# Several shot dead inside a gun free zone



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/15-reported-dead-in-oregon-college-shooting/ar-AAf0MOh?ocid=iehp


----------



## M5farm (Jan 14, 2014)

shooter should have never been taken into custody except by the coroner.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Seatbelts are mandatory.... for safety..
Gun free zones are not safe.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

It's a college campus. The odds that any significant number of college students would have been armed and prepared to return fire are pretty slim.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

This happened what 15 minutes ago and we are already arguing the politics of guns? Really? You can't even mourn people anymore, it's straight to the political hay making. :awh:


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

M5farm said:


> shooter should have never been taken into custody except by the coroner.


Oh friend, I am glad he is in custody.

I WANT TO KNOW why. Why? Why did he did this evil thing?
What caused him to snap and do this evil thing?
Why did he plot and plan this evil thing?

I don't want some broad brush answer "oh he has mental illness".
I WANT SPECIFICS.

I want to know everything about this person......every thing about his life from the moment he was conceived until today.

Maybe, we can prevent this type of evil happening again, if we understand WHY it happened in the first place......

Such a sad day.....so much loss. 
Prayers for that community.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

We have lots of people here who advocate a modern society, albeit conforming to what they think it should be.

What I don't understand, our modern society seems to be breeding mass killers, and I also ask the question, "Why?".

There's something going on, we don't have a very good handle on...


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)




----------



## M5farm (Jan 14, 2014)

Laura Zone 10 said:


> Oh friend, I am glad he is in custody.
> 
> I WANT TO KNOW why. Why? Why did he did this evil thing?
> What caused him to snap and do this evil thing?
> ...


the truth will come out dead or alive. asking an insane person to justify what they have done is insanity because they don't know why. could have been a little green monkey that told him to do it. we all know they are no little green monkeys so we get nothing from him. If he is pure evil he gets the satisfaction living a long life in prison while the families and victims struggle to make it thru the day. Its sad and unfortunate. His funeral should be being planned also.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

M5farm said:


> the truth will come out dead or alive. asking an insane person to justify what they have done is insanity because they don't know why.


He may not be insane.



> could have been a little green monkey that told him to do it. we all know they are no little green monkeys so we get nothing from him. If he is pure evil he gets the satisfaction living a long life in prison while the families and victims struggle to make it thru the day. Its sad and unfortunate. His funeral should be being planned also.


I hear you, and I totally get where you are coming from.......I really do.
But in the last 10 years, we have had more mass shootings than we had in the 40 year prior, combined.

Why.
Why.
Why.

Most of the time the shooter kills himself, or goes out "suicide via police", or the sniper gets him to stop the rampage.

I want to know who helped Tim Mc Vey build that bomb that blew up in OK. He didn't do that alone. We will never know, because we fried him.

Jr. Seau committed suicide, by shooting himself in the chest, with a note demanding they study his brain and find out how the concussions from football ruined his life.....
He did that for others.

We need to find out what the H E double hockey sticks is making people do this. 
It's not a gun issue.......everyone had guns 40 years ago, and this kind of mass shooting was not happening at the rate it's happening now.

I want to know.
Knowledge is power. And I want the power to make this stop.
It's locked up in the brain, the body, and the life / environment of the shooter. We can't stop it if we don't know what causes it.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Patchouli said:


> This happened what 15 minutes ago and we are already arguing the politics of guns? Really? You can't even mourn people anymore, it's straight to the political hay making. :awh:


The reason these things become political so fast is that Obama will be standing on the bodies before they are cooled screeching for more gun control.
We all mourn the loss of innocent life (some more than others) and I didn't see anyone arguing.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

I doubt if we will ever be able to understand what goes so wrong inside a person that they could do something like this. 

I have a temper, and I have totally lost it at times, but no matter how mad and upset I get, I couldn't imagine mowing down a group of people like that. Now the person who pushed me over the edge might be in danger of getting a smack, or some inanimate object might get busted to pieces, but never fatal force. Never. 

There is just something missing from, or wrong with, the person who can do this. 

If a gun wasn't available who knows they might have made a bomb, blocked the exits and started a fire, poisoned the food in the cafeteria, whatever. The gun is just the tool. This shouldn't be a gun rights debate. Just acknowledge the tragedy.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

We are far safer now than ever. 
Think about it twenty years ago how long would it have taken to hear of this ? 100 years back how long ?


----------



## M5farm (Jan 14, 2014)

WHY - My answer will tick off a bunch of people but you asked. 

NO GOD in schools or homes 
single parents doing the best they can 
no corporal punishment 
spare the rod spoil the child. 
no time for family dinners
parents are inconvenienced by children to they go unsupervised 
video games 
politicians that get away with crimes and people not hold them accountable
media - sensationalizing everything 
social media making everyone narcissists
and the list goes on. 

all the things I have mentioned have changed over the last 40 yrs. its not coincidence its the end result.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

MO_cows said:


> I doubt if we will ever be able to understand what goes so wrong inside a person that they could do something like this.
> 
> I have a temper, and I have totally lost it at times, but no matter how mad and upset I get, I couldn't imagine mowing down a group of people like that. Now the person who pushed me over the edge might be in danger of getting a smack, or some inanimate object might get busted to pieces, but never fatal force. Never.
> 
> ...


I am wondering if the shooters (all) are "social media queens/kings"?
Meaning they live for the likes. Live for the views, live for the comments.....49 selfies a day, every social media known to man on their phones / ipad / computers, and that's all they do all day is check their posts..........
And to be a 'social media sensation' a mass shooting like this would cause a splash.

Here in FLA we had a 40 year old man, shoot a reporter and her camera man on LIVE TV AND he was 'recording' on his phone while he was shooting then POSTED it on Twitter and Facebook........
I know. My jaw is hanging on the floor too.

Yeah. So I am wondering WHY......just WHY.......and what can we do to stop it.

*NEVER MIND THE SHOOTER IS DEAD*


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Wink News just said they are checking the kids social media, because he posted about the shooting, on several social media sites.........


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

M5farm said:


> WHY - My answer will tick off a bunch of people but you asked.
> 
> NO GOD in schools or homes
> single parents doing the best they can
> ...


And before that, a woman's hair cut with bangs was "lunatic fringe". Children should be seen and not heard. 
and the list goes on.

Every generation has that "what's this world coming to" moment, but really people haven't changed. The times change but human nature doesn't. There have always been lunatics and evil people among us.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Laura Zone 10 said:


> I am wondering if the shooters (all) are "social media queens/kings"?
> Meaning they live for the likes. Live for the views, live for the comments.....49 selfies a day, every social media known to man on their phones / ipad / computers, and that's all they do all day is check their posts..........
> And to be a 'social media sensation' a mass shooting like this would cause a splash.
> 
> ...


Perhaps the best thing we can do to stop it is to avoid making people who do these things household names. 

Obviously, the public deserves and wants a certain amount of information but by the time this has been publicly reviewed from every possible angle in the media, we've just given the next one a goal to meet or exceed. 

Everybody remembers all the names of serial killers but few remember the names of their victims. 

I don't know if it's this information is fed to us because it's felt we want it or because people feel the need to feel they have control of tragedies by way of speculation on the investigation.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

Laura Zone 10 said:


> I am wondering if the shooters (all) are "social media queens/kings"?
> Meaning they live for the likes. Live for the views, live for the comments.....49 selfies a day, every social media known to man on their phones / ipad / computers, and that's all they do all day is check their posts..........
> And to be a 'social media sensation' a mass shooting like this would cause a splash.
> 
> ...


I thought the reporter and cameraman was in Va. Did I miss another copycat killing?


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

nchobbyfarm said:


> I thought the reporter and cameraman was in Va. Did I miss another copycat killing?


You are correct......I was watching the Florida news and typed Fla. instead of VA


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

wr said:


> Perhaps the best thing we can do to stop it is to avoid making people who do these things household names.


I TOTALLY agree. The more press time these monsters get, the more ideas the next one gets......it's a vicious cycle.



> Obviously, the public deserves and wants a certain amount of information but by the time this has been publicly reviewed from every possible angle in the media, we've just given the next one a goal to meet or exceed.
> 
> Everybody remembers all the names of serial killers but few remember the names of their victims.


And that is so wrong.....and it fuels the next shooters fire.



> I don't know if it's this information is fed to us because it's felt we want it or because people feel the need to feel they have control of tragedies by way of speculation on the investigation.



