Gary M Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 Then there is this: http://abcnews.go.co...-rage-incident/ http://news.yahoo.com/two-men-girl-human-shield-until-her-father-040007545.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 http://news.yahoo.co...-040007545.html Like the old song says: ....there it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 (edited) What Does the Oregon Shooter Tell Us About Our Gun Laws? KGW News has identified the Oregon shooter. He was just 15 years old. What does this mean for our public policy? Well, pretty much nothing. Despite all of the chatter from the White House and beyond, “universal background checks” have absolutely nothing to do with this case. In Oregon, 15-year-olds are not allowed to purchase firearms of any sort – whether from stores or from private sources. Last year’s Toomey-Manchin proposal, which would have mandated checks for all private sales, would therefore not have applied to this case and could not have stopped this shooting. To pretend otherwise is downright dishonest. We also know that the shooter broke a number of other laws. Reports have suggested that he used a “rifle.” But in Oregon, one is not allowed to “possess” a long gun until one is 18. The killer wasn’t 18. {snip} His parents did not transfer the firearm to him. Instead, he took it from his home without permission. In consequence, he was breaking the law. Further, he was prohibited from carrying a rifle with him in public, and from taking it into his school. He did both in violation of the law. And, obviously, he was not allowed to fire it at people or to kill them. He did both. In violation of the law. Per police, he had an “unused handgun” on him, too. Oregon law explicitly prohibits minors from possessing handguns, with no carve-out for parental consent. Naturally, being 15, he was also barred from carrying it on his person without a permit (these aren’t available for those under 18), and from taking it into his school. He did both anyway. Literally nothing the shooter did was legal. Literally nothing that he did could have been addressed or prevented by the legislation that came up for a vote last year. One can certainly make the case that he should not have had access to the firearms in the first place — perhaps you think his parents should have been more careful, or that they shouldn’t be allowed to have guns at all, or that the AR-15 that was allegedly used shouldn’t be for sale – but one can not tie this shooting to the failure of Toomey-Manchin. Edited June 12, 2014 by B-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 More laws will keep people from killing each other. Prohibition is always successful. History be damned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/05/13/this-armed-home-invasion-couldve-ended-tragically-but-under-homeowners-bed-was-an-item-that-gives-the-anti-gun-crowd-nightmares/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts