OR - Nine killed in Umpqua Community College shooting, Roseburg, 1 Oct 2015 - #1

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
I really think that anything related to confronting a gunman should be left to law enforcement. I can't imagine any good could come from having armed guards on campus, the chances of the guard being in the right place at the right time and being able to get there before law enforcement is minimal .. also police are better trained, equipped etc ..

You realize that the Columbine shooting started at 11:30 in the morning (and lasted less than 20 minutes).

It took the authorities (police and EMS) over three hours to enter the building. By that time many of the wounded had bled out.
 
You realize that the Columbine shooting started at 11:30 in the morning (and lasted less than 20 minutes).

It took the authorities (police and EMS) three full hours to enter the building. By that time many of the wounded had bled out.

Was there not also an armed guard on duty that day? Also by memory there were a number of bad decisions made on that day, including how long it took law enforcement to actually enter the building upon arrival.

Armed guard on duty: http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/2012/12/21/columbine-armed-guards_n_2347096.html?ir=Australia

Changing police tactics since Columbine: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/19/shoot-first-how-columbine_n_188685.html?ir=Australia
 
Was there not also an armed guard on duty that day? Also by memory there were a number of bad decisions made on that day, including how long it took law enforcement to actually enter the building upon arrival.

Armed guard on duty: http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/2012/12/21/columbine-armed-guards_n_2347096.html?ir=Australia

Changing police tactics since Columbine: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/19/shoot-first-how-columbine_n_188685.html?ir=Australia

Well apparently there weren't enough guards. Many states have passed laws allowing teachers to carry concealed since Sandy Hook.

Also there is a big difference in telling a guard carrying a pistol to go hunt down some lunatic with a semi-auto rifle (very bad odds) and a teacher locked in a classroom with a bunch of kids (it would probably be a suicide mission for the guard, the teacher doesn't have a choice and actually has somewhat of an advantage).
 
The mood might be because she's free to do it and likes to. Or maybe she's in a bad mood and needs to feel extra powerful that day. Maybe it makes her feel tough and scary.

Some people do it to be seen as a threat, like "If we can't open carry at this restaurant/store we won't eat/shop here."

I think some people believe it makes others feel safe, like if you're unarmed at the drug store and see Joe Schmoe with a gun you know you're safe in case a bad guy comes in and tries to rob the place.

JMO.
BBM

Thanks for spelling out what her "mood" might be. I hope you were being sarcastic, and I think you're right. None of them strike me as rational and/or considerate of others' feelings. It's all about ME ME ME. None of this combines well with guns IMO.

So basically there is no good reason other than to be a ****. I cannot imaging customers in a drug store feeling safe because there is some fool open carrying in there, I think most sensible people would be heading for the exit.
BBM

I would be heading for the exit on my phone calling 911.
 
I think some people believe it makes others feel safe, like if you're unarmed at the drug store and see Joe Schmoe with a gun you know you're safe in case a bad guy comes in and tries to rob the place.

Feel safe? Well safer...it buys a little time since I know Joe Schmoe will be the first one shot in the event of a robbery.

Many gun owners think open carry (except in the wilderness) is like wearing a sign that says "Shoot me first!". Plus in a bad area it will make them a target for robbery when some neredowell covets their weapon.
 
I have to wonder if their sudden move to Oregon had anything to do with more restrictive gun possession and open carry laws in CA vs OR. I don't have time today to research the laws for each state on the guns the killer's irresponsible mother listed, but if someone else feels like it, we might gain some insight. TIA.
 
BBM

Thanks for spelling out what her "mood" might be. I hope you were being sarcastic, and I think you're right. None of them strike me as rational and/or considerate of others' feelings. It's all about ME ME ME. None of this combines well with guns IMO.

BBM

I would be heading for the exit on my phone calling 911.

I wasn't trying to be sarcastic (I guess sometimes I can't help it), I was honestly trying to convey what might be going on in her head when she's in the mood to carry or show off certain weapons. There's a lot out there about people who like to carry and what their reasons for doing so are.
 
Feel safe? Well safer...it buys a little time since I know Joe Schmoe will be the first one shot in the event of a robbery.

Many gun owners think open carry (except in the wilderness) is like wearing a sign that says "Shoot me first!". Plus in a bad area it will make them a target for robbery when some neredowell covets their weapon.

OT--A guy was robbed of his gun in a Walmart restroom in Medford, Oregon. I shop at this Walmart. It's not even in a bad area and I'm glad I wasn't there. The consensus online among CC advocates is that this guy wasn't taking proper precautions.

http://www.kdrv.com/news/Man_Assaulted_Robbed_of_Firearm_in_Walmart_Bathroom.html

Back on topic: I still say that just because you have the RIGHT to do something doesn't mean it's considerate or wise to be brazen about exercising that right. The killer's mother set a terrible example for her son, if her post on FB is how she behaves. JMO
 
I have to wonder if their sudden move to Oregon had anything to do with more restrictive gun possession and open carry laws in CA vs OR. I don't have time today to research the laws for each state on the guns the killer's irresponsible mother listed, but if someone else feels like it, we might gain some insight. TIA.

