No Bull, No Fluff, No Smudges
Your news source for
Flagler, Florida and Beyond

At Least 10 Killed at Oregon College Where Students Are Allowed to Carry Guns

| October 1, 2015

Umpqua Community College mass shooting murder

The campus of google Umpqua Community College, in an image from its Facebook page.

Last Updated: 8:23 p.m.

A 26-year-old gunman killed at least 10 people and wounded at least 20 Thursday morning at Umpqua Community College in Southwest Oregon, a school of some 5,000 mostly part-time students.


It is the latest is a series of high-profile, mass-casualty shootings in the United States, though lesser-profile shootings, while almost a daily occurrence, have been gaining less attention: in 274 days so far this year, there have been 294 mass shootings–that is, shootings that result in four or more people killed or wounded–according to the Mass Shooting Tracker, which documents every incident.

Twelve incidents of mass killing, involving the death of five or more people at one time, have taken place so far this year, among them Dylann Roof’s racist-motivated murder of nine people attending Bible class in Charleston on June 17. The last mass-casualty killing before today’s took place on Sept. 17 when Scott Westerhuis murdered his wife and four children before apparently setting the family house on fire and killing himself. A shotgun was discovered in the house. His company had lost a lucrative contract the day before.

The Times reports that the Oregon shooting is “one of over 40 school shootings this year. One of the first occurred in Milwaukee in January. There had not been a major mass casualty incident at a school this year — until Thursday.”

Umpqua Community College, like all colleges in Oregon, allows students to carry guns on campus, according to the Oregonian. Oregon is one of seven states to allow students to carry weapons on campus. A National Rifle Association-led push to allow guns on campus failed at the Florida Legislature last year, but the NRA is renewing its push in the coming session that starts in January. The mass killing in Oregon is likely to fuel arguments among opponents of guns on campus that more arms don’t necessarily prevent mass killings. John Thrasher, the former state senator who represented Flagler County, and now the president of Florida State University, is among those opponents.

An Oregon court of appeals in September 2011 ruled that the university system, which sought to ban guns on campus, had exceeded its authority by imposing the rule. The university system opted not to challenge the decision further.

In 2012 the state Legislature tried and failed to ban guns on college campuses in Oregon. But the state Board of Education passed a policy that restricts–but does not ban–guns on campuses. People with concealed weapons permits are still allowed to carry their weapons on campus. But they may be prohibited from entering buildings with their weapon. Students who violate the policy are not subject to criminal prosecution, but to disciplinary action under the code of conduct.

Florida’s Jeb Bush, who is running for the presidency, was among the first candidates to weigh in, tweeting at 2:51 p.m., “Praying for Umpqua Community College, the victims, and families impacted by this senseless tragedy.” (The tweet immediately drew rebukes, such as “Do you support gun control reform, or are you just talking?” and “Saying prayers doesn’t stop people from senselessly pulling the trigger, Jeb. Do better,” and a few more, saltier responses). The murders took place in the college’s Snyder Hall.

The suspect in the Oregon shooting was in custody in mid-afternoon Eastern time.

Follow The Times’s live blog here, and The Oregonian here.

Print Friendly

43 Responses for “At Least 10 Killed at Oregon College Where Students Are Allowed to Carry Guns”

  1. Layla says:

    Gun reform would not have prevented this. Bad people will always be able to get their hands on a gun, legal or not. There are a lot of details missing here. Hope you will continue to follow the story.

  2. Sherry E says:

    Having GUNS on campus also did NOT stop this tragedy from happening! The more guns out there in society. . . the more opportunity for this kind of senseless killing!

  3. Brian Riehle says:

    Talk about jumping the gun ! As of now nobody knows anything about the shooter, his motives, or the gun he used. I agree that we have way too many school shootings, but I also think it’s too soon to start editorializing about this issue since it’s still unknown whether or not this idiot was a student or not, or what his motives were. I can still remember the day after the Fort Hood killings that Pierre was telling everyone that the Muslim Army Major shooter was not a terrorist.

