Oikos university shooting

[Fappy]

Why are these people so bad at killing people? They only ever get a few kills despite being in a building with hundreds of people.

With only ~30 rounds to work with, he's actually pretty terrifying lethal. Life isn't like a game of CoD, folks. Getting hit by a bullet, even in the CoM is not necessarily a death sentence.

I just hope no one raises the bar.

he shouldve used extended mags and steady aim

does making that joke make me a horrible person?

in all seriousness situations like this are horrible, and were lucky he wasnt better at killing people, best wishes to the victims and there families and lets hope this never happens again and ensure that if it does then we are prepared for it and respond in the appropriate way to save people

Yeah 'cos the dozen or so other times this has happened never actually happened. I can think of two off the top of my head and I am pretty sure there is a third famous one, there is Columbine and Virginia tech.

I'm sorry but until America gets over it's love for guns and stop treating a killing tool as a safety blanket the safer the country will be for them.

I know I am going to get quoted into the floor but I still cannot think of a situation where allowing civvies to carry guns is a good idea!

Sucks for the families and I wish it never happened to them though.

Take this info about Kennesaw, GA for what you will:

Spoiler

"Gun law
In 1982 the city passed an ordinance [Sec 34-21][14]
(a) In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore.

(b)
Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability which would prohibit them from using such a firearm. Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony.
Gun rights activist David Kopel has claimed that there is evidence that this gun law has reduced the incident rate of home burglaries citing that in the first year, home burglaries dropped from 65 before the ordinance, down to 26 in 1983, and to 11 in 1984.[15] Another report observed a noticeable reduction in burglary from 1981, the year before the ordinance was passed, to 1999.[16]
Statistical analysis of [the] data over a longer period of time did not show any evidence that [the law] reduced the rate of home burglaries [in Kennesaw.][17][18]
However, the city's website[19] claims the city has the lowest crime rate in the county.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia.

I live in the same county and its hard to say if that last bit really makes much of a difference. Cobb County has one of the lowest crime rates in the state. I am actually not a strong proponent of either side of the argument, but I always found Kennesaw to be an interesting factor in the debate.

 

[Darknacht]

Oh yeah, I forgot about that thought process of "break the law you are nothing but scum in a pond". Most human life is worth more than whatever you own in your home, especially if you can get all that stuff back for nothing.

Correct. *Most* human life. As in Folks who are able to go about their day without making victims of their fellow man. Of course what you fail to consider is that 'whatever you own' in your home also includes the lives and safety of yourself and your loved ones. Now life insurance exists, sure, but I somehow doubt it will quite cover the loss of your spouse or child.

When I say most, I mean the real scum ... not the guy who stole your $10 wallet with $20 inside, your phone and your ipod. I mean the guy who shot up the island in Norway (I think), the people who sell sex slaves or Fritzl.

When a person breaks into your house what do you think they are interested in? Your life or what you have? The only reason I can think of that a robber would take a life is if you confront him/her.

Which is why they say if you are mugged in the street don't hand your wallet over, throw it left and run right or vice versa.

Killing for possessions makes you just as bad as them.

So you should not be allowed to defend your self?
What about women, if they are attacked by a rapist should they just rollover and take it because it not worth killing someone to stop it?
Please tell me what you think you should be allowed to kill to defend your self from, or do you believe that you should just let people do anything they want to you?

 

[EightGaugeHippo]

I guess the Asian guy wanted to Cho... the pupils who was boss.

OT This is a terrible incident.

EDIT Why are these people so bad at killing people? They only ever get a few kills despite being in a building with hundreds of people.

Yeah, despite saying "this is a terrible incident" your other two statements are still in very poor taste. Just thought you should know.
Good-day sir

OT
I Don't really have anything to add to the discussion of the actual news story that hasnt been said
and I'm staying out of the gun-law debate..

 

[omega 616]

im not pro-gun, but heres a situation: a marine in a warzone. oh noes!! we dont have guns! try to make peace with tedddy bears and virgins!

I said civvies, if you are in the armed forces you have a whole different set of problems.

I don't give a shit WHAT they're interested in. If -in your estimation- nothing in my home is worth killing for, then certainly nothing in my home is worth dying for. So, that being the case, I'd expect -knowing that 1 in 6 Americans own a weapon- anyone who would risk their life for my possessions does not give two flying shits what happens to me or my family in the process of the commission of their crime.

If that seems harsh to you; I have a solution: Stay the hell out of houses that don't belong to you.

Elegant in its simplicity, isn't it?

They are trying to get money, they have nothing to gain from killing you. The only reason a person would be killed by them is if they try to stop them.

