Shooting at Oregon community college.

[mojo84]

To both cb and mojo. We really don't know if the current background check system works or not. At least as far as it was actually designed. States don't report info into the system uniformly so garbage in, garbage out is the rule rather than the exception. And even in cases where a check comes up as someone attempting to buy a gun is prohibited, there is no follow up investigation or prosecution. If it were actually run as designed, the system may actually prevent more prohibited persons from getting guns. Or not. We'll never really know until the system is run as it's actually designed to. And until that happens, I'm absolutely against adding arbitrary provisions and potentially unnecessary new laws.

That's my point. We don't know. We don't even know if this guy had a mental illness history and some are advocating the system doesnt work and we need more guns laws. Even if the guy had a history that was reported properly, what's to keep him from stealing guns, buying from a friend, borrowing a gun buying through craigslist or elsewhere?

Jumping on the fix the system, pass more or stricter gun laws like the president and others are already advocating is not going to help stop this. It's only going to create more hassle for those of us that abide by the law and may be able and willing to respond.

The answer is to stop him in his tracks whether it's a cop or good Samaritan that does it.

[treadlightly]

Here is a much more reasonable attitude toward dealing with these events rather than more or stricter laws. I posted this previously in another thread.

http://www.dailytoreador.com/news/tech- ... l?mode=jqm

We need to stop with the politics and deal with these people by stopping them in their tracks.

I hope Texas Tech doesn't knuckle under emotional weight. I like their attitude. Hide if you can, fight if you draw short straw. I'd like to think that makes Tech a less likely target of mayhem.

As to preventative measures, I think the best inoculation against madness is more responsibility in society. You can't mandate it, but it can be encouraged.

Whether or not there are background checks and permits, murderers are going to do what murderers do. Civil rights aren't the problem.

It may sound profane in the context of the day's news, but I firmly believe in Constitutional carry. It's OK to have permits and some restrictions now. The State needs to be reintroduced to this particular freedom. The CHL program has done a lot of that. Open carry really needs to be a non-event to further the cause of freedom, and I think it will.

[mojo84]

I can't vouch for this site or its credibility but I thought some may find it of interest.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/10 ... t-college/

Much of the speculation about mental illness, meds and such may have been premature and inaccurate. If this info is correct, how do we change the system to prevent guys like them is from getting guns?

[cb1000rider]

To both cb and mojo. We really don't know if the current background check system works or not. At least as far as it was actually designed. States don't report info into the system uniformly so garbage in, garbage out is the rule rather than the exception.

I like the way you think - we need statistics to tell us. However, I am fundamentally having a hard time with a system that allows the mentally ill to "decide" if they're going to check the correct box when buying a firearm. We see discussions on here from time to time about people that are actively taking mind altering medication and a willingness to ignore a diagnosis. The other side is that we see people who are over-diagnosed. Normally, I'm a statistics guy, but I just don't see how the current way could possibly work.

And even in cases where a check comes up as someone attempting to buy a gun is prohibited, there is no follow up investigation or prosecution. If it were actually run as designed, the system may actually prevent more prohibited persons from getting guns.

This I totally agree with. Basically there is no real penalty for giving it a try. Might as well turn the terrorists back at the airport screening and tell them to try again later.

We'll never really know until the system is run as it's actually designed to. And until that happens, I'm absolutely against adding arbitrary provisions and potentially unnecessary new laws.

So we prosecute those that attempt to break the law. That might improve things. If you're suggesting that we have some sort of screening system to validate which mental health box was checked - to see if it's working or not, I could get behind that too.

Even if the guy had a history that was reported properly, what's to keep him from stealing guns, buying from a friend, borrowing a gun buying through craigslist or elsewhere?

Absolutely nothing. And I think those things support my point that there are a lot of ways to accomplish risk reduction related to mental health. I refuse to accept that we do nothing due to the fact that there is currently more than one way to circumvent. How does that make sense? It's like saying there's more than one hole in the dam, so we're not going to fix any of the holes. I think that's a recipe for lost liberty as the moderate middle grows more impatient with a lack of change.

One example of a change that might help: If I had a way to get a red light or green light before selling a firearm to a private party, I'd use it. Sell a firearm to a "red" individual and you've got some serious criminal responsibility.

The idea isn't to solve it completely, but to make some improvements... Make it a little less easy and a littler harder for liberals to say that we're doing nothing.

The answer is to stop him in his tracks whether it's a cop or good Samaritan that does it.

There is a big tactical advantage to surprise. And I was always taught to watch your back drop, so if there was a bad guy in with a bunch of people, that's a really hard choice to make.

