The Oregon shooting

[Lightspeaker]

Why bother debating it? For one reason or another civilian access to firearms in the USA is considered more important than kids getting murdered now again at school/collage.

Pretty much. And it comes across as fundamentally weird and more than a little crazy to a large part of the rest of the world. But until people stop responding like the couple of people below your post have responded this is going to go on and on and on. Its becoming depressingly predictable and cyclic.

 

[Leg End]

Going on a stabbing spree ends in a lot less bodies than a shooting spree.

Who said anything about stabbing?

 

[Leg End]

Why bother debating it? For one reason or another civilian access to firearms in the USA is considered more important than kids getting murdered now again at school/collage.

Pretty much. And it comes across as fundamentally weird and more than a little crazy to a large part of the rest of the world. But until people stop responding like the couple of people below your post have responded this is going to go on and on and on. Its becoming depressingly predictable and cyclic.

The opinions of the rest of the world hold no importance in the domestic policy of The United States, and I imagine the inverse to be true regarding the domestic policy nations that are not the US.

 

[Dizchu]

I think the problem isn't necessarily the availability of guns in the USA but the fetishisation of guns in the USA. I mean I love violent video games and movies but calm your god damn tits, America. You guys literally pose in front of your flag with an assault rifle and have the audacity to claim that you represent your nation's culture and traditions. I'm sorry but in actual civilised countries we don't do that. The closest thing the rest of us do is collect ancient weapons like swords and cannons and honour the bravery of those who died in battle centuries ago. We may give those weapons a sort of legendary weight like with the story of Excalibur.

We don't pose with guns in front of a flag as if we're under constant attack. It's that paranoia and this mentality of "don't fuck with me" that contributes a lot to mass shootings. Even when they (rarely) occur in other developed countries, those involved usually have some hyper-nationalistic hate boner.

 

[Lightspeaker]

Why bother debating it? For one reason or another civilian access to firearms in the USA is considered more important than kids getting murdered now again at school/collage.

Pretty much. And it comes across as fundamentally weird and more than a little crazy to a large part of the rest of the world. But until people stop responding like the couple of people below your post have responded this is going to go on and on and on. Its becoming depressingly predictable and cyclic.

The opinions of the rest of the world hold no importance in the domestic policy of The United States, and I imagine the inverse to be true regarding the domestic policy nations that are not the US.

I didn't comment on level of "importance". I was simply pointing out that to the rest of the world it comes across as fundamentally sociopathic and insane. That you prefer mass killings over any kind of gun regulation and the gigantic gun fetish that the US appears to have.

And if you seriously think that domestic policy of a country is totally irrelevant to anyone outside of that country then you have a very, very strange world view.

I'm done with this conversation now. Won't be back to this thread. Goodbye.

 

[Leg End]

I think the problem isn't necessarily the availability of guns in the USA but the fetishisation of guns in the USA. I mean I love violent video games and movies but calm your god damn tits, America.

WHAT IS THIS CALM YOU SPEAK OF? USA USA USA
Just kidding, but involving violent media, we're just a bit more honest about liking it really. Doesn't the UK in public opinion look down heavily on any violence in media? Or that is at least the impression I've often gotten.

You guys literally pose in front of your flag with an assault rifle and have the audacity to claim that you represent your nation's culture and traditions.

From your perspective, can you explain how this is in no way representative in the least of the culture and traditions of the US?

I'm sorry but in actual civilised countries we don't do that.

Explain how the US is not a civilized country. It's easy to dig up examples of representation of cultural pride from citizens of any country that are considered "uncivilized".

The closest thing the rest of us do is collect ancient weapons like swords and cannons and honour the bravery of those who died in battle centuries ago. We may give those weapons a sort of legendary weight like with the story of Excalibur.

Similar examples can be found in the US reaching back to the conception of the country. It's also not uncommon to find people in *country that is not the US* in possession of more modern weapons that were used, well, far more recently. Major difference being, the US has these weapons guaranteed to The People in its constitution, indeed making these very weapons a part of our cultural heritage.

We don't pose with guns in front of a flag as if we're under constant attack. It's that paranoia and this mentality of "don't fuck with me" that contributes a lot to mass shootings. Even when they (rarely) occur in other developed countries, those involved usually have some hyper-nationalistic hate boner.

We pose with them in front of our flag because we can, in celebration of our ability to do so and in honor of those who have fought for our right to do so using that very right.

The mentality that contributes to mass shootings seems to involve people just being shitheads to each other, or those whose ego barely fits into the room they are pumping lead into. Replace nationalistic hate boner with narcissism/social seclusion/*insert whatever here* and the case isn't all that different.

