13 Killed in Oregon college mass shooting

[Southside]

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/multiple-casualties-after-shooting-umpqua-community-college-n437051

Events like these have become too common in the US unfortunately

[Uniquemind]

I doubt it's enough to change any laws though.

People are too attached to their principles....and Sandy Hook has much better PR sob images and stories and if that couldn't move hearts...

[StoppingTom]

I'm supportive of people's amendment rights, but jeez, when will this end? It seems like every month now, something needs to be done.

[Sailor Mars]

Ugh this is fucking ridiculous...

[Sugaree]

The solution isn't to ban firearms outright. The basic human right of self defense should not be infringed upon. It's giving people who have known mental illness access to firearms is what causes these shootings.

[SethfromMI]

taking away the guns is not the answer. if you put a gun on a table it is not going to start magically shooting people by itself. the country does not have a gun problem, we have a heart problem, a sin problem. you know in Australia, when they took the guns away, do you know what type of crime went up? stabbings? less shootings, but way more stabbings. it shows it is a heart problem. the people who did this shooting are to be blamed, not the guns they used

thoughts and prayers go out to the victims families and friends

[Melodic]

My heart goes out to all those affected. <3

[thatcountrykid]

It's also becoming apparent he also was targeting Christians. If they said yes they were killed.

[Vermilion]

It's also becoming apparent he also was targeting Christians. If they said yes they were killed.

I have read that apparently he liked and supported the IRA.

[Uniquemind]

This is an outrageous claim but I'm saying it to stir discussion.


Instead of gun bans we could abolish privacy, and have everyone tracked in real time of where they are.


Most people have regular travel patterns, any break in those patterns, like a trip to a gun shop, combined with what they recently post on social media could be a stronger indicator of potential tragedies.

Mental health records could be more public.

It's like minority report in a sense.


If I know all of your dirty laundry, you can know all of mine...seems fair at surface value.

[thatcountrykid]

I have read that apparently he liked and supported the IRA.

I'm not sure of the importance of that

[thatcountrykid]

This is an outrageous claim but I'm saying it to stir discussion.


Instead of gun bans we could abolish privacy, and have everyone tracked in real time of where they are.


Most people have regular travel patterns, any break in those patterns, like a trip to a gun shop, combined with what they recently post on social media could be a stronger indicator of potential tragedies.

Mental health records could be more public.

It's like minority report in a sense.


If I know all of your dirty laundry, you can know all of mine...seems fair at surface value.

Believe it or not most gun owners don't go to the gun store everyday. It's actually a pretty irregular thing for most since guns are expensive

[StoppingTom]

It's pretty awful that the reaction of a legitimate Presidential candidate to this event was literally "Stuff happens". It just kinda reflects how some people aren't even taken aback by this anymore.

[Vlerchan]

I'm not sure of the importance of that
Plenty of IRA supporters, esp. outside of Ireland, tend to draw common cause with White Nationalists and Supremacists, generally. I did some research and it seems he was a fan of the Nazis (http://nypost.com/2015/10/01/oregon-gunman-singled-out-christians-during-rampage/?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=NYPTwitter&utm_medium=SocialFlow), so the profile fits there.

It doesn't seem related to the killing though which seems inspired by anti-Christian tendencies, like you mentioned.

[Just JT]

It's also becoming apparent he also was targeting Christians. If they said yes they were killed.

I wanted to like this, but think would send the wrong messege
Your right, messed up....

This is an outrageous claim but I'm saying it to stir discussion.


Instead of gun bans we could abolish privacy, and have everyone tracked in real time of where they are.


Most people have regular travel patterns, any break in those patterns, like a trip to a gun shop, combined with what they recently post on social media could be a stronger indicator of potential tragedies.

Mental health records could be more public.

It's like minority report in a sense.


If I know all of your dirty laundry, you can know all of mine...seems fair at surface value.