I'm a big fan of being able to protect yourself (and others) - but I can't see how this is the end solution to guys who want the infamy and media attention that killing people provides. Even in places where there is a high alert status and we've got good guys with guns ready, people willing to kill themselves have always had some level of success.

[Charlies.Contingency]

http://nypost.com/2015/10/01/oregon-gun ... g-rampage/

Shooter targeted Christians.

RIP brave followers of Christ.

Amen and amen. After the first or second one, only a committed believer would answer "yes". Very brave and solid believers.

As sad as this tradgedy may be, I am glad to know that there were some that were brave enough to NOT deny their father before men.

Mathew 10:33 "But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is heaven."

[mojo84]

To both cb and mojo. We really don't know if the current background check system works or not. At least as far as it was actually designed. States don't report info into the system uniformly so garbage in, garbage out is the rule rather than the exception.

I like the way you think - we need statistics to tell us. However, I am fundamentally having a hard time with a system that allows the mentally ill to "decide" if they're going to check the correct box when buying a firearm. We see discussions on here from time to time about people that are actively taking mind altering medication and a willingness to ignore a diagnosis. The other side is that we see people who are over-diagnosed. Normally, I'm a statistics guy, but I just don't see how the current way could possibly work.

And even in cases where a check comes up as someone attempting to buy a gun is prohibited, there is no follow up investigation or prosecution. If it were actually run as designed, the system may actually prevent more prohibited persons from getting guns.

This I totally agree with. Basically there is no real penalty for giving it a try. Might as well turn the terrorists back at the airport screening and tell them to try again later.

We'll never really know until the system is run as it's actually designed to. And until that happens, I'm absolutely against adding arbitrary provisions and potentially unnecessary new laws.

So we prosecute those that attempt to break the law. That might improve things. If you're suggesting that we have some sort of screening system to validate which mental health box was checked - to see if it's working or not, I could get behind that too.

Even if the guy had a history that was reported properly, what's to keep him from stealing guns, buying from a friend, borrowing a gun buying through craigslist or elsewhere?

Absolutely nothing. And I think those things support my point that there are a lot of ways to accomplish risk reduction related to mental health. I refuse to accept that we do nothing due to the fact that there is currently more than one way to circumvent. How does that make sense? It's like saying there's more than one hole in the dam, so we're not going to fix any of the holes. I think that's a recipe for lost liberty as the moderate middle grows more impatient with a lack of change.

One example of a change that might help: If I had a way to get a red light or green light before selling a firearm to a private party, I'd use it. Sell a firearm to a "red" individual and you've got some serious criminal responsibility.

The idea isn't to solve it completely, but to make some improvements... Make it a little less easy and a littler harder for liberals to say that we're doing nothing.

The answer is to stop him in his tracks whether it's a cop or good Samaritan that does it.

There is a big tactical advantage to surprise. And I was always taught to watch your back drop, so if there was a bad guy in with a bunch of people, that's a really hard choice to make.

I'm a big fan of being able to protect yourself (and others) - but I can't see how this is the end solution to guys who want the infamy and media attention that killing people provides. Even in places where there is a high alert status and we've got good guys with guns ready, people willing to kill themselves have always had some level of success.

You have not offered one thing that will help prevent these things from happening but you advocate we have to do something. You also said you aren't advocating for more laws. So, how do you accomplish your goals of eliminating or mitigating these events?

[baldeagle]

To both cb and mojo. We really don't know if the current background check system works or not. At least as far as it was actually designed. States don't report info into the system uniformly so garbage in, garbage out is the rule rather than the exception. And even in cases where a check comes up as someone attempting to buy a gun is prohibited, there is no follow up investigation or prosecution. If it were actually run as designed, the system may actually prevent more prohibited persons from getting guns. Or not. We'll never really know until the system is run as it's actually designed to. And until that happens, I'm absolutely against adding arbitrary provisions and potentially unnecessary new laws.

That's my point. We don't know. We don't even know if this guy had a mental illness history and some are advocating the system doesnt work and we need more guns laws.

Who, exactly, argued that? Please cite them.

[baldeagle]

I read a story that said he had all the students lay on the floor, then asked them to stand up, one at a time, and declare their religion. If they were Christian, he shot them in the head. If they weren't or wouldn't say, he shot them in the leg. Here's what I don't understand. There's 35 students in the room. After the first two or three are shot, why didn't anybody rush the guy? Sure, you might get shot, but you're going to get shot sooner or later anyway. This passive, sheep mentality baffles me. I don't understand it. I would grab a chair and rush him, yelling at the top of my lungs to startle him, and do everything in my power to knock him down. I'm sure not going to lay there and wait for a bullet.

