The Oregon shooting

[Thaluikhain]

Well if I had used the gun instead of rifle, you could say columbine is an example with a tec9. Lets be honest though, how many times has "assault gun" been said.

Er, no, an assault gun is a mobile artillery piece used in a direct fire role.

Most actually attribute the term to Adolf Hitler, who coined it for the StG 44, or the "Sturmgewehr 44" ('sturmgewehr' literally translates to 'assault rifle'). It was considered to be the first select-fire rifle.

A quibble, but it isn't. Now, the first one of any note, perhaps, but there were various designs used in limited numbers for many years before that. They just didn't take off.

Honestly, I'd be more worried about a criminal with a gun if an untrained bystander decided to engage them in a shootout than I would waiting for police.

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/09/texas-good-guy-with-a-gun-shoots-carjacking-victim-in-head-then-runs-away/

An example of this from just last week. Of particular note, he picked up his spent casings and fled the scene.

 

[The Almighty Aardvark]

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/09/texas-good-guy-with-a-gun-shoots-carjacking-victim-in-head-then-runs-away/

An example of this from just last week. Of particular note, he picked up his spent casings and fled the scene.

If only there was another bystander with a gun around to shoot him before he could hit the wrong person.

Captcha: good job

I didn't know Captcha had taken up sarcasm

 

[Thaluikhain]

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/09/texas-good-guy-with-a-gun-shoots-carjacking-victim-in-head-then-runs-away/

An example of this from just last week. Of particular note, he picked up his spent casings and fled the scene.

If only there was another bystander with a gun around to shoot him before he could hit the wrong person.

Captcha: good job

I didn't know Captcha had taken up sarcasm

If the carjackers returned fire and killed him, could they claim to have stopped a murderer?

 

[The Almighty Aardvark]

If the carjackers returned fire and killed him, could they claim to have stopped a murderer?

If they'd had guns, would he have been too scared to shoot at them? Lives could be saved if we just made a point of arming our carjackers

 

[BytByte]

No guns means no gun crimes. That will never happen, but striving for that ideal is how things will get better

And if someone thinks they need a gun to protect themselves from an extremely rare break in (a robbery), you should not own a gun because that is some high class paranoia.

3.7 million robberies a year is not rare. 250,000 people are injured/killed during home break ins a year.

Alright where do the majority of robberies take place? Do you have a distribution of the US. Have you been robbed? A spot of bad luck that is then. How many of that 250,000 are deaths and how many are injuries? How was the harm caused.

You're gonna need more than 2 numbers to think you proved a point.

 

[Wolf Hagen]

How by now can the people even care? Isn't it almost like a traffic accident for the U.S. to have another shooting by this point?

I mean, the politics and the gun nuts made it quite clear, that it's starting to become something that is just going to happen at this point, because they don't wanna touch that one sentence on this over 200 years old paper or because some people still believe that a gun in a home makes for better security then lets say two big dogs, depite the fact that your kids can even play with the dogs without redecorating the walls with inards.

At this point, all cares towards shootings from many people have run more dry then well in California during summer.

 

[EternallyBored]

No guns means no gun crimes. That will never happen, but striving for that ideal is how things will get better

And if someone thinks they need a gun to protect themselves from an extremely rare break in (a robbery), you should not own a gun because that is some high class paranoia.

3.7 million robberies a year is not rare. 250,000 people are injured/killed during home break ins a year.

Alright where do the majority of robberies take place? Do you have a distribution of the US. Have you been robbed? A spot of bad luck that is then. How many of that 250,000 are deaths and how many are injuries? How was the harm caused.

You're gonna need more than 2 numbers to think you proved a point.

Ryot is pulling his numbers from the department of Justice, here you go: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vdhb.pdf

Ryot is mixing up robberies with burglaries, there are 3.7 million burglaries per year in the U.S., the difference being that a robbery is theft through use or threat of personal force, whereas burglary is entering private property with intent to commit a crime, most commonly theft, no victim actually needs to be present for burglary to be committed, whereas robbery requires active theft from a victim who is present on the scene.

Also in those stats, the majority of burglaries take place with no other person present (72.4%), violence occured in only 7.2% of all burglaries reported, and of those violent incidences, 65.1% involved a non-stranger, as in the perpetrator was someone the property owner knew.

Amongst confrontations, the study reports 12% involved the perpetrator possessing a firearm, in most cases the intruder is unarmed and only 30% of violent confrontations involve an armed (with any weapon) perpetrator at all.

