Jym626 he had no way of communicating with police or SWAT. He didn’t know the situation in the building where the shooting was happening. He didn’t know what weapons, how any shooters, which classroom. He is right, IMO, it would have been stupid if he had gone charging over with guns blazing.
The police at least had 911 calls and the information provided by them and could communicate and coordinate with each other.
This veteran remained were he was, kept his cool, and was prepared to defend the people in his classroom if needed.
I see some difference between this campus and the typical college campus. According to news reports, the average student age is 38 - not 18. And in this region, there appear to be a high percentage of vets enrolled. Vets are of course more familiar with operating in stressful situations with firearms. I would certainly put more trust in a vet using a gun appropriately than I would some 19 year old with no experience.
If that’s the one where the girl was drinking and smoking with friends, smashed a parked vehicle and then wandered for three hours with a blood alcohol level triple the legal limit, I don’t believe there was any evidence at the trial that she was asking for help.
mom2twogirls,
He has eyes. He can see if there are vehicles on campus. I agree that he probably made the right decision. I just find it interesting to talk about what didn’t happen, as if it could have saved lives if it did happen. The vet explained why he didn’t intervene. So being armed in this situation benefitted no one. There are apparently several, or many students who carry (he cited the 2nd amendment and the state code, by number) even though the campus policy encourages/requests (not sure of their exact terminology) asks them not to bring weapons onto campus.
I agree that those trained in the military in the use of firearms are more liked to make better decisions about how to respond in a crisis than some young adult with limited firearms training. Apparently some seem to not want to talk in hypotheticals, but then post lots of hypotheticals.
In Oregon you have to be at least 21 to get a concealed carry permit.
I didn’t read the whole topic but what gun control methods do people believe would have stopped this? If this were a gun free zone nothing different would have happened. He used semi-auto pistols, would people ban all semi-auto pistols? Would this have not happened had he only been able to use revolvers? He packed 5 guns. What about mental health? What mental health policies would have stopped this? We obviously don’t know as much about his mental health history as we do his firearms, but I somehow doubt this guy went and killed a bunch of people because his shrink was too expensive.
I don’t pay much attention to these school shootings because in my opinion they’re boring and not nearly as important as the amount of airtime they get. But afterwards everyone shouts “Gun control” if they’re a Democrat and “Mental Health” if they’re a Republican. Personally I view this more as criminals commit crimes, and if someone could figure out how to end crime then they’d probably have already done it. But if someone has some brilliant idea that’s been drowned out by all the stupid nonsense people spew after every mass shooting I’m curious what it is.
^^Why is this a problem in the US and not in other first world countries? Are we a banana republic?
It’s a myth that it isn’t a problem in other first world countries. USA might have more mass shooting deaths per capita than the average first world country, but it’s not the highest in the first world either.
Vsndenschlutte,
I think some people would like to see the 2nd Amendment repealed and all private ownership of guns banned as the solution.
I wonder what the plan would be to remove 300 million firearms from the public would be but I’m sure whatever it is would sound equally stupid.
It is hilariously obvious that people have made up their own narrative about the US and guns and using the meme that we are a “banana republic” if there are any deaths caused by a person with guns that are highlighted in the media.
Reminds me of the WW2 memorabilia joke about French weaponry when France was rolled over by Germany - An advertisement says, “French WW2 rifles and handguns, never used.”
Of course that is the case. But would you trust those people as far as you see them? A rhetorical question because the question explains why other people wisely have guns.
Just shows you that the people are really are just duplictious in their arguments.
These are the same people who say it is impossible to find and deport illegal immigrants (many who are criminals who have broken our laws), but somehow it would be possible to find and confiscate 300 million guns.
Hum… which is harder to find a small profile gun or a human who needs to eat?
Way to go to town on a strawman not being seriously proposed anywhere.
You keep focusing on what some people with no legislative power opine on a discussion forum to avoid answering the question of why the NRA blocks everything as though it were total ban and confiscation.
What’s the argument against universal background checks on all sales?
What’s the argument against banning the sale of assault weapons or making them much harder to obtain?
Enacting some additional restrictions does not negate the Second Amendment and could save lives.
Please tell me there’s some reason other than Joe the Plumbers execrable “your dead kids don’t trump my constitutional rights.”
In fairness, it doesn’t sound any more stupid than the mental health argument from the Republicans to me. There’s plenty of stupid to go around whenever a mass shooting happens.
Please don’t make this a political discussion. But if we can address the needs of both the ailing mental health system and gun control in this country (smart guns would be a start) this would be a good thing.
Jazzymom,
The call to repeal the 2nd amendment is not a straw man. Google it and you will find plenty of advocates. I believe at least one person on this site proposed it in another similar thread.
What are smart guns?
I am not up to speed on the current republican argument about mental illness. I cannot tell the difference between republicans and dems in Washington anymore.
Overall though, something needs to be done abut mental ill people getting their hands on a gun, as much as a chronic alcoholics should not be able to drive. Solving those two issues would definitely save a lot of lives.
What would be the proposal to stop mentally ill people from, let’s just say for ease, purchasing a firearm? So just people who are mentally ill at the time at which they’re trying to buy a firearm, how do you stop them?