Shooting at Reynolds High School

[RR7]

Very good!

You get in trouble for shooting your neighbor's horse, or a stop sign on the side of the road.

Also nothing to do with the 2nd amendment. Right to bear arms. What you DO with that arm isn't protected. Speech is protected. Carry on.

 

[Denny Crane]

Also nothing to do with the 2nd amendment. Right to bear arms. What you DO with that arm isn't protected. Speech is protected. Carry on.

Speech. Fire! Libel.

Same protections as the 2nd. That is, if you abuse the right, you can commit a crime and do the time.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Very good!

You get in trouble for shooting your neighbor's horse, or a stop sign on the side of the road.

If your neighbor's horse breaks into your house and tries to steal your oats you can shot it.

 

[Denny Crane]

If your neighbor's horse breaks into your house and tries to steal your oats you can shot it.

[video=youtube;BUSn1mrQU_Q]

 

[THE HCP]

You're confused? I suggested finding a list of shooters not on the drugs vs. the list of shooters who were on the drugs.

Just think if they didn't have guns, you wouldn't had to of typed the word "shooters". It would have been punchers or stabbers or slappers or hitters......and there probably wouldn't be as many people dead, huh?

 

[Denny Crane]

Just think if they didn't have guns, you wouldn't had to of typed the word "shooters". It would have been punchers or stabbers or slappers or hitters......and there probably wouldn't be as many people dead, huh?

There were 16,000 murders last year. About 1/3 did not involve guns. It seems to me that if someone wants to kill someone else, they'll find a way (and they do).

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Interesting to see Marazul and a democrat agreeing on something.

http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/...ol_shooting_ginny_b.html#incart_river_default

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

Just think if they didn't have guns, you wouldn't had to of typed the word "shooters". It would have been punchers or stabbers or slappers or hitters......and there probably wouldn't be as many people dead, huh?

I love this line of thinking. Keep daring some wacko. If that freak in Vegas wasn't a dirt poor douchebag he might have had a car.

Anyone could kill 10 people in 10 minutes with a car. I hate to even talk about it because it could happen and I would feel bad like I jinxed it.

 

[RR7]

Speech. Fire! Libel.

Same protections as the 2nd. That is, if you abuse the right, you can commit a crime and do the time.

Not the same. Freedom of speech. You are free to speak. Right to bear arms. Free to own a gun. speech is an action, all of which should theoretically be free. arms are a noun. You can have them.

 

[THE HCP]

I love this line of thinking. Keep daring some wacko. If that freak in Vegas wasn't a dirt poor douchebag he might have had a car.

Anyone could kill 10 people in 10 minutes with a car. I hate to even talk about it because it could happen and I would feel bad like I jinxed it.

I actually have no idea what you are speaking about. What happened in Vegas and what does it have to do with my post?


Sent from my baller ass iPhone 5S...... FAMS!

 

[MarAzul]

Interesting to see Marazul and a democrat agreeing on something.

http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/...ol_shooting_ginny_b.html#incart_river_default

Actually we don't agree at all.

"Burdick, D-Portland, introduced bills in previous legislative sessions that would have made it a crime to endanger a minor by allowing access to a firearm. Under a*similar bill introduced in the 2013 legislative session by Rep. Alissa Keny-Guyer, D-Portland, a person found guilty of that crime would have faced up to a year in jail, a $6,250 fine, or both. The person would also be banned from owning a gun for five years."



I don't want the parent (father) to be fined. That is not nearly sufficient. He is responsible for educating the boy in using the gun and all other things including facing conflict without the aid of a gun and dealing with anger without resorting to use of a gun or any other weapon. If in his opinion ( the father) the boy is not up to this trustworthy standard then he must see to it that the weapons are not available to the boy. The father is responsible for the boys actions where weapons are used against society just as if he had committed the crime himself. Not just liable for some pissy ass fine to make up for failure to perform his responsibility.


You ask how it was when I was raising a son. Did he have access to my weapons? He did and what I did not say was, he also had access to his. I did spend considerable time training him in the use of firearms. He had to earn the trust to have access. I also have a grandson 17 years old and he has not yet gained this trust, he has no access to weapons. I had a discussion about this subject with my daughter only a few days before this latest shooting. I do take this subject very seriously and I do practice exactly what I preach. That Democrat ain't in the game.

 

[MarAzul]

Come to think of it, I keep the access to weapons for myself just a little difficult, I do have them ready for duty but I must be awake and on my feet able to reach quite high after navigating around some furniture. Just a precaution to make sure I am indeed awake.

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

I actually have no idea what you are speaking about. What happened in Vegas and what does it have to do with my post?


Sent from my baller ass iPhone 5S...... FAMS!

