Shooting at mall in Portland

[Rippleman]

Your right about most, and we have some on here like that, but then we also have people like me who don't love guns, but own one and carry, but would get rid of it the instant they lived in a society not saturated with firepower.

you are exactly the kind of person who is OK to own a gun since you are not obsessed with it. Every gun owner should think like you.

[psreloaded]

Does keeping a gun not require a license in the US! Its a bad idea to allow anybody and everybody to have a gun.

[Richteralan]

Does keeping a gun not require a license in the US! Its a bad idea to allow anybody and everybody to have a gun.

You will need a license. But the problem is that it's very easy to obtain guns in the USA for everyone.

[NateB1]

From what I'm hearing ( I live in OR and am listening to the press conference right now), the gun was stolen, in which case, a license is irrelevant. Criminals will find ways to get guns, and having gun-free zones is an open invitation to open fire, since the likelihood of someone carrying in an area like that is lower.

[LaP]

Your right about most, and we have some on here like that, but then we also have people like me who don't love guns, but own one and carry, but would get rid of it the instant they lived in a society not saturated with firepower.

Yeah but when people talk about gun "nuts" they don't talk about people like you. I doubt there's that much people against owning a gun to hunt or just because you like to fire at a practice stand. The people against that are as "nuts" as the gun "nuts" imo.

I'm vocal here about my disagreement with using a gun to protect yoursefl from an un-armed person when this is a one on one situation (criminal or not i don't care).

But you see my dad owns 5 guns. So i lived in a house with guns a good part of my life. My dad owns 2 shotguns and 3 riffles (all legally owned and registered). One of those riffle is made to kill big reindeer and moose from a long distance using a scope. It's definately lethal to human being ;) When i was young i used my dad small .22 riffle here and there to practice shooting at target.

Even if i don't understand why anyone would want to carry a gun i don't live in a city with a high crime rate. In fact Quebec City crime rate is so low than a couple of years ago we had a complete year without a single murder on the territory.

What i don't understand though is how can a father accidentally shot his own kid while leaving a market. I don't understand also why would anyone train his kid to fire using a battle riffle. And finally i don't understand why would anyone shot at nother living being (criminal or not) unless his life is in immediate, without any doubt, danger (and i don't personally consider being beat by an un-armed teen is a danger to an adult specially when the cops are on their way).

It's hard for a Canadian to understand all that cause here while a lot of people own guns 99.99% of the gun owners keep them un-loaded at any time except when ready to be used. They also for the most part keep them locked.

I grew up in a house with 5 guns. But those 5 guns were always behind a locked door and always unloaded except when ready to be used to hunt or practice on target. They were always used carefully with the respect a gun should inspire.

My condolences to the family of the people killed.

[TAZMINATOR]

Does keeping a gun not require a license in the US! Its a bad idea to allow anybody and everybody to have a gun.

Yes the license is required to have a gun. Without a license, you shoot, you will be sent to the jail or get a ticket depends on the state law (no matter if it was a self defense or not). Even carry a gun without a license, you'd get a ticket or jailtime and probably getting your gun taken away. But if you shoot someone who broke in your home with your dad's gun, I am sure it would be ok since you are in self-defense depends on gun law in your state. If you got the gun from someone else, you might be in trouble depends what the cop finds.

When you buy a gun at the store, you won't get the gun on same day... you will get a gun in a few days after the purchase. Maybe 3 days I think. I couldn't remember.

[Dane]

Yes the license is required to have a gun. Without a license, you shoot, you will be sent to the jail or get a ticket depends on the state law (no matter if it was a self defense or not). Even carry a gun without a license, you'd get a ticket or jailtime and probably getting your gun taken away. But if you shoot someone who broke in your home with your dad's gun, I am sure it would be ok since you are in self-defense depends on gun law in your state. If you got the gun from someone else, you might be in trouble depends what the cop finds.

When you buy a gun at the store, you won't get the gun on same day... you will get a gun in a few days after the purchase. Maybe 3 days I think. I couldn't remember.

Depends on the state. Here you don't need a license. You go to the gun store. The states background check takes 5 mins. It checks state,federal and mental health. You get cleared, you take it home same time.