Amongst violent confrontations, the homeowner and perpetrator escape with no physical injuries in over half the cases, and in 33% of cases injuries are considered minor.

It's actually worth a read, the statistics are interesting, do keep in mind that part of the reason they break down this way is that Burglary includes any sort of entry with intent to commit a crime, so it includes things like a child breaking into their grandmother's house to steal her pain medication, or someone walking in to an open garage and jacking your bike while your in the house.

EDIT: I should point out for those that don't want to read the study, Ryotknife's 250k injured/killed statistic is completely wrong, it's 250k violent confrontations, just because violence happens does not mean anyone is injured, as I mentioned, half of the violent confrontations in the study resulted in no injury, and a further 33% ended with what the study calls minor injury, less than 10% of violent confrontations ended in serious injury.

Why is it this way? Because the study is likely defining any confrontation with a burglar to fall in to the violent category, so a burglar tossing a vase at the homeowner on their way out, even if they miss, still counts as a violent confrontation.

 

[omega 616]

snip

These are the people who are willing to die for dirt, they are also the same people who value the life of the president over their own life.

Well, yeah, it is free. A little gets skimmed off my wage and I get free health care and all kinds of other shit.

No. I mean you're not free and prefer to cling a piece of metal than allow people to live. How are you free? I don't own a gun but even given the option to own one, I wouldn't. I don't need one. You're only free to be scared.

Yeah you would be destroying your home, unless you're an expert shot and can know where each shot is going.

To put a final point on it, I think if you own a gun, you're part of the problem with all gun violence.

I'd actually like to see America flooded with guns, gun racks in class rooms, armed guards all over the place, two guns for every person. See how it works out, so far you have loads of guns and things are crazy ...

 

[Ryotknife]

No guns means no gun crimes. That will never happen, but striving for that ideal is how things will get better

And if someone thinks they need a gun to protect themselves from an extremely rare break in (a robbery), you should not own a gun because that is some high class paranoia.

3.7 million robberies a year is not rare. 250,000 people are injured/killed during home break ins a year.

Alright where do the majority of robberies take place? Do you have a distribution of the US. Have you been robbed? A spot of bad luck that is then. How many of that 250,000 are deaths and how many are injuries? How was the harm caused.

You're gonna need more than 2 numbers to think you proved a point.

Ryot is pulling his numbers from the department of Justice, here you go: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vdhb.pdf

Ryot is mixing up robberies with burglaries, there are 3.7 million burglaries per year in the U.S., the difference being that a robbery is theft through use or threat of personal force, whereas burglary is entering private property with intent to commit a crime, most commonly theft, no victim actually needs to be present for burglary to be committed, whereas robbery requires active theft from a victim who is present on the scene.

Also in those stats, the majority of burglaries take place with no other person present (72.4%), violence occured in only 7.2% of all burglaries reported, and of those violent incidences, 65.1% involved a non-stranger, as in the perpetrator was someone the property owner knew.

Amongst confrontations, the study reports 12% involved the perpetrator possessing a firearm, in most cases the intruder is unarmed and only 30% of violent confrontations involve an armed (with any weapon) perpetrator at all.

Amongst violent confrontations, the homeowner and perpetrator escape with no physical injuries in over half the cases, and in 33% of cases injuries are considered minor.

It's actually worth a read, the statistics are interesting, do keep in mind that part of the reason they break down this way is that Burglary includes any sort of entry with intent to commit a crime, so it includes things like a child breaking into their grandmother's house to steal her pain medication, or someone walking in to an open garage and jacking your bike while your in the house.

EDIT: I should point out for those that don't want to read the study, Ryotknife's 250k injured/killed statistic is completely wrong, it's 250k violent confrontations, just because violence happens does not mean anyone is injured, as I mentioned, half of the violent confrontations in the study resulted in no injury, and a further 33% ended with what the study calls minor injury, less than 10% of violent confrontations ended in serious injury.

Why is it this way? Because the study is likely defining any confrontation with a burglar to fall in to the violent category, so a burglar tossing a vase at the homeowner on their way out, even if they miss, still counts as a violent confrontation.

well damn me for vague definitions apparently. I did use burglaries and robberies interchangeably, i didnt even know they were technically different (queue the more you know GIF). So its roughly 125,000 people injured, in some sort of fashion, during home robberies.