    • Pierre Tristam says:

      Brian, I hate to embarrass you publicly by proving you wrong, so for the life of me, please remind me where and when I told everyone that the Fort Hood shooter was not a terrorist? Because what I do remember, and what’s in the printed record, is that three days after the Fort Hood shooting I wrote about Nidal Malik Hasan in my News-Journal column and twice in one paragraph referred to him as a terrorist, but went a bit further. I’ll refresh your memory, because that same paragraph happens to apply in this case as well, no matter what the killer’s motives are, no matter what his skin color is, no matter whether he is an Islamist nut case out to massacre good Christians or a Zoroastrian having a bad day, since motive is quite irrelevant in the face of the resulting bloodshed. To that paragraph then, from Nov. 8, 2009:

      A massacre is a massacre, whatever its motives, whoever its perpetrators. It is a terrorist act. But we live in a day of perverse distinctions between the familiar American kind of massacre and terrorism as the inaccurate synonym of Arab or Islamist violence. In a master-twist of historical distortion, terrorism has been remastered as an import from over there. Never mind that terrorism is an invention more patented by the West than by any other culture. The Fort Hood killer is a terrorist. But he is an American terrorist committing a characteristically American type of mass murder apparently provoked by American acts of aggression abroad.

      Does that help? Probably not. Must still be too soon to start editorializing because really, what happened today is so immeasurably, stunningly novel.

  4. Geezer says:

    I’m going to go out on a limb here. We talk about gun proliferation, which turns
    the conversation over to gun control.

    I think that the internet has a lot to do with this spike in violence in recent years.
    All the loonies have a place to fuel their sick fantasies – the internet.

    -Perverts
    -Abusers
    -Sadists
    -Pedophiles
    -Drug addicts
    -Would-be serial killers

    All of these sickos have a place to grow their sick fantasies in total privacy
    and with incredible ease –the internet. Before the internet these whack-jobs
    were more contained, and more visible.

    If the internet became censored tomorrow, I’d cut the cord and wouldn’t
    miss it one bit.

  5. Geezer says:

    Or one byte.

  6. Steve Robinson says:

    Please watch this. Our next president, no matter who he or she may be, will not be brave enough to speak these truths:
    http://news.yahoo.com/obama-voices-anger-over-oregon-shooting-urges-gun-224344713.html

  7. really? says:

    it’s the 10 percent rule. if 10 percent of 100 people are wrongdoers that equals 10 persons, then 10 percent of 100000 people equals 10000 wrongdoers. same 10 percent just a greater population density therefore more wrongdoing.

  8. Outsider says:

    Students are allowed to carry guns on campus in Oregon, but not inside the buildings. Violators are typically dealt with on an administrative level. There were at least a couple of former military men who were armed on the campus and were going to try to intervene, but said they were told by staff to stay in their classroom, and they complied. The value of having armed students/faculty would only be realized if they were in the immediate vicinity of the shooter. You wouldn’t want lots of civilians running around with guns drawn in an active shooter situation as they could be mistaken for the shooter by the police. Perhaps part of the problem is that, to the delight of many on the left, college campuses are designated God-free zones, where any discussion or promotion of values, including the value of human life, is strongly discouraged.

  9. RickG says:

    So I guess Chris Mercer was a proud member of the Oregon state militia…. What?? You didn’t know that part of the 2nd Amendment?? Gee I wonder why? Thanks NRA for perverting our Constitution so nut cases like this guy can wreak havoc…

  10. Mike says:

    The yellow crime scene tape is barely removed before the gun-control blather starts spewing. For Gods sake everyone, let’s show these people some respect in their time of grief and mourning.

  11. confidential says:

    How come people in the social media network of this sicko didn’t warn law enforcement of his pre- massacre rants? Where did he buy all those weapons and why was he allowed to buy them while being mentally disturbed. Did his mom know and allowed him to keep all those guns and shot gun in the residence? Didn’t she see the danger? One more individual allowed to immigrated from UK here with all the bells and whistles that comes to commit mass murder among us. But the GOP eternal cover up propaganda only fixes in the Latinos coming across our southern border because are denied a visa to be legal immigrants, when they only come here to do the jobs no one else want to perform, other than kill us.
    I totally agree with our President we need stricter gun laws and in depth screening of individuals buying guns including same regulations in gun shows and private hands sells or hand changes of guns.
    Guns for mentally ill and bullies should be a NO NO. When enough is enough?
    Pierre is correct in this one too!

  12. Anonymous says:

    Well thus is the issue. when most use the term terrorist they mean ISLAMIST when perri and thise like him use it they mean any who inflict harm.

