Just reported. Shooting at University of Oklahoma. The daily school shooting is becoming the new

[Lint Head]

norm. Thanks NRA.

[B2G]

1. Link

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/univ-oklahoma-reports-shots-fired-campus-21623746

Officials at the University of Oklahoma say a shooting has occurred on its campus and are telling everyone to shelter in place.

The school posted a notice on its website Wednesday that people should avoid Gould Hall. A notice sent by its Twitter account said: "Seek immediate shelter in place."

The university is located in Norman, about 20 miles south of Oklahoma City

[MineralMan]

2. Damn! This is getting more and more out of hand.

Waiting for details.

[TexasTowelie]

3. Incidents like this aren't supposed to happen in red states.

After all, there are so many people with CHLs that it is supposed to make the bad guys scared (or so I've been told).

[former9thward]

9. University of Oklahoma is a gun free school.

You can't have a gun on campus. Why would the bad guys be scared?

[kelliekat44]

50. Ok is not gun free though. nt

[former9thward]

51. And the bad guys know to go where guns are not going to be around.

[PowerToThePeople]

4. Rescind the second amendment, Now!!

Last edited Wed Jan 22, 2014, 03:11 PM - Edit history (1)

edit - It appears false alarm this time. Will hold this post until the next real shooting. I will not have to wait long.

Yea Gunz!!!

[Lizzie Poppet]

16. Just what do you think that would accomplish?

[PowerToThePeople]

19. It would allow states/counties/cities/etc to outlaw firearms.

[Lizzie Poppet]

22. Same question on the state level, then.

Do you really think a state law outlawing firearms is something that would be obeyed (at least by a significant percentage of gun owners)? I can confidently assure you that that is highly unlikely to be the case. I think the rather large majority of gun owners do not consider the right to keep and bear arms to be anything granted by the Second Amendment, but instead to be something recognized by that amendment. That is, that the right to the means of effective self defense is an innate human right...

Short version: even in the handful of states that might enact such a prohibition, only a small minority of gun owners would obey such a law. Bank on it.

[PowerToThePeople]

23. right to the means of effective self defense != Gunz.

At first only a few would obey. Kind of like seatbelt laws. As time goes on and people get fined/jailed/etc for breaking the law, people would start to obey.

It is the first step in removing these killing devices from our nation.

[sked14]

26. First things first.

The first thing would be getting the second amendment repealed, how would that be accomplished?
Given that it would have to be done with the approval of two thirds of the congress and then ratified by three quarters of the states.

[PowerToThePeople]

27. It is all in the marketing

It can be done. It will not be easy. I think that it will happen. I also think that is should happen.

[sked14]

28. Well, more power to you,

but I rather doubt it will ever happen.

[PowerToThePeople]

31. Ending slavery, women's right to vote, gay marriage, rescind marijuana prohibition.

Plenty of things people "never thought would happen" that have happened.

[A Simple Game]

64. The second amendment doesn't need to be repealed, the makeup of the Supreme Court needs to change.

All that needs to be done is to return the word militia to the status it was meant to have. It is also obvious that the word "people" was meant to be all inclusive and not singular, otherwise why the mention of a militia?

I'm all for gun ownership, everyone should be able to have guns and to keep them in the same armory as all the rest of their fellow militia members.

[Lizzie Poppet]

35. They are, however, by far the most effective method we currently have.

Well, if the situation has already escalated to violence, anyway...obviously the best defense one has is to use one's brain to avoid violent situations in the first place. But that's not always possible...

I strongly disagree with your assertion that a gradual acceptance of a ban on firearms would take place.

[AAO]

56. Favorite group: Gun Control & RKBA, 50 posts in the last 90 days (13% of total posts)

I think you are really trying hard to justify firearms, but your background indicates I should ignore your opinion. Nothing personal.

[warrant46]

61. Really

[AAO]

67. Really? Really what?

[warrant46]

68. There are some people here who live for the thrill of being the star of the show

Especially when it comes to guns and ownership of same.

