20 Shot 10 Dead at Oregon College
I just checked another news site that said there was an exchange of gunfire with the cops... deadly force is OK in a case like this. Still it's a shame to think of what may be learned from any of these guys.
Even if gunfire wasn't exchanged with police, I agree that a heavily armed person shooting to kill everyone in sight is taken out as quickly as possible, not slowly disabled. Not a situation where I'd even remotely question the police's action
You know anonymous social media participants are being blamed for "egging" this guy on.
"Thoughts and prayers truly are the cheapest commodities made in America."
dave said:
That's not how police are trained. When they pull out a gun, they use it to kill the perpetrator. It's not a wild west movie where they can aim for a leg and expect a quick surrender.
That's not how police are trained in the US anyway. We shoot first and ask questions later. Not like the rest of the industrialized world.
But we're special that way.
And I'm already seeing the comments..."if open carry was allowed and people could defend themselves this wouldn't have happened." UGH
Something I find annoying that's been in vogue since I guess Sandy Hook is the focus on "mental health", whatever that's supposed to mean.
The reason you know this is bullsh** is that a lot of gun-loving conservatives are for it. Of course they are. By blaming such shootings on the mental health of the individual, you can divert attention from the real problem, which is America's sick relationship with guns and violence. That relationship, which permeates so much of our society, is what breeds our mass murderers.
It's an impossible task to try to reform our mental health system to go after mass murders. The odds of successfully intervening and stopping a mass murder is infinitesimal, considering the percentage of the population who will actually become murders. (figure, generously, 10 mass shooters a year. figure out the percentage of 10 people out of 318 million).
And what would such changes to mental health look like anyway? I've seen no concrete proposals.
It's all a diversion, and I'm disappointed to see so many liberal leaning people fall for it.
Its going to happen again and again, until the lunatics in government and the NRA are removed from the picture. Theres too much money in weapons and these shootings are great for gun sales.
bramzzoinks said:
Athiest terrorism. That has got to be a first.
"War on Christianity." This will somehow be Planned Parenthood's/Obama's/The Gay's fault.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/02/us/obama-oregon-shooting-umpqua-community-college-gun-control.html
Excerpt:
Mr. Obama admitted that he was unable to do anything to prevent such tragedies by himself. And he did little to try to hide the anger and frustration that have deepened as he returns again and again to the White House lectern in the wake of a deadly mass shooting.
Mr. Obama took a veiled swipe at the National Rifle Association, which has successfully fought most limits on gun use and manufacture and has pushed through legislation in many states making gun ownership far easier. “And I would particularly ask America’s gun owners who are using those guns properly, safely, to hunt for sport, for protecting their families, to think about whether your views are being properly represented by the organization that suggests it is speaking for you,” he said.
Andrew Arulanandam, a spokesman for the N.R.A., declined to respond to Mr. Obama, saying that it was the organization’s policy “not to comment until all the facts are known.” Wayne LaPierre, the organization’s executive vice president, declared after the school shootings in Newtown, Conn., “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”
On Thursday night, Mr. Obama said that given the frequency of mass shootings, people had “become numb to this.”
“And what’s become routine, of course, is the response of those who oppose any kind of common-sense gun legislation,” Mr. Obama said. “Right now, I can imagine the press releases being cranked out. ‘We need more guns,’ they’ll argue. ‘Fewer gun-safety laws.’ ”
“Does anybody really believe that?” he asked, his voice rising.
"Mr. Obama admitted that he was unable to do anything to prevent such tragedies by himself."
And that has always been the crux of Obama's problems--nice words, no action. I believe that he is totally fed up and angry about this, but for a president to basically say, I'm helpless, well, why do we have a president then?
relx said:
"Mr. Obama admitted that he was unable to do anything to prevent such tragedies by himself."
And that has always been the crux of Obama's problems--nice words, no action. I believe that he is totally fed up and angry about this, but for a president to basically say, I'm helpless, well, why do we have a president then?
"BY" himself is the word you're missing here. What unilateral action can he take? I'm actually curious about this. Is there something he could be doing, independent of the useless Congress?
relx said:
"Mr. Obama admitted that he was unable to do anything to prevent such tragedies by himself."
