Today I Am A Greater Threat To The Well Being Of All Americans

[Citizen.Seven]

Is this line of rhetoric really worth pursuing?

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



It is time to stop being so partisan about this and be REALISTIC. More guns and less guns are not the solution because it is not a GUN PROBLEM! It is a killing problem.

Interesting. According to this video, from his own mouth, he was stopped from intervening by school officials: https://youtu.be/b2I93N6H_eM. He was also 200 yards away, in a completely different building so, yeah, intervening would probably be questionable. Is there video on MSNBC of him saying something different?

 

[CriticalThought]

Interesting. According to this video, from his own mouth, he was stopped from intervening by school officials: https://youtu.be/b2I93N6H_eM. He was also 200 yards away, in a completely different building so, yeah, intervening would probably be questionable. Is there video on MSNBC of him saying something different?

You can pursue that line of rhetoric if you wish. It is unproductive. As stated in the article and as known by common sense, you can't expect every man, woman, and child in the country to be armed at all times and in all locations nor is it advisable given the panic that would ensue in a firefight and subsequent police response. Honestly, if you cannot see how equitably absurd it is to argue that more guns is a solution to these incidents as it is to argue that less guns is, then there is no reasonable discussion to be had.

 

[VanceMack]

You can pursue that line of rhetoric if you wish. It is unproductive. As stated in the article and as known by common sense, you can't expect every man, woman, and child in the country to be armed at all times and in all locations nor is it advisable given the panic that would ensue in a firefight and subsequent police response. Honestly, if you cannot see how equitably absurd it is to argue that more guns is a solution to these incidents as it is to argue that less guns is, then there is no reasonable discussion to be had.

Ummm...can you tell me how the shooter at this community college was stopped?

 

[CriticalThought]

Ummm...can you tell me how the shooter at this community college was stopped?

He shot himself.

 

[VanceMack]

He shot himself.

Wait...he just...stopped and shot himself? Did he have a sudden attack of conscience? Or were there other people involved?

 

[CriticalThought]

Wait...he just...stopped and shot himself? Did he have a sudden attack of conscience? Or were there other people involved?

He apparently was satisfied killing people so he handed over a box full of writings in which he allegedly identified with killers from other mass shootings and then he turned his weapon on himself. That degree of premeditated action seems to suggest that he went into this situation with every intention of dying and that he was ideologically driven.

 

[Citizen.Seven]

You can pursue that line of rhetoric if you wish. It is unproductive. As stated in the article and as known by common sense, you can't expect every man, woman, and child in the country to be armed at all times and in all locations nor is it advisable given the panic that would ensue in a firefight and subsequent police response. Honestly, if you cannot see how equitably absurd it is to argue that more guns is a solution to these incidents as it is to argue that less guns is, then there is no reasonable discussion to be had.

I'm not sure if this is what raw story was referencing, but if so, they grossly mischaracterized his words:

Umpqua student talks about what he witnessed | MSNBC

This confirms that he did want to intervene, despite the distance, but was stopped by school officials. He admitted in retrospect that it may have been for the best due to SWAT possibly mistaking him and others for an active shooter, but that was not the reason he didn't intervene.

Note also that he is able to quote exact laws that allowed him to cc despite the proclamation of the president of Umpqua and the policy in the student handbook. This tells me he is a gun rights advocate, and not just a person who happens to have a CCW license. So, legally and technically not a GFZ, but the administration did their best to portray it as one, and only people like Parker knew it was nonsense and was willing to risk getting hassled or worse in exerting their rights.


I have to wonder if any of the victims had a CCW license but thought they weren't allowed to carry. I don't know, but it's an interesting question.

 

[VanceMack]

He apparently was satisfied killing people so he handed over a box full of writings in which he allegedly identified with killers from other mass shootings and then he turned his weapon on himself. That degree of premeditated action seems to suggest that he went into this situation with every intention of dying and that he was ideologically driven.

:lamo You are going a long way to avoid admitting he was stopped by armed response and then decided to take his own life.

 

[zip]

Well yea. All of these people calling for a reasonable response to gun possession, in an effort to curb violence, are actually saying we need to shake down every person in America, on a daily basis. A huge national police force, with one objective, daily home searches, etc. Sure, I can see how that might work.

Telepathy must be a wonderful gift.

