Ten killed, seven others injured at Oregon community college shooting

[Guest123_x1]

Just when you think things can't get worse, they do. Yet another school massacre took place today, this time at a community college in Oregon. Ten people were killed, including the gunman, and seven others were injured.
To make matters worse, a school principal in South Dakota was shot and injured by a student yesterday as well.
Of course, everybody will be taking this latest opportunity to push stringent gun control, including President Obama.

From http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/umpqua-community-college-shooting-what-we-know-so-far :

Umpqua Community College shooting: What we know so far
10/01/15 05:46 PM—Updated 10/01/15 08:21 PM
By Joy Y. Wang

This article has been updated.

Ten people were killed and seven injured after a gunman opened fire at Umpqua Community College on Thursday in Roseburg, Oregon, federal law enforcement officers told NBC News. The community was no longer under threat as of Thursday afternoon.

Here's what we know so far about the deadly shooting.

The shooter

The gunman was a 20-year-old male who is now deceased, Oregon Gov. Kate Brown told reporters. He died after exchanging gunfire with police, who were called to the scene at 10:38 a.m. local time (1:38 p.m. ET), according to Douglas County Sheriff John Hanlin.

Of those who were injured and killed, 10 were admitted to Mercy Medical Center in Roseburg. Three female victims are being treated at Sacred Heart General Hospital in Eugene, Oregon, and, altogether, they were struck with between 18 and 34 bullets, a hospital official told NBC News. Uninjured students and staff were bused to nearby Douglas County Fairgrounds from the campus. No officers were injured in the shooting.

"It is too early to make a determination whether anyone else is involved," Hanlin said during a press conference, adding that it is undetermined as of now whether the gunman was a student at the community college.

Brown ordered flags to be lowered to half mast in honor of the victims.

The scene

The shooter reportedly opened fire near one of the classrooms in the science area. "It's a very active scene. It is a very active investigation," Hanlin said.

Approximately 100 detectives and uniformed officers continued to comb the campus and process the crime scene on Thursday afternoon. Authorities from local law enforcement in the county and state; the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; FBI; and U.S. Marshal Services have responded to the shooting.

Umpqua Community College will remain closed until Monday, Oct. 5, the school announced. It is a two-year college with about 3,300 full-time students and 16,000 part-time students. Some of those students are younger undergraduates, though a significant portion are older returning-education students. The college began offering courses in 1961, and is the only community college in Douglas County. Roseburg is located in southwestern Oregon, approximately a three-hour drive south of Portland, Oregon.

"Douglas County is a timber community. We have roughly 107,000 people who live in the county," Hanlin explained. "It is a peaceful community. We have our share of crime like any community. Certainly, this is a huge shock."

The president responds

President Obama was briefed on the shooting by his homeland security adviser Lisa Monaco, and offered his condolences to families during a press conference on Thursday evening. The tragedy spurred him to make his strongest remarks yet on gun control laws.

"Somehow this is becoming routine. The reporting is becoming routine. My response here at this podium is becoming routine," Obama said with apparent frustration. "It cannot be this easy for somebody who wants to inflict harm on other people to get his or her hands on a gun. And what has become routine, of course, is the response of those who oppose any kind of common-sense gun regulation. Their response is being cranked out right now: We need more guns. We need fewer gun laws. Does anybody really believe that?"

The president has traveled to communities struck by mass shootings at least seven times in the past to make remarks. This year, he spoke in Charleston, South Carolina, after a shooting at a historic black church that killed nine black parishioners. In the past, he has also spoken twice at Fort Hood, Kileen, Texas, after two shootings in 2014 and 2009, as well as in Tucson, Arizona; Aurora, Colorado; Newtown, Connecticut; and the Navy Yard in Washington, D.C.

Obama insisted that America is the only advanced country in the world that faces such regular mass shootings without enacting gun control laws in response, and challenged voters to consider the issue of gun violence when voting.

"I hope and pray that I don't have to come out again during my tenure as president to offer my condolences to families in this circumstance — but based on my experience, I don't think I can do that," he said. "And that is a terrible thing to say. And it can change."

—NBC News contributed reporting to this story.

 

[twocows]

Stricter gun control wouldn't logically have much of an impact on school shootings in particular unless there is an epidemic of gun stores selling firearms to children of which I am unaware. An outright ban on guns would probably have a significant effect, but it would also have quite a few other negative effects, as professional criminals (who obviously aren't about to hand their guns over to the government) now no longer have to worry about encountering citizens with the means to defend themselves. It would also require a constitutional amendment to overturn the existing one guaranteeing our right to keep and bear arms.

