Another school shooting

[steve dave]

I think if you feel you need to carry a gun with you at all times you have a MENTAL HEALTH PROBLEM

I think there is validity to this in a lot of cases

[Emo EMAW]

There were people concealed carrying on the Oregon campus and they didn't do anything to stop the shooting.

Yup, they weren't permitted to do so. 

Anyway, I get it, even if they were permitted to do so, it's a risky proposition.  The cops could show up and kill everyone with a gun, good or bad.  A gun in the right hand two buildings over is no good.  But for example, that dude who was holding the door shut, had he had one I think it goes differently.  I mean in this case the guy is in a room, and is going one by one asking their religion, and then shooting them.  If any one of us were in that room, armed, it would have gone differently. 

[Emo EMAW]

I think if you feel you need to carry a gun with you at all times you have a MENTAL HEALTH PROBLEM

I guess every cop in America has a mental health problem. 

[SdK]

Why does anyone want to argue with someone who wants to fight so hard over their being able to kill? I mean, Emo likes killing things. Doesn't want to not be able to kill things. Things it is his God given right to be able to exact dominion over whatever he chooses should he choose too. Good grief, he's pretty much a poster boy for why we need less guns.

[Emo EMAW]

Well, I don't carry a gun, haven't ever, don't even own a semi-automatic pistol.  I just think that if someone wants to then that is their right, guaranteed by the Constitution.

[Mrs. Gooch]

This may be luked (I don't have time go look through this whole thread for it)

http://www.gannett-cdn.com/GDContent/mass-killings/index.html#title

What do you have going on that you're so busy?

MENTAL HEALTH PROBLEM

Possibly

[SdK]

Well, I don't carry a gun, haven't ever, don't even own a semi-automatic pistol.  I just think that if someone wants to then that is their right, guaranteed by the Constitution.

So if the constitution was amended, you would completely flip your stance?

[star seed 7]

Well, I don't carry a gun, haven't ever, don't even own a semi-automatic pistol.  I just think that if someone wants to then that is their right, guaranteed by the Constitution.

Not really

[Emo EMAW]

Well, I don't carry a gun, haven't ever, don't even own a semi-automatic pistol.  I just think that if someone wants to then that is their right, guaranteed by the Constitution.

So if the constitution was amended, you would completely flip your stance?

Define "completely."  Like, would I cease to eat pulled pork z-man's at Joe's KC? 

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

There were people concealed carrying on the Oregon campus and they didn't do anything to stop the shooting.

I saw an interview of one guy who was concealed carrying, but he said he was on the other side of campus and he didn't even become aware of the shooting until after police had already responded.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/10/02/3708410/good-guy-with-gun-was-on-ucc-campus-at-time-of-massacre/

Parker’s interview revealed the practical difficulties of armed civilians trying to stop a mass shooting. By the time he became aware of the shooting, a SWAT team had already responded. He was concerned that police would view him as a “bad guy” and target him, so he quickly retreated into the classroom.

Well, duh. ThinkProgress evidently believes this puts the "Good Guy With a Gun" argument to rest, but includes the quote above. That's a little confusing.

Were there people in the immediate vicinity with guns? Like, people who could have stopped the shooting before the police arrived?

[Rage Against the McKee]

There were people concealed carrying on the Oregon campus and they didn't do anything to stop the shooting.

Yup, they weren't permitted to do so. 

Anyway, I get it, even if they were permitted to do so, it's a risky proposition.  The cops could show up and kill everyone with a gun, good or bad.  A gun in the right hand two buildings over is no good.  But for example, that dude who was holding the door shut, had he had one I think it goes differently.  I mean in this case the guy is in a room, and is going one by one asking their religion, and then shooting them.  If any one of us were in that room, armed, it would have gone differently.

How were they not permitted to do so?

[SdK]

Well, I don't carry a gun, haven't ever, don't even own a semi-automatic pistol.  I just think that if someone wants to then that is their right, guaranteed by the Constitution.

So if the constitution was amended, you would completely flip your stance?

Define "completely."  Like, would I cease to eat pulled pork z-man's at Joe's KC?

You said it is a right that is guaranteed by the constitution. That is why you support citizens owning guns of their choosing. So if it's only about that, would amending that amend your stance.

[Rage Against the McKee]

There were people concealed carrying on the Oregon campus and they didn't do anything to stop the shooting.

I saw an interview of one guy who was concealed carrying, but he said he was on the other side of campus and he didn't even become aware of the shooting until after police had already responded.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/10/02/3708410/good-guy-with-gun-was-on-ucc-campus-at-time-of-massacre/

Parker’s interview revealed the practical difficulties of armed civilians trying to stop a mass shooting. By the time he became aware of the shooting, a SWAT team had already responded. He was concerned that police would view him as a “bad guy” and target him, so he quickly retreated into the classroom.

Well, duh. ThinkProgress evidently believes this puts the "Good Guy With a Gun" argument to rest, but includes the quote above. That's a little confusing.

Were there people in the immediate vicinity with guns? Like, people who could have stopped the shooting before the police arrived?

It puts the "only gun-free zones get targeted" argument to rest.

[Emo EMAW]

Well, I don't carry a gun, haven't ever, don't even own a semi-automatic pistol.  I just think that if someone wants to then that is their right, guaranteed by the Constitution.

So if the constitution was amended, you would completely flip your stance?

