Skip to main content

Originally Posted by Mr. Hooberbloob:
Originally Posted by Wild_Irish_Prose:
Originally Posted by BoldTruth:

At the moment, I would think that would be the sensible thing to be concerned about - gun control, NOT a particular segment of society's personal religious beliefs.

Oh, scr*w gun control! I'm absolutely convinced now that even if Planned Parenthood started offering to shoot fetuses right out of the uteri as a method of abortion, the Repubs still wouldn't pass any form of sensible gun control legislation.

  

If you can't beat 'em, join in the cray-cray, right?

 

So...I say GUNS, GUNS, GUNS EVERYWHERE AND FOR EVERYONE!! THAT is the answer!! H*ll, put 'em in vending machines in every school; they should be as easy to access as Cheetos! I mean, if the six-year-olds at Sandy Hook had just had access to guns...


If you have to resort to hyperbole to prove your point, then maybe you never had a point to begin with.

____

What, then, shall we say of those who, like you, resort to crude sexual insults?

I don't know, but she does seem to know something about everything. 

The majority of posts are often either uneducated or bitter.

---------------------------

You and beternnun both WISH I was uneducated. Yeah, I called you on your anti-American rant, and I don't care if it  made you cry, or call me "bitter". I'd do it again. As for beternnun, pftttttttttttt, he's upset that he can't run his half-to no truths by me. You two get a room and cry on each other's shoulders. Right after beternnun gets finished telling you what he thinks is wrong with you! LOL! As I said, two bu**hurt old men that can't handle the truth, needing a pill for their cryabeetus attack.

 

----------------------------------

          Hall of Famer
 
         
          August 18, 2015 4:51 PM

Originally Posted by Harald Weissberg:

Who cares?

The only news I would welcome about that corrupt, racist hack, was that he developed leprosy, and his nose and ears fell off.

 

____

My. my, doesn't the milk of human kindness course through YOUR veins! THAT eructation of yours is a genuine example of playing the HATE card.

 

 
Last edited by Bestworking
Originally Posted by Bestworking:

I don't know, but she does seem to know something about everything. 

The majority of posts are often either uneducated or bitter.

---------------------------

You and beternnun both WISH I was uneducated. Yeah, I called you on your anti-American rant, and I don't care if it  made you cry, or call me "bitter". I'd do it again. As for beternnun, pftttttttttttt, he's upset that he can't run his half-to no truths by me. You two get a room and cry on each other's shoulders. Right after beternnun gets finished telling you what he thinks is wrong with you! LOL! As I said, two bu**hurt old men that can't handle the truth, needing a pill for their cryabeetus attack.

 

----------------------------------

          Hall of Famer
 
         
          August 18, 2015 4:51 PM

Originally Posted by Harald Weissberg:

Who cares?

The only news I would welcome about that corrupt, racist hack, was that he developed leprosy, and his nose and ears fell off.

 

____

My. my, doesn't the milk of human kindness course through YOUR veins! THAT eructation of yours is a genuine example of playing the HATE card.

 

 

 

 

I didn't cry over your spastic post.

I don't have any kindness for human scum.

I would gladly carry out a death sentence...for .50 cents a pop.

No lethal injection, no "humane" go to sleep crap. No million dollar appeals.

Just...BAM!

Originally Posted by Contendahh:
Originally Posted by direstraits:

In case of a zombie infestation, Democrats would solve the problem by decreeing "Much Free Zones."

___

 

"Much" ??

Do you ever check back over what you type?

 

_____________________________________________________________

If, Contenduhh were a passenger on the Titanic, he would have done his part by haranguing the telegraph operator on his punctuation and spelling.

 

Originally Posted by Contendahh:
Originally Posted by Mr. Hooberbloob:
Originally Posted by Wild_Irish_Prose:
Originally Posted by BoldTruth:

At the moment, I would think that would be the sensible thing to be concerned about - gun control, NOT a particular segment of society's personal religious beliefs.

Oh, scr*w gun control! I'm absolutely convinced now that even if Planned Parenthood started offering to shoot fetuses right out of the uteri as a method of abortion, the Repubs still wouldn't pass any form of sensible gun control legislation.

  

If you can't beat 'em, join in the cray-cray, right?

 

So...I say GUNS, GUNS, GUNS EVERYWHERE AND FOR EVERYONE!! THAT is the answer!! H*ll, put 'em in vending machines in every school; they should be as easy to access as Cheetos! I mean, if the six-year-olds at Sandy Hook had just had access to guns...


If you have to resort to hyperbole to prove your point, then maybe you never had a point to begin with.

____

What, then, shall we say of those who, like you, resort to crude sexual insults?


Your penile envy is not hyperbole, it is a well known fact.

Originally Posted by direstraits:
Originally Posted by Contendahh:
Originally Posted by direstraits:

In case of a zombie infestation, Democrats would solve the problem by decreeing "Much Free Zones."

___

 

"Much" ??

Do you ever check back over what you type?

 

_____________________________________________________________

If, Contenduhh were a passenger on the Titanic, he would have done his part by haranguing the telegraph operator on his punctuation and spelling.

 =================

This just after beternnun made TWO mistakes himself.

 

Originally Posted by Contendahh:
Originally Posted by direstraits:

In case of a zombie infestation, Democrats would solve the problem by decreeing "Much Free Zones."

___

 

"Much" ??

Do you ever check back over what you type?

 

=======================

This is what contendahh aka beternnun whined to semi, after his TWO mistakes in one sentence. Then he went on to make a mistake in his whine trying to explain his first mistake:

The difference between mine and yours is that:mine was a simple omission of a single letter in a very short word.

=======================

The difference eh professor DA? Dire's was the same thing, a letter left out, but you made a deal out of it. Oh, and you made another mistake too.

http://www.oregonlive.com/educ...y_college_not_a.html

 

Umpqua Community College not a gun-free zone: Oregon laws prevent that

 

Umpqua Community College, site of a mass shooting Thursday, bans guns, knives longer than 4 inches and other weapons from campus.

 

But that policy has one big exemption that renders the pastoral 100-acre campus near Roseburg anything but a gun-free zone: Everyone with a concealed firearms license is allowed to bring guns on campus.

 

That is because a 1989 Oregon law forbids any public body except the Legislature from restricting the rights of concealed weapons permit-holders to bring guns where they wish.

 

Proponents of gun rights have seized on Thursday's tragic killing of eight Oregon college students and their writing instructor as evidence that so-called gun-free zones, or places where all guns are banned, are especially dangerous because a gunman plotting a mass killing will know there is no armed person there who can stop him. Proponents of gun restrictions have shot back with their own take on gun-free zones.

 

The college's no-guns policy seems to be obvious evidence that the Umpqua campus was such a place. But Oregon gun owners with concealed firearms licenses know those licenses entitle them to carry loaded guns in nearly all public places.

 

About one in 16 Oregon adults have such licenses, Oregon State Police figures indicate....

 

Guns, including handguns and rifles, are allowed on campus for people who have passed all background checks and conditions to qualify for a concealed weapon permit.

 

Penny Okamoto, executive director of Cease Fire Oregon, which favors gun restrictions, said allowing people with firearms licenses to bring guns on campus endangers student safety rather than helps it. To qualify for a license, an Oregonian "doesn't need to show he can hit the broad side of a barn" with a gun, let alone that he or she is trained to respond to an active shooter or deescalate a crisis, she said.

 

The best way to prevent mass gun deaths on campus, Okamoto said, is to prevent dangerous people from getting guns, especially semi-automatic ones.

 

Many Oregon college and university leaders dislike having armed people on campus, and public colleges have tried to make rules prohibiting the practice.

 

But the courts have ruled those policies invalid when it comes to licensed permit- holders. When Western Oregon University suspended a 30-year-old student, a former Marine, for carrying a tactical knife and having an unloaded semiautomatic rifle in his pickup truck, the student and gun rights activists sued – and won.

 

Public colleges have no grounds to restrict concealed weapons permit-holders' rights,the Oregon Court of Appeals ruled.

 

Kevin Starrett, executive director of the Oregon Firearms Federation, says too many colleges and other public agencies try to mislead people from thinking all guns are banned, despite the clear laws to the contrary.

I realize Contendahh has already posted about Oregon's laws, but it seems that most of you don't care about facts. So, I suppose y'all's answer is for everyone to carry a gun everywhere they go - to grocery stores, banks, colleges, elementary schools, daycare centers, churches, malls, parks, and so on, "just in case". H*ll, even highly trained police are not always accurate marksmen:

 

http://nation.time.com/2013/09...shooting-bystanders/

 

On Saturday night in New York City’s Times Square, police opened fire on a man who was walking erratically into oncoming traffic and, when approached by law enforcement, reached into his pocket as if he were grabbing a weapon. The officers fired three shots. One hit a 54-year-old woman in the knee and another grazed a 35-year-old woman’s buttocks. None hit the suspect, whom police subsequently subdued with a taser.

