The Oregon shooting

[Mr.Mattress]

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.

Considering the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, what all Elected Officials have to swear loyalty too, what almost all Americans live under (both legal and illegal), and what the basis for almost all laws in the United States are... The Constitution is indeed Relevant to Modern America, and Modern Firearms. That's like saying a law passed 20 years ago has no bearing on the modern day. I don't know where you live, but you clearly don't understand how laws work, or what Constitutions (including America's) are for.

OT: As a Libertarian, I must quote a Founding Father: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." (-Benjamin Franklin)

Yes, it's sad that people die, and my heart goes out to those who lost their loved ones, but what do you want the government to do? Put people in deplorable Asylums? Take away or Manipulate their Private Property? Track those viewed with Suspicion? Does anyone not see a problem with that? You think it's the governments job to crack down on innocent civilians simply because criminals may lurk amongst them? That's what Despots and Dictators do and we condemn them! Why would this be any different? We don't need a Government that stalks everyone and fears everything. What we need are kind, caring people who are ever vigilant, who see these troubled kids, realize they need help, and get them the help they need. That's the real problem; no one ever suspects a Killer until they've killed. But there are warning signs with people who are willing to do such monstrous deeds. We need Compassion, Education and Understanding, to stop these people before they can even start, to change them for the better; not Control, Manipulation and Fear Mongering.

 

[Mik Sunrider]

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?

We do have some, mostly background checks which is done through the local law enforcement office that the fire arm is being purchase as well as 7 day waiting period but driving is a privilege while fire arms are a Right. You can only regulate Rights only so much as it should be. But you know, you do lose your right to own a gun, permeant, if you become a felon, you don't lose your privilege to drive for life once you have done your time. (Well, unless they can prove that you are a consent danger to the community if they allow you to drive again.)

 

[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?

We do have some, mostly background checks which is done through the local law enforcement office that the fire arm is being purchase as well as 7 day waiting period but driving is a privilege while fire arms are a Right. You can only regulate Rights only so much as it should be. But you know, you do lose your right to own a gun, permeant, if you become a felon, you don't lose your privilege to drive for life once you have done your time. (Well, unless they can prove that you are a consent danger to the community if they allow you to drive again.)

Too bad that shit isn't enforced. The ATF has been pretty much constantly down-sized and had most of their power to enforce the law removed.

And you can lose other rights. What do you think life without parole essentially is?

 

[Leg End]

Why do you have to politicise this?

Because everyone else does.

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.

What makes you think you can't have both?
Seems to me it isn't an issue with rights, but people having no care for the rights of others. That's kind of how these shootings happen. I'd rather be armed than not when it comes to a someone shooting up a place and removal of the second amendment wouldn't exactly stop someone in their tracks.

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

I'd link FBI statistics for him but I don't have the link on me. Plus, take into account how many of those shootings are cops shooting people because >reasons.

Idea would be deterrence theory. Though, in this case it likely would not deter this kind of shooter, depending on his motivations. In which case, someone armed would be able to stop him with it not being on the shooters terms when it ends, as basically ALL of these shootings have in common.

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.

The idea again being that someone with a gun can end it before the gunman does in their own way, bruh.

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.

Because it is relevant and you have no argument as to how it isn't.

It's just ridiculous at his point. Nearly 1000 mass shootings in 3 years in one country.

Count how many are "mass shootings" by this definition and how many are of the 4+ victim definition that also includes gang violence which is a totally different issue.

It's tragic.

Welcome to people.[quote[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.[/quote]Yeah, no. He's pushing for gun control he's failed to get several times, when the bodies aren't even room temperature yet.
Then again, I'd expect no less from him.

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.

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

Maybe not saying that but people who argue for it tend to not use facts.

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).

Well, he's a dumbass and in general I don't have high views of Australian politicians. Plus, US Right and Everywhereelse Right are two very different right wings.

Looks some cherry picked examples...

Cherry picked? Is that a joke? Those are THE two big major cases of mass shootings in recent history, the ones everyone won't shut up about, on either side of the political spectrum. And with varying claim to being staged but oh holy hell I won't even start that here.

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

Sadly no one was armed other than the shooter.

