Mr. President, you brought it up.

[OldWiseGuy]

Obama said, "There is a gun for every man, woman, and child in America."

Really. Then why weren't they allowed to carry those guns onto the Oregon campus and defend themselves?

Mercer owned 16 guns. That means that by your reckoning he had the guns that 15 others should have had.

(This is me being sarcastic, not to be taken seriously.)

 

[tulc]

What he actually said was:

Somehow this has become routine. The reporting is routine. My response here at this podium ends up being routine. The conversation in the aftermath of it. We’ve become numb to this. We talked about this after Columbine, and Blacksburg, after Tuscon, after Newtown, after Charleston. It can not be this easy for somebody who wants to inflict harm on other people to get his or her hands on a gun.


And what’s become routine, of course, is the response of those who oppose any kind of common sense gun legislation. Right now, I can imagine the press releases being cranked out. We need more guns; they’ll argue. Fewer gun safety laws.

Does anybody really believe that?

There are scores of responsible gun owners in this country. They know that’s not true. We know because of the polling that says the majority of Americans say we should be changing these laws, including the majority of responsible gun owners. There is a gun for every man, woman, and child in America. So how can you with a straight face make the argument that more guns will make us safer?

tulc(is trying to be accurate and not even sort of sarcastic)

 

[HannahT]

I would love to ask Obama what guns laws are going help those people in Chicago that get shot all the time, and outnumbered the victims we grieve for today in this school shooting during the same time period?

If we can't find a way of dealing with the HIPPA law in a responsible way to include many dangerously mentally ill people that haven't landed in a hospital - or been labeled by a judge (which are the two segments that can be refused now)? I'm not sure what he has in mind.

If we can't find a way of addressing poverty and hopelessness in gang infested neighborhoods like Chicago all over this country above and beyond just throwing money at them? I'm not so sure what he has in mind.

Of course responsible gun owners aren't going to mind changing the laws if they can come up with something that has meat on it. Sadly, the politicians won't. They will throw emotions at it - pass some do nothing nonsense deal, and if they bother to get it passed? Our gun violence will continue, and the blame game will continue.

I remember in past, "OH this Gun looks 'military' like so we need to ban it!" So the same gun without the extra styling is still present - it just doesn't look 'military' and its okay? lol that's going to stop the gangs and the mentally ill? Or when a certain state wanted to pass a law about a certain amount of bullets not allowed in a clip - problem was that 'clip' doesn't exist.

Now our President wants the 'politicize' this issue. What the heck did he call the nonsense I just mentioned?

Sigh. Yes, it is frustrating to me too - just for different reasons.

 

[tulc]

I would love to ask Obama what guns laws are going help those people in Chicago that get shot all the time, and outnumbered the victims we grieve for today in this school shooting during the same time period?

If we can't find a way of dealing with the HIPPA law in a responsible way to include many dangerously mentally ill people that haven't landed in a hospital - or been labeled by a judge (which are the two segments that can be refused now)? I'm not sure what he has in mind.

If we can't find a way of addressing poverty and hopelessness in gang infested neighborhoods like Chicago all over this country above and beyond just throwing money at them? I'm not so sure what he has in mind.

Of course responsible gun owners aren't going to mind changing the laws if they can come up with something that has meat on it. Sadly, the politicians won't. They will throw emotions at it - pass some do nothing nonsense deal, and if they bother to get it passed? Our gun violence will continue, and the blame game will continue.

I remember in past, "OH this Gun looks 'military' like so we need to ban it!" So the same gun without the extra styling is still present - it just doesn't look 'military' and its okay? lol that's going to stop the gangs and the mentally ill? Or when a certain state wanted to pass a law about a certain amount of bullets not allowed in a clip - problem was that 'clip' doesn't exist.

Now our President wants the 'politicize' this issue. What the heck did he call the nonsense I just mentioned?

Sigh. Yes, it is frustrating to me too - just for different reasons.