That is such an invasion of privacy on so many levels
It's like saying we're guna watch your every move in case you step outa line then bu you cause you did something different foyr a change

[dxcxdzv]

This is an outrageous claim but I'm saying it to stir discussion.


Instead of gun bans we could abolish privacy, and have everyone tracked in real time of where they are.


Most people have regular travel patterns, any break in those patterns, like a trip to a gun shop, combined with what they recently post on social media could be a stronger indicator of potential tragedies.

Mental health records could be more public.

It's like minority report in a sense.


If I know all of your dirty laundry, you can know all of mine...seems fair at surface value.
Abolish all privacies in order to maintain an "individual ""right""". Doesn't it look conflicting?

[CosmicNoodle]

I'm just gonna go ahead and wait for someone to say more guns is the answer, or less strict public carry laws, which is what seems to come up every time this happens.

[Vlerchan]

What Uniquemind suggested already happens to a somewhat more constrained degree with your bank. Your use of your debit card [and I would imagine credit cards] is tracked by an internal Financial Crimes Unit. It keeps note of all the transactions made and all the places these transactions are made in. From here it develops a pattern mapping regular expenditure and if you operate outside that pattern it will place a SFwatch - security fraud watch - on the card that someone from within the unit has to deal with - i.e., investigate.

[Just JT]

I'm just gonna go ahead and wait for someone to say more guns is the answer, or less strict public carry laws, which is what seems to come up every time this happens.

More guns and less laws? There I said it, but mope that ain't the answer at all

The problem that exists in my opinion needs to be addressed from different angles. Keeping in mind guns are so ingrained in our heritage, and is considered our right, can also become a problem for people who have not been exposed to them and taught how to safely handle them.

1). Early intervention, we need to educate ALL children from a young age, with continued exposure and education over years, not what we have now, a 2 week hunter safety course you need for a hunting liscence.
This education should be something in school perhaps, mandatory, for every child, say from grade 7-12. That way when they finish HS they have the proper knowledge been exposed to them. Is a student decides they don't like guns, or want any part of them, cool, don't need to. But if they ever do need to, they know how to and also know who is not Handeling that gun properly in a case of a public shooting. It's not uncommon to see a gun in public, and if someone's guna brandish a gun for harm, it's not the same as one being handled safely.

2) background checks are done at the federal level, and looks for felonys and violent crimes, and a 10 day waiting period. (I may have the number of days wrong). That's it. From there, it's left up to the individual states to decide on laws. Some states are very liberal, some are very strict. There need to be a commonality, that works across the country. It's to easy to buy a gun in one state and bring it where ever

Background checks need to be expanded to include many other criminal elements, including psych evals. Think about it, these people are crazy, just plane crazy!!

It's not a gun problem, it's a people problem, so we need to regulate WHO is getting guns, not WHAT guns are doing

[mattsmith48]

If only there was a way to make it more difficult for crazy people to get a gun...

[CosmicNoodle]

More guns and less laws? There I said it, but mope that ain't the answer at all

The problem that exists in my opinion needs to be addressed from different angles. Keeping in mind guns are so ingrained in our heritage, and is considered our right, can also become a problem for people who have not been exposed to them and taught how to safely handle them.

1). Early intervention, we need to educate ALL children from a young age, with continued exposure and education over years, not what we have now, a 2 week hunter safety course you need for a hunting liscence.
This education should be something in school perhaps, mandatory, for every child, say from grade 7-12. That way when they finish HS they have the proper knowledge been exposed to them. Is a student decides they don't like guns, or want any part of them, cool, don't need to. But if they ever do need to, they know how to and also know who is not Handeling that gun properly in a case of a public shooting. It's not uncommon to see a gun in public, and if someone's guna brandish a gun for harm, it's not the same as one being handled safely.

