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

[ttwtt78640]

Tell ya what...reasonable compromise. Allow people to carry in schools provided they aquire training for a shooting situation. You want more armed citizens in a position to make a difference and I want to avoid an idiot killing me because they want to be a hero. Win win.

We already have those, often referred to as mass shooters, what stops them is armed resistance. They tend to fear being wounded and/or captured more than they fear death itself and thus often take their own lives once they face any armed resistance.

 

[MickeyW]

It's not rhetoric, it's facts right from the student handbook and from the Umpqua President's mouth. And yes, that is a solution, just like having a spare tire in the trunk: the vast majority of times its just taking up space, but under certain circumstances, it can save a great deal of grief.

Pure logic! :applaud

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?

He was also requested by his instructor to stay in the classroom, since they were on lockdown. He complied. I talked with him a few weeks ago and he thought that maybe he'd be better off staying put and helping to protect those in his class..

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.

More guns in the right hands...is most definitely the solution! 30 some people in that classroom and no one had a gun or even bummed rushed the shooter.
He was an easy target as he engaged each person, exposing a blindside at each encounter.
The people were trapped in the room, so how is it more morally correct to wait to be murdered, than to fight?
I submit that your thought is critical, in the wrong direction.

 

[MickeyW]

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.

I teach it in all my classes. If you have a concealed handgun license for the State of Oregon, you are allowed by law, to carry a concealed weapon on any school campus.
The school may have a policy against students or teachers carrying, but it is not illegal. As of today, a large number of teachers and students carry at UCC. The GFZ is a "feel good policy" .....nothing more...there is NO sign posted on the campus saying it is a Gun Free Zone.

 

[MickeyW]

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

Yep...one shot to his torso by a Roseburg Detective, out of a total of 3 shots fired. And it took them a few minutes to find the right building and set up for any offense.
btw...SWAT was several minutes away and the incident was over long before they got there.
The fact that those officers arrived so quickly was a total fluke.

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

Damn straight. Every time there is an armed response, it throws the perp(s) off script!

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

Interesting too that he 'shot himself' and wasn't killed by the gun.

Well he was...his own gun.

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.

A lot of what if's for sure. One thing I know, if one or more of my students, that I trained with handguns, was in that room, the situation would have been resolved in short order.

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.

You have no idea what his end desire was!
More guns....crap even one gun .....could have made all the difference. It is NOT more morally correct to be a victim!!!!

 

[MickeyW]

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.

Except.........................this was in one classroom...confined to that room and one or two armed students could have made all the difference. He shot the professor in the face right off the bat. Seeing that would be plenty of cause for me to draw my weapon and take the son of a bitch out forthwith! The End!

This was not a bunch of wannabes with paintballs. This was one attacker and one or two good guys would have done the job.

But, just like in the church in SC, they just sat and watched their friends one killed and waited to be victims themselves.
What we need is active and total response to an attacker by the entire class!
Springfieled, Or. High School practices those drills often!

 

[MickeyW]

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.

Absolutely! Well stated and logical as it gets!!! :thumbs::thumbs:

 

[MickeyW]

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.

Ohhh........BS!!

The guy was in front of the class......you take your gun out and shoot the ****er! End of Story! Are you that naive?

 

[MickeyW]

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?

Now you are talking smack! Let's stay real...shall we.
btw, these weren't all kids, there are many young, middle aged and older adults in these classes. The oldest victim killed was 59.

The armed guy in the other class was 30 something.
You really do not know what you are talking about.

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

Huge!

 

[MickeyW]

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

And had it been 8 months prior, those cops would have arrived in about 12-15 minutes, instead of 4 min. And even then... the shooting went on for about 20 minutes.

 

[MickeyW]

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!

I agree with this part.

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 class, 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.

Exactly correct. Except that he was shot in the doorway to the classroom and ducked back inside, shooting himself in front of the students who were still able to witness the events. He didn't flee because he was seriously wounded by the "one" .40 cal round that hit him.

 

[MickeyW]

A school resource officer would likely have been as useful as 'a' security guard responsible for a college campus.