Ahhh! the famous "he just wants to "politicize" this issue!" I'm curious when will it be ok to talk about the issue? for instance:
http://www.pri.org/stories/2015-07-02/quietly-congress-extends-ban-cdc-research-gun-violence

In the immediate aftermath of the massacre in Charleston, South Carolina, the US House of Representatives Appropriations Committee quietly rejected an amendment that would have allowed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to study the underlying causes of gun violence.
Though gun violence and gun control has again come to the forefront of the American conversation, prohibition on gun research goes back decades.

Dr. Fred Rivara, a professor of Pediatrics and Epidemiology at the University of Washington at Seattle Children's Hospital, has been involved with injury research for 30 years. He was part of a team that researched gun violence back in the 1990s and personally saw the chilling effects of the NRA’s lobbying arm. Rivara says that the NRA accused the CDC of trying to use science to promote gun control.

“As a result of that, many, many people stopped doing gun research, [and] the number of publications on firearm violence decreased dramatically," he told The Takeaway in April. "It was really chilling in terms of our ability to conduct research on this very important problem.”

so we can't talk about it when there's a shooting, we can't do research about and no matter how many people die every year from guns, "It's never the right time to discuss it!". When can the conversation happen?
tulc(doesn't care to be told what can or can't be discussed)

 

[katautumn]

Oregon is actually one of a few states that allows carry conceal on campuses with some restrictions (i.e., they aren't allowed in certain buildings on campus, etc.). Furthermore, students carrying wouldn't have likely helped in this situation. The shooter was wearing body armor, was proficient at shooting, and was heavily armed. Most civilians aren't skilled enough to be able to pull off a fatal head shot in that case without compromising the safety of others in the vicinity.

 

[HannahT]

Ahhh! the famous "he just wants to "politicize" this issue!" I'm curious when will it be ok to talk about the issue? for instance:
http://www.pri.org/stories/2015-07-02/quietly-congress-extends-ban-cdc-research-gun-violence

so we can't talk about it when there's a shooting, we can't do research about and no matter how many people die every year from guns, "It's never the right time to discuss it!". When can the conversation happen?
tulc(doesn't care to be told what can or can't be discussed)

I did ask questions, but you tell me its not the time to ask them. Whatever tulc. You tell me when I'm allowed instead of accusing me of telling you what you can or can't discuss. I never even hinted at that.

You do realize it was Obama this week that said he was going to politicize the issue - that wasn't me. Check video - they have been playing it the last couple of days. So why not ask him when its time to talk about the issue! Your barking up the wrong tree. Politicizing is what they have done in the past, and it gave us nothing.

Questions like mine start the conversation, and you seem to be the one that is telling me what can and can't be discussed.

They have research out the ears now, so what do we do with the research? Sadly, nothing so far that really amounts to much. I mean its not that hard to find on google from reputable sources, and you can do that yourself instead of asking me too.

If we can't 'discuss' the dynamics of gun violence we can't find ways to solve it.

Obama even admitted that he wanted to adjust the Hippa parts to help this, and the mental health advocates felt it would stigmatize things. This aspect (reporting dangerous individuals) was bipartisan - even the gun rights people agreed. Instead of finding some middle ground? It was dropped. We must find some middle ground with the mental advocates otherwise we can't begin to curb this. Otherwise, its just politics as usual.

 

[HannahT]

Oregon is actually one of a few states that allows carry conceal on campuses with some restrictions (i.e., they aren't allowed in certain buildings on campus, etc.). Furthermore, students carrying wouldn't have likely helped in this situation. The shooter was wearing body armor, was proficient at shooting, and was heavily armed. Most civilians aren't skilled enough to be able to pull off a fatal head shot in that case without compromising the safety of others in the vicinity.

I can agree with this.

 

[Glass*Soul]

According to Oregon law, anyone with a concealed carry permit could have legally carried their gun on the campus.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

What he actually said was:

tulc(is trying to be accurate and not even sort of sarcastic)

Was I not accurate?