 

[Livewire]

The great tragedy is that most "common sense" gun control measures don't go far far enough, and any meaningful acts of legislation that would curb gun violence would be too close to a true infringement of personal liberties, and nobody would go for that either, which is the real reason you see things like this repeatedly happen, it's a vicious cycle. The one way to make meaningful change is through a hardcore targeted PR campaign, similar to the ones you grew up with targeting "big tobacco", which could help necessitate a big culture change in the U.S. But even then, that would be a generational shift, something that would be a decade or two in the making before you would see any potential results or changes in attitudes, thinking, etc. But the american people will one day have to reconcile with, and come to terms with the fact that our nation has a dark obsession with gun culture and that our congress has refused to act to make any attempts to try and save lives.

 

[Candy]

You'd think that by now they really should reconsider the gun control laws in 'murica.

I mean dude, how many more school shootings do you need for goddamn sakes.

 

[Corrin]

It's getting pretty bad when none of us are surprised, shootings are becoming too common and I do think they need stricter gun laws. Though I'm not sure if it would help because people could probably still get guns if they really wanted, they do so here.

My condolences to the families.

 

[gimmepie]

"Of course, everybody will be taking this latest opportunity to push stringent gun control, including President Obama."

You say that like it is a bad thing. A stronger push towards more stringent gun control is exactly what the US needs. It baffles me that people somehow cannot work out that guns not being easily obtainable = less crazy people with guns = less shootings.

Stricter gun control wouldn't logically have much of an impact on school shootings in particular unless there is an epidemic of gun stores selling firearms to children of which I am unaware.

It would have a huge effect. First and foremost, colleges would be much safer so you would see fewer shootings (such as this one) in tertiary educational facilities. Secondly, it seems most of the time it is adults or students who have stolen guns from parents who are shooting up schools.

If there's better gun-control then it becomes less likely that adults will attack schools and if their parents don't have a gun, how exactly is a child going to steal it?

It would also require a constitutional amendment to overturn the existing one guaranteeing our right to keep and bear arms.

Good, that needs to happen. The wording at least needs to altered a lot.

 

[Nah]

Just to repeat what I said the last time we talked about shootings in the US (which was in August):

I wonder how many times this is gonna happen in my country before we do something about it.

Probably many more times tbh. Just about every time you hear about one of these shootings happening it garners the same lines from the public and politicians but no one really cares until it effects them directly.

We keep talking about these shootings every time one crops up in the news but nothing ever changes.

Part of the reason why nothing ever happens is that America is a culture that generally finds weapons to be quite fine. Which probably sounds bizarre as fuck to anyone who's a pacifist and/or doesn't live in the US, but hey, I find it bizarre that the Brits insist on putting the letter u into words like armor and favor and calling fries chips. But if you want stricter gun laws and such in this country you need, like Live said, a change in culture to where America is more like Europe or something when it comes to guns. But g'luck with that because this country will cry and kick and scream and resist change as much as it can, not to mention what I said before about people not giving a shit until it affects them personally.

But what I really wanna say is that, regardless of whether or not you think stricter gun control/much less guns will really help the situation, it's not as if that will just magically fix everything. Yes, less guns will probably result in less frequent shootings and less dead people per shooting, but it doesn't change the fact that....people still want to go out and publicly murder people anyway. And while I'm certain that we will never have a time where no one is killed by another, there's more that can be done than just limiting gun access. I just feel like a lot of times people look at certain issues too simplistically (ty spellcheck) when most things are rarely so simple, or at least it seems that way to me.

 

[gimmepie]

Just to repeat what I said the last time we talked about shootings in the US (which was in August):

We keep talking about these shootings every time one crops up in the news but nothing ever changes.

Part of the reason why nothing ever happens is that America is a culture that generally finds weapons to be quite fine. Which probably sounds bizarre as fuck to anyone who's a pacifist and/or doesn't live in the US, but hey, I find it bizarre that the Brits insist on putting the letter u into words like armor and favor and calling fries chips. But if you want stricter gun laws and such in this country you need, like Live said, a change in culture to where America is more like Europe or something when it comes to guns. But g'luck with that because this country will cry and kick and scream and resist change as much as it can, not to mention what I said before about people not giving a shit until it affects them personally.

But what I really wanna say is that, regardless of whether or not you think stricter gun control/much less guns will really help the situation, it's not as if that will just magically fix everything. Yes, less guns will probably result in less frequent shootings and less dead people per shooting, but it doesn't change the fact that....people still want to go out and publicly murder people anyway. And while I'm certain that we will never have a time where no one is killed by another, there's more that can be done than just limiting gun access. I just feel like a lot of times people look at certain issues too simplistically (ty spellcheck) when most things are rarely so simple, or at least it seems that way to me.