I think our culture is such that its morbidly curious.
I wish someone would find out "why" these people commit these types of crimes.
Look into their lives, do toxicology to see if there are similarites, something
This kind of terrorism has to stop.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Laura Zone 10 said:


> I TOTALLY agree. The more press time these monsters get, the more ideas the next one gets......it's a vicious cycle.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Maybe the the solution is no more complicated that turning off the television and walking away from sensationalism or maybe it's more complicated than that but when manifestos of one cite the deeds of another, it seems like publicity plays a part in it.


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

M5farm said:


> WHY - My answer will tick off a bunch of people but you asked.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



All of those things are true in other countries as well, but they don't have mass killings the way we do in the good ole USA.


----------



## M5farm (Jan 14, 2014)

According to some eyewitness accounts it's religion based. One source stated that he asked if about faith is they claimed Christian they were shot in the head any other faith in the legs. Again this is not confirmed. Also a report is saying there was a warning on social media last night to not go to school today.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

vicker said:


> All of those things are true in other countries as well, but they don't have mass killings the way we do in the good ole USA.


The US is statistically very low in murder and violent crime compared to other countries, including those with strict gun control.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Obama did it again.
He came out, spoke for about 30 seconds about the victims, then went on an anti-gun rant.
I wonder if those who complained about the politicizing of this tragedy will step up and condemn Obama for the same thing.
Anybody?


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Ok.
I am watching the news.
I watched Obama speak.
I AM NOT a fan of Obama, AT ALL............

But.

His body language was telling.
He was frustrated, saying 'this has become routine'. 
He's sick of addressing this in the podem.
Then he said "it shouldn't be this easy to get a gun"......

BUT

His body language went from genuine frustration to stiff.
When he said "it shouldn't be this easy to get a gun"......his eyes dropped to the left. 
His muscles were tight. 
It was almost like he was "forcing" those words.......

That to me (because tin foil is not only for cooking, but an accessory for my head) was very very telling.......


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Cornhusker said:


> The reason these things become political so fast is that Obama will be standing on the bodies before they are cooled screeching for more gun control.
> We all mourn the loss of innocent life (some more than others) and I didn't see anyone arguing.


And, true to form for the infester of the White House, he started to lament the wonderful laws of England, Australia, etc. and how their wonderful boots on the neck of freedom cut down on mass shootings.


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

I'm just saying.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Farmerga said:


> And, true to form for the infester of the White House, he started to lament the wonderful laws of England, Australia, etc. and how their wonderful boots on the neck of freedom cut down on mass shootings.


What he ignores is the fact that while we are #1 in gun ownership, we are way down the list on violent crime


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

I wish Obama would worry about Russia and Iran as much as he wants gun control passed.
I'm not minimizing the murders today at all. I never want anybody to be shot by a killer. As a mother and grandmother, thank God that I can only imagine what their families are going through tonight.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

vicker said:


> I'm just saying.


That may be accurate. But, one I don't have faith in the fool proof accuracy of statistics or correctness in the findings of law enforcement. And, two it may be x number of times higher in the US compared to other countries. But, our population total is also frequently x number of times larger than other countries. So, the person capita rates may look quite different than just total numbers when compared.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

vicker said:


> I'm just saying.


As many, if not most, Serial killers do not use guns, this would indicate that guns are not the problem.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Most serial killers are either sociopaths, or psychopaths.
One enjoys the kill, one is compelled to kill but both are careful so they can continue to hunt and kill.
Guns are not the choice weapon. It's very impersonal.
Both sociopaths and psychopaths like the more 'hands on' type approach/weapons.

Mass shootings would be more Narcissistic. 
The "Hey look at me, look at the attention I am getting, Look everyone knows my name, I'm in the history books, ha ha I got away w/ it because you will never take me alive"........


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

Obama's home city has very strict gun control laws and why does Chicago have so many shootings and such a bad crime problem? They took the guys away from the wrong people so they cannot protect themselves.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

gapeach said:


> Obama's home city has very strict gun control laws and why does Chicago have so many shootings and such a bad crime problem? They took the guys away from the wrong people so they cannot protect themselves.


More people are killed in Chicago by gangs in one weekend than in most mass shootings, yet Obama never gets teary eyed over them.
Anybody ever wonder why?
Also, did anyone notice the swipe he took at the NRA?


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

He is going to beat that drum til he is out of office. 

The police have never caught the killer of the football player where my grandsons go to college. They say they have no leads as to who the shooter was. They feel that some of the students may know who he was but are afraid to turn him in because of the possible retaliation against them. College students are young and usually ambitious or they would not be in school. This shooter may not have even been a student. At the school now, the students have new large ID badges that must be worn all the time on campus.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Cornhusker said:


> More people are killed in Chicago by gangs in one weekend than in most mass shootings, yet Obama never gets teary eyed over them.
> 
> Anybody ever wonder why?
> 
> Also, did anyone notice the swipe he took at the NRA?



I think it's pretty common for people to assume gun control with solve the problem but solving gang activity is a far more complex problem which will require complex solutions.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

wr said:


> I think it's pretty common for people to assume gun control with solve the problem but solving gang activity is a far more complex problem which will require complex solutions.


Chicago has gun control strict enough to be ridiculous.
How's that working for them?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

vicker said:


> I'm just saying.


Some of those countries are smaller than some of our states
A few of those countries have populations equal to a couple of our larger cities
It makes those sorts of comparisons worthless.

Todays shooting was not the act of a "serial killer" anyway, unless he's killed in the past too.



> A serial killer is a person who murders three or more people,[1][2] usually due to abnormal psychological gratification, with the murders taking place over more than a month and including a significant break (a "cooling off period") between them.[3][4]
> 
> Some sources, such as the FBI, disregard the "three or more" criterion and define serial killing as "a series of two or more murders, committed as separate events, usually, but not always, by one offender acting alone"


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

vicker said:


> All of those things are true in other countries as well, but they don't have mass killings the way we do in the good ole USA.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/20/deadliest-mass-shootings_n_1688820.html

_ July 22, 2011: Confessed mass killer Anders Behring Breivik kills 77 in Norway in twin attacks: a bombing in downtown Oslo and a shooting massacre at a youth camp outside the capital. The self-styled anti-Muslim militant admitted both attacks

April 30, 2009: Farda Gadyrov, 29, enters the prestigious Azerbaijan State Oil Academy in the capital, Baku, armed with an automatic pistol and clips. He kills 12 people before killing himself as police close in.


ept. 23, 2008: Matti Saari, 22, walks into a vocational college in Kauhajoki, Finland, and opens fire, killing 10 people and burning their bodies with firebombs before shooting himself fatally in the head.

Nov. 7, 2007: After revealing plans for his attack in YouTube postings, 18-year-old Pekka-Eric Auvinen fires kills eight people at his high school in Tuusula, Finland.

_ April 28, 1996: Martin Bryant, 29, bursts into cafeteria in seaside resort of Port Arthur in Tasmania, Australia, shooting 20 people to death. Driving away, he kills 15 others. He was captured and imprisoned.

_ March 13, 1996: Thomas Hamilton, 43, kills 16 kindergarten children and their teacher in elementary school in Dunblane, Scotland, and then kills himself.

Dec. 6, 1989: Marc Lepine, 25, bursts into Montreal's Ecole Polytechnique college, shooting at women he encounters, killing nine and then himself.

_ Aug. 19, 1987: Michael Ryan, 27, kills 16 people in small market town of Hungerford, England, and then shoots himself dead after being cornered by police.



Maybe we forget or never listened .....


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

vicker said:


> I'm just saying.


Is that per capita.?

Stats that do not compare numbers per the total population is screwed numbers.

Numbers never lie but stats can misrepresent realty.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

It wasn't a gun free zone. There were people there legally with CC guns. 

[YOUTUBE]7mOJf9HW2Zo[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

How are zones designated to be gun free or not?


----------



## partndn (Jun 18, 2009)

wr said:


> How are zones designated to be gun free or not?


WR, standard here is all schools, gov property like post office, courthouse, etc. and any retail business with a sign saying "no weapons permitted" also shopping malls, amusement parks, stadiums, etc. 

They are mostly posted here with some sort of signage or policy of membership, stuff like that.

Otherwise, for out in public areas, it's kind a state by state thing. Each one has different guidelines/limits for carrying open, concealed, or just plain walking through town with a rifle or something.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

wr said:


> How are zones designated to be gun free or not?


Whether or not it is legal to carry guns there. You can have a CC license and carry a gun on public property unless there is a law against it (a lot of states designate schools, hospitals and Churches as gun free). Other places like stores and restaurants get to decide for themselves whether to allow guns on their property. If they don't want them they generally post signs. From what I understand Oregon let's the schools choose whether or not to all CC on campus.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

wr said:


> How are zones designated to be gun free or not?


