https://t.co/EvcMXmn3Br

What else can you call these at this point?

Like I said on Twitter, there is too much to be gained politically from calling this a shooting. A. it helps gun control advocates. B. no one wants to be in power when another terrorist attack happens.

In addition, from my poli sci minded background and global terror classes, is that terrorism is generally for a specific cause used for both terror and political outcome. It is possible this person just has a hobby of killing people or has a mental problem. It is possible he wanted to terrorize people, but not for a political reason.

(10-01-2015 02:12 PM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  Like I said on Twitter, there is too much to be gained politically from calling this a shooting. A. it helps gun control advocates. B. no one wants to be in power when another terrorist attack happens.

In addition, from my poli sci minded background and global terror classes, is that terrorism is generally for a specific cause used for both terror and political outcome. It is possible this person just has a hobby of killing people or has a mental problem. It is possible he wanted to terrorize people, but not for a political reason.

What you describe is indeed the accepted definition of a terrorist.

However, the actions committed by a traditionally defined terrorist and a person who commits an act like the one committed today, are very similar. Their goal is to kill people and terrorize people. The only difference is the motivation behind them.

If the action is the same, couldn't that be considered a different kind of terrorism?

I'm bringing this next passage up specifically for people like klake, Jon, Bork, Rock Bottom, MD, and others who are likely on the other side of the argument from me who I want to engage in discussion about this subject.

Please answer these two questions:

What would be wrong if the laws dealing with the purchase and obtainment of firearms were stricter?

And:

What would be wrong if individuals who are not police or military that owned certain kinds of firearms, had to keep said firearms at a licensed shooting range if they wanted to use them?

It says Male Shooter is dead. Do they REALLY need to add the word MALE? I mean, I could be wrong -- was there also a female shooter?

Oh, it's Oregon. Obviously they're pissed about their football team at 2-2.

Quote:What would be wrong if the laws dealing with the purchase and obtainment of firearms were stricter?

A move of paranoia that the govt's going to take everyone's guns away. That's why reasonable measures are never put in place, or put in at a snail's pace with loopholes.

Quote:What would be wrong if individuals who are not police or military that owned certain kinds of firearms, had to keep said firearms at a licensed shooting range if they wanted to use them?

People want to have whatever guns they want, in their home for "protection" -- more of a sense of freedom more than anything.

You could have it so that one had to have a license thru training to have or operate a gun -- but even that wouldn't pass.

(10-01-2015 04:15 PM)toddjnsn Wrote:  It says Male Shooter is dead. Do they REALLY need to add the word MALE? I mean, I could be wrong -- was there also a female shooter?

Oh, it's Oregon. Obviously they're pissed about their football team at 2-2.

Get the **** out of here.

(10-01-2015 04:19 PM)toddjnsn Wrote:  

Quote:What would be wrong if the laws dealing with the purchase and obtainment of firearms were stricter?

A move of paranoia that the govt's going to take everyone's guns away. That's why reasonable measures are never put in place, or put in at a snail's pace with loopholes.

Said paranoia would be unfounded because those who already own firearms and have no inclination to perform such an act as what happened today would not be affected by stricter measures. They'd still be able to own firearms and the worst that would happen is that it would take longer to get new firearms.

(10-01-2015 04:19 PM)toddjnsn Wrote:  

Quote:What would be wrong if individuals who are not police or military that owned certain kinds of firearms, had to keep said firearms at a licensed shooting range if they wanted to use them?

People want to have whatever guns they want, in their home for "protection" -- more of a sense of freedom more than anything.

You could have it so that one had to have a license thru training to have or operate a gun -- but even that wouldn't pass.

Unless you are a police officer, active military, or live in a ghetto or crime-ridden area, you don't own or use a firearm for protection. You own or use one because you like to shoot stuff, more than likely recreationally.

Also, can't people get a "sense of freedom" from something else? Like driving their car or going for a run or playing sports?

To your original point, I don't think someone who would enjoy killing humans for sport, or causing mass panic for fun should be considered a terrorist. Also, if someone is out for revenge for some reason I wouldn't qualify as a terrorist.

Until we know the motives, it is hard to qualify the act as terrorism or mass crime.

