9 dead, 9 wounded, shooter killed at Oregon community college

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Armed vet on campus during shooting:

A veteran who says he was carrying a concealed weapon on Oregon’s Umpqua Community College campus Thursday when 26-year-old Christopher Harper Mercer went on a murderous rampage, says he didn’t intervene because he knew police SWAT team members wouldn’t know him from the shooter.

In an interview with MSNBC, veteran John Parker said he knows lots of students who conceal carry at the school because, despite a school policy that discourages weapons on campus, Oregon state law does allow it.

You don't say.

Parker explained that his military training provided him with the skills to “go into danger,” but said he felt lucky he and others didn’t try to get involved going after Mercer.

“Luckily we made the choice not to get involved,” he explained. “We were quite a distance away from the building where this was happening. And we could have opened ourselves up to be potential targets ourselves, and not knowing where SWAT was, their response time, they wouldn’t know who we were. And if we had our guns ready to shoot, they could think that we were bad guys.”

You don't say.

 

[mizzou]

Medicated to Death SSRI's and Mass Killings - Youtube Vid

Hard to ignore.

I don't necessarily think that Prozac is turning people into mass shooters. It's the underlying cause of why Prozac is administered is the problem.

Counselors/Pscyiatrists are hard to find these days for people who actually need them. And when you do get them, they tend to be pill dispensaries.

"So, how did that 50mg of Prozac feel for ya?"

"Well, I cut my wrists still and I still have harmful thoughts"

"OK, let's try drug [x] in 100mg then I will see you in two weeks."


I've talked to many vets and they feel they are treated in a similar way for their PTSD. Take this, take that, but nobody wants to listen Drugs certainly can work wonders, but it's not like Prozac will fix everything. Kick enough dirt under the carpet, some of it is bound to get loose.

 

[MongGrel]

Ah, denial. The thickest folder in the cabinet.

"none of your business" is not denial, as far as personal rights go.

 

[Venix]

Armed vet on campus during shooting:

You don't say.

You don't say.

What a retarded article. Nobody has ever claimed that a handful of concealed carriers will magically eliminate spree shootings, especially when they occur on the opposite side of campus. This guy's actions have done absolutely nothing to "destroy gun nuts' argument on mass shooters."

In fact, his story demonstrates exactly what campus carry advocates have said for years: concealed carriers are safe, responsible, and law-abiding citizens interested in self-preservation, not reckless feats of attempted heroism. It's unfortunate that he wasn't in a position to safely engage the attacker, but at least he eased the minds of the defenseless students and professor in his own classroom by promising to defend them.

 

[sandorski]

What a retarded article. Nobody has ever claimed that a handful of concealed carriers will magically eliminate spree shootings, especially when they occur on the opposite side of campus. This guy's actions have done absolutely nothing to "destroy gun nuts' argument on mass shooters."

In fact, his story demonstrates exactly what campus carry advocates have said for years: concealed carriers are safe, responsible, and law-abiding citizens interested in self-preservation, not reckless feats of attempted heroism. It's unfortunate that he wasn't in a position to safely engage the attacker, but at least he eased the minds of the defenseless students and professor in his own classroom by promising to defend them.

I'm calling shens. Many have already blamed this shooting on the inaccurate idea that this was a "Gun Free Zone".

 

[ivwshane]

"none of your business" is not denial, as far as personal rights go.

No one was talking about personal rights. Perhaps you shouldn't respond to posts when you don't know what's being discussed.

 

[shira]

Here's more food for thought:

Seeing as if the Repubs, generally speaking, more or less represent the interests of gun owners and the NRA, and seeing as if they have been VERY creative and VERY clever in the ways they circumvent the language and intent of the Constitution/BOR in regards to disenfranchising voters who vote against them and defunding Planned Parenthood's delivery of services of which the Repubs despise, that they should concentrate their efforts in this same dedicated and masterful manner toward circumventing the language and intent of the 2A for the purpose of improving the screening effectiveness of background checks and instituting more accurate and thorough registration procedures for firearms. A very noble cause I would think, and one in which would make the Repubs look almost human compassion-wise.

In this way, we may be able to overcome the seemingly impossible task of lessening the threat from gun-toting nutjobs mass murdering our children in our schools, playgrounds and theaters.

Very easy to accomplish: Require that all gun stores have extra-wide aisles (to allow for the very fast movement of medical gurneys) and be staffed 24/7 by a registered nurse; AND the owner must be an MD, with special training to treat bullet wounds PLUS admitting privileges at a local hospital.

Why add all these requirements as a prerequisite for a gun store license? Obviously to ensure the health of gun-store patrons, since accidental shootings can happen.

If it's good enough for abortion clinics, it's good enough for gun stores.

 

[Venix]

I'm calling shens. Many have already blamed this shooting on the inaccurate idea that this was a "Gun Free Zone".

