He did no intervene because he was in a building far away from the shooting. The writer of that article, Tom Boggioni, is a propagandist and/or a hoplophobe and/or confused.
It is true that the distance was part of his concern: However, his full statement lists a full range of reasons, including: "we could have opened ourselves up to be potential targets ourselves" "not knowing where SWAT was, their response time, they wouldn’t know who we were" "if we had our guns ready to shoot, they could think that we were bad guys" The fact that you leave out these points and focused on one tiny part of his statement means you are a propagandist and/or confused, I guess. I do think the article was click-baity though and the title misleading/incorrect, but rawstory is mostly like that.
Trump's logic is sound. "Might" is key. That dude killed until good guys with guns showed up. Tragedies are prevented all the time, thanks to guns. Fact.
The distance was the top reason. He took shelter with others, told a professor he had a gun, and wisely decided to protect them instead. If he was in the same classroom as the shooter, lives might have been saved.
Also true: Tragedies happen all the time, thanks to funs. Fact. ~ What Trump actually said, ""Wouldn't they have been better off if somebody in the room, anybody, anybody, had a gun to at least help them out?" Trump said. "It was a terrible thing. And these gun-free zones are a disaster. Everybody's just a sitting duck."" I guess if you agree with the "logic" against gun-free zone, you would agree with the general idea here. The problem is that it doesn't apply in this situation. The campus wasn't actually gun free and there were people there that had guns (not in the room, specifically, but we extrapolate the same way he extrapolates to the campus itself). He suggests that everyone in the "gun-free zone" (aka the campus) was a sitting duck - which would be a FINE statement and supportive of what you call Trump's logic... if it was actually true that it was gun-free. But, as I said, it doesn't matter what the facts are, as long it supports the narrative. I would have thought you'd dislike this sort of manipulation of details and facts, but I guess you aren't immune either.
New policy: Ensure that at least one person in every class is a gun owner who brings his weapons to class?
Anyway, all I wanted to share was the information that: the campus was not LITERALLY gun-free, as suggested by media and various notable persons, and, there were people on campus with guns, besides the shooter Use that as you see fit.
One of the articles linked earlier mentioned that even other students at the school thought the school was a gun free zone. Mandating a gun is a far cry from allowing someone with a permit to carry a gun if they choose to do so.
Yea, my understanding is that the school advertised this policy, so I am not surprised some students thought this was true. Yes, but would it be a bad idea?
Officials in Oregon are doing everything they think they can get away with to make every campus a gun free zone. They are making it LESS likely that someone will be concealed carry. Thus they are making it MORE likely that a nut job will meet lethal resistance only AFTER a lot of people are maimed or dead. That is some truly sick and messed up priorities. Passing laws that make it easier for killers to rampage is regressive, to say the least. I have a right to life, thus I have a right to defend myself.
That's... fine. I mean, I understand your position on that aspect. I just think people should stick to the facts when talking about what happened?
I don't believe in trying to force other competent adults to be "good." How would one enforce such a policy anyway???
There are a variety of options that COULD make it work (and we can talk about those if we want to), but I was mostly wondering if people felt that some kind of policy that ensured there WOULD be a good guy with a gun would help in these sort of instances.
Although students believed the school was a gun free zone, I believe the media should have reported it properly. I do think making a gun in each classroom mandatory is a bad idea unless the school is hiring armed guards. In my mind, making someone carry a gun is as bad as preventing someone from carrying.
So yea, I mean, if the idea is that calling a place a gun-free zone and actively promoting gun-free policies are, as DJ puts it, "truly sick and messed up priorities," does that imply then that promoting guns on campuses might be a good policy? Or is that too far in the other direction?
