Ten killed, seven others injured at Oregon community college shooting

[Kanzler]

I don't understand why Americans feel that just because a gun ban won't eliminate all gun violence, such a ban shouldn't be enacted. With that kind of logic you might as well say that we shouldn't fund cancer research, because it won't save everybody suffering from cancer. Does reduced violent crime even mean anything?

 

[Embernight]

Guns are the ultimate means of self-defense. A well-armed and well-trained population is a population that can defend itself against criminals. Reasonable restrictions on firearm sales are supported by almost everyone except the most die-hard NRA supporters and libertarians, and I personally support more comprehensive safety training and training for how to securely store firearms. However, many of us oppose unreasonable restrictions because the process to acquire a firearm should not be unreasonably burdensome for a responsible, competent individual. Criminals can often already get a gun if they want to on the black market, it should not be more difficult for law-abiding citizens to do so.

I wouldn't want to see a ban or strict policy on owning guns for the reason of self-defense. When I imagine myself in a similar situation, I would wish that I had some kind of weapon to at the very least slow the attacker down. But even knives have restrictions. The only gun laws I would want to see put in place are laws that would prohibit use of over the top, specifically designed to kill, guns. The attacker, who may be using an automatic, could at least possibly be stopped by several people with a pistol.

Overall, I don't think any gun restrictions will have a positive affect on public shootings. American society is filled with hate, selfishness, and aggression. Even a debate on things like gun laws can turn people against each other (not that a healthy debate is bad, but some people can take things a bit far). I think the main focus should be on families and raising up children in a health environment. Much of my sense of morals stem from what my parents taught me and the respect and love I have for them in order to listen to what they had to say. Sure there were times where I have been hurt by others and wished to hurt them back, but I always had family to encourage and embrace me. I don't know how much this may factor into things like school shootings, but I have seen many families with broken relationships, some with children falling into the same trouble with drugs, alcohol, and the law as their parents do.

 

[twocows]

You're not incorrect, if someone really wants to hurt people then they're going to find a way to do it. Why on Earth though, should we make it easier for them to do so?

I don't believe I suggested that we should. The gist of my statement was "I agree with reasonable gun controls but not an outright gun ban and I believe most people outside of radical loonies hold a similar position."

Guns are far too easily available to the general public.

I believe that varies by state, but I think the restrictions in my state require a background check, firearms safety training, proof of substantial firing range practice on license renewal, and a CPL if you want to carry concealed.

Guns might be obtainable on the black market, but you're acting as though the black market is some sort of Saturday bazar. It's a complex underground trade system and it is not cheap. When cheap guns are no longer readily available through legal means, their underground value skyrockets - sometimes by thousands - which makes them unobtainable for the majority of people. 3D printers are in a similar boat, they're expensive. Even the "drug lord" example given above is a bit unrealistic, the average drug dealer is just some guy selling weed or ecstasy in an alley, not a billionaire cartel leader.

The point, which I think is really only applicable to a gun ban, is that you can't magic guns away from criminals. Most criminals already have guns, they don't need to go to the black market. It is aspiring criminals who would turn to the black market or to other kinds of weapons. The point is that a ban would only remove guns from people intending to use them for self-defense, not from those who intended to do ill from the start. It might make it marginally more difficult for future criminals years down the line to obtain weapons if we had a complete gun ban, but the effect of that would be questionable.

Yes it took place in a college where guns aren't allowed. Do you know what would have happened if he'd gone in there and staff/students did have guns? The exact same thing. In fact, a bunch of random people all shooting up the place in defence would probably have resulted in even more fatalities.

A quick search for "gun holder saves life" seems to suggest that there are plenty of cases where gun holders save lives. Nobody can guarantee that properly trained and armed people in the area would have fixed the issue, but I think it's reasonable to suggest that the odds would have been better. And while it can be hard to make a shot in those circumstances, I believe laypeople are trained not to take a shot if it puts others at risk.

I don't need to wish, I don't live in the US (something else I've already stated). I live in Australia where we had a huge massacre and imposed stricter gun-control laws as a result and guess what? These days gun violence is an extremely rare occurrence. Similar success stories can be found all over the world.

The second result from a neutrally-worded search on the subject ("violent crime in australia") suggests that while gun crime may have gone down, other forms of violent crime have increased. While I'm sure this site has an agenda (I disagree with the idea that this "proves" anything) and I'm well aware of how statistics can be abused to misrepresent things (it's why I'm hesitant to refer to them and prefer to make rhetorical statements), the point I am making is not that their assertions are true, it is that I am skeptical as to whether violent crime decreases as a result of these laws.

Also, let's not pretend "the majority want all the guns" is a valid defence. There was a time when the majority of people supported slavery too. The fact that there's a lot of people who oppose stricter gun-control just means there's a lot more people who need a serious wake-up call.