They have no idea about crime and self defense

They live in flowery cocoons and have never been called to stand up in their whole lives against any evil.

They think talk will stop a meth crazed knife wielding robber or rapist.

With those foolish ideas -- Good luck to them.

[X_Digger]

40. Err. no, it actually wouldn't.

The bill of rights grants no rights. It protects pre-existing rights.

If you repealed the second amendment, the right to keep and bear arms would go from being one explicitly protected at a federal level to a right protected explicitly at the state level, and implicitly by the ninth amendment.

If you think that our rights only exist because of the bill of rights, then how do you reconcile the right to travel? It appears nowhere in our founding documents, yet multiple court cases have established that the right has always existed.

[PowerToThePeople]

46. Text of 2nd amendment

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

[X_Digger]

60. That's a very nice non sequitur. Now, back to the topic at hand.

Have anything actually, you know, relevant to my post?

[PowerToThePeople]

63. Is the right to keep and bear arms fundamental and universal, or not?

"It has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “this is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.

The only problem with proposing a U.N. treaty extending the right to keep and bear arms as a fundamental human right for all people, as Gingrich proposed, is that we fall rather short of that lofty goal ourselves, even here in the U.S. We deny felons who have paid their debt to society the right to keep and bear arms (and even body armor), even while ruling that denying them the right to vote is "racist."

And now, a federal appeals court has ruled that illegal aliens also have no right to keep and bear arms, according to Reuters:

(snip)

The problem is that Mr. Huitron-Guizar is not only to be punished for his illegal presence in the U.S., but also for the "crime" of possessing the tools to defend his life--something we have been claiming is a fundamental human right. If deportation is not punishment enough, then immigration laws should be strengthened to include their own additional punishment. By instead tacking on extra punishment for the exercise of a fundamental human right, we treat that right like a mere privilege.

http://www.examiner.com/article/is-the-right-to-keep-and-bear-arms-fundamental-and-universal-or-not

[X_Digger]

65. Your own quote contradicts you- see the Cruikshank quote.

I mean christ-on-a-crutch, it's a tenet of the enlightenment, you know the philosophy that informed our founding documents- that rights pre-date the founding documents.

"that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.."

Ring a bell?

It's right there in the preamble to the bill of rights..

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

Restrictive clauses against whom? Abuse of whose powers?

The bill of rights is a 'the government shall not' document, not a 'the people can' document.

[PowerToThePeople]

71. The point is

Is that if this is truly a basic right, then we do not treat it as such currently. So, you could come to the conclusion that we do not truly view it as a basic right after all. "Basic Right" then becomes nothing but a feel good buzzword to be used by pro gun lobby for their propaganda purposes...

[X_Digger]

74. Oh now you want to quibble about 'level' of right?

Glad you conceded that repealing 2nd doesn't remove the right.

All rights may be abrogated under certain circumstances. That doesn't make the right a privilege- no more than requiring a permit to have a demonstration makes the first's assembly clause a privilege.

[PowerToThePeople]

75. I also never claimed that the right existed.

I am just quoting other arguments that have been used against it.. I would personally claim that there is no basic right to own firearms. I would also claim that the second amendment does not state that there is an individual basic right to keep and bear arms for personal use.

[X_Digger]

76. Lol, doubling down, eh?

If you cover your eyes and chant, "There's no right to keep and bear arms" while clicking your heels together, that might work, too.

If there's no individual right, then why did various states put statements like these in their respective state constitutions?

PA, 1790 - "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."

VY 1770 - "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State.."

KY 1792 - "That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State, shall not be questioned."

OH 1802 - "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State.."

[PowerToThePeople]

88. "arms" as existed in 1802

I will concede your right to keep and bear arms as defined in 1802.

[X_Digger]

89. And the first's press clause only covers quills and screw platen presses, right?

Derp.

[PowerToThePeople]

91. Let us take your thinking to it's logical conclusion.

We have more than 8,000 nuclear warheads in the USA

The cost of maintaining these weapons is 640 billion over the next 10 years.