Who, specifically? I've seen many people correctly point out that "Gun Free Zones" are a silly idea, and that they're commonly targeted by spree shooters, but I don't recall ever seeing someone claim that eliminating Gun Free Zones will also eliminate spree killings. That would be almost as stupid as suggesting "universal background checks" as a solution to shootings committed with guns bought at retail stores.

 

[sandorski]

Who, specifically? I've seen many people correctly point out that "Gun Free Zones" are a silly idea, and that they're commonly targeted by spree shooters, but I don't recall ever seeing someone claim that eliminating Gun Free Zones will also eliminate spree killings. That would be almost as stupid as suggesting "universal background checks" as a solution to shootings committed with guns bought at retail stores.

Why would they even mention it then?

 

[MongGrel]

No one was talking about personal rights. Perhaps you shouldn't respond to posts when you don't know what's being discussed.

Perhaps that is part of the topic to begin with, ya think ?

 

[Venix]

Why would they even mention it then?

I can't really answer that without seeing the specific statements.

Generally, I would assume that they're pointing out that Gun Free Zones are an absurd idea that offer no safety improvement at best, and leave victims completely defenseless at worst. That's quite different from believing that mass shootings would end if Gun Free Zones were eliminated. The latter sounds more like a straw man than anyone's actual position.

 

[sandorski]

I can't really answer that without seeing the specific statements.

Generally, I would assume that they're pointing out that Gun Free Zones are an absurd idea that offer no safety improvement at best, and leave victims completely defenseless at worst. That's quite different from believing that mass shootings would end if Gun Free Zones were eliminated. The latter sounds more like a straw man than anyone's actual position.

So you have never ever seen someone suggest that places that post they are "Gun Free Zones" are merely asking to be shot up?

Seriously?

 

[maluckey]

This whole "gun free" zone reminds me of some cities and counties in the US that declared nuclear free zones. Of course the Soviet ICBM'S weren't aware of these zones. Good thing that we never had to learn the truth. Might have changed local demographics a bit

M

 

[Venix]

So you have never ever seen someone suggest that places that post they are "Gun Free Zones" are merely asking to be shot up?

Seriously?

Again, that's a completely different position from believing that eliminating Gun Free Zones would eliminate spree shootings. Many people certainly believe that Gun Free Zones are easier targets than areas where firearms are allowed, and others believe that mass shooters intentionally target areas where guns are banned to reduce the chance of opposition, but nobody believes that allowing firearms everywhere would eliminate mass murders.

For reference, my original statement was, "Nobody has ever claimed that a handful of concealed carriers will magically eliminate spree shootings." I still stand by that.

 

[Strk]

What a retarded article. Nobody has ever claimed that a handful of concealed carriers will magically eliminate spree shootings, especially when they occur on the opposite side of campus. This guy's actions have done absolutely nothing to "destroy gun nuts' argument on mass shooters."

In fact, his story demonstrates exactly what campus carry advocates have said for years: concealed carriers are safe, responsible, and law-abiding citizens interested in self-preservation, not reckless feats of attempted heroism. It's unfortunate that he wasn't in a position to safely engage the attacker, but at least he eased the minds of the defenseless students and professor in his own classroom by promising to defend them.

I'd say there are just as many who say that a handful of CCs would in fact end it just as there are those who said ban all guns would end it. However, the one thing both have in common is that they're both wrong. Which one is more wrong is debatable.

 

[sandorski]

Again, that's a completely different position from believing that eliminating Gun Free Zones would eliminate spree shootings. Many people certainly believe that Gun Free Zones are easier targets than areas where firearms are allowed, and others believe that mass shooters intentionally target areas where guns are banned to reduce the chance of opposition, but nobody believes that allowing firearms everywhere would eliminate mass murders.

For reference, my original statement was, "Nobody has ever claimed that a handful of concealed carriers will magically eliminate spree shootings." I still stand by that.

Fair enough.

 

[disappoint]

Hopefully people hold the media responsible for their role:

For years, forensic psychiatrists have been urging American journalists to reform the way they report on these incidents. In a 2009 BBC interview, perhaps the best known among those psychiatrists, Dr. Park Dietz, said: “We’ve had 20 years of mass murders throughout which I have repeatedly told CNN and our other media, if you don’t want to propagate more mass murders, don’t start the story with sirens blaring. Don’t have photographs of the killer. Don’t make this 24/7 coverage. Do everything you can not to make the body count the lead story, not to make the killer some kind of anti-hero. Do localize the story to the affected community and make it as boring as possible in every other market. Because every time we have intense saturation coverage of a mass murder, we expect to see one or two more within a week.”

http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/...to-more-school-shootings/Content?oid=20329038

That's not a real solution though. First of all the media is going to do what makes them the most revenue. So fat chance they will stop reporting it like they do. It gets them ratings.

More importantly though is that all squelching the media is going to do is delay the copycat killers. Those kinds of people suffer from a mental illness that will cause them to kill sooner or later. The media coverage only makes it happen sooner.

He makes it sound like the media is responsible but they're not the ones in charge of keeping Americans safe from homicidal people. That's actually the government's job.