I don't believe I made the argument that having many people believe something makes it correct. What I said was that many people, including many moderate and even less moderate Democrats, support Second Amendment rights (and by that I mean a position that either supports the status quo on the issue or advocates for fewer restrictions). This doesn't mean you're wrong, what it does mean is that you have a wide variety of people from different backgrounds who believe you are wrong. And while this is not a refutation of anything you've said, we live in a (supposedly) democratic society. If you want to change anything, these are the people you need to convince (in theory). Nobody's going to be able to do much of anything without discussing and probably compromising with people who, at the very least, are skeptical of any changes to the status quo. I'm probably more receptive than many people to having a discussion about it, as I'm willing to concede that I could feasibly support certain further restrictions on guns provided these restrictions don't unreasonably obstruct people who want to purchase a firearm for self defense, for hunting, etc. But I think most people are at least willing to talk about it and, provided you approach it the right way, would not be opposed to having a discussion about introducing more effective restrictions on or conditions for owning firearms.

Guns are not, have never been and never will be a means of self-defence.

Self-defense is the second most common non-military use for firearms (hunting is the most common).

A gun is a weapon.

It is difficult to defend yourself against an attacker without having a weapon of some sort, especially an attacker that has a weapon of some sort (a common scenario).

It is not designed to protect anyone, it is designed to quickly and efficiently kill people

To "protect" is to safeguard. The means is not part of the definition. Safeguarding yourself against someone by killing that person is "protecting" yourself, safeguarding others against someone by killing that person is "protecting" others.

- in many cases as many people as possible.

Guns are designed to allow people to kill effectively. A not-unheard of problem (one that you mentioned yourself) is the problem of missing a shot while under stress (this is why many states have a requirement that you must prove you have spent time practicing on license renewal). While a bolt-action rifle might be effective for hunting, it's probably not going to be as effective in a self-defense situation as a semi-automatic pistol that can fire off another shot if you miss. Anyway, we already have far more significant restrictions on types of firearms that would be considered "overkill" for common use cases, such as fully automatic weapons.

Suggesting that having a well-armed and well-trained population is going to prevent gun-violence is honestly quite ridiculous.

It won't prevent gun violence. A citizen using a gun in self-defense against an attacker is "gun violence." It would increase gun violence. What it has the potential to decrease is violent crime.

You're assuming the only people with the capacity to pull the trigger are people already engaging in illicit activities. Each and every person on this Earth has the capacity to kill under the right (or wrong depending how you look at it) circumstances. S good idea, let's arm and train the population so that when life goes south for some poor guy - he looses his job, his wife leaves him, his kids hate him and he's about to be kicked out of his apartment he can unleash "vengeance" upon the cruel, cruel world that screwed him over better.

People can already do that with or without a gun, but that's a reasonable point. Having ready access to a weapon in a bad situation might make people more prone to making a bad decision, especially if their situation in life is difficult. In that case, are you proposing that a requisite condition for owning a weapon should be some sort of regular psych or life status evaluation? This is something I have advocated for in the past and would fully endorse, so long as steps are taken to ensure the process itself is fair and the "pass" conditions are not themselves unfair.

Arming the population isn't going to reduce crime, it's going to mean more potentially crazy people are really good at killing other people who could potentially go crazy. More guns and more gun training is never going to result in a peaceful society, it's going to result in more and more innocent people dying because a bunch of stupid and foolish people are clinging to out-dated traditions and amendments because GOD DAMN IT THEY LIKE GUNS.

I have no particular fondness for guns, I just think they are a useful tool for the purposes of self-defense. There will always be bad or crazy people out there and those with the intent to do harm will often find ways to commit those harms. Giving people the means to defend themselves against those who would do them harm is a good thing in my book. At the very least, it has a strong deterrent effect (would-be criminals have to consider that their victims may be armed) and the threat a gun represents can sometimes deescalate situations by itself.

The second amendment is not valid in modern society, not even remotely. Back in the old days when everyone was walking around with revolvers or muskets or whatever it made sense but in the twenty-first century the tyrants and foreign invaders have tanks, rpgs, drones, air drops, remote missiles, nukes so on and so forth. We are quickly approaching an era when human presence on a battlefield will be practically zero. Making needless bloodshed easier and, quite frankly, much more likely for the sake of what is essentially the equivalent of a toddler's security blanket from hiding from evil is not a valid argument against anything anti-gun - be it gun-control or and unreasonable total ban.

The Second Amendment is designed to protect the right of the people to defend themselves. While in the late 1700s, the biggest threat may have come from overseas, in the 2000s it comes from criminals and madmen. The purpose has not changed, merely the nature of the threat. But, again, if you believe it to be invalid, you are welcome to follow the (supposedly) democratic process and propose a constitutional amendment to overturn it. This has already happened once.

