Horrible news

[Liesje]

Originally Posted by PatchonGSD

And thats the problem. You will NEVER take guns out of the hands of everyone, only the law abiding citizens, and we should never have our right to protect ourselves taken from us. You give the criminals even more power, and turn us law abiding, responsible gun owners into sitting ducks.

Problem is though, someone can be a law abiding *until* they blast other people with their gun. Hindsight is 20/20. Gun crimes (and not these sensationalistic ones the national news focuses on) are not exclusively committed by people who have criminal history and warrants out for their arrested and have stolen or obtained their guns illegally.

[Lilie]

Originally Posted by marshies

Before this shooter went into a mall, they were likely also a law-abiding citizen. I would have rather NOT given this citizen a gun.

The weapon did not turn the law-abiding citizen into a crazed killer. There isn't a magical magnetic force that attaches itself to the weapon and causes normal people to turn into killing machines. People kill people.

My thoughts and prayers are with the families who lost loved ones. Sadly, the attention will all be given to the killer and not the victims. As always happens during tragic events.

[PatchonGSD]

Originally Posted by Liesje

Problem is though, someone can be a law abiding *until* they blast other people with their gun. Hindsight is 20/20. Gun crimes (and not these sensationalistic ones the national news focuses on) are not exclusively committed by people who have criminal history and warrants out for their arrested and have stolen or obtained their guns illegally.

Of course not and I never said that. We never know who will decide one day to get drunk and drive their car, and kill an entire family until they do it, so should we take away everyone's vehicles?

[Liesje]

I'm not advocating for or against gun ownership, but there is something to be said about gun culture in this country. I'm OK giving up my "right" but I resent that often I am labeled as naive and unprotected. I'm speaking in general terms, not this thread (I cannot keep up). It seems whenever these things happen people get so polarized for or against and either you are a trigger-happy paranoid wacko or you are a naive person who must not take their personal safety seriously. I think that the vast majority of the population falls somewhere in the middle. I can't formulate an opinion on gun control and being for or against changing legislation without considering *what* kinds of weapons we're talking about and why people would need them but that discussion falls well outside of the boundaries of this forum.

[Glamisfoxgurl182]

I didnt hear about this til late last night on the news. But my Aunt who lives in portland posted it on her Facebook. She was at that mall and left minutes before the shooting. She said her last reciept was at 3:13 and the shooting started at 3:23. Its scary to think she could have been caught up in it. So thankful that she left mins before it happend!!!!

[Stevenzachsmom]

Police: Ore. mall shooter used stolen rifle - Yahoo! News

Shooter identified. Used a stolen gun.

[selzer]

I guess I feel for the people who would like to see gun-ownership seriously restricted, make it harder to obtain firearms, but I really don't agree with it. I have a gun to take out varmints with if necessary. It's a shotgun, and it stays at home, and I don't think anyone has a problem with those. So I don't really have a personal dog in this fight. If I did feel threatened to the point of wanting to carry a firearm, I think I should be allowed to though.

I have no problem with making it a felony for anyone who has been convicted of a felony to possess a gun. I think felons forfeit many rights when the do the things that got them in trouble.

But the only way to actually restrict guns on the whole would be to march from dwelling to dwelling, search and seize all weapons. Without doing this, people who could have been safer carrying would be made less safe. Voluntary turn-ins of guns would only produce the guns of the people we don't need to worry about. And there is no way in God's green earth, that I would support the large scale search and seizure of weapons. That isn't going to fly here.

If this guy actually had body armor, that crap ain't cheap, and I highly doubt that poverty levels and economics plaid any part of it at all. I think that there are a lot of crimes involving poor people because due to frustration and hopelessness, want, etc, but this one does not sing out to me as such. Mental instability, sociopath tendencies, really don't favor low economic status any more than any other class levels. At least I don't think it does.

[Lilie]

If his intention was to kill himself...why did he wear a mask?

[Gregc]

I'd carry if I could. I keep it at home, and handy.

[wink-_-wink]

Originally Posted by DharmasMom

I always love the John Wayne super hero types that jump up after something like this occurs and brag about how they never leave home without their gun just in case a psycho with an assault rifle starts pumping rounds into whatever public place they happen to be. It's good to know they will all drop behind a table or door and start shooting back with the expert marksmanship that all have even if the psycho is dressed is body armor. Because the rest is us shmoes will be peeing our pants while we run for our lives .

COnsidering this was pointed at me I will gladly address it. It is not that I am John Wayne or a super hero. The one thing you did get right is my expert marksmanship. I have shot Expert EVERY SINGLE TIME I qualify with a weapon system (M-16, M-14, 9mm, .40 cal, AR-15) for both law enforcement and the military. I also shoot my .45 with the same markmanship as my other weapons but have never been able to "qualify" with it due to MOST agencies using the 9mm or .40 for the duty carry weapons. Also, when the fit hits the shan, I will be able to keep my composier and fire back, much like in afghanistan where their psychos are much more of a problem than here. Body armor only helps if you wear it correct and stand the right way, most of it does not cover your sides with kevlar (some does). If the shooter is standing non squared then they are exposed there, as well as the inevitable head. Now I would never go right for a head shot, but even with body armor the pattern is 2 to the chest, 1 to the head.

Now all that being said, I am in a mall with my family and psycho orders everyone on the ground, I would only EVER draw and fire IF was able to without reasonable thought of jeopardizing my family. If I can not draw and fire fast enough without being seen than I wouldnt even flinch. You follow the demands of the attacker until you have the opportunity. The time for pants peeing will come later.

If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns! It is the truth! Also I hate the saying that guns kill people. If guns kill people than forks make people fat! It is the same logic. A gun is a tool that when placed in the right hands is an awesome tool. I think if you are going to be a gun owner you should not only have a waiting period before getting the weapon but also have to attend a class for your first weapon as well as attend X amount of time at a range for practice. If you are going to handle a weapon you should train and practice with it. I am not against it being a little more difficult to obtain a weapon in some states. Some places you can buy beer, guns, ammo, and condoms under the same roof!

As for the poster who talked about Texas, the crime rates out there are lower than the rest of the country because EVERYONE carries in Texas! You don't get car jacked in Texas because everyone knows Texans will SHOOT YOUR BUTT! I love Texas!