 

While incidents of police shooting bystanders are uncommon, they shouldn’t surprise New Yorkers (or anyone else) when they happen. Just last year, New York police injured nine onlookers in the course of responding to a murder suspect near the Empire State Building. As police chased the man through rush hour crowds, he fired at the cops; they returned 16 shots, hitting the man 10 times. That actually counted as accurate shooting for the NYPD.

 

According to a 2008 RAND Corporation study evaluating the New York Police Department’s firearm training, between 1998 and 2006, the average hit rate during gunfights was just 18 percent. When suspects did not return fire, police officers hit their targets 30 percent of the time.

 

The data show what any police officer who has ever been involved in a shooting can tell you–firing accurately in a stressful situation is extremely hard...

Last edited by Wild_Irish_Prose
Originally Posted by budsfarm:
Originally Posted by Wild_Irish_Prose:
Originally Posted by BoldTruth:

At the moment, I would think that would be the sensible thing to be concerned about - gun control, NOT a particular segment of society's personal religious beliefs.

Oh, scr*w gun control! I'm absolutely convinced now that even if Planned Parenthood started offering to shoot fetuses right out of the uteri as a method of abortion, the Repubs still wouldn't pass any form of sensible gun control legislation.

  

If you can't beat 'em, join in the cray-cray, right?

 

So...I say GUNS, GUNS, GUNS EVERYWHERE AND FOR EVERYONE!! THAT is the answer!! H*ll, put 'em in vending machines in every school; they should be as easy to access as Cheetos! I mean, if the six-year-olds at Sandy Hook had just had access to guns...

+++

 

If the "security officer" at Umpqua had just had access to guns...

 

 

-------------------------------------------------

Yeah, and that "security officer" would have to have been in that writing class to have prevented more slaughter after shot one, or very near it, and that's assuming he would have been able to pick out and hit the actual shooter in all the confusion and not hit innocent bystanders.

 

So, since one security officer can't be in all places at all times on college campuses, the answer is to hire tons of security officers to be in every corner of every building on the campuses, yes? Think that will happen? Of course it won't because it's too costly, and ridiculous. Oh but hey, maybe the NRA will offer to pay for it; they have plenty of cash. That is, if they're willing to spend it on something besides fear mongering, and hookers and blow.

 

 

Originally Posted by Wild_Irish_Prose:

http://www.oregonlive.com/educ...y_college_not_a.html

 

Umpqua Community College not a gun-free zone: Oregon laws prevent that

 

Umpqua Community College, site of a mass shooting Thursday, bans guns, knives longer than 4 inches and other weapons from campus.

 

But that policy has one big exemption that renders the pastoral 100-acre campus near Roseburg anything but a gun-free zone: Everyone with a concealed firearms license is allowed to bring guns on campus.

 

That is because a 1989 Oregon law forbids any public body except the Legislature from restricting the rights of concealed weapons permit-holders to bring guns where they wish.

 

Proponents of gun rights have seized on Thursday's tragic killing of eight Oregon college students and their writing instructor as evidence that so-called gun-free zones, or places where all guns are banned, are especially dangerous because a gunman plotting a mass killing will know there is no armed person there who can stop him. Proponents of gun restrictions have shot back with their own take on gun-free zones.

 

The college's no-guns policy seems to be obvious evidence that the Umpqua campus was such a place. But Oregon gun owners with concealed firearms licenses know those licenses entitle them to carry loaded guns in nearly all public places.

 

About one in 16 Oregon adults have such licenses, Oregon State Police figures indicate....

 

Guns, including handguns and rifles, are allowed on campus for people who have passed all background checks and conditions to qualify for a concealed weapon permit.

 

Penny Okamoto, executive director of Cease Fire Oregon, which favors gun restrictions, said allowing people with firearms licenses to bring guns on campus endangers student safety rather than helps it. To qualify for a license, an Oregonian "doesn't need to show he can hit the broad side of a barn" with a gun, let alone that he or she is trained to respond to an active shooter or deescalate a crisis, she said.

 

The best way to prevent mass gun deaths on campus, Okamoto said, is to prevent dangerous people from getting guns, especially semi-automatic ones.

 

Many Oregon college and university leaders dislike having armed people on campus, and public colleges have tried to make rules prohibiting the practice.

 

But the courts have ruled those policies invalid when it comes to licensed permit- holders. When Western Oregon University suspended a 30-year-old student, a former Marine, for carrying a tactical knife and having an unloaded semiautomatic rifle in his pickup truck, the student and gun rights activists sued – and won.

 

Public colleges have no grounds to restrict concealed weapons permit-holders' rights,the Oregon Court of Appeals ruled.

 

Kevin Starrett, executive director of the Oregon Firearms Federation, says too many colleges and other public agencies try to mislead people from thinking all guns are banned, despite the clear laws to the contrary.

_________________________________________________

Um no, the Oregon University System could not regulate firearms, but individual campuses could regulate them and UCC was A Gun Free free fire zone.

 

The Oregon University System will not appeal a court ruling that declared its gun ban on its seven campuses exceeds its authority and is invalid

 

The system still has authority to control its property and facilities and can make and enforce internal policies that ban guns from university classrooms, dormitories and sports stadiums, said Chancellor George Pernsteiner on Tuesday.  Some universities, for example, already prohibit firearms in sports arenas as a condition of purchasing a ticket to a sporting event.

 

"While we feel strongly that the court decision is not in the best interests of our students and campus communities, we do not want to go through a long and costly process (of appeal) that may produce the same outcome," Pernsteiner said in a prepared statement. "Instead, we have started work on internal processes that are already in place or that we can put in place that will maintain a reasonable and satisfactory level of campuses safety and security."

http://www.oregonlive.com/educ...y_system_will_1.html

 

Umpqua Community College Gun Policy

Originally Posted by Stanky:
Originally Posted by Wild_Irish_Prose:

http://www.oregonlive.com/educ...y_college_not_a.html

 

Umpqua Community College not a gun-free zone: Oregon laws prevent that

 

Umpqua Community College, site of a mass shooting Thursday, bans guns, knives longer than 4 inches and other weapons from campus.

 

But that policy has one big exemption that renders the pastoral 100-acre campus near Roseburg anything but a gun-free zone: Everyone with a concealed firearms license is allowed to bring guns on campus.

 

That is because a 1989 Oregon law forbids any public body except the Legislature from restricting the rights of concealed weapons permit-holders to bring guns where they wish.

 

Proponents of gun rights have seized on Thursday's tragic killing of eight Oregon college students and their writing instructor as evidence that so-called gun-free zones, or places where all guns are banned, are especially dangerous because a gunman plotting a mass killing will know there is no armed person there who can stop him. Proponents of gun restrictions have shot back with their own take on gun-free zones.

 

The college's no-guns policy seems to be obvious evidence that the Umpqua campus was such a place. But Oregon gun owners with concealed firearms licenses know those licenses entitle them to carry loaded guns in nearly all public places.

 

About one in 16 Oregon adults have such licenses, Oregon State Police figures indicate....

 

Guns, including handguns and rifles, are allowed on campus for people who have passed all background checks and conditions to qualify for a concealed weapon permit.

 

Penny Okamoto, executive director of Cease Fire Oregon, which favors gun restrictions, said allowing people with firearms licenses to bring guns on campus endangers student safety rather than helps it. To qualify for a license, an Oregonian "doesn't need to show he can hit the broad side of a barn" with a gun, let alone that he or she is trained to respond to an active shooter or deescalate a crisis, she said.

 

The best way to prevent mass gun deaths on campus, Okamoto said, is to prevent dangerous people from getting guns, especially semi-automatic ones.

 

Many Oregon college and university leaders dislike having armed people on campus, and public colleges have tried to make rules prohibiting the practice.

 

But the courts have ruled those policies invalid when it comes to licensed permit- holders. When Western Oregon University suspended a 30-year-old student, a former Marine, for carrying a tactical knife and having an unloaded semiautomatic rifle in his pickup truck, the student and gun rights activists sued – and won.

 

Public colleges have no grounds to restrict concealed weapons permit-holders' rights,the Oregon Court of Appeals ruled.