And what America do you live in where people have ever been open to actual discussion on gun control (i.e. one without the fear-mongering)? I still remember two years ago, when a moderate gun control bill that actually had the support of a majority in the country (this being after the Sandy Hook massacre) failed to pass through Congress. That kind of thing wouldn't happen in a nation where people are open to discussion.

That's a good point for the failure of the democratic process, honestly. Politicians no longer accurately represent the interests of the majority, they represent extremist interests (to get votes) and corporate interests (to get money and, by extension, votes). I don't know what was in that bill, but it was probably bad for business and pissed off strong conservatives and radical conservatives, so it failed.

I've been making the point that a constitutional amendment is the correct way to repeal an existing one, and it is, but I'll admit that it would be difficult even with popular support given the ongoing failure of Congress to do their job of representing the people. Perhaps it would be better to adopt a system of referendum for constitutional amendments rather than leaving it to Congress.

That said, you're conflating politicians with people. I still believe most people are open to having a discussion about the issue, even if most people aren't interested in overturning the Second Amendment altogether.

As far as reasonable gun control measures go, here are just two that I'd be happy with at this point – for starters:

More thorough background checks: top of my list, personally. If you've ever been convicted of a felony, have a history of violent and abusive behavior, or are part of a hate group, you should never be allowed to have a gun. That's just common sense.

Felony: Depends on the felony. Lying to a government official is a felony under 18 USC section 1001 and this is commonly abused by police and federal officials to obtain a felony conviction for a non-felony crime. Things like this should not be a factor. Things on this list, for example, should also not be a factor.
History of violent behavior: Agree
History of abusive behavior: Depends on your definition of abusive
Part of a hate group: I don't trust the government to make a fair assessment as to whether a certain group is a "hate group" or not. I can almost guarantee they would broaden the definition to the point of ridiculousness. If someone has advocated for violent action against a group of people based on some factor like skin color, then yes, they shouldn't be able to own a gun.

Mandatory firearms training: If you need to prove that you've been educated on how to drive a car, then you need to demonstrate that you've been educated on how to use a gun. They're both dangerous weapons, and it'd be reckless to allow people to own one without showing they can use them properly.

I believe this is already required in many states. Obviously, I agree with its continued existence as a requirement in those states and would support it as a requirement in states that lack it as one.

These would be enforced at a federal level, not the state.

Depends on the restriction. I believe most restrictions should be implemented and enforced at the state level. It's more convenient to have them be federal regulations but convenient doesn't mean right and giving the federal government more power can lead to unintended and very bad consequences when the powers we give them start to get used for things we don't like. The federal government has limited power by design and I'm generally of the mind that we should keep it that way. If you find some controversial law absolutely unconscionable and your reasoning is... well, reasonable, you can quite often find another state that doesn't have that law in effect and move there instead. I think this is a good thing.

Another measure I think should be done is renewing the assault weapons ban. Other countries have actually been pretty successful with that. But that's not a fight I think is winnable in a climate where we can't even get more throughout background checks passed through, so I wouldn't press for it.

That strongly depends on what you believe constitutes an "assault weapon." Past proposals regarding this have been either vague or encompass things that no one reasonably educated in the use of firearms would consider to be an assault weapon.

I wouldn't want to see a ban or strict policy on owning guns for the reason of self-defense. When I imagine myself in a similar situation, I would wish that I had some kind of weapon to at the very least slow the attacker down. But even knives have restrictions. The only gun laws I would want to see put in place are laws that would prohibit use of over the top, specifically designed to kill, guns. The attacker, who may be using an automatic, could at least possibly be stopped by several people with a pistol.

To be fair, the attacker could probably be stopped by one person with a pistol. And yeah, I agree with having some restrictions, too, it's just a matter of what's reasonable and what's not. I think self-defense is a valid reason to carry a weapon.

 

[Netto Azure]

This has gotten ridiculous. This morning I found out about the shooting in Arizona and was lamenting how it only took 8 days for the next school shooting to happen. And then I cynically said that someday it would become a daily thing...but my heart just broke when 30 minutes later the Texas shootings happened. It's...it's just I don't really know anymore.

I feel that some people just don't have empathy if these things have become so routine as President Obama frustratingly said last week. And then what? This comic was made last month in response to the previous massacre:

It's just...Americans have become numb to this. I really do fear for otherwise good people have become utterly desensitized to violence and are slowly losing their common humanity.

I just...can't anymore...