2) background checks are done at the federal level, and looks for felonys and violent crimes, and a 10 day waiting period. (I may have the number of days wrong). That's it. From there, it's left up to the individual states to decide on laws. Some states are very liberal, some are very strict. There need to be a commonality, that works across the country. It's to easy to buy a gun in one state and bring it where ever

Background checks need to be expanded to include many other criminal elements, including psych evals. Think about it, these people are crazy, just plane crazy!!

It's not a gun problem, it's a people problem, so we need to regulate WHO is getting guns, not WHAT guns are doing


I wrote a logn reply to this, then realised that it consisted of mostly shouting at you. Instead I'll just say, keep guns the fuck away from schools, in any fucking case, and make it extremely hard to get weapons, that's what they are, not a hobby, a weapon designed primarely to kill.

[tonymontana99]

The solution isn't to ban firearms outright. The basic human right of self defense should not be infringed upon. It's giving people who have known mental illness access to firearms is what causes these shootings.

taking away the guns is not the answer. if you put a gun on a table it is not going to start magically shooting people by itself. the country does not have a gun problem, we have a heart problem, a sin problem. you know in Australia, when they took the guns away, do you know what type of crime went up? stabbings? less shootings, but way more stabbings. it shows it is a heart problem. the people who did this shooting are to be blamed, not the guns they used

thoughts and prayers go out to the victims families and friends

I agree with you, but how do we argue with those who say "Well, then shouldn't mentally ill people have the right to defend themselves too?"

[SethfromMI]

I agree with you, but how do we argue with those who say "Well, then shouldn't mentally ill people have the right to defend themselves too?"

I guess in that argument, while not perfect, you would say you are protecting them from themselves by not allowing them to buy. I would say the same thing about murderers. you are protecting others and themselves.

It is not a nice, perfect solution, but the argument can't be, "well a small percentage gas a problem so we are going to ban everyone". I don't have all the answers I know

[tonymontana99]

I guess in that argument, while not perfect, you would say you are protecting them from themselves by not allowing them to buy. I would say the same thing about murderers. you are protecting others and themselves.

It is not a nice, perfect solution, but the argument can't be, "well a small percentage gas a problem so we are going to ban everyone". I don't have all the answers I know

Makes sense. Thanks

[mattsmith48]

Seeing it from the outside of the US it looks like the problem iss the acceptably of Americans to get guns seriously with the frequency of mass shootings in that country outsiders would think they sell guns at the gaz station by the gum and chocolate. The answer is so simple if you went to jail, your mentally ill or you practice a crazy religion that promotes violence you can't get a gun.

[sqishy]

By statistics, this is the 294th mass shooting in the US so far in 2015 (look it up). That number could be bigger now, it is likely to be.
And many in US politics say that everyone needs more guns to help fight this. It is the guns which is causing this. It's happened many a time before, and will happen many a time again.

[Just JT]

Seeing it from the outside of the US it looks like the problem iss the acceptably of Americans to get guns seriously with the frequency of mass shootings in that country outsiders would think they sell guns at the gaz station by the gum and chocolate. The answer is so simple if you went to jail, your mentally ill or you practice a crazy religion that promotes violence you can't get a gun.


I think you are partially correct. But guns are not as easily obtained as you say. There are laws governing who can buy and sell, one problem is that each individual state has their own laws, none of which are easier than the federal laws. There are also no enforceable laws documenting the guns that go over state lines. If there are more stringent federal laws regulating the location, ownership, and movement of guns as people hove from state to state (when they relocate) then we could track guns and owners better. Yes I agree with you about convicted criminals. Right now only citizens convicted of felonies are not eligible for federal gun permits. Some states go as far as a DWI. Other states will issue gun permits to citizens with drug convictions. It's messed up, it really is, there's no balance in morals here.
When talking about people with mental disabilities, there are more laws to protect their privacy than there are to protect gun ownership. People will argue HIPPA privacy violations until there are no more schools to shoot up. All the while the NRA will throw million of dollars to,preserve our right to,own and bear arms. It's fucked up, it really is. It's actually an embarrassment to trynand explain the stupidity of this irony, this disgusting irony.