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

Because if you look at the majority of shooting cases, you'll find they happen in places with some of the most insane gun control in the nation, making targets of people that, if they wish to be law abiding, must allow this target to be placed on their backs.
Sad case of that exact situation happening.

 

[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.

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.

Which isn't allowed to trump concealed carry laws here. He could have had a gun.

http://www.thetrace.org/2015/10/school-shooting-oregon-community-college/He absolutely could have concealed carried a gun. Legally. This is ridiculous.

EDIT- and before you bring up the fact that he would not have been allowed to bring it into a room, the parking lot is closer than the library he ran to.

EDIT2-I changed the article I linked. While I don't like that this article mentions the shooter's name, it is much more informative in general.

 

[Battenberg]

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.

Considering the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, what all Elected Officials have to swear loyalty too, what almost all Americans live under (both legal and illegal), and what the basis for almost all laws in the United States are... The Constitution is indeed Relevant to Modern America, and Modern Firearms. That's like saying a law passed 20 years ago has no bearing on the modern day. I don't know where you live, but you clearly don't understand how laws work, or what Constitutions (including America's) are for.

OT: As a Libertarian, I must quote a Founding Father: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." (-Benjamin Franklin)

Yes, it's sad that people die, and my heart goes out to those who lost their loved ones, but what do you want the government to do? Put people in deplorable Asylums? Take away or Manipulate their Private Property? Track those viewed with Suspicion? Does anyone not see a problem with that? You think it's the governments job to crack down on innocent civilians simply because criminals may lurk amongst them? That's what Despots and Dictators do and we condemn them! Why would this be any different? We don't need a Government that stalks everyone and fears everything. What we need are kind, caring people who are ever vigilant, who see these troubled kids, realize they need help, and get them the help they need. That's the real problem; no one ever suspects a Killer until they've killed. But there are warning signs with people who are willing to do such monstrous deeds. We need Compassion, Education and Understanding, to stop these people before they can even start, to change them for the better; not Control, Manipulation and Fear Mongering.

I understand why laws are necessary and that for America the constitution is the basis of said laws but sticking belligerently to laws that were written when the world was a different place just doesn't make sense. When the constitution was written firearms were leagues less dangerous than they are now. They were less powerful, less accurate, slow to reload, and most importantly not capable of mowing multiple people down in the space a few seconds. Guns have changed substantially since then, the law needs to change to reflect that.

I thought I was clear with what I thought the solution to the problem is but I guess not. Stop giving out guns like they're candy. The UK saw one school shooting nearly 30 years ago and immediately changed gun laws to try and prevent it happening. Now guns are pretty hard to get access to in the UK and funnily enough there haven't been a whole lot of mass shootings of any kind since then. Trying to pre-empt the people who might go on these sprees and trying to somehow talk them is not a solution in any way shape or form. Yes mental health issues are still not getting the attention they need but, as has been mentioned, they are also present in other countries which doesn't see this on anywhere close to this kind of scale.

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.

The idea again being that someone with a gun can end it before the gunman does in their own way, bruh.

Of course if the gunman has no gun they can't mow anybody down even if no one else has a gun either, funny how often that point is ignored.

 

[Leg End]

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.

No, I'm assuming that people who want to kill, are going to kill one way or another.

How exactly would it not be applicable at all? No restrictions on guns at all, or at least not to the same extent as now, and someone uses explosives. Gun restrictions on the general populace, suddenly people use illegal guns to kill people like living targets. Sounds applicable.

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?

Shall not be infringed. That's why. Hell we shouldn't even have those restrictions for vehicles because right to travel but again, gotta restrict freedums errywhere amirite.

Too bad that shit isn't enforced. The ATF has been pretty much constantly down-sized and had most of their power to enforce the law removed.

And you can lose other rights. What do you think life without parole essentially is?

Except that it IS enforced and the ATF shouldn't even exist. The ATF itself is actually a reason WHY we have the second amendment in the first place.

On another note captcha is talking about going postal.

 

[TechNoFear]

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

Then you are wrong, because firearms allow / empower people to project their influence to the range of the firearm, with a level of effectiveness and efficency that no other handheld weapon does.

(ie A child with a firearm could kill anybody, a child with a knife could not)

Got a source for that estimate? Just curious.

It was demostrated by an expert during the trial, look at the wiki page.

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

Point being that legally or illegally this Sydney siege shooter was only able to obtain a 50 year old pump action shotgun.