Be compliant and they wont do anything. It's when you start walking round like some spec ops guy, glock in hand, when shit escalates and bullets start flying.

I am not saying he should be robbing you but it seems most Americans have the same callas point of view as you do, I think it comes from your government.

This aggressive, cold stance on attacking things that pose even the smallest threat, instead of just backing down and thinking "this just isn't worth it". I mean look at the war still going (in the apparently apple sponsored) Iraq, which of the 5 or so reason did we invade? Oil? WMD's? Osama? or what? Also why are we still there?

"They caused 9/11" so you constantly massacre them, it isn't a war, it's a little short of a genocide but this is a different topic.

I just think, the person robbing you just wants quick cash, so just give it to him and get it back latter. The American way is "oh shit you scared me" *bang!* "that'll teach you to threaten me!"

Hyperbole FTW!

Oh yeah, I forgot about that thought process of "break the law you are nothing but scum in a pond". Most human life is worth more than whatever you own in your home, especially if you can get all that stuff back for nothing.

Correct. *Most* human life. As in Folks who are able to go about their day without making victims of their fellow man. Of course what you fail to consider is that 'whatever you own' in your home also includes the lives and safety of yourself and your loved ones. Now life insurance exists, sure, but I somehow doubt it will quite cover the loss of your spouse or child.

When I say most, I mean the real scum ... not the guy who stole your $10 wallet with $20 inside, your phone and your ipod. I mean the guy who shot up the island in Norway (I think), the people who sell sex slaves or Fritzl.

When a person breaks into your house what do you think they are interested in? Your life or what you have? The only reason I can think of that a robber would take a life is if you confront him/her.

Which is why they say if you are mugged in the street don't hand your wallet over, throw it left and run right or vice versa.

Killing for possessions makes you just as bad as them.

So you should not be allowed to defend your self?
What about women, if they are attacked by a rapist should they just rollover and take it because it not worth killing someone to stop it?
Please tell me what you think you should be allowed to kill to defend your self from, or do you believe that you should just let people do anything they want to you?

If you can successfully hold a man off with one arm, grab your gun, cock it, aim it, then fire ... I think you are a better person than me. Rape is either super fast and aggressive (maybe violent) or you get drugged, does either one sound like an easy situation to shoot a person?

I mean I assume it's super fast and aggressive with possible violence 'cos I doubt too many rapists do it gently and slowly without drugs.

 

[senordesol]

no i do not know what he is there for, but i do know that the chance of a random stranger breaking into my house and killing me is so slim that it is simply not worth the risk that having a gun brings with it. i am far more likely to end the life of someone who was no risk to my life, accidentally shoot a friend or family member or escalate the situation and get myself killed. thats before taking into account all the other risks having a firearm brings.

a firearm does not make you safe, in fact it is quite the opposite. study after study has shown that having a firearm in your home decreases safety. increase risk of suicide, accidental shootings and more likely to be a victim of homicide to just name a few.

Bull. Shit.

A firearm does not make you safe, that much is true. A firearm doesn't *make* you anything. It is a weapon, yes, but it is an inanimate object. It has no magical influence, no evil desires; it is machined metal and plastic (or wood). Learn its proper use and operation and you won't shoot anyone you don't mean to.

Now if you want to take the risk that the man willing to break the law and into your home means you no harm; that is your risk to take and I respect your choice. Good luck with that. If someone is not willing to take that risk, I respect that choice as well.

Ultimately, if someone is willing to victimize their fellow citizens, I have no sympathy or sorrow to spare should they die in the attempt for society and indeed humanity will be better for their passing.

 

[lacktheknack]

Wat? No anti-religious snark? How?

D8

OT: Gah. I'm not even going to say anything about the guns, I'll just agree that this is a big tragedy.

 

[senordesol]

They are trying to get money, they have nothing to gain from killing you. The only reason a person would be killed by them is if they try to stop them.

I have no guarantee that my money is all they're after. And if they die in the attempt they certainly won't be doing whatever they're doing to anyone else. The fact is: we'd both be fine if we both stayed home.

Now the people I used in my examples were down with that plan (staying home). So what's the problem? What makes my assailant's safety so much more important than mine?