Obama lamented the fact that (paraphrasing) "There are guns all over the place". Sure, but no one except the shooter had one on his person. If there are guns all over the place why none on the Oregon campus that day? Aren't schools the place where mass shootings occur most often? Why did those students and staff believe that a mass shooting would never occur on that campus?

One student remarked that they were instructed to get under their desks in case of an armed intruder. She scoffed, "What good would that do. If he wants to kill us hiding under the desk won't help."

We have learned nothing since Columbine. Students and staff are still sheep for the slaughter for mass murderers.

"When seconds count the police are only minutes away." You would think that those students and staff would have some sort of plan to use those 'seconds' to try save their own lives. Everyone knows what to do if there is a fire, but no one knows what to do about an armed intruder.

I heard this once and was utterly floored by it. A girl said that she wouldn't use pepper spray on an attacker because "it might hurt him".

So there you have it (part of it anyway).

 

[LostFarmer]

According to Oregon law, anyone with a concealed carry permit could have legally carried their gun on the campus.

Not so fast, the College was a gun free zone, so having a gun on campus was not legal.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...dent-veteran-gun-200-yards-shooting-not-help/

 

[AceHero]

Oregon is actually one of a few states that allows carry conceal on campuses with some restrictions (i.e., they aren't allowed in certain buildings on campus, etc.). Furthermore, students carrying wouldn't have likely helped in this situation. The shooter was wearing body armor, was proficient at shooting, and was heavily armed. Most civilians aren't skilled enough to be able to pull off a fatal head shot in that case without compromising the safety of others in the vicinity.

Things are never like they are in the movies. Besides, I think the gun advocates put way too much trust in "if only people were allowed to carry guns there" meme. Just because a campus or mall or whatever allows guns doesn't mean everyone would be packing heat anyway.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Not so fast, the College was a gun free zone, so having a gun on campus was not legal.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...dent-veteran-gun-200-yards-shooting-not-help/

I heard there was a guy with a legal concealed handgun who was told to 'stand down' and let the police handle the situation. He was on a part of the campus where CC was ok.

 

[HannahT]

Things are never like they are in the movies. Besides, I think the gun advocates put way too much trust in "if only people were allowed to carry guns there" meme. Just because a campus or mall or whatever allows guns doesn't mean everyone would be packing heat anyway.

I do believe that is speculation. - if only people were allowed to carry guns there deal. lol not everyone is John Wayne, and believe his movies are reality! You also aren't always placed in the right place at the right time with those so skilled.

On the other hand,

When I was young people didn't need to be told that places were 'gun free zones' either. It was assumed by the majority, despite those silly stickers they have on the doors today? I would assume most people still do. I would love to know what changed that reality. Majority don't need the stickers - its still the unbalanced you have to worry about...and they don't care about your stickers.

The criminally mentally not with us see it as an easy target - because they are criminally mentally NOT with us. Although they may figure that out anyways, and NOT need the silly stickers on the doors. I see them as not necessary personally - the stickers. We should have matured as a society, but I guess to many don't feel that way. It's a shame.

I'm not into guns, never owned one nor held one. I'm not afraid of them, but just plain not interested. I have seen them or have been around them most of my life. lol still not interested! Although I know if some nut tried to hurt us, and the opportunity arose? A gun would be used to protect us, and I have to tell you I might be tempted even to do that myself. lol and that would take a LOT in my case...because I'm a novice. Heck, not even sure I would think of it to be honest. If I did think of it? Still not sure what I would do.

I think the 'if only people were allowed to carry guns there' are a reaction to the other extreme myself.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Oregon is actually one of a few states that allows carry conceal on campuses with some restrictions (i.e., they aren't allowed in certain buildings on campus, etc.). Furthermore, students carrying wouldn't have likely helped in this situation. The shooter was wearing body armor, was proficient at shooting, and was heavily armed. Most civilians aren't skilled enough to be able to pull off a fatal head shot in that case without compromising the safety of others in the vicinity.