I didn't comment on level of "importance". I was simply pointing out that to the rest of the world it comes across as fundamentally sociopathic and insane.

Well, lots of things about the rest of the world come across us as pretty nuts as well.

That you prefer mass killings over any kind of gun regulation and the gigantic gun fetish that the US appears to have.

Mass killings happen with or without firearms. We in fact have firearms to protect ourselves from mass killings, of varying kinds.
We have gun regulation(which violates our constitution I might add), and it flat out doesn't work. I live in California which has some of the highest violent crime in the US, much of it committed with illegal weapons, and this state has probably the second strictest gun laws of anywhere in the US and still it does nothing. Hell, you can't even get a CCWP in LA County short of being absolutely loaded and famous, and look how much shit happens down there.

Fetishism, like anything else, is subjective to the person.

And if you seriously think that domestic policy of a country is totally irrelevant to anyone outside of that country then you have a very, very strange world view.

I'm done with this conversation now. Won't be back to this thread. Goodbye.

Alrighty then.

 

[Mik Sunrider]

The only way to stop mass shooting is for legal adults to carry at all places. And spending millions of dollars in Health care won't work since getting a crazy person commit, a crazy person who hasn't commit a felony, and force them to take the medication until they are treated is nearly impossible. The burden of prof is on the State to prove that the only alternative to protect the subject and society is to have the suspect committed. And yes, you would have to get most of them committed because they don't have the ability to understand that the medication will help then and not 'melt' their brains or something.

 

[Dizchu]

WHAT IS THIS CALM YOU SPEAK OF? USA USA USA
Just kidding, but involving violent media, we're just a bit more honest about liking it really. Doesn't the UK in public opinion look down heavily on any violence in media? Or that is at least the impression I've often gotten.

Not really, we like our fictionalised violence. We may not feature as much of it in our films and TV shows because they're generally made with lower budgets, but it was us that made the GTA franchise. That said GTA does seem to be a satire of American culture.

From your perspective, can you explain how this is in no way representative in the least of the culture and traditions of the US?

Well the second amendment was written in a time where muskets were the primary firearm, for one thing. My main objection though was that there are plenty of Americans that wouldn't consider standing in front of the stars and stripes, M-16s pointed at the sky, to be representative of what the country stands for. The same way they'd object to the USA being called a "Christian country".

Explain how the US is not a civilized country. It's easy to dig up examples of representation of cultural pride from citizens of any country that are considered "uncivilized".

Okay maybe "uncivilised" is an exaggeration but the country does rank pretty poorly in comparison to other developed nations when it comes to education, healthcare, crime, economic disparity and religious extremism. The combination of these things is a perfect storm for mass shootings and gang violence. When I say "uncivilised" what I mean is "you can do better".

Similar examples can be found in the US reaching back to the conception of the country. It's also not uncommon to find people in *country that is not the US* in possession of more modern weapons that were used, well, far more recently. Major difference being, the US has these weapons guaranteed to The People in its constitution, indeed making these very weapons a part of our cultural heritage.

Well as I said, the second amendment was written in a time where firearms were completely different, pretty much unrecognisable compared to what's available today. Other developed nations have a very negative view of armed conflict in comparison, many of them not even having firearms available for the police.

We pose with them in front of our flag because we can, in celebration of our ability to do so and in honor of those who have fought for our right to do so using that very right.

But why? People have fought for pretty terrible rights in the past (such as owning slaves or the 18th amendment which prohibited alcohol). I just find it weird how people have such a reverence for instruments that are designed to kill others.

The mentality that contributes to mass shootings seems to involve people just being shitheads to each other, or those whose ego barely fits into the room they are pumping lead into. Replace nationalistic hate boner with narcissism/social seclusion/*insert whatever here* and the case isn't all that different.

But shitheads live in every country. I think the narcissism and social seclusion provides the base ingredients for a mass shooter, but they need that "spark" to encourage them to open fire on people. For Anders Breivik it was an extreme, fascistic sense of nationalism. For many mass shooters it seems to be this idea that violent retribution is a valid way of rebelling against the social systems that made them feel isolated to begin with.

 

[TechNoFear]

Going on a stabbing spree ends in a lot less bodies than a shooting spree.

Who said anything about stabbing?

Your argument amounts to a Nirvana logical fallacy (if we can't stop 100% of the violence we should not do anything)

If you compare similar shootings in countries with strict firearm control to the shootings in the US you see a clear difference; the number of victims.

