News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
Obligatory
Doesn't Oregon have some of the tightest gun control measures in the U.S.? Only shortly behind CA and WA states?
So like what are they going to do next? Ban bullets?
No state can reasonable restrict guns. They're too easy to get anyway
Kind of like how the whole country is strict on felons owning guns, but they all have them anyway
The US needs federal gun reform to stop this, but we've decided dead children are worth it to have largely unrestrained gun ownership
That doesn't even help us when we find ourselves in the literal situation the founding fathers gave us the right for.
Oregon's "strict" gun laws are basically a rumor. Measure 114 passed in 2022 and has never taken effect, lawsuits and lawmakers keep kicking it down the road.
So what we actually have is background checks. Now put 2+2 together and realize a 16 year old was never buying a gun legally in the first place. Whatever he used started as somebody's legal purchase… let that sink in.
Meanwhile, the story everyone wants to sell you, once again, is the armed bystander. Which is exactly the kind of story that sells more guns, especially out here in Oregon. More guns sitting in trucks and closets where a teenager can get to them, a teenager who never got a background check, or a thief who can steal them and sell them to someone nobody background checked either.
Four people are dead. Three children. One teacher.
I'll keep waiting for the part where the system and our "stricter" gun laws worked.
I imagine the kid could have probably passed a background check.
Well like you said. There are more guns. So why haven't Dems put forward more laws to encourage gun lockers, safes, safe public storage locations and more laws to criminalize reckless storage, actually enforce those? More encouragement and incentives for training, education that doesn't cost $300+
Keep in mind the states on the West Coast have been heavily controlled by Dems for years now, so why not move forward instead of stuck in the ideals of banning firearms? Why move forward with the stereotype of taking away firearms?
Seems to only embolden and encourage more firearm purchases if you ask anyone with a brain.
Compare the practicality and effectiveness in legislating and enforcing what people do with weapons inside their homes, vehicles, sheds over limiting access to the kinds of weapons people ("We the people" is inclusive of the most careless among our population) can obtain.
perhaps instead you should ask why republicans block every attempt at federal gun regulation? Especially after SandyHook... you'd have to be a heartless monster not to support gun control after that. Which, Yeah, I'm pretty comfortable calling all elected republicans heartless monsters.
You know the “strictest “ gun laws are simply things like doing a background check on all gun transactions right?!
And those background checks clear very fast. I purchased a gun a few years ago and the background check cleared within a minute or two, it wasn't significantly more difficult than buying a candybar.
It takes a minute or two just to fill the form out on the laptop...
Under half an hour walking in and out is realistic for the entire process, but even if your hitting a stop watch the second the employee hits "submit" and staring at a screen hooked up to a fiber Internet connection...
It's not a "minute or two"
In Texas, you can peer to peer a gun sale without any checks of any kind…
In the vast majority of states that's true...
Which leads to people intentionally not looking at license plates or even asking for a driver's license.
The only way to get in trouble as a seller is if you know the buyer can't buy a gun, so sellers avoid all possible information, including age or if they live in that state.
I purchased a rifle at like 12 at a flea market because I was already 6 foot tall and my dad wanted to see if I could. Dude didn't ask for Idea and I handed him less than a hundred dollars
As long as that loophole exists, anyone can get a gun. Even if they have to drive a state over.
I'm confident I was in the store for less than 40 minutes, and yeah, when I say "a minute or two" that's obviously a every rough estimate.
Kind of curious what you call that then...
But really doubt I'm ever go to see it
I'm not entirely sure what you're asking/saying here.
I think they're equating duration in store with difficulty of task.
Well, that certainly could be. But I certainly would not draw a strong correlation between the two. I do plenty of difficult tasks that take just a few minutes, but i spend several hours at night sleeping.
Yes, but I've spent more time buying cabinets.
There's only so much you can do when the Roberte court decides what is and is not constitutional. The best gun control measures in the US still have to contend with being in the US. I live in Oregon, and I can tell you as a fact that its very easy to buy a gun here.
theres your problem!
Oregon isn't that tightly controlled. There is a mandatory BG check and we have measure 114 restrictions still stuck in legal implementation limbo, but especially in the eastern part of the state gun culture is huge and everyone has one. Kinda comes with the outdoorsy stuff.
You can just drive across state lines with guns.
It's not hard to get a gun in Oregon
Also this.
Which is good because it looks like the shooter was stopped by someone who was armed.
Ahh yes, the answer to gun violence is obviously more guns.
Only morons believe the answer is to get rid of all guns. You might as well ask to get rid of cancer too.
I never said get rid of all guns, I own 6 of them myself. But there is a wide gap between "free gun with every candybar, no limitations" and "ban all guns".
Oh good so you do agree with me, there should be more good guys with guns than bad guys. Great, keep up the good work and F the NRA.
Well, glad to know you're a master of subtly, nuance, and logic. Great productive conversation we've had.
(I hope that sarcasm was thick enough)
Just think about that statement a moment
Or just take one from someone who jumped through the hoops to get it legally
WA doesn't have particularly stringent gun-purchase laws in my experience. I've bought three handguns over the past three decades and I don't remember any major obstacles. I think there was an FBI(?) background check and maybe a State Patrol background check (the latter just checks your criminal record for in-state crimes). Those were long ago for me and SP check can be done online now - probably takes a few minutes and costs a few dollars. I'm not sure if there's any kind of background checks for long guns, I suspect not but I'm sure someone with a gun hobby will chime in.
WA hands out concealed carry permits like candy