• ODT Gun Show & Swap Meet - May 4, 2024! - Click here for info

Active shooter Oregon campus....

I just heard O'Reilly tell a Navy Seal that "the big mistake at that community college was, they didn't have any armed guards."
WTH is wrong with him?!? Does he not understand that you can't have armed security everywhere at all times. Even had a guard been on campus or even in the building, there would have, most likely, still been a loss of life.

The smart shepherds learned a long time ago that you can't watch the herd 24/7 by yourself. When will the sheeple wake up to realize the ONLY way to counter these attacks is to let the sheep dogs do their job?

They're too busy being scared to death of the sheepdogs teeth to even see the wolves coming.

Preaching to the choir here, I know.

The "armed guards" thing has been popular since Newtown, but realistically it's not economically viable to put guards at every school. The only reason you have School Resource Officers in the first place are to deal with rowdy students (reminds me of that time in 9th grade when a student beat the crap out of a teacher and no resource officer in sight), drugs, things of that nature. And, of course, the resource officer is going to be a target of interest for any school shooter. I'm sure Mr. Mercer knew the general location of the unarmed security guards and knew how to avoid them. And if he engages them, it's not like they can do anything. Think back to that FedEx shooting in Atlanta. Unarmed guard got drilled and couldn't do a thing. Air Marshal's don't identify themselves to the general public unless something happens, so why shouldn't we apply the same theory outside of a plane? You know he's there but you don't know who he is, like a bogey-man for terrorists and other miscreants.

I think it bothers people that there are no solutions to these problems. You can't solve these shootings, you can't prevent them. You can study the environments and determine why people act this way, but it's not going to yield any overnight answers. For years now, lead poisoning has been suggested as the cause for violent crime that happened decades ago. Not just here but in Europe too (http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-27067615). And there is some belief that violence in inner city / urban areas can be contributed to lead as well. FDR oversaw two housing laws in the 1930's (National Housing Act of 1934 - Housing Act of 1937) and the result was the widespread use of lead paint in low income / urban areas. And even with all of this research, it's still not concrete fact. We might know why these spree killings are happening at a greater rate 20-30 years from now, but it's not going to be solved through knee-jerk legislative maneuvers. Personally, if I were making the calls, I'd have the shooter's brain examined like we're doing with deceased football players nowadays. See if anything stands out. And then do it for the next one, and the one after that, and maybe eventually you have a real answer for why these events happen.

But people will find a way to kill folk. The Bath School Disaster, the guy used dynamite and the only use of a firearm was to detonate explosives used to kill himself and others around him. This was in a period where you could mail order a surplus Maxim machine gun used in the trenches of Europe without a single background check.
 
Nature vs. Nurture. I'm pretty sure they have done research on the brains of killers in the past. Don't believe any pattern has ever been determined.
Anytime you have a population that almost solely believes its internal propaganda you'll have xenophobia.
 
The pattern is sociopathology and psychopathology. The lack of empathy for others and the departure of the subject's world view and "reality" from that of the larger society (delusion, conspiracies, etc.) that leads them to destructive behavior.
 
The "armed guards" thing has been popular since Newtown, but realistically it's not economically viable to put guards at every school. The only reason you have School Resource Officers in the first place are to deal with rowdy students (reminds me of that time in 9th grade when a student beat the crap out of a teacher and no resource officer in sight), drugs, things of that nature. And, of course, the resource officer is going to be a target of interest for any school shooter. I'm sure Mr. Mercer knew the general location of the unarmed security guards and knew how to avoid them. And if he engages them, it's not like they can do anything. Think back to that FedEx shooting in Atlanta. Unarmed guard got drilled and couldn't do a thing. Air Marshal's don't identify themselves to the general public unless something happens, so why shouldn't we apply the same theory outside of a plane? You know he's there but you don't know who he is, like a bogey-man for terrorists and other miscreants.

I think it bothers people that there are no solutions to these problems. You can't solve these shootings, you can't prevent them. You can study the environments and determine why people act this way, but it's not going to yield any overnight answers. For years now, lead poisoning has been suggested as the cause for violent crime that happened decades ago. Not just here but in Europe too (http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-27067615). And there is some belief that violence in inner city / urban areas can be contributed to lead as well. FDR oversaw two housing laws in the 1930's (National Housing Act of 1934 - Housing Act of 1937) and the result was the widespread use of lead paint in low income / urban areas. And even with all of this research, it's still not concrete fact. We might know why these spree killings are happening at a greater rate 20-30 years from now, but it's not going to be solved through knee-jerk legislative maneuvers. Personally, if I were making the calls, I'd have the shooter's brain examined like we're doing with deceased football players nowadays. See if anything stands out. And then do it for the next one, and the one after that, and maybe eventually you have a real answer for why these events happen.

But people will find a way to kill folk. The Bath School Disaster, the guy used dynamite and the only use of a firearm was to detonate explosives used to kill himself and others around him. This was in a period where you could mail order a surplus Maxim machine gun used in the trenches of Europe without a single background check.
There are hazards to living in a free society. These incidents are terrible, but disarming the public is not the answer. There are so many guns in America, banning them would have no effect whatsoever. Besides the fact that law abididing citizens will no longer have them. Somebody tell our narcissistic president, our fearful commander in chief, that all problems can't be solved with more government. Hell.... He can't even deal with Putin, he's talking about gun control!!! One word defines his administration. INCOMPETENCE
 
This politician from Tn. "gets it".

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...says-fellow-christians-should-arm-themselves/

I get so tired of hearing other politicians encouraging victim mentality for their lowly subjects.
Somehow I believe that if they were sitting in that classroom in Oregon waiting their turn to be shot they would have a different opinion on gun control.

I've worked with 2 different schools & several churches so far on hardening their defenses against active shooter threats.
Those plans included the use of a gun for worst case scenarios.

In every mass shooting in the past & those to come in the future, antigun rhetoric has not nor ever will be successful in stopping innocent victims from being killed.
 
Back
Top Bottom