No doubt when d***ass speaks here in 15 minutes on the White House lawn he will use this as a political opportunity to go after gun control.

(10-01-2015 04:35 PM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  To your original point, I don't think someone who would enjoy killing humans for sport, or causing mass panic for fun should be considered a terrorist. Also, if someone is out for revenge for some reason I wouldn't qualify as a terrorist.

Until we know the motives, it is hard to qualify the act as terrorism or mass crime.

We agree to disagree then.

Whole point is the term "shooter" doesn't generate anywhere near the level of movement or talk regarding this problem that's needed. "Terrorist" or "Mass murderer" might generate more conversation or writing.

And I read what MD said, but I'm going to ignore him and recommend that anyone else in this thread do that as well.

Sorry, what actually happened? I turned on the news, they gave a couple of teaser sentences, said they'd have the story later, then went to the weather for 10 minutes or so, showed Obama briefly talking about it, then said the story was coming up later but first, sports. So I turned the TV off. Ridiculous.

Shooter has been identified. No motive as of yet.

http://heavy.com/news/2015/10/chris-harp...k-youtube/

(10-01-2015 03:35 PM)BarsemaBone2 Wrote:  I'm bringing this next passage up specifically for people like klake, Jon, Bork, Rock Bottom, MD, and others who are likely on the other side of the argument from me who I want to engage in discussion about this subject.

Please answer these two questions:

What would be wrong if the laws dealing with the purchase and obtainment of firearms were stricter?

Are you familiar with the laws we currently have? Define "stricter." Also explain what your goal is with "stricter laws."

BarsemaBone2 Wrote:What would be wrong if individuals who are not police or military that owned certain kinds of firearms, had to keep said firearms at a licensed shooting range if they wanted to use them?

Define "certain kinds of firearms."

Quote:Said paranoia would be unfounded because those who already own firearms and have no inclination to perform such an act as what happened today would not be affected by stricter measures. They'd still be able to own firearms and the worst that would happen is that it would take longer to get new firearms.

The paranoia Now, that everyone's guns would be taken away, is unfounded, yes. There's no indicators of that... it would/should be fear of too strict of regulations / lack of freedom to get them at any time. Of course too-loose of freedom only makes days like this seem too mundane and only furthers the political cry to get rid of guns altogether, even though that is pretty much impossible to happen (no more than we have China buy our country or something).

Quote:Unless you are a police officer, active military, or live in a ghetto or crime-ridden area, you don't own or use a firearm for protection. You own or use one because you like to shoot stuff, more than likely recreationally.

It's a sense of freedom. A combination of recreation and peace of mind. In case someone tries to break into my home. That sorta thing. NO, I don't need a gun collection. IF anything, that'd be distracting -- even though it would give someone a greater peace of mind. It's the culture & peace of mind combined with many fearing the govt going to take over everything (like the federal govt to take over Texas -- that fear earlier this year).

Quote:Also, can't people get a "sense of freedom" from something else? Like driving their car or going for a run or playing sports?

LOL - no. You try to take away something from people and tell them a new law says no-you-can't-have, and you're the govt? OMG. All hell breaks loose. It's the concept in and of itself. Combine that with strong conservatives who have a big gun collection and thanks to the NRA have fear that the govt's trying to swipe them away when you're not looking! :)

(10-01-2015 09:46 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(10-01-2015 03:35 PM)BarsemaBone2 Wrote:  I'm bringing this next passage up specifically for people like klake, Jon, Bork, Rock Bottom, MD, and others who are likely on the other side of the argument from me who I want to engage in discussion about this subject.

Please answer these two questions:

What would be wrong if the laws dealing with the purchase and obtainment of firearms were stricter?

Are you familiar with the laws we currently have? Define "stricter." Also explain what your goal is with "stricter laws."

The one that comes to mind is having to provide more than 1 "reference", similar to what you need to provide for job interviews. The concept would be to seek out information from a third party who has better and closer knowledge of the mentality and intentions of the prospective purchaser, than the seller or law enforcement agency running the rest of the background check would.

In your example, your references would likely be your wife, friends, or co-workers. Obviously, you are a responsible gun owner and have been for many years, so you would have nothing to worry about.