I propose that we auction off the warheads to private citizens to own and maintain. The owners would need to be licensed from the state and trained in the proper care, storage, and use of the warheads. We could set up nuclear ranges where individuals could safely detonate the warheads so as to not harm anyone.

What do you think?

Ref- http://ploughshares.org/what-nuclear-weapons-cost-us

[IMG][/IMG]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023367471

[friendly_iconoclast]

92. Reductio ad absurdum

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

Reductio ad absurdum (Latin: "reduction to absurdity&quot , also known as argumentum ad absurdum (Latin: argument to absurdity), is a common form of argument which seeks to demonstrate that a statement is true by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its denial,[1] or in turn to demonstrate that a statement is false by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its acceptance. First appearing in classical Greek philosophy (the Latin term derives from the Greek "??? ά????? ??????ή" or eis atopon apagoge, "reduction to the impossible", for example in Aristotle's Prior Analytics),[1] this technique has been used throughout history in both formal mathematical and philosophical reasoning, as well as informal debate.

The "absurd" conclusion of a reductio ad absurdum argument can take a range of forms:

Rocks have weight, otherwise we would see them floating in the air.
Society must have laws, otherwise there would be chaos.
There is no smallest positive rational number, because if there were, it could be divided by two to get a smaller one.

Even if one could have ones' own 'bucket of sunshine', it would still be heavily regulated as
as a "destructive device" by the ATF, like dynamite or the howitzer shells ski resorts use
for avalanche prevention. AFAIK, even the dreaded NRA has no problem with such regulation.

This is right up there with asserting that the NSA needs to be able to look at everyones' hard
drives because terrorists have been known to use computers. Y'all need to try harder
if you expect to get anywhere.

[PowerToThePeople]

94. Or (slightly off topic)

This is right up there with asserting that the NSA needs to be able to look at everyones' hard
drives because terrorists have been known to use computers. Y'all need to try harder
if you expect to get anywhere.

The NSA needs to be able to record everyones' phone calls and text messages because terrorists have been known to use phones.

[X_Digger]

93. I'm looking for a logical conclusion.. I'm not seeing one. Try again. n/t

[Press Virginia]

101. Shouldn't you acknowledge it with a letter written with a quill pen?

if we're going to limit rights to the technology of the time and all

[PowerToThePeople]

102. Way to kick a zombee thread.

Two and a half years ago.

[Press Virginia]

103. It was already kicked.

[PowerToThePeople]

104. By who?

"Name removed"?

[Press Virginia]

105. I don't know. I thought it was current

had I only looked at the date.

[LonePirate]

33. It would start the long term cultural shift away from the gun fetishism consuming this country

That, in turn, will reduce future shootings. This is a long term solution, not a short term one.

[Lizzie Poppet]

37. I think such a step would actually greatly delay that potential long-term shift, actually.

Such changes are better achieved from the bottom up, rather than from the top down. Even a repeal of the 2nd Am prior to such a cultural shift would quite likely result in a division so great as to pave the way for the dissolution of the Union.

[PowerToThePeople]

41. "Dissolution of the Union" - fantasy of a gun nut.

But then, as the railroads and industrialists and combines began to steal the American dream away from the farmers and ranchers, the cowboys and settlers, the gun became our consolation prize, our sublimated revenge, a symbolic instrument of power to distract us from the real power – the economic power – that had been taken from us.

(snip)

Much of the rest of the country is still living out the pioneer fantasy forged in the 1800s – and that fantasy is still fulfilling the same economic purpose: to distract them from the true imbalances in power that rob them of agency and economic power. They may not have money or a good job. But with a well-stocked gun cabinet they can feel that personal power is, in the words of the Rolling Stones song, “just a shot away.”

http://www.salon.com/2013/12/14/our_sick_gun_fetish_is_destroying_us_tea_party_fantasies_kill_kids/

[Lizzie Poppet]

43. You don't think a full repeal of the 2nd Am would result in enormous unrest?

Seriously?