  13. Dave says:

    Interesting people blame THE GUN. I’ve never seen a gun walk into a home or down the street all by itself. Knives don’t either and chemicals that make bombs don’t put themselves together all by themselves, its the nut in this case a terrorist that held the gun. This freak could have walked in that classroom with a bomb and blew the whole place up.

  14. Anonymous says:

    That IS a good question why did not any take him at his word? Do we know yet what gun he had or how many he used (Where did he buy all those weapons and why was he allowed to buy them while being mentally disturbed) or his mental state? I don’t get your dislike of legal immigration from any country as you point out he came from the UK? I can only guess you are not originally from this Nation and come from central or south America as you seem to blame the GOP for the ILLEGALs crossing our southern boarder. So my next and logical question is if you are a immigrant did you come here legally and if so why do you see it as OK for others NOT to do as you did.

  15. Bill says:

    WHY did not the president when addressing the Nation say anything about this being a crime against Christians???? Why because that will not work into his agenda.

  16. Brian Riehle says:

    Pierre, my apologies for not quoting you correctly. In your DBNJ piece you called Hassan an “American terrorist”. What we know is that Hassan is a Jordanian-American Muslim, a self proclaimed “soldier of allah”, and a follower of the Muslim Cleric Anwar al-Awlaki (now deceased), who stood up at Ft. Hood, shouted Alahu Akbar, then killed 13 people and wounded 30 more. Those are facts. Your DBNJ piece was in the “Opinion” section of the newspaper, and as always you are entitled to your opinion.

  17. Freddy says:

    They are allowed to carry guns on campus but no one including an unarmed security guard had one. Had some of those students had concealed weapons they might have been able to save themselves.

  18. Sherry E says:

    There are some very thoughtful comments here from some very concerned citizens. Although this dialog is so soon after yet another horrific tragedy, consider the possibility that the raised voices of President Obama and we here locally actually are meant to honor those innocent young people who died so terribly and needlessly.

    Hopefully we are not becoming numb and complacent to these kinds of terrible, terrible incidents. I would like to think that instead we are becoming “saturated in sorrow” to the point of actually letting the lack of gun safety in our nation finally be “unacceptable” enough to let this issue weigh heavily on our decision making. . . at the ballot box, at the gun shop, when we witness cries for help on social media, etc. etc.

    Geezer brings up an excellent point. The causation of the ever increasing gun violence in our society is really complex. It does include several elements that are somewhat unique to our nationwide culture:

    1. Our governmental leaders are “for sale” to the highest bidder (the NRA decides)

    2. Our glorification and celebration of those seeking “shock value” attention on social media/television
    3. Our willingness to preach and vote “the party line” no matter what
    4. Our fear and distrust of our neighbors and fellow brothers and sisters of the human species
    5. Our resistance to regulations at the “federal” level
    6. Our acceptance of increasing violence in all our entertainment media
    7. Our decreasing emphasis and resources for high quality mental health care
    8. Our militarization of civilian police officers, just to keep up the arsenals being accumulated by the general populace. . . the weapons race
    Etc. Etc. Etc.

    Yes, all of these issues need to be addressed and changed to much more positive and healthy ways of being. It begins with each one of us. . . with our mindfulness in how we go about living our lives, making our decisions and impacting our world every minute of every day.

    Saying all that, what role does our federal and local government play in moving our entire culture to a less violent and much safer place? This is where “federal” gun safety laws come into play. In a world without borders, a patch work of local and state regulations are essentially useless in providing gun safety across the USA.

    However, the greatest difficulty will be to “take our country back” from ALL the lobbyist and special interests, and from all the corrupt politicians who do their bidding.

    In addition, what do we do about the millions of guns already out there in the public sector? How do we
    undo the opening of Pandora’s terrifying box?

  19. Flagler Resident says:

    @ Sherry E it sounds by your direction we must learn to OBEY not be individuals (#5) a government should be of the people and for the people not in charge of the people if anything the people should steer the government. I believe a couple gentlemen a while back fought tyranny for that right.