 

[Shock and Awe]

He could have had one. Oregon has concealed carry and colleges are not allowed to be gun free zones.

Take this with a grain of salt as I heard it in the insane aftermath but apparently, a professor stated that guns are verboten on campus and not even the campus rent-a-cops have guns.

I went to the school. I'm aware that the security guards did not carry guns. I am aware that most people don't carry them there. That's mostly because most people don't carry in the area, I've never seen someone with a gun here outside of when they are going on a hunting trip or something like that and I've lived here for fifteen years. Legally, he could have owned a gun and brought it to the campus, provided he had a permit.

Looked at the laws, and you're right. Campus carry was legal in this case, with someone on the other side of campus holding a classroom during this shooting. If nothing else, I admit when I am wrong. I however maintain that campus carry is overall a positive for colleges because it barely costs the school anything and there is simply little reason to not allow it.

Fun fact, I agree. My desires in terms of gun control have nothing to do with banning concealed carry. I just want registration, licensing, and mandatory background checks on all sales and exchanges. In my mind, using a gun in any circumstances is a public act like driving a car on a road, and is something that ought to be restricted similarly.

I disagree with gun use being a public act. Its only public when used in public such as with concealed carry which I think should come with a required amount of training and licensing. The purchase of harms however, I believe is a private matter. It is not the business of the government or society what I am doing that does not effect them. I am in favor of the NICS checks on gun sales, but honestly it doesn't stop much considering the inability to control private sales whether or not they're legal.

I particularly have an issue with Registration because quite honestly, thats the step before confiscating them, such as in the UK after the Dunblane massacre.

 

[stroopwafel]

I noticed that a lot of these gunmen / culprits behind the shootings are between 18-30. You never see 40 year old, 50 year olds and so on go around shooting schools up or public places. It's the very young adults whom don't care about themselves and want to hurt others for the sake of 'feeling' something or wanting attention.

Yeah, but, I think that mostly have to do with hormone levels though? Similarly when testosterone levels drop so do felony rates. It are almost never the 40+ that gets incarcerated(espescially for violent crime).

Testosterone plays a large role in aggressive behavior and espescially impulse control. There is a reason why it are almost never women or older men engaged in killing sprees or rampages(or any kind of violent behavior really) and that all has to do with that hormone. High levels of testosterone might have been advantageous at some point in our evolutionary history, but nowadays in our organized societies it's more of a disadvantage if anything. Espescially with the combination of a disturbed personality.

Anyways my opinion is that guns shouldn't be in the hands of ordinary civilians. Espescially not in a civilized society. Idealistic I know. Ofcourse I know guns are part of America's cultural and historic tradition, but you'd think after all the harm they've done(and continue to do) more people would reconsider. I'm amazed how these tragedies just continue to happen and even the slightest initiatives for gun control immediately gets shot down(no pun intended).

 

[Thaluikhain]

Testosterone plays a large role in aggressive behavior and espescially impulse control. There is a reason why it are almost never women or older men engaged in killing sprees or rampages(or any kind of violent behavior really)

I'm led to believe there has been a substantial increase in teen girls committing violent crimes in the US over the last few years, though.

Just came across this. Terrible article though, sticks facts in between dragging out one account:
http://articles.philly.com/1992-02-23/news/26039610_1_troubled-girls-violent-crimes-melissa-h-sickmund

 

[Reasonable Atheist]

As an outside observer of your country from the north, I find this to be completely insane. I cannot remember where I heard this first but it is not original.

"The United States is the only country in the world where someone can walk into a school and kill a bunch of children with something, and the next week nobody talks about outlawing that thing."

Recently there was a church shot up with many many deaths if im up to date on my current events, and somehow nobody blames this on guns, it must be that piece of cloth blowing in the wind. My mouth was literally agape when i read about that, i pinched myself.

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

He could have had one. Oregon has concealed carry and colleges are not allowed to be gun free zones.

Take this with a grain of salt as I heard it in the insane aftermath but apparently, a professor stated that guns are verboten on campus and not even the campus rent-a-cops have guns.

I went to the school. I'm aware that the security guards did not carry guns. I am aware that most people don't carry them there. That's mostly because most people don't carry in the area, I've never seen someone with a gun here outside of when they are going on a hunting trip or something like that and I've lived here for fifteen years. Legally, he could have owned a gun and brought it to the campus, provided he had a permit.

