The Oregon shooting

[Illesdan]

I live in Southern Oregon, and honestly, I refuse to get into the gun argument. How about we approach this from a fresh prospective:

We, as a people, don't know how to talk to each other.

Oh, sure, we can sit behind a computer screen and troll with the best of them if the topic arises. We go to dating sites and expect to find 'true love'; as in, another emotionally stunted individual who can't connect with a living, breathing person on a face-to-face personal level.

All shooters have the same MO; they can't connect with anyone or anyone outside of their very narrow viewpoints of life. They are emotionally shut-in to the point of being agoraphobic, and have no real life friends to interact with on a personal level. The problem isn't the guns. If it wasn't a gun, it would be a knife, a bomb, a car, etc. The problem is in the mirror, every single day, when we refuse to talk to someone just a little bit different than us or our perception of 'normal'. You can't tell me no one knew this guy wasn't all right. The signs were there, people just chose to ignore them and hoped he'd quietly go away. Well, he went away all right, but he didn't go quietly.

If you see someone who is a little shy, maybe a little strange, try to strike up a conversation. Most of these people just need a real person to give a damn once in a while.

 

[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.

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

I'm split on this. People dying (in general is a tragedy), but until something real is done to curtail these events, I have no sad feelings to spare.

 

[TechNoFear]

Do you think a Bushmaster AR-15 is an "assault weapon"?

Not this again....I am surprised how effective that piece of NRA propaganda still is.

Spoiler

Firearm manufacturers created the terms 'assault weapon', 'assault rifle' and 'assault pistol' in the 1970s - 1980s.

The firearm manufacturers used these terms to refer to military pattern semi-automatic firearms (semi-auto copies of selective fire firearms).

When the US government enacted the AWB in the early 1990s the NRA redefined these terms in a (mostly successful) attempt to portray legislators as uneducated in firearms.

Here are a some examples of firearm enthusiast publications from the 1970s-1980s referring to semi-autos firearms as 'assault' rifles / weapons / pistols;

[Note how the AR-180 is referred to as an assault rifle, despite it being a semi-auto copy of the AR-18]

Overview;

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/guncontrol/a/Assault-Weapons.htm

Wiki on AWB, including legal definition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

Californian 'AWB'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roberti-Roos_Assault_Weapons_Control_Act_of_1989

Webster dictionary

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assault%20weapon

 

[Ihateregistering1]

Firearm manufacturers created the terms 'assault weapon', 'assault rifle' and 'assault pistol' in the 1970s - 1980s.

Sorry but think this is false.

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.

The actual Merriam-Webster dictionary term is a little wonkier, as it defines it as "a gun that can shoot many bullets quickly and that is designed for use by the military"

The key phrase here to note would be "designed for use by the Military", because 'can shoot many bullets quickly" is ludicrously vague (you can shoot 15 bullets from a standard semi-auto pistol in no time at all) but generally designed for Military use implies some type of automatic function (even if only 3 round burst).

A standard civilian purchased AR-15 does not have select-fire, as it only has a semi-auto mode, thus it is not, by strict definition, an "assault rifle".

The fact that Guns and Ammo talked about Assault Rifles is irrelevant, Guns and Ammo frequently talks about weapons that are not available to the vast majority of civilian purchasers.

The problem I've found is that most people who decry "assault weapons" don't even know what the actual legal definition is, and thus it basically turns into "anything that looks scary".

 

[TechNoFear]

A standard civilian purchased AR-15 does not have select-fire, as it only has a semi-auto mode, thus it is not, by strict definition, an "assault rifle".

An AR-15 is an 'assault rifle' if we use the strict legal definition in either the AWB or AWCA.

Like it or not, because of 'incorrect' use in both politics and the media the term 'assault' now legally and colloquially includes military pattern semi-automatic firearms (as well as firearms capable of selective fire).

 

[Do4600]

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.

Mostly yes, but there are outliers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_Sikh_temple_shooting

This happened two miles from where I was living at the time, the dumbest most depressing part was that he was motivated by the belief that there was an upcoming holy war and mistook Sikhs for Muslims.