The government, in it's infinite wisdom defunded mental hospitals so now the mentally ill either end up homeless, in emergency rooms, in jail or 6 feet under, sometimes after taking out some innocent people with them.

That carrot top joker James Holmes told his psychiatrist about his overwhelming homicidal thoughts. Back in the day someone like that would be locked up in a mental institution. But instead of that we have the U.S.S. Ronald Raygun, and the Joint Strike Fighter, F-35. It seems as though having cool toys is more important to the govt. than keeping you safe. I wonder what kind of mental illness that falls under.

 

[Newell Steamer]

So, the Sheriff wrote a fuck off letter to the White House on gun control. And, he posted a video that stated Sandy Hook was fabricated; http://www.nydailynews.com/news/cri...sandy-hook-conspiracy-video-article-1.2383519

He posted the following comments;

"This makes me wonder who we can trust anymore...," he writes in the January 2013 post. "Watch, listen, and keep an open mind."

 

[woolfe9998]

One of the parents of a survivor has already been quoted as saying the gunman asked Christians to stand up and they were shot.

As far as the conservative republican thing... I defer to Abraham Lincoln...

Even if Lincoln said that, which he likely did not, the way you're using it is a No True Scotsman fallacy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

You've also validated ivshane's prediction that he'll be called a RINO.

I'm pretty sure it's possible to hate Christians and also be politically conservative at the same time, unless you think conservatism is inherently Christian by definition.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

So, the Sheriff wrote a fuck off letter to the White House on gun control. And, he posted a video that stated Sandy Hook was fabricated; http://www.nydailynews.com/news/cri...sandy-hook-conspiracy-video-article-1.2383519

He posted the following comments;

I like this sheriff's "laws don't stop crime so why bother" attitude towards law enforcement as well.

#gunsdontkillpeoplenameskillpeople

 

[Indus]

So, the Sheriff wrote a fuck off letter to the White House on gun control. And, he posted a video that stated Sandy Hook was fabricated; http://www.nydailynews.com/news/cri...sandy-hook-conspiracy-video-article-1.2383519

He posted the following comments;

The same guy didn't want to name the shooters name since it would have been too real... We can't have that can we? We need to live in Fantasy :whiste:

 

[trenchfoot]

Again, that's a completely different position from believing that eliminating Gun Free Zones would eliminate spree shootings. Many people certainly believe that Gun Free Zones are easier targets than areas where firearms are allowed, and others believe that mass shooters intentionally target areas where guns are banned to reduce the chance of opposition, but nobody believes that allowing firearms everywhere would eliminate mass murders.

For reference, my original statement was, "Nobody has ever claimed that a handful of concealed carriers will magically eliminate spree shootings." I still stand by that.

More as a consequential coincidence while in the act of preserving their own lives during a random face to face confrontation with the assailant I would think.

As an aside, saving the lives of others while in the public domain with a personal firearm brings to bear a whole new set of circumstances where the Samaritan is now in offensive mode rather than one of self preservation. It requires the shooter to fully ascertain who is/are the bad guy(s), deciding if intervening actually makes the situation better or worse, what the odds are from shooting innocents and being liable if that happens, what the odds are from getting killed while in the act, as well as a plethora of other factors that need to be processed in mere seconds and all this with the knowledge that it is being done without the express permission of the proper authorities.

And then there's the idea that if a person is CC and present during a spree and decides not to intervene, are they now somehow morally or legally obligated to intercede in the public's interest? Would they now be looked upon as cowardly and liable for not doing something about it when they "easily could have?" Would the CC enabled view themselves that way knowing they could have saved lives but didn't?

Given that scenario and the remote chance of being in the middle of one of those sprees, I'd rather take my chances and not be burdened with the responsibilities and consequences that goes with accessorizing myself with CC along with not having to be anywhere or doing anything where I'd have to.

 

[Muse]

I have not seen TV coverage, where I'm sure it's the rage. I read the story in the Oakland Tribune, Friday's edition. When I got to Obama's reaction, I thought "yes, that's it exactly!" Get the guns off the streets, out of the houses, out of the stores, off the commercial spectrum. If you don't see this, you are walking around with blinders on.

This is at least on the level of Columbine. When Columbine happened it wasn't just the latest in an endless series of appalling barely imaginable massacres in the USA using firearms. It was easily the worst ever. Now they are happening regularly. When will we wake up and do what needs to be done and get firearms out of the hands of the citizenry?

 

[Muse]

Edit 2: Number keeps changing, leaving it there until finalized.

FYI, OP, you (and only you) can update the thread title by double clicking just to the right of the current one on this forum's (Politics and News) home page. The number is AFAIK in the teens now for dead. :|

 

[Muse]

Just another day in the USA. God Bless.

No, God forbid

Nothing could have prevented this. If it wasn't a gun, he would have killed and wounded dozens of people with a knife.

You are absolutely full of it, you dope. I hope you were putting us on, but figure you weren't. Just no imagination.