The Oregon shooter had 13 legal firearms, six of which he carried during the shooting.

He would not have been able to obtain those firearms in Australia (unless he was a very rich, well connected criminal).

explain your stance on body armor because I'm getting the impression you think civilians owning body armor is a bad thing.

In Australia you have to show a reason for owing these types of items, self defence is not considered a valid reason.

So if you want a semi-auto centerfire rifle you need to show why a repeating rimfire rifle will not be suitable.

What reason could a private citizen have to NEED body armor?

 

[BreakfastMan]

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.

No, I'm assuming that people who want to kill, are going to kill one way or another.

And my point is, their body counts won't be nearly as high.

How exactly would it not be applicable at all? No restrictions on guns at all, or at least not to the same extent as now, and someone uses explosives. Gun restrictions on the general populace, suddenly people use illegal guns to kill people like living targets. Sounds applicable.

So... Your point is that less gun restrictions results in more people using explosives to kill larger numbers of people? That doesn't sound like it especially supports your position...

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?

Shall not be infringed. That's why. Hell we shouldn't even have those restrictions for vehicles because right to travel but again, gotta restrict freedums errywhere amirite.

What the fuck even.

Too bad that shit isn't enforced. The ATF has been pretty much constantly down-sized and had most of their power to enforce the law removed.

And you can lose other rights. What do you think life without parole essentially is?

Except that it IS enforced and the ATF shouldn't even exist. The ATF itself is actually a reason WHY we have the second amendment in the first place.

On another note captcha is talking about going postal.

Again: what the fuck even. This is just so incredibly naive, I can barely comprehend how you think this makes sense.

 

[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.

 

[Leg End]

I understand why laws are necessary and that for America the constitution is the basis of said laws but sticking belligerently to laws that were written when the world was a different place just doesn't make sense. When the constitution was written firearms were leagues less dangerous than they are now. They were less powerful, less accurate, slow to reload, and most importantly not capable of mowing multiple people down in the space a few seconds.

In the same time, we had cannons and arms that fired in 20 round volleys. And less powerful isn't even remotely applicable depending if you include some modern calibers. The heart of the second remains the same.

Guns have changed substantially since then, the law needs to change to reflect that.

Yeah, the second needs to now say "THE PEOPLE HAVE GUNS, NO LAW SHALL CHANGE THIS." because people can't read English.

I thought I was clear with what I thought the solution to the problem is but I guess not. Stop giving out guns like they're candy.

What candy costs five hundred bucks for cheap candies?

The UK saw one school shooting nearly 30 years ago and immediately changed gun laws to try and prevent it happening.

Sounds like a guide on how not to write laws to me.

Now guns are pretty hard to get access to in the UK and funnily enough there haven't been a whole lot of mass shootings of any kind since then.

Instead people have taken to loving knives to the point where there are dedicated knife disposal bins and their/your cops actually go around public housing stealing bats, hockey sticks and actual household tools because they consider them all weapons that need to be taken off the streets. That sounds utterly batshit insane to us. God I feel bad for those kids that wake up wondering where their shit went.

Trying to pre-empt the people who might go on these sprees and trying to somehow talk them is not a solution in any way shape or form.

I'm sorry, you just totally lost me. Nothing else that you can say can remove the giant flat what I just uttered.

Yes mental health issues are still not getting the attention they need but, as has been mentioned, they are also present in other countries which doesn't see this on anywhere close to this kind of scale.

Well, those countries are not America. I can bring Mexico into this argument and start explaining how gun control makes, well, modern Mexico but that isn't taking into account a hell of a lot.

Of course if the gunman has no gun they can't mow anybody down even if no one else has a gun either, funny how often that point is ignored.

Sure, but he does have a gun because America has illegal guns everywhere. Very, very rare a legal owner goes on one of these sprees.

And, you're not taking into account why Americans have and love their guns so dearly. Change the random gunman to *insert government here* and you have every country that had armed government but not citizens. A man with a gun dictates terms to those without.

 

[TechNoFear]

I'd link FBI statistics for him but I don't have the link on me.

I linked to the FBI report on the last 160 active shooter events. The FBI data supports my opinion not yours.

Idea would be deterrence theory. Though, in this case it likely would not deter this kind of shooter, depending on his motivations. In which case, someone armed would be able to stop him with it not being on the shooters terms when it ends, as basically ALL of these shootings have in common.

That is the theory but the facts show that if you allow more people to CC and introduce Stand Your Ground laws then you get an increase in firearm homicides (~8% increase, mainly of white males).

http://www.abajournal.com/files/GunReport.pdf

 

[TechNoFear]

Instead people have taken to loving knives to the point where there are dedicated knife disposal bins and their/your cops actually go around public housing stealing bats, hockey sticks and actual household tools because they consider them all weapons that need to be taken off the streets. That sounds utterly batshit insane to us.

And the US allowing over 100,000 people to be shot a year, with an average medical bill of US$40k each, because of a half a sentence in a document written 100's of years ago is totally sane....

 

[Leg End]

Then you are wrong, because firearms allow / empower people to project their influence to the range of the firearm, with a level of effectiveness and efficency that no other handheld weapon does.

So you're saying someone wanting to project their influence upon others will use whatever means available to do so?

(ie A child with a firearm could kill anybody, a child with a knife could not)

That's heavily circumstantial but it would be easier for a child to kill someone with a firearm than a knife, yes. Though why were bringing kids into this is a whole different matter.

It was demostrated by an expert during the trial, look at the wiki page.

Can you link it? My connection isn't too happy with me so I'll have to try and access the page directly and cross my fingers.

Point being that legally or illegally this Sydney siege shooter was only able to obtain a 50 year old pump action shotgun.

At the risk of sounding morbid, he must've been pretty shit at sourcing weapons. Luckily, that was indeed all he could find.

The Oregon shooter had 13 legal firearms, six of which he carried during the shooting.

Wait, holy shit. Can you provide a source for that? I've only been able to confirm at best he had three pistols with him and maybe a long gun.

He would not have been able to obtain those firearms in Australia (unless he was a very rich, well connected criminal).

So, you're basically saying the rich criminals have all the fun toys, Gotcha.

In Australia you have to show a reason for owing these types of items, self defence is not considered a valid reason.

This is why I do not live in Australia and cringe at your laws, being totally honest.

So if you want a semi-auto centerfire rifle you need to show why a repeating rimfire rifle will not be suitable.

Read above and I feel pain for my fun owning comrades in upsidedownland.

What reason could a private citizen have to NEED body armor?

And this, is the key difference to the two countries and why you can't ever compare them. The US is a place where you don't need justification for having something, and for something to actually be illegal you must have a damn good reason for why that thing should be illegal. It's freedom first, rather than applying select freedoms after. I can own body armor and my reason can be "none of your damn business".

 

[Leg End]

I linked to the FBI report on the last 160 active shooter events. The FBI data supports my opinion not yours.

From what I can TL;DR, seems like in the cases where someone was armed, be it private citizen or off duty cop, it ended with a dead shooter and minimal casualties. And I don't think I was talking about general active shooter events as they define, but general incidents where someone who was armed defused a situation by being armed, which sadly I don't have the statistics on me right now.

That is the theory but the facts show that if you allow more people to CC and introduce Stand Your Ground laws then you get an increase in firearm homicides (~8% increase, mainly of white males).

http://www.abajournal.com/files/GunReport.pdf

Got a specific excerpt or a TL;DR version because loading that on my connection can cut it for an hour. From what I can read and from the last one, you're being somewhat selective in how you're reading these reports, no offense. Then again, I'm having to try and download these files and read so I'm a bit of a pot right now.

And the US allowing over 100,000 people to be shot a year, with an average medical bill of US$40k each, because of a half a sentence in a document written 100's of years ago is totally sane....

Still sounding like that 100k statistic isn't breaking down how each person was shot or even how many of them were people being stupid with firearms, like how people are stupid with anything else.

Also, half sentence? Sounds like someone isn't reading the whole sentence. We have them for protection, and that entire sentence holds true to today, and will hold true for as long as man lives.

And don't even get into the healthcare aspect, we'll be here all night.

 

[TechNoFear]

And this, is the key difference to the two countries and why you can't ever compare them. The US is a place where you don't need justification for having something, and for something to actually be illegal you must have a damn good reason for why that thing should be illegal. It's freedom first, rather than applying select freedoms after. I can own body armor and my reason can be "none of your damn business".