I know that there are cultural differences between Australia and US, but all in all our countries are generally pretty similar. In Australia, several years ago, we had an enormous gun-violence massacre (arguably one of the worst in the world) and our government immediately went to work restricting gun access. We've had relatively the same gun control laws for a long time now and have significantly less gun-related violence than the US and when gun violence does crop up, it is never at such a large scale.

You're right in saying that there is definitely more that could be done, but better gun-control is definitely the biggest step towards a safer future for the US and it should be the first one taken.

 

[xVaporeonx]

So many shootings in the news, I know they are going to push to have guns outlawed. It is basic fear tactics. Most wont see it that way. The problem with outlawing guns is the criminals will still have them and the ones who own a gun for protection of their home will be defenseless. Guess I am buying a Katana.

 

[gimmepie]

So many shootings in the news, I know they are going to push to have guns outlawed. It is basic fear tactics. Most wont see it that way. The problem with outlawing guns is the criminals will still have them and the ones who own a gun for protection of their home will be defenseless. Guess I am buying a Katana.

There is a lot wrong with this point of view I'd say.

Firstly, there's not going to be a push for the compete outlawing of guns. There's going to be a push for laws that reduce the number on the streets and make it hard to get one if you don't have a legitimate reason for owning one (self-defence is not a legitimate reason).

The second part of that, is the assumption that owning a gun makes you any safer. It doesn't. If anything it makes you more likely to get shot but besides that, you're not going to carry the thing 24/7 with you. You will not be sleeping with your holster, and nobody with children (and a brain) is going to have a guns somewhere easily accessible. So if someone with a weapon, say a gun, breaks into your house at two in the morning, you're just as screwed as if you didn't own a gun should they actually be planning to kill you - which most of them aren't (they just want to scare you so you don't get in the way of them stealing your wallet and iPad or w/e).

 

[xVaporeonx]

There is a lot wrong with this point of view I'd say.

Firstly, there's not going to be a push for the compete outlawing of guns. There's going to be a push for laws that reduce the number on the streets and make it hard to get one if you don't have a legitimate reason for owning one (self-defence is not a legitimate reason).

The second part of that, is the assumption that owning a gun makes you any safer. It doesn't. If anything it makes you more likely to get shot but besides that, you're not going to carry the thing 24/7 with you. You will not be sleeping with your holster, and nobody with children (and a brain) is going to have a guns somewhere easily accessible. So if someone with a weapon, say a gun, breaks into your house at two in the morning, you're just as screwed as if you didn't own a gun should they actually be planning to kill you - which most of them aren't (they just want to scare you so you don't get in the way of them stealing your wallet and iPad or w/e).

I am not saying right now they will push it, they have to give people a reason to want to vote for it. I stand on that 100%, I know we will end up like the UK when it comes to guns, maybe our police will still be able to hold.

Certainly people with kids will have their guns in a safe place. But what about outside of the home? You can't have the bullets with in so many feet of the gun while in a car. So really, what is the point of having one outside of the home. They do offer protection when you are smart about it but a lot of people aren't. I for one don't want a gun and no one can convince me to owning one. I would much rather have a few trained dogs.

 

[gimmepie]

I am not saying right now they will push it, they have to give people a reason to want to vote for it. I stand on that 100%, I know we will end up like the UK when it comes to guns, maybe our police will still be able to hold.

Certainly people with kids will have their guns in a safe place. But what about outside of the home? You can't have the bullets with in so many feet of the gun while in a car. So really, what is the point of having one outside of the home. They do offer protection when you are smart about it but a lot of people aren't. I for one don't want a gun and no one can convince me to owning one. I would much rather have a few trained dogs.

You're confusing me, are trying to argue for or against gun control? Half of what you're saying makes it sound like you're for control and half makes you sound against.

 

[Pinkie-Dawn]

What this article forgot to mention is that the shooter was an anon from 4chan, more specifically from /r9k/, where he made a thread discussing his plan to start a shooting at the community college (warning: link contains strong language).

Regardless, much like every article on certain subjects, I feel that this is going to be yet another article that spark another gun control debate, only to die down a few weeks later and never to be brought up again until the next school shooting happens. If you really are that serious about gun control, then don't news like these die into obscurity.