For a prospective mass murderer however, it might raise a red flag that current background checks might not catch.

(10-01-2015 09:46 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

BarsemaBone2 Wrote:What would be wrong if individuals who are not police or military that owned certain kinds of firearms, had to keep said firearms at a licensed shooting range if they wanted to use them?

Define "certain kinds of firearms."

"Certain kinds" would include types that people would consider "military" or "police" grade, such as machine guns or other high-powered assault rifles. In theory, people would still be able to own said weapons, but they'd have to keep them at a licensed shooting range.

It would not include handguns, shotguns, or rifles, particularly those associated with hunting and sportsmen. These would continue to be permitted to be kept at the owner's place of residence.

23 people died in a 24 hr period in cjicago. Heroine overdose? No one cares.

(10-02-2015 07:45 AM)BarsemaBone2 Wrote:  

(10-01-2015 09:46 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

BarsemaBone2 Wrote:What would be wrong if individuals who are not police or military that owned certain kinds of firearms, had to keep said firearms at a licensed shooting range if they wanted to use them?

Define "certain kinds of firearms."

"Certain kinds" would include types that people would consider "military" or "police" grade, such as machine guns or other high-powered assault rifles. In theory, people would still be able to own said weapons, but they'd have to keep them at a licensed shooting range.

It would not include handguns, shotguns, or rifles, particularly those associated with hunting and sportsmen. These would continue to be permitted to be kept at the owner's place of residence.

I mean this with due respect. "Types that people would consider." What people? Consider in what way? That isn't specific.

By "machine gun," I assume you mean automatic weapons. Those have been regulated heavily since 1939, I believe. A person can still own one, but it requires a federal permit, and they are expensive, and therefore, uncommon. I think it would be difficult to find a recent crime which used an automatic weapon.

There is no such thing as an "assault" rifle, in practical terms. And, any essentially any firearm is powerful enough to kill, so "high-powered" is a meaningless term. My Remington model 70, a very (and old techology) common bolt action "deer" rifle can punch through just about any body armor with a hunting round.

The scary looking AR platform is used for hunting. My "hunting" shotgun, a Remington 870 Wingmaster is also carried in police cars very commonly.

One of my grade school friends was shot and killed by his step-father with a .22. A .22 is about the most mild caliber round you can get. It is still deadly.

My intent is not to bash you over the head with geeky technical specs. Its to show that many of the words, phrases and concepts tossed out by people want "common sense gun control" are useless other than in the context of severely restricting gun ownership, period, for everyone.

(10-02-2015 09:47 AM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(10-02-2015 07:45 AM)BarsemaBone2 Wrote:  

(10-01-2015 09:46 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

BarsemaBone2 Wrote:What would be wrong if individuals who are not police or military that owned certain kinds of firearms, had to keep said firearms at a licensed shooting range if they wanted to use them?

Define "certain kinds of firearms."

"Certain kinds" would include types that people would consider "military" or "police" grade, such as machine guns or other high-powered assault rifles. In theory, people would still be able to own said weapons, but they'd have to keep them at a licensed shooting range.

It would not include handguns, shotguns, or rifles, particularly those associated with hunting and sportsmen. These would continue to be permitted to be kept at the owner's place of residence.

I mean this with due respect. "Types that people would consider." What people? Consider in what way? That isn't specific.

By "machine gun," I assume you mean automatic weapons. Those have been regulated heavily since 1939, I believe. A person can still own one, but it requires a federal permit, and they are expensive, and therefore, uncommon. I think it would be difficult to find a recent crime which used an automatic weapon.

There is no such thing as an "assault" rifle, in practical terms. And, any essentially any firearm is powerful enough to kill, so "high-powered" is a meaningless term. My Remington model 70, a very (and old techology) common bolt action "deer" rifle can punch through just about any body armor with a hunting round.

The scary looking AR platform is used for hunting. My "hunting" shotgun, a Remington 870 Wingmaster is also carried in police cars very commonly.

One of my grade school friends was shot and killed by his step-father with a .22. A .22 is about the most mild caliber round you can get. It is still deadly.