 

Kevin Starrett, executive director of the Oregon Firearms Federation, says too many colleges and other public agencies try to mislead people from thinking all guns are banned, despite the clear laws to the contrary.

_________________________________________________

Um no, the Oregon University System could not regulate firearms, but individual campuses could regulate them and UCC was A Gun Free free fire zone.

 

The Oregon University System will not appeal a court ruling that declared its gun ban on its seven campuses exceeds its authority and is invalid

 

The system still has authority to control its property and facilities and can make and enforce internal policies that ban guns from university classrooms, dormitories and sports stadiums, said Chancellor George Pernsteiner on Tuesday.  Some universities, for example, already prohibit firearms in sports arenas as a condition of purchasing a ticket to a sporting event.

 

"While we feel strongly that the court decision is not in the best interests of our students and campus communities, we do not want to go through a long and costly process (of appeal) that may produce the same outcome," Pernsteiner said in a prepared statement. "Instead, we have started work on internal processes that are already in place or that we can put in place that will maintain a reasonable and satisfactory level of campuses safety and security."

http://www.oregonlive.com/educ...y_system_will_1.html

 

Umpqua Community College Gun Policy

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Um, John Parker Jr. didn't seem too worried:


http://thinkprogress.org/justi...at-time-of-massacre/

 

‘Good Guy With A Gun’ Was On UCC Campus At Time Of Massacre

 

Umpqua Community College, the site of the massacre on Thursday that left at least 10 people dead, was not — in law or in practice — a gun free zone.

 

It was the policy of university administrators to limit the use of guns to the extent allowed by law. But, as ThinkProgress and the New York Times reported, Oregon is one of seven states that allows concealed carry on postsecondary campuses. This was based on a 2011 state court decision invalidating efforts to ban guns at public universities in Oregon. Public colleges like UCC are permitted to exclude concealed weapons from certain buildings and facilities but not the campus in general.

 

But not only was UCC not a gun free zone by law, there were also people who brought guns onto campus at the time of the massacre.

 

John Parker Jr., a veteran and student at UCC, spoke with MSNBC and revealed that he was in a campus building with a concealed handgun when the shooting started. He suggested other students with him at the time were also carrying concealed handguns....

 

 

Last edited by Wild_Irish_Prose
Originally Posted by Wild_Irish_Prose:
Originally Posted by Stanky:
Originally Posted by Wild_Irish_Prose:

http://www.oregonlive.com/educ...y_college_not_a.html

 

Umpqua Community College not a gun-free zone: Oregon laws prevent that

 

Umpqua Community College, site of a mass shooting Thursday, bans guns, knives longer than 4 inches and other weapons from campus.

 

But that policy has one big exemption that renders the pastoral 100-acre campus near Roseburg anything but a gun-free zone: Everyone with a concealed firearms license is allowed to bring guns on campus.

 

That is because a 1989 Oregon law forbids any public body except the Legislature from restricting the rights of concealed weapons permit-holders to bring guns where they wish.

 

Proponents of gun rights have seized on Thursday's tragic killing of eight Oregon college students and their writing instructor as evidence that so-called gun-free zones, or places where all guns are banned, are especially dangerous because a gunman plotting a mass killing will know there is no armed person there who can stop him. Proponents of gun restrictions have shot back with their own take on gun-free zones.

 

The college's no-guns policy seems to be obvious evidence that the Umpqua campus was such a place. But Oregon gun owners with concealed firearms licenses know those licenses entitle them to carry loaded guns in nearly all public places.

 

About one in 16 Oregon adults have such licenses, Oregon State Police figures indicate....

 

Guns, including handguns and rifles, are allowed on campus for people who have passed all background checks and conditions to qualify for a concealed weapon permit.

 

Penny Okamoto, executive director of Cease Fire Oregon, which favors gun restrictions, said allowing people with firearms licenses to bring guns on campus endangers student safety rather than helps it. To qualify for a license, an Oregonian "doesn't need to show he can hit the broad side of a barn" with a gun, let alone that he or she is trained to respond to an active shooter or deescalate a crisis, she said.

 

The best way to prevent mass gun deaths on campus, Okamoto said, is to prevent dangerous people from getting guns, especially semi-automatic ones.

 

Many Oregon college and university leaders dislike having armed people on campus, and public colleges have tried to make rules prohibiting the practice.

 

But the courts have ruled those policies invalid when it comes to licensed permit- holders. When Western Oregon University suspended a 30-year-old student, a former Marine, for carrying a tactical knife and having an unloaded semiautomatic rifle in his pickup truck, the student and gun rights activists sued – and won.

 

Public colleges have no grounds to restrict concealed weapons permit-holders' rights,the Oregon Court of Appeals ruled.

 

Kevin Starrett, executive director of the Oregon Firearms Federation, says too many colleges and other public agencies try to mislead people from thinking all guns are banned, despite the clear laws to the contrary.

_________________________________________________

Um no, the Oregon University System could not regulate firearms, but individual campuses could regulate them and UCC was A Gun Free free fire zone.

 

The Oregon University System will not appeal a court ruling that declared its gun ban on its seven campuses exceeds its authority and is invalid

 

The system still has authority to control its property and facilities and can make and enforce internal policies that ban guns from university classrooms, dormitories and sports stadiums, said Chancellor George Pernsteiner on Tuesday.  Some universities, for example, already prohibit firearms in sports arenas as a condition of purchasing a ticket to a sporting event.

 

"While we feel strongly that the court decision is not in the best interests of our students and campus communities, we do not want to go through a long and costly process (of appeal) that may produce the same outcome," Pernsteiner said in a prepared statement. "Instead, we have started work on internal processes that are already in place or that we can put in place that will maintain a reasonable and satisfactory level of campuses safety and security."

http://www.oregonlive.com/educ...y_system_will_1.html

 

Umpqua Community College Gun Policy

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Um, John Parker, Jr. didn't seem too worried:


http://thinkprogress.org/justi...at-time-of-massacre/

 

‘Good Guy With A Gun’ Was On UCC Campus At Time Of Massacre

 

Umpqua Community College, the site of the massacre on Thursday that left at least 10 people dead, was not — in law or in practice — a gun free zone.

 

It was the policy of university administrators to limit the use of guns to the extent allowed by law. But, as ThinkProgress and the New York Times reported, Oregon is one of seven states that allows concealed carry on postsecondary campuses. This was based on a 2011 state court decision invalidating efforts to ban guns at public universities in Oregon. Public colleges like UCC are permitted to exclude concealed weapons from certain buildings and facilities but not the campus in general.

 

But not only was UCC not a gun free zone by law, there were also people who brought guns onto campus at the time of the massacre.

 

John Parker Jr., a veteran and student at UCC, spoke with MSNBC and revealed that he was in a campus building with a concealed handgun when the shooting started. He suggested other students with him at the time were also carrying concealed handguns....

 

 

______________________________________

And the guns left in the cars were really helpful.

 

How was the gun in the car if Parker was "in a campus building with a concealed handgun?" How does that work, exactly?

 

This is not supported by the facts. According to a study of 62 mass shootings over 30 years conducted by Mother Jones, “not a single case includes evidence that the killer chose to target a place because it banned guns.” Many of those mass shootings took place in areas were guns where permitted, but not a single one was stopped by armed civilians.

 

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.

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/1...ttack-oregon-killer/

 

Armed vet destroys gun nuts’ argument on mass shooters by explaining why he didn’t attack Oregon killer

 

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.

 

Saying he does conceal carry in case “I’m in close proximity” to an incident where he might try to save some lives, Parker admitted he’s not the type who believes that “there’s always somebody out there behind your back ready to do something like this.”

 

Conservative commentators — none of whom were caught up in the panic and confusion at the college campus — have complained that the school’s “gun-free” designation drew the shooter there and that a “good guy with a gun” could have stopped him.

 

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.”

 

Parker noted that he was hustled into a classroom with other students by a professor who asked if anyone was armed. He said he raised his hand and said he would attempt to protect his fellow students if they came under attack.

Originally Posted by Wild_Irish_Prose:

How was the gun in the car if Parker was "in a campus building with a concealed handgun?" How does that work, exactly?

 

This is not supported by the facts. According to a study of 62 mass shootings over 30 years conducted by Mother Jones, “not a single case includes evidence that the killer chose to target a place because it banned guns.” Many of those mass shootings took place in areas were guns where permitted, but not a single one was stopped by armed civilians.

 

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.

_______________________________________________

I might note that Parker sought a classroom to hunker down in after the shooting started, he wasn't in class. He based his decision on not intervening because of the distance and time to get there along with the fear of being collateral damage by those the left allows to be armed.

