New campus shooting,happened in Oregon. Every time this happens we get that much closer to losing our gun rights. 10 dead 7 injured. The world has went crazy

from what i understand, this dude stated he was going to do this online atleast a day before.

but you know, taking the gun away is the easiest target. then we take the knives away, then we take the cars away, then we take the poisons away, THEN when there is no tool left to blame, we can deal with the mental issue at root.

Chris Harper-Mercer. Bi-racial islamist scumbag. fluff him and his family.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/...-chris-harper-mercer.html

helps to check facts heston

If anything it appears he was some sort of atheist

and even if the guy isn't the IRA stuff would tend to scream christian if religion is involved.

It is on the internet... it must be true. A credible sours as well... double true

But.. Huh... Wait..let me get this straight. This guy brought guns to a school that was clearly designated gun FREE? What complete disregard for the law!

I do believe students could have guns on campus with the proper permits.

from what i know, a lot of schools now allow students to have a gun on campus, but the student has to have a CCW permit, and the gun has to be in a lock box in the car, unloaded.

the word facts has no business being right next to heston

Heston, did you seriously just equate being biracial with being a scumbag!? What does being biracial have to do with anything?

+1



Im biracial, are you saying i am not a scumbag?

Checkmate.

you'll all be shocked to find my name is actually scott and i am american.

people should be banned. name all of the murders since cain that have used a gun? name all of the murders since cain that has been perpetrated by man?

ban human beings. we do it all on our own. tools? we;re all tools. ha, pun.

Obama had a pretty spot on point in his response. There are roughly as many guns as people in the US. How the fluff is MORE GUNS the answer to this issue? We've got more than enough guns already!

I can already see the same fluffing responses on this one:

1) It's not guns. They're just a tool. People kill people, not guns.

That's true, but a gun is a tool designed to do nothing but KILL. And they do it incredibly well. Why make it easy to gain access to a deadly weapon? I know most of you responsible gun owners grumble when you legally purchase firearms, and I'm sure you would be fine with better screenings and waiting periods. I have to go through more background checks to get a CAR than a gun.

2) It's not guns, it's mental illness.

Guess what? You're somewhat right! People who truly want to solve this crisis should do both. Responsible, standardized gun control AND muuuuuch better mental illness treatments.

3) Why do dem librals always focus on these 'mass shootings'? Don't they know people get killed every day?!

Again, you're right. A mass shooting at a place that used to be considered safe(school, churches, etc) is obviously much more shocking than a random incident on the street. And the media is doing nobody any favors by cashing in on tragedies like this. But guess what? Responsible gun control can help take care of ALL gun related deaths, publicized or not.

4) If we ban guns, criminals will still get them!!

Again, you're right, but this is a stupid argument. Heroin and other hard drugs are banned, and people still manage to get them. So I guess we should just legalize heroin? Do you realize how nonsensical this is? Cars kill lots of people every year too, which is why we did the sane thing and forced people to carry liability insurance.

Let's face it; your precious second amendment rights are being twisted by one of the most powerful lobbying groups in the US. Why? MONEY. I don't think having one gun for every single man, woman and child was what the founders envisioned when they added the second amendment. Yes, feel free to go ahead and arm yourselves against the government. But do so in a manner that helps promote safety, not detract from it. I don't care if you have a fluffing arsenal in your home, as long as you keep them secure, learn how to properly handle and use them, and jump through some basic legal hoops to acquire them.

Don't just casually dismiss the very idea of gun control as some librul conspiracy to TAKE OUR GUNZ! Gun related violence is a public health crisis and should be treated as such. And I know that most rational gun owners can agree with my basic ideas.

http://www.theonion.com/...ign=LinkPreview:1:Default

I think the current measures are fine. Almost every mass shooting we read about is done by some individual(s) who showed plenty of warning signs that something was about to go off the rails. We have a responsibility to intercept these people, with a high degree of empathy, and get them help before they feel it's necessary to go ape fluff in a public place.

These places need armed guards, or their own internal police force. There's lots of veterans in need of a job and these institutions have plenty of cash to throw around.

I think the sheriff had the right idea as well: don't even mention the guys name. He was looking to get noticed, as most of these gunman are. If we stop acknowledging the perpetrators I think we'll stop creating them.

1) Obama was not spot on point. He went on and on about how congress has failed to act over the years and shifted this blame to them, for failing to enact legislation to mandate background checks and the like. He threw very intentionally misleading generalizations about gun crime in there as well as part of his ploy to politicize this tragedy.