  20. Mike says:

    Sherry – Columbine, Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech, Charleston, Umpqua College and all of the other tragic events of this nature have NOTHING to do with lobbyists, special interests, or corrupt politicians. There are NO laws, however strict, that will prohibit the malcontents and miscreants who carry out these despicable acts from acquiring firearms. The students at this college are allowed to carry guns. I submit to you that the outcome could have been far less tragic if the gunman had been confronted by a student (or students) who were legally armed. The NUTS are going to get guns – they do not CARE about laws. This is why guns are legal in the first place – so that law-abiding citizens have that ability to protect themselves and their families.

  21. Geezer says:

    As far as these comments go – yours is a tour de force.

  22. Geezer says:

    My previous remark was directed at Sherry E.

  23. Layla says:

    This was a crazed individual with an agenda of hate against Christians. Don’t know why that is not in your story. That IS the story.

    And while guns were allowed on campus, the area where the killings occurred was a gun free zone. When you advertise gun free zones, you are issuing an invitation for violence.

    As one who spent many years in a large city, speaking with law enforcement, it is time many here realize that outlawing guns will NOT stop these killings. It will put more people at risk, leaving them defenseless. The issue here is not the guns; it is the people who hate.

  24. Sherry E says:

    Regarding the FALSE notion that the NRA does not exert tremendous influence over our laws. . . this from CNN:

    No new gun laws. The National Rifle Association has made its position clear, even amid America’s most recent gun debate.

    It says enforce the gun laws already on the books.

    It’s well-known that the organization has actively lobbied to prevent new legislation limiting guns.

    But making this happen is more nuanced than just rallying its supporters and lobbyists every time a new law is proposed.

    Since the 1990s, the powerful pro-gun NRA has targeted the heart of what most legislation is based on: studies about the effects of gun violence.

    Last year, the NRA used its influence in Florida to push through legislation that would punish doctors if they asked patients whether they owned a gun.

    And buried inside President Barack Obama’s signature health care legislation is a little-known provision that prevents the government and health insurers from asking about gun ownership.

    The NRA says it is simply ensuring that taxpayer money isn’t being used to promote a political agenda.

    “If gun control groups … (and) individuals want to further their research, we’re not saying they shouldn’t be able to do it,” NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam told CNN. “We’re just saying they shouldn’t be using public funds to do it.”

    But public health experts say it’s all part of an attempt by the NRA-led pro-gun lobby to hamstring lawmakers.

    “If a bunch of people do research and generate solid evidence that suggests firearms policy should be reformed and either firearms or people who used them should be regulated in new ways, (if I’m a gun-rights advocate,) I’m not going to like that,” said Dr. Garen Wintemute, head of the violence prevention research program at the University of California at Davis.

    “So, I’ll simply prevent the evidence from being collected in the first place. It’s a brilliant strategy, and (the gun lobby) succeeded.”

    A lightning bolt and a chilling effect

    It wasn’t a lot of money — $2.6 million — but it represented the bulk of the nation’s research on firearms safety in the mid-1990s.

    “With regards to gun research, it was enormous,” said Stephen Teret, the founding director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research.

    In the 1990s, this small portion of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s budget went to a program headed by Dr. Mark Rosenberg that funded two high-profile studies that concluded the risks of having a loaded gun in the home outweigh the benefits.

    “That was demonstrated if you counted dead bodies; it was demonstrated if you counted individuals shot but not killed; and tallied up the good guys versus the bad guys,” said Dr. Arthur Kellermann, who led the research teams under Rosenberg’s National Center for Injury Prevention program.

    Opinion: Let’s take politics out of gun research

    Kellermann said the studies were not politically motivated but simply a way to give homeowners information to make informed choices.

    Flexing its political muscle on Capitol Hill, the NRA successfully pushed for legislation that effectively ended Rosenberg’s program.

    To underscore its point, Congress — in a move led by Jay Dickey, a former gun-rights advocate and Republican legislator from Arkansas — added this language to the agency’s appropriation: “None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.”

    At the time, critics in Congress accused the researchers of pursuing an anti-gun agenda and said the CDC’s work was redundant.

    The provision remains in place today.

    The language created what Teret called “a chilling effect” for nearly all gun-related work at the CDC. Though the agency continues to track gun deaths and injuries, it does little work on how to prevent them.

    Many years later, the National Institutes of Health funded a similar study that triggered the same lightning-bolt response.

    In 2009, the NIH study concluded that a person carrying a gun was nearly 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than someone who is unarmed.