 

Despite the protestations of gun rights advocates, Umpqua Community College is not actually a "gun-free zone."In 2012, the Oregon State Board of Higher Education unanimously voted to ban guns inside university buildings, but not on campus grounds overall. While UCC is not dictated by the SBHE, its policy on weapons is reportedly comparable.

 

http://mic.com/articles/126203...-stop-mass-shootings

 

The poor folks in class with the killer were in a Gun Free free fire zone.

 

Originally Posted by Stanky:
Originally Posted by Wild_Irish_Prose:

How was the gun in the car if Parker was "in a campus building with a concealed handgun?" How does that work, exactly?

 

This is not supported by the facts. According to a study of 62 mass shootings over 30 years conducted by Mother Jones, “not a single case includes evidence that the killer chose to target a place because it banned guns.” Many of those mass shootings took place in areas were guns where permitted, but not a single one was stopped by armed civilians.

 

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.

_______________________________________________

I might note that Parker sought a classroom to hunker down in after the shooting started, he wasn't in class. He based his decision on not intervening because of the distance and time to get there along with the fear of being collateral damage by those the left allows to be armed.

 

Despite the protestations of gun rights advocates, Umpqua Community College is not actually a "gun-free zone."In 2012, the Oregon State Board of Higher Education unanimously voted to ban guns inside university buildings, but not on campus grounds overall. While UCC is not dictated by the SBHE, its policy on weapons is reportedly comparable.

 

http://mic.com/articles/126203...-stop-mass-shootings

 

The poor folks in class with the killer were in a Gun Free free fire zone.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let's say we arm all teachers (whether they agree to it or not) and, for example, at a high school one day the regular armed teacher is out and there's an unarmed substitute, and that classroom is where a shooting starts that day. By the time the armed teacher next door figures out what's going on, it's too late: people are dead. 

 

So..., again, either we arm EVERYONE, EVERYWHERE and at ALL TIMES (and that includes preschoolers and middle schoolers - you know, in case the teacher has to step out to go to the bathroom) in order to prevent ALL SHOOTINGS (from killing more than one or two...or five or ten), or we pass common sense gun legislation.

 

But I do realize nothing's going to happen after this; nothing will change. If prayer worked, it would work (it obviously doesn't because these massacres keep happening); if "good guys with guns stop bad guys with guns" worked, it would work (it obviously doesn't, as the vet points out). So, the right to own guns, no questions asked, is more important than children's lives. I get it. We all get it.

 

(Incidentally, there were plenty of "good guys with guns" around when your Reagan god got shot. He still got shot, along with several others, including Jim Brady, of course, who went on to become an ardent supporter of gun control.)

Last edited by Wild_Irish_Prose
Originally Posted by Wild_Irish_Prose:
Originally Posted by Stanky:
Originally Posted by Wild_Irish_Prose:

How was the gun in the car if Parker was "in a campus building with a concealed handgun?" How does that work, exactly?

 

This is not supported by the facts. According to a study of 62 mass shootings over 30 years conducted by Mother Jones, “not a single case includes evidence that the killer chose to target a place because it banned guns.” Many of those mass shootings took place in areas were guns where permitted, but not a single one was stopped by armed civilians.

 

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.

_______________________________________________

I might note that Parker sought a classroom to hunker down in after the shooting started, he wasn't in class. He based his decision on not intervening because of the distance and time to get there along with the fear of being collateral damage by those the left allows to be armed.

 

Despite the protestations of gun rights advocates, Umpqua Community College is not actually a "gun-free zone."In 2012, the Oregon State Board of Higher Education unanimously voted to ban guns inside university buildings, but not on campus grounds overall. While UCC is not dictated by the SBHE, its policy on weapons is reportedly comparable.

 

http://mic.com/articles/126203...-stop-mass-shootings

 

The poor folks in class with the killer were in a Gun Free free fire zone.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let's say we arm all teachers (whether they agree to it or not) and, for example, at a high school one day the regular armed teacher is out and there's an unarmed substitute, and that classroom is where a shooting starts that day. By the time the armed teacher next door figures out what's going on, it's too late: people are dead. 

 

I've heard of the straw man ploy, but you're concocting a straw crowd to knock down! The teacher next door might not save everyone, but if he/she/it can reduce casualties, that's a good thing.

 

So..., again, either we arm EVERYONE, EVERYWHERE and at ALL TIMES (and that includes preschoolers and middle schoolers - you know, in case the teacher has to step out to go to the bathroom) in order to prevent ALL SHOOTINGS (from killing more than one or two...or five or ten), or we pass common sense gun legislation.

 

Even the NRA doesn't want everyone armed, just the law abiding Joe average who doesn't hear voices in his or her head.

 

But I do realize nothing's going to happen after this; nothing will change. If prayer worked, it would work (it obviously doesn't because these massacres keep happening); if "good guys with guns stop bad guys with guns" worked, it would work (it obviously doesn't, as the vet points out). So, the right to own guns, no questions asked, is more important than children's lives. I get it. We all get it.

 

Prayer might work if God thought the prayer was worthy and sane. History does show that good guys with guns can defeat bad guys with guns, even if the good guys don't have a uniform.

https://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/armed-citizen.aspx

 

(Incidentally, there were plenty of "good guys with guns" around when your Reagan god got shot. He still got shot, along with several others, including Jim Brady, of course, who went on to become an ardent supporter of gun control.)

I don't genuflect before a Reagan idol as the left before the god of the nanny state, and someone goofed when John Hinckley pushed forward to shoot. Nothing is as perfect as our system to treat the violent mentally ill.

Originally Posted by Wild_Irish_Prose:
Originally Posted by budsfarm:
Originally Posted by Wild_Irish_Prose:
Originally Posted by BoldTruth:

At the moment, I would think that would be the sensible thing to be concerned about - gun control, NOT a particular segment of society's personal religious beliefs.

Oh, scr*w gun control! I'm absolutely convinced now that even if Planned Parenthood started offering to shoot fetuses right out of the uteri as a method of abortion, the Repubs still wouldn't pass any form of sensible gun control legislation.

  

If you can't beat 'em, join in the cray-cray, right?

 

So...I say GUNS, GUNS, GUNS EVERYWHERE AND FOR EVERYONE!! THAT is the answer!! H*ll, put 'em in vending machines in every school; they should be as easy to access as Cheetos! I mean, if the six-year-olds at Sandy Hook had just had access to guns...

+++

 

If the "security officer" at Umpqua had just had access to guns...

 

 

-------------------------------------------------

Yeah, and that "security officer" would have to have been in that writing class to have prevented more slaughter after shot one, or very near it, and that's assuming he would have been able to pick out and hit the actual shooter in all the confusion and not hit innocent bystanders.

 

So, since one security officer can't be in all places at all times on college campuses, the answer is to hire tons of security officers to be in every corner of every building on the campuses, yes? Think that will happen? Of course it won't because it's too costly, and ridiculous. Oh but hey, maybe the NRA will offer to pay for it; they have plenty of cash. That is, if they're willing to spend it on something besides fear mongering, and hookers and blow.

 

 

+++

 

In case you missed my point and my follow up post to Contendahh, the ["the" being singular] unarmed security officer provided no security at all.

 

Using your argument that even if armed, the officer would have had to be at the right time, right place therefore SROs are not a deterrent.  One thing is for certain, when armed LEOs showed up, his game plan changed.  Had there been armed security present, response time would have been quicker, and his plan changed sooner.

 

BTW, this situation was brought on by a conscious decision by the school administrators to be  a gun free zone thereby placing their students at risk.  Not the NRA.

 

Originally Posted by Wild_Irish_Prose:

I realize Contendahh has already posted about Oregon's laws, but it seems that most of you don't care about facts. So, I suppose y'all's answer is for everyone to carry a gun everywhere they go - to grocery stores, banks, colleges, elementary schools, daycare centers, churches, malls, parks, and so on, "just in case". H*ll, even highly trained police are not always accurate marksmen:

 

http://nation.time.com/2013/09...shooting-bystanders/

 

On Saturday night in New York City’s Times Square, police opened fire on a man who was walking erratically into oncoming traffic and, when approached by law enforcement, reached into his pocket as if he were grabbing a weapon. The officers fired three shots. One hit a 54-year-old woman in the knee and another grazed a 35-year-old woman’s buttocks. None hit the suspect, whom police subsequently subdued with a taser.

 

While incidents of police shooting bystanders are uncommon, they shouldn’t surprise New Yorkers (or anyone else) when they happen. Just last year, New York police injured nine onlookers in the course of responding to a murder suspect near the Empire State Building. As police chased the man through rush hour crowds, he fired at the cops; they returned 16 shots, hitting the man 10 times. That actually counted as accurate shooting for the NYPD.