 

[Citizen.Seven]

He apparently was satisfied killing people so he handed over a box full of writings in which he allegedly identified with killers from other mass shootings and then he turned his weapon on himself. That degree of premeditated action seems to suggest that he went into this situation with every intention of dying and that he was ideologically driven.

There was also the matter of an armed response. I suspect that affected his timing.

 

[Citizen.Seven]

More twists and turns: The Complications of Oregon's Guns-On-Campus Laws. So, if this analysis is correct, it wasn't illegal to CC at Umpqua, but you could get kicked out for it. Since the whole point of going to school is to actually go to school, not many would risk it. That is a very hostile environment for gun rights, and it may possibly have exacerbated the recent tragedy.

 

[VanceMack]

There was also the matter of an armed response. I suspect that affected his timing.

Yeah. That's an 'inconvenient truth' for a liberal gun owner.

Interesting too that he 'shot himself' and wasnt killed by the gun.

 

[betuadollar]

Telepathy must be a wonderful gift.

Well you can't rein in behavior as our crime statistics readily show; how else would you control guns without total confiscation and daily home inspections?

 

[CriticalThought]

I'm not sure if this is what raw story was referencing, but if so, they grossly mischaracterized his words:

Umpqua student talks about what he witnessed | MSNBC

This confirms that he did want to intervene, despite the distance, but was stopped by school officials. He admitted in retrospect that it may have been for the best due to SWAT possibly mistaking him and others for an active shooter, but that was not the reason he didn't intervene.

Note also that he is able to quote exact laws that allowed him to cc despite the proclamation of the president of Umpqua and the policy in the student handbook. This tells me he is a gun rights advocate, and not just a person who happens to have a CCW license. So, legally and technically not a GFZ, but the administration did their best to portray it as one, and only people like Parker knew it was nonsense and was willing to risk getting hassled or worse in exerting their rights.


I have to wonder if any of the victims had a CCW license but thought they weren't allowed to carry. I don't know, but it's an interesting question.

And what if they had? What if people were caught in the crossfire and more died as a result? What if the police mistook someone else for the shooter? What if the shooter had used improvised explosives instead of guns? What if he had fashioned a simple biological weapon through the ventilation system? A lot of "what ifs" but it does not change a simple reality. You can't keep people from killing just by adding or taking away guns. Your fixation on the policy and that line of rhetoric cannot change that fact.

 

[CriticalThought]

:lamo You are going a long way to avoid admitting he was stopped by armed response and then decided to take his own life.

He prepared writings ahead of time. I think you are going a long way to deny he had every intention of dying, whether by his own hand or someone else.

I have no horse in this race. I am against gun control. But I am also not so deluded and brain washed as to pretend that more guns would have done a damn thing in this situation. I consider you as bad as the liberals.

 

[VanceMack]

He prepared writings ahead of time. I think you are going a long way to deny he had every intention of dying, whether by his own hand or someone else.

I have no horse in this race. I am against gun control. But I am also not so deluded and brain washed as to pretend that more guns would have done a damn thing in this situation. I consider you as bad as the liberals.

He would still be shooting at this moment had he not encountered armed response. Sure...I get it. He was going to kill himself. Eventually. He did...because he faced armed resistance. Its no different from Adam Lanza. He walked around that school unchecked for 10 solid minutes. He killed himself when armed response arrived.

No...we dont have to arm every man, woman, and child. But even YOU would admit that it is a blessing to have armed response take on active shooters.

 

[CriticalThought]

More twists and turns: The Complications of Oregon's Guns-On-Campus Laws. So, if this analysis is correct, it wasn't illegal to CC at Umpqua, but you could get kicked out for it. Since the whole point of going to school is to actually go to school, not many would risk it. That is a very hostile environment for gun rights, and it may possibly have exacerbated the recent tragedy.

You give more people guns, the killers will simply use other weapons. Why is your answer to this to turn the US into the Middle East? It is just a probable that there was less death because of the gun policy. Nobody knows. Gun fights are confusing as hell. This isn't the movies. Play a friendly game of paintball amoung strangers and see how quickly things can go to hell when a bunch of armed people get engaged in a shootout and it becomes unclear who is on what side. I have seen some remarkable friendly fire in those situations.

