Oregon School Shooting

FlaviusAetius said:

I'm glad to know measures are in place to keep tabs on the Clergy. Even though the population of sexual abusers is low, one is too many.

Again though, why not discuss the gun topic with a level head? I guarantee you won't convince any gun owners by telling them their culture is what creates mass murderers. Like it's been said a vast majority of legal owners likely follow proper gun safety and teach it too their children. When you paint them all as irresponsible then why should they listen to you?

Click to expand...

We're not just keeping tabs on the clergy, we're keeping tabs on everybody, even me. Even though it's a pain, and a little bit humiliating each time three years roll around, I willfully submit to it, because I love the Church the Church thinks it's important to provide a safe environment for our children and vulnerable adults.

What have the gun lovers done? IIRC the last suggestion was that we should rush the shooter. "Hey kids, he can't shoot all of us!"

If gun loving extremist are going to continue flaunting their weapons, creating wildcat shooting sights next to Federal highways, trash our forests with their debris, make unseemly displays of arms in restaurants, then guess what? I'm taking the opposite extreme position.

If the piles of bodies of dead children won't convince them, there's little I can do to convince them as well.

tadoflamb said:

We're not just keeping tabs on the clergy, we're keeping tabs on everybody, even me. Even though it's a pain, and a little bit humiliating each time three years roll around, I willfully submit to it, because I love the Church the Church thinks it's important to provide a safe environment for our children and vulnerable adults.

What have the gun lovers done? IIRC the last suggestion was that we should rush the shooter. "Hey kids, he can't shoot all of us!"

If gun loving extremist are going to continue flaunting their weapons, creating wildcat shooting sights next to Federal highways, trash our forests with their debris, make unseemly displays of arms in restaurants, then guess what? I'm taking the opposite extreme position.

If the piles of bodies of dead children won't convince them, there's little I can do to convince them as well.

Click to expand...

As a gun owner, I would welcome legislation requiring me to submit to a background check (regardless where I purchase my guns) and register my guns. I aknowledge that guns and gun owners have caused much death and destruction and although I did not cause those deaths, I want to prevent them in the future to the extent possible.

brewmama said:

What is the American gun culture? Considering that Americans have ALWAYS had guns, that everyone I knew growing up had guns, including us and my grandmother, and this kind of thing did not happen.That would point to it being something other than guns.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I grew up with and owned guns as well. We all did. But back in the 70's in Montana the gun culture wasn't as sick as it is today.

Here's a little symptom of that sickness from the front page of the paper today:

National Forest officials closed the sites, between mile markers 5 and 7 on the Redington Road, in January 2013 because shooters had trashed the area with shooting debris and bullet-riddled targets. A risk assessment found that lead concentrations in the soil posed an unacceptable risk, and workers began removing contaminated soil after a first closure extension went into effect in the fall of 2013. A second yearlong extension went into effect in the fall of 2014.

Click to expand...

http://tucson.com/news/local/closur...cle_86c6c016-7bdb-5be6-bec0-7d479ca063f0.html

I don't think it makes any sense why liberals want to include suicide in the gun statistics while, at the same time, they are for legalizing so-called doctor-assisted suicide unless the reason is that including suicide in the gun-related death statistics is simply convenient for their aim at eventually banning civilian gun ownership in the US the way other countries have done. And it makes no sense the way they are for euthanasia but against the death penalty when the method and result is the same.

LivingWordUnity said:

I don't think it makes any sense why liberals want to include suicide in the gun statistics while, at the same time, they are for legalizing so-called doctor-assisted suicide unless the reason is that including suicide in the gun-related death statistics is simply convenient for their aim at eventually banning civilian gun ownership in the US the way other countries have done. And it makes no sense the way they are for euthanasia but against the death penalty when they are the same thing.

Click to expand...

As with all conspiracy theories, there are those who are true believers. You can continue to repeat your fear that all civilian guns will be banned in the US. With our current form of government that will not happen. But of course you are entitled to believe what you will. Scaring people with unreasonable fears has been a tactic that is thousands of years old.

mark46 said:

As with all conspiracy theories, there are those who are true believers. You can continue to repeat your fear that all civilian guns will be banned in the US. With our current form of government that will not happen. But of course you are entitled to believe what you will. Scaring people with unreasonable fears has been a tactic that is thousands of years old.

Click to expand...

Kudos to you for doing anything beyond eyerolling. I'm at my limit for looped talking point drivel.

SolomonVII said:

Any number of regulations and controls will not do a thing to stop random acts of violence, which by their very nature are unpredicatable.