Agreed. I have never concealed carry. Ever. 7 years to get an advanced degree, and I never once seriously considered doing so on campus or at any hospital. Why? Because I would need to train a LOT more with my Glock, as carrying around a lethal weapon is a very serious responsibility. Self regulation. Each adult has to make that calculus individually. I am confident that concealed carry is NOT for me. Maybe that will change in the future, and maybe not. I literally own two firearms for home defense. Nothing else. I have never once gone hunting. Maybe that will change in the future too. But I have no plans in that regard. Heck, I did not even have a gun in the house till my oldest was 7 or 8 years old. Mostly I just want to protect my fam, and I prefer to allow others to make that decision on their own. Savvy?
If a school had a policy encouraging people with proper permits to carry guns on campus, I would support that. I also support stricter requirements to carry a gun.
Sure. I just don't see what any of that has to do with my problem with people calling the place gun-free or using the false idea that it was to push a particular agenda.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/03/us/how-mass-shooters-got-their-guns.html LEGAL "In all, Mr. Harper-Mercer owned 14 firearms, all of which were bought legally through a federally licensed firearms dealer, a federal official said Friday. Some were bought by Mr. Harper-Mercer, and some by members of his family." LEGAL "Federal officials said Mr. Flanagan bought the gun legally from a licensed dealer. He had not been convicted of a crime or determined to be mentally ill." LEGAL "Mr. Houser bought the weapon in Alabama. Officials said it had been purchased legally, though he had been denied a concealed weapons permit earlier, and despite concerns among family members that he was violent and mentally ill." ILLEGAL "He purchased a gun from a store in West Columbia, S.C. Mr. Roof should have been barred from buying a gun because he had admitted to possessing drugs, but the F.B.I. examiner conducting the required background check failed to obtain the police report from the February incident." ILLEGAL "Mr. Fryberg applied to buy the Beretta from a gun shop on the Indian reservation where he lived with Jaylen. A background check failed to come up with the protection order because it was never entered into the system." ??? "Mr. Lopez bought his gun at the same shop where Nidal Malik Hasan, an Army major, had bought at least one of the weapons used in a 2009 mass shooting on the base that killed 13 people." LEGAL "He was stopped from buying an assault rifle at a Virginia gun store, but was allowed to buy a shotgun. He passed local and state background checks." ILLEGAL "His mother, Nancy Lanza, a gun enthusiast, legally obtained and registered a large collection of weapons and would often take her sons to shooting ranges." LEGAL "He bought the firearm legally at a gun shop outside Milwaukee. He passed a background check and paid $650 in cash." LEGAL "In the 60 days before the shooting, he bought four guns legally at local gun shops. Seeing a psychiatrist, even for a serious mental illness, would not disqualify him from buying a gun." LEGAL "Mr. Goh legally bought the handgun at a gun store in Castro Valley, Calif., passing a federal background check." LEGAL "He passed a background check and bought the handgun at a store in Tucson, Ariz." LEGAL "Mr. Hasan bought the pistol legally at a popular weapons store in Killeen, Tex., paying more than $1,100." LEGAL "Mr. Wong bought the first gun, the Beretta 92, at a store in Johnson City, N.Y. He passed a background check. Mr. Wong bought the second gun from the same store, but his background check was not approved immediately. He received the gun under a federal rule that allows a gun to be sold if the background check system does not return a decision in three business days." ~ While disturbing how many of them seemed to have potential psychiatric problems but obtained guns legally... this is an area where it's tricky. Just because someone is seeing a shrink doesn't mean they can't be responsible gun owners... and how do you really tell? For example, my wife is bipolar, and while she doesn't currently have a gun, she has used them before and would like one again someday - she is pretty conflicted about gun control because her condition is well managed, but policies that she'd theoretically support could also potentially prevent her from having a gun.
Many students did think it was a gun free campus. Why? Those in the know, continued to conceal carry. Out of 3000ish students, I wonder how many were actually armed? How many faculty, if any, were armed? The media has not indicated that anyone in or right by that classroom was packing heat, except for the shooter. Maybe someone did, but was too afraid to use it. We will never know for 100% sure. Sok, I am glad u highlighted the truth in this matter. Why are Fox and CNN both failing to spread the word far and wide? I am disappointed in both of them, again. Politicians in Oregon do want gun free zones, but that will never 100% work.
