0
Driver1

Another mass shooting...

Recommended Posts

SkyDekker

Quote

It is a gun free zone



A gun free zone in which state law allows for legal concealed carry.

:S:S


Tell me oh smart one
How would anyone carry if they are going to be in any building under that state law you keep harping about????
They can not under the law you are talking about

Or are there just people who walk around the grounds to carry guns cuz they can????? Why would they be there????

The campus has it set up so you can drop your gun off at the security office when they come there
And this they would have to do, under state law

In the buildings, where they were shot, is a gun free zone
Are you denying this?

If you can come up with some explanation here that in not utterly stupid I will be surprised
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kallend

***

Quote

Iowa state law



We are talking about Oregon, not Iowa.

...


Remember who you're talking to. This is the guy who thinks that when it snows in January in Iowa it proves that global warming is a hoax.

I see you are still bring high level content in your posts

:D
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

In the buildings, where they were shot, is a gun free zone
Are you denying this?



No I have said many times that is correct.

Just as correct that concealed carry is allowed on the campus grounds.

Are you denying that concealed carry is allowed on the campus grounds?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SkyDekker

Quote

It is a gun free zone



A gun free zone in which state law allows for legal concealed carry.

:S:S


Come on SkyDekker
Tell us, were they shot inside or outside the buildings????
I read that he was shooting inside a class room

So, remember this part of the law ???

Quote

As of August 21, 2013, no private or public universities, colleges, or community colleges permit weapons inside of buildings.




We are waiting!
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SkyDekker

Quote

In the buildings, where they were shot, is a gun free zone
Are you denying this?



No I have said many times that is correct.

Just as correct that concealed carry is allowed on the campus grounds.

Are you denying that concealed carry is allowed on the campus grounds?



So you are admitting they were shot in a gun free zone

Correct?
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rushmc


Please. Tell me what law or policy would stop someone intent on killing?



Simple, make guns as illegal and unavailable as narcotics.

BTW, any bets as to which legal psychotropic drugs were prescribed to the author of this horror? Prozac, Zoloft, Xanax...?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rush, the statement was made that the school was a gun free zone.

The counter statement was that the school isn't a gun free zone. Concealed carry is allowed on the campus grounds, but is not allowed in the buildings.

Once you and turtle figured out you were both wrong, turtle did the smart thing and just went silent. You have been moving goal posts, including trying to move the university to Iowa.

So, I'll say it again. the school is not a gun free zone. Concealed carry is allowed on the grounds, but is not allowed in the buildings.


Quote

So, remember this part of the law ???


Quote:
As of August 21, 2013, no private or public universities, colleges, or community colleges permit weapons inside of buildings.



That's not part of a law you are quoting rush. It is a statement by the author of the article. Basic concepts seem very difficult for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SkyDekker

Rush, the statement was made that the school was a gun free zone.

The counter statement was that the school isn't a gun free zone. Concealed carry is allowed on the campus grounds, but is not allowed in the buildings.

Once you and turtle figured out you were both wrong, turtle did the smart thing and just went silent. You have been moving goal posts, including trying to move the university to Iowa.

So, I'll say it again. the school is not a gun free zone. Concealed carry is allowed on the grounds, but is not allowed in the buildings.


Quote

So, remember this part of the law ???


Quote:
As of August 21, 2013, no private or public universities, colleges, or community colleges permit weapons inside of buildings.



That's not part of a law you are quoting rush. It is a statement by the author of the article. Basic concepts seem very difficult for you.



You are weaseling

If you are not, you can easily answer the following question and give clarity to the whole topic

As a matter of practicality, if you worked at or went to school at this public university, given the state law (that you are cherry picking to CYA)and the university policy regarding conceal carry, how could any student, faculty or employee of this university, carry a weapon on the grounds?

You and I know they would be allowed to but, as a practical matter how could it be done?

Point being? This campus IS a gun free zone for all practical purposes. As well as any other public campi around the state

And inside the buildings are gun free zones as defined by state law

you can dance on this anyway you want but you should stop digging soon while you can still see light

sheesh
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SkyDekker

So, I'll say it again. the school is not a gun free zone. Concealed carry is allowed on the grounds, but is not allowed in the buildings.



It's an indirect campus wide ban.
http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4760632#4760632
Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ibx

Quote

Hey, you know what did happen in Europe? Russia disarmed its citizens and then Stallin had them executed by the millions. Germany disarmed its citizens and then Hitler. Enough said?