 

[martyrdrebel27]

people, as americans our guns are (optimistically for a single purpose only) for the rise up and revolution against our government should the need arise. when the founding fathers were writing their new government, they realized that any institution is succeptable to tyranny and therefor must be overthrown. jefferson himself said this same thing. they realized that without the freedom to bear arms, they would have never been able to overthrow their oppressors, and realized in the future we may need that again.

so guns are out there, for better or worse. part of being in a free society is willingness to give up a little bit of safety. yes, we could be "safer" if guns were illegal, but we wouldn't be free. so our freedom costs us absolute safety. but even that safety is an illusion. hand held automatics (uzi's and whatnot) are illegal to own, but criminals still obtain and use them.

yes, occasionally things like this happen, but fucking deal with it, because the alternative is too orwellian for any of to support.

viva la revolution.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

stun gun, pepper spray, rape whistle, yelling. all methods that are non lethal and carry far less risk than a gun, not only that they also work just as well or better.

americas mind set on this issue is what one can only describe as fucked up. most of the developed world realised guns in the hands of civilians only makes things worse a long long time ago. just like with health care, when it comes to guns america is the retard of the developed world, they are just really slow to get it.

Right. Because if you use one of THOSE methods, it's sure to stop them. But a bullet in their chest? That'll just make 'em angry and escalate the situation!

No offense, but I'll stick with my guns, kay? (Also, that "Kay" was rhetorical)

As I said before, there's no sign that gun control is going to change any time soon, skippy. It's been four years since Heller. Your side lost. Move on.

Also, let me let you in on a little secret: One of the most fun part of using/owning guns is how much it pisses some people off. Not saying that you are one such person, but I will say there are a few on this forum who gave me glee when I shot my carbine for the first time.

 

[Darknacht]

Oh yeah, I forgot about that thought process of "break the law you are nothing but scum in a pond". Most human life is worth more than whatever you own in your home, especially if you can get all that stuff back for nothing.

Correct. *Most* human life. As in Folks who are able to go about their day without making victims of their fellow man. Of course what you fail to consider is that 'whatever you own' in your home also includes the lives and safety of yourself and your loved ones. Now life insurance exists, sure, but I somehow doubt it will quite cover the loss of your spouse or child.

When I say most, I mean the real scum ... not the guy who stole your $10 wallet with $20 inside, your phone and your ipod. I mean the guy who shot up the island in Norway (I think), the people who sell sex slaves or Fritzl.

When a person breaks into your house what do you think they are interested in? Your life or what you have? The only reason I can think of that a robber would take a life is if you confront him/her.

Which is why they say if you are mugged in the street don't hand your wallet over, throw it left and run right or vice versa.

Killing for possessions makes you just as bad as them.

So you should not be allowed to defend your self?
What about women, if they are attacked by a rapist should they just rollover and take it because it not worth killing someone to stop it?
Please tell me what you think you should be allowed to kill to defend your self from, or do you believe that you should just let people do anything they want to you?

stun gun, pepper spray, rape whistle, yelling. all methods that are non lethal and carry far less risk than a gun, not only that they also work just as well or better.

americas mind set on this issue is what one can only describe as fucked up. most of the developed world realised guns in the hands of civilians only makes things worse a long long time ago. just like with health care, when it comes to guns america is the retard of the developed world, they are just really slow to get it.

I know there are are other means of defending yourself and I don't own or carry a gun because I know that I can defend myself and my family in most situations with other mean, but The point was that omega 616 said that no matter the worth you should never defend you property with lethal force and I would like to know what he thinks you are allowed to defend with lethal force.

If you can successfully hold a man off with one arm, grab your gun, cock it, aim it, then fire ... I think you are a better person than me. Rape is either super fast and aggressive (maybe violent) or you get drugged, does either one sound like an easy situation to shoot a person?

I mean I assume it's super fast and aggressive with possible violence 'cos I doubt too many rapists do it gently and slowly without drugs.

Cock it what century do you live in? And that still does not answer what do you think you should be allowed to defend with lethal force?
And lots of rapist get fought off with guns, pepper spray, or tasers they all take some time to use but less time then rape.

 

[Vryyk]

They are trying to get money, they have nothing to gain from killing you. The only reason a person would be killed by them is if they try to stop them.

Be compliant and they wont do anything. It's when you start walking round like some spec ops guy, glock in hand, when shit escalates and bullets start flying.

You're making a lot of assumptions and generalizations here, I would say someone desperate enough to put a gun in my face for a few hundred might not be of the soundest mind.

Yeah, a lot of them won't execute you afterwards, but I'm the law-abiding citizen here, it shouldn't be up to the criminal to decide whether I get to live or die. Occasionally paranoid meth addicts simply shoot the guy after they get what they want around where I live, and plenty of burglaries go wrong as well. Simply put, I don't see it as my responsibility to give criminals the benefit of the doubt.

That being said, I don't believe in telling other countries what to do. You Europeans can do as you like and pass whatever laws you like concerning guns, it isn't my business. I'd appreciate the same courtesy.

