• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Oregon campus shooting

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
I am almost sure the employers as police in USA will agree that gun ban for civilians .

But guns wouldn't magically disappear with a ban. Instead they would flood the black market. The only people who would comply and surrender their guns aren't the ones who are a threat to begin with. It would make them easier prey, though.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
But guns wouldn't magically disappear with a ban. Instead they would flood the black market. The only people who would comply and surrender their guns aren't the ones who are a threat to begin with. It would make them easier prey, though.
You're focusing upon problems associated with implementing a policy in the real world.
This is small thinking. Why not just imagine the ideal solution simply happening overnite?
 

Godobeyer

the word "Islam" means "submission" to God
Premium Member
But guns wouldn't magically disappear with a ban. Instead they would flood the black market. The only people who would comply and surrender their guns aren't the ones who are a threat to begin with. It would make them easier prey, though.

this process would take long times maybe 10-20 yeras , that disappear guns from the hand of civilians .
 

McBell

Unbound
this process would take long times maybe 10-20 yeras , that disappear guns from the hand of civilians .
why do you think it is a good idea to remove all guns from everyone except the criminals and police?

You do know there are more criminals that police, right?


OASN:
how do you propose theygo about enforcing a complete gun ban??
 

Godobeyer

the word "Islam" means "submission" to God
Premium Member
Being from Algeria, you don't understand how the US legal system and Constitutional Law works. It's not that easy.
I understand it , i just disagree with :)

we Algerian we had not these accidents, because we don't had guns a law allowed for civilians to possess gun , only Police or Army or Gendarme had guns .

I suppose if we had guns , that's would be very dangerous to go out , just from city to city .

If all people here buy guns , i for sure i will buy too .
 

Sees

Dragonslayer
this process would take long times maybe 10-20 yeras , that disappear guns from the hand of civilians .

Just not going to happen...it's a futile cause to be invested in.

The people who have the ability to even attempt it, don't want anything to do with it - they would literally fight against it themselves.

We're dealing with a massive culture difference that I don't think translates well. We really don't care what other folks in different countries think about it either. I'm saying that be bluntly honest, not rude.

Our idea of citizen vs subject doesn't make sense to most. People here who are former or current law enforcement and/or former or current military members will fight for it.
 

Godobeyer

the word "Islam" means "submission" to God
Premium Member
why do you think it is a good idea to remove all guns from everyone except the criminals and police?

You do know there are more criminals that police, right?


OASN:
how do you propose theygo about enforcing a complete gun ban??
I did not mean that , thats missunderstood .

I said it's good idea to remove all guns from everyone except police .

the criminals are suppose civilians ?
 

Godobeyer

the word "Islam" means "submission" to God
Premium Member
Just not going to happen...it's a futile cause to be invested in.

The people who have the ability to even attempt it, don't want anything to do with it - they would literally fight against it themselves.

We're dealing with a massive culture difference that I don't think translates well. We really don't care what other folks in different countries think about it either. I'm saying that be bluntly honest, not rude.

Our idea of citizen vs subject doesn't make sense to most. People here who are former or current law enforcement and/or former or current military members will fight for it.
I believe it's not holly law , human can edit and change what ever they want , just need the commun sense (all people agree on ) ,

for NOW the mass shoots is not enough to start thinking for change it .
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Just picking the last one to peruse, I find that this is a gun free zone under local law.
http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/open-and-concealed-gun-carry-laws-texas.htm
Even if you have a concealed carry permit, you cannot bring a gun into any of the following places:
  • on church or synagogue premises (Texas Pen. Code § 46.035.)
  • in a hospital (Texas Pen. Code §46.035.)
  • on school premises or on a school bus (Texas Pen. Code § 46.03.)
  • in an establishment licensed to sell liquor when that business derives 51 percent or more of its income from liquor sales (Texas Texas Pen. Code § 46.035.)
(I shortened the above list to highlight only several gun free places.)
 

dust1n

Zindīq
Just picking the last one to peruse, I find that this is a gun free zone under local law.
http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/open-and-concealed-gun-carry-laws-texas.htm

(I shortened the above list to highlight only several gun free places.)

