Umpqua

[hazbeen]

War n Peace was written, dont rewrite

 

[Ishmael]

Not really. This is one of those times when each side monday morning quarterbacks and comes away feeling supported.

This particular interview does not happen to highlight that he was 200 yards from the shooter with a handgun. An actual cop with only a handgun at that range is not going to take the shot or move closer without cover. His odds of hitting a bystander were also far greater than hitting the assailant. He did say that he stood ready to defend the smaller space he retreated to. Had the shooter encountered one of the armed students at proximate range, it would have ended sooner.

Contrary to the insistence that because Oregon law made it legal (which it did) it was not a "gun free" zone. For the most part, it was because campus authorities still had it in the handbook (illegally) and the culture of academia is anti-gun, fewer people carry than might otherwise. The fact is, the shooter knew from previous such incidents that most likely the students would be unarmed. The presence of guns only deters crime if criminals reasonably can assume they will encounter some. Once an active shooter begins shooting people unnanounced, Wyatt Earp would not be able to prevent at least some deaths. An entire Swat team in the building wouldn't be able to do that.

I live in a state where it is 100% legal to carry concealed with no permit required. Would I bother to carry in a sunny courtyard of a community college in the middle of the day? No. Nor would most people.

All of this is second guessing on both sides. But the idea that an armed citizen would be of no help ever in one of these situations is not only silly it is dis-proven every time an armed citizen has taken out an active shooter (rare) or (more likely) announced his presence with a wild shot in the shooter's general direction and the shooter, who always planned to suicide does so then, instead of continuing his spree. Both have happened, but one never knows if the shooter was done shooting before he was shot or encouraged to shoot himself.

When a cop or a security guard happens to be in the right place at the right time, everyone breathes a sigh of relief and thanks their stars it was stopped or was not as bad as it could have been. There is no reason to assume an armed citizen would be somehow less lucky than a cop to be in the right place in the right time. Cops are people same as civilians. Non-SWAT cops probably get about the same or less range time than your average CCW holder.

No place that actively discourages people from being armed should be immune from responsibility if they fail to run everyone through reasonable security including magnetometers and provide armed security.

Look, the shootings took place in classrooms. 200yds might as well be 200 miles in that case. There was NO clear shot at ANY range.

Next; In an active shooter situation the last thing you do is pretend you're McGruff out to take a 'bite outta crime.' You run around with a gun and you're going to get shot at worst, or tie up valuable police resources vetting you at the best. Every CC holder is taught that as part of the training.

If you are ON THE SCENE you are allowed to, and should, defend yourself and others. You DO NOT go looking for trouble. This is the argument and training that every CC holder knows. Obviously the author either doesn't, or chose to ignore, that simple fact. Making him guilty of journalistic Mal-practice no matter which case applies.

All and all the article did nothing more than highlight the uncommonly good sense shown by the young man while spotlighting the monumental ignorance of the author, and anyone that wants to swallow the authors bilge.

Ishmael

 

[about_average]

Not really. This is one of those times when each side monday morning quarterbacks and comes away feeling supported.

This particular interview does not happen to highlight that he was 200 yards from the shooter with a handgun

So? He said it wasn't reasonable for him to try to get to the scene given the situation.

 

[Sean]

So? He said it wasn't reasonable for him to try to get to the scene given the situation.

No, no, no, the Liberals stopped him from shooting the dude. Bb said so.

 

[about_average]

All and all the article did nothing more than highlight the uncommonly good sense shown by the young man while spotlighting the monumental ignorance of the author, and anyone that wants to swallow the authors bilge.

You and Que both need to ignore the article and watch the video so you can see the story his own words.

 

[Que]

So? He said it wasn't reasonable for him to try to get to the scene given the situation.

It wasn't reasonable. That's always the case. I said, specifically, that you conveniently edited out that a SWAT TEAM in the building could not prevent all loss of life. He claims several more people were armed and I would guess that is true. Roseberg is redneck-ville for Oregon, it is inland. The odds that an armed person would have been near enough to be effective was slim. If the shooter had been tremendously unlucky and had started in a classroom with someone armed it would have changed things. That is all that can be divined from any of this.

 

[Que]

Look, the shootings took place in classrooms. 200yds might as well be 200 miles in that case. There was NO clear shot at ANY range.