She mentions an AR, AK and Tec 9. They would have had to ship those out of state or bought new lower receivers. The new CA laws require bullet buttons and 10 round mag limits, those weapons wouldn't have been legal without modification.

Same thing probably applied to their handguns but I am not sure if handguns with larger magazines were grandfathered in.
 
I'm a pretty new resident of Douglas County. I didn't even know who the Sheriff was until now. But the more I find out about him, I see he is a total lunatic. I wonder if he still thinks that Sandy Hook was a conspiracy, after the same thing happens in his own county?:facepalm:

In this case he should at least be able to admit no crisis actors were hired.
 
While they have become increasingly more frequent, these incidents remain anomalies with the killers reaching extremes that appear to be totally unpredictable IMO. All the warning signs are possessed by large numbers of people who do not reach this point. I do think it is a perfect storm of circumstance and mental state, combined with awareness of the possibility due to media coverage. Most police are not trained to handle it - it is so rare that only specialized teams at higher up levels are going to be truly trained for anything similar. And "people with mental health problems" is not a category with any meaning and by its nature never will be. Right now you have pretty much have felons, people who have been declared incompetent or had some other sort of extreme mental health adjudication (very rare), and everyone else. Background checks generally determine where someone falls. The first two cannot buy guns. The last group can without much restriction. This is one issue where I believe there virtually no in-the-middle meaningful solutions - background checks, home visits, etc. There aren't really even extreme solutions. There are no reliable variables to judge who does this - every one that is focused on, even if it has a clear connection, applies to such a huge group of people that is so poorly defined that attempting to control it would likely make things worse. Very upsetting situation, and the debates just make me feel worse because they all make people angrier without having any real hope of a solution. Depressing.
 
I wasn't trying to be sarcastic (I guess sometimes I can't help it), I was honestly trying to convey what might be going on in her head when she's in the mood to carry or show off certain weapons. There's a lot out there about people who like to carry and what their reasons for doing so are.

"Sarcasm" probably wasn't the right word. :) You did a good job conveying reasons someone might open carry an assault weapon. But the reasons seem so far out there that they sound like "satire" to me. Maybe that would have been a better word. I just have a hard time wrapping my mind around that kind of thinking. The killer's mother philosophically and materially aided and abetted her son to commit these murders (although not in the legal sense of the term) IMO.
 
Excellent, well thought-out and expressed post. I nominated it for post of the day. :)

While they have become increasingly more frequent, these incidents remain anomalies with the killers reaching extremes that appear to be totally unpredictable IMO. All the warning signs are possessed by large numbers of people who do not reach this point. I do think it is a perfect storm of circumstance and mental state, combined with awareness of the possibility due to media coverage. Most police are not trained to handle it - it is so rare that only specialized teams at higher up levels are going to be truly trained for anything similar. And "people with mental health problems" is not a category with any meaning and by its nature never will be. Right now you have pretty much have felons, people who have been declared incompetent or had some other sort of extreme mental health adjudication (very rare), and everyone else. Background checks generally determine where someone falls. The first two cannot buy guns. The last group can without much restriction. This is one issue where I believe there virtually no in-the-middle meaningful solutions - background checks, home visits, etc. There aren't really even extreme solutions. There are no reliable variables to judge who does this - every one that is focused on, even if it has a clear connection, applies to such a huge group of people that is so poorly defined that attempting to control it would likely make things worse. Very upsetting situation, and the debates just make me feel worse because they all make people angrier without having any real hope of a solution. Depressing.
 
The condition of other victims. The article mentions five total. Some are in better shape than others.

Two women injured during a mass shooting at Umpqua Community College remained in critical condition at a Springfield hospital Saturday morning.
One woman was shot in the head, and the other was hit in in the abdomen and chest, PeaceHealth Oregon West Network spokeswoman Monique Perry Danziger said.

http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-n...hooting_2_victims_rema.html#incart_river_home
 
True ... but it could work still. Children could take precautions (meds for allergies), etc. Better than the alternative?

Looky here: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2013/1106/School-safety-Use-guard-dogs-not-guns

In addition to all the other reasons the dogs are a bad idea...

There are people who cannot just "take meds" for allergies.
Some people have an immediate and life threatening reaction.
There isn't a medication someone can take daily to prevent that.
If there was I wouldn't be in charge of killing the bees that get inside, before they kill my husband. :twocents:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
139
Guests online
3,072
Total visitors
3,211

Forum statistics

Threads
604,309
Messages
18,170,581
Members
232,368
Latest member
nlgal68
Back
Top