Hey History professor, you seriously need to reevaluate what you think you know about European history. Enough said?

Quote

Our constitution was written in a way that ensured there would always be a system of checks and balances to protect us from tyranny.



It was written for a feudal society 300 years ago and amended 27 times.
Your country has more people in prison in absolute and relative numbers than any other country on earth.
You have a militarized police.
Innocent people are regularly executed by the government.
Why do you not stand up to the tyranny?

I can't understand why you think a 300 year old document is a good recipe for society.
It is clearly flawed as evidenced by all the gun violence - unless of course you think gun violence is a good thing for society then I stand corrected.


-Actually our Constitution was written 239 years ago when we decided to become independent of Brittans tyrannical rule.
-Feudalism was actually a mideval European system (another one of those things that people immigrated to the new land to get away from)
-It was amended 27 times which resulted in a document that was 25 times better (two of them were prohibition and then undoing prohibition)
-Seychelles is the country with the highest number of inmates per capita on Earth
-Canada, France, and China are all well known for having heavily militarized police forces. I don't even know how you describe your SS.
-America is a country that was founded 100% on its citizens standing up to tyranny. This has repeated itself throughout history, it has just never been necessary within our own country since we won our independence.
-Germany, on the other had, has a week track record of standing up to tyranny. Germans happily participated in the attempted mass extermination of an entire population of people because they couldn't stand up to one mans idealism.

When did this happen? 70 years ago. Not centuries. Our grandparents were there for it. People that are still roaming your streets killed millions of people with smiles on their faces, and it was legal, but America is fucked up? We are a bunch of violent psychopaths because we disagree with the entire population being punished for one persons crime?

I guess that makes since to you. With the Nazis, only a small handful of people wear punished for an entire populations crimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tonyhays

Quote

Our constitution was written in a way that ensured there would always be a system of checks and balances to protect us from tyranny.



If you think armed citizens are any threat to the U.S. government, you are living in a dream world.

Tanks, drones, fighter jets, cruise missiles, satellite surveillance, etc vs. small arms fire from unorganised, untrained weekend warriors.

The 2nd amendment was relevant when it was written and everyone had close to the same level of weaponry. Times change and to keep using the "tyranny" argument is silly.




Really?? Al Qaeda, viet cong, afghans against russians? All out manned and out gunned. As I recall the fore fathers were out manned and out gunned as well. Yet here is this country a few hundred years later. If you are dumb enough to stand still and try to go toe to toe with the US military yes you will lose. Guerilla tactics however can and have been proven to be highly effective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jtiflyer

***

Quote

Our constitution was written in a way that ensured there would always be a system of checks and balances to protect us from tyranny.



If you think armed citizens are any threat to the U.S. government, you are living in a dream world.

Tanks, drones, fighter jets, cruise missiles, satellite surveillance, etc vs. small arms fire from unorganised, untrained weekend warriors.

The 2nd amendment was relevant when it was written and everyone had close to the same level of weaponry. Times change and to keep using the "tyranny" argument is silly.




Really?? Al Qaeda, viet cong, afghans against russians? All out manned and out gunned. As I recall the fore fathers were out manned and out gunned as well. Yet here is this country a few hundred years later. If you are dumb enough to stand still and try to go toe to toe with the US military yes you will lose. Guerilla tactics however can and have been proven to be highly effective.

Very good post
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have a question for you. And in the interest of fairness, I'll answer it, honestly and truthfully as I can, if you will.

How would you react if you were witness to a shooting like in Oregon, Aurora, etc?

I understand we can't get into the minutia like "Is there a planter box or wall to hide behind?" Just, what would you do? I'll clarify what I mean a bit more. What would I do in a survival situation? Not enough detail in the question to get into details, so my basic plan would be;

Deal with immediate dangers to myself and others.
If possible, contact emergency personnel.
Shelter, water, fire.
Etc.

Again, in the interest of an actual conversation, my follow-up question is going to be "why?".

I'm not trying to trick anyone or play any games. I am trying to move the conversation forward.

Derek V

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My reaction, were I to whiteness this happening, would be to draw the concealed Glock 23 that I am properly vetted and licensed to carry and neutralize the threat. Instead of 15 dead and 10 wounded, there would be maybe 2 dead and 1 or 2 wound, with one of the dead being the attacker. Those numbers of course are based on the fact that I whiteness begin shooting and the number of shoots he gets off before I can react to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jbscout2002

Also remember that Soldiers are more sympathetic to their communities and civilian friends and family than they are to a questionable government.