Federal rules cover federal property. State rules vary by state laws. Most states have laws on things like state building, schools, etc. In most states businesses have the option of putting up no guns signs or not. I know here a lot of people ignore the no gun business signs and it is sometimes hard to remember you are carrying. You just don't realize you are carrying sometimes because your mind is on other things.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

poppy said:


> Federal rules cover federal property. State rules vary by state laws. Most states have laws on things like state building, schools, etc. In most states businesses have the option of putting up no guns signs or not. I know here a lot of people ignore the no gun business signs and it is sometimes hard to remember you are carrying. You just don't realize you are carrying sometimes because your mind is on other things.


That's confidence inspiring.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

I can understand courthouses the rest really doesn't make sense to me. If you're legal and licensed to carry and your constitution provides for it, there should be no reason you should be restricted and I would think it's a lot less safe to have to stow a firearm in a vehicle than to keep it with you. 

Am I misunderstanding?


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

I agree with you on leaving the gun in the car being a safety issue. But you can't force a business, school, Church, whatever to allow guns f they don't want them there or their customers don't want them. Rights go both ways. If you don't like a place's policy find a different place to go to instead.


----------



## partndn (Jun 18, 2009)

wr said:


> I can understand courthouses the rest really doesn't make sense to me. If you're legal and licensed to carry and your constitution provides for it, there should be no reason you should be restricted and I would think it's a lot less safe to have to stow a firearm in a vehicle than to keep it with you.
> 
> Am I misunderstanding?


No, you are not misunderstanding! And can you sneak down here and cast a few votes come election time? Bring some pals who are of the same logic.

Seriously, the only argument I kinda can't make hard line about is bars. I reckon if the management or owner feels like they ain't gonna put up with babysittin some grown, but drunk carriers, I can't blame 'em.


----------



## partndn (Jun 18, 2009)

I forgot banks. Yeah, banks don't like to see firearms come in.
A lot of our banks have taken to hiring armed private security these days, at least where I live. About half of them have a guard visibly present.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Political person in power often acting on emotions and lately under pressure and and sway from Michael Blumberg a wealthy anti gun former mayor of New York famous for the attempt to limit soda sizes, anti gun law campaign.

As for school gun free zones that goes back to like 1990...I know I was living in New York at the time.. but he was a senator and it was his baby.

I remember hunting and handling gun was an after noon activity when I was in elementary school for fifth and sixth grader... kids did bring hunting guns to school they where put on the bus with the trombones, French horns.. a parent would be at the bus stop and confirm it was not loaded..
It was the only time but the first day of school any parent would be at a bus stop. For the week they stayed at school..

I know nothing more as we were not gun people.. no hunters in my family.
Only gun I saw in our home was when my brother had one for work due to large bank depositing was apart of his job.

It was a non issue on the bus.. just talk of how they (the new to be Hunter) would miss school on opener and they were sure to do better at getting a deer than an older sib. Or some scouting medal they were working on. The principal and janitor(who doubled ads out town's mayor and gas station owner )

Military bases are also gun free

National parks have gone back and forth on gun friendly or not.. here with bears we had people making a choice .... be safe or be illegal. Now the can carry again.

Private business have the right to discriminate openly against persons with guns and property rights trump serving those who carry a gun...(think about that... property right trump customer constitution rights).


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

partndn said:


> No, you are not misunderstanding! And can you sneak down here and cast a few votes come election time? Bring some pals who are of the same logic.
> 
> Seriously, the only argument I kinda can't make hard line about is bars. I reckon if the management or owner feels like they ain't gonna put up with babysittin some grown, but drunk carriers, I can't blame 'em.


I can understand bars and my thinking behind courthouses is that an unhappy soul may want to spare the government the cost of a trial. 

Gun control brings on some pretty funny contradictions. The big guy is legally able to own 'restricted' firearms and happens to want a new trigger for one of them. He's busier than a one armed paper hanger right now and I have spare time but because I've never bother to become licensed for restricted firearms, I can't take it in to the gunsmith for him. A simple online exam would solve the problem but it seems like a lot of work for a trigger. 

When we do take it in, I can promise you that one of two rival Asian gangs will be honing their marksmanship skills at the range, which is perfectly legal because they and their handgun are being supervised.


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

I knew y'all'd jump all over the serial killer distinction, I just liked the meme.  But, come on, you can't really ignore the fact that our country has so many mass shootings in the last few decades. Sure, other countries have had a few, but come on. Other than, maybe, a few backwards Muslim countries who have frequent terrorist bombings that kill innocents, we rule the roost. Instead of denying it, maybe someone would like to take a stab at explaining it, and not with the shallow, "lack of corporeal punishment, they took God out of schools, single moms..." crap. Those things are more true in most other counties, and they don't have this problem.


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

kasilofhome said:


> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/20/deadliest-mass-shootings_n_1688820.html
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think it is clear who is not listening.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

Just read that people had their cell phones confiscated as they were evacuated and searched today at that school. What on earth?


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

vicker said:


> I think it is clear who is not listening.


Yes, I do agree .


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

wr said:


> I can understand courthouses the rest really doesn't make sense to me. If you're legal and licensed to carry and your constitution provides for it, there should be no reason you should be restricted and I would think it's a lot less safe to have to stow a firearm in a vehicle than to keep it with you.
> 
> Am I misunderstanding?


You seem to understand it well, but like Patchouli said, some states give businesses a choice. 

Unfortunately, many insurance companies require their clients to post the signs (so some businesses say).

In some states it's a criminal offense to carry on property that is posted, but in others all they can do is ask you to leave. 

Many people carry anyway, since if it's properly concealed, no one will ever know

The laws vary a lot by states


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

gibbsgirl said:


> Just read that people had their cell phones confiscated as they were evacuated and searched today at that school. What on earth?


As evidence, to see if they had video, or any communications with the shooter.
Also, not every report will be 100% accurate.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/02/21/mass-shootings-domestic-violence-nra/1937041/



> Mass shootings toll exceeds 900 in past seven years
> 
> The 934 deaths account for *less than 1% of all gun-related homicides*, and nearly half involve a suspect slaying his or her family members, the detailed examination shows. USA TODAY combed through FBI records and news accounts to identify 146 mass shootings since 2006 that matched the FBI definition of mass shooting, where four or more people were killed.





> In the 71 shootings that involved someone killing his or her family members, 376 victims died. Most of those killings occurred at home.


http://chronicle.com/blogs/conversation/2012/12/18/top-10-myths-about-mass-shootings/



> Myth: Mass shootings are on the rise.
> 
> Reality: Over the past three decades, there has been an average of 20 mass shootings a year in the United States, each with at least four victims killed by gunfire. Occasionally, and mostly by sheer coincidence, several episodes have been clustered closely in time.
> 
> *Over all, however, there has not been an upward trajectory. To the contrary, the real growth has been in the style and pervasiveness of news-media coverage, thanks in large part to technological advances in reporting.*


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

As with a lot of things, mass killers are just getting more efficient.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> As with a lot of things, mass killers are just getting more efficient.


Not really, and no firearms were involved:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Land_fire


> The Happy Land fire was an arson fire that killed 87 people trapped in an unlicensed social club named "Happy Land"


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Efficiency comes in many forms.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

wr said:


> How are zones designated to be gun free or not?


The Gun-Free School Zones Act, legislation.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

I have said this for years; I am 100% convinced that the 'disarming' of America will come in the form of "Mental Illness".

Now that our healthcare records are 'government' property, ANYONE who has been prescribed ANY drug that treats 'mental illness' will be DISQUALIFIED from buying a gun or worse; loose the guns they have.

At first blush, this will look like a great idea!
But stop and think, in the last 10 years, how many 'anti-depressants' have been prescribed? Smoking Cession programs use anti depressants. 
The hundred's of thousands of folks who will be disqualified from the 2nd Ammendment........

So see..........tin foil is not just for cookin'!!!


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

Bearfootfarm said:


> As evidence, to see if they had video, or any communications with the shooter.
> Also, not every report will be 100% accurate.


Well, I don't agree with that if it's not only very specific people.

And, where have you found it said it was for that very specific reason?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

gibbsgirl said:


> Well, I don't agree with that if it's not only very specific people.
> 
> And, where have you found it said it was for that very specific reason?


I haven't seen any reports that said it even happened.

I merely gave some logical reasons as to why they *might* do it.

I doubt it's true unless people told them they had video


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

poppy said:


> Federal rules cover federal property. State rules vary by state laws. Most states have laws on things like state building, schools, etc. In most states businesses have the option of putting up no guns signs or not. I know here a lot of people ignore the no gun business signs and it is sometimes hard to remember you are carrying. You just don't realize you are carrying sometimes because your mind is on other things.


In GA a business can put up all the signs they wish but if they are open to the pubic it is not against the law to go in carrying.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Patchouli said:


> That's confidence inspiring.


Do you regularly wear a watch? Do you always realize you have it on until you wish to use it? How about a wallet or pocket knife? If you carry for a while it becomes the same.

BTW some states recognize this and their CCW laws provide for it, if you enter a place which carrying if forbidden by law you can tell a LEO that you are carrying and wish to leave the area and you will not be arrested.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Patchouli said:


> I agree with you on leaving the gun in the car being a safety issue. But you can't force a business, school, Church, whatever to allow guns f they don't want them there or their customers don't want them. Rights go both ways. If you don't like a place's policy find a different place to go to instead.


Ah. . .not according to the courts. A business has no right to inflict its rights on others. Note the cases where Christian businesses have been told they have to provide a good or service when doing so is against their right to religious freedom.

I always found it to be strange that it was illegal to carry in a public park. I couldn't understand why you could be considered a well adjusted law abiding citizen walking down the street but once you entered a park you might just become a crazed killing machine.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

partndn said:


> I forgot banks. Yeah, banks don't like to see firearms come in.
> A lot of our banks have taken to hiring armed private security these days, at least where I live. About half of them have a guard visibly present.


Funny I just read an article about banks somewhere were removing their no guns allowed signs. The gist of the article was they realize that people with CCW were much more a protection than a threat to them.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

My question was simply asked because I was ignorant of terminology but it was not my intention to turn this into a discussion about gun control or who is handling theirs more right.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

gibbsgirl said:


> Just read that people had their cell phones confiscated as they were evacuated and searched today at that school. What on earth?


Phones were probable considered possible sources of evidence seeing as how almost every phone out there today will take pics and video.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

gibbsgirl said:


> Well, I don't agree with that if it's not only very specific people.



Think about it, how do you know which specific phone might have a vital picture or video clip on it and only take that phone?




gibbsgirl said:


> And, where have you found it said it was for that very specific reason?


Common sense will tell you that's the reason.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I haven't seen any reports that said it even happened.
> 
> I merely gave some logical reasons as to why they *might* do it.
> 
> I doubt it's true unless people told them they had video


Iread it in a nypost article I believe. But, it was just a sentence in the article. No quote or anything more specific.

If they are not taking specific ones for specific reasons, that it wrong IMO.

Constitutionally for one, and two because in those moments those are lifelines for those people. Especially since a lot of this college generation relies on their phones to have the numbers they need to keep in touch with folks.

My thoughts anyway.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

watcher said:


> Think about it, how do you know which specific phone might have a vital picture or video clip on it and only take that phone?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I understand that this is a tragedy and don't wish to diminish the loss or crime.

If it was a very specific targeted group, such as the students directly in the vicinity of in contact with the shooter. Yes, perhaps I think that is acceptable.

If it was a mass confiscation of those evacuated from the campus, that reeks to me of being similar to "stop and frisk".


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

wr said:


> My question was simply asked because I was ignorant of terminology but it was not my intention to turn this into a discussion about gun control or who is handling theirs more right.



How does on NOT discuss gun control when the question brought up IS about controlling guns.


Gun Free zones... control guns... trample on a constitutional right.
On private property.. I tend to feel that a guest volunteers to follow the rules of the land owner ..Or do not enter.


So I am and was not trying to be a problem.
If the subject is how to bake bread at home.... the source of heat needs to be addressed. Along with the ingredients.


----------



## farmsteader6 (Dec 19, 2014)

Cornhusker said:


> The reason these things become political so fast is that Obama will be standing on the bodies before they are cooled screeching for more gun control.
> 
> We all mourn the loss of innocent life (some more than others) and I didn't see anyone arguing.



Sure enough!!! Like a fortune teller!!


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

gibbsgirl said:


> Iread it in a nypost article I believe. But, it was just a sentence in the article. No quote or anything more specific.
> 
> If they are not taking specific ones for specific reasons, that it wrong IMO.
> 
> ...


That's one reason I doubt the report was true, and why I wouldn't get my panties in a wad over it unless it's confirmed.

Reporters just like to fill pages


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's one reason I doubt the report was true, and why I wouldn't get my panties in a wad over it unless it's confirmed.
> 
> Reporters just like to fill pages


My panties are just fine thank you very much, lol.

I'm just chatting. There have been many cases in the last decade or so of Martial law type tactics used in searches and seizures by Leo in the aftermath of emergencies and disasters. 

Katrina. Boston.

So, I was mentioning the phone topic because I don't agree the govt can cross those lines constitutionally, even under the guise of it being for our own good.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

gibbsgirl said:


> Iread it in a nypost article I believe. But, it was just a sentence in the article. No quote or anything more specific.
> 
> If they are not taking specific ones for specific reasons, that it wrong IMO.
> 
> ...


They are taking specific ones. They are taking the ones which were at the scene of a crime. And they are taking them for a specific reason, any one of these phones could have evidence which could be used in a court case and said evidence could be easily destroyed.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

gibbsgirl said:


> I understand that this is a tragedy and don't wish to diminish the loss or crime.
> 
> If it was a very specific targeted group, such as the students directly in the vicinity of in contact with the shooter. Yes, perhaps I think that is acceptable.
> 
> If it was a mass confiscation of those evacuated from the campus, that reeks to me of being similar to "stop and frisk".


Ok so what should the police should have done?

Held the people in the area where there maybe still be someone looking to kill them until the police can determine who was actually was in a place they could see what happened before taking their phones?

Or should the police let them all go and take the chance that a vital piece of evidence is deleted or released to social media making it difficult to convict those involved? Or worse yet the shooter himself, after dropping his weapon and acting like a victim, posting it.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

As others have said you can either have security or freedom. 

How many mass shootings do you hear about in prisons? Therefore we should make schools and such like prisons. To get in you must first be strip searched and given a body cavity search (do I need to post stories about police finding firearms in body cavities?) and put on the clothing provided.

That's extreme but it would solve the problem would it not?

If you could magically make all firearms disappear today it would not stop killing like this. All that would change would be the weapon used. And I can tell you I rather be in a room where someone kicks in the door and starts shooting than be in one where the kicker tosses in molotov cocktail or two.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

> If you could magically make all firearms disappear today it would not stop killing like this. All that would change would be the weapon used. And I can tell you* I rather be in a room where someone kicks in the door and starts shooting than be in one where the kicker tosses in molotov cocktail or two.*


OR
Someone who puts a poison in the air vents.
Someone who poison's food, or water.
Someone who releases a gas..........
And that list can go on and on.

I have no defense on the above. 
I can legally carry a handgun and defend myself, and others.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Patchouli said:


> It wasn't a gun free zone. There were people there legally with CC guns.
> 
> [YOUTUBE]7mOJf9HW2Zo[/YOUTUBE]


If you start at minute 2 he talks about having a gun himself and the Oregon laws.


----------



## M5farm (Jan 14, 2014)

Yes it was a gun free zone. 

here is the link to UCC website , 

https://web.archive.org/web/20150316175339/http://umpqua.edu/safety-security-information


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Question:

Can the University say "no guns" and that trumps OR law that says it's ok?


----------



## M5farm (Jan 14, 2014)

Laura Zone 10 said:


> Question:
> 
> Can the University say "no guns" and that trumps OR law that says it's ok?



My personal belief is that OR law and second amendment supersedes everything. But the way the rules for the school are written it makes it gun free. according to the website it has to be authorized by law or college. But you can not take it out because that would be brandishing and it is prohibited.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

gibbsgirl said:


> Iread it in a nypost article I believe. But, it was just a sentence in the article. No quote or anything more specific.
> 
> If they are not taking specific ones for specific reasons, that it wrong IMO.
> 
> ...


Fyi...
I know in Hicksville Alaska.. the cops needed info from my phone.. I understood and I did have the only evidence...As such.. the cloned my phone in front of me and limited the cloning to just the evidence..

Took ten minutes. 

Surely Hicksville doesn't own the rights to this technology.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

M5farm said:


> Yes it was a gun free zone.
> 
> here is the link to UCC website ,
> 
> https://web.archive.org/web/20150316175339/http://umpqua.edu/safety-security-information





> Possession, use, or threatened use of firearms (including but not limited to BB guns, air guns, water pistols, and paint guns) ammunition, explosives, dangerous chemicals, or any other objects as weapons on college property, *except as expressly authorized by law or college regulations*, is prohibited.
> Possession of knives with a blade longer than 4â is prohibited.
> Brandishing weapons is prohibited.
> Misuse of personal defensive weapons â e.g., pepper spray, etc. is prohibited. The owner is responsible and accountable for any misuse of these devices.