No license needed to own. A license is needed to carry.

A few states do not require any license at all to carry.

[SupportGeek]

oh my god.. when will you people get it!?

the way to stop this **** is to NOT allow people to carry guns.. urgh

Wrong.

While I dont have a perfect solution to stop this kind of thing, yours is certainly not the way at all, your way leads to larger slaughters because criminals will be the only ones armed, good plan!

Better steps to take are to identify the crazies faster and ensure they are locked up if they pose a danger, armed or not. Someone with a psychiatric hold is prohibited from purchasing and owning firearms.

Another thing to eliminate are "Gun free zones" every single one of these shootings is perpetrated in one, because the badguy wants to shoot defenseless fish in a barrel, they dont want to take the chance of being stopped with force.

[FlintyV]

Wrong.

While I dont have a perfect solution to stop this kind of thing, yours is certainly not the way at all, your way leads to larger slaughters because criminals will be the only ones armed, good plan!

Have you got any sort of proof to back that?

[Memphis]

Have you got any sort of proof to back that?

I can tell you that my sister was in the mall and had left her conceal carry gun in the car as to avoid trouble with mall security booting her and her not able to finish her Christmas shopping.

[Growled Member]

oh my god.. when will you people get it!?

the way to stop this **** is to NOT allow people to carry guns.. urgh

Even in most gun free countries criminals find a way to get a gun, and use it.

[trag3dy]

I can tell you that my sister was in the mall and had left her conceal carry gun in the car as to avoid trouble with mall security booting her and her not able to finish her Christmas shopping.

How would they know she had one unless she advertised that fact? It's not like they have security gates at the entrances.

[FlintyV]

I can tell you that my sister was in the mall and had left her conceal carry gun in the car as to avoid trouble with mall security booting her and her not able to finish her Christmas shopping.

Sounds right. I was more on about the fact that SupportGeek thinks banning guns will somehow lead to more murders and was interested in if he had any facts to back up that claim :)

[Gerowen]

And again, everybody except the crazy person was too gun-shy to exercise their 2nd amendment rights, rendering them all totally defenseless against the one guy who decided to go insane. Not to mention that it makes me angry as a law abiding gun owner when somebody does something terrible like this. Where in the world were the mall security guards?

[Gerowen]

Sounds right. I was more on about the fact that SupportGeek thinks banning guns will somehow lead to more murders and was interested in if he had any facts to back up that claim :)

Banning guns will not fix things like this, and those of you who think it will are naive. If they can't get their guns illegally from the American population, they'll just carry them across the Mexican and Canadian borders. This crime was committed with a stolen rifle. Most of the gun crime committed in Chicago, by President Obama's own admission, is committed with small, cheap, illegally obtained pistols. I own several firearms, and have a specific purpose for every one of them, including the pistol I keep on my side for self defense in case, oh I dono, some guy decides to start spraying bullets in a mall while I'm there. Not to mention the fact that disarming the people removes our ability to "really" effect any change in D.C. If the citizens could not own any guns, and the Army aggressively attacked and disarmed all of the citizens who refused to comply, and they then instituted martial law and took away all of your civil liberties, what could you "really" do without the tools to fight back and take your freedom back by force? As it is right now, legal gun owners are a political force to be reckoned with, and when something like this happens, we are usually one of the first groups of people to recommend the harshest punishment possible for the degenerate responsible, because it always paints "guns" in a bad light, even though the vast majority of gun owners are sensible people who use their weapons for legitimate purposes like hunting, self and home defense, and as a safeguard against tyranny in government.

[FlintyV]

Banning guns will not fix things like this, and those of you who think it will are naive. If they can't get their guns illegally from the American population, they'll just carry them across the Mexican and Canadian borders. This crime was committed with a stolen rifle. Most of the gun crime committed in Chicago, by President Obama's own admission, is committed with small, cheap, illegally obtained pistols. I own several firearms, and have a specific purpose for every one of them, including the pistol I keep on my side for self defense in case, oh I dono, some guy decides to start spraying bullets in a mall while I'm there. Not to mention the fact that disarming the people removes our ability to "really" effect any change in D.C. If the citizens could not own any guns, and the Army aggressively attacked and disarmed all of the citizens who refused to comply, and they then instituted martial law and took away all of your civil liberties, what could you "really" do without the tools to fight back and take your freedom back by force? As it is right now, legal gun owners are a political force to be reckoned with, and when something like this happens, we are usually one of the first groups of people to recommend the harshest punishment possible for the degenerate responsible, because it always paints "guns" in a bad light, even though the vast majority of gun owners are sensible people who use their weapons for legitimate purposes like hunting, self and home defense, and as a safeguard against tyranny in government.

