freeworldgroup.com

OMG not again... cant u a merry cans stop this?

US president Barack Obama has made an impassioned plea for tougher gun control laws after another "routine" shooting at an Oregon community college that has left at least 13 people dead and 20 injured.

Over a dozen people were killed after a gunman opened fire at Umpqua Community College campus in Roseburg, before he was shot dead by police, state and county officials said.

"It cannot be this easy for somebody who wants to inflict harm on other people to get his or her hands on a gun," Mr Obama told a news conference.

Key points:
•At least 13 people dead and 20 injured
•Gunman exchanged fire with police, was killed
•Gunman was 20 years old

"We've become numb to this.

"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?"

Mr Obama said other countries, such as Britain and Australia, had been able to craft laws that prevented mass shootings.

It cannot be this easy for somebody who wants to inflict harm on other people to get his or her hands on a gun.

US president, Barack Obama

"We don't yet know why this individual did what he did. It's fair to say that anybody who does this has a sickness in their minds," he said.

"Regardless of what they think their motivations may be, we are not the only country on Earth that has people with mental illness or want to do harm to other people.

"We are the only advanced country on Earth that sees these kinds of mass shootings every few months. "

A patient is taken into a hospital emergency room after a shooting at Umpqua Community College in Oregon.
Photo: A patient is taken into the emergency room at Mercy Medical Centre in Roseburg, Oregon, after a college shooting. (AFP: Aaron Yost/The News-Review)

Douglas County Sheriff John Hanlin confirmed that officers exchanged fire with the gunman on the Oregon campus, but said no officers were injured.

"Upon arriving there they located the shooter in one of the buildings. Officers engaged that suspect," he said.

"The shooter threat was neutralised."

Mr Hanlin added later: "The shooter is deceased."

The sheriff declined to confirm the number of killed and injured.

Oregon's state governor Kate Brown confirmed the gunman was 20 years old.

CNN reported that four guns belonging to the shooter were recovered from the scene.

Oregon Shooting

Authorities said the shooting took place in one of the classrooms in the science building.

CNN, citing local officials, said at least 20 people were critically injured, including one woman who was shot in the chest.

"It's less than 20 but I don't have an exact number," said the county commissioners office assistant, who declined to be named.

Douglas County fire marshal Ray Shoufler said firefighters had evacuated 11 injured people from the college but two had died.

He said when firefighters arrived at the scene, police had the shooter in custody.

Mercy Medical Centre in Roseburg said on Facebook that the hospital had received nine patients from the shooting and had been advised that three more were en route.

The Portland Oregonian newspaper reported that officers responded at around 10:40am (local time) to reports of a shooting at the college.

The college was immediately placed on lockdown as firefighters, police and concerned parents rushed to the site.

Authorities set up a triage centre at the college and searched students as they left the facility.

since january 2015, America has had a major shooting every day. it's disgusting. we need to change our gun culture and our laws.

america is turning into a horrible country.

I have no words.

Getting rid of guns isn't going to stop tragedies like this from happening. If people want guns they will get them. If people want to shoot up a school they will shoot up a school.
What we need to do is create more measures to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill, and also keep guns away from those with a history of violence.
Essentially guns are easy to access, legally or illegally, meaning people with the intent of causing harm to others by getting these guns can get them easily. Rather than taking away an effective means of self defense from law abiding citizens, we should be creating measures to find out who is most likely to use these weapons and keep them from having said weapons.

TheKingsHills wrote:Getting rid of guns isn't going to stop tragedies like this from happening. If people want guns they will get them. If people want to shoot up a school they will shoot up a school.
What we need to do is create more measures to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill, and also keep guns away from those with a history of violence.
Essentially guns are easy to access, legally or illegally, meaning people with the intent of causing harm to others by getting these guns can get them easily. Rather than taking away an effective means of self defense from law abiding citizens, we should be creating measures to find out who is most likely to use these weapons and keep them from having said weapons.

K let me just say something. If guns were illegal you prevent mentally ill people from getting them unless they go to a black market where guns are gonna cost way more than you can get them already. Many mass shooters dont have the funds or connections to get these weapons, therefore reducing the risk. Why dont law abiding citizens get non lethal forms of defense.