And that has always been the crux of Obama's problems--nice words, no action. I believe that he is totally fed up and angry about this, but for a president to basically say, I'm helpless, well, why do we have a president then?
What action would you like to see him take?
RobB said:
relx said:What action would you like to see him take?
"Mr. Obama admitted that he was unable to do anything to prevent such tragedies by himself."
And that has always been the crux of Obama's problems--nice words, no action. I believe that he is totally fed up and angry about this, but for a president to basically say, I'm helpless, well, why do we have a president then?
He has done a lot of environmental stuff on his own, without congress. He could pass things by executive order, even knowing they will be overturned, just to increase the pressure on the gun supporters in congress. The Republicans do stuff like this all the time, just to get people to declare their votes publicly. He needs to do something, rather than wring his hands and get angry.
An executive order for what? Mandatory mental health checks for gun buyers? Which federal department is going to handle that?
TarheelsInNj said:
relx said:"BY" himself is the word you're missing here. What unilateral action can he take? I'm actually curious about this. Is there something he could be doing, independent of the useless Congress?
"Mr. Obama admitted that he was unable to do anything to prevent such tragedies by himself."
And that has always been the crux of Obama's problems--nice words, no action. I believe that he is totally fed up and angry about this, but for a president to basically say, I'm helpless, well, why do we have a president then?
Is there any reason why we've coined the termObamacare that has nothing to do with him?
ctrzaska said:
TarheelsInNj said:Is there any reason why we've coined the termObamacare that has nothing to do with him?
relx said:"BY" himself is the word you're missing here. What unilateral action can he take? I'm actually curious about this. Is there something he could be doing, independent of the useless Congress?
"Mr. Obama admitted that he was unable to do anything to prevent such tragedies by himself."
And that has always been the crux of Obama's problems--nice words, no action. I believe that he is totally fed up and angry about this, but for a president to basically say, I'm helpless, well, why do we have a president then?
Uh, please clarify. The fact that the ACA is a reality has a lot to do with the President.
bettyd said:
I'm sorry, but President Obama issuing an executive order regarding gun control would be the right wing gun nut's nightmare come true - "He's coming for my guns and is going to declare himself President for life!"
Exactly. Nothing could make things worse faster than having Obama try to "do something" about gun control.
mjh said:
ctrzaska said:Uh, please clarify. The fact that the ACA is a reality has a lot to do with the President.
TarheelsInNj said:Is there any reason why we've coined the termObamacare that has nothing to do with him?
relx said:"BY" himself is the word you're missing here. What unilateral action can he take? I'm actually curious about this. Is there something he could be doing, independent of the useless Congress?
"Mr. Obama admitted that he was unable to do anything to prevent such tragedies by himself."
And that has always been the crux of Obama's problems--nice words, no action. I believe that he is totally fed up and angry about this, but for a president to basically say, I'm helpless, well, why do we have a president then?
That's exactly my point.
I'm not sure I understand your point then. He didn't create ACA by himself, any more than he can overhaul gun laws by himself.
...and yet we have ACA with his name tagged on it, and more dead in Oregon.
ctrzaska said:
...and yet we have ACA with his name tagged on it, and more dead in Oregon.
..........and we have a very different Congress than the one that managed to pass the ACA.
And he still didn't do it by himself! So... ??? It actually doesn't have his name on it other than in the media.
As people have mentioned, he has been able to get a healthcare plan through, as well as environmental regulations, without any right-wing help--on the contrary, active opposition--but when it comes to guns, he is helpless.
And yes, maybe he should tell people he is coming for their guns--its not like the current strategy of gun support--except for the few deranged individuals we cannot identify and cannot give mental health help to--is working. At some point, you have to take a clear stand against guns, even it means angering gun owners who obey the law. I just don't like the "I am the president and I'm really mad and care about something, but I can't do a thing about it" frame he is pushing. I have also read stuff that, after Sandy Hook, he pushed anti-gun laws, but then backed off when it got too tough. One of the main criticisms of Obama's has long been that he doesn't like to wade into the messier aspects of lawmaking.
Rentals
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
The shooter has four guns and he's shooting everyone he sees. It's ok to shoot him dead in my book. If that's not the single time when it's necessary to kill a person, I don't know what could be.