I'm,entire in an earlier post about education, and I say so because there is none.
Basically we do not need to fulfill any federal educational requirement for owning a gun. Think about that for a minute.... Ok, maybe schools are not the right place for that education, fine, does not change the fact that there is no education standard needed to be filled on the federal,level to own a gun. Every single state has laws about what age to drink, drive. Have sex, be an adult, be drafted, get married, and every one of those aspects has some component of education in the school cirucilium.
But yet we don't teach our kids, ourselves, abiut what safe handling of guns

The issues are so complex, it's easy for someone from outside the U.S. to say just do this or just Do that. And your right, your so fuckin' right it's painful to say, but your right.
It's just not as simple as just doing something as simple as making a law

Doesn't that sound fuckin stupid?
But it's true....

[phuckphace]

I just realized that gutting our universities will provide the double benefit of eliminating campus spree-shootings

[iChrisbtv96]

I got so mad when I heard this. People are so crazy!

[mattsmith48]

I think you are partially correct. But guns are not as easily obtained as you say. There are laws governing who can buy and sell, one problem is that each individual state has their own laws, none of which are easier than the federal laws. There are also no enforceable laws documenting the guns that go over state lines. If there are more stringent federal laws regulating the location, ownership, and movement of guns as people hove from state to state (when they relocate) then we could track guns and owners better. Yes I agree with you about convicted criminals. Right now only citizens convicted of felonies are not eligible for federal gun permits. Some states go as far as a DWI. Other states will issue gun permits to citizens with drug convictions. It's messed up, it really is, there's no balance in morals here.
When talking about people with mental disabilities, there are more laws to protect their privacy than there are to protect gun ownership. People will argue HIPPA privacy violations until there are no more schools to shoot up. All the while the NRA will throw million of dollars to,preserve our right to,own and bear arms. It's fucked up, it really is. It's actually an embarrassment to trynand explain the stupidity of this irony, this disgusting irony.

I'm,entire in an earlier post about education, and I say so because there is none.
Basically we do not need to fulfill any federal educational requirement for owning a gun. Think about that for a minute.... Ok, maybe schools are not the right place for that education, fine, does not change the fact that there is no education standard needed to be filled on the federal,level to own a gun. Every single state has laws about what age to drink, drive. Have sex, be an adult, be drafted, get married, and every one of those aspects has some component of education in the school cirucilium.
But yet we don't teach our kids, ourselves, abiut what safe handling of guns

The issues are so complex, it's easy for someone from outside the U.S. to say just do this or just Do that. And your right, your so fuckin' right it's painful to say, but your right.
It's just not as simple as just doing something as simple as making a law

Doesn't that sound fuckin stupid?
But it's true....

Whats the use of the federal government when the states can change the laws thry pass? Thats what sound fucking stupid! If you went to jail no matter what, if you are mentally ill, or if you practice a crazy religion that promotes violence and hate you cant have a fucking gun or hard can that be. Then if you pass that since you guys put so many people in jail and 70% of Americans practice a crazy religion that promotes hate and violence they're will be almost no guns left.

[Sugaree]

I agree with you, but how do we argue with those who say "Well, then shouldn't mentally ill people have the right to defend themselves too?"

Of course they have that right. They are mentally capable to some degree, so they have every right that you and I have. However, because of the precedent of mass shootings being committed by mentally unstable individuals, sometimes you have to be overly cautious. There's a few common sense reforms to make, like ensuring that if a mentally unstable person has a firearm, that they are checked on spontaneously multiple times a year to make sure they are keeping up to date on medications and inform the proper authorities to any changes in mood/behavior.

Another way to stop guns getting into the hands of the wrong people is to have better background check systems. Currently, background check systems actually do a lot of good, but they don't give fully detailed information. Most background checks simply give a "Yes" or "No" and not provide any other details. For example: you may have been convicted of misdemeanor offenses that involved the use of guns, but background checks only search for federal offenses. It's already illegal for people with federal convictions to own firearms, but there's never stopping them from getting a gun from their thug buddies.