    Two years later, Congress added the same restrictive language it had imposed on the CDC to all agencies of the Department of Health and Human Services, including the NIH.

    Today, the NRA maintains its position that government research into gun violence is not necessary.

    “What works to reduce gun violence is to make sure that criminals are prosecuted and those who have been found to be a danger to themselves or others don’t have access to firearms,” the NRA’s Arulanandam said, “not to carry out more studies.”

  25. The Truth says:

    The sad reality to all of this is that what will happen in the next few months is too predictable.

    1. The gun control debate will spark up again and we will have numerous talking heads on all the major networks screaming at each other with the same talking points. One side will say: we need gun control to prevent these mass shootings and the other side will say we need more guns to prevent these mass shootings.

    2. After the vigil for those who lost their lives, this discussion will soon fade away and nothing will get done.

    As someone who finds himself in the middle of this discussion, I have to ask myself this. Is this what our founding fathers wanted our country to turn into? We are killing each other each and every day. Guns are on every corner, available to anyone who wants one in the blink of an eye. Is there not anything we can jointly do to try and prevent even ONE mass shooting. Of course there’s nothing we can do to prevent all of them, but even if we can just stop ONE we have saved lives.

    Of course, if the brutal killing of 5-6 year olds in Newtown didn’t lead to any change than I assure you this won’t either. One week from today, American’s will be talking about the Kardashians and Trump again.

  26. David S says:

    Something has do be done PERIOD.

  27. downinthelab says:

    Carry means CARRY.

    Not locked in the car.

  28. Sherry E says:

    Just a couple of other reminders:

    1. We currently have more safety regulations for building and driving cars than we do for gun ownership

    2. We cannot find and take every mentally unhealthy person off the street. . . what we can and should do is take away their access to such lethal weapons.

    3. The sacred “second amendment” does NOT say that every man, woman and child has the right to own and carry a gun with NO reasonable gun safety regulations.

    4. Reducing the number of guns in other countries, like Australia, has greatly reduced their gun violence and murder rate.

  29. JenS says:

    @ Mike- let’s use your example where other law-abiding citizens are armed & prepared to protect themselves just as you’ve suggested, where chaos (like the average person should hopefully never know) breaks out. Gun shots are fired. One, two, maybe three armed citizens take it upon themselves- bearing in mind…they are about to go from the average, normal day-to-day mindset & atmosphere directly into & ultimately engage in a highly volatile situation. Two of those armed individuals enter the area to find 2 other individuals armed & shooting at each other… should they open fire on both? How would they know which person was the crazed lunatic versus the good Samaritan(s)?What if they miss because their “target” is moving & it is statistically much more difficult to hit a moving target, no matter the skill set of the shooter? What if they fire and hit innocent bystanders? How could the good Samaritan live with themselves if, God-willing, they survive only to find they’ve shot & killed another good Samaritan who had taken it upon themselves to do the same… or God-forbid, other innocent bystanders?

    There is a reason law enforcement officers train, exercise, study, learn, & are deputized to carry out law enforcement- use of force measures. Because in those split seconds, moments, minutes when all hell breaks loose they are as equipped as much as HUMANLY possible to respond to those situations. While I try to understand the rationale you & so many others share, I still cannot possibly justify the thought process behind such statements. I am open to any rational suggestion as to how, in this scenario, having multiple civilians armed & prepared to go to a shooting massacre would prevent the further loss of life.

    I know a seasoned law enforcement officer who has stated the active shooter plan he & others have come up with at his church is as follows: for those who are carrying concealed weapons to hit the ground first, before enacting any counter measures because they know if one person starts shooting up the place, multiple people are likely to “respond” in cross-fire…& tactically speaking it is simply not safe to just run in guns blazing because the number one rule of being a law enforcement officer is to ensure your own safety. You cannot be of any service to anyone if you compromise yourself.

    Is it worth the loss of even one more innocent life because in a highly critical, chaotic situation someone who is not trained properly accidentally takes the life of another?