 

[omega 616]

They are trying to get money, they have nothing to gain from killing you. The only reason a person would be killed by them is if they try to stop them.

I have no guarantee that my money is all they're after. And if they die in the attempt they certainly won't be doing whatever they're doing to anyone else. The fact is: we'd both be fine if we both stayed home.

Now the people I used in my examples were down with that plan (staying home). So what's the problem? What makes my assailant's safety so much more important than mine?

What makes you think you are so great and awesome that the person wants to hurt you? If you are sat at home watching the TV alone, somebody kicks down your door, charges in with a gun pointed at you.

Are you going to get your gun and fire back? Get up and try to fight the guy? Or sit there and be like "yo dude, do what you gotta do then leave".

Fuck it, say you are the robber, you need to money for whatever, do you want to add murder to that list?

If they come at you and start punching and kick you, yeah defend yourself but fighting fire with fire only leads to a bigger fire.

You and the rest of the pro gun peeps are the reason I wont ever go to the USA, the most aggressive place I know of. I mean your last line there "What makes my assailant's safety so much more important than mine?" Judge, jury and executioner over here.

No wonder you have people saying video games cause violence, y'all sound like a bunch of blood thirsty psychos. You just automatically assume they want to hurt or kill you.

 

[Darknacht]

No wonder you have people saying video games cause violence, y'all sound like a bunch of blood thirsty psychos. You just automatically assume they want to hurt or kill you.

Its not that we assume that they want to kill us its that we know that people are illogical and unpredictable you don't know what they are going to do. You think you know what people are going to do all of the time, we don't make that assumption.

 

[Vryyk]

And that still does not answer what do you think you should be allowed to defend with lethal force?

If he gives you an honest answer he'll say "nothing", the civilian populace is so entirely defanged and powerless over there I don't think most Europeans even understand the concept of self-defense anymore. They basically just have to hope the criminals are feeling generous and the police are being competent, the right to protect your life is squarely out of your hands in most European countries.

 

[omega 616]

Why do you need to use lethal force? It's so action movie! "shoot first, ask questions later".

Fine turn the safety off, never touched a gun ... how the fuck would I know?

I would say if you super seriously had to kill another person, it would be if he was SERIOUSLY hurting a person. I mean hitting him with a baseball bat or doing some serious, serious damage somehow.

They are trying to get money, they have nothing to gain from killing you. The only reason a person would be killed by them is if they try to stop them.

Be compliant and they wont do anything. It's when you start walking round like some spec ops guy, glock in hand, when shit escalates and bullets start flying.

You're making a lot of assumptions and generalizations here, I would say someone desperate enough to put a gun in my face for a few hundred might not be of the soundest mind.

Yeah, a lot of them won't execute you afterwards, but I'm the law-abiding citizen here, it shouldn't be up to the criminal to decide whether I get to live or die. Occasionally paranoid meth addicts simply shoot the guy after they get what they want around where I live, and plenty of burglaries go wrong as well. Simply put, I don't see it as my responsibility to give criminals the benefit of the doubt.

That being said, I don't believe in telling other countries what to do. You Europeans can do as you like and pass whatever laws you like concerning guns, it isn't my business. I'd appreciate the same courtesy.

Yeah 'cos the assumptions and generalizations like "I have no guarantee that my money is all they're after" are ok. Just read some of the pro gun things and all of them say the exact same thing, kill him before he hurts me.

There are others like "he's in my house, he must be killed" or "he is breaking the law, he must be killed" attitude, like 0 to extreme in no time at all.

You assume they will kill 'cos it has happened before? And you say "I am making a lot of assumptions and generalizations here".

Just look at the hypocrisy of your first line, you talk about "making a lot of assumptions and generalizations" and then immediately make one!

Its not that we assume that they want to kill us its that we know that people are illogical and unpredictable you don't know what they are going to do. You think you know what people are going to do all of the time, we don't make that assumption.

So it's just "fuck 'em all, let god sort them out"?

No trying to diffuse the situation or whatever, just "must kill law breaker"?

Who the fuck needs police!?

 

[Darknacht]

Its not that we assume that they want to kill us its that we know that people are illogical and unpredictable you don't know what they are going to do. You think you know what people are going to do all of the time, we don't make that assumption.

So it's just "fuck 'em all, let god sort them out"?

No trying to diffuse the situation or whatever, just "must kill law breaker"?

Who the fuck needs police!?

No, what ever god you believe in has nothing to do with it, and I did not say killing should ever be the first resort it should be the last, I'm saying that I would not simply rollover and let rapists/murderers/thieves do what ever they want to me and my family. And if there is a police officer there to take care of it then I would of course then them deal with it, I'm just not going to hope that the cops just happen to show up.
I would still like to know what you think should be allowed to be defended with lethal force.

