>A student was armed during a recent college shooting in Roseburg, Oregon, but he did not use his weapon.
>He was not in the building where the shootings occurred, and he also said he feared police could have mistaken him for the gunman, putting his life in danger.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34507760
Ahahahah, AHAHAHHA.
Fucking Americunt faggots.
Why do you insist on having the right to bear arms if you are too pussy to use them?
So pathetic. All you faggots with your concealed carry not even doing shit, it just makes you feel a little better about your flabby micro penises
>A student was armed
Um, sure. It was a "gun free zone" which means that only criminals had guns by definition, so I'm going to need more than "because BBC said so" as proof since no other source has said this. Funny how no American sources have said this. Secondly, assuming he was carrying, how does one represent the entire country of America? Go back to Nipon.
All of this inb4 Gr8 b8 m8.
>>53535560
>Canada
This doesn't apply to the 2nd amendment.
Also he could have been arrested for having a gun on a campus, shooter or no. Blame gun control.
>>53535560
>>53536327
Oh it was Canada? Shit if I know the difference between you lanky cunts
Seems this ameritard doesn't either >>53536257
>>53535560
that's the funniest part
in any mass shooting, nobody is actually going to pull out their gun unless they are right in front of the shooter, because they'll either be seen as the enemy or the police will shoot them if they get there at the wrong time, or someone else with a gun will shoot them
it's funny because nobody on this board has ever/will ever be in a situation around normal human beings
>>53535560
Red button
>>53535560
>Why do you insist on having the right to bear arms if you are too pussy to use them?
He has the gun to defend himself not to play batman.
If those people wanted to defend themselves they could have, even with the BS cucky gun free zone garbage.
Why do leftists have no solution for stopping mass shootings?
I mean what do they seriously plan to do in that situation - just lay down and play dead?
All I hear is "muh background chekz muh asalt weapons", but nothing to actually protect themselves from raging autists.
>>53538980
>play
>He was not in the building where the shootings occurred
I thought nips were supposed to be smart.
>>53535560
>one guy refuses
>YOU'RE ALL PUSSIES
I see all that radioactivity is fucking with your head, kiddo. Go on back to your waifus and cry yourself to sleep like you do every night.
>>53538741
This.
A gun is a tool. People don't carry guns to feel like super heros.
Fucking libs will never understand.
>>53539185
First play, and then become.
>>53539478
Only works if your parents go down first, then you have to train in a cave, all these fucking steps not really worth the certification tbh
>a person was somewhat near a shooter
>he didn't actively go hunt down the shooter
>this proves my arguement
Excellent bait.
>>53539430
Yeah, had that guy gone out of his way to engage him
1) Police kill him
2) he hits someone else
3) he dies
4) he is a hero, but everyone gives him shit for playing hero, liberals point and say see! He put everyone at risk!
Its a lose/lose scenario UNLESS you are already there and you have to defend yourself, leaving is always the best option when not dying is the only objective. If the shooter does not allow leaving or hiding, thats when you shoot his ass and deal with the fallout.
Nobody wants to be the next Zimmerman.
>He was not in the building where the shootings occurred, and he also said he feared police could have mistaken him for the gunman, putting his life in danger.
Smart man. He knows that the police are dumb beasts who shoot first and ask questions never.
That was a wise decision on his part.
>>53535560
"That’s neither true in general nor true in this instance. The FBI tells us that active-shooter scenarios occur in all sorts of environments where guns are allowed—homes, businesses, outdoor spaces. (In fact, there was another mass shooting the same day as the Oregon massacre, leaving three dead and one severely wounded in a home in North Florida.) And Umpqua Community College itself wasn’t a gun-free zone. Oregon is one of seven states that allow guns on college campuses—the consequence of a 2011 court decision that overturned a longstanding ban. In 2012, the state board of education introduced several limitations on campus carry, but those were not widely enforced.
School policy at UCC does ban students from carrying guns into buildings except as “authorized by law,” but at least one student interpreted his concealed handgun license as legal authorization.
>http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/10/oregon-shooting-gun-laws-213222#ixzz3oNX4NRD8
As usual, /pol/ is always wrong. It was perfectly legal to have guns on campus, and in buildings if you had a permit. Several students were armed, and yet the shooting was not stopped. Simply put, guns don't stop mass shootings, in fact
"Last week, the FBI released “Crime in the U.S., 2014,” a report that includes (among other stats) all incidents of gun violence known to law enforcement (except in Florida and Alabama, states that chose not to share that particular information). On “Expanded Homicide Data Table 11, Murder Circumstances by Weapon Type”, we see that the most common known circumstance for gun homicide is “arguments.” The number of people shot to death last year in arguments not during the commission of a felony (1,759) dwarfs the number shot to death in gang violence (667) and the number shot to death in drug trafficking (298)—combined. These are arguments over things like radio-controlled-car races, candy, inheritance of a tractor and road rage.