  30. IronHeadDrew says:

    Criminals will always be able to get their beaters on anything they want. Where there is a will, there is a way. There is always going to be that one bad apple or two out of the bunch. It is a new world these days. Its not like it was back then. It sucks to say, but its the truth, the people themselves have to stay on guard and be aware of their surroundings when out, hell in some circumstances, even in their own private homes. Its sad that us Americans have to watch our own backs instead of looking out for each others. I was involved in the Fort Hood shooting. I was back in country not even a week from being over seas. My unit and I were sent to South Korea. No real issues there, other than the Fruit Loop on the northern border. I came home, thinking, “Damn, I made it home in one piece and had a pretty decent time”. Then before I know it, Im going to get my checkup finished..and shots are fired. 13 people dead and 31 injured. from that point on, I don’t trust the general public, and im always on guard.

  31. Kin says:

    Well that and the 2nd amendment!

  32. Justin Case says:

    No one has ever walked into a police station and robbed it!

  33. Sherry E says:

    Regarding the FALSE notion that the NRA does not exert tremendous influence over our laws. . . this from CNN:

    No new gun laws. The National Rifle Association has made its position clear, even amid America’s most recent gun debate.
    It says enforce the gun laws already on the books.
    It’s well-known that the organization has actively lobbied to prevent new legislation limiting guns.
    But making this happen is more nuanced than just rallying its supporters and lobbyists every time a new law is proposed.

    Since the 1990s, the powerful pro-gun NRA has targeted the heart of what most legislation is based on: studies about the effects of gun violence.
    Last year, the NRA used its influence in Florida to push through legislation that would punish doctors if they asked patients whether they owned a gun.

    And buried inside President Barack Obama’s signature health care legislation is a little-known provision that prevents the government and health insurers from asking about gun ownership.

    The NRA says it is simply ensuring that taxpayer money isn’t being used to promote a political agenda.
    “If gun control groups … (and) individuals want to further their research, we’re not saying they shouldn’t be able to do it,” NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam told CNN. “We’re just saying they shouldn’t be using public funds to do it.”

    But public health experts say it’s all part of an attempt by the NRA-led pro-gun lobby to hamstring lawmakers.

    “If a bunch of people do research and generate solid evidence that suggests firearms policy should be reformed and either firearms or people who used them should be regulated in new ways, (if I’m a gun-rights advocate,) I’m not going to like that,” said Dr. Garen Wintemute, head of the violence prevention research program at the University of California at Davis.

    “So, I’ll simply prevent the evidence from being collected in the first place. It’s a brilliant strategy, and (the gun lobby) succeeded.”

    A lightning bolt and a chilling effect
    It wasn’t a lot of money — $2.6 million — but it represented the bulk of the nation’s research on firearms safety in the mid-1990s.

    “With regards to gun research, it was enormous,” said Stephen Teret, the founding director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research.

    In the 1990s, this small portion of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s budget went to a program headed by Dr. Mark Rosenberg that funded two high-profile studies that concluded the risks of having a loaded gun in the home outweigh the benefits.

    “That was demonstrated if you counted dead bodies; it was demonstrated if you counted individuals shot but not killed; and tallied up the good guys versus the bad guys,” said Dr. Arthur Kellermann, who led the research teams under Rosenberg’s National Center for Injury Prevention program.

    Opinion: Let’s take politics out of gun research
    Kellermann said the studies were not politically motivated but simply a way to give homeowners information to make informed choices.
    Flexing its political muscle on Capitol Hill, the NRA successfully pushed for legislation that effectively ended Rosenberg’s program.

    To underscore its point, Congress — in a move led by Jay Dickey, a former gun-rights advocate and Republican legislator from Arkansas — added this language to the agency’s appropriation: “None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.”

    At the time, critics in Congress accused the researchers of pursuing an anti-gun agenda and said the CDC’s work was redundant.
    The provision remains in place today.
    The language created what Teret called “a chilling effect” for nearly all gun-related work at the CDC. Though the agency continues to track gun deaths and injuries, it does little work on how to prevent them.

  34. Sherry E says:

    Just a couple of other reminders:

    1. We currently have more safety regulations for building and driving cars than we do for gun ownership

    2. We cannot find and take every mentally unhealthy person off the street. . . what we can and should do is take away their access to such lethal weapons.

    3. The sacred “second amendment” does NOT say that every man, woman and child has the right to own and carry a gun with NO reasonable gun safety regulations.

    4. Reducing the number of guns in other countries, like Australia, has greatly reduced their gun violence and murder rate.