 

According to a 2008 RAND Corporation study evaluating the New York Police Department’s firearm training, between 1998 and 2006, the average hit rate during gunfights was just 18 percent. When suspects did not return fire, police officers hit their targets 30 percent of the time.

 

The data show what any police officer who has ever been involved in a shooting can tell you–firing accurately in a stressful situation is extremely hard...

 

+++

 

You underestimate the effectiveness of an armed citizen

 

https://www.google.com/webhp?h...;q=The+armed+citizen

 

 

 

Last edited by budsfarm
Originally Posted by Stanky:
Originally Posted by Wild_Irish_Prose:
Originally Posted by Stanky:
Originally Posted by Wild_Irish_Prose:

How was the gun in the car if Parker was "in a campus building with a concealed handgun?" How does that work, exactly?

 

This is not supported by the facts. According to a study of 62 mass shootings over 30 years conducted by Mother Jones, “not a single case includes evidence that the killer chose to target a place because it banned guns.” Many of those mass shootings took place in areas were guns where permitted, but not a single one was stopped by armed civilians.

 

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.

_______________________________________________

I might note that Parker sought a classroom to hunker down in after the shooting started, he wasn't in class. He based his decision on not intervening because of the distance and time to get there along with the fear of being collateral damage by those the left allows to be armed.

 

Despite the protestations of gun rights advocates, Umpqua Community College is not actually a "gun-free zone."In 2012, the Oregon State Board of Higher Education unanimously voted to ban guns inside university buildings, but not on campus grounds overall. While UCC is not dictated by the SBHE, its policy on weapons is reportedly comparable.

 

http://mic.com/articles/126203...-stop-mass-shootings

 

The poor folks in class with the killer were in a Gun Free free fire zone.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let's say we arm all teachers (whether they agree to it or not) and, for example, at a high school one day the regular armed teacher is out and there's an unarmed substitute, and that classroom is where a shooting starts that day. By the time the armed teacher next door figures out what's going on, it's too late: people are dead. 

 

I've heard of the straw man ploy, but you're concocting a straw crowd to knock down! The teacher next door might not save everyone, but if he/she/it can reduce casualties, that's a good thing.

 

So..., again, either we arm EVERYONE, EVERYWHERE and at ALL TIMES (and that includes preschoolers and middle schoolers - you know, in case the teacher has to step out to go to the bathroom) in order to prevent ALL SHOOTINGS (from killing more than one or two...or five or ten), or we pass common sense gun legislation.

 

Even the NRA doesn't want everyone armed, just the law abiding Joe average who doesn't hear voices in his or her head.

 

But I do realize nothing's going to happen after this; nothing will change. If prayer worked, it would work (it obviously doesn't because these massacres keep happening); if "good guys with guns stop bad guys with guns" worked, it would work (it obviously doesn't, as the vet points out). So, the right to own guns, no questions asked, is more important than children's lives. I get it. We all get it.

 

Prayer might work if God thought the prayer was worthy and sane. History does show that good guys with guns can defeat bad guys with guns, even if the good guys don't have a uniform.

https://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/armed-citizen.aspx

 

(Incidentally, there were plenty of "good guys with guns" around when your Reagan god got shot. He still got shot, along with several others, including Jim Brady, of course, who went on to become an ardent supporter of gun control.)

I don't genuflect before a Reagan idol as the left before the god of the nanny state, and someone goofed when John Hinckley pushed forward to shoot. Nothing is as perfect as our system to treat the violent mentally ill.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://neatoday.org/2013/01/15...vent-gun-violence-2/

 

NEA Poll: Educators Support Stronger Laws to Prevent Gun Violence

 

Results of a new poll by the National Education Association (NEA) show educators support stronger gun laws to prevent gun violence and keep children safe.

 

The poll of the nation’s teachers, faculty and education support professionals comes one month after the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., that claimed the lives of 20 children and 6 adults, including educators. NEA polled 800 of its members nationwide during the period of January 9-10, 2013.

 

Key Findings:

  • Educators overwhelmingly support stronger laws to prevent gun violence.  Nearly two-thirds (64 percent) of NEA members polled feel gun laws in the U.S. should be made stricter, compared to 7 percent who believe they should be less strict.
  • NEA members polled support background checks and bans on assault weapons and high capacity magazine clips.
    • 90 percent of NEA members favor a proposal to require background checks before people can buy guns at gun shows or from other private sellers, including 85 percent who strongly back this proposal.
    • 76 percent of NEA members support a proposal to ban the sale and possession of military-style semi-automatic assault weapons to everyone except the police and military, including 70 percent who strongly favor this proposal.
    • 69 percent of NEA members back a proposal to ban the sale and possession of high capacity magazine clips, which allow some guns to shoot more than 10 bullets before they need to be reloaded, including 64 percent who strongly support this proposal.
    • America’s educators resoundingly reject the notion of arming school employees.  Only 22 percent of NEA members polled favor a proposal to allow teachers and other school employees to receive firearms training and allow them to carry firearms in schools, while 68 percent oppose this proposal (including 61 percent who strongly oppose it.)

 

Last edited by Wild_Irish_Prose

Posts (many from teachers) about the let's-arm-the-teachers-to-stop-gun-violence solution, taken from the Facebook page "Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America": 

 

I have been trained, handled, and owned guns since I was in preschool (45 years). The last thing I want is guns near the 3-12 year old children I work with (25 years as a school psychologist). I am clear that even with my experience the potential for mistakes is too high, with devastating consequences. At home the guns are under lock and key and separated from ammunition. This protocol would also need to be followed at school, making accessibility during an emergency very difficult to impossible. Armed teachers, no thanks.

 

Arming teachers is not the answer. More guns is not the answer. having armed guards at the entrance to schools is not the answer. Students would know where the teacher keeps the gun he/she brings to school. In the schools I worked in there were up to 28 doors so which door do you arm? Legislators do your job without NRA input.

 

...my five year old does not need to see her teacher carrying a pistol around the room as she walks the kids through their painting assignment or teaches them to spell the word cat. And fast forward to high school. An angry teenaged boy doesn't like what he is hearing from his teacher. We already know their brains aren't fully formed. They don't have impulse control. Now their teacher has a weapon on their person. You think that teen couldn't overpower probably half if not more of his teachers to grab the gun?

 

 

So let me get this straight...teachers are supposed to reach your kids morals, good judgement, discipline, the golden rule AND know how to take on a violent armed intruder by whipping out a gun and shooting the nutball?

 

Guns in the schools is just like guns in the homes. People are more likely to be killed by "friendly fire" or accidents than by an intruder.

 

Having loaded guns in all classrooms would make it easier for a student to get that gun. Does the teacher keep it in the desk, a purse, in a pocket? How silly that students grow up with fear and be told you need to carry a gun to be safe at school!

 

It's truly amazing to me that the answer to gun violence is still "more guns". 

 

 

Last edited by Wild_Irish_Prose

Some presidential candidates and pundits are suggesting armed teachers are the solution to our nation's gun violence crisis. A teacher in Oregon responds:

 

"According to my Emergency Response Guide, if a shooter enters the classroom: 'There is no one procedure that can be recommended in this situation,' the manual informs me with grim honesty, before adding, 'If you must fight, fight to win and survive.'

 

Fight to survive. I am a teacher, with a master’s degree in creative writing, and this is part of my job."

http://www.salon.com/2015/10/0...tm_medium=socialflow

 

An Oregon teacher's letter to lawmakers: We don't need your prayers, we need your courage

 

My son will start kindergarten next year. At 5 years old he and his classmates, in addition to learning reading and math, will be walked through lockdown drills by a teacher who will likely be hiding an immense terror as she has students practice finding a cozy place to hide and times how long they can remain quiet. It will probably seem like a game to him at first, but eventually my son and the rest of America’s schoolchildren who are learning the same lessons will ask why. Why have we allowed our schools to become a place where children must hide, and teachers must fight to survive?

 

What do you recommend I tell him? This week, when I speak to my students about what happened at Umpqua and about our own emergency procedures, what do you advise I say after I explain that the stapler and whiteboard markers — the only classroom supplies I have in my room — are critical to our survival?

 

I could tell them that your thoughts and prayers are with us. I could tell them we have your deepest sympathies. But I am teaching a class on argument, instructing my students on the importance of facts. So instead I will tell them the truth: They have to be prepared to hide out of the line of fire, and I to fight for our survival, because you, our lawmakers, haven’t done your jobs. I will tell them that their rights, my rights, the rights of my 5-year-old, to attend school without fear of facing senseless slaughter by machine-gun fire, are not important to you, that we must be prepared to fight tooth and nail, stapler and whiteboard marker, because you refuse to fight the gun lobby in this country.