So do other countries and they don't have a run on child coffins every month. Our society is deadly

 

[Leg End]

snip of post mentioning militias siding with the government

Actually I absolutely love that someone brings this up because this was the case when we initially fought for independence. It wasn't everyone siding against the crown and many people actively sided with the brits and many others just didn't give a fuck really.

As for the political right, it's why I laugh at both sides. When the time comes you'll find many people fighting for freedom, for the government, and even for just not getting involved with either side. Everyone will be fighting for what they believe in, whatever that may be.

As for your second, again, totally valid point. The only thing I have to say is, that it is a natural reality of having the right to arms, and for this purpose.
What will happen when the time comes, no one knows.

snip

Basically, what you just said.

A standard civilian purchased AR-15 does not have select-fire, as it only has a semi-auto mode, thus it is not, by strict definition, an "assault rifle".

An AR-15 is an 'assault rifle' if we use the strict legal definition in either the AWB or AWCA.

Like it or not, because of 'incorrect' use in both politics and the media the term 'assault' now legally and colloquially includes military pattern semi-automatic firearms (as well as firearms capable of selective fire).

That would be an example of a badly written law, written by people who know nothing about firearms.
An assault rifle is a very different thing to an "assault weapon" and "assault weapon" features in law, are prime fodder for jokes because how visual features on a weapon can totally change its classification while not changing the core function of the weapon itself. See: California. Also see how easy it is to remain compliant to stupid regulations while inconveniencing/totally shitting on law abiding gun owners because this state is run by absolute idiots. And the occasional politician who while pushing for video game and firearm legislation was selling actual military weapons to Triads(among other things), but we won't get into that.

Also, I should throw in there that an AR-15 is not defined as an "assault weapon" but I'm too tired to explain why it isn't and something about class 3s and dammit it's too late at night for this.

 

[Ihateregistering1]

A standard civilian purchased AR-15 does not have select-fire, as it only has a semi-auto mode, thus it is not, by strict definition, an "assault rifle".

An AR-15 is an 'assault rifle' if we use the strict legal definition in either the AWB or AWCA.

Like it or not, because of 'incorrect' use in both politics and the media the term 'assault' now legally and colloquially includes military pattern semi-automatic firearms (as well as firearms capable of selective fire).

Using the strict legal definition of of the Assault Weapons Ban, then a civilian purchased AR-15 is NOT an 'assault rifle'. In fact, on the very link you provided, the legal definition doesn't even mention "assault rifle".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

The issue is not the term "assault", it's noting that there is a difference between an "assault weapon" and an "assault rifle", and that the term 'assault rifle' was not invented by the NRA or politicians, but in fact has been around since the 1940's and is generally attributed to the Nazis.

What is the AWCA? I googled it and the first results I got were the Asian Woman Christian's association and the American Working Collie Association.

 

[The Almighty Aardvark]

Since this is now what this thread is about...

http://www.calgarysun.com/2015/08/09/calgary-man-accidentally-shot-in-woodbine-home-recovering-at-home

A couple months back a man in my community accidentally discharged a firearm. It went through his house, into someone else's house, and went straight through a 60 year old man. As unlucky as he was to be shot, he was even luckier that it missed all his vital organs.

Police officers regularly come under fire for misuse of their weapons. Whenever they discharge a firearm they need to report it, and they are put under strict scrutiny over what they used it for. These are people who are trained stringently in how to use their weapons, and when to use their weapons. Here's a scenario where a pair of police officers shot 16 bullets at a single target, and managed to injure 9 innocent bystanders at the scene, 3 of which were directly hit by bullets. Here's another example of an occasion where a police shoot out hit a bystander in her house.

On top of this, there's the fact that you're four times more likely to shoot someone with a gun by accident, seven times more likely to use it in a criminal assault, and eleven times more likely to kill yourself with it than use it in the act of protecting your home[footnote]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9715182[/footnote].

Now given how easy it is to accidentally injure bystanders (they don't even need to be visible), how easy it is to misuse your weapon even with the proper training, the fact that there is absolutely no training required, and the far greater likelihood that your weapon will kill someone in your family as opposed to a criminal trying to hurt you, I find it hard to connect more guns with more safety.

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.

 

[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.