Since Australia restricted access to semi-autos and handguns almost 20 years ago there has not been a mass shooting.

For example the 2014 Sydney (Australia) siege gunman used a pump action shotgun that was over 50 years old and ammo that was 15-20 years old. An expert demonstrated that the shotgun could only fire up to 4 shots in 20 seconds.

Why did the shooter use an antique shotgun instead of multiple semi-auto firearms and body armor?

Because he could NOT get them in Australia due to the strict firearm laws.

In the US this gunman would have had access to multiple semi-auto firearms, with large capacity magazines and body armor (which probably would have allowed the shooter to kill more than the 2 people he did).

 

[Shock and Awe]

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/02/us/oregon-school-shooting-hero/

Before anyone mentions the man who took lives yesterday, I'd like to post a story on Chris Mintz, a man who saved them.

Yeah I'll double-down on the shout-out for Chris Mintz (not to be confused with Christopher Mintz-Plasse, whose most compelling contribution to society to date was his portrayal of McLovin in "Superbad").

Student and Army veteran. Charged the gunman, got shot five times, survived.

I remember reading about the Ecole Polytechnique Massacre, and how the guys who were ordered out of the room so the murder of the remaining women could begin were haunted by their inability to prevent what happened. We all like to think we'd charge down a gunman, but in reality most of us would just freeze up. Charging at someone while being shot in an attempt to prevent harm to others isn't just a heroic act, it's extraordinary.

Definitely nominating this guy for badass of the month.

OT: Same thing is going to happen as usual. The right will (correctly) state that this would have been prevented if concealed carry or armed teachers were allowed. In this case they'd be especially right considering you had someone trained and willing there at the scene who caught five bullets instead of giving them. The left will (incorrectly) state that more gun control would have stopped this.

Flip a coin for the winner this go around.

 

[TechNoFear]

Why do you have to politicise this?

It has nothing to do with right or left.

It has everything to do with who's rights you consider to be more important; the rights of the 100,000 Americans who are shot each year reducing their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness OR the right to bear arms.

BTW you claim that armed citizens would reduce these shootings, care to present a shred of evidence to support that claim?

 

[Shock and Awe]

Why do you have to politicise this?

It has nothing to do with right or left.

It has everything to do with who's rights you consider to be more important; the rights of the 100,000 Americans who are shot each year reducing their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness OR the right to bear arms.

BTW you claim that armed citizens would reduce these shootings, care to present a shred of evidence to support that claim?

Its wonderfully ironic that you criticize me for politicizing this and then immediately politicize this in the exact way I said it would be.

And to address your point, you can first look at this individual case in which if our brave hero here was allowed a weapon we'd almost certainly have seen a lot less death instead of having to wait until the Sheriff's Office showed up. I will also point you to the fact that most of these mass shootings happen in places where guns are not allowed. In aurora he went to the only gun-free theater. In Sandy Hook he went to an elementary school. Here he went to a gun-free college. Etc. Etc.

 

[Battenberg]

No but what everyone's missing here is that we actually need MORE guns to fix this problem. Just ignore the way that the rest of the western world with stricter gun laws faces substantially less situations like this every year, the problem is that not ENOUGH people need access to deadly firearms to stop people misusing deadly firearms.

Seriously though there are people responding this way spouting gibberish about the constitution as though a 200+ year old document is relevant to modern America/ modern firearms. It's just ridiculous at his point. Nearly 1000 mass shootings in 3 years in one country. It's tragic. Obama sums it up pretty well, honestly I think he conveys the message as well as it is possible to do, hopefully it triggers some kind of change.

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

Why do you have to politicise this?

It has nothing to do with right or left.

It has everything to do with who's rights you consider to be more important; the rights of the 100,000 Americans who are shot each year reducing their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness OR the right to bear arms.

BTW you claim that armed citizens would reduce these shootings, care to present a shred of evidence to support that claim?

Its wonderfully ironic that you criticize me for politicizing this and then immediately politicize this in the exact way I said it would be.

And to address your point, you can first look at this individual case in which if our brave hero here was allowed a weapon we'd almost certainly have seen a lot less death instead of having to wait until the Sheriff's Office showed up. I will also point you to the fact that most of these mass shootings happen in places where guns are not allowed. In aurora he went to the only gun-free theater. In Sandy Hook he went to an elementary school. Here he went to a gun-free college. Etc. Etc.

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

 

[TechNoFear]

Its wonderfully ironic that you criticize me for politicizing this and then immediately politicize this in the exact way I said it would be.

So no person on the right could ever advocate any form of firearm control?

The former Prime Minister of Australia John Howard might disagree with you, he was from the right and legislated the Australian Gun Buy Back (ie introduced the strict firearm laws into Australia).

Looks some cherry picked examples...

How about Gifford's shooting, that was not in a gun free zone.

How about the FBI report (see below) that states only 1 of the last 160 active shooter events in the US was stopped by an armed citizen (compared to 19 stopped by unarmed citizens).

Your claim simply does not stand up to the briefest scrutiny. How can you keep repeating what you must know is untrue?

https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2014/september/fbi-releases-study-on-active-shooter-incidents/pdfs/a-study-of-active-shooter-incidents-in-the-u.s.-between-2000-and-2013

 

[Leg End]

Not really, we like our fictionalised violence. We may not feature as much of it in our films and TV shows because they're generally made with lower budgets, but it was us that made the GTA franchise. That said GTA does seem to be a satire of American culture.

A glorious satire I may add even if at times it is a bit hostile towards us, but we take it with much love.

Well the second amendment was written in a time where muskets were the primary firearm, for one thing. My main objection though was that there are plenty of Americans that wouldn't consider standing in front of the stars and stripes, M-16s pointed at the sky, to be representative of what the country stands for. The same way they'd object to the USA being called a "Christian country".

True, but that's the fun of the states, we're a big melting pot and everyone considers varying things to represent us.

Okay maybe "uncivilised" is an exaggeration but the country does rank pretty poorly in comparison to other developed nations when it comes to education, healthcare, crime, economic disparity and religious extremism. The combination of these things is a perfect storm for mass shootings and gang violence. When I say "uncivilised" what I mean is "you can do better".

In this order,

Yes because we apparently value bombing the middle east into dust over funding schools because loloilamiriteguise.

Same as above though we have a bit of a hesitation for gubment to get involved in anything, and we do lead the way in terms of medical advances but, well, as you're basically saying, no one can afford it.

"inner city gangs" is the best way I can put my response to crime or else it'll become /pol/ in here.

The downsides of extreme capitalism and money worship.

And, actually the US doesn't have as many religious extremists as you'd imagine, though many do love proclaiming their love for Cheesus. As for leading to gang violence, I totally agree. It is why I support heavy changes in our domestic policy instead of changing our gun laws as the ones we have are just shit and I live in the state that proves they don't work.

Well as I said, the second amendment was written in a time where firearms were completely different, pretty much unrecognisable compared to what's available today. Other developed nations have a very negative view of armed conflict in comparison, many of them not even having firearms available for the police.

Different time, yes. Different issues, nope. The 2nd itself is timeless because the reason why we have it, the perpetual threat to our freedoms, is an eternal issue.
Hell, people in general even loving guns do not have a positive view of armed conflict, but we won't shy away from it if it is required, which is basically the whole point.[/quote]

But why? People have fought for pretty terrible rights in the past (such as owning slaves or the 18th amendment which prohibited alcohol). I just find it weird how people have such a reverence for instruments that are designed to kill others.

Bit as I said above, it is the fact that The People have these tools in which to defend their freedom, that it isn't a case of a government not allowing its citizens to have these arms, but The People having these arms to keep their government in check. And, as you said, it is the people fighting for what are perceived as good or terrible rights, why blame the tool?

But shitheads live in every country. I think the narcissism and social seclusion provides the base ingredients for a mass shooter, but they need that "spark" to encourage them to open fire on people. For Anders Breivik it was an extreme, fascistic sense of nationalism. For many mass shooters it seems to be this idea that violent retribution is a valid way of rebelling against the social systems that made them feel isolated to begin with.

Which is an issue with the society, which I agree there is an issue with. My belief is just that guns aren't anywhere near the issue, the issue being people, or, as you can say, The People.

Your argument amounts to a Nirvana logical fallacy (if we can't stop 100% of the violence we should no do anything)

No, my argument is that the issue does not lie with the tool, it lies with who uses the tool.

If you compare similar shootings in countries with strict firearm control to the shootings in the US you see a clear difference; the number of victims.

Since Australia restricted access to semi-autos and handguns almost 20 years ago there has not been a mass shooting.

Not a mass shooting, but you did have a shooting of a cop on the exact day this shooting happened however. Luckily, other officers took him down before he managed to kill anyone else.

For example the 2014 Sydney (Australia) siege gunman used a pump action shotgun that was over 50 years old and ammo that was 15-20 years old. An expert demonstrated that the shotgun could fire up to 4 shots in 20 seconds.

Got a source for that estimate? Just curious.

Why did the shooter use an antique shotgun instead of multiple semi-auto firearms and body armor?