They are not an effective means of defense. You want to get a gun from your home? Put it in a drawer where one of your kids can easily find it and shoot one another or in a safe where you need to crouch over and open in a stressful situation, which will just be incredibly time consuming. This is just one of many reasons why guns are inefficient in defense but I have plenty more if needed.

"After a 1996 Mass Shooting, Australia Enacted Strict Gun Laws. It Hasn’t Had a Similar Massacre Since."

http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2012/1 ... ide_a.html

They took guns back, made everything stricter. No one had guns. Not for defense, not for anything else. AND LOOK NO MORE MASS SHOOTINGS. Obama is right to want stricter gun laws.

(I normally despise serious discussion because my arguments are kinda rambley, this is all im gonna say hopefully)

Hatty wrote:

TheKingsHills wrote:Getting rid of guns isn't going to stop tragedies like this from happening. If people want guns they will get them. If people want to shoot up a school they will shoot up a school.
What we need to do is create more measures to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill, and also keep guns away from those with a history of violence.
Essentially guns are easy to access, legally or illegally, meaning people with the intent of causing harm to others by getting these guns can get them easily. Rather than taking away an effective means of self defense from law abiding citizens, we should be creating measures to find out who is most likely to use these weapons and keep them from having said weapons.

Well yeah, it is, because the weapon isn't going to be readily available. Take a look at the UK, our police don't even have guns and guns are only sold through special military fairs. That's why our gun crime is practically non-existent and we don't have instances like mass shootings cropping up here like they do in America.

As Rain has shown, gun control does work, and these people that have committed mass shootings have no previous offences-so how can you be so sure that it won't fall into the wrong hands? Also, there's not really an argument for guns because other countries in the world are functioning fine, if not better, without them.

you would actually be surprised how easy it can be to get guns illegally into countries, alot of black market dealers, will simply sell a gun as parts, leaving the buyer to build it once they get it all, even in countries like the UK and even here in Australia, where our gun laws as well as border security are rather tight, illegal guns are still able to make it through, meaning anyone with the know how of how to find illegal dealerships can get a gun. restricting guns doesnt work, restricting the people who can get guns, does, to an extent.

Rainshard wrote:

TheKingsHills wrote:Getting rid of guns isn't going to stop tragedies like this from happening. If people want guns they will get them. If people want to shoot up a school they will shoot up a school.
What we need to do is create more measures to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill, and also keep guns away from those with a history of violence.
Essentially guns are easy to access, legally or illegally, meaning people with the intent of causing harm to others by getting these guns can get them easily. Rather than taking away an effective means of self defense from law abiding citizens, we should be creating measures to find out who is most likely to use these weapons and keep them from having said weapons.

K let me just say something. If guns were illegal you prevent mentally ill people from getting them unless they go to a black market where guns are gonna cost way more than you can get them already. Many mass shooters dont have the funds or connections to get these weapons, therefore reducing the risk. Why dont law abiding citizens get non lethal forms of defense.

They are not an effective means of defense. You want to get a gun from your home? Put it in a drawer where one of your kids can easily find it and shoot one another or in a safe where you need to crouch over and open in a stressful situation, which will just be incredibly time consuming. This is just one of many reasons why guns are inefficient in defense but I have plenty more if needed.

"After a 1996 Mass Shooting, Australia Enacted Strict Gun Laws. It Hasn’t Had a Similar Massacre Since."

http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2012/1 ... ide_a.html

They took guns back, made everything stricter. No one had guns. Not for defense, not for anything else. AND LOOK NO MORE MASS SHOOTINGS. Obama is right to want stricter gun laws.

(I normally despise serious discussion because my arguments are kinda rambley, this is all im gonna say hopefully)

2011 Hectorville siege. Monash University,

the problem isn't 100% guns, it's also the culture that surrounds guns in America. I mean, look at Switzerland, the most armed country in the entire world. Keep in mind, the Swiss lock up guns and ammunition too, but a majority of the Swiss have guns and they don't go around doing mass shootings. Why? Because the Swiss culture around guns is very different from the American culture around guns.

I do think there should be more strict background checks and I also believe there should be more investment in mental hospitals and reforming them instead of just separating them from society and keeping them drugged up and loopy.

But the main problem isn't guns, it's our culture around guns, and our treatment of mentally ill people and guns collectively.