I can conceive of no scenario in the short or medium term in which a huge segment of the population would not refuse to accept such a step (which, of course, almost certainly means it's a political impossibility within that time frame...but we're already dealing in hypotheticals).

[LonePirate]

47. Wait 20 years at which time the gun party (Repubs) will be an ineffective minority

Repeal of the Second Amendment, like so many other things which are good for the country, will be achievable once the Repubs are relegated to the dustbin of history.

[Lizzie Poppet]

52. I think you're vastly underestimating the number of pro-gun Democrats.

Moreover, while the Republican party is (thankfully) waning, conservatism in general isn't, at least not rapidly. Its current noxious form might be done for in that 20 year time frame, but it will take far longer for conservatism in general to disappear in North America (if it ever does). My hope is that our political spectrum will shift, much as Europe's has ("conservative" by Euro standards - hardcore neo-fascist fringe dwellers excepted - is moderate-to-left on the US spectrum). That shift might well lead to a political atmosphere in which elimination of the RKBA is possible...but I also think that by the time that happens, the current US will have broken into smaller polities. Some of those polities will most certainly retain some version of the 2nd Am.

[LonePirate]

69. I think you are vastly underestimating the number of young Americans who abhor guns.

Those numbers are only going to increase in the coming years. Gun ownership and the number of ardent supporters have reached their zenith.

This country will look more different in 2034 compared to now than how 2000 looked compared to 1980. We're inching closer to massive changes and improvements in this country once Gen X and the Millennials finally wrest control from the Baby Boomers.

[Lizzie Poppet]

70. Possibly.

But did anyone (other than some sociologists) expect the not-inconsiderable "conservatization" of GenX? As youths, that generation was at least as liberal as Millennials are today. Yet today, that age bracket is very well represented among conservative voters and poll respondents. The same phenomenon occurred with the Boomers, as well. There is a shift towards liberalism overall...but I think it's a lot more gradual process. By the time it progresses to the point of making a repeal of the 2nd Am possible, I very much doubt the US as currently constituted will exist.

[PowerToThePeople]

48. Yes. The number of true gun nuts that would take arms against the Government is very small

I think any "unrest" would be put down quickly, at least in major population centers. You would have some nuts hole themselves up into compounds in rural Texas, Idaho, or such, but they would be cut off from the outside world. They would not be able to cause any issues.

[Lizzie Poppet]

49. I'm not talking about violent unrest, actually.

Sorry for not making that clear. I mean social and political unrest, manifested in voting behavior, in calls for (peaceful) secession, etc.

Of course, if we're talking a long-term scenario (like 50 years at the minimum), which is the only sort in which a repeal of the 2nd Am is even a remote political possibility, then obviously there would be a good number of states in which this would not occur. They would have already changed, in socio-political terms, in a way that allowed them to get on board with the repeal. Frankly, I don't expect the current nation to survive that long without breaking apart (for reasons other than civilian gun ownership), anyway. We'll go the way of the Soviet Union before that.

As far as violent resistance to gun confiscation goes, that's a nightmare scenario for everyone. Fortunately, it's also about as likely a scenario as Chris Christie winning the next New York Marathon (I know, I know...fat joke. My bad).

[villager]

59. And the fetishism consuming many of the blood-soaked apologists for that culture...

...who regularly post here, devoid of all empapthy for anything except that "cold hard steel" they so worship...

[friendly_iconoclast]

95. Fight on, culture warrior, fight on!

I note that you lot have yet to produce a Wayne Wheeler:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayne_Wheeler

However, you have produced scads of semi-Billy Sundays!

http://www.biblebelievers.com/billy_sunday_booze.html

"Have you no interest in manhood?"

"We have no interest in that; just take your disciples and leave, for you are hurting our business."That is the attitude of the liquor traffic toward the Church, and State, and Government, and the preacher that has the backbone to fight the most damnable, corrupt institution that ever wriggled out of hell and fastened itself on the public.

