3 dead in mall shooting in Oregon (Page 3)

I had a 5 paragraph response that I didn't post because this^^ says it all.

You're focused on the wrong thing.

My point is if people want to complain they have to fix the problem which is people not the laws.

That's what we need! A law against intentionally harming someone...

Except that your example just doesn't happen.  49 states now allow CCW....please find me an incident where someone was using a gun to protect themself and shot someone accidently.  Anti-gun people tend to make up alot of scenarios that don't happen in real life.

It's not that I am not a firearms fan (I think that target shooting and skeet shooting look like a lot of fun. And I don't think we could have an unarmed police force the way they do in England). But I think the best fix would be a change in how the discussion is framed. 

It is not realistic to turn back the clock and somehow have a lot less firearms in circulation. But maybe a better analogy is not to look at a Prohibition model, but the drunk driving model. Look, alcohol is still legal. You can own as much as you want (after 21), and drink all you want as well. And not that long ago, no one really thought twice about going to the bars and drinking, and then hopping into the car and driving home. Today, most people at least acknowledge that is a bad idea, and will either plan a designated driver, or to take a cab. What changed? The national discussion. MADD and similar groups did not talk about banning alcohol. They got us to be aware of the statistics of harm, and made it socially unacceptable to drink and drive. We also don't generally consider drinking at lunch to be acceptable if we are going back to work in the afternoon (the fabled "3 martini lunch"). Yes it still happens, but less often, and with more social approbation.

I think a similar approach could work with firearms. I know of people who think that being banned from owning/using firearms due to a history of involuntary commitment or incarceration is stupid, and will themselves purchase a firearm with the intent of allowing someone not allowed to use it to do so. In at least two cases I am aware of, this resulted in a death. 

If we generally, as a society, believed that having been involuntary committed, or committed a crime that resulted in loss of freedom also meant that your judgment was suspect and you should not be allowed access to firearms, I believe it would reduce these episodes. This would not even require changing a lot of laws - it is using social pressure (basically, the "free market" model) to acheive the desired end - i.e. less gun violence. Which I would hope is a desired endpoint even for fervent guns rights advocates.

it's not strange to do any of that in the first place to you?  it's only strange cause there wasn't a higher body count? 

Of course it's strange in the first place......but it happens fairly often and it almost never ends like this one did, with a low body count, relative to similar incidents.  That makes this one strange from an investigative standpoint, which is how I end up looking at things.

Good point.

Do we know anything about this loser?  Was he carrying that weapon legally?  Was he mental?

Not a lot of details are being released, but he supposedly shot up to 60 rounds. So maybe people were moving out of the way, maybe he was a poor shot, just shooting randomly. But I don't know that I would consider this to the kind of thing that happens "fairly often" - and unlike the recent Batman shooting, it was not a dark environment that people initially might have assumed the gunfire was part of the action on screen, while they sat like ducks in a row.

The responses of bystanders may have reflected the learning of the public - in the same way that the last plane on 9/11 was taken down by passengers, and the shoe bomber and underwear bomber also were stopped by those around them. People learn to respond to danger. We are not blind ants, stumbing repeatedly into the fire. Which would reduce the casualties.

Then it's just as easy to make up the scenario where an armed citizen shoots exactly what they are aiming at and stops the threat. "I don't see  how you can say that's a completely implausible scenario".

Here in CA we have a 10 day wait and they check for criminal or mental history. While I find it annoying for me I understand why they do it so I accept it. I have no problem with a back ground check to buy a firearm but maybe because I'm conditioned so by my state.

Several times a year is fairly often in my book...plus I have the expeirence of 7 of my co-workers shot and killed in a single incident 5 years ago, so these types of crimes are always something I end up looking at from a variety of angles.   

I can...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_defensive_gun_use_incidents

What requirements do you have to complete when you renew your Freedom of Speech every year? What test do you take to show your competence in using your right? When you ask the government if you are worthy of receiving due process, how long is the waiting period they can keep your stuff?

DUI is intentional, and there are just as many deaths from DUI as there are firearms. Where is the mandatory waiting period for driving? Why is not every car sold in the U.S. equipped with a anti DUI safety device?

I wonder how much of a comfort that is the loved ones left behind in the "accidental" deaths?

Another point that no one has brought up is violent crime and rape in the USA compared to Canada, UK or Australia.

In that case, it's good that it was Semi Auto or full-auto.  I've never had a Bolt Action weapon jam on me or a revolver...