 

 

 

Last edited by Wild_Irish_Prose
Originally Posted by Wild_Irish_Prose:
Originally Posted by Stanky:
Originally Posted by Wild_Irish_Prose:
Originally Posted by Stanky:
Originally Posted by Wild_Irish_Prose:

How was the gun in the car if Parker was "in a campus building with a concealed handgun?" How does that work, exactly?

 

This is not supported by the facts. According to a study of 62 mass shootings over 30 years conducted by Mother Jones, “not a single case includes evidence that the killer chose to target a place because it banned guns.” Many of those mass shootings took place in areas were guns where permitted, but not a single one was stopped by armed civilians.

 

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.

_______________________________________________

I might note that Parker sought a classroom to hunker down in after the shooting started, he wasn't in class. He based his decision on not intervening because of the distance and time to get there along with the fear of being collateral damage by those the left allows to be armed.

 

Despite the protestations of gun rights advocates, Umpqua Community College is not actually a "gun-free zone."In 2012, the Oregon State Board of Higher Education unanimously voted to ban guns inside university buildings, but not on campus grounds overall. While UCC is not dictated by the SBHE, its policy on weapons is reportedly comparable.

 

http://mic.com/articles/126203...-stop-mass-shootings

 

The poor folks in class with the killer were in a Gun Free free fire zone.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let's say we arm all teachers (whether they agree to it or not) and, for example, at a high school one day the regular armed teacher is out and there's an unarmed substitute, and that classroom is where a shooting starts that day. By the time the armed teacher next door figures out what's going on, it's too late: people are dead. 

 

I've heard of the straw man ploy, but you're concocting a straw crowd to knock down! The teacher next door might not save everyone, but if he/she/it can reduce casualties, that's a good thing.

 

So..., again, either we arm EVERYONE, EVERYWHERE and at ALL TIMES (and that includes preschoolers and middle schoolers - you know, in case the teacher has to step out to go to the bathroom) in order to prevent ALL SHOOTINGS (from killing more than one or two...or five or ten), or we pass common sense gun legislation.

 

Even the NRA doesn't want everyone armed, just the law abiding Joe average who doesn't hear voices in his or her head.

 

But I do realize nothing's going to happen after this; nothing will change. If prayer worked, it would work (it obviously doesn't because these massacres keep happening); if "good guys with guns stop bad guys with guns" worked, it would work (it obviously doesn't, as the vet points out). So, the right to own guns, no questions asked, is more important than children's lives. I get it. We all get it.

 

Prayer might work if God thought the prayer was worthy and sane. History does show that good guys with guns can defeat bad guys with guns, even if the good guys don't have a uniform.

https://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/armed-citizen.aspx

 

(Incidentally, there were plenty of "good guys with guns" around when your Reagan god got shot. He still got shot, along with several others, including Jim Brady, of course, who went on to become an ardent supporter of gun control.)

I don't genuflect before a Reagan idol as the left before the god of the nanny state, and someone goofed when John Hinckley pushed forward to shoot. Nothing is as perfect as our system to treat the violent mentally ill.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://neatoday.org/2013/01/15...vent-gun-violence-2/

 

NEA Poll: Educators Support Stronger Laws to Prevent Gun Violence

 

Results of a new poll by the National Education Association (NEA) show educators support stronger gun laws to prevent gun violence and keep children safe.

 

The poll of the nation’s teachers, faculty and education support professionals comes one month after the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., that claimed the lives of 20 children and 6 adults, including educators. NEA polled 800 of its members nationwide during the period of January 9-10, 2013.

 

Key Findings:

  • Educators overwhelmingly support stronger laws to prevent gun violence.  Nearly two-thirds (64 percent) of NEA members polled feel gun laws in the U.S. should be made stricter, compared to 7 percent who believe they should be less strict.
  • NEA members polled support background checks and bans on assault weapons and high capacity magazine clips.
    • 90 percent of NEA members favor a proposal to require background checks before people can buy guns at gun shows or from other private sellers, including 85 percent who strongly back this proposal.
    • 76 percent of NEA members support a proposal to ban the sale and possession of military-style semi-automatic assault weapons to everyone except the police and military, including 70 percent who strongly favor this proposal.
    • 69 percent of NEA members back a proposal to ban the sale and possession of high capacity magazine clips, which allow some guns to shoot more than 10 bullets before they need to be reloaded, including 64 percent who strongly support this proposal.
    • America’s educators resoundingly reject the notion of arming school employees.  Only 22 percent of NEA members polled favor a proposal to allow teachers and other school employees to receive firearms training and allow them to carry firearms in schools, while 68 percent oppose this proposal (including 61 percent who strongly oppose it.)

 

________________________________________________________________

And we all should listen to an organization that along with liberal politicians has produced an education system that is the envy of bottom tier third world nations.

 

 

 

http://www.npr.org/sections/th...math-reading-science

Originally Posted by Stanky:
Originally Posted by Wild_Irish_Prose:
Originally Posted by Stanky:
Originally Posted by Wild_Irish_Prose:
Originally Posted by Stanky:
Originally Posted by Wild_Irish_Prose:

How was the gun in the car if Parker was "in a campus building with a concealed handgun?" How does that work, exactly?

 

This is not supported by the facts. According to a study of 62 mass shootings over 30 years conducted by Mother Jones, “not a single case includes evidence that the killer chose to target a place because it banned guns.” Many of those mass shootings took place in areas were guns where permitted, but not a single one was stopped by armed civilians.

 

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.

_______________________________________________

I might note that Parker sought a classroom to hunker down in after the shooting started, he wasn't in class. He based his decision on not intervening because of the distance and time to get there along with the fear of being collateral damage by those the left allows to be armed.

 

Despite the protestations of gun rights advocates, Umpqua Community College is not actually a "gun-free zone."In 2012, the Oregon State Board of Higher Education unanimously voted to ban guns inside university buildings, but not on campus grounds overall. While UCC is not dictated by the SBHE, its policy on weapons is reportedly comparable.

 

http://mic.com/articles/126203...-stop-mass-shootings

 

The poor folks in class with the killer were in a Gun Free free fire zone.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let's say we arm all teachers (whether they agree to it or not) and, for example, at a high school one day the regular armed teacher is out and there's an unarmed substitute, and that classroom is where a shooting starts that day. By the time the armed teacher next door figures out what's going on, it's too late: people are dead. 

 

I've heard of the straw man ploy, but you're concocting a straw crowd to knock down! The teacher next door might not save everyone, but if he/she/it can reduce casualties, that's a good thing.

 

So..., again, either we arm EVERYONE, EVERYWHERE and at ALL TIMES (and that includes preschoolers and middle schoolers - you know, in case the teacher has to step out to go to the bathroom) in order to prevent ALL SHOOTINGS (from killing more than one or two...or five or ten), or we pass common sense gun legislation.

 

Even the NRA doesn't want everyone armed, just the law abiding Joe average who doesn't hear voices in his or her head.

 

But I do realize nothing's going to happen after this; nothing will change. If prayer worked, it would work (it obviously doesn't because these massacres keep happening); if "good guys with guns stop bad guys with guns" worked, it would work (it obviously doesn't, as the vet points out). So, the right to own guns, no questions asked, is more important than children's lives. I get it. We all get it.

 

Prayer might work if God thought the prayer was worthy and sane. History does show that good guys with guns can defeat bad guys with guns, even if the good guys don't have a uniform.

https://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/armed-citizen.aspx

 

(Incidentally, there were plenty of "good guys with guns" around when your Reagan god got shot. He still got shot, along with several others, including Jim Brady, of course, who went on to become an ardent supporter of gun control.)

I don't genuflect before a Reagan idol as the left before the god of the nanny state, and someone goofed when John Hinckley pushed forward to shoot. Nothing is as perfect as our system to treat the violent mentally ill.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://neatoday.org/2013/01/15...vent-gun-violence-2/

 

NEA Poll: Educators Support Stronger Laws to Prevent Gun Violence

 

Results of a new poll by the National Education Association (NEA) show educators support stronger gun laws to prevent gun violence and keep children safe.

 

The poll of the nation’s teachers, faculty and education support professionals comes one month after the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., that claimed the lives of 20 children and 6 adults, including educators. NEA polled 800 of its members nationwide during the period of January 9-10, 2013.