[cb1000rider]

You have not offered one thing that will help prevent these things from happening but you advocate we have to do something. You also said you aren't advocating for more laws. So, how do you accomplish your goals of eliminating or mitigating these events?

To be fair, you suggested that I was advocating for more (and stricter) laws and basically said that I was behaving like an idiot, correct?

I'm having trouble now that you're challenging me on the exact opposite of that, although it's absolutely in line with what I did say. I'll be a good sport and run with it. But that's what I'm trying to discuss - as I'm not smart enough to solve it on my own and mine isn't the only political perspective to consider. The politics play a big role in any perspective change.

To answer: If you look at my point post above, I did come up with a suggestion. You'll see that one thing that crossed my mind is a system for "red/green" light screening for private party gun purchases. I'd use it. It wouldn't be oppressive and doesn't involve any new laws. You don't have to use it, but you might be held responsible if you sold a firearm to someone on the "red" list. Just a little lookup by DL # and it spits back red or green. No details provided. On the back end it's a combination of felony check, citizenship check, and maybe possible adjudicated (only adjudicated) mental health status.

You'll also note that TexasCajun made what I thought were suggestions - and I commented on what I thought might work.

That's a suggestion for risk reduction. It's certainly not a solution. It makes one hole in the dam a little smaller.

Do you think it's better to change nothing because there are too many holes to plug? It seems like that's what you've suggested. If so, why?

[cb1000rider]

There's 35 students in the room. After the first two or three are shot, why didn't anybody rush the guy? Sure, you might get shot, but you're going to get shot sooner or later anyway. This passive, sheep mentality baffles me. I don't understand it. I would grab a chair and rush him, yelling at the top of my lungs to startle him, and do everything in my power to knock him down. I'm sure not going to lay there and wait for a bullet.

Good question. That's why I felt like there never will be another American commercial flight successfully hijacked. Everyone on a hijacked flight would assume that they're about to die. Maybe I'm wrong.

[mojo84]

To both cb and mojo. We really don't know if the current background check system works or not. At least as far as it was actually designed. States don't report info into the system uniformly so garbage in, garbage out is the rule rather than the exception. And even in cases where a check comes up as someone attempting to buy a gun is prohibited, there is no follow up investigation or prosecution. If it were actually run as designed, the system may actually prevent more prohibited persons from getting guns. Or not. We'll never really know until the system is run as it's actually designed to. And until that happens, I'm absolutely against adding arbitrary provisions and potentially unnecessary new laws.

That's my point. We don't know. We don't even know if this guy had a mental illness history and some are advocating the system doesnt work and we need more guns laws.

Who, exactly, argued that? Please cite them.

You can read pages 2 and 4 of this thread for starters. In addition to the president, just about every other anti-gun liberal progressive out there. There are many saying we got to do something to prevent people certain people from getting guns. There is no practical constitutional way of doing that.

I agree that the state reporting of people adjudicated to be disqualified from owning guns are reported to NICS should be done better and more consistently. However, that's not going to stop this type of mass murder. If they can't buy a gun from a dealer, they'll find another way to get one.

[cb1000rider]

<dupe - sorry>

[cb1000rider]

<dupe - sorry>

[NotRPB]

Why do cars use solid antennas now? those old telescopic ones just fit a .22

is it the Arrow or the Swingline staplers we get background checked when buying?

[dale blanker]

To both cb and mojo. We really don't know if the current background check system works or not. At least as far as it was actually designed. States don't report info into the system uniformly so garbage in, garbage out is the rule rather than the exception. And even in cases where a check comes up as someone attempting to buy a gun is prohibited, there is no follow up investigation or prosecution. If it were actually run as designed, the system may actually prevent more prohibited persons from getting guns. Or not. We'll never really know until the system is run as it's actually designed to. And until that happens, I'm absolutely against adding arbitrary provisions and potentially unnecessary new laws.

My understanding about current background checking is that it is somewhat effective with 2.4 million sales being blocked since the Brady Bill in '94. 60 Minutes had a program awhile back that showed how bad state reporting is and how poorly the federal database is managed. Some checks take more time but sales proceed if a check is not completed in 72 hours.

Cornyn is apparently fostering a bill that will upgrade background reporting and improve the federal database. BUT his bill does not require background checks on gun show or private sales. I believe that the great majority of gun owners, including NRA members, approve of better background checking and closing the loopholes so I don't see why it doesn't happen. Our government frequently works in strange and mysterious ways.

The above is my understanding but there may be errors. Corrections?