So you are saying that ~100,000 people shot each year is not enough of a reason to restrict access to firearms?

Australians do not think owning a firearm is a right or 'freedom', we think owning a firearm is a responsibility you have to demonstrate you are capable of maintaining.

I can own body armor and my reason can be "none of your damn business".

This shooter exercised that exact right, no one asked for his reason to own 13 firearms and body armor.

Pity his reason was 'so I can murder as many people as possible'...

 

[Leg End]

So you are saying that ~100,000 people shot each year is not enough of a reason to restrict access to firearms?

Nope. Especially when in most shootings period it is with illegal weapons and many of those shootings you're listing with that 100,000 are probably officer involved shootings with suspects being shot, be it a cop being a dumbass or putting down someone who is an active threat to someone else. 100k of varying causes compared to 300+ million? That's not even a burp.

Australians do not think owning a firearm is a right or 'freedom', we think owning a firearm is a responsibility you have to demonstrate you are capable of maintaining.

Many people stateside see it as a responsibility in a different manner. You use that firearm responsibly and safely, and it being your duty to have a firearm to fight against the ever present threat of tyranny.

This shooter exercised that exact right, no one asked for his reason to own 13 firearms and body armor.

Pity his reason was 'so I can murder as many people as possible'...

Can you please provide a source for that? I can't find anything regarding him owning 13 firearms and having body armor on at the time of the shooting.

Pity he killed people, but that's on him, not on anyone else. He abused his right and used it to murder people in cold blood.

 

[Politrukk]

I'm sorry to say but I believe this is just a result of the economical, political and societal decline that's been ravaging through the U.S for a while now.

That in combination with your gun laws (meaning : you actually are allowing them) is causing all this.


If you're still one of those kids who bright-eyedly swears true allegiance to the flag and whatnot be my guest, but anyone who does not have pudding for a brain can see what is going on with the U.S

The U.S is quickly becoming a parody of itself.

 

[Leg End]

I'm sorry to say but I believe this is just a result of the economical, political and societal decline that's been ravaging through the U.S for a while now.

That in combination with your gun laws (meaning : you actually are allowing them) is causing all this.


If you're still one of those kids who bright-eyedly swears true allegiance to the flag and whatnot be my guest, but anyone who does not have pudding for a brain can see what is going on with the U.S

The U.S is quickly becoming a parody of itself.

Well, from what I'm reading, someone with a very sick mind went out and killed people. Be it societal decline or people just being shit.

Anyone can say it's any number of things causing these shootings. Common trait being the person goes in and enjoys being in power for a few minutes, then pops his head.

As for the parody bit, well, Poe's Law is funny that way, isn't it?

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

The debate will continue to rage on because of this horrible event.

But when people say how "easy" it is to get firearms in the US, I would swear those people are ridiculously underinformed of how much a person has to go through to legally own a firearm, let alone carry one in public (depending on the state things may even be harder). Now registered, lawful firearm owners are the least likely people to carry out violent crimes involving firearms. There are incidents of people being harmed with legally owned firearms, sometimes children. Those incidents are varied from accidental discharges to incompetence, and sometimes yes crimes are committed.

However the people most likely to commit a violent crime with a firearm, involving a discharge and injury or death are people who do not own them legally. How is more regulation of legally owned firearms going to stop criminals from being criminals?

And yeah you could just take everyone's right to firearms away, punish folks who have done and more than likely will never do a thing wrong/unlawful with those firearms. It won't stop criminals from illegally obtaining guns. Not in a country this size, with as many unsecured access points. It will only harm the folks who follow the laws as is.

Education is the best way of preventing crimes, and a better mental health system that doesn't stigmatize the people who need the help and actively seek it. I'm one to readily admit to being bipolar, and having other unresolved mental health issues but dammit if I don't get a lot of fucked up looks from people like I'm going to go on a shooting spree.

I wouldn't. I'm a diplomat and pacifist up to a point, until all other avenues of conflict resolution have failed and I'm backed up against a wall or in a corner. I'd never resort to violence as an answer or solution, only a last ditch effort to prevent the loss of life.

There's no clear answer on how to prevent mass killings, but I could guarantee it wouldn't be taking everyone's right to bear arms away.