20 Shot 10 Dead at Oregon College

Reality is, on this issue he's either a leader or he's not. He can whine and get frustrated all he wants, and toss barbs to the Loony Conservative crowd and the NRA to his hearts content, but the fact remains he's done nothing even remotely approaching the effort on ACA. Not even close. He wore that bill like a badge of honor and stumped till he couldn't breathe. And the rabid Dem congress-folk behind ACA surely weren't waiting for a two-house majority cushion before tossing something together-- they (and Obama) didn't let go until they got it done.

Guns? Meh. Too big. Let's mourn and roll eyes and point fingers. Much easier. Oh, and it's too big.

ctrzaska said:
Reality is, on this issue he's either a leader or he's not. He can whine and get frustrated all he wants, and toss barbs to the Loony Conservative crowd and the NRA to his hearts content, but the fact remains he's done nothing even remotely approaching the effort on ACA. Not even close. He wore that bill like a badge of honor and stumped till he couldn't breathe. And the rabid Dem congress-folk behind ACA surely weren't waiting for a two-house majority cushion before tossing something together-- they (and Obama) didn't let go until they got it done.
Guns? Meh. Too big. Let's mourn and roll eyes and point fingers. Much easier. Oh, and it's too big.

Exactly my feelings.

Ah, I see now. Interesting. I'm trying to remember back to the early days of the ACA... wasn't there at least some willingness for health care reform on the right, even if they didn't agree with the method? It seems there is absolutely NO desire to make any effort with this issue at all, which could make it an even more uphill battle.

Also, does he have time? How long did ACA take to implement, start to finish?

There's zero chance Obama or any president could get a gun bill through this congress. Unless it was a bill to give everyone a free gun. Let's be serious.

RobB said:
There's zero chance Obama or any president could get a gun bill through this congress. Unless it was a bill to give everyone a free gun. Let's be serious.

Then what do we serious people do about this?

Basically the NRA is out of control. A friend in Kansas, a Republican and gun owner who likes to target shoot, said he is appalled by the power of the NRA. To go target shooting, you MUST be a member of the NRA. And, Kansas passed in 2014 all firearms ordinances null and void. He is starting to be afraid in his own state.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Kansas

Live in a state with strict gun control laws? I doubt this is a coincidence.

Maybe people more willing to accept gun control are less inclined to solve problems with guns.

I'm okay putting the cart before the horse so long as nobody shoots me.

From:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-02/gun-laws-chart-barack-obama/6822342

The article is headed:

Gun violence and terrorism in the US: Barack Obama wants you to see this chart.

US president Barack Obama has asked media outlets to chart gun deaths versus terrorism deaths in the United States. Here's what that looks like.

(The link has the chart if it doesn't reproduce here)

TarheelsInNj said:

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?

They are not a useless congress. If you are the gun lobby, they are HIGHLY effective.

springgreen2 said:
The NRA is a world-wide terrorist organization. Anyone visiting in or living within our borders is vulnerable because of them.

It's time to start calling them out as terrorists, and their supporters as co-conspirators.

When someone like Mike Huckabee comes out the day after a shooting and starts criticizing the President, he is an enabler of terrorism.

IIRC when the ACA passed both the senate and the house were majority democratic. That is opposite of the case today.

ffof said:
Basically the NRA is out of control. A friend in Kansas, a Republican and gun owner who likes to target shoot, said he is appalled by the power of the NRA. To go target shooting, you MUST be a member of the NRA. And, Kansas passed in 2014 all firearms ordinances null and void. He is starting to be afraid in his own state.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Kansas

Obama touched on this last night. I think an effort to drive a wedge between between America’s responsible gun owners and the NRA could be an important way forward.

The reality is that most responsible gun owners are in favor of sensible gun laws and the NRA is not.

I'm an NRA Member. I also like puppies, babies and Captain Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger.

Apollo_T said:
The news is calling this a "mass casualty" incident. What incredible bullsnit!!! It's
MASS MURDER BY GUN
or
MASS SHOOTING



It's important to maintain the focus on the real issue. Any other terms or tangential discussions deflect from the topic.

The tangential discussions about ACA and other Obama virtues/shortcomings are off the point. This feeds in the hands of folks that don't want a discussion of this topic.

Let's P L E A S E stay focused on mass murder by gun.

Are we going to disarm the police too?

Jeb: "Stuff happens."

https://twitter.com/RyanLizza/status/650028551522123776

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/02/oregon-shooting-presidential-candidates-democrats-republicans-reaction

Trump>>"These Things Happen"

http://national.suntimes.com/national-world-news/7/72/1923787/trump-oregon-shooting-things-happen/

Robert_Casotto said:
I'm an NRA Member. I also like puppies, babies and Captain Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger.