Because he could NOT get them in Australia due to the strict firearm laws.

Being an island in the middle of the ocean might also have something to do with it, but I digress as it is just a bit of nitpicking on my part, or at least I feel it to be nitpicking though it does play an environmental circumstance that Australia does not share with the US.

In the US this gunman would have had access to multiple semi-auto firearms, with large capacity magazines and body armor (which probably would have allowed the shooter to kill more than the 2 people he did).

Can you provide a source for the gunman? I'm imagining he'd have them illegally here as well.

Please define "large capacity" magazine and also explain your stance on body armor because I'm getting the impression you think civilians owning body armor is a bad thing.

I'm saying no further as I don't know the specifics of the shooting and, well, anything further would be in bad taste for this forum.

Damn I think my writing skills are going downhill.

 

[Mik Sunrider]

The Constitution is relevant to this discussion, it is the bases of our laws, it stop the Government from dictating how you must live your life.

How many people die every year from drunk drivers? Should we ban everyone from owning a car on the outside chance that someone will die in an accident caused by an irresponsible adult who gets behind a wheel of a car while intoxicated? Should we ban liquor again? Worked out great the last time, didn't?

Also remember, we can't touch these crazy people until they demonstrate that they are and/or do pose a serious risk to themselves or others. So until they commit crimes, we can not hospitalize them nor force them to take medication to help them be less crazy.

 

[BreakfastMan]

Going on a stabbing spree ends in a lot less bodies than a shooting spree.

Who said anything about stabbing?

You are assuming everyone who goes on a shooting spree would just start making car-bombs instead if they can't get guns. But, last I checked, Britain and Japan are not full of Timothy McVeighs.

EDIT: Besides, I don't think using an (old) example of a bombing during a time when we had far fewer gun restrictions is especially applicable to the discussion.

 

[BreakfastMan]

How many people die every year from drunk drivers? Should we ban everyone from owning a car on the outside chance that someone will die in an accident caused by an irresponsible adult who gets behind a wheel of a car while intoxicated?

We do, in fact, require a license and training to operate a motor vehicle. There are a number of restrictions to owning and operating a motor vehicle. Why can't we do the same for guns?

 

[Shock and Awe]

Why do you have to politicise this?

It has nothing to do with right or left.

It has everything to do with who's rights you consider to be more important; the rights of the 100,000 Americans who are shot each year reducing their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness OR the right to bear arms.

BTW you claim that armed citizens would reduce these shootings, care to present a shred of evidence to support that claim?

Its wonderfully ironic that you criticize me for politicizing this and then immediately politicize this in the exact way I said it would be.

And to address your point, you can first look at this individual case in which if our brave hero here was allowed a weapon we'd almost certainly have seen a lot less death instead of having to wait until the Sheriff's Office showed up. I will also point you to the fact that most of these mass shootings happen in places where guns are not allowed. In aurora he went to the only gun-free theater. In Sandy Hook he went to an elementary school. Here he went to a gun-free college. Etc. Etc.

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

Ding dong, you are wrong [https://web.archive.org/web/20150317085529/http:/umpqua.edu/resources-and-services/academic/student-code-of-conduct?showall=&start=4]. Community colleges are not a part of Oregon University system.

Its wonderfully ironic that you criticize me for politicizing this and then immediately politicize this in the exact way I said it would be.

So no person on the right could ever advocate any form of firearm control?

The former Prime Minister of Australia John Howard might disagree with you, he was from the right and legislated the Australian Gun Buy Back (ie introduced the strict firearm laws into Australia).

Looks some cherry picked examples...

How about Gifford's shooting, that was not in a gun free zone.

How about the FBI report (see below) that states only 1 of the last 160 active shooter events in the US was stopped by an armed citizen (compared to 19 stopped by unarmed citizens).

Your claim simply does not stand up to the briefest scrutiny. How can you keep repeating what you must know is untrue?

https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2014/september/fbi-releases-study-on-active-shooter-incidents/pdfs/a-study-of-active-shooter-incidents-in-the-u.s.-between-2000-and-2013

I'd be willing to be the majority of those "commercial" areas banned firearms and concealed carry, even in Georgia its quite common, I'd bet its much more so in other places, the classifications do not give any insight into the actual situations in these individual situations. The aurora shooting was in "commercial area", but was still a gun-free zone. So thats not much of an argument. Also, we must also remember that the shootings with the highest body counts are time and time again in places where guns are not allowed such as schools.

Addendum: The definition used by this study also includes drive-by and gang shootings. So we're also including a completely different issue here.