 

[gimmepie]

What this article forgot to mention is that the shooter was an anon from 4chan, more specifically from /r9k/, where he made a thread discussing his plan to start a shooting at the community college (warning: link contains strong language).

Regardless, much like every article on certain subjects, I feel that this is going to be yet another article that spark another gun control debate, only to die down a few weeks later and never to be brought up again until the next school shooting happens. If you really are that serious about gun control, then don't news like these die into obscurity.

The fact that people were encouraging this... it says a lot really.

 

[Lizardo]

The same pattern that emerges after every other mass shooting will happen:

Someone with a gun kills a bunch of people, the nation mourns, every subsequent attempt to have a conversation on reasonable gun control measures will be shouted down by the gun lobby/people fooled by gun lobby propaganda, Congress does nothing, and everyone will forget about this until the next school/movie theater/church/etc. shooting. Rinse and repeat. Meanwhile, other developed nations will get to enjoy the privilege of not having this happen once every two months or so.

It's not even worth getting sad about anymore. So long as we refuse to address national gun laws and work towards a solution (which, contrary to what the NRA will have you believe, does not mean taking everyone's guns away), it's just going to happen again and again.

 

[xVaporeonx]

You're confusing me, are trying to argue for or against gun control? Half of what you're saying makes it sound like you're for control and half makes you sound against.

I don't like guns but I think it is a bad idea to out law them. Sorry, I talk in riddles at time haha

Controlling them would be ideal but there will always be unmarked/registered guns on the streets and with the 3D printers, anyone with good money (say a drug lord) can make them.

 

[twocows]

It would have a huge effect. First and foremost, colleges would be much safer so you would see fewer shootings (such as this one) in tertiary educational facilities. Secondly, it seems most of the time it is adults or students who have stolen guns from parents who are shooting up schools.

I misunderstood the story at first to be about a primary school.

With that said, someone intent on committing a violent crime is going to do so regardless of whether mommy or daddy has a gun. Guns can readily be obtained through the black market or even 3D printed these days. Further, there are other ways to kill large numbers of people; homemade explosives or chemical bombs can be just as effective. The person who committed this seemed to have religious reasons for doing so; religious extremists are often able to rely on each other to obtain weapons.

Also, may I point out that this took place in a so-called "gun-free zone?" These zones are usually the first targets for criminals because they know they won't be opposed. Fat lot of good the "no-gun" restriction does to people who plan to actually commit a crime. I guess it could help a bit in places where alcohol may be a factor, like residences or bars.

If there's better gun-control then it becomes less likely that adults will attack schools and if their parents don't have a gun, how exactly is a child going to steal it?

Gun control is not the same as gun ban. Gun control refers to restrictions on firearms sales, either reasonable ones or unreasonable ones. Stricter gun controls would not necessarily prevent adults from owning guns, it would just make it more difficult to do so. Those more-difficult-to-obtain guns could still be taken by children if not properly secured by the adult.

Good, that needs to happen. The wording at least needs to altered a lot.

Well, you can wish for whatever you want. If you ever try it, well over half the nation (myself included) will stand against you. Keep in mind plenty of moderate liberals like myself oppose stricter gun control, let alone an outright gun ban. Your opinions are not those of the majority and to pass a constitutional amendment requires a super-majority of both houses of Congress. So again, good luck.

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.

Banning guns is even more ridiculous. It would result in law-abiding citizens turning their guns in and criminals refusing to do so. This would empower criminals, who still have guns and now know their targets do not, and strip responsible citizens of a powerful means of self-defense. Pepper spray versus gun, gun wins. Stun gun versus gun, gun still usually wins. There is no practical defense against a criminal with a gun except a trained citizen with a gun. And, of course, it would strip the citizenry of the means to protect themselves against tyrants or foreign invaders, which was arguably the most significant reason behind the existence of the Second Amendment.

The same pattern that emerges after every other mass shooting will happen:

Someone with a gun kills a bunch of people, the nation mourns, every subsequent attempt to have a conversation on reasonable gun control measures will be shouted down by the gun lobby/people fooled by gun lobby propaganda, Congress does nothing, and everyone will forget about this until the next school/movie theater/church/etc. shooting. Rinse and repeat. Meanwhile, other developed nations will get to enjoy the privilege of not having this happen once every two months or so.

It's not even worth getting sad about anymore. So long as we refuse to address national gun laws and work towards a solution (which, contrary to what the NRA will have you believe, does not mean taking everyone's guns away), it's just going to happen again and again.

It's fairly patronizing to suggest that those who disagree with you are incapable of coming to their own conclusions through rational analysis and must have been brainwashed. I don't believe I've resorted to suggesting those whom I politically disagree with are incapable of using logical reasoning (I sometimes suspect that may be the case but I don't usually say so outright).