My intent is not to bash you over the head with geeky technical specs. Its to show that many of the words, phrases and concepts tossed out by people want "common sense gun control" are useless other than in the context of severely restricting gun ownership, period, for everyone.

In all honesty, I appreciate all the geeky technical specs that you can give me because it means I can learn more about a topic that I'm not as well versed in as others.

Based on what you've said, going after the type of firearm won't solve the problem, and that makes sense.

I noticed you didn't respond to my suggestion about using references as part of a background check. Does that mean it would be something you would be okay with as a gun owner?

Also, in discussions I've had in other places on this topic, it has been suggested by some that arming the teachers in the schools is the solution. I don't think that's a viable solution, but something I do think would be at least a stopgap is having at least 2 police officers in the schools at all times. This way, you have people who have been trained in the use of firearms and in dangerous person situations present at all times and who can act right away. It would also allow the students and teachers to get to know the police officers in their hometown, which would work to build the relationships in the future between police and civilians.

Thoughts on this option?

(10-02-2015 10:50 AM)BarsemaBone2 Wrote:  

(10-02-2015 09:47 AM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(10-02-2015 07:45 AM)BarsemaBone2 Wrote:  

(10-01-2015 09:46 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

BarsemaBone2 Wrote:What would be wrong if individuals who are not police or military that owned certain kinds of firearms, had to keep said firearms at a licensed shooting range if they wanted to use them?

Define "certain kinds of firearms."

"Certain kinds" would include types that people would consider "military" or "police" grade, such as machine guns or other high-powered assault rifles. In theory, people would still be able to own said weapons, but they'd have to keep them at a licensed shooting range.

It would not include handguns, shotguns, or rifles, particularly those associated with hunting and sportsmen. These would continue to be permitted to be kept at the owner's place of residence.

I mean this with due respect. "Types that people would consider." What people? Consider in what way? That isn't specific.

By "machine gun," I assume you mean automatic weapons. Those have been regulated heavily since 1939, I believe. A person can still own one, but it requires a federal permit, and they are expensive, and therefore, uncommon. I think it would be difficult to find a recent crime which used an automatic weapon.

There is no such thing as an "assault" rifle, in practical terms. And, any essentially any firearm is powerful enough to kill, so "high-powered" is a meaningless term. My Remington model 70, a very (and old techology) common bolt action "deer" rifle can punch through just about any body armor with a hunting round.

The scary looking AR platform is used for hunting. My "hunting" shotgun, a Remington 870 Wingmaster is also carried in police cars very commonly.

One of my grade school friends was shot and killed by his step-father with a .22. A .22 is about the most mild caliber round you can get. It is still deadly.

My intent is not to bash you over the head with geeky technical specs. Its to show that many of the words, phrases and concepts tossed out by people want "common sense gun control" are useless other than in the context of severely restricting gun ownership, period, for everyone.

In all honesty, I appreciate all the geeky technical specs that you can give me because it means I can learn more about a topic that I'm not as well versed in as others.

Based on what you've said, going after the type of firearm won't solve the problem, and that makes sense.

I noticed you didn't respond to my suggestion about using references as part of a background check. Does that mean it would be something you would be okay with as a gun owner?

Also, in discussions I've had in other places on this topic, it has been suggested by some that arming the teachers in the schools is the solution. I don't think that's a viable solution, but something I do think would be at least a stopgap is having at least 2 police officers in the schools at all times. This way, you have people who have been trained in the use of firearms and in dangerous person situations present at all times and who can act right away. It would also allow the students and teachers to get to know the police officers in their hometown, which would work to build the relationships in the future between police and civilians.

Thoughts on this option?

Regarding the background check, I'm not sure we have the resources to make that happen. Right now, the background check is essentially a database check. To do what you propose requires more time (cost). Plus, it sounds a bit arbitrary and capricious. It is someone else's opinion of me. And, just like on job references, you likely aren't going to list a person who is going to say a bad thing about you.

We don't yet know how this person obtained his firearms. We don't know if he was mentally ill, as defined in the context of firearm laws.

I'm not a fan of arming teachers. I think we have to attack this as a culture problem, which is terribly difficult, but the real solution. I'm also not a believer that concealed carry is the answer. I'm not against it, but I don't think it is the magic bullet, pardon the pun.