CC is expressly ALLOWED by law. Watch the video, the guy quotes the law. I don't think I have ever seen anyone work so hard to ignore facts they don't like.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Patchouli said:


> I agree with you on leaving the gun in the car being a safety issue. But you can't force a business, school, Church, whatever to allow guns f they don't want them there or their customers don't want them. Rights go both ways. If you don't like a place's policy find a different place to go to instead.


Unless it's a bakery?


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

kasilofhome said:


> Fyi...
> I know in Hicksville Alaska.. the cops needed info from my phone.. I understood and I did have the only evidence...As such.. the cloned my phone in front of me and limited the cloning to just the evidence..
> 
> Took ten minutes.
> ...


I've seen it handle that way as well but this may have had something to do with the sheer volume of cell phones.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

gibbsgirl said:


> My panties are just fine thank you very much, lol.
> 
> I'm just chatting. There have been many cases in the last decade or so of Martial law type tactics used in searches and seizures by Leo in the aftermath of emergencies and disasters.
> 
> ...


I'm just chatting too

I just see little point in worrying about something that may not even have happened 

There's no logical reason to believe it did


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Tell me that each person was not debriefed... prior to being released?

I know when I volunteer for a local school for such an event.
I was trained.
Given I'd, vest radio
And diagrams of the school
A list of all teachers,student, and workers that regularly worked there

My job would have been dealing with the returning of students to their families.

Explaining to the parents that this takes time
Reasons

All children must released to anyone must have I'd, 
I would confirm I'd, 
Radio child's name and I'd verification.
And get them to sign a paper explaining that they agreed to the safety proceeded.
Once approved... I was to send the to another door round the side to park.

There would be another team member...we had to train for all role out side.
That person would explain that their child was being briefed and if they would like they could be escorted into the building to a secured room and watch 

Cloning took just seconds.. lot longer than reading the papers to sign.

Now, the cops have more info than they need... self incrimination rights might be violated... photo of a bong?... who knows.
Being a victim of a crime should not nullify your rights.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Patchouli said:


> CC is expressly ALLOWED by law. Watch the video, the guy quotes the law. I don't think I have ever seen anyone work so hard to ignore facts they don't like.


It's hard to believe, huh?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Cornhusker said:


> Unless it's a bakery?


That's not at all similar, since any gun regulations apply to everyone equally.
The bakery was flat out religious discrimination, which is clearly illegal


----------



## M5farm (Jan 14, 2014)

Patchouli said:


> CC is expressly ALLOWED by law. Watch the video, the guy quotes the law. I don't think I have ever seen anyone work so hard to ignore facts they don't like.



Its all based on interpretation. as long as my view coincides with yours we are hunky dory. 

so this little tidbit means what?? 

Umpqua Community College
"As of March 2015, Concealed carry was not permitted, except by written permission by college"

http://www.armedcampuses.org/oregon/

Im not disputing the fact the state law allows it. The college is telling people by there bylaws and rules that they are gun free. 
did the guy being interviewed show you his permission slip???? 
what irks me is how people that claim to be fighting for everyone to be equal only they exclude Christian conservatives because they don't fit the little perfect box of politically correct, yes master I surrender group.


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

*MILITARY NEWS*

OCTOBER 2, 2015
*Accused Oregon gunman was dismissed from Fort Jackson*

The State
Columbia, SC

_The Associated Press_


The U.S. Army says the gunman who killed nine people at an Oregon community college flunked out of basic training in 2008.
Lt. Col. Ben Garrett, an Army spokesman, said Christopher Sean Harper-Mercer was in the service at Columbiaâs Fort Jackson, starting on Nov. 5, 2008. But by Dec. 11, 2008, he was discharged for failing to meet the minimum administrative standards.
Garrett did not say which standards Harper-Mercer failed to meet. Generally, the Army requires recruits to pass physical fitness tests and to be generally in good physical and mental health. Recruits also must score highly enough on a multiple-choice test covering science, math, reading comprehension and other topics.
http://www.thestate.com/news/local/military/article37354818.html

Well, this is an interesting development.



*
Read more here: http://www.thestate.com/news/local/military/article37354818.html#storylink=cpy​*


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

M5farm said:


> My personal belief is that OR law and second amendment supersedes everything. But the way the rules for the school are written it makes it gun free. according to the website it has to be authorized by law or college. *But you can not take it out because that would be brandishing *and it is prohibited.


There's no need to "take it out" unless it's a true self defense situation.
When that happens, it's no longer "brandishing"



> branÂ·dish
> [&#712;brandiSH]
> VERB
> wave or flourish (something, especially a weapon) as a threat or in anger or excitement.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

gapeach said:


> Well, this is an interesting development.


I wouldn't read too much into that

Between 13% and 17% don't make it through Basic Training, and your source says they don't know specifically why he failed.

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joiningthemilitary/l/blbasicattrit.htm


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

I've known a lot of people who went through Fort Jackson, including my husband, and never knew anybody who failed. It has always been one of the hottest places in the country, 115 on the asphalt in the summer, and no soldier ever forgets it. My husband hated the thought of moving to Columbia but we lived there 12 yrs. 

I thought they did not release specific info about why they failed.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

gapeach said:


> I've known a lot of people who went through Fort Jackson, including my husband, and *never knew anybody who failed.* It has always been one of the hottest places in the country, 115 on the asphalt in the summer, and no soldier ever forgets it. My husband hated the thought of moving to Columbia but we lived there 12 yrs.
> 
> I thought they did not release specific info about why they failed.


That's not surprising since the majority do pass.
It has no relevance to the failure rate.

The fact they didn't say why he failed is why the report is pretty much gossip at this point.


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's not surprising since the majority do pass.
> It has no relevance to the failure rate.
> 
> The fact they didn't say why he failed is why the report is pretty much gossip at this point.


How can it be gossip when it is put out by the Army 
and issued by Lt. Col. Ben Garrett, an Army spokesman?


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

I love the spin.

First hand, multiple witnesses said that he singled out Christians for murder.

Now the news says "he wasn't singling anyone out, he just hates everyone".

Such a sack of fertilizer.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

People are dropped for all kinds of reasons.

Failure to adapt.
Insubordination
Medical
If a recruit threatens suicide
If the recruit lied about a medical condition when they enlisted and it becomes obvious in boot.
ETC.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

M5farm said:


> Its all based on interpretation. as long as my view coincides with yours we are hunky dory.
> 
> so this little tidbit means what??
> 
> ...


Huh? How did you manage to drag Christians into this?

I would assume they had permission slips then. They were prior military. Did you watch the video?


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

gapeach said:


> I've known a lot of people who went through Fort Jackson, including my husband, and never knew anybody who failed. It has always been one of the hottest places in the country, 115 on the asphalt in the summer, and no soldier ever forgets it. My husband hated the thought of moving to Columbia but we lived there 12 yrs.
> 
> I thought they did not release specific info about why they failed.


Tons of people fail out of Boot Camp. In the past few years as they have been drawing down the military and the Army in particular the wash-outs are even higher. When I went through Basic we lost people for failure to adapt which is a catch all for people who just can't cope mentally or physically. Then you have mental illness, injury or they just change their minds. 

The military won't tell you why they washed out but it's on their 214.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

gapeach said:


> *How can it be gossip* when it is put out by the Army
> and issued by Lt. Col. Ben Garrett, an Army spokesman?


Gossip can be true: 



> Gossip is idle talk or rumor, especially about the personal or private affairs of others


It wasn't "put out" by the Army so much as they partially answered a question from a reporter digging for dirt

It's just pointless trivia without the details as to why he failed.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Laura Zone 10 said:


> I love the spin.
> 
> First hand, multiple witnesses said that he singled out Christians for murder.
> 
> ...


He shot them all, Christian or not.

You're confusing what witnesses said with what an FBI profiler said about his personality


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> He shot them all, Christian or not.
> 
> You're confusing what witnesses said with what an FBI profiler said about his personality


Ok, I will repeat.

He asked "what is your religion".
The victims that said "christian", his reply was "well you are gonna meet God in about a second" and he FATALLY shot them.
The victims that said "other" he shot in the leg, arm, buttock, but did NOT fatally shoot them.

