Ten killed in shooting at Ore. community college

2,500,000 major crimes and 200,000 rapes are prevented each year by would-be victims merely having a firearm, not even using it. So, in your superior ethics, you claim an extra 2,500,000 major crime victims and an extra 200,000 rape victims EACH YEAR would be a GOOD thing. Is that enough extra victims for your demand that people be as defenseless as sheep against wolves, or do you want 10,000,000 more victims and 1,000,000 more women raped?

- - - Updated - - -

Every victim of mass shootings was unarmed and defenseless. I can find no example of someone open carrying being murdered, robbed, assaulted or raped. I can find millions of examples of this happening to unarmed people.

 

You almost make it sound like some here do. I'd be shocked...

 

The problem with lone wolves is that it is not known they fit a profile until after they have acted...

Oregon gunman was Army dropout who studied mass shooters
Oct 2,`15 -- The 26-year-old gunman who opened fire in a community college English class, killing nine, was an Army boot camp dropout who studied mass shooters before becoming one himself.

 

4chan is awesome, don't hate.

There are many sites like this, hell, there's a website streaming people executing ISIS members 24 hours a day.

This won't go away, the internet with all it's benefits, has a few down sides.

P.S. If you act out violently because of words, you don't really belong on this earth. Good riddance.

 

correction = righty christophobic

 

Yes, which is why the only way to stop them is with another gun wielded by a law abiding citizen/security guard at the point of their murderous action. Unfortunately the College decided to disarm their security guard.

 

Ten killed in shooting at Ore. community college​

How many fewer would have been killed if carrying a gun, open or concealed, was common.

One of the 3 items mentioned in an interview about perps psychology was the defenselessness of their victims.
BTW another of the 3 was the "moment of fame" desired. Why we need less news, not more.

Support the right to carry a gun. Open or concealed. The crime is the unlawful discharge, not the possession.
Save lives. Such carrying persons serve as "Air Marshalls" on an airline, who carry a gun too.

Please. Someone. Explain the problem they see with less gun control, not more.
Too bad more folks at the Oregon Community College were not carrying. Lives would have been saved!


Moi

r > g

View attachment 38298
Across an immense, unguarded, ethereal border, Canadians, cool and unsympathetic,
regard our America with envious eyes and slowly and surely draw their plans against us.​

 

I'm connecting the dots now.

It's not that Sean Harper-Mercer's father was a limey or that his mother was black who came from the hood in L.A.

It's not that Sean Harper-Mercer flunked out of Army basic training with in 36 days after arriving at Camp Snoopy aka Fort Jackson.

It's that Sean Harper-Mercer hated smokers.

That's a liberal thing hating smokers.

 

The sad fact is that there was nobody at the College armed with a gun which could have stopped his murderous insanity.

 

The college was a PC community college and a gun free zone. Not even the one security guard on campus was allowed to be armed.

I noticed in the photo of Mercer holding a rifle that the rifle is a .22 Ruger 10/22 rifle.

I wonder if any liberal in Sacramento today has written a bill outlawing the Ruger 10/22 ? Liberals do things like that.

 

Ya they disarmed their security guard a while ago. Sad....You're right, libbies will blame the rifle I guess... BTW Oregon is a liberal zoo.

 

That's because so many California hippies fled to Oregon during the 60's and 70's.

I remember one sign at the California/Oregon state line that read "Welcome to Oregon, Californians GO BACK HOME."

 

Yeah so? Non whites like to play basketball.

Now put up pics for the swimming or tennis teams.

 

Of course. Guns aren't magical variables that change all conceivable circumstances in exactly the same way. I doubt anyone would make a claim to the contrary. However, there are situations where your safety can be exponentially increased by the possession of a firearm. That, I don't think, is even debatable.

I wouldn't classify having a gun as a "minimal factor" if someone was actively shooting at me. It certainly wouldn't be a minimal factor for the guy trying to kill me.

"Diametrically opposed"?? Hardly. Knowing how to operate a firearm in general and knowing when/how to use one situationally are complementary, if anything.

It's a reasonable assumption to make. More often than not the "bad guy" cares about the level of resistance that he'll meet while executing his plans. Some crazies want to take as many people with them to the grave, and some crazies just want to die but don't have the gonads to do it themselves. In the former instance, the "bad guy" would rather meet little resistance, while the crazy in the latter would like to meet deadly resistance. Either way, they "care" that there are guns. Nobody ever pulled a "suicide by nun" or a "suicide by soft-spoken, unarmed, elderly gentleman."

Because killing themselves isn't their only intent, obviously. If it was, then they wouldn't go around looking for other people to kill first, would they. They would just kill themselves in the comfort of their own homes. Have you ever noticed that they rampage for as long as they can until confronted with armed men, then, and only then do they off themselves. These nutjobs don't wait for the cops to kill them. They do it themselves because they don't want to risk being captured alive.