You said without guns there wouldn't be as many dead people. This kid in Oregon killed one kid. The freaks in Vegas killed three people. If someone wanted to kill large numbers of people a car would be more useful than a gun.

People run from gunshots.

Everyone who wants to get rid of guns says the same thing. Less guns equals less dead people. One of these days some nut is going to prove that waaaaaaayyyyyy wrong because it is.

 

[Denny Crane]

Not the same. Freedom of speech. You are free to speak. Right to bear arms. Free to own a gun. speech is an action, all of which should theoretically be free. arms are a noun. You can have them.

To bear is an action.

In any case, I'm not at all comfortable with people using guns to harm other people. But I'm also not interested in disarming NB3 or blue3 or any of hundreds of millions of law abiding people because a tiny minority of people abuse weapons.

I'm not aligned with the idea of trying to identify psychos before they take action, because it is sure to be imperfect and trample on the liberty of everyone.

It seems to me there are always some small % of the people who are psychos who take action. That we have a growing population (it was maybe 100M in the '20s, over 310M today) means you should see more abuses of guns. Yet we see fewer.

These are murders per 100,000 population:

I don't know if I'd be against amending the 2nd through proper means, but I'm pretty sure there'd be armed conflict as a result.

 

[blue32]

You said without guns there wouldn't be as many dead people. This kid in Oregon killed one kid. The freaks in Vegas killed three people. If someone wanted to kill large numbers of people a car would be more useful than a gun.

People run from gunshots.

Everyone who wants to get rid of guns says the same thing. Less guns equals less dead people. One of these days some nut is going to prove that waaaaaaayyyyyy wrong because it is.

I don't think HCP gets it...

But, yeah for example, like this, and this is just some of em from google.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Kunming_attack (this one was more of a terrorist attack, but still shows the damage done without a gun)

or...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...gh-school-student-killed-in-attack-at-school/

or...
http://www.post-gazette.com/local/w...lin-Regional-High-School/stories/201404090148

or
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/04/09/knife-attacks-lone-star-college/2069347/



It doesn't matter the god damned weapon of choice. Crazy, misguided, non-parented, jacked up kids will continue to cause harm to one another until the root-cause is found.

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

A guy with a knife is more likely to be stopped by a gun. Who wants to try and disarm a crazy fuck with a knife? I'd run him over...With a car.

 

[Eastoff]

There were 16,000 murders last year. About 1/3 did not involve guns. It seems to me that if someone wants to kill someone else, they'll find a way (and they do).

Well then, if 2/3 isn't a big deal, you won't mind if we cut your income by 2/3. ;]

 

[THE HCP]

I'll take my chances with somebody attacking me with a knife or car over a gun is what I'm saying.


Sent from my baller ass iPhone 5S...... FAMS!

 

[Denny Crane]

Well then, if 2/3 isn't a big deal, you won't mind if we cut your income by 2/3. ;]

You won't cut the number by 2/3. You may not cut it at all. People will find other ways to kill, perhaps even more deadly (like setting fires).

 

[BlazerCaravan]

I'm fine with the murder rate not changing as long as they earn it; guns make it too easy. Inherent American laziness will keep the murder rate down.

 

[Further]

It's a hell of a lot more difficult to sneak a Mazda past the school metal detectors than a firearm.

Yes, there are other ways of killing then with guns, but they are much less convenient then guns. That's why our troops carry M4's rather than a Chrysler Town & Country's into war zones.






I'm not for getting rid of firearms, but this bullshit idea that getting rid of all guns (it can't happen) wouldn't make these school massacres less frequent and less successful is foolish.

 

[Natebishop3]

It's a hell of a lot more difficult to sneak a Mazda past the school metal detectors than a firearm.

Yes, there are other ways of killing then with guns, but they are much less convenient then guns. That's why our troops carry M4's rather than a Chrysler Town & Country's into war zones.






I'm not for getting rid of firearms, but this bullshit idea that getting rid of all guns (it can't happen) wouldn't make these school massacres less frequent and less successful is foolish.

How many school massacres have there been? The FBI defines a "mass shooting" of 4 or more people shot.

Reynolds was not a mass shooting.

How many true massacres have there been?

 

[Denny Crane]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:School_bombings_in_the_United_States

 

[Denny Crane]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:School_fires

 

[Further]

How many school massacres have there been? The FBI defines a "mass shooting" of 4 or more people shot.

Reynolds was not a mass shooting.

How many true massacres have there been?

OK, so take shootings instead. And I'm not saying there won't be violence in other ways, but I think it's disingenuous to suggest that IF there were no guns, that murders in high school (or outside of highschool) wouldn't go down. It's a convenient thing to argue since there is no proof and no way to know the outcome, and we do have tons of examples of non-firearm violence to point to and say "see, I told you so". But do you really believe that if guns went poof one day, that the number of school killings wouldn't decrease?