The female VICTIM in the hospital that was shot in the spine, answered the shooters question (see above) Christian.....and played "dead" on the floor so he would not shoot her again.

I have seen noting / heard nothing any profilers have said.


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

I've kept up with it all day today and yesterday on Oregon Alive.com and have not heard anything about a FBI profiler, just statements from the witnesses.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Laura Zone 10 said:


> Ok, I will repeat.
> 
> He asked "what is your religion".
> The victims that said "christian", his reply was "well you are gonna meet God in about a second" and he FATALLY shot them.
> ...


You quoted what I heard a profiler say about him



> Now the news says "he wasn't singling anyone out, he just hates everyone".


He still shot them no matter what they answered


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

gapeach said:


> I've kept up with it all day today and yesterday on Oregon Alive.com and have not heard anything about a FBI profiler, just statements from the witnesses.


I suspect there is still a lot you haven't heard about.

What Laura said was word for word what I heard the profiler say about his personality:



> Now the news says "*he wasn't singling anyone out, he just hates everyone*".


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I suspect there is still a lot you haven't heard about.


I don't doubt that. I think we will be learning a whole lot more as the days go by. 

It sounds like this young man was watching other mass killers, accumulating their cases on his computer. They were his heroes and he chose this particular college because they would be an easy target with really no protection.

Oregon has other colleges who are not gun free. He chose one who was not. Those students were sitting ducks.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Gossip can be true:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Reporters are supposed to dig, whether they find good, bad or otherwise. It's kinda the job.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

The elephant in the room for me with a lot of these tragedies are the big pharma rx drugs so many of these people are taking.

The magicians want us to look at everything but that.

It's similar to me, to when an auto company calculates the "cost" of redeveloping a part and issuing a recall vs just paying the expected costs for settlement of the injuries and lives lost or govt fines for a problem.

These drugs are being taken by massive amounts of Americans. And, they do have serious side effects.

But, the politicians and big pharma and media direct us all to look at gun control or better policing as the failure, rather that going after big pharma and the medical industry for continuing to prescribe these drugs that continue to not only fail to "control" the patients problems, but turn some into explosive time bomvs, then go off and victimize and destroy so many other often random people.

My thoughts anyway.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

vicker said:


> I'm just saying.


Let's have some fun with numbers, shall we?
Take a look at this one of mass killings......based on per capita, and noting their gun laws.

http://www.ijreview.com/2015/06/348...ntries-like-in-us-one-chart-proves-him-wrong/







Oh, I haven't looked up Iraq, Syria or Afghanistan yet, that should be interesting.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

kasilofhome said:


> Tell me that each person was not debriefed... prior to being released?
> 
> I know when I volunteer for a local school for such an event.
> I was trained.
> ...


Sorry but it can, you have to remember no right is absolute. 

I'm betting somewhere there's pictures and/or video showing that each person coming out of the buildings are being searched, most likely at gun point. Why? Because the police have no idea if any of those people could be a second shooter.

At the same time the police have no idea which cell phones might have evidence and they have the full power to take anything found at a crime scene which might reasonably be or contain evidence about the crime committed. Now if that item has evidence of another crime on it it would be up to the court to decide if it could be used against you or not.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

gapeach said:


> I don't doubt that. I think we will be learning a whole lot more as the days go by.
> 
> It sounds like this young man was watching other mass killers, accumulating their cases on his computer. They were his heroes and he chose this particular college because they would be an easy target with really no protection.
> 
> Oregon has other colleges who are not gun free. He chose one who was not. Those students were sitting ducks.


He was enrolled at this school. He apparently knew the rules.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> He shot them all, Christian or not.
> 
> You're confusing what witnesses said with what an FBI profiler said about his personality


According to current press he asked about religion. Christians received kill shots while non-Christians were deliberately wounded.


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

gibbsgirl said:


> Reporters are supposed to dig, whether they find good, bad or otherwise. It's kinda the job.


Ft Jackson is right in town and the State Paper in Columbia gets regular reports from them. News releases in the State Paper from the Fort are always under Military and from someone in charge like Lt. Col. Ben Garrett, an Army spokesman.


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

JeffreyD said:


> He was enrolled at this school. He apparently knew the rules.


Is that confirmed now?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

gibbsgirl said:


> The elephant in the room for me with a lot of these tragedies are the big pharma rx drugs so many of these people are taking.
> 
> The magicians want us to look at everything but that.
> 
> ...


Trust me you really rather have all these people taking these drugs and dealing with the few who have serious side effects than not have these drugs out there.

Just recently I had a nephew who schizophrenic to the point he heard voices telling him to kill himself and others. When he was on his meds he was ok, not great but ok. He stopped taking the meds. They found what was left of his body hanging from a tree. Sound harsh but IMO better that than him killing others.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

watcher said:


> Trust me you really rather have all these people taking these drugs and dealing with the few who have serious side effects than not have these drugs out there.
> 
> Just recently I had a nephew who schizophrenic to the point he heard voices telling him to kill himself and others. When he was on his meds he was ok, not great but ok. He stopped taking the meds. They found what was left of his body hanging from a tree. Sound harsh but IMO better that than him killing others.


I don't disagree that they can be helpful to some. But, many more people are being medicated these days who have questionable diagnoses. And, I still have yet to see the results if some really terrible side effects be taken seriously by enough with their coverage.


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

watcher said:


> Trust me you really rather have all these people taking these drugs and dealing with the few who have serious side effects than not have these drugs out there.
> 
> Just recently I had a nephew who schizophrenic to the point he heard voices telling him to kill himself and others. When he was on his meds he was ok, not great but ok. He stopped taking the meds. They found what was left of his body hanging from a tree. Sound harsh but IMO better that than him killing others.


Oh, man....I am so sorry. I too have an extended family member with bad problems and there is not really anything that I can do do but am so afraid that something like this might happen.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

watcher said:


> *According to current press* he asked about religion. Christians received kill shots while non-Christians were deliberately wounded.


How is that different from "he shot them all"?

Not all the "Christians" died, and we really don't know if he asked each one before shooting.

According to the initial reports, the shooter was "20 years old", and that was off by six years


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

gapeach said:


> I don't doubt that. I think we will be learning a whole lot more as the days go by.
> 
> It sounds like this young man was watching other mass killers, accumulating their cases on his computer. They were his heroes and he chose this particular college because they would be an easy target with really no protection.
> 
> *Oregon has other colleges who are not gun free*. He chose one who was not. Those students were sitting ducks.


The "gun free" thing has been disproven several times.

Oregon law does not allow public colleges to ban legally possessed guns on campus.

Any crowd is an "easy target" because the majority of people have a false sense of security, and don't realize they need to be responsible for their own safety. 

They had him greatly outnumbered and could have stopped him themselves if they weren't so conditioned to run and hide.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

gibbsgirl said:


> Reporters are *supposed to *dig, whether they find good, bad or otherwise. It's kinda the job.


People are "supposed to " do lots of things they don't really do.
Many times they just make assumptions rather than do the heavy work



> Originally Posted by gibbsgirl View Post
> The elephant in the room for me with a lot of these tragedies are the big pharma rx drugs so many of these people are taking.


The drugs generally work well enough.
It's the people that fail, and the drugs get the blame,

You keep repeating how more and more are on drugs.

We all know the population has grown exponentially, and yet crime has gone down.

The press plays it up but the trends are still improving compared to the past.

It seems the drugs really do help

Mass shootings usually account for less than 1% of all shootings but they get the air time and press conferences

There were more people shot in Chicago last week alone


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I bet you have a lot about them on your computers if this one is any indication


I don't have anything about the mass killers on my computer. Now why would you say something like that?

I will admit that I am a news hound and that I do read true crime non-fiction. I have always been interested in crime cases. In another life I might be a policewoman. I loved working at the police academy in SC. 

But don't think that I am not realistic. Pls don't think I am some kind of nut because I am not. I really resent that but don't expect anything else really and don't get offended very easily.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

Bearfootfarm said:


> People are "supposed to " do lots of things they don't really do.
> Many times they just make assumptions rather than do the heavy work


I don't doubt that at all. That's why I say they're supposed to dig. For sources and accuracy. I don't think the bulk of media, which is led by terrible editors and buruae chiefs, in many cases, does the necessary or appropriate digging.


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

Since you are not keeping up with the FBI reports, they have looked at his computer and found his files on the former mass killers. You would not know that.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

Bearfootfarm said:


> People are "supposed to " do lots of things they don't really do.
> Many times they just make assumptions rather than do the heavy work
> 
> 
> ...


More and more people are on drugs.