Some people do that. They seek out armed men who they know will defend themselves and then give them no choice but to kill them. However, that is a different set of nuts than the people who want to kill as many people as they can before they die. It would be logical to assume that most of those types do not want to visit environments where they are likely to meet immediate armed resistance. Furthermore, the choice of locales of nearly every single one of these psycho murderers supports that assumption so it is unreasonable to dismiss the idea out of hand, especially using the overly simplistic reasoning that you've laid out above.

Why would you be shooting at anyone if you "don't know who the bad guy is?"

Why would you draw a firearm on someone if you don't even know that they are doing anything wrong?

Were these hypotheticals supposed to prove something?

What? This isn't rocket science. It, obviously, depends on the situation as to who the "bad guy" is. The individual situation also affects the difficulty in determining the good from the bad. In this scenario: you're sitting in your community college class and someone barges in and starts randomly shooting people in your classroom, you can be reasonably certain that the guy doing the shooting is "the bad guy" and your fellow students are "the good guys." Would you have a hard time figuring that one out? Is that why you think it impossible for others to do? I ask, because I believe that most people could easily make that determination in the blink of an eye, so I'm slightly baffled by the fact that you think it ridiculous that there could exist scenarios wherein it can be reasonably determined who the "bad guy" is.

 

And this guy WAS stopped but the chances of a law abiding gun owner being in position and able to assess the situation corrects AND being able to actually hit the person are subject to Murphy's Law

You will never stop the first death in a mass shooting - particularly when you have so many already armed and cannot tell the difference between armed bad guy and armed good guy

"Good guy with a gun" is NRA tripe

 

Actually, mainly the I-5 corridor from Eugene to Portland is the liberal zoo. The rest of the State is fairly conservative. Unfortunately, most of our population is in this corridor and dictates the direction our State votes.

 

Shooting a would-be gunmen isn't necessary. There has never been a mass shooting where someone armed was in view of the gunman before first firing. Nor is it necessary to shoot a gunmen as time and again merely someone firing at the gunman causes the gunman to flee, surrender or commit suicide. Try actually reading up on what actually happens sometimes. That's even police protocol responding to a mass shooting call. To get ANY officer there to start shooting. Just doing so is USUALLY all it takes, though not always.

You just want women and others disarmed and defenseless - because that justifies your being in things only for yourself and would never defend anyone, right? Or prove me wrong. What do you do to allow you to defend someone else - or even yourself?

Even the Clinton Administration admitted that 1,500,000 crimes major crimes and 200,000 rapes are prevented every year merely by the would be victims having a firearm - without a shot fired. But you don't care about victims. The are NO murdered victims in mass shooting of which ANY of the victims was armed - ever. It was just like slaughtering sheep in a pen, no different. And that is exactly how you want it to be too. You want it required.

You don't believe in Murphy's law. You believe in everyone for themselves trying to run away. But no one yet has been able to outrun a bullet.

Did you know that private citizens kill more violent criminals in criminal acts than police - but 11% of police shooting kill an innocent person by mistake, and only 2% of the time private citizens with guns do? Private citizens with guns are safer than police with guns - and do VASTLY more to prevent crime. Police don't prevent crime. They investigate after-the-fact. I've posted documentation on those statistics too.

The sad thing, so grossly unfair, is there are people out there that would risk their lives to protect you and are prepared to do so - something you'd never do or be able to do for anyone else. You're view is what's called being a "user" and a "taker" only, never a giver.

 

I call B.S. on that. MOST folks who have guns KNOW how to shoot. Your 'monkey' analogy is not only stupid but an an insult.

 

Oregon is a liberal bastion. Although the news media claims that Roseburg is a 'rural' area the powers that be are liberal.

 

Liberals screwed Roseburg when the decided that the spotted owl was more important that the timber industry. Now the eco-frauds are KILLING barred owls in the same area. The same liberal mind set caused this horrible disaster as they disarmed their security guard. Libbies are mentally deranged.

 

I'll tell you how you know.

The bad guy is the one walking down the middle of the hall shooting at everything that moves. The good guys are the one's shooting at the same guy.

Just because you can't hit the broad side of a barn, try not to project that onto the rest of us.

 

Thank-you for making my point

Here we know who the bad guy is BEFORE they shoot - they are the ones out of uniform with a gun. Here only security officers and police have guns - everyone else is probable criminal

And really every study says that it is not that simple as spotting the "bad guy" from the "good guy" if it were there would be no such thing as collateral damage

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-weisser/fbi-report-active-shooters_b_5900748.html?ir=Australia

Given that currently only 3% of incidents have been stopped by a "good guy with a gun" and yet 13% have been stopped by a good guy WITHOUT a gun - I would like to take my chances on the guy without the gun please.

 

I think each state in USA has to revisit their Mental Health legislation in an attempt to worm out the crazies.
Oregon would be a good start.

 

Why isn't the media calling this a hate crime? where is the DOJ calling this a hate crime?

Oh, but there is no progressive media bias?

The progressive MSM pretty much have swept this under the rug because it doesn't fit their agenda.

 

I love how progressives believe our Bill of Rights is somehow up for debate....

Progressives want guns banned because guns are the last line of defense from a fascist authoritarian progressive government...