 

[Citizen.Seven]

Yeah. That's an 'inconvenient truth' for a liberal gun owner.

Interesting too that he 'shot himself' and wasnt killed by the gun.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/03/us/oregon-shooting-umpqua-chris-harper-mercer.html

When the police reached Mr. Harper-Mercer, they shot and wounded him, a law enforcement official said. He was able to run away and then shot himself. He died in an ambulance en route to the hospital; the official said it was unclear whether the self-inflicted wound was the fatal one.

I suppose this didn't affect his "deciding to stop". I can't blame the recalcitrance to admit that the solution to a bad guy with a gun is, usually, a good guy with a gun. It's too bad nobody in his class was carrying.

 

[VanceMack]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/03/us/oregon-shooting-umpqua-chris-harper-mercer.html



I suppose this didn't affect his "deciding to stop". I can't blame the recalcitrance to admit that the solution to a bad guy with a gun is, usually, a good guy with a gun. It's too bad nobody in his class was carrying.

I think its a greater shame that 30 adults in a college class didnt rush the little ****er and kick his ass, guns or no guns. We MUST change our mindset.

 

[CriticalThought]

He would still be shooting at this moment had he not encountered armed response. Sure...I get it. He was going to kill himself. Eventually. He did...because he faced armed resistance. Its no different from Adam Lanza. He walked around that school unchecked for 10 solid minutes. He killed himself when armed response arrived.

No...we dont have to arm every man, woman, and child. But even YOU would admit that it is a blessing to have armed response take on active shooters.

Absolutely. Trained and preferably uniformed responders with backup. Not a classroom full of people who have no clue how to respond in that situation and who may end up firing on one another rather than on the killer.

 

[CriticalThought]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/03/us/oregon-shooting-umpqua-chris-harper-mercer.html



I suppose this didn't affect his "deciding to stop". I can't blame the recalcitrance to admit that the solution to a bad guy with a gun is, usually, a good guy with a gun. It's too bad nobody in his class was carrying.

Or maybe it is a Godsend that nobody in the class was carrying. A trained person with a gun responded, not some college kid with a gun. Why do you want to pretend it is all equal?

Where does your "logic" end? Is a good guy with an explosive the answer to bad guys with explosives? Is a good guy with biological weapons your answer to bad guys with biological weapons?

 

[CriticalThought]

I think its a greater shame that 30 adults in a college class didnt rush the little ****er and kick his ass, guns or no guns. We MUST change our mindset.

Tough to say. How fast could he discharge his weapon into a crowd? What are the odds that fewer would have died?

 

[VanceMack]

Absolutely. Trained and preferably uniformed responders with backup. Not a classroom full of people who have no clue how to respond in that situation and who may end up firing on one another rather than on the killer.

Sandy Hook elementary school waited 10 minutes for that response you are looking for. That's just sadistic.

 

[CriticalThought]

Sandy Hook elementary school waited 10 minutes for that response you are looking for. That's just sadistic.

And they probably needed an armed resource officer. You are debating a strawman and I am sorry I am not the liberal you want to debate. I am against gun control. I am just not deluded enough to play into this "ANY good guy with a gun is a good response to a bad guy with a gun" nonsense. We need to address the problem, not GUNS!

 

[Citizen.Seven]

And what if they had? What if people were caught in the crossfire and more died as a result? What if the police mistook someone else for the shooter? What if the shooter had used improvised explosives instead of guns? What if he had fashioned a simple biological weapon through the ventilation system? A lot of "what ifs" but it does not change a simple reality. You can't keep people from killing just by adding or taking away guns. Your fixation on the policy and that line of rhetoric cannot change that fact.

They mischaracterized his reason for not intervening: he was told to stay put by school officials, not that he decided to because of the reasons he gave in retrospect. As a CCW, he was under no obligation, none whatsoever, to traverse 200 yards across an open field into (through? didn't know at the time) a fire zone and confront an active shooter. That was his first reaction, though. He was told not to by school officials.

Now, if he had been enrolled in that clasd, very probably a different outcome. Or if someone in that class had a CCW and understood that it wasn't illegal to carry on campus and were willing to risk being expelled for it, also probably a different outcome.

More guns were the answer, as evidence by the police eventually wounding him and causing him to flee. It's a shame they couldn't be brought to bear earlier.