There is not a sufficient body of evidence IMO that shows they have solved the problems or delivered advertised results to many. Certainly not all. But, quite a lot IMO.

I'm not disputing crimes statistics. I don't find them all reliable anyway.

I was referring to my opinion that these mass shooting type incidents very often involve shooter's on some types of rx drugs and some do have serious side effects that can results in really bad decisions, behavior, etc.

I do think there is a link, just like I think there is a link to many of the other altered though not deadly mental states some of these rx drugs put others into.

I don't think the solution is to ax them all from existence or useage, just that a more open honest dialogue needs to happen regarding their effectiveness and side effects. And, I do think it is related to many mass shooters.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

gapeach said:


> *I don't have anything about the mass killers on my computer. Now why would you say something like that?*
> 
> I will admit that I am a news hound and that I do read true crime non-fiction. I have always been interested in crime cases. In another life I might be a policewoman. I loved working at the police academy in SC.
> 
> But don't think that I am not realistic. Pls don't think I am some kind of nut because I am not. I really resent that but don't expect anything else really and don't get offended very easily.


Because you've looked up so many stories on this one, and the FBI could possibly trace your history. 

They didn't have much trouble finding all the sites Mercer posted on, or the websites he visited.



> Since you are not keeping up with the FBI reports, they have looked at his computer and found his files on the former mass killers. You would not know that.


Actually I have seen many reports about it all, and some of them are starting to say the same things, which means they are probably accurate to some degree.

Other things I don't give much weight, like the number of guns he had.
Without details they could be a bunch of cheap 22's and shotguns or military surplus guns.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

gapeach said:


> I don't have anything about the mass killers on my computer. Now why would you say something like that?
> 
> *I will admit that I am a news hound and that I do read true crime non-fiction. I have always been interested in crime cases. In another life I might be a policewoman. I loved working at the police academy in SC. *
> 
> But don't think that I am not realistic. Pls don't think I am some kind of nut because I am not. I really resent that but don't expect anything else really and don't get offended very easily.


I believe that's what BFF meant: if someone went through your computer history they would see a lot of links to stories about mass murderers because you read a ton of stories on them when they happen.  No offense meant. If you looked at my browser history just for today you would find tons of stories about mass shootings because I am looking up stats and stuff for these threads. Search histories can be completely innocent. Just because the guy looked up a ton of mass murders may mean nothing. We don't know yet.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)




----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> How is that different from "he shot them all"?
> 
> Not all the "Christians" died, and we really don't know if he asked each one before shooting.


How is that different?
Lethality.
But you will be vindicated by finding out one of the survivors of an intended lethal shot got it in the spine and is in surgery.

Eyewitness reports confirm this.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/pr...-rants-and-possible-religious-rage/ar-AAf2dui


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> How is that different?
> Lethality.
> 
> But *you will be vindicated by finding out* one of the survivors of an intended lethal shot got it in the spine and is in surgery.
> ...


Eyewitnesses say lots of things. Posting it again has nothing to do with my statement

He really had little way of knowing who would live or die when he shot them.

The guy he shot 5-7 times is alive, as is one of the "Christian" girls who played dead, so he didn't make sure he killed them. I already knew about her and how she played dead.

Plus your are not reading what I really said 

Go back and read the posts in order and you will see I said which has nothing to do with lethality:

"He still *shot* them all"

To then say he killed some and wounded others is still saying they were *all shot*

The comment about "he hated everybody" was made by a profiler, not a witness, and about his personality, not the shooting 

Context is everything, and you're not following it at all.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Eyewitnesses say lots of things. Posting it again has nothing to do with my statement
> 
> He really had little way of knowing who would live or die when he shot them.
> The guy he shot 7 times is alive, as is one of the "Christian" girls who played dead, so he didn't make sure he killed them.
> ...




Oh, I'm following the context all right. I was looking to see just how far you'd go to defend an insensitive statement. Reminded me of Hillary in the congressional hearing.
"What difference does it make?"

I know you know about firearms and hunting from other threads, so making an incredulous statement like "He really had little way of knowing who would live or die when he shot them" still blows my mind when you do it anyway.

Even if you can't admit that detail as a mistake, saying it is one of those things we don't yet know for certain, would leave you with some dignity intact.

Yes, the girl shot in the spine is the one who played dead if I recall. It probably wasn't a big stretch to act that way after her wound.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/VC.IHR.PSRC.P5
Chart of homicides per capita per country..

Wow seems more murders per capita are non guns...

Stats like that seems that due to guns we really have lower kills per capita.
Just another reason to keep guns.

Honduras has 90 kills per100,000 to our steady 5kills per 100,000

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...e-changed-to-reduce-deaths-from-gun-violence/


https://youtu.be/2YCdsywhiL0


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Patchouli said:


>



Ok, now, where is the stat that breaks down that 3.7 per 100,000 that shows how many of those murders are at the hands of LEGAL REGISTERED gun owners -VS- murders with guns that were unregistered and being carried and used illegally.

Break those numbers down, then we'll talk about gun control.


http://extranosalley.com/?p=30635

http://entornointeligente.com/articulo/7080381/50-murders-make-September-most-violent-03102015

http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/crime-and-guns/


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

gibbsgirl said:


> More and more people are on drugs.
> 
> There is not a sufficient body of evidence IMO that shows they have solved the problems or delivered advertised results to many. Certainly not all. But, quite a lot IMO.
> 
> ...


Many times, too, they've gone OFF their meds & this is the result.
Sadly, I'm not sure what the answer is. Identifying these folks seems futile since nothing can be done even about threats on social media...


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's not at all similar, since any gun regulations apply to everyone equally.
> The bakery was flat out religious discrimination, which is clearly illegal


Gay is not a religion...yet


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Laura Zone 10 said:


> Ok, now, where is the stat that breaks down that 3.7 per 100,000 that shows how many of those murders are at the hands of LEGAL REGISTERED gun owners -VS- murders with guns that were unregistered and being carried and used illegally.
> 
> Break those numbers down, then we'll talk about gun control.
> 
> ...


Post of the day award.

Who was it who had a link about more being killed per yr w/hammers? Ban 'em!


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Cornhusker said:


> Gay is not a religion...yet


It was an attempt to force the customers to conform to the *baker's* religion
It was also sexual discrimination, and still illegal


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Patchouli said:


>


We are #1 in gun ownership, but as far as intentional homicide, we aren't even in the top 100.
If you take out cities with strict gun control that don't allow citizens to defend themselves yet tolerate gangs, illegals and other unsavory people, we would be near the bottom.
The little red circle is where we are










This tells us that guns don't cause crime, they don't cause murder and in fact may be preventing it.
Now, ask yourself why a "leader" wants to disarm the people?
It's not about saving lives, more people are killed in Chicago every week, but they don't seem to care about that.
When a drunk driver kills a family, does Obama jump on their bodies and demand cars slow down to 15 mph and call for the abolition of alcohol?
No, he doesn't, the Democrats don't shed tears for those killed by texting, drinking, meth, mechanical failure, snake bite, drowning, lightening strikes, poison, abortion, bicycles, tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes, heart disease, stroke, cancer, any other reason.
Guns are a right, not a privilege, and legally, Obama or any of the other gun grabbing control freaks can't touch them, or infringe on our rights.
The only reason they care about guns is the control, and Obama is using the dead to push an agenda.
He's a vile human being, so we are used to it.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> Oh, I'm following the context all right. I was looking to see just how far you'd go to defend an *insensitive statement*. Reminded me of Hillary in the congressional hearing.
> "What difference does it make?"
> 
> I know you know about firearms and hunting from other threads, so making an *incredulous statement* like "He really had little way of knowing who would live or die when he shot them" still blows my mind when you do it anyway.
> ...


There was no "mistake" in what I stated. A bullet to the femoral artery (in the LEG) can kill you as fast as one through the lungs.

There was also nothing "insensitive" in stating the fact he still *shot* all the victims, Christian or not. 

It's simply the truth

You should concentrate more on what I really said and the actual details, and less on trying to make it about me or yourself, as you love to do.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)




----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> There was no "mistake" in what I stated. A bullet to the femoral artery (in the LEG) can kill you as fast as one through the lungs.
> 
> There was also nothing "insensitive" in stating the fact he still *shot* all the victims, Christian or not.
> 
> ...


*I* hope *you* are never around when someone needs first aid. From someone who likes to concentrate on facts, *you* have a unique ability to be wrong about them.
A lung shot vs. a femoral artery?
Ever try putting a tourniquet or direct compression on a lung?

*I* can't wait to hear *your* argument that gravity doesn't exist.
Maybe if it was someone else that pointed out the mistakes, it would be different, but *I* doubt it.