Define "completely."  Like, would I cease to eat pulled pork z-man's at Joe's KC?

You said it is a right that is guaranteed by the constitution. That is why you support citizens owning guns of their choosing. So if it's only about that, would amending that amend your stance.

In this scenario, what would be amended to say?

[SdK]

Well, I don't carry a gun, haven't ever, don't even own a semi-automatic pistol.  I just think that if someone wants to then that is their right, guaranteed by the Constitution.

So if the constitution was amended, you would completely flip your stance?

Define "completely."  Like, would I cease to eat pulled pork z-man's at Joe's KC?

You said it is a right that is guaranteed by the constitution. That is why you support citizens owning guns of their choosing. So if it's only about that, would amending that amend your stance.

In this scenario, what would be amended to say?

Let's say it was amended to say each citizen has the right to one rifle and one handgun. That's the best I could come up with while still staying true to defending against tyranny.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

There were people concealed carrying on the Oregon campus and they didn't do anything to stop the shooting.

I saw an interview of one guy who was concealed carrying, but he said he was on the other side of campus and he didn't even become aware of the shooting until after police had already responded.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/10/02/3708410/good-guy-with-gun-was-on-ucc-campus-at-time-of-massacre/

Parker’s interview revealed the practical difficulties of armed civilians trying to stop a mass shooting. By the time he became aware of the shooting, a SWAT team had already responded. He was concerned that police would view him as a “bad guy” and target him, so he quickly retreated into the classroom.

Well, duh. ThinkProgress evidently believes this puts the "Good Guy With a Gun" argument to rest, but includes the quote above. That's a little confusing.

Were there people in the immediate vicinity with guns? Like, people who could have stopped the shooting before the police arrived?

It puts the "only gun-free zones get targeted" argument to rest.

I don't think that anyone is arguing that "only" GFZ are targeted. That would be pretty stupid and demonstrably false. The argument is that GFZs are more vulnerable, both because (1) they don't have guns, and (2) they're more tempting to would-be mass murderers.

Also, about the Oregon CC being a GFZ, it effectively was a GFZ for purposes of this argument. The CC prohibited gun possession on campus - in direct contravention of Oregon law, but it prohibited it nonetheless - to the extent that their own friggin' security guard was unarmed. I'd call that a GFZ even if a few students (and props to them) understood that the school's ban violated the law and carried anyway.

http://www.nytimes.com/live/shooting-at-umpqua-community-college/plan-for-armed-campus-security-guards-was-dismissed/

Joe Olson, who retired as president of Umpqua Community College at the end of June, said that within the past several months the college had discussed hiring an armed security guard but ultimately decided against it.
 
“We talked about that over the last year because we were concerned about safety on campus,” he said. “The campus was split 50-50. We thought we were a very safe campus, and having armed security officers on campus might change the culture.”

Yeah, you don't want armed security officers changing that "safe culture." JFC.

[DQ12]

i'd be ok with concealed carry on college campuses if there were background checks, training, etc.

that's a compromise folks.

[Emo EMAW]

Well, I don't carry a gun, haven't ever, don't even own a semi-automatic pistol.  I just think that if someone wants to then that is their right, guaranteed by the Constitution.

So if the constitution was amended, you would completely flip your stance?

Define "completely."  Like, would I cease to eat pulled pork z-man's at Joe's KC?

You said it is a right that is guaranteed by the constitution. That is why you support citizens owning guns of their choosing. So if it's only about that, would amending that amend your stance.

In this scenario, what would be amended to say?

Let's say it was amended to say each citizen has the right to one rifle and one handgun. That's the best I could come up with while still staying true to defending against tyranny.

Well, I guess I wouldn't like it?  What's your point?

[michigancat]

i'd be ok with concealed carry on college campuses if there were background checks, training, etc.

that's a compromise folks.

I probably would to. And without knowing what the current training entails now, I'd want it to be better.

I'd also be fine w/ unarmed security guards, too.

[michigancat]

Heck, I'd be fine with unarmed cops.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Heck, I'd be fine with unarmed cops.

Come on now, really? I'm pretty skeptical of police power, but even I don't expect them to walk around unarmed.

[renocat]

Neo Nazi campus patrols armed with tazers and 1 bullet guns.  That would keep rir raff off campus.

[michigancat]

Heck, I'd be fine with unarmed cops.

Come on now, really? I'm pretty skeptical of police power, but even I don't expect them to walk around unarmed.

With the correct training and community involvement it's totally attainable. It would definitely require a major shift in the mindset and expectations of what they're expected to do, though.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Heck, I'd be fine with unarmed cops.

Come on now, really? I'm pretty skeptical of police power, but even I don't expect them to walk around unarmed.

With the correct training and community involvement it's totally attainable. It would definitely require a major shift in the mindset and expectations of what they're expected to do, though.

Pffffttt... come on dude. Really.

[steve dave]

Heck, I'd be fine with unarmed cops.

Come on now, really? I'm pretty skeptical of police power, but even I don't expect them to walk around unarmed.

With the correct training and community involvement it's totally attainable. It would definitely require a major shift in the mindset and expectations of what they're expected to do, though.

I don't think it would be attainable with our current gun controls (and I don't think you are saying it would be either). but it does work well in some other countries. I've always said that ideally officers wouldn't carry guns except for special divisions. your every day traffic cop shouldn't have to have a gun imo. swat, etc. would still be armed.