Looked at the laws, and you're right. Campus carry was legal in this case, with someone on the other side of campus holding a classroom during this shooting. If nothing else, I admit when I am wrong. I however maintain that campus carry is overall a positive for colleges because it barely costs the school anything and there is simply little reason to not allow it.

Fun fact, I agree. My desires in terms of gun control have nothing to do with banning concealed carry. I just want registration, licensing, and mandatory background checks on all sales and exchanges. In my mind, using a gun in any circumstances is a public act like driving a car on a road, and is something that ought to be restricted similarly.

I disagree with gun use being a public act. Its only public when used in public such as with concealed carry which I think should come with a required amount of training and licensing. The purchase of harms however, I believe is a private matter. It is not the business of the government or society what I am doing that does not effect them. I am in favor of the NICS checks on gun sales, but honestly it doesn't stop much considering the inability to control private sales whether or not they're legal.

I particularly have an issue with Registration because quite honestly, thats the step before confiscating them, such as in the UK after the Dunblane massacre.

For the vast majority of gun users, any time they are using their guns at all, there is a chance they harm someone else. Most people do not live in the middle of nowhere. Most people live in towns, suburbs, or cities. And any accidental discharge of a weapon (which can easily occur at any time especially if you are not careful) could easily harm some else. Registration should absolutely be done because of how often crimes are committed with guns that come from the same small number of outlets. Registration would also help us to track illegal transactions like those you mentioned, and punish those who commit them. The only harm comes from paranoia like that which you express here, and that is nowhere near as important as the lives that could be saved or the crimes that could be prevented.

 

[Leg End]

How by now can the people even care? Isn't it almost like a traffic accident for the U.S. to have another shooting by this point?

People care for loss of life.

I mean, the politics and the gun nuts made it quite clear, that it's starting to become something that is just going to happen at this point, because they don't wanna touch that one sentence on this over 200 years old paper

Throw the constitution out then, none of it applies now, right?

or because some people still believe that a gun in a home makes for better security then lets say two big dogs, despite the fact that your kids can even play with the dogs without redecorating the walls with innards.

Because a gun is far better for defending a home. I'm not getting two big dogs or even one to match my other and having assholes poison them to break in later and I'm certainly not using them to defend my home because that is my job. In the event of a break in, all pets go into the bedroom with all other living creatures be they pets or humans. What you suggest, I find pretty sick to be honest.
As for redecoration, you're talking about two large dogs who are trained to tear the shit out of intruders. Shooting someone would actually be far cleaner.

At this point, all cares towards shootings from many people have run more dry then well in California during summer.

So, same as all of the other seasons then?

These are the people who are willing to die for dirt, they are also the same people who value the life of the president over their own life.

Varies.

Well, yeah, it is free. A little gets skimmed off my wage and I get free health care and all kinds of other shit.

"Oh, it's free! They just take some of my money to pay for it!"
No snark intended, but, if that's "free", then half of what I own is free, after paying rent and bills out of my paycheck.

No. I mean you're not free and prefer to cling a piece of metal than allow people to live. How are you free? I don't own a gun but even given the option to own one, I wouldn't. I don't need one. You're only free to be scared.

It's not in my will whether people live or not. That is up to other people. I'd want everyone to live and be happy but this is not that kind of world.
I don't really feel scared in general outside of still having a hilarious fear of actual darkness, though that might be from random animal attacks or seeing some weird stuff at night.

Yeah you would be destroying your home, unless you're an expert shot and can know where each shot is going.

They already did untold damage to my house. A bit more damage to ensure the hostile entity within my home will not do further damage or harm me or my loved ones, is pretty worth it. I'd be more worried about overpenetration of my walls but that's part of why shotguns can be quite useful in such a situation.

To put a final point on it, I think if you own a gun, you're part of the problem with all gun violence.

I'd actually like to see America flooded with guns, gun racks in class rooms, armed guards all over the place, two guns for every person. See how it works out, so far you have loads of guns and things are crazy ...

I'd love a return of school marksman teams!

 

[Leg End]

For the vast majority of gun users, any time they are using their guns at all, there is a chance they harm someone else.

Well, if we're getting REALLY technical, isn't that the point if you're using it for defense? Or are we including people going out in the middle of nowhere to fire because that is far more on the mark.

Most people do not live in the middle of nowhere. Most people live in towns, suburbs, or cities.

Depends where it is but people often take a small trip to proper locations in the middle of nowhere, and those that don't either set up a proper area on their property or go to a range.