Click to expand...

Ok....

Any number of different regulations and controls may well have merit for any number of reasons, as long as it is well enough understood that liability insurance will not stop these mass murder binges.

Click to expand...

I never said it would stop it, what I did say was liability insurance would at least insure that Victims and their families would be compensated for their loss.

I'm still waiting to hear from anyone here with a sober, reasoned objection to that.

I never objected to it. I just made sure to qualify it, given that the context of this thread is the Oregon school shooting.

I live in Oregon so the context is not lost on me... and I know no victim of this shooting or their families is going to be compensated by the shooter, his family, the gun manufacturer, or the gun dealer for their loss.

However if the Guy decided to drive his car through the building and run over everyone, they would be.

parousia70 said:

I live in Oregon so the context is not lost on me... and I know no victim of this shooting or their families is going to be compensated by the shooter, his family, the gun manufacturer, or the gun dealer for their loss.

However if the Guy decided to drive his car through the building and run over everyone, they would be.

Click to expand...

It seems wrong to make car dealers or manufacturers pay for whatever crazed drivers do.

brewmama said:

It seems wrong to make car dealers or manufacturers pay for whatever crazed drivers do.

Click to expand...

That's why we require the Owner of the car to carry insurance.

Also Keep in mind, a car's primary function is not to Kill. A gun's primary function is.

parousia70 said:

That's why we require the Owner of the car to carry insurance.

Also Keep in mind, a car's primary function is not to Kill. A gun's primary function is.

Click to expand...

But if the insurance covers it, why are the dealers and manufacturers responsible? Or did I misunderstand your post?

I think you misunderstood.
My point is I believe Gun ownership/usage should come with the same liability insurance requirements Car ownership/usage does.

Liability insurance doesn't prevent tragedy at the hands of drivers, either by accident or malice, but it affords the victims compensation they would NOT get otherwise.

Now, while I do not believe Car Manufacturers should be held liable for the actions of car owners, I'm not sure that part of the analogy transfers to gun manufacturers, since the PRIMARY function of a Gun, when used as directed, for the purpose it was manufactured, is to Kill.

This is not true of cars.

parousia70 said:

That's why we require the Owner of the car to carry insurance.

Also Keep in mind, a car's primary function is not to Kill. A gun's primary function is.

Click to expand...

This seems straightforward.

mark46 said:

This seems straightforward.

Click to expand...

I think so, and I think it is a perfect point all sides of the debate can come together and agree on.

We can argue till the cows come home on whether more guns make is safer or less guns make us safer, but it does nothing to figure out what to do about helping the victims. I think we can all agree that Victims of the tragedy of Gun Violence deserve to be compensated for their Pain/Suffering and Loss the same way we already all agree that victims of tragedy caused by automobile usage, either by accident or malice, are.

At least I haven't yet heard a cogent argument against it.
Really the only argument against it I can see is that covering your Gun with insurance requires you to register THAT gun in some sort of database, and that sends the "But then the govt will know how many guns I have" folks into a tizzy.


Of course nobody is screaming "Obama is coming for my CAR"....

FYI the Govt doesn't care how many guns you have. Doesn't matter to them (or should I say US) how large your basement arsenal is.
Your arsenal poses ZERO threat or deterrent against one well placed Drone Strike in the dead of night.

The "I need 1000 guns to protect against Govt Tyranny" ship has long since sailed.

[QUOTE="parousia70, post: 68705518, member: 1081"

Of course nobody is screaming "Obama is coming for my CAR"....[/QUOTE]

AAA isn't as strong as the NRA. Also, I suspect no one has thought to do so.

If there is a wide scale tyranny of a government Police state, they'd still need troops on the ground to enforce their will. Of course that'll mean Americans killing Americans but such is insurrection.

Plus is it good to have a such a defeatist attitude? That the federal government has enough military might to negate the 2nd amendment purpose? Doesn't seem worth it just dissuade gun owners.

Not defeatist, realist. If my friend said he was planning on smoking Tootsie Rolls to cure his cancer, my reaction would be the same.

FlaviusAetius said:

If there is a wide scale tyranny of a government Police state, they'd still need troops on the ground to enforce their will. Of course that'll mean Americans killing Americans but such is insurrection.

Plus is it good to have a such a defeatist attitude? That the federal government has enough military might to negate the 2nd amendment purpose? Doesn't seem worth it just dissuade gun owners.

Click to expand...

Not defeatist. Just a basic understanding of modern military science. Disjointed, untrained light infantry irregulars with no log chain or C3 fare badly against armoured units and attack aircraft.