’s currently no publicly available evidence for it. And several others seem to hold beliefs other than Christianity.

---

Perhaps that lack of specifics is because you are looking for a particular answer and many of the people posting don't agree with you. There have been plenty of specific proposals. For the most parts those proposals are not bans although there are people here who want complete bans. It is my opinion that the people who are holding out for a ban are just dreamers. They are unlikely to get their way.

Well, no. It does not quite show that. There are those of us who find the huge number of guns a problem and those of us who think we should all be carrying guns. But in the face of laws passed that allow the latter, the rest of us are stuck with our concerns. Yes, that would be insane. I knew it was only a matter of time before some politician suggested more guns to solve the problem. Most of us do know that such solutions are idiotic.

I could point out some differences in the psychology between driving speed, which is a decision made every day and a decision to be generally a law abiding citizen based on making some one time decisions. But instead of going into detail, let me suggest that your logic here is not very rigorous. Actually, he shot them regardless of their answer to the question. You can find your own information by reading the news reports, but that truth is based on eye witness reports. That's your paranoia thinking and it completely explains your inability to make realistic comments based on what you read here. No matter what people post, you've already decided that unless it fits your personal viewpoint, that what you read is not really what the poster means. Small wonder that you manage to confirm your opinion by reading facts to the contrary of that opinion; exactly as you did when you decided that the facts confirmed that the gunman targeted Christians. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Many gun nuts believe that they are your protection against tyranny from your own government, and in particular the federal government.

'Expanding' is a fairly non-specific term. Expand in what way? Surely, the ATF is at least in part yet another set of police...

My comment was perhaps overly reliant on previous discussions, but in other fora you've expressed some trepidation about the ability of law enforcement to handle power properly. Based on that, I thought it was reasonable to ask what exactly 'expanding the ATF' was suppose to mean.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I disagree. The possibility for abuse is completely wrapped up in the question you asked. If we are going to give the ATF more capability, it is reasonable to ask what misuse they might make of it. Certainly that potential for abuse is appropriate to consider when asking if we should expand ATF capability.And of course you might have helped out a bit by not making us totally rely on linked material to figure out what you meant.

quote:

---

Two separate student groups got into a confrontation, the confrontation turned physical and one of our students, Steven Jones, 18, produced a handgun and shot four of our other students," Fowler said. "One of our students is deceased.

---

It's possible that this turned out exactly the way gun enthusiasts wanted it to, because God forbid anyone get into a confrontation and get his butt whupped.

"Major Fore seems to be suggesting we blame the victim."In Fore's defense, we don't know exactly what question he was responding to when he made his statement. Generally, the advice about confronting people on the highway is a good idea. You aren't going to accomplish much by confronting someone who acts a fool on the highway.His advice is similar to the advice to just give a robber your money if he points a weapon at you. That advice is appropriate. But it just seems bad timing to give it when we are discussing a shooting victim.

Yes. For rape we have made that call. But we have not made the call for every other situation.We still tell people to drive defensively because there are idiots out there and it is still good practical advice not to defend your wallet with your life. While I probably would not give my adult daughter any fashion advice, I might warn her about messing with dickhead drivers with anger management issues.

I understand that, Dr. Adequate, but we don't know what question the advice was offered in response to, so we might not be able to blame the sheriff for the connection between the advice and the incident.Of course it is entirely possible that the sheriff did offer some really bad advice. But his advice would be so astoundingly bad in this case, that I thought we might consider other possibilities.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

There have been a few examples of armed insurrections, with the most famous one being the Wilmington Massacre/Insurrection/Race Riot. I can understand why gun nuts don't bother to cite those.ABE:Gun nuts do cite the Battle of Athens as an example.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

That sounds about right. And according to the vacuous reasoning being proposed here, 10,000 people aren't worth worrying since about smoking, for example, killed 40 times more people in this country. Similarly why worry about 59,000 Americans dying in the Vietnam war over a couple of decades or so, or a few deaths per year from HIV, etc. Why do we even have seat belts or helmet laws? According to one opinion, even having a debate about such stuff is immoral.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I was listening to NPR last night and an Alabama Congressman claimed that no gun shop owner had ever expressed such an opinion to him. He also claimed that some of the reasonable proposals regarding improving mental health never get off the ground because democrats won't cooperate with republicans. These guys set the agenda in both houses and don't need a single democrat in the House to go along with anything.