I am a temperance Republican down to my toes. Who is the man that fights the whisky business in the South? It is the Democrats! They have driven the business from Kansas, they have driven it from Georgia, and Maine and Mississippi and North Carolina and North Dakota and Oklahoma and Tennessee and West Virginia. And they have driven it out of 1,756 counties. And it is the rock-ribbed Democratic South that is fighting the saloon. They started this fight that is sweeping like fire over the "United States. You might as well try and dam Niagara Falls with toothpicks as to stop the reform wave sweeping our land. The Democratic party of Florida has put a temperance plank in its platform and the Republican party of every state would nail that plank in their platform if they thought it would carry the election. It is simply a matter of decency and manhood, irrespective of politics. It is prosperity against poverty, sobriety against drunkenness, honesty against thieving, heaven against hell. Don't you want to see men sober? Brutal, staggering men transformed into respectable citizens? "No," said a saloonkeeper, "to hell with men. We are interested in our business, we have no interest in humanity."

After all is said that can be said upon the liquor traffic, its influence is degrading upon the individual, the family, politics and business, and upon everything that you touch in this old world. For the time has long gone by when there is any ground for arguments as to its ill effects. All are agreed on that point. There is just one prime reason why the saloon has not been knocked into hell, and that is the false statement that "the saloons are needed to help lighten the taxes." The saloon business has never paid, and it has cost fifty times more than the revenue derived from it.

[villager]

96. Ah, it's "Mr. Friendly" again!

Hope you're enjoying your oppositional user name to its fullest!

[friendly_iconoclast]

97. Got any comments about what I posted?

I would add the classic: "I've been called worse by better"

[villager]

98. Comments? On your snark?

why bother?

[friendly_iconoclast]

99. Because the "culture war" schtick doesn't seem to be winning converts?

[Botany]

5. Well it is Wednesday

Yesterday it was Purdue and before that it was some college in Philadelphia so
what is your point? We gotta defend our second amendment "freedoms."

[Iggo]

6. mORE gUNS!!!

[geek tragedy]

7. this only happened because no one in Oklahoma owns guns. nt

[NaturalHigh]

86. Except it didn't actually happen.

False alarm.

http://www.newson6.com/story/24519455/ou-students-sheltered-in-place-after-reported-shooting-on-campus

[geek tragedy]

87. so it didn't happen, thanks to all the guns there nt

[Ilsa]

8. I wonder if students are allowed to carry on campus.

I wonder if this was a stranger or a student "lawfully" packing.

[MineralMan]

12. Nope. Firearms are prohibited on campus.

Only law enforcement personnel are allowed to carry them.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

10. Yay!

GUNZ RAWK!



Shots fired at OU, students taking cover...

https://twitter.com/search?q=%22University%20of%20Oklahoma%22&src=tren

Hello Kitty!

[Lint Head]

11. Maybe the government should just issue guns to everybody in the country. Even children and babies.

Then have each person point their gun at another person until all people are covered. After all the triggers are pulled the ones that survive would have the right to populate the country. This would have to be done every twenty years to make sure the best shooters live and all the weak humans are purged.

Wayne La Piss Ant would probably love this idea.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

14. Yes! Children and babies too! They may at some point need to stand their ground! Or maybe one

will get mad at his kindergarten class and need to blast it to smithereens!

Edited to ask: What is a "smithereen" anyway?

[jeff47]

24. small broken pieces : tiny bits

Believed to derive from the Irish word smidiríní which means....small broken pieces or tiny bits.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/smithereens

[ChisolmTrailDem]

29. Thank you, jeff47! Learn something new every day =) nt

[Boomerproud]

13. Wasn't 20 babies being shot 11 times each at close range enough to end this insanity?

Nope...guess not.

