TexasCHLforum.com

Shooter is in custody.

treadlightly wrote:God be with the families.

Forgive me for noting the uncomfortable tones in which CNN just interviewed someone who pointed out that berserkers would know they wouldn't face armed resistance in gun free zones.

I watched CNN for about 3 minutes before it went back to Fox. The condescending anti gun garbage gets me every time. I'm sure they won't interview that person again

reports vary from 10 dead, 20 wounded to 15 dead, 25 wounded. Either way it's too many sacrificed to another gun-free zone.

Oregon AG confirmed 13 dead, and the shooter is dead. Don't know if he is one of the 13.

Praying for their families...

Man in early twenties. What do you bet he was on psychotropic drugs?

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/10 ... free-zone/

Gunfree zone.

RIP

Shooting at GUN FREE Umpqua Community College, Oregon
http://www.ammoland.com/2015/10/shootin ... ge-oregon/

GUN FREE designation based on same as article in preceding post

White House calls for tougher gun laws in wake of Oregon shooting
http://thehill.com/homenews/administrat ... n-shooting

NotRPB wrote:White House calls for tougher gun laws in wake of Oregon shooting
http://thehill.com/homenews/administrat ... n-shooting

Bodies aren't even cool yet and he's starting already, but it took him weeks to acknowledge the Marine shootings...

philip964 wrote:http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/10 ... free-zone/

Gunfree zone.

RIP

A quick read through Handgunlaw.us and the link below seems to initially indicate that public colleges cannot prohibit licensed concealed carry, but, I could be wrong about that....

http://www.handgunlaw.us/documents/ORCt ... yCarry.pdf
Court decision invalidates OSU Systemwide handgun ban.

Therefore, we conclude that OAR 580-022-0045(3) is an exercise of an
7"authority to regulate" firearms that is not expressly authorized by the Legislative
8 Assembly, and that it is preempted by ORS 166.170(1).1 Accordingly, the rule exceeds
9 the agency's authority, ORS 183.400(4)(b), and is invalid.

NotRPB wrote:White House calls for tougher gun laws in wake of Oregon shooting
http://thehill.com/homenews/administrat ... n-shooting

That's the typical liberal reaction.

http://seattle.cbslocal.com/2015/10/01/ ... -shooting/

CBS Seattle reporting a gun free campus with an unarmed security guard. Maybe they didn't put up enough signs.

The community college is a gun-free campus.

“Possession, use, or threatened use of firearms (including but not limited to BB guns, air guns, water pistols, and paint guns) ammunition, explosives, dangerous chemicals, or any other objects as weapons on college property, except as expressly authorized by law or college regulations, is prohibited,” the college’s security policy states.

Joe Olson, former president of the college, told The Associated Press the school has only one security officer on duty at a time, and that person isn’t armed.

He says last year, one of the biggest debates on campus was whether the school should have armed security officers. He says the college had three training exercises with local law agencies in the past two years, “but you can never be prepared for something like this.”

There you go, preparation is impossible, so why even try?

John Galt wrote: That's the typical liberal reaction.

It certainly has liberal support, but it's not just the liberals. It's easy for incidents like this to push people over the line. Restriction is supported by quite a few middle-of-the-road types and that's much more worry some to me than what the agendas of both extremes are. These incidents are not good for gun owners. We can point to gun-free zone, but likely likely we're still going to have problems even if it wasn't. I, for one, think we need to do something about a fairly ineffective background check system when it comes to mental illness (among other things).. It's doing that in a manner that isn't abused, expensive, or fraught with civil rights peril that creates the real question. But I'm afraid that too much of this stuff and we're not going to get a choice.

cb1000rider wrote:

John Galt wrote: That's the typical liberal reaction.

It certainly has liberal support, but it's not just the liberals. It's easy for incidents like this to push people over the line. Restriction is supported by quite a few middle-of-the-road types and that's much more worry some to me than what the agendas of both extremes are. These incidents are not good for gun owners. We can point to gun-free zone, but likely likely we're still going to have problems even if it wasn't. I, for one, think we need to do something about a fairly ineffective background check system when it comes to mental illness (among other things).. It's doing that in a manner that isn't abused, expensive, or fraught with civil rights peril that creates the real question. But I'm afraid that too much of this stuff and we're not going to get a choice.

The thing is, we're likely to see more of this stuff as the country disintegrates rather than less. So far these incidents seem to be confined to people with serious mental problems rather than people the system has rendered angry and hostile with nothing to lose. Continued mismanagement, corruption, and what is effectively disenfranchisement, may well add thousands of desperate, angry, and unhinged people to the mix.

We do and will have a choice though...that choice is going to be weather we refuse or obey whatever is forced upon us.