 

Key Findings:

  • Educators overwhelmingly support stronger laws to prevent gun violence.  Nearly two-thirds (64 percent) of NEA members polled feel gun laws in the U.S. should be made stricter, compared to 7 percent who believe they should be less strict.
  • NEA members polled support background checks and bans on assault weapons and high capacity magazine clips.
    • 90 percent of NEA members favor a proposal to require background checks before people can buy guns at gun shows or from other private sellers, including 85 percent who strongly back this proposal.
    • 76 percent of NEA members support a proposal to ban the sale and possession of military-style semi-automatic assault weapons to everyone except the police and military, including 70 percent who strongly favor this proposal.
    • 69 percent of NEA members back a proposal to ban the sale and possession of high capacity magazine clips, which allow some guns to shoot more than 10 bullets before they need to be reloaded, including 64 percent who strongly support this proposal.
    • America’s educators resoundingly reject the notion of arming school employees.  Only 22 percent of NEA members polled favor a proposal to allow teachers and other school employees to receive firearms training and allow them to carry firearms in schools, while 68 percent oppose this proposal (including 61 percent who strongly oppose it.)

 

________________________________________________________________

And we all should listen to an organization that along with liberal politicians has produced an education system that is the envy of bottom tier third world nations.

 

 

 

http://www.npr.org/sections/th...math-reading-science

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, since you have no respect for the teachers and think they have no input in this debate, you think we should force them to arm themselves at school? 

 

Originally Posted by Wild_Irish_Prose:

Posts (many from teachers) about the let's-arm-the-teachers-to-stop-gun-violence solution, taken from the Facebook page "Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America": 

 

I have been trained, handled, and owned guns since I was in preschool (45 years). The last thing I want is guns near the 3-12 year old children I work with (25 years as a school psychologist). I am clear that even with my experience the potential for mistakes is too high, with devastating consequences. At home the guns are under lock and key and separated from ammunition. This protocol would also need to be followed at school, making accessibility during an emergency very difficult to impossible. Armed teachers, no thanks.

 

Arming teachers is not the answer. More guns is not the answer. having armed guards at the entrance to schools is not the answer. Students would know where the teacher keeps the gun he/she brings to school. In the schools I worked in there were up to 28 doors so which door do you arm? Legislators do your job without NRA input.

 

...my five year old does not need to see her teacher carrying a pistol around the room as she walks the kids through their painting assignment or teaches them to spell the word cat. And fast forward to high school. An angry teenaged boy doesn't like what he is hearing from his teacher. We already know their brains aren't fully formed. They don't have impulse control. Now their teacher has a weapon on their person. You think that teen couldn't overpower probably half if not more of his teachers to grab the gun?

 

 

So let me get this straight...teachers are supposed to reach your kids morals, good judgement, discipline, the golden rule AND know how to take on a violent armed intruder by whipping out a gun and shooting the nutball?

 

Guns in the schools is just like guns in the homes. People are more likely to be killed by "friendly fire" or accidents than by an intruder.

 

Having loaded guns in all classrooms would make it easier for a student to get that gun. Does the teacher keep it in the desk, a purse, in a pocket? How silly that students grow up with fear and be told you need to carry a gun to be safe at school!

 

It's truly amazing to me that the answer to gun violence is still "more guns". 

 

 

__________________________________________________

http://granitegrok.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/IsraeliTeacherArmed.jpg

Slung over the back works in Israel.

Originally Posted by Wild_Irish_Prose:

http://www.salon.com/2015/10/0...tm_medium=socialflow

 

An Oregon teacher's letter to lawmakers: We don't need your prayers, we need your courage

 

My son will start kindergarten next year. At 5 years old he and his classmates, in addition to learning reading and math, will be walked through lockdown drills by a teacher who will likely be hiding an immense terror as she has students practice finding a cozy place to hide and times how long they can remain quiet. It will probably seem like a game to him at first, but eventually my son and the rest of America’s schoolchildren who are learning the same lessons will ask why. Why have we allowed our schools to become a place where children must hide, and teachers must fight to survive?

 

What do you recommend I tell him? This week, when I speak to my students about what happened at Umpqua and about our own emergency procedures, what do you advise I say after I explain that the stapler and whiteboard markers — the only classroom supplies I have in my room — are critical to our survival?

 

I could tell them that your thoughts and prayers are with us. I could tell them we have your deepest sympathies. But I am teaching a class on argument, instructing my students on the importance of facts. So instead I will tell them the truth: They have to be prepared to hide out of the line of fire, and I to fight for our survival, because you, our lawmakers, haven’t done your jobs. I will tell them that their rights, my rights, the rights of my 5-year-old, to attend school without fear of facing senseless slaughter by machine-gun fire, are not important to you, that we must be prepared to fight tooth and nail, stapler and whiteboard marker, because you refuse to fight the gun lobby in this country.

 

 

 

__________________________________________________

Oh yes, if we only had the stringent gun laws of Mexico or even Chicago, we wouldn't have the gun violence as we do. Actually if we had the passive population of Europe outside of Muslim slums, we might have lower violence and not just gun violence.

Originally Posted by Wild_Irish_Prose:
Originally Posted by Stanky:
Originally Posted by Wild_Irish_Prose:
Originally Posted by Stanky:
Originally Posted by Wild_Irish_Prose:
Originally Posted by Stanky:
Originally Posted by Wild_Irish_Prose:

How was the gun in the car if Parker was "in a campus building with a concealed handgun?" How does that work, exactly?

 

This is not supported by the facts. According to a study of 62 mass shootings over 30 years conducted by Mother Jones, “not a single case includes evidence that the killer chose to target a place because it banned guns.” Many of those mass shootings took place in areas were guns where permitted, but not a single one was stopped by armed civilians.

 

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.

_______________________________________________

I might note that Parker sought a classroom to hunker down in after the shooting started, he wasn't in class. He based his decision on not intervening because of the distance and time to get there along with the fear of being collateral damage by those the left allows to be armed.

 

Despite the protestations of gun rights advocates, Umpqua Community College is not actually a "gun-free zone."In 2012, the Oregon State Board of Higher Education unanimously voted to ban guns inside university buildings, but not on campus grounds overall. While UCC is not dictated by the SBHE, its policy on weapons is reportedly comparable.

 

http://mic.com/articles/126203...-stop-mass-shootings

 

The poor folks in class with the killer were in a Gun Free free fire zone.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let's say we arm all teachers (whether they agree to it or not) and, for example, at a high school one day the regular armed teacher is out and there's an unarmed substitute, and that classroom is where a shooting starts that day. By the time the armed teacher next door figures out what's going on, it's too late: people are dead. 

 

I've heard of the straw man ploy, but you're concocting a straw crowd to knock down! The teacher next door might not save everyone, but if he/she/it can reduce casualties, that's a good thing.

 

So..., again, either we arm EVERYONE, EVERYWHERE and at ALL TIMES (and that includes preschoolers and middle schoolers - you know, in case the teacher has to step out to go to the bathroom) in order to prevent ALL SHOOTINGS (from killing more than one or two...or five or ten), or we pass common sense gun legislation.

 

Even the NRA doesn't want everyone armed, just the law abiding Joe average who doesn't hear voices in his or her head.

 

But I do realize nothing's going to happen after this; nothing will change. If prayer worked, it would work (it obviously doesn't because these massacres keep happening); if "good guys with guns stop bad guys with guns" worked, it would work (it obviously doesn't, as the vet points out). So, the right to own guns, no questions asked, is more important than children's lives. I get it. We all get it.

 

Prayer might work if God thought the prayer was worthy and sane. History does show that good guys with guns can defeat bad guys with guns, even if the good guys don't have a uniform.

https://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/armed-citizen.aspx

 

(Incidentally, there were plenty of "good guys with guns" around when your Reagan god got shot. He still got shot, along with several others, including Jim Brady, of course, who went on to become an ardent supporter of gun control.)

I don't genuflect before a Reagan idol as the left before the god of the nanny state, and someone goofed when John Hinckley pushed forward to shoot. Nothing is as perfect as our system to treat the violent mentally ill.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://neatoday.org/2013/01/15...vent-gun-violence-2/

 

NEA Poll: Educators Support Stronger Laws to Prevent Gun Violence

 

Results of a new poll by the National Education Association (NEA) show educators support stronger gun laws to prevent gun violence and keep children safe.

 

The poll of the nation’s teachers, faculty and education support professionals comes one month after the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., that claimed the lives of 20 children and 6 adults, including educators. NEA polled 800 of its members nationwide during the period of January 9-10, 2013.