Next; In an active shooter situation the last thing you do is pretend you're McGruff out to take a 'bite outta crime.' You run around with a gun and you're going to get shot at worst, or tie up valuable police resources vetting you at the best. Every CC holder is taught that as part of the training.

If you are ON THE SCENE you are allowed to, and should, defend yourself and others. You DO NOT go looking for trouble. This is the argument and training that every CC holder knows. Obviously the author either doesn't, or chose to ignore, that simple fact. Making him guilty of journalistic Mal-practice no matter which case applies.

All and all the article did nothing more than highlight the uncommonly good sense shown by the young man while spotlighting the monumental ignorance of the author, and anyone that wants to swallow the authors bilge.

Ishmael

He withdrew to a sheltered, defensible area. If he had tried to engage not only would it have been ineffective, the anti-gun nuts would be claiming that his presence made the shooter more aggressive. As if more aggressive than cold-blooded murder is possible. As if the eventual, expected presence of police would not have the exact same effect.

None of the anti-gun nuts suddenly became anti-gun nuts after this or any other shooting. They relish the chance to trot out their saintly vision of a gun free America whenever an incident occurs. They recognize that is never going to happen and just like pointing out that they are on the virtuous side of the argument.

Be a different world if every time someone saved (but ONE life!!!) with a gun, it made national news.

Why is it that none of them are in favor of both tighter restrictions on guns and looser restrictions on crazy commitments? I could at least respect the equanimity of such a position.

Somebody, BotanyBoy maybe? said that the gun-crowd needs to own up to the fact that the occasional loss of life like this is acceptable collateral damage. That too, is not entirely wrong, though it doesn't make for good press. The problem with that is it is a false choice. Any restrictions on guns you can think of would make absolutely no difference with the sanctity of the privacy of mental health records. Removing all guns would make no difference. Can of gas and a match would be more effective.

Yes we have the most guns of any place on earth. We also have the most onerous process for taking crazies off the street.

 

[Ishmael]

Somebody, BotanyBoy maybe? said that the gun-crowd needs to own up to the fact that the occasional loss of life like this is acceptable collateral damage. That too, is not entirely wrong, though it doesn't make for good press. The problem with that is it is a false choice. Any restrictions on guns you can think of would make absolutely no difference with the sanctity of the privacy of mental health records. Removing all guns would make no difference. Can of gas and a match would be more effective.

Yes we have the most guns of any place on earth. We also have the most onerous process for taking crazies off the street.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Thomas Jefferson

And then there's the obverse.

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” - B. Franklin

Ishmael

 

[phrodeau]

Not really. This is one of those times when each side monday morning quarterbacks and comes away feeling supported.

This particular interview does not happen to highlight that he was 200 yards from the shooter with a handgun. An actual cop with only a handgun at that range is not going to take the shot or move closer without cover. His odds of hitting a bystander were also far greater than hitting the assailant. He did say that he stood ready to defend the smaller space he retreated to. Had the shooter encountered one of the armed students at proximate range, it would have ended sooner.

Contrary to the insistence that because Oregon law made it legal (which it did) it was not a "gun free" zone. For the most part, it was because campus authorities still had it in the handbook (illegally) and the culture of academia is anti-gun, fewer people carry than might otherwise. The fact is, the shooter knew from previous such incidents that most likely the students would be unarmed. The presence of guns only deters crime if criminals reasonably can assume they will encounter some. Once an active shooter begins shooting people unnanounced, Wyatt Earp would not be able to prevent at least some deaths. An entire Swat team in the building wouldn't be able to do that.

I live in a state where it is 100% legal to carry concealed with no permit required. Would I bother to carry in a sunny courtyard of a community college in the middle of the day? No. Nor would most people.

All of this is second guessing on both sides. But the idea that an armed citizen would be of no help ever in one of these situations is not only silly it is dis-proven every time an armed citizen has taken out an active shooter (rare) or (more likely) announced his presence with a wild shot in the shooter's general direction and the shooter, who always planned to suicide does so then, instead of continuing his spree. Both have happened, but one never knows if the shooter was done shooting before he was shot or encouraged to shoot himself.

When a cop or a security guard happens to be in the right place at the right time, everyone breathes a sigh of relief and thanks their stars it was stopped or was not as bad as it could have been. There is no reason to assume an armed citizen would be somehow less lucky than a cop to be in the right place in the right time. Cops are people same as civilians. Non-SWAT cops probably get about the same or less range time than your average CCW holder.