 

[Kanzler]

What do the parties think of further gun control measures? How would it play out in Congress?

inb4 gun control = ban all guns

 

[T The Manager]

With the use of logic please explain to me how gun control would even work? First off, out of all the people involved in these school massacres how many were registered unstable to have a gun yet still obtained one illegally? Secondly, Chicago has by far the strictest gun laws (it's extremely difficult to get one and illegal to carry one) yet it holds the record for most murders given in a year from firearms alone year after year. Yes Chicago is populated with 2-3 million but you have to put into consideration that New York City and Los Angeles is more populated yet doesn't come close to the population-murder ratio. Also, I can't deny a majority of the murders that take place are from criminals/gang bangers that live in bad neighborhoods which leads me to my next point.

Explain your reasoning as to why everybody in America should be punished due to the few that do stuff like this? With the given fact that a high percentage of gun murders are from illegal gun owners, why should the LEGAL LAW ABIDING citizens be punished by the few that go on killing sprees or even murder for no reason in their neighborhoods? Most legal gun owners have guns without the intent to murder, unless under certain circumstances like a home invasion which would then be classified as self defense. So to be exact legal gun owners have them for protection and or for hunting and as a hobby. Why take a law abiding citizens privilege away when they're not an endangerment to society? That's the exact same as taking anything that's considered a hobby away from someone. I'm sorry, but some people just like to collect guns and shoot them AT A SHOOTING RANGE NOT AT PEOPLE!

What makes you think 'gun control' will stop mentally ill people from getting firearms? As I answered in my first question, you can't. Many states already require psychological testings before obtaining a firearm, what else do you guys want? If somebody wants a firearm legal or illegal they'll get it; no matter the restrictions. Thinking gun control will work proves lack of common sense.

Now for my last question. You really think gun control will lower the murder rate in America? You have to acknowledge practically anything can be used as a weapon. Guns don't kill people. That's like saying spoons make people fat. People kill people and people with the intent to kill SHOULD NOT have a gun but that still not a valid reason to restrict them from everybody.

 

[twocows]

I think I'm realizing that "gun control" is such a broad term that discussion of it is about as meaningful as a discussion of "economics." Unless people go into the particulars of what they think should or should not be implemented, it's just blind partisan raging at the extremes.

 

[CoffeeDrink]

I need to point towards the AK forty-shovel. A fully functioning AK-47 model build constructed from a shovel purchased at a garage sale for about $2. Gun control is a lovely dream. A nice dream. A tidy dream. But it's only a dream. Murder, pain and strife. People like to blame the guns, the knives, the tools but forget that it doesn't matter to those that already say 'F**k tha police'. There is no real way to stop the tide of bullets. A full on ban is unacceptable, and stricter guidelines mean absolutely nothing in the long run:
"What are you going to use this gun for?"
"Uh, not killing my wife for one thing."

We can debate the issue until our hair turns white and our skin sloughs off, but those that have not held or fired a weapon cannot speak on behalf of those that do. Further more, those that have not been robbed (see: burglarized) have no say on whether or not a gun can or cannot save your life. This issue is a case by case basis and most of you, I think, are missing that mark entirely. Gun control is a micro to macro issue, not the other way around.

No major law can gauge what anyone is thinking at the time. Not to mention the 'crime of passion' laws. A perfectly healthy (inside and out) American can snap if he finds his wife with another man and vice versa. Violent crimes are not restricted to the gun alone. Knives and blunt weapons are also used, and kill more people than firearms year round. However no one regulates the sale of Louisville Sluggers or monkey wrenches.

To state that stricter control means less death means you have yet to see the creativity of the murderer at large. To push the issue further, guns are an expensive go to weapon, however incendiaries are a cheap secondary. Gasoline is readily available to anyone without an id, yet there are hundreds of arsons year round with gasoline being the primary accelerate.

We've been discussing gun control for over 50 some odd years. Did you think our two cents would have made any difference? It won't, if ever. America has several issues that need addressing first before even considering the gun control policy. America uses the most narcotics and illicit substances on the planet, which leads to money, which leads to guns. Our education system is poor. The job market is abysmal and the beat goes on. Gun control isn't the first and foremost problem in America. We're still dealing with the gay rights issues, the pro-life/pro-choice issue, capital punishment, etc.

So, school shootings. What about all the isolated alley stabbings? The family murders? The infanticides, the suicides, the treatment of the old? The national debt? The wars we fight? The foods we eat? We have issues people. This isn't the biggest one by far.

If we can't even decide collectively to kick out all the scientific GMOs and dyes in our foods than what makes you think we can handle the issue of gun control? We're nothing but a bunch of children bickering that we can't get what we want and it'll stay that way until we can start to agree. I mean come on? GMOs? We can't agree to removing the chemicals from our foods? Think about that: we can't even ban something that causes us cancer even though we all know it.