Illegal gun trading is never going away. It's just going to keep happening. Guns will always be in the hands of criminals. However, we must be able to stop people who have the potential to cause harm to others from getting their hands on those resources. The problem is that many people see this as a zero-sum issue in which either everyone gets a gun or no one gets to have a gun. Responsible owners should not be punished for the actions of thugs.

[Jackr117]

This is something which is in the UK can't understand.. Why can't (Some) Americans see that more guns = more violence? If any old nut job can get his/her hands on a gun when he/she wants, I would be constantly paranoid.

[BlackParadePixie]

By statistics, this is the 294th mass shooting in the US so far in 2015 (look it up). That number could be bigger now, it is likely to be.
And many in US politics say that everyone needs more guns to help fight this. It is the guns which is causing this. It's happened many a time before, and will happen many a time again.
this is based on statistics in which a "mass shooting" includes as few as 2 people. There's probably quite a few gang shootings included in your so-called statistics. It's not as if there have been 294 shootings like the one in Oregon.

[sqishy]

this is based on statistics in which a "mass shooting" includes as few as 2 people. There's probably quite a few gang shootings included in your so-called statistics. It's not as if there have been 294 shootings like the one in Oregon.

It is based on 4 or more people being hurt or killed in a shooting, including the shooter.

http://shootingtracker.com/wiki/Mass_Shootings_in_2015 [now 319].

If you want to debate the number of shootings, take it to the references, not me. I am presenting them, it is a very big number of references to question.

If, though, you want to debate what counts as a mass shooting, then by all means do. Four people killed in a shooting is big, in my opinion. Not by what I am used to hearing, but by personal judgement. A whole family could be killed. Four people is a lot, in my view. It is only my view, but it is not only my view either. I am not assuming I am right; in this case I am making a view with many references at hand.

I nowhere said those were the statistics for Oregon. I meant the US in general.


I also quote http://shootingtracker.com 's main page, where it is said, and I quote:
==========
"Here at the Mass Shooting Tracker, we count the number of people shot rather than the number people killed because, "shooting" means "people shot".

For instance, in 2012 Travis Steed and others shot 18 people total. Miraculously, he only killed one. Under the incorrect definition of mass shooting, that event would not be considered a mass shooting! Arguing that 18 people shot during one event is not a mass shooting is absurd.

We refuse to ignore the victims of gun violence who survive mass shooting sprees, and we believe the media does a disservice to mass shooting victims by virtually ignoring them unless large numbers are killed."
Old Definition:

"Generally, mass murder was described as a number of murders (four or more) occurring during the same incident, with no distinctive time period between the murders."

New Generally Accepted Definition:

"The general definition of spree murder is two or more murders committed by an offender or offenders, without a cooling-off period."

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/serial-murder/serial-murder-1#two

Let's summarize and keep it simple by giving an accurate and precise definition of a mass shooting:

A mass shooting is when four or more people are shot in an event, or related series of events, likely without a cooling off period.

And guess what? Now we are giving you the tools to track it. So please report mass shootings accurately."
==========


I agree with this, in that events should not be downplayed or ignored if they are not unusually big or severe. EVERY event matters. Cumulatively, the smaller mass shootings make the vast majority of deaths and injuries. The bigger ones are the minority. Only dealing with the bigger shootings means only dealing with the concentrated minority of death or injury.

Are gang shootings inherently less important? Do you mean those killed in them are 'worth' less? What if (if we assume the gangs themselves to be less than human) people outside of the said gangs have been killed?

Also, I'm not using the website as a reason for some to think I am faithful or allegiant to it. It is a website that gets its data from many many places. In this situation, I am trusting of that which is giving many 'points of view' so to speak.

[project_icarus]

How surprising.