And any accidental discharge of a weapon (which can easily occur at any time especially if you are not careful) could easily harm some else.

Are we referring to accidental discharges, or negligent discharges? The difference being one is the malfunction of the firearm, the other being the malfunction of the operator of the firearm. Actual accidental discharges are incredibly rare, provided the firearm is properly taken care of, and even then it is rare.

Registration should absolutely be done because of how often crimes are committed with guns that come from the same small number of outlets.

Which outlets?

Registration would also help us to track illegal transactions like those you mentioned, and punish those who commit them. The only harm comes from paranoia like that which you express here, and that is nowhere near as important as the lives that could be saved or the crimes that could be prevented.

Paranoia that has been proven to be with good cause after what he mentioned there. The lives that can be negatively affected by registration and confiscation is often brushed over.

I do not trust any form of registration particularly after our president made a statement that basically said "you see the UK and Australia? We need their gun system".

 

[omega 616]

snip

Really? I care more for life and I think the world would be a lot better with less people in it. What has been done about gun crime in America? Fuck all, not even talking about gun restrictions, nothing has been done. So you can't care that much.

The constitution needs to be modernised, it's not like it can't be changed. Though, you guys need to realize, the constitution isn't a big deal ... as a guy from the UK, I know yours better than mine!

It basically is free, you can get all kinds of medical treatment that costs WAY more then you'd pay in America for nothing.

It is the world we live in, it's not the world YOU live in. There is a big difference, Nobody I know owns a gun, of any kind and not one of them has had anything bad happen to them ... but no, it is the worlds problem.

Again with harming you or your family. If somebody came to your home to kill you, you need to be a nicer person 'cos it takes a fair bit of provoking for somebody to want to kill you! Secondly, if they come to your house to rob you, the last thing they want to do is increase there potential prison time by harming you or anybody. Think about it, they want money for drugs or whatever, what do they get for hurting or killing you?

Not really an opinion, you own and support guns for Joe Public, Joe public is the one doing all the school shootings and gun crime. By arguing against gun control, you're letting this happen. You're an accomplice to it all.

I'd love for American's to realize how they look to outside world.

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

For the vast majority of gun users, any time they are using their guns at all, there is a chance they harm someone else.

Well, if we're getting REALLY technical, isn't that the point if you're using it for defense? Or are we including people going out in the middle of nowhere to fire because that is far more on the mark.

Most people do not live in the middle of nowhere. Most people live in towns, suburbs, or cities.

Depends where it is but people often take a small trip to proper locations in the middle of nowhere, and those that don't either set up a proper area on their property or go to a range.

And any accidental discharge of a weapon (which can easily occur at any time especially if you are not careful) could easily harm some else.

Are we referring to accidental discharges, or negligent discharges? The difference being one is the malfunction of the firearm, the other being the malfunction of the operator of the firearm. Actual accidental discharges are incredibly rare, provided the firearm is properly taken care of, and even then it is rare.

Registration should absolutely be done because of how often crimes are committed with guns that come from the same small number of outlets.

Which outlets?

Registration would also help us to track illegal transactions like those you mentioned, and punish those who commit them. The only harm comes from paranoia like that which you express here, and that is nowhere near as important as the lives that could be saved or the crimes that could be prevented.

Paranoia that has been proven to be with good cause after what he mentioned there. The lives that can be negatively affected by registration and confiscation is often brushed over.

I do not trust any form of registration particularly after our president made a statement that basically said "you see the UK and Australia? We need their gun system".

Just use a numbered list if you're not going to put in line breaks. I'm on my fucking phone. I have no time to hunt down where your comments end.

1. I'm including cleaning, moving, securing... any time where you even move them. And a lot of people are just collectors, hunts, or shoot for fun. The vast majority of the time a gun is fired, it is not to kill another human being.

2. And you're still handling those guns in a space where you could accidentally shoot someone while you are packing them up. A huge number of gun deaths are accidents or suicides. Far more than spree shootings like these.

3. Stop being so damn technical. They're accidents that could have been prevented were it not for the negligence of the individual handling the gun. Your dull semantics are meaningless.

4. It's not like it's one single chain or anything. I remember a study a while back that found that the vast majority of crimes had come from some small fraction of stores or distributors.
EDIT- an article covering this http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html

5. Still trivial compared to actual lives and actual crimes. Your paranoia means nothing to me. I don't care.