And it's a big campus and one guy could have a long way to run....and most of those guys are old....and can't run anyway. The last armed guard at UCC was in 1982.

 

[MickeyW]

Nonsense. A TRAINED and UNIFORMED officer with EXPERIENCE who has BACKUP and is coordinated in their response is not the same as random college kids with guns who might draw and fire on anyone they see drawing and firing. You could have easily had two armed kids in that class both draw and kill the shooter then turn and shoot at each other and wreak more havoc than the killer had through their crossfire and panic. Even if it were just one armed college kid they could easily be mistaken for the killer and end up being fired on by police and possibly even returning fire out of panic. This tendency to treat the actual police response as evidence of how an armed student would react is just ridiculous.

Wow! You had to reach way down into your bag of bull**** for that one!!!

You may be pro gun, but you don't know **** about tactics.

Once again.....there are many, many adults of all ages in these classes!!!

 

[MickeyW]

I guess we should have given all the 7 year olds a gun to carry since arming anyone is a good solution to bad guys with guns.

I trained my 5 kids to shoot at 6 years old. By 7, they could have taken this guy out in a heartbeat!

You really don't know jack!

 

[MickeyW]

There certainly is a higher probability that there were 9 more deaths because of the campus policy, and there's no basis or proof of any kind that it ever saved a single life.

You're in a class. Someone with a gun starts lining people against the wall and starts shooting them. Would you rather be armed or unarmed at that point? And, if you'd rather be armed at that moment, it means you'd have to be carrying prior to the start of the incident. Which means that you are willing to risk expulsion to exert your rights, to protect in case of an admittedly low probabilty event. Most people, even with a CCW, reasonable knowledge of the laws, and a firm supporter of the 2A would do the math and leave the gun in their car or at home.

And those who were armed on campus......suffered no penalty whatsoever!

 

[MickeyW]

Sheez give it a rest. STRAWMAN argument and really stupid at that. Fact is gun control advocates and supporters enabled safe shooting galleries to be created for nuts and criminals with live targets, our children. Like it or not that is what they voted for and supported. Check with them if they are concerned with the blood on their hands.

I've been to every college campus in western Oregon, to offer my expertise in staying safe. When I went to UCC back around 1990, they told me... and I quote: "Nothing every happens here in Douglas Country and we don't need to have this conversation."

I just shook my head and walked out.

 

[MickeyW]

One person with a gun could have stopped him before he killed anyone, or certainly fewer. Even in your FUBAR scenario of citizen response, it's highly unlikely there would have been as much carnage as he propagated. In other words, even a mediocre plan now, at the start of the incident, is better than the perfect plan 4 minutes later.

That's exactly what I teach on a regular basis and have been saying for over 30 years.

At least one person had a gun, and didn't stop him.

Who was that, the armed student or the cop that shot him?
Do you have a problem with reading comprehension?

 

[MickeyW]

Tell ya what...reasonable compromise. Allow people to carry in schools provided they aquire training for a shooting situation. You want more armed citizens in a position to make a difference and I want to avoid an idiot killing me because they want to be a hero. Win win.

Every person, who graduates my course, has been trained in a number of shooting situations. I teach them much of the same things that I taught police officers. It's not just about marksmanship and safe gun handling...it also includes situational awareness, varying distances, types of gun and ammo for the job, and move and shoot.

 

[MickeyW]

I have several years of martial arts training. I think I have a better shot dealing with it myself than getting caught up in friendly fire.

Then you well know that getting control of the bad guy's weapon, is paramount! If you or someone else is armed, you just shoot the ****er!

I have trained with a number of martial arts folks over the years and everyone of them carries a gun in their bag..........don't you?

 

[MickeyW]

Several buildings away ... not even applicable. Bogus red herring.

Yes it is! But, no surprise here!

 

[MickeyW]

A double negative, so a palpable hit.

Actually, just malarky from you is all.

 

[MickeyW]

We already have those, often referred to as mass shooters, what stops them is armed resistance. They tend to fear being wounded and/or captured more than they fear death itself and thus often take their own lives once they face any armed resistance.

Most of them are cowards.