Most of the nation outside the NRA and radical libertarians is in agreement that certain restrictions on guns are worthwhile; that's why we currently have such restrictions. This has nothing to do with NRA propaganda or ideologues or any of that; no sane person would suggest that, for instance, young children should have ready access to rocket-propelled grenade launchers. The point of contention is at what point these restrictions become unreasonable. Generally speaking, I believe the existing restrictions on guns are adequate, but if you have specific suggestions as to what further restrictions might be helpful, I think most people on either side would be open to discussing those.

 

[gimmepie]

I misunderstood the story at first to be about a primary school.

With that said, someone intent on committing a violent crime is going to do so regardless of whether mommy or daddy has a gun. Guns can readily be obtained through the black market or even 3D printed these days. Further, there are other ways to kill large numbers of people; homemade explosives or chemical bombs can be just as effective. The person who committed this seemed to have religious reasons for doing so; religious extremists are often able to rely on each other to obtain weapons.

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? Guns are far too easily available to the general public. 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.

Also, may I point out that this took place in a so-called "gun-free zone?" These zones are usually the first targets for criminals because they know they won't be opposed. Fat lot of good the "no-gun" restriction does to people who plan to actually commit a crime. I guess it could help a bit in places where alcohol may be a factor, like residences or bars.

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.

Gun control is not the same as gun ban. Gun control refers to restrictions on firearms sales, either reasonable ones or unreasonable ones. Stricter gun controls would not necessarily prevent adults from owning guns, it would just make it more difficult to do so. Those more-difficult-to-obtain guns could still be taken by children if not properly secured by the adult.

I am well-aware of the difference, a few posts up I was even explaining that there's a difference. Yes, there still would be adults with access to firearms but there would certainly be less guns floating around which there would be a smaller chance of things like that happening.

Well, you can wish for whatever you want. If you ever try it, well over half the nation (myself included) will stand against you. Keep in mind plenty of moderate liberals like myself oppose stricter gun control, let alone an outright gun ban. Your opinions are not those of the majority and to pass a constitutional amendment requires a super-majority of both houses of Congress. So again, good luck.

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.

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.

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.

Guns are not, have never been and never will be a means of self-defence. A gun is a weapon. It is not designed to protect anyone, it is designed to quickly and efficiently kill people - in many cases as many people as possible.

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

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.

Banning guns is even more ridiculous. It would result in law-abiding citizens turning their guns in and criminals refusing to do so. This would empower criminals, who still have guns and now know their targets do not, and strip responsible citizens of a powerful means of self-defense. Pepper spray versus gun, gun wins. Stun gun versus gun, gun still usually wins. There is no practical defense against a criminal with a gun except a trained citizen with a gun. And, of course, it would strip the citizenry of the means to protect themselves against tyrants or foreign invaders, which was arguably the most significant reason behind the existence of the Second Amendment.

I never suggested outright banning guns, there are actually some perfectly legitimate reasons for someone to possess firearms. However you've got your reasoning here all wrong. I've already explained above in great detail. Instead I think I'm going to move on to your second point here.

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.

 

[Lizardo]

It's fairly patronizing to suggest that those who disagree with you are incapable of coming to their own conclusions through rational analysis and must have been brainwashed. I don't believe I've resorted to suggesting those whom I politically disagree with are incapable of using logical reasoning (I sometimes suspect that may be the case but I don't usually say so outright).

Most of the nation outside the NRA and radical libertarians is in agreement that certain restrictions on guns are worthwhile; that's why we currently have such restrictions. This has nothing to do with NRA propaganda or ideologues or any of that; no sane person would suggest that, for instance, young children should have ready access to rocket-propelled grenade launchers. The point of contention is at what point these restrictions become unreasonable. Generally speaking, I believe the existing restrictions on guns are adequate, but if you have specific suggestions as to what further restrictions might be helpful, I think most people on either side would be open to discussing those.

I've seen, and personally dealt with, enough people whose knee-jerk reaction to guns have been to parrot NRA rhetoric to believe otherwise. I'm not talking about people who simply disagree, but are open to a civilized discussion anyway, here. I'm talking about idiots who think criminal background checks are the first step in the rise of a police state. If you're not one of them, I'm not talking about you.

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.

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.

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.

These would be enforced at a federal level, not the state. And you'll notice that neither involves taking people's guns away.

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.

 

[Luck]

It's so tragic how this keeps on happening. America should just ban school shootings.