[Chiyo-chichi]

15. OU President (former Senator) Boren says no shots were fired.

they believe there were no shots, just equipment backfiring.

http://kfor.com/2014/01/22/police-shots-fired-on-the-ou-campus-students-told-to-take-shelter/

[jwirr]

17. And there are ones we do not hear about - the threats. There was a threat in my greart granddaugters

school which has all grade levels. They evacuated and sent the kids home for the day. No one mentioned it not even local news. I guess that is a good thing as many of these are attention getting events and when there is no attention we win.

[cascadiance]

30. Maybe they need to rerelease this Meryl Streep film "Dark Matter"...

... from years back which was based on the Gang Lu massacre at the University of Iowa that happened in the lecture hall that I'd spent many years attending classes at when I was a student there myself.

Article on Gang Lu:

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/11/04/us/iowa-gunman-was-torn-by-academic-challenge.html



Preview:

Watch online here...

http://putlocker.bz/watch-dark-matter-online-free-putlocker.html

How many more kids need to die before we do something about this?

[sked14]

18. Apparently not.

http://kfor.com/2014/01/22/police-shots-fired-on-the-ou-campus-students-told-to-take-shelter/

[Lint Head]

20. I hope so.

Still the fear is there. If even a backfiring vehicle can scare people something is wrong in our society.

[sked14]

21. A backfiring vehicle can sound very much like gunshots,

I remember as a child my dad's truck backfiring several times, scared the hell out of us kids, we thought someone was firing a gun.

[Bonx]

36. We obviously need to ban backfiring vehicles

and other loud noises.

[Shandris]

39. Yes. I can't imagine who or what could be causing people to be so terrified.

It's like that string of outrageous shark attacks. They're just getting worse and worse. I mean...remember how many of them we heard about for years?

It's probably a good thing there isn't an organ that can convey messages nationwide, almost indiscriminately, as it sees fit with very little in the way of editorial control. Imagine the fear that could generate!

[Vashta Nerada]

32. The only conclusion is we need more guns.

We need everyone walking around with at least a handgun. If everyone walked around with an automatic also, that would totally reduce gun deaths by 98437839479083473957 a year.

[Feral Child]

38. Invest in Kevlar.

Body armor will be a fashion accent soon.

[WilliamPitt]

34. FALSE ALARM

Multiple reports of construction equipment backfire being the cause for concern.

Thank God.

...though it is telling that a tractor fart can panic an entire campus. Can't imagine why.

[LittleBlue]

42. It's a big country with a lot of people

Since no one is seriously talking about banning guns, what's the purpose of posting every gun-related incident before knowing any of the details?

As long as the 2nd Amendment exists, we will have guns. That is just a fact of life and it won't change in any of our lifetimes. So posting every shooting with "thanks NRA" (even as it now appears that there was no shooting) is pretty pointless without the details, like whether the gun was purchased legally or whether additonal laws would prevent it.

[RoverSuswade]

44. There was a fatal shooting at Purdue University yesterday

but our local paper gave bigger headlines to a 10-person protest at a proposed wind farm site.

[Earth_First]

45. No evidence of shots fired on University of Oklahoma campus

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-university-of-oklahoma-reports-shots-fired-20140122,0,4743911.story

You should consider editing your OP...

[azmesa207]

53. Shooting At Ok

I check this and they say there no evidence of a shooting at O U

[sked14]

54. It was a piece of construction equipment backfiring,

which can sound just like gun fire.

[erpowers]

55. Crazy

This is getting crazy. How many school shooting have there been in the last few days? I am shocked that this is happening every day.

[sked14]

57. This wasn't a school shooting,

it was a piece of construction equipment backfiring.

[Bonx]

62. Exactly what they want you to think. -nt

[sked14]

66. It's a conspiracy I tell ya,

a conspiracy.

[erpowers]

73. Okay

Thanks for the information.

[valerief]

58. If only there more even MORE guns for our children. Gungeoneer logic. nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

72. I had the same thought. And since it is the new normal,

soon it will not even register as breaking news

[Bonx]

77. Especially when it didn't even happen. Like this time. -nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

78. You mean the news media did not break into

reports of shooting per campus police at a building in the school of architecture? You mean the university did not send a text and tell students to seek shelter and shelter in place?