BTW, *I* put the bold text in there to save *you* some time, apparently personal pronouns are an obsession for *you*.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

kasilofhome said:


> http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/VC.IHR.PSRC.P5
> Chart of homicides per capita per country..
> 
> Wow seems more murders per capita are non guns...


I would agree with your research. 

Incidents like this cause people to react in shock and horror but realistically, most killings are more of a personal nature and if people are that angry, they don't go buy a gun, they grab what's handy.


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

Patchouli said:


> I believe that's what BFF meant: if someone went through your computer history they would see a lot of links to stories about mass murderers because you read a ton of stories on them when they happen.  No offense meant. If you looked at my browser history just for today you would find tons of stories about mass shootings because I am looking up stats and stuff for these threads. Search histories can be completely innocent. Just because the guy looked up a ton of mass murders may mean nothing. We don't know yet.


Well. you must not be worried about your searching either. I am sure that there are many people like us who want to know why someone horrible things like this. There were comments that CHM made that he admired those people and especially the one who shot the people on live tv.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

gapeach said:


> Well. you must not be worried about your searching either. I am sure that there are many people like us who want to know why someone horrible things like this. There were comments that CHM made that he admired those people and especially the one who shot the people on live tv.


I am sure it all goes into an NSA database somewhere.  I am just hoping your search looks worse than mine. (That's a joke) ound:


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Laura Zone 10 said:


> Ok, now, where is the stat that breaks down that 3.7 per 100,000 that shows how many of those murders are at the hands of LEGAL REGISTERED gun owners -VS- murders with guns that were unregistered and being carried and used illegally.
> 
> Break those numbers down, then we'll talk about gun control.
> 
> ...



Just to clarify I am not for any of the gun control ideas anyone has put forward so far. See my post on one of the other threads on this shooting. Someone earlier in this thread said a previous chart wasn't accurate because there were more people in America than the other first world countries it compared them to. I saw this per capita one and posted it. 

Conversations go better when we don't assume anything that isn't actually stated.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> *I* hope *you* are never around when someone needs first aid. From someone who likes to concentrate on facts, *you* have a unique ability to be wrong about them.
> A lung shot vs. a femoral artery?
> Ever try putting a tourniquet or direct compression on a lung?
> 
> ...


I had my first Advanced First Aid certification card at age 14.
I don't need any instruction from you.

There was no one at the school doing first aid soon enough, so your example is pointless.

You haven't pointed out any "mistakes". 

You're just continuing to attempt to make the discussion about me instead of the real topic.

Go play your games with someone else.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

Patchouli said:


> Just to clarify I am not for any of the gun control ideas anyone has put forward so far. See my post on one of the other threads on this shooting. Someone earlier in this thread said a previous chart wasn't accurate because there were more people in America than the other first world countries it compared them to. I saw this per capita one and posted it.
> 
> Conversations go better when we don't assume anything that isn't actually stated.


That might have been mine, can't remember which thread I made a comment about it in.

But, I wasn't saying the stats were wrong, I was pointing out how those used could be misleading without considering oer capita.

All statistics can be misleading, many are often used that way.

Even just considering anomalies and weapons used can change statistical results.

There was that shooting of kids at that island camp, in northern Europe I think. That probably has their stats a bit skewed from many other years of shooting deaths.

I"be read, sadly, I recent years of more than one mass killing event in Asia. At least a couple were in schools, and I think some type of market is r big gathering public place. But, if I remember correctly, several involved not guns as the main weapon, but knives, machete type weapons, etc. So depending on whether a stat was looking for just murders or gun related murders in those areas, the stats would be different.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I had my first Advanced First Aid certification card at age 14.
> I don't need any instruction from you.
> 
> There was no one at the school doing first aid soon enough, so your example is pointless.
> ...



That's the most amazing thing about your replies.
With all of your knowledge, you still argue with simple facts, and use the most outlandish excuses to justify it.
:stars:


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Today, 12:17 PM
painterswife painterswife is invisible
Sock puppet reinstated

Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 7,133
Looks like some of those guns may just have been his mothers. She was an avid open carry supporter.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...d-strikes.html
__________________


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

painterswife said:


> Today, 12:17 PM
> painterswife painterswife is invisible
> Sock puppet reinstated
> 
> ...



This link does not work.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...open-carries-assault-rifles-mood-strikes.html


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The "gun free" thing has been disproven several times.
> 
> Oregon law does not allow public colleges to ban legally possessed guns on campus.


I refer you to the schools "Student Code of Conduct", section 721.3, paragraph 19 which I quote:

"Possession or use, without written authorization, of firearms, explosives, dangerous chemicals, substances, or any other weapons or destructive devices that are designed to or readily capable of causing physical injury, on College premises, at College-sponsored or supervised functions or at functions sponsored or participated in by the College."

A reasonable man reading that would think to carry on school grounds w/o violating the rules and facing disciplinary actions he would need written authorization from the school in addition to anything state law required. Which would mean you can legally carry on campus but if you are caught doing so w/o the school's permission you very well may face expulsion. 

I don't know OR law nor what the system, or even if there is one, that the school uses to determine who they will give permission to or not but I'd be very interested to know if the man in the interview had the school's permission or he was violating school policy.




Bearfootfarm said:


> Any crowd is an "easy target" because the majority of people have a false sense of security, and don't realize they need to be responsible for their own safety.
> 
> They had him greatly outnumbered and could have stopped him themselves if they weren't so conditioned to run and hide.


This I agree with totally, notice the different results of the French train attack and this shooting.


----------



## ninny (Dec 12, 2005)

There are MANY more deaths from medical mistakes than deaths by guns. Shall we outlaw doctors?

.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

The latest Uniform Crime Report was just released, showing violent crimes, including murders, declined in 2014. That's with record breaking numbers of guns having been sold, and a growing population.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/u...annual-uniform-crime-report-january-june-2014



> Preliminary figures indicate that law enforcement agencies throughout the nation showed an overall decrease of 4.6 percent in the number of violent crimes brought to their attention for the first 6 months of 2014 when compared with figures reported for the same time in 2013.
> 
> The violent crime category includes murder, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. The number of property crimes in the United States from January to June of 2014 decreased 7.5 percent when compared with data for the same time period in 2013. Property crimes include burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft.
> 
> Arson is also a property crime, but data for arson are not included in property crime totals due to fluctuations in reporting. Figures for 2014 indicate that arson decreased 6.5 percent when compared with 2013 figures for the same time period.


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

Oregon college shooter's mom boasted about her gun collection online and said she would openly carry an assault rifle 'when the mood strikes' 

Chris Harper-Mercer's mother Laurel Harper spoke out on Facebook in support of open-carry laws in Oregon 

She mentioned having at least six guns in a long-winded post

She did add, however, that open-carry laws wouldn't work everywhere

Chris Harper-Mercer lived with his mother in Torrance, California until 2013 before they moved to Winchester, Oregon 

By Ryan Parry and Grant Hodgson In Torrance, California For Dailymail.com and Kelly Mclaughlin For Dailymail.com

Published: 15:58 EST, 3 October 2015

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ssault-rifles-mood-strikes.html#ixzz3nXjAL8Ce

Since his mother knew his mental problems, then why did she continue to let him have those guns? I know he was 26 but if he lived with her, she could have taken them away from him. He should not have been able to buy any guns with his mental handicap.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Since his mother knew his mental problems, then why did she continue to let him have those guns? I know he was 26 but if he lived with her, she could have taken them away from him. He should not have been able to buy any guns with *his mental handicap*.


It's been explained multiple times his "mental handicap" means absolutely nothing if it hasn't been determined by a court. He had all the same rights as you.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

> Since his mother knew his mental problems, then why did she continue to let him have those guns? I know he was 26 but if he lived with her, she could have taken them away from him. He should not have been able to buy any guns with his mental handicap.


Because at 18, he is an adult, and she legally has NO say so.
She could have been afraid of him; hence moving him to OR and saying in CA?
She could have turned a blind eye to it and said "oh he'd never hurt anyone".
Who knows.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Tricky Grama said:


> Many times, too, they've gone OFF their meds & this is the result.
> Sadly, I'm not sure what the answer is. Identifying these folks seems futile since nothing can be done even about threats on social media...


I have a fairly straight forward attempt at an answer; three strikes and you are in. If someone goes off there meds and commits a crime three times the third time they are confined in a mental institute until it can be proven they are not a threat to themselves or others when not medicated. If they can not function safely in society w/o their meds they are not released into society because they have are a proven threat.


----------