The fact of the matter is, even if all of the gun control measures had been passed as they were introduced to congress, they wouldn't have prevented this lunatic from getting his handguns. Why?
First - All of the guns he had (on person and at his home) were legally purchased by him or his family by licensed dealers and all went through background checks and cleared them.
Second - The bills that "them damn libruls" were trying to pass were 100% hard-on for rifles and "military style weapons" and did nothing to address the main weapons used in gun violence : handguns. none of the 150+ varieties of guns proposed to be banned were even on the top 10 list of guns used in the US to commit gun crime. additionally there are numerous identical guns by a different manufacturer on that list that because they didn't have a "pistol grip" were deemed okay, exact same model gun, exact same firepower, capabilities and everything. Additionally the gun show loophole wouldn't have applied in the recent cases we have seen because they guns were all legally purchased by dealers who put them through background checks anyways.

Why do we not talk about handguns yet obsess over "assault" rifles?

285 - number of people killed in 2014 in all of USA with any style rifle

353 - the number of people killed this year so far in Chicago alone via handguns. Chicago, and its surrounding area has a complete gun ban in public, even with the proper permitting, it is the strictest gun control in all of the US. (A gun ban which has been recently ruled unconstitutional.)




2) It is not simply "your precious 2nd amendment" this is a MAJOR part of what the country was founded on. I think the founders 100% envisioned a country of people armed enough that should they need to use the weapons and form an army to combat an oppressive government, they should have the arms needed. I think this because that is exactly what they had to do to establish this great nation. A rag-tag group of marksmen armed with everyday guns far inferior to what the oppressive government had, defeated them, because they were armed when they needed it.

Additionally, a number of the founders believed that, yes, every citizen should at the very least, be taught how to use a gun while they were young, for in the event they ever should need to use one. they know how. This is well documented. I don't understand how it has ever been and frankly still is a thing that people question the reasoning behind the 2nd amendment and what they meant for it to be.

I don't think I need to list off the government lead genocides over the years, we all know them. They all basically started with the same theme - disarm the population and then rule by force. To sweep that aside as "put on your tin-foil hat, that wont ever happen in this country" is to be naive of history. Our government has slowly been perverting itself over the years to the point that a sitting president openly promised congress that he would work around them with executive order at a State of the Union Address because he didn't agree with the parties in control of the senate and the house, and members of congress actually stood and cheered him stating that he was treating them as a constitutional anomaly.

If you think that is could never happen here, you are correct, because we have a 2nd amendment in our constitution and an armed population, thank the founders for that.



The root of the violence issues in these shootings are and will continue to be until we address them, mental health issues that could and should be addressed with common sense legislation. But that doesn't have nearly the same sex appeal as OMG ASSAULT WEAPONS!!!!!

I know the pharmacists here wont like this but look at the relation between mass killings in the US and anti-depressant / anti-anxiety drugs. It is undeniable that these kids were in need of help and attention and carried out actions that we did see coming as society and instead of dealing with it before it was too late we turned the blind eye and kept shoving them pills and moving them on their merry way. After the fact, we blamed the guns and the NRA instead of really looking into what went on. In this case, the President already made up his mind before he spoke about what he was going to tell us, even if it didn't apply to this case at all, which it didnt. We are better than that as a nation. Let's start acting like it.

The bottom line here is not the weapon, but the person behind the weapon. How much credence can we give to news reports while we fully understand that the media regularly lies to us on the nightly news. The Elites would love nothing better than for ALL Americans to be disarmed at some point. This is how tyranny takes over. And the Elite aren't the democrats or republicans, they are the same tool that they use to retain their powers within the government.

When people wake up and realize the kind of hoodwinking that has gone on for so long, they're gonna be pissed, and it's a LOT better for the Elites that this not occur while they still have weapons to fight back with.

In defense of the Constitution of the United States, I submit that having an armed public is beneficial to the rule of The People, and only threatens the power of the Elite. I've seen it written on a bumpersticker that a fellow veteran had on his car at a veterans rally. It read, The People should fear the government that fears my weapon!.

the people havnt ever ruled this country.

https://www.facebook.com/...98419/?type=2&theater

Mdevol, without going into a point by point response, you do realize who is responsible for drafting and passing legislation, right? That's like fluffing at Obama for not taking care of the budget, despite the fact that it is CONGRESS who fails to pass them, not the President...

I absolutely agree with you on this nonsense about assault weapons. That is a distraction that is used to get media attention and isn't the real issue at stake here.

And I am not questioning the context that lead to the second amendment, and I'm not devaluing its place in our culture. What I'm saying is that your biggest champion is TWISTING it to make money for themselves. Eisenhower was spot on when he talked about this 50 years ago. And you'll notice I didn't say in any way shape or form that the second amendment should be removed. I studied politics in college, I understand the second amendment. What I'm saying is it is being twisted by the NRA and the military industrial complex in the same way 'dem librals' twist the whole "assault weapon" stuff. Both sides are using fluff like this to score political points, so instead of focusing only on how 'dem librals' twist it, why not take a look at how your own side is doing the same?