No place that actively discourages people from being armed should be immune from responsibility if they fail to run everyone through reasonable security including magnetometers and provide armed security.

Tell us how the vigilante citizen knows whether he's shooting a maniacal gunman or another vigilante citizen.

 

[hazbeen]

Fucking coward

Must be a LIB

 

[Que]

Tell us how the vigilante citizen knows whether he's shooting a maniacal gunman or another vigilante citizen.

As per usual you have your snarky little frame all set don't you? First of all, we are talking about an A C T I V E shooter. Shooting to defend your own life or the life of someone else during an A C T I V E shooting is not "vigilantism."

So lets start again, shall we? I'll pretend you are not just a bomb thrower that retreats when his pathetic snark is rebuffed:

Tell us how the armed citizen knows whether he's shooting a maniacal gunman or another armed citizen.

Ok next, it is not "us" you speak for you. You are directly asking me, be a man about it. Let's try that again:

Tell me how the armed citizen knows whether he's shooting a maniacal gunman or another armed citizen.

Well, now we have an actual question. It displays either naiveté, or ignorance, but I will answer that.

You do not shoot anyone unless your life or the lives of others is clearly in danger. Which means you personally witnessed them in the act of shooting or threatening to shoot someone which means beyond mere brandishing, they are pointing a gun directly at another human being.

No armed citizen does that and deserves to live. You never point a gun at anything you do not intend to shoot.

Might you round a corner and run into another armed citizen with gun drawn and have to make a really fast decision as he does? Sure, is it likely to go horribly wrong, absolutely.

Which is why the vet with a gun did not attempt to take control of an entire campus by himself with no radio communication with anyone else. He got safe, and waited. If the gunman had come into that room the gunman would have died.

If another armed citizen had decided to walk into that classroom with a gun drawn, unannounced, he would have died and it would have been his own fault for doing so.

You are welcome for the education.

 

[phrodeau]

So I, a mere unarmed student, when confronted with a maniacal gunman pointing his toy in my direction, should feel comforted by the knowledge that others in the room are ready to fill him with bullets once he opens fire at me.

Does this actually make me more safe?

 

[Que]

So I, a mere unarmed student, when confronted with a maniacal gunman pointing his toy in my direction, should feel comforted by the knowledge that others in the room are ready to fill him with bullets once he opens fire at me.

Does this actually make me more safe?

Again with the idiotic snarky frame. Not worth the effort to deconstruct it.

So the gunman has a toy now?

Given that you are scared of drowning in a 1/2 an inch increase in the mean tide, I would not concern myself with your fears. If a gunman enters the classroom after you have heard shots and screams, intending to kill everyone (or at least the Christians) in the room, yes you are safer marginally if someone has any weapon than if no one does.

That's what weapons are legally used for, to shoot people that present a clear danger to other people. It beats throwing an eraser.

 

[Disgustipated]

Did Q-Bert ever explain why the victim of death by gun by accident by someone else doesn't deserve his pity?

 

[Que]

Did Q-Bert ever explain why the victim of death by gun by accident by someone else doesn't deserve his pity?

Yes I did when I made the statement in response to the idiotic idea that one is unsafe and at risk from ones own gun given of the statistically insignificant rate of accidents. If you do not know how to handle a gun safely there are plenty of people that do that would be more than happy to instruct you free of charge.

Did you ever explain the security measures you have in place in the shop, and whether you have a gun under the counter or not?

 

[phrodeau]

Did Q-Bert ever explain why the victim of death by gun by accident by someone else doesn't deserve his pity?

I suppose the victim should have had his own gun with which to retaliate after he was shot to death. Makes perfect sense.

 

[NOIRTRASH]

No one but German Jews and American college students passively wait for a bullet in the head. Even in Auschwitz, occasionally, Jews dragged Nazi guards with them to the electric fences and died together.

 

[about_average]

It wasn't reasonable. That's always the case. I said, specifically, that you conveniently edited out that a SWAT TEAM in the building could not prevent all loss of life. He claims several more people were armed and I would guess that is true. Roseberg is redneck-ville for Oregon, it is inland. The odds that an armed person would have been near enough to be effective was slim. If the shooter had been tremendously unlucky and had started in a classroom with someone armed it would have changed things. That is all that can be divined from any of this.

WTF?
Do you even read what you're replying to or what you write?