 

Key Findings:

  • Educators overwhelmingly support stronger laws to prevent gun violence.  Nearly two-thirds (64 percent) of NEA members polled feel gun laws in the U.S. should be made stricter, compared to 7 percent who believe they should be less strict.
  • NEA members polled support background checks and bans on assault weapons and high capacity magazine clips.
    • 90 percent of NEA members favor a proposal to require background checks before people can buy guns at gun shows or from other private sellers, including 85 percent who strongly back this proposal.
    • 76 percent of NEA members support a proposal to ban the sale and possession of military-style semi-automatic assault weapons to everyone except the police and military, including 70 percent who strongly favor this proposal.
    • 69 percent of NEA members back a proposal to ban the sale and possession of high capacity magazine clips, which allow some guns to shoot more than 10 bullets before they need to be reloaded, including 64 percent who strongly support this proposal.
    • America’s educators resoundingly reject the notion of arming school employees.  Only 22 percent of NEA members polled favor a proposal to allow teachers and other school employees to receive firearms training and allow them to carry firearms in schools, while 68 percent oppose this proposal (including 61 percent who strongly oppose it.)

 

________________________________________________________________

And we all should listen to an organization that along with liberal politicians has produced an education system that is the envy of bottom tier third world nations.

 

 

 

http://www.npr.org/sections/th...math-reading-science

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, since you have no respect for the teachers and think they have no input in this debate, you think we should force them to arm themselves at school? 

 

______________________________________________

No, I'm not a liberal tyrant; I don't think it's right to force anyone into doing anything that an individual or group finds offensive or violates someones rights. If an individual school system's parents want to advertise that its school kids are clustered together and are easy targets to shoot, firebomb, or are good guinea pigs to test explosive or toxic concoctions from the web, that's fine with me. Likewise if the parents of a school system choose to push for more protection for their children by either an armed guard or trained teacher, that is none of the national governments or your business. Also the armed teacher should be a volunteer, not ordered against her/his/its will and trained after psychological testing. Hell, with all the pedophiles and other teachers with antisocial behaviors in school systems, all teachers might need testing.

Last edited by Stanky

Once more, a main weakness in the verification program, is the failure of states to allow the records of mental patients to be included in the database used by the FBI.  Until, that is done, no more excuses from the Democrats, please.

 

Do not bring up the privacy argument again.  That is just another sorry excuse.  Like other data in the privacy act, for example, that means the data is kept secure and only used for certain mandated uses.  For example, one's social security  number. the social security and medicare agencies must use those to verify benefits.  But, not for other unlawful or unscrupulous purposes.

Originally Posted by Wild_Irish_Prose:
Originally Posted by Stanky:
Originally Posted by Wild_Irish_Prose:
Originally Posted by Stanky:
Originally Posted by Wild_Irish_Prose:

How was the gun in the car if Parker was "in a campus building with a concealed handgun?" How does that work, exactly?

 

This is not supported by the facts. According to a study of 62 mass shootings over 30 years conducted by Mother Jones, “not a single case includes evidence that the killer chose to target a place because it banned guns.” Many of those mass shootings took place in areas were guns where permitted, but not a single one was stopped by armed civilians.

 

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.

_______________________________________________

I might note that Parker sought a classroom to hunker down in after the shooting started, he wasn't in class. He based his decision on not intervening because of the distance and time to get there along with the fear of being collateral damage by those the left allows to be armed.

 

Despite the protestations of gun rights advocates, Umpqua Community College is not actually a "gun-free zone."In 2012, the Oregon State Board of Higher Education unanimously voted to ban guns inside university buildings, but not on campus grounds overall. While UCC is not dictated by the SBHE, its policy on weapons is reportedly comparable.

 

http://mic.com/articles/126203...-stop-mass-shootings

 

The poor folks in class with the killer were in a Gun Free free fire zone.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let's say we arm all teachers (whether they agree to it or not) and, for example, at a high school one day the regular armed teacher is out and there's an unarmed substitute, and that classroom is where a shooting starts that day. By the time the armed teacher next door figures out what's going on, it's too late: people are dead. 

 

I've heard of the straw man ploy, but you're concocting a straw crowd to knock down! The teacher next door might not save everyone, but if he/she/it can reduce casualties, that's a good thing.

 

So..., again, either we arm EVERYONE, EVERYWHERE and at ALL TIMES (and that includes preschoolers and middle schoolers - you know, in case the teacher has to step out to go to the bathroom) in order to prevent ALL SHOOTINGS (from killing more than one or two...or five or ten), or we pass common sense gun legislation.

 

Even the NRA doesn't want everyone armed, just the law abiding Joe average who doesn't hear voices in his or her head.

 

But I do realize nothing's going to happen after this; nothing will change. If prayer worked, it would work (it obviously doesn't because these massacres keep happening); if "good guys with guns stop bad guys with guns" worked, it would work (it obviously doesn't, as the vet points out). So, the right to own guns, no questions asked, is more important than children's lives. I get it. We all get it.

 

Prayer might work if God thought the prayer was worthy and sane. History does show that good guys with guns can defeat bad guys with guns, even if the good guys don't have a uniform.

https://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/armed-citizen.aspx

 

(Incidentally, there were plenty of "good guys with guns" around when your Reagan god got shot. He still got shot, along with several others, including Jim Brady, of course, who went on to become an ardent supporter of gun control.)

I don't genuflect before a Reagan idol as the left before the god of the nanny state, and someone goofed when John Hinckley pushed forward to shoot. Nothing is as perfect as our system to treat the violent mentally ill.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://neatoday.org/2013/01/15...vent-gun-violence-2/

 

NEA Poll: Educators Support Stronger Laws to Prevent Gun Violence

 

Results of a new poll by the National Education Association (NEA) show educators support stronger gun laws to prevent gun violence and keep children safe.

 

The poll of the nation’s teachers, faculty and education support professionals comes one month after the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., that claimed the lives of 20 children and 6 adults, including educators. NEA polled 800 of its members nationwide during the period of January 9-10, 2013.

 

Key Findings:

  • Educators overwhelmingly support stronger laws to prevent gun violence.  Nearly two-thirds (64 percent) of NEA members polled feel gun laws in the U.S. should be made stricter, compared to 7 percent who believe they should be less strict.
  • I could not care less for the opinions of the NEA  The NEA has espoused and practiced education programs which resulted in the decline of students learning for decades.  SAT scores have declined for years, even after SAT scores were dumbed down.  The place of USA students globally had declined for decades. If a profession can't get their main purpose right, how can their opinions be trust on anything.
  • NEA members polled support background checks and bans on assault weapons and high capacity magazine clips.
  • Idiots don't know the difference between a clip and a magazine. Its not that hard to change magazines to keep up a high rate of fire.  Simply taping three together in an alternating pattern, for example, is another method.
    • 90 percent of NEA members favor a proposal to require background checks before people can buy guns at gun shows or from other private sellers, including 85 percent who strongly back this proposal.
    • Just another weak suggestion by those ignorant of what they speak. About 90 percent, at least, of all sales at gun shows require a back ground check. Only a few sales outside the venue by private owners go unchecked.
    • 76 percent of NEA members support a proposal to ban the sale and possession of military-style semi-automatic assault weapons to everyone except the police and military, including 70 percent who strongly favor this proposal.
    • That's 76 percent of the NEA that should be removed from their positions. Perhaps,  they should have any possessions seized bought with their salaries.   They have no respect for personal freedom or private property, so why protect theirs.
    • 69 percent of NEA members back a proposal to ban the sale and possession of high capacity magazine clips, which allow some guns to shoot more than 10 bullets before they need to be reloaded, including 64 percent who strongly support this proposal.
    • This is a repeat of another point made above. Get original arguments, please.
    • America’s educators resoundingly reject the notion of arming school employees.  Only 22 percent of NEA members polled favor a proposal to allow teachers and other school employees to receive firearms training and allow them to carry firearms in schools, while 68 percent oppose this proposal (including 61 percent who strongly oppose it.)
    • Good, there are 22 percent of teachers under the NEA who may have enough commonsense to allow them to continue teaching.

 

 

A friend of mine put this on facebook and said feel free to use it so here it is in all it's truth.

When I was in high school we had gun racks in trucks, and they had guns in them, and they were loaded. We even had fist fights! But never once did someone get ****ed and go get a gun to shoot someone. We don't have a gun problem people, we have a people problem, a sin problem, a lack of heart and soul problem, a lack of respect for human life problem, or even a mental health problem....but we DO NOT have a gun problem! I think its easier for some people to blame an inanimate object instead of taking responsibility.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×