The fact is, this type of fluff doesn't happen NEARLY as much in most developed countries. Gun violence is an epidemic in the US, and it should be treated as such. But please, show me how I'm wrong in that statement. You can't...

just some food for thought

http://www.ijreview.com/...e-chart-proves-him-wrong/

The most telling statistic hardly ever gets a mention though. In places where guns are allowed to be open carried, or the concealed carry permits are issued without too many problems, and there is no police harassment of armed citizens the crime rate is very low, BECAUSE the criminals aren't as stupid as they appear to be. They KNOW, they MIGHT get shot trying to rob a store where arms are present, no matter who is wielding them. Thus, they decide to go someplace where they KNOW that no one else is going to have a weapon and be capable of fighting back for their lives, or their property, or the people they love.

We don't need gun control, we need Thug Control.

You studied political science in college... therefore you understand the second amendment? Get the fluff out of here. I will rewrite your sentence for you so you can edit your post.

I studied politics in college, so I understand what my professor wanted me to understand.

I think we need to look at what makes places supposedly "Safe places". Safe places in liberal ideology tends to be defined by places that are legally designated Gun-Free Zones. Time and time again, we have seen that mass shootings are either committed in gun-free zones and/or are gang-related in most cases.

Are there a number of things that could be done to destigmatize mental health problems and permit the courts to temporarily restrict a patients gun rights? Yes, but the people lack sufficient trust in the government to tolerate such measures. If we want to use gun laws to combat this violence, then we should consider enforcing the laws already on the books (against all criminals regardless of who they are) and making the federal government contract to its constitutionally designated role.

Bottom line, if you want to do something in the law about these problems, then: Enforce the laws you have and restore the government's trustworthiness.

I didn't mean it as a way to toot my own horn. My degree has done very little to me and has no applicability in my life right now. I meant that as 'hey, I had to spend a ton of time studying the Constitution and its amendments'. And you know what makes colleges in the US superior to colleges where I live now(Japan)? The fact that they don't jam facts and data down your throat; instead, they teach you how critical thinking skills so you can apply that, along with your personal beliefs and opinions, and make rational judgements about things. In fact, most of my professors spent a great deal of time presenting arguments from all sides, many of which directly contradicted each other, in order to facilitate a better and more multifaceted understanding of the issues affecting our society.

So yeah, when I made that claim, I wasn't trying to say that I am an expert in Constitutional law. I meant it as I did actually have to sit down and actually STUDY the issues surrounding the second amendment, and I understand the history behind it, and its origins, which is what mdevol was talking about in HIS post.

Not all colleges in the U.S. don't jam it opinions down your throat. In my own experience, State funded schools do in fact jam them down your throat.

Also, you are so easy to get worked up. Thanks.

One of my poli Sci profs was a former member of house of representatives. Without going into much detail, she didn't like me about as much as she didn't like texas...and made that very clear.

No one likes Texas...

The states with the less strict gun laws have less murders then the states with stricter gun laws.

And, lets not forget the stupid ass President saying we should take guns away...was apart of operation 'Fast and Furious' I think was what the op was called where the CIA sold guns to Mexican Drug Cartels...

And, us Texans don't much give a fluff if you like us or not.

God willing someday we won't have to be apart of Obamas States of Muslims anymore.

What makes you think I am worked up? I thought we were having a mature discussion about one of the most contentious issues facing the modern US.



Ignorance is...ignorance?

Secede already! Many of us would be happy to see ya'll go. You can then have Perry as President and write your own damn textbooks.

You say that, but the negative economic impact on the rest of the states, particularly the inner cities in those states that need it most, would be impacted the hardest. Think cities like San Francisco/Oakland, St Petersburg, St Louis, Boston, LA, Philly, Detroit. All cities that are on the brink of catastrophic economic collapse already, having to take on even more.


It would be felt nation wide, as much as you guys would love Texas to leave for purely partisan political reasons.

You want to let our oil and a major tax basin succede?

Lol. They grow em pretty tarded where you from huh?

Did you guys know guns don't provide any defensive advantages??

Discussion over.

Brinkmanship. It is a deterrence. A defensive mentality does provide advantages, and people that carry generally are more defensive.

You don't go into an area where most people have guns, and rob someone.

Nope, no advantages.

Whatever you say Chief.

Well harvard said so.

I am unedumacated, so I need them to think for me.

In an ambush, sure, there is little advantage unless your attacker is a complete failure.

Not every situation where a gun could be used defensively is an ambush. Situational dude.

That ignores the whole deterrence factor all together. And the awareness factor. I am always more aware of who is around me when I am carrying. It is a safety thing.

harvard said so.

Doesn't really matter to me what they said. Or what you claim they said I should say.

Well I am glad you can think for yourself. Not all of us can.

I just know I need harvard to explain to me why I am such a puss and afraid of guns. For a while I thought it was because of my tiny pecker, thank god harvard cleared that up.

I have to admit, you lost me at that one. I never claimed anyone who didn't like guns was a fluff I don't believe.