Sadly these events cannot be prevented or defended against.

 

[tulc]

Was I not accurate?

Obama lamented the fact that (paraphrasing) "There are guns all over the place". Sure, but no one except the shooter had one on his person. If there are guns all over the place why none on the Oregon campus that day? Aren't schools the place where mass shootings occur most often? Why did those students and staff believe that a mass shooting would never occur on that campus?

One student remarked that they were instructed to get under their desks in case of an armed intruder. She scoffed, "What good would that do. If he wants to kill us hiding under the desk won't help."

We have learned nothing since Columbine. Students and staff are still sheep for the slaughter for mass murderers.

"When seconds count the police are only minutes away." You would think that those students and staff would have some sort of plan to use those 'seconds' to try save their own lives. Everyone knows what to do if there is a fire, but no one knows what to do about an armed intruder.

I heard this once and was utterly floored by it. A girl said that she wouldn't use pepper spray on an attacker because "it might hurt him".

So there you have it (part of it anyway).

You gave part of what he said. I just like having what someone says to be seen in context.
tulc(finds context is important to understanding)

 

[tulc]

I did ask questions, but you tell me its not the time to ask them. Whatever tulc. You tell me when I'm allowed instead of accusing me of telling you what you can or can't discuss. I never even hinted at that.

You do realize it was Obama this week that said he was going to politicize the issue - that wasn't me. Check video - they have been playing it the last couple of days. So why not ask him when its time to talk about the issue! Your barking up the wrong tree. Politicizing is what they have done in the past, and it gave us nothing.

Questions like mine start the conversation, and you seem to be the one that is telling me what can and can't be discussed.

They have research out the ears now, so what do we do with the research? Sadly, nothing so far that really amounts to much. I mean its not that hard to find on google from reputable sources, and you can do that yourself instead of asking me too.

If we can't 'discuss' the dynamics of gun violence we can't find ways to solve it.

Obama even admitted that he wanted to adjust the Hippa parts to help this, and the mental health advocates felt it would stigmatize things. This aspect (reporting dangerous individuals) was bipartisan - even the gun rights people agreed. Instead of finding some middle ground? It was dropped. We must find some middle ground with the mental advocates otherwise we can't begin to curb this. Otherwise, its just politics as usual.

Sorry, you're right I was barking and not reading. I apologize.
tulc(will stay in the corner until lesson is learned)

 

[Oafman]

Sadly these events cannot be prevented or defended against.

It's not that they can't be prevented. It's that there isn't the will to prevent them.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

It's not that they can't be prevented. It's that there isn't the will to prevent them.

There isn't the will to defend against them either.

 

[Glass*Soul]

Not so fast, the College was a gun free zone, so having a gun on campus was not legal.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...dent-veteran-gun-200-yards-shooting-not-help/

Well, let me slow down then.

Oregon had a ban on carrying guns on campus dating to the 1970s, but it was challenged in 2009 by a Marine veteran attending Western Oregon University who was arrested and suspended for possessing a firearm in a public building.

Starrett's group filed a lawsuit on his behalf, arguing that the Oregon University System, which includes Western Oregon University, lacked authority to alter state law allowing licensed gun owners to carry their weapons on public property.

The case eventually landed on the docket of an Oregon Appeals Court, which agreed with the plaintiffs and ended the ban.

From here: http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/or...egons-gun-rules-after-deadly-shooting-n437966

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.

From here: http://www.oregonlive.com/education/index.ssf/2015/10/umpqua_community_college_not_a.html

 

[brinny]

Obama said, "There is a gun for every man, woman, and child in America."

Really. Then why weren't they allowed to carry those guns onto the Oregon campus and defend themselves?

Mercer owned 16 guns. That means that by your reckoning he had the guns that 15 others should have had.

(This is me being sarcastic, not to be taken seriously.)

Obama doesn't realize that when he speaks after such a tragedy and turns it into a "political" moment, he defeats whatever he is attempting to accomplish.

Ad Nauseam.