And then there's Kent State.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SkyDekker

Rush, the statement was made that the school was a gun free zone.

The counter statement was that the school isn't a gun free zone. Concealed carry is allowed on the campus grounds, but is not allowed in the buildings.

Once you and turtle figured out you were both wrong, turtle did the smart thing and just went silent. You have been moving goal posts, including trying to move the university to Iowa.

So, I'll say it again. the school is not a gun free zone. Concealed carry is allowed on the grounds, but is not allowed in the buildings.


Quote

So, remember this part of the law ???


Quote:
As of August 21, 2013, no private or public universities, colleges, or community colleges permit weapons inside of buildings.



That's not part of a law you are quoting rush. It is a statement by the author of the article. Basic concepts seem very difficult for you.


Your semantics are a joke. It WAS a gun free zone complete with "gun free zone" signs. It has been reported there was a vet there in close proximity to the shooter. He had a firearm that was in the car bc he was forbidden to have it on him within the "zone". I'll put my money on a verteran of the US military all day who is armed against this mentally ill individual. Your argument is not only basless but also just wrong. Another veteran rushed the guy and was shot doing so. You want to tell me that if that class had 2-3 armed citizens that less people would not have died? Please, try and make that argument. It is laughable. This guy took the time to ask if individuals were Christain one by one. A guy in that situation could not protect all sides of himself. He would have been taken out and that would have resulted in fewer deaths. This is horrible but has nothing to do with the guns. It is mental illness that is the real problem. I'm sure others like you really had their hopes on a "assault rifle" being used. After all, nobody could kill this many people without one of those. Ban them anyway right? :S
Life is all about ass....either you're kicking it, kissing it, working it off, or trying to get a piece of it.
Muff Brother #4382 Dudeist Skydiver #000
www.fundraiseadventure.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

How would you react if you were witness to a shooting like in Oregon, Aurora, etc?



The honest answer is that I have no idea.

From the few high stress situations I have been in, I can tell you I reacted differently. So, I cannot draw any firm conclusion from that. Other than that what you think you would do and what you actually do aren't always the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jbscout2002

My reaction, were I to whiteness this happening, would be to draw the concealed Glock 23 that I am properly vetted and licensed to carry and neutralize the threat. Instead of 15 dead and 10 wounded, there would be maybe 2 dead and 1 or 2 wound, with one of the dead being the attacker. Those numbers of course are based on the fact that I whiteness begin shooting and the number of shoots he gets off before I can react to it.




Bingo!
Life is all about ass....either you're kicking it, kissing it, working it off, or trying to get a piece of it.
Muff Brother #4382 Dudeist Skydiver #000
www.fundraiseadventure.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jbscout2002

My reaction, were I to whiteness this happening, would be to draw the concealed Glock 23 that I am properly vetted and licensed to carry and neutralize the threat. Instead of 15 dead and 10 wounded, there would be maybe 2 dead and 1 or 2 wound, with one of the dead being the attacker. Those numbers of course are based on the fact that I whiteness begin shooting and the number of shoots he gets off before I can react to it.



Of course, if we had sensible laws in place that make it really really difficult for mentally unbalanced people to get hold of guns, then no-one would be dead and no-one wounded.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Your semantics are a joke.



Oregan State Law is semantics?

Quote

You want to tell me that if that class had 2-3 armed citizens that less people would not have died?



Why would I want to tell you that? Never made that argument, not making it now.

Quote

This is horrible but has nothing to do with the guns.



Considering he shot them, obviously guns do have something to do with this.

Quote

I'm sure others like you really had their hopes on a "assault rifle" being used.



If they were truly like me, they would be hoping these shootings simply didn't take place.

In the end our view points are different. You believe that more guns is the answer to reduce gun violence. I believe less guns is the answer to reduce gun violence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I will repeat

You are weaseling

If you are not, you can easily answer the following question and give clarity to the whole topic

As a matter of practicality, if you worked at or went to school at this public university, given the state law (that you are cherry picking to CYA)and the university policy regarding conceal carry, how could any student, faculty or employee of this university, carry a weapon on the grounds?

You and I know they would be allowed to but, as a practical matter how could it be done?
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jbscout2002

Anomalies happen. Young scared poorly trained weekend warriors during a tumultuous time following orders from an emotionally unstable and inexperienced young Sargeant.



I think the Nazis used that argument too. It was struck down as invalid in that case as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0