Now there are legit arguments about 1) is it possible to get rid of guns, 2) will other crimes go up if criminals know the public isn't carrying, 3) is the reduction in killings worth the reductions in our rights and our ability to hold the government accountable. And a bunch of other arguments that basically point to gun bans being unfeasible or detrimental to America in other ways. But the argument that students will just drive over other kids instead is hogwash. At least it's hogwash to suggest it would happen at the same rate.

 

[Natebishop3]

OK, so take shootings instead. And I'm not saying there won't be violence in other ways, but I think it's disingenuous to suggest that IF there were no guns, that murders in high school (or outside of highschool) wouldn't go down. It's a convenient thing to argue since there is no proof and no way to know the outcome, and we do have tons of examples of non-firearm violence to point to and say "see, I told you so". But do you really believe that if guns went poof one day, that the number of school killings wouldn't decrease?

Now there are legit arguments about 1) is it possible to get rid of guns, 2) will other crimes go up if criminals know the public isn't carrying, 3) is the reduction in killings worth the reductions in our rights and our ability to hold the government accountable. And a bunch of other arguments that basically point to gun bans being unfeasible or detrimental to America in other ways. But the argument that students will just drive over other kids instead is hogwash. At least it's hogwash to suggest it would happen at the same rate.

Well, if you read that article I posted a few pages back, he suggests these shootings are basically a form of domestic terrorism. The writer explains that the shooters are seeking a platform to voice their displeasure with the world, so he says that it's really no different than someone strapping a bomb to their chest and blowing up a theater or a market. They know that school shootings present the best way to get attention.

Best way to stop this from happening? Stop giving them attention, but of course that will never happen because the media and the anti-gun crowd immediately jump on any kind of shooting to further their agenda. They don't care why or how, they just care that it was another shooting. And if it was an AR-15 variant they can't wait to start going on about high-cap magazines and military grade weapons. They will never follow the lead of Canada and withhold the name of the shooter.

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/straighttalk/archives/2014/06/20140606-144104.html

The media, including Sun News Network, has covered this story closely. And now we have made a decision: Sun News Network will not report the name of the killer. We will not show his photo.

When it comes to mass murderers, too often, it is attention and infamy they crave. Luckily, shootings of this nature are rare in Canada.

And in the US, they account for less than one per cent of all gun-related deaths. Far more people have been killed in the bad neighbourhoods of Chicago than were killed in all the mass shootings combined. But these rare incidents are never forgotten. And with the rise of social media, they've become a spectacle.

It's easy to report on the life of the killer, to scour his deranged Facebook page, to speculate about motive, but doing so could actually encourage the perception that his heinous acts are somehow justified.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Cars are tracked more carefully than guns. Auto dealers have to tell the state who they sell a car to. Private parties have to register their cars with the state when they buy and sell them. The same needs to be done with guns.

 

[Denny Crane]

Cars are tracked more carefully than guns. Auto dealers have to tell the state who they sell a car to. Private parties have to register their cars with the state when they buy and sell them. The same needs to be done with guns.

The constitution is a pesky thing. It doesn't talk about cars, but it does about guns (arms).

 

[Further]

Nate, those arguments are more valid and don't bother me to hear. I don't totally agree with them in totality, but they do make some sense. I read the article you posted off facebook and here is the issue I saw. There are many different school shootings with different causes, and to lay some blanket statement about motivations without understanding those motivations may only play a role in certain events seems like a misguided tactic to win an argument instead of discuss what is a very valid point. Some kids may certainly be doing these killings to intimidate as a terrorist would, but others do snap after being bullied. Some may be schizophrenic or have another mental disorder where they disassociate and are killing cause they think it's the right thing to do. Some may be doing it not to cause fear, but because they think it's something special that others will respect and admire. There are many possibilities, and I don't think it's possible to know what the thoughts were in most unless there were manifestos. I certainly think some are doing it as a means to fame, not to cause terror.

I do however like the idea that some papers do where they don't say the name or show a picture of the killers, but I have to admit I would go on line and just search out an article that shows what the perp looked like.

 

[Natebishop3]

Cars are tracked more carefully than guns. Auto dealers have to tell the state who they sell a car to. Private parties have to register their cars with the state when they buy and sell them. The same needs to be done with guns.

I think it all boils down to people not trusting the government.

Can you blame them? The whole NSA thing really pissed people off. The constant officer-involved shootings that we hear about every day. It seems like faith in the government is at an all-time low. People are clinging to the second amendment tighter than ever before because I think people are genuinely concerned about the motives of our government. They don't seem to give a rats ass about the people. They only care about the fat checks the huge corporations are writing for them.

The second amendment was written to protect the people from the government. That's why people are so unwilling to budge. Registering your weapons gives the government a roadmap for confiscations.