Alright, that's one knocked off the list. Although, the place being gun free seems to have little to do with it, considering the very same church refused to testify on his behalf on court for charges of rape and incest.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Alright, that's one knocked off the list. Although, the place being gun free seems to have little to do with it, considering the very same church refused to testify on his behalf on court for charges of rape and incest.
I haven't looked at the others, but states typically have a pretty long list of places where we can't legally carry guns.
(It means that I must plan ahead on trips to many places.)
Will some others in the list succumb to such scrutiny?
As for not counting because of testifying about rape & incest, I don't see how this works.
Anger leading to violence can happen anywhere, but maximum carnage is where the victims are known to be completely unarmed.
 

dust1n

Zindīq
Just picking the last one to peruse, I find that this is a gun free zone under local law.
http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/open-and-concealed-gun-carry-laws-texas.htm

(I shortened the above list to highlight only several gun free places.)

Also, the shooting happened in 1980, way before the statute you reference was implemented as state law. BOOM...

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.46.htm

Also, the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Free_School_Zones_Act_of_1990 was... well in 1990.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Also, the shooting happened in 1980, way before the statute you reference was implemented as state law. BOOM...

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.46.htm

Also, the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Free_School_Zones_Act_of_1990 was... well in 1990.
Before claiming "Boom!", have you checked to see if a prior statute didn't also limit guns in churches?
But otherwise, is it necessary to find such long ago shootings in order to counter the claim that the
current problem is exacerbated by the inability of people to defend themselves in gun free zones?
 

dust1n

Zindīq
Before claiming "Boom!", have you checked to see if a prior statute didn't also limit guns in churches?
But otherwise, is it necessary to find such long ago shootings in order to counter the claim that the
current problem is exacerbated by the inability of people to defend themselves in gun free zones?

Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 229, Sec. 4, eff. Sept. 1, 1995. Amended by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 10.04, eff. Sept. 1, 1997; Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1261, Sec. 26, 27, eff. Sept. 1, 1997; Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 1420, Sec. 14.833, eff. Sept. 1, 2001.

Amended by:

Acts 2005, 79th Leg., Ch. <a target="new" href="http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/79R/billtext/html/HB01813F.HTM">976</a>, Sec. 3, eff. September 1, 2005.

Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. <a target="new" href="http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/80R/billtext/html/HB01889F.HTM">1214</a>, Sec. 2, eff. June 15, 2007.

Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. <a target="new" href="http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/80R/billtext/html/HB02300F.HTM">1222</a>, Sec. 5, eff. June 15, 2007.

- See more at: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/PE/10/46/46.035#sthash.tWOHVy15.dpuf

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/PE/10/46/46.035
 

esmith

Veteran Member
As I have stated in a previous post is to enforce the laws that are on the books first. Then pass and enforce a law that basically says there is a mandatory sentence of say at least 5 years in prison when a firearm is used in a crime plus tack on a sentence for the crime itself (the "use of firearm law" can not be reduced and must be served). Then somehow the mental health issue must be addressed (and I have no idea how). Will this stop mass killing? The answer is no, where there is a will there is a way, remember Boston, the uni-bomber, and other mass killings that did not involve firearms.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
As I have stated in a previous post is to enforce the laws that are on the books first. Then pass and enforce a law that basically says there is a mandatory sentence of say at least 5 years in prison when a firearm is used in a crime plus tack on a sentence for the crime itself (the "use of firearm law" can not be reduced and must be served). Then somehow the mental health issue must be addressed (and I have no idea how). Will this stop mass killing? The answer is no, where there is a will there is a way, remember Boston, the uni-bomber, and other mass killings that did not involve firearms.
The only way to curb mass murder is to give government much more power to restrict what we can do & own.
(Note that even in authoritarian China, mass killings happen.)
I don't care for that solution.
But as you point out, addressing mental health of individuals at risk (of posing the risk) offers potential to mitigate the problem.
It will mean spending tax money, but we could siphon it off of our foreign adventurism budget.
 
Top