Bull shit, I didn't edit out anything, I posted a link to a video. Unfortunately I assumed people were smart enough to ignore the editorial and watch the video of the guys own words. Obviously I was wrong.

The ENTIRE FUCKING POINT of the video in my link was that the Fox video wasn't the "Breaking News!" that Fox/Hannity tried to make out. Their position was that he could have done something to stop the shooter if only he hadn't been thwarted by the "Gun Free Zone" school personnel.
Hannity, as usual, is full of shit as the video I linked to showed. In the vets own words.

If anyone is trying to spin it, it's you.

 

[Que]

I suppose the victim should have had his own gun with which to retaliate after he was shot to death. Makes perfect sense.

Theres that insightful snark again. Snark is all you ever have and so many people do it so much more cleverly than you. You, I pity. Victims of firearm accidents, not so much.

 

[Que]

WTF?
Do you even read what you're replying to or what you write?

Bull shit, I didn't edit out anything, I posted a link to a video. Unfortunately I assumed people were smart enough to ignore the editorial and watch the video of the guys own words. Obviously I was wrong.

The ENTIRE FUCKING POINT of the video in my link was that the Fox video wasn't the "Breaking News!" that Fox/Hannity tried to make out. Their position was that he could have done something to stop the shooter if only he hadn't been thwarted by the "Gun Free Zone" school personnel.
Hannity, as usual, is full of shit as the video I linked to showed. In the vets own words.

If anyone is trying to spin it, it's you.

I am referring toYOU editing MY post when you replied, snipping only the small portion that you wanted to attack either deliberately omitting, or failing to see that I answered your concern in the full text of my post which you EDITED.

Editing my post took actual effort rather than simply hitting reply.

Up next, since several people are hurling various unrelated, irrelevant accusations my way, Disgustipated will loudly an ounce my "wounding" and that I am having a "bad day" and chortle along that his side is "winning" because if three random people on the internet are hurling things my way, I must be wrong.

To bolster his claim he may well point to any bolding or font size increases as "evidence" that I am "losing it."

To put the final nail in the coffin he will dig up the "who posted" list to show that the person replying to multiple people is obviously unhinged because they have the higher post count.

Failing that he will find some typos.

Keep in mind, Luk doesn't actually give a shit about the issue, keeps a gun under the counter, would shoot anyone who entered his store with a gun drawn and ask questions later. He is not actually virulently anti-gun, but I am on the list of people on the "wrong side" so, any opportunity to glom onto a fight already in progress he will do.

Point to a place in this or any thread where he offered actual commentary, opinion or reason to the discussion.

If I stay to answer idiotic snarky bullshit, I am 'awfully' wrapped up in this, if I choose to simply disengage the willfully uninformed spouting the latest from Salon, then I am "running away."

Take a guess at which I will do.

 

[Disgustipated]

Yes I did when I made the statement in response to the idiotic idea that one is unsafe and at risk from ones own gun given of the statistically insignificant rate of accidents. If you do not know how to handle a gun safely there are plenty of people that do that would be more than happy to instruct you free of charge.

Did you ever explain the security measures you have in place in the shop, and whether you have a gun under the counter or not?

You didn't answer, you ran like a chump. You said the victim of the negligence of someone else doesn't deserve your pity. It could be a child shot and killed by a drunk uncle. You either fucked up your post ad/or you're just a heartless robot.

What I do in my shop is my business.

 

[about_average]

I am referring toYOU editing MY post when you replied, snipping only the small portion that you wanted to attack either deliberately omitting, or failing to see that I answered your concern in the full text of my post which you EDITED.

Yup, you don't read what you post.

I said, specifically, that you conveniently edited out that a SWAT TEAM in the building could not prevent all loss of life.

You said no such thing in your commentary to my post #722.

It's obvious you didn't watch the Hannity video or the one in the link I posted. At least all appearances are that you didn't because I think you're smarter than your subsequent posts indicate.

I have no idea what "concern" you think I have that you think you answered.

 

[OjosMojo]

What I do in my shop is my business.

And yet you also deem it's your business what others do in theirs.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

And yet you also deem it's your business what others do in theirs.

Show us where he said it's his business what others do in theirs. Otherwise you are being a lying flameout yet again, Flameout.

 

[Disgustipated]

Show us where he said it's his business what others do in theirs. Otherwise you are being a lying flameout yet again, Flameout.

Is that wannabe still nippin' at my wingtips?