 

[senordesol]

What makes you think you are so great and awesome that the person wants to hurt you? If you are sat at home watching the TV alone, somebody kicks down your door, charges in with a gun pointed at you.

Are you going to get your gun and fire back? Get up and try to fight the guy? Or sit there and be like "yo dude, do what you gotta do then leave".

Fuck it, say you are the robber, you need to money for whatever, do you want to add murder to that list?

If they come at you and start punching and kick you, yeah defend yourself but fighting fire with fire only leads to a bigger fire.

You and the rest of the pro gun peeps are the reason I wont ever go to the USA, the most aggressive place I know of. I mean your last line there "What makes my assailant's safety so much more important than mine?" Judge, jury and executioner over here.

No wonder you have people saying video games cause violence, y'all sound like a bunch of blood thirsty psychos. You just automatically assume they want to hurt or kill you.

Blood thirsty you say. Interesting. Strange even, since I am not breaking into the homes of others to threaten them or their families. But I'm the blood thirsty one... somehow.

Okay. So if someone has a gun drawn and pointed at my face before I can even react; owning a gun or not owning one doesn't matter. So I don't know what you're trying to prove with that scenario as the only way to resolve it would be without my firearm.

As to a thief's motivations; well since he did not send me any sort of written notice beforehand of what his intentions are, whether or not he'd be willing to add murder to his wrap sheet (if he hasn't already) is beyond my power to guess. Seems like it'd be a foolish thing to do, yes, but then I wouldn't call kicking in someone's door all that intelligent either. All I know is he's willing to break multiple laws just by being here, why not more?

If giving him the benefit of the doubt can get you killed, why risk it? What sense does it make? I'm no judge, jury, or executioner. I am not dispensing 'justice'. I am a man just trying to defend my home from an assailant of unknown intent.

Now just to be 100% clear. If I do not feel my life is in danger, then there is no need to kill anyone -I'll agree with that. If he bolts or surrenders, then he's now the police's problem. But I'm not going to stake my life or the lives of my loved ones on the assumption that he's no threat to me. No sir.

No, I am not blood thirsty. I value life. I sincerely hope I never have to take one. But NO ONE gets to threaten me. NO ONE gets to threaten my wife. NO ONE gets to threaten my children. Because I value our lives a Hell of a lot more than anyone else's. If that's too 'aggressive' for your European sensibilities...Hell, maybe we should start sending our criminals over there.

 

[Belaam]

guns are not the problem people are the problem and the sooner anti-gun people realise this the better

People with guns are the problem.

It is absurd that we license and register drivers and cars but not shooters and guns.

I say this as a veteran with a marksmanship ribbon who hunts, if you're curious.

 

[Darknacht]

guns are not the problem people are the problem and the sooner anti-gun people realise this the better

People with guns are the problem.

It is absurd that we license and register drivers and cars but not shooters and guns.

I say this as a veteran with a marksmanship ribbon who hunts, if you're curious.

This is true, I don't think guns should be banned but they should defiantly be licensed and registered in all cases.

 

[Vryyk]

Yeah 'cos the assumptions and generalizations like "I have no guarantee that my money is all they're after" are ok. Just read some of the pro gun things and all of them say the exact same thing, kill him before he hurts me.

There are others like "he's in my house, he must be killed" or "he is breaking the law, he must be killed" attitude, like 0 to extreme in no time at all.

You assume they will kill 'cos it has happened before? And you say "I am making a lot of assumptions and generalizations here".

Just look at the hypocrisy of your first line, you talk about "making a lot of assumptions and generalizations" and then immediately make one!

The difference between which is ok to make assumptions on is pretty obvious.

If someone puts a gun in my face and demands my money, and I assume they are only going to rob me and leave, and that assumption is wrong, I die, or put another way, a criminal murders an innocent person.

If someone puts a gun in my face and demands my money, and I assume they might kill me during or after the robbery and I shoot them, they die, or put another way, an intended victim kills a criminal, potentially saving his own life and preserving his rightfully owned property.

I still don't see why a violent criminal should get to decide whether or not I get to continue living, your argument that criminals are sane, levelheaded individuals who will calmly take only your money, tip their hats and bid you good day approaches willful ignorance of criminal mentalities.

Also, I think it's worth pointing out that there are many types of criminals other than robbers and muggers. Rapists often murder their victims to avoid witnesses, gangbangers in big cities practically get off on beating the hell out of random people for "gang respect" and so on.