Rainshard wrote:

TheKingsHills wrote:Getting rid of guns isn't going to stop tragedies like this from happening. If people want guns they will get them. If people want to shoot up a school they will shoot up a school.
What we need to do is create more measures to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill, and also keep guns away from those with a history of violence.
Essentially guns are easy to access, legally or illegally, meaning people with the intent of causing harm to others by getting these guns can get them easily. Rather than taking away an effective means of self defense from law abiding citizens, we should be creating measures to find out who is most likely to use these weapons and keep them from having said weapons.

K let me just say something. If guns were illegal you prevent mentally ill people from getting them unless they go to a black market where guns are gonna cost way more than you can get them already. Many mass shooters dont have the funds or connections to get these weapons, therefore reducing the risk. Why dont law abiding citizens get non lethal forms of defense.

They are not an effective means of defense. You want to get a gun from your home? Put it in a drawer where one of your kids can easily find it and shoot one another or in a safe where you need to crouch over and open in a stressful situation, which will just be incredibly time consuming. This is just one of many reasons why guns are inefficient in defense but I have plenty more if needed.

"After a 1996 Mass Shooting, Australia Enacted Strict Gun Laws. It Hasn’t Had a Similar Massacre Since."

http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2012/1 ... ide_a.html

They took guns back, made everything stricter. No one had guns. Not for defense, not for anything else. AND LOOK NO MORE MASS SHOOTINGS. Obama is right to want stricter gun laws.

(I normally despise serious discussion because my arguments are kinda rambley, this is all im gonna say hopefully)

i know plenty of people both who could be classed as mentally ill as well as normal people, with illegal firearms in their possession in australia, just because we have stricter laws, doesnt make it impossible to get guns, it just means you gotta look for loopholes. And no, guns are going to for the most part be cheaper on the black market, because you are not buying united states military weaponry, you are instead going to inquire for cheaper alternative guns to suite your circumstances.

As for defense, personally, i feel that guns are a very effective means of defense, IF used in the correct way. A gun isnt just to shoot any intruder that may wander into your house, it is to intimidate and instill the mindset that you are armed and will fire if you feel the need to. Plus, is it the guns fault where it is placed? No, it is its owners fault. If a gun was placed in a drawer that was easily accessible to by anyone other than the owner, well that is a pretty stupid place to put it. It is entirely up to the owner of the firearm to place it in a secure yet accessible place if they so need to retrieve the gun. I personally feel that people do not give guns enough respect, they simply see them as a tool to enact horrendous crimes globally as well as taking away lives.

For the most part, i agree with what Kyle is saying, it is mainly due to the culture that america has built up over the years about guns. outlawing guns wont work, because there are always illegal ways to obtain things, if not build them yourself (if you have the know how) as well as it affecting the people who have legitimate reasons to own guns, for example hunters and sportsmen. You have to limit WHO can obtain guns, not limit guns themselves

The major part i see wrong with trying to introduce harsher background checks as well as spontaneous checkups, is that there still will be flaws with it, as well as few people who manage to slip through the sifting process by outright lying or manipulating. No matter how strict the rules may be in some places or could be in others, there will always be means to obtain firearms, you may be able to lessen the amount of people who can get them, but you will never be able to fully prevent someone from getting one.

Hatty wrote:Regardless, there is simply not nearly as much gun crime here and in Aus compared to the US because not every Tom, Dick and Harry can obtain one. It takes a criminal or aspiring criminal with the contacts and know how to obtain one, whereas in the US, it's far easier for the general public to access them.

There are still plenty of legal ways for Australians to obtain guns, The difference between us an America is not how many people can obtain guns, its what guns can be obtainable, See, for the most part, the only guns legal in Australia are specifically for hunting, because our government has outlawed the guns that people would deem suitable for massacring, ie Sub machine guns, pistols and machine pistols, as well as most semi automatic shotguns and assault rifles. the only real guns you can obtain in australia are gun specifically made for hunting/ guns altered to me made for hunting such as shotguns as well as higher calibre rifles as well as antique guns that have been depinned and are therefore impossible to fire.

limit the amount of legal guns obtainable and you therefore limit the amount of people who will obtain said guns, because people who want to go and massacre will be less inclined to go to a high school for example and shoot up the place with a .300 Winchester rifle, because after all, every gun is suited for a specific job, and a hunting rifle would be more suited for exactly what its made for, hunting.

Saw this not sure how accurate it is, but I liked it.