Umpqua Community College not a gun-free zone.....

nhboy

Ubi bene ibi patria
Link

"Umpqua Community College, site of a mass shooting Thursday, bans guns, knives longer than 4 inches and other weapons from campus.

But that policy has one big exemption that renders the pastoral 100-acre campus near Roseburg anything but a gun-free zone: Everyone with a concealed firearms license is allowed to bring guns on campus.
That is because a 1989 Oregon law forbids any public body except the Legislature from restricting the rights of concealed weapons permit-holders to bring guns where they wish.

Proponents of gun rights have seized on Thursday's tragic killing of eight Oregon college students and their writing instructor as evidence that so-called gun-free zones, or places where all guns are banned, are especially dangerous because a gunman plotting a mass killing will know there is no armed person there who can stop him. Proponents of gun restrictions have shot back with their own take on gun-free zones.

The college's no-guns policy seems to be obvious evidence that the Umpqua campus was such a place. But Oregon gun owners with concealed firearms licenses know those licenses entitle them to carry loaded guns in nearly all public places.

About one in 16 Oregon adults have such licenses, Oregon State Police figures indicate.

John Parker, a 36-year-old Army veteran studying to become a drug and alcohol counselor, is among the UCC students who hold weapons permits and bring guns to campus. He had his gun and his license with him on campus Thursday when the shooting took place.

He was in the college's veterans center, just a few buildings away from Synder Hall, with some other students who were similarly permitted and armed, he told The Oregonian/OregonLive.

A college employee talked them out of leaving to try to use their guns to save others. The active shooter could have taken them down first. Law enforcement officers already on the scene would not have known their guns would be used to defend students and instructors, not hurt them, he said.".....




 

glhs837

Power with Control
Link

"Umpqua Community College, site of a mass shooting Thursday, bans guns, knives longer than 4 inches and other weapons from campus.

But that policy has one big exemption that renders the pastoral 100-acre campus near Roseburg anything but a gun-free zone: Everyone with a concealed firearms license is allowed to bring guns on campus.
That is because a 1989 Oregon law forbids any public body except the Legislature from restricting the rights of concealed weapons permit-holders to bring guns where they wish.

Proponents of gun rights have seized on Thursday's tragic killing of eight Oregon college students and their writing instructor as evidence that so-called gun-free zones, or places where all guns are banned, are especially dangerous because a gunman plotting a mass killing will know there is no armed person there who can stop him. Proponents of gun restrictions have shot back with their own take on gun-free zones.

The college's no-guns policy seems to be obvious evidence that the Umpqua campus was such a place. But Oregon gun owners with concealed firearms licenses know those licenses entitle them to carry loaded guns in nearly all public places.

About one in 16 Oregon adults have such licenses, Oregon State Police figures indicate.

John Parker, a 36-year-old Army veteran studying to become a drug and alcohol counselor, is among the UCC students who hold weapons permits and bring guns to campus. He had his gun and his license with him on campus Thursday when the shooting took place.

He was in the college's veterans center, just a few buildings away from Synder Hall, with some other students who were similarly permitted and armed, he told The Oregonian/OregonLive.

A college employee talked them out of leaving to try to use their guns to save others. The active shooter could have taken them down first. Law enforcement officers already on the scene would not have known their guns would be used to defend students and instructors, not hurt them, he said.".....





Should not have let them talk them out of it. If you want to take a chance on getting shot by a nutjob, your choice as a free adult. Most places concealed carry education does talk about how to handle interactions with law enforcement in such situations. And plces with permissive carry laws train officers to be on the lookout for such things.
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
Should not have let them talk them out of it. If you want to take a chance on getting shot by a nutjob, your choice as a free adult. Most places concealed carry education does talk about how to handle interactions with law enforcement in such situations. And plces with permissive carry laws train officers to be on the lookout for such things.

I would say that in general if a person with a concealed weapon permit is on the scene when an officer arrives, if he is pointing his weapon in the direction of the perp it is an indication that he is on the right side of the argument.
 

nhboy

Ubi bene ibi patria
I would say that in general if a person with a concealed weapon permit is on the scene when an officer arrives, if he is pointing his weapon in the direction of the perp it is an indication that he is on the right side of the argument.

You silly twit, numerous police were already on the scene, they don't need some unknown civilian marching in to save the day.
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
You silly twit, numerous police were already on the scene, they don't need some unknown civilian marching in to save the day.

You are the twit if they were on the scene why were so many people killed.?

They got the call and responded like they always do.
In the meantime people were dying with gun holders a couple of building down.
 

nhboy

Ubi bene ibi patria
You are the twit if they were on the scene why were so many people killed.? They got the call and responded like they always do. In the meantime people were dying with gun holders a couple of building down.


Did you not read this from the article; "A college employee talked them out of leaving to try to use their guns to save others. The active shooter could have taken them down first. Law enforcement officers already on the scene would not have known their guns would be used to defend students and instructors, not hurt them, he said."...
 

nhboy

Ubi bene ibi patria
pngCropperCapture[3].pn.png
 

glhs837

Power with Control
Did you not read this from the article; "A college employee talked them out of leaving to try to use their guns to save others. The active shooter could have taken them down first. Law enforcement officers already on the scene would not have known their guns would be used to defend students and instructors, not hurt them, he said."...

Timeline appears to show about 6-8 minutes between first 911 call and first officers i scene. If you are in the building next door, and could be there in under a minute, wonder how many people might still be alive if the first resistance was happening in under two-three minutes? We'll never know of course, and it could very well have resulted in more casualties. But that should not stop adults from making the choice to try. Nor should adults allow themselves to be talked out of trying to save lives. Not IMO.
 

tommyjo

New Member
Should not have let them talk them out of it. If you want to take a chance on getting shot by a nutjob, your choice as a free adult. Most places concealed carry education does talk about how to handle interactions with law enforcement in such situations. And plces with permissive carry laws train officers to be on the lookout for such things.

Do they teach those with a cc permit how to handle and active shooter situation? Do all the folks with cc permits get little communicators (like Star Trek) so they don't shoot each other?

Hard to fathom how adding MORE armed, untrained individuals to a situation is the answer...
 

glhs837

Power with Control
Do they teach those with a cc permit how to handle and active shooter situation? Do all the folks with cc permits get little communicators (like Star Trek) so they don't shoot each other?

Hard to fathom how adding MORE armed, untrained individuals to a situation is the answer...

Nope, and there can be situations that are complex in ways that make it bad. But "Shoot a the person shooting people who are not shooting back" is a pretty small solution set. There are ways it can go wrong, but don't let that blind you to the ways it could go right. Again, and maybe it's my military background, but doing nothing while evil walks seems to always be the wrong way to bet. Having trained first responders on scene is optimal, but sometimes you work with what you got til you get that help. .
 
Top