So there's no proof to back up the idea that banning guns won't stop these kind of things from happening far less in the future. And please, you're extremely naive or deluded if you think an armed civilian population can hold back military force.

[Gerowen]

So there's no proof to back up the idea that banning guns won't stop these kind of things from happening far less in the future. And please, you're extremely naive or deluded if you think an armed civilian population can hold back military force.

And you, likewise, have no proof to the contrary. We're dealing with arguments of what "might" happen if X, Y, or Z happened. I learn from history lessons. People like Adolf Hitler bragged about perfecting gun control in their countries, shortly before going insane. And for your information, legal, civilian gun owners outnumber our military by quite a lot. We're not organized enough to face down the US Army if it was ordered to attack us directly, but it does give us the tools with which to defend our lives and our property, and if such a thing did happen, you'd be surprised how fast organizations like the NRA could bring together 4.3 million people to face off against a combined military force of less than 1 million, and that's only if I count the people that are actually members of the NRA. If that means dying defending my freedom from a military force ran by a tyrannical leader, then so be it. Live free or die.

[FlintyV]

And you, likewise, have no proof to the contrary. We're dealing with arguments of what "might" happen if X, Y, or Z happened. I learn from history lessons. People like Adolf Hitler bragged about perfecting gun control in their countries, shortly before going insane. And for your information, legal, civilian gun owners outnumber our military by quite a lot. We're not organized enough to face down the US Army if it was ordered to attack us directly, but it does give us the tools with which to defend our lives and our property, and if such a thing did happen, you'd be surprised how fast organizations like the NRA could bring together 4.3 million people to face off against a combined military force of less than 1 million, and that's only if I count the people that are actually members of the NRA. If that means dying defending my freedom from a military force ran by a tyrannical leader, then so be it. Live free or die.

Well gun bans in both the UK and Australia did bring down gun homicides so I'd say I have something to backup my theory and gun control was brought into Germany in 1919 long before Hitler and were even relaxed greatly in 1928 and 1938 requiring people to have a permit to own a gun and gun manufacturers to keep records of weapons bought and sold and even lowering ownership age to 18.

But again you're deluded if you think a few million can take an entire army with all measures of equipment, vehicles and training.

I'm not sure where you see Hitler bragging though, let's remember people voted for Hitler and few were resistant to him when he built their economy and brought prosperity to Germany, they simply didn't want to fight him to gun control never even came into the picture.

[Gerowen]

Well gun bans in both the UK and Australia did bring down gun homicides so I'd say I have something to backup my theory and gun control was brought into Germany in 1919 long before Hitler and were even relaxed greatly in 1928 and 1938 requiring people to have a permit to own a gun and gun manufacturers to keep records of weapons bought and sold and even lowering ownership age to 18.

I'm not sure where you see Hitler bragging though.

I'm not saying I don't support "reasonable" restrictions, I'm not totally closed minded to the fact that things designed for the purpose of killing, if placed in the wrong hands, can be used for terrible crimes. However I, and none of the millions of people around this country who own guns and participate in legal activities and organizations with those weapons, will ever permit a total ban, nor will we tolerate one if it gets forced on us, and it annoys me when people suggest that banning guns will all of a sudden make all the bad guys just put their hands up, turn in their illegal guns, and say sorry. I mean our own president illegally and knowingly sold guns to Mexican drug cartels, and had a border patrol agent not been killed with one of them, nobody would have known, and to this day, for some reason, nobody seems to be giving the issue any real attention. If "I" had sold those guns to the Mexicans, I'd be facing the death penalty right now, ridiculed by the public, and probably referenced by some far left winger as a supporting reason for gun control in the U.S. But since it's the President, and the first ever half black one to boot, nobody seems to really care.