Then tell your organization to accept some regulation!

drummerboy said:
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.

Fully agree Any discussion of mental health is just an attempt to distract from our embarrassing obsession with guns.

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?

Are you famiar with this thing called Congress?

Robert_Casotto said:
I'm an NRA Member. I also like puppies, babies and Captain Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger

That's disgusting. Are you serious? I've never met anyone that admitted to supporting the NRA? Really? That's so dumb. You can't be serious. Aren't you embarrassed to admit that?

Woot said:

Robert_Casotto said:
I'm an NRA Member. I also like puppies, babies and Captain Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger

That's disgusting. Are you serious? I've never met anyone that admitted to supporting the NRA? Really? That's so dumb. You can't be serious. Aren't you embarrassed to admit that?

It's just amazing. These people think they're cute. All warm and fuzzy about their guns.

I'll start wearing my NRA hat downtown to show how "embarrassed" I am

He's an ammosexual.

Well, OK, you belong to the NRA. How do you feel about intelligent gun control legislation? Do you think just anybody should be able to buy any gun they want? How do you respond to an event like the one in Oregon?

I think there must be some voices in the NRA that are capable of reason. They need to speak up. Because this shyte is getting really old.

Very nice piece in the New Yorker about all this:

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-second-amendment-is-a-gun-control-amendment?mbid=social_facebook

NYT:

After the shooting at Umpqua Community College, a visibly angry President Obama pointedly noted the contrasting responses in the United States and its allies to gun violence.
“Other countries, in response to one mass shooting, have been able to craft laws that almost eliminate mass shootings,” he said on Thursday. “Friends of ours, allies of ours —Great Britain,Australia, countries like ours. So we know there are ways to prevent it.”
In Australia, Britain and Canada, mass killings have had a mobilizing effect and resulted in changes to laws and regulations.
The turning point in Australia was in April 1996 when a man armed with semiautomatic weapons killed 35 people and wounded 23 in Port Arthur, Tasmania.
The national outcry that followed led to the rapid introduction of tight restrictions on firearms, including a ban on almost all automatic and semiautomatic rifles, as well as shotguns.

John Howard, who had only recently become prime minister when the legislation was enacted, said the process was not easy.
The effort required each of Australia’s states and territories to enact their own laws, called for an ambitious gun-buyback program that led to the recovery and destruction of more than 600,000 weapons, and imposed a one-time tax on all Australians.
Some of Mr. Howard’s center-right coalition supporters, including rural residents who had long owned guns, resented the fact that they had to give up their weapons because of the criminal behavior of others, Mr. Howard wrote in 2013 in The New York Times.
But Australia also had fewer barriers than the United States to enacting gun control: There is no constitutional right to bear arms, and there are no pro-gun lobbying groups with the influence of the National Rifle Association.
“In the end, we won the battle to change gun laws because there was majority support across Australia for banning certain weapons,” he wrote, adding, “Few Australians would deny that their country is safer today as a consequence of gun control.”
In 1987, a gunman in the southern English town of Hungerford killed 16 people, including his mother and a police officer, leading to the introduction of tough laws inBritain requiring owners of shotguns to register their weapons and prohibiting semiautomatic weapons.
Nearly a decade later, after 16 small children and a teacher were shot and killed during three minutes of horror in the Scottish town of Dunblane in 1996, the British government banned the private ownership of automatic weapons and prohibited the private ownership of handguns in Britain’s mainland.
Although the results have been mixed, some criminologists contend that tougher rules regarding gun registration, even for owning a hunting rifle, have helped circumscribe gun crime.
Tough restrictions on handguns and automatic weapons in Canada date to the 1930s. But the rules were expanded to include rifles and shotguns in the aftermath of a rampage in 1989, when an unemployed and embittered 25-year-old armed with a semiautomatic hunting rifle stormed an engineering school in Montreal.
Shouting “I hate feminists,” he separated the women from the men and killed 14 female students before turning the gun on himself.
After that shooting, rifles and other long guns had to be registered like handguns and a majority of semiautomatic weapons. Gun owners were also required to obtain a license, and ammunition sales were controlled.
The long gun registry was unpopular in rural and northern areas. Over the objections of police forces and some provinces, Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who is now seeking re-election, abolished that law in 2012, although ownership of any kind of gun still requires a license.
Dan Bilefsky reported from London, and Austin Ramzy from Hong Kong.

A version of this article appears in print on October 3, 2015, on page A16 of the New York edition with the headline: Rampages in Australia, Britain and Canada Prompted Steps to Regulate Weapons. Order Reprints| Today's Paper|Subscribe

And to that article's point we would add the one posted by @PeggyC from the New Yorker, that the language of the second amendment includes "a well-regulated militia," not individual ownership.