Ok. You are right, we all imagined that.

[sked14]

79. Are you saying that a shooting did happen at the OU campus?

[nadinbrzezinski]

80. I am saying that the campus police

had a report of shots fired at the campus, and a text was sent to students and that the people at MSNBC this morning went into breaking news. They even used the words "UNCONFIRMED REPORTS OF" and ACCORDING TO CAMPUS POLICE THEY ARE RESPONDING TO REPORTS OF SHOTS FIRED.

Sorry, I left soon after to go do some things with my mom. But this actually was breaking news in the morning. I, or a bunch of other people, did not imagine MSNBC going to breaking news and reporting from the chopper of the local affiliate.

And while a false alarm, here are some damn fracking links

http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/22/justice/university-oklahoma-shooting/

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2014/01/22/22400817-no-evidence-of-shots-fired-after-university-of-oklahoma-reports-shooting?lite

http://abcnews.go.com/US/shooting-university-oklahoma/story?id=21623743

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/shooting-university-oklahoma-article-1.1587698

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/01/22/oklahoma-university-school-shooting/4776507/

I think this is sufficient. It seems none of us imagined this actually being reported as a shooting. It is a good thing it was a false alarm, but damn, it did happen.

[sked14]

81. My bad, now I got it.

Thanks. (waves hand)

[nadinbrzezinski]

82. No problem,

I see this as good, that it was a false alarm

[sked14]

83. Until the next time,

which will happen again, it's just a matter of time.

[nadinbrzezinski]

84. It used to be the shooting of the decade

now it is the shooting of the week. That IS a problem. That is what is becoming a new normal

[NaturalHigh]

85. False alarm.

No shots fired at OU.

http://www.newson6.com/story/24519455/ou-students-sheltered-in-place-after-reported-shooting-on-campus

[LanternWaste]

90. There was a time when stories such as this came as an absolute surprise to me.

There was a time when stories such as this came as an absolute surprise to me.

These days, I'm more surprised when it turns out to be a false alarm... or gob-smacked if a week goes by when there are no school shootings.

Regardless, that political action committee called the NRA has certainly branded their product and their industry well-- that their members and allied individuals are doing their best to remove the discussion from the town square (or from General Discussion in our case), this reticence to see the obvious (as it is inside the country with highest rate of gun-ownership (absolute and per-capita) and gun-violence (absolute) in the world) is to me, rather stunning.

[lmbradford]

106. Look, what you don't understand about OK

I have never in my life not owned at least one firearm. Everybody I know has at least one firearm and that starts as teenagers here. The only people who even have a problem with that are people who move here from other places. By the time I was 12 or 13, I was shooting snakes so we could go out back and play. When coyotes get too close to the house at night and we have pets, like most do, we would shoot out in the air and scare them off. My whole family goes out together and goes turkey, dove, pheasant, and deer hunting and that is how we fill our freezers and our bellies. In OK, we are about down to half city and half country. The country half depend on their guns to survive. There are not a bunch of manufacturing plants, or places like that so that people can go get jobs. Most of us work in schools, mom and pop shops, or drive to the nearest town to Wal-Mart or Lowes, etc. We are in a different kind of world than you are and we like it. I can tell you that growing up we had shot gun racks in our trucks and when we pulled in to school in the morning, nobody thought anything about it. They knew nobody was going to get hurt. It just wasn't done that way. Now, I have lived in big cities like Atlanta and Dallas and most people were a bit shocked when they saw our gun cabinet, but when we moved back here to OK, it was normal again.

I would appreciate it if people would try to understand the differences. In a big concrete jungle, the only reason for a firearm is to harm people. In OK, it is a matter of protection again some animals and food. Surely, that is not too hard to understand. Don't try to take our firearms away because criminals and violent people use them in an evil way. Btw, most people I know have no problem registering our guns, filling out paperwork, getting a license, etc. We understand that guns are dangerous and we don't want to let just anybody have them.