Edit

For some reason this got stuck in with my other post and made it look all jumbled.

A quote from Hitler.

?The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let?s not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country.?

[FlintyV]

I'm not saying I don't support "reasonable" restrictions, I'm not totally closed minded to the fact that things designed for the purpose of killing, if placed in the wrong hands, can be used for terrible crimes. However I, and none of the millions of people around this country who own guns and participate in legal activities and organizations with those weapons, will ever permit a total ban, nor will we tolerate one if it gets forced on us, and it annoys me when people suggest that banning guns will all of a sudden make all the bad guys just put their hands up, turn in their illegal guns, and say sorry. I mean our own president illegally and knowingly sold guns to Mexican drug cartels, and had a border patrol agent not been killed with one of them, nobody would have known, and to this day, for some reason, nobody seems to be giving the issue any real attention. If "I" had sold those guns to the Mexicans, I'd be facing the death penalty right now, ridiculed by the public, and probably referenced by some far left winger as a supporting reason for gun control in the U.S. But since it's the President, and the first ever half black one to boot, nobody seems to really care.

Edit

For some reason this got stuck in with my other post and made it look all jumbled.

A quote from Hitler.

"Adolf Hitler said:

?The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let?s not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country.?"

Like I said banning guns does lower firearm homicides but that's somehow slipped by.

So because Hitler was for gun control it's somehow not a good thing to have just because he liked it? I heard he liked is German Shepard's too...

As I said gun control was already firmly in place before Hitler came to power, and in many ways the law he passed loosened gun control restrictions.

[nekkidtruth]

There's a reason pro-gunners are referred to as "gun nuts" around here. Just look at this thread as an incredible example.

"He used an AR15. I'm gonna have to buy one before it gets banned!" What a freakin' joke.

[Ph1b3r0pt1c]

I have three, your point?

[nekkidtruth]

I have three, your point?

If that was directed at me, I never asked how many you have. Your point?

If not directed at me, carry on!

[BGM]

Wrong.

While I dont have a perfect solution to stop this kind of thing, yours is certainly not the way at all, your way leads to larger slaughters because criminals will be the only ones armed, good plan!

Better steps to take are to identify the crazies faster and ensure they are locked up if they pose a danger, armed or not. Someone with a psychiatric hold is prohibited from purchasing and owning firearms.

Another thing to eliminate are "Gun free zones" every single one of these shootings is perpetrated in one, because the badguy wants to shoot defenseless fish in a barrel, they dont want to take the chance of being stopped with force.

Even in most gun free countries criminals find a way to get a gun, and use it.

otherwise, it's just an arms race for everyone to have bigger, better, more powerful weapons... that isn't good.

agreed, even in the most gun-free countries criminals can still find a weapon... but they cannot just walk into a shop and buy one, which restricts them to a very very small portion of the population.

taking western europe as an example, you hardly hear of any gun crime... yes, sometimes there are slight issues and yes if you really really want a weapon you can find one if you look hard enough. in the uk, not even the police have weapons, and they never will (except specialist sections), because it just creates problems.

it's a simplistic view i agree... but restrict their sale (i.e. not supermarkets, etc) and restrict their use (private land), and tighten ownership laws... i.e. preferably you can't legally own one at all unless you can provide evidence for their use and storage, similar to shotgun laws in the UK..

according to wikipedia (i know i know) there are 0.22 gun homicides per 100, 000 with this approach, seems pretty decent to me! :)

[ILikeTobacco]

Like I said banning guns does lower firearm homicides but that's somehow slipped by.

In Washington DC, when guns were banned, it caused a 73% increase in gun related homicides. It remained significantly higher under the ban was lifted. Since then, the rates have went back down to where the country average is. Gun ban attempts have already failed in the US. The only people who care about where you are allowed to carry them are not the ones you should be afraid of. You claim to be all about backed up facts, and yet you actually believe what will happen is what is in this video. Just so you know, its a parody because I don't think you caught that the first time. Full gun ban is not the solution for the US. It has been tried and it has failed.