  35. Andy says:

    Guns are a tool; and an incredibly dangerous tool. Is there any safe way to correctly operate a gun? No; the purpose of a gun tool is to make a living thing cease to live.
    Like any tool (Jackhammer, explosive ordinance, front loader, TNT) it should only be readily availabe and operated by those few individuals who are correctly trained, authorized, and required to operate those tools. Should every confederate flag waving, religious nutcase be authorized to operate theses tools of life extinguishing? Hell no. Just like I’d say 9/10ths of the population should not be allowed to operate a jackhammer or flamethrower or TNT.
    The right wing solution of throwing more guns at the problem of gun violence is a joke. Even if HALF of the mass shootings in America were stopped by a “good guy with a gun” it would still be too few to justify the prevalance of guns in society. But if I’m reading the news correctly, the “good guyswith guns’ score is like zero right? The Aurora theater-goers and Sandy Hook kidergarteners would have shot back, right??

  36. Knightwatch says:

    Oh, well, another fine gun-addled day in wild west America. Predictably, despite all the studies and analyses to the contrary, the conservative right cries out for more guns to make us safe. Such ignorance.

    Remember, we get what we vote (or neglect to vote) for. Let’s get the Democratic vote out in 2016.

  37. Sherry E says:

    A really excellent point Jen S! Just how in the world are the police officers supposed to tell who the “bad guy” is if several people are on the scene with guns drawn???

    The more guns in circulation in our society, the more dangerous it becomes! Even the stories of the “Wild West” should tell any intelligent person that simple truth.

    If the tortured shooter did not have so many examples of the “lime light” (his words) mass murderers enjoy in the USA. . . those victims would be alive today!

    If the tortured shooter did not have such EASY access to lethal weapons. . . those victims would be alive today!

    As President Obama pointed out. . . all other countries have troubled souls. . . . ours is the only one that hands them guns!

    That is the Bottom Line!

  38. Geezer says:

    Whether you love ’em or hate ’em – guns are here to stay.
    There are just too many to round up and confiscate. Most of us
    will hide our guns anyway. There’s more guns in the USA than
    there are people.

    The shootings are just a symptom of how morals have gone into
    the toilet in our fair country. We are too comfortable bombing
    brown and yellow people, Our young people adore violent
    computer games, and the rest of us love to watch shoot-em-ups.

    People need better access to mental health care, and they need
    to be able to get help privately without fear of being labeled a “nut.”

    All this talk of gun control just makes the lines longer at gun stores.

  39. Layla says:

    Sherry, with all due respect, any fool who draws a gun where deputies are present will be shot and deservedly so.

    The “bottom line” is that gun ownership is a Constitutional right, and is there for a reason. And this is not a right which will be given up by the American people, president or no president.

    This is exactly why the Second Amendment exists. Suggest strongly that you read it.

  40. Sherry E says:

    OK Layla. . . a deputy is called to the scene where shots are fired. The deputy sees two people with guns drawn, but they do not see the deputy. . . are you saying the deputy should just simply shoot them both? Really?

    Layla, remember the constitution was written in the days of muzzle loaders. I, have read it several times. . . have you? Here are the exact words of the appropriate section of the second amendment:

    “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

    OK. . . Layla, where exactly in the constitution does it say:

    1. The context has nothing to do with a “well REGULATED Militia”?
    2. Guns are NOT to be regulated?
    3. Those that have mental problems are entitled to own guns?
    4. Guns need not be registered?
    5. Guns can be sold or given from person to person with no records?
    6. Guns can be carried in public to intimidate?
    7. Guns can be fired in a school?
    8. Guns can be carried in a National Park, in a church, in a movie theater?
    9. Automatic weapons with massive amounts of ammunition should be rightfully owned?
    10. No gun safety laws should be enacted?

  41. Sherry E says:

    Thanks so much, Geezer. . . I always enjoy your comments!

Leave a Reply

Read FlaglerLive's Comment Policy | Subscribe to the Comment Feed rss flaglerlive comment feed rss

More stories on FlaglerLive
Loading

ADVERTISEMENTS

suppert flaglerlive flagler live palm coast flagler county news pierre tristam florida
news service of florida

Subscribe to FlaglerLive

Get immediate notification of new stories.

Advertisement
Log in
| FlaglerLive, P.O. Box 354263, Palm Coast, FL 32135-4263 | 386/586-0257

FlaglerLive.com