TexasCHLforum.com

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

Shooter targeted Christians.

RIP brave followers of Christ.

philip964 wrote: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.

cb1000rider wrote:

John Galt wrote: That's the typical liberal reaction.

It certainly has liberal support, but it's not just the liberals. It's easy for incidents like this to push people over the line. Restriction is supported by quite a few middle-of-the-road types and that's much more worry some to me than what the agendas of both extremes are. These incidents are not good for gun owners. We can point to gun-free zone, but likely likely we're still going to have problems even if it wasn't. I, for one, think we need to do something about a fairly ineffective background check system when it comes to mental illness (among other things).. It's doing that in a manner that isn't abused, expensive, or fraught with civil rights peril that creates the real question. But I'm afraid that too much of this stuff and we're not going to get a choice.

You are correct, of course, but frankly, if they wanted better background checks, we would have them. The problem is that some advocate for MORE background checks, not better ones, and many ignorant people believe that would help. What is needed is for someone to expose how completely broken the background check system is. That might change people's minds about getting MORE and demanding BETTER instead.

Do we even know if better background checks or more gun laws would have kept this guy from getting his hands on the gun? Why are more laws or more stringent laws always argued for, even on here, after these events when neither would stop these things from happening?

I think we should all be focused on the fact there are people out there that are committing such acts and prepare to deal with them appropriately and stop worrying about the tools they use. There are dead people that were killed for their beliefs. That's what we need to focus on and prepare to respond to appropriately.

We don't know that, although it may be figured out retroactively. No background check system will prevent ownership of firearms before the mental illness occurs - nor are most rational people going to think that a policy of confiscation upon diagnosis is going to work out well.

So say by some miracle we patch up the background system. That leaves the whole "private party" loop hole wide open. And I really dislike that part of the system, not because it's so easy to do private party commerce in firearms - which I think is fine - but because it's almost impossible to figure out if you're buying a stolen firearm or a firearm that was used in a crime without potentially getting yourself arrested... And there is no easy way to do a basic screening on someone that you're selling a firearm to..

Maybe you're right, Mojo, arming everyone is the answer.. I just can't bring myself to believe that doing so would work out well - there are just too many hot tempered idiots out there.

If you don't know it, why argue about it? Where did I say anything about arming everyone? I'm sick of people thinking more laws and background check are going to prevent this crap. How about the car the guy drove over there in? He could have killed just as many or more with it.

The answer is to start eliminating these idiots immediately before they do the damage they want to do. Not create more burden for the law abiding.

People need to use some basic common sense. If it helps one visualise how well more or stricter gun laws would work, look at the thriving illegal drug trade.

I'm getting fed up with the idiocy.

Today President Obama favorably mentioned Australia and its gun-control laws enacted after a mass shooting there a few years back. You guys should research that. Scary stuff, and unconstitutional as applied to USA.

dlh

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... -not-help/

Armed veteran near by but couldn't respond due being locked down.

mojo84 wrote:If you don't know it, why argue about it?

I'll break it down a bit from my point of view:
We're discussing, not arguing. You've shifted the tone unnecessarily as I didn't disagree with you. Arguing would at least require disagreement. You said we don't know if better background checks would have prevented this. I agreed with you, but indicated we may figure that out later. No argument from me.

Be aware - I can discuss an issue - likely either side, fairly dispassionately. I believe discussion is part of what this forum is about.

mojo84 wrote: Where did I say anything about arming everyone?

"....prepare to deal with them appropriately.."

I assumed that meant we should all be ready to defend ourselves if necessary. You didn't say "arm" anyone - but generally being prepared, in the context of this forum, generally means armed. Totally my supposition, within limited context. My apologies if I got it wrong, no insult was intended.

mojo84 wrote: I'm sick of people thinking more laws and background check are going to prevent this crap. How about the car the guy drove over there in? He could have killed just as many or more with it.

Since we're picking nits, I never said anything about more laws. I indicated that the current system is fairly ineffective in regard to dealing with mental illness. I did expect to be fairly skewered for suggesting that it doesn't work very well, but the reality is that it's essentially an "honor box" in most cases and I'm not sure such makes sense when dealing with the mentally ill. I'd rather reform it - that is remove it and start over. Not pile on. Glad you asked.

I do think that effective background checks could stop some cases.. not all, but some. In combination with other changes, it could be more effective - but making those changes in a manner that is effective and non-restrictive for most law-biding Americans is tricky.

mojo84 wrote: The answer is to start eliminating these idiots immediately before they do the damage they want to do. Not create more burden for the law abiding.

See, I attempted to guess in context above and got it wrong, so I'm trying not to jump to a conclusion here... You'll have to tell me what you actually mean.

mojo84 wrote: People need to use some basic common sense. If it helps one visualise how well more or stricter gun laws would work, look at the thriving illegal drug trade.

I agree that our war on drugs is disgraceful, wasteful, ineffective, and probably immoral in some cases.
I never said more gun laws. I said more effective around the context of mental illness. If that makes things a little more strict than allowing an individual to decide if they're mentally ill or not, I'll stand accused of suggesting a more strict policy, even though I don't have a specific solution.

mojo84 wrote: I'm getting fed up with the idiocy.

That's OK, mojo, I've been called worse. It is a bit ironic that most of what what we're discussing above we totally agree on. My apologies if I read into your suggestion that we be ready for this stuff as arming everyone.

mojo84 wrote:http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... -not-help/

Armed veteran near by but couldn't respond due being locked down.

He might be lucky. When the posse arrived, they had no way to tell the clowns from the cowboys, all they knew was man with a gun.

JALLEN wrote:

mojo84 wrote:http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... -not-help/

Armed veteran near by but couldn't respond due being locked down.

He might be lucky. When the posse arrived, they had no way to tell the clowns from the cowboys, all they knew was man with a gun.

That argument is way over used. Tell me one case of an active shooter such as this where that has actually happened. I dont think you'll find very many if any.

Also, that risk is up to him to decide if he wants to take it or not. He may be just the type willing to take some risk in order to prevent some from being killed.

Cb, I did not call you anything. You are not the only one questioning and blaming the tool and system. As far as the tone, I'll leave it to you to interpret my tone.

I stand by comment that blaming the system tool is idiocy.

I hope the victims and their families sue the university closed for not having metal detectors at the doors and armed security on site. It might help if those places that do not allow CHLs to carry are held responsible for the security of everyone in their “gun free zones”.

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.

mojo84 wrote:

JALLEN wrote:

mojo84 wrote:http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... -not-help/

Armed veteran near by but couldn't respond due being locked down.

He might be lucky. When the posse arrived, they had no way to tell the clowns from the cowboys, all they knew was man with a gun.

That argument is way over used. Tell me one case of an active shooter such as this where that has actually happened. I dont think you'll find very many if any.

Also, that risk is up to him to decide if he wants to take it or not. He may be just the type willing to take some risk in order to prevent some from being killed.

What does any of that have to do with the possibility that he may have been lucky he couldn't respond?

I've read enough accounts of confusion, incapacity, incompetence on the part of law enforcement when it comes to firearms to raise the concern. Most officers I have known or seen discuss the issue complain of inadequate training with firearms. Many of us LTCers do far more shooting than a cop, to hear them complain about it. If the responding officers are experienced under fire and can remain somewhat calm, it might work out just fine. If they are panicky dufuses, maybe not.

I don't know of every such incidence, or even if there have been many, or any, and anyway he was the one with the gun. He didn't have to be locked down if he didn't want to be. His student career at UCC was going to end when he made his move and may be over now since he has come out of the closet.

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.