Another Mass American Shooting(Oregon)...#994,in 3 years!!

[degaston]

@ degaston
Your comparing chemo/America with cancer/Syria. Obviously your picking a side with your analogy. America has the power to kill who ever is deemed a cancer.

You asked why guns were okay in Syria, but not in America. My analogy was only supposed to show that something can be beneficial in one situation but detrimental in another. As I said, I was not trying to make any judgments about that particular war, and I don't see the need to go off into those weeds in this thread. If you prefer, you can imagine that it's a war and a president that you support.

America can kill whoever is deemed a cancer? Really? Have you not watched the news in the last 14 years? Or do you only watch Fox?
I suppose, technically, you can stop cancer by killing the patient. Would you consider nuking the entire area to be a victory? Do you think we should send troops back into Iraq against the wishes of their government, and in violation of the treaty signed by Bush? What is your solution?

Let's hope all 350 million Americans agree with 100% of the American political dichotomy otherwise the citizens will need exactly what the American president is supplying to the rebels.

Did you even read what you wrote here? You seem to be advocating the violent overthrow of the governement unless everyone agrees with everything the government does. Would you care to rethink that?

Remember the American colonies beat the most militarily advanced country in the world. Obviously the technology is more advanced but its impossible to kill an idea.

So I take it you've never supported the "War on Terror", because terror is an idea, and you can't kill it?

To your point about having a gun in a person's house and being shot. If a person drives a car they are more likely to be injured in a car accident. Oranges and apples buddy.

I would agree that if you drive or ride in cars, you are more likely to be injured or killed in an accident, just as owning and using a gun makes you more likely to be injured or killed by a gun. So why do so many gun owners say that they own a gun because it makes them safer, when the exact opposite is true? No one tries to argue that their reason for owning a car is because it makes them safer.

Yes, cars can be dangerous, so studies have been done, and laws have been passed to make them safer.
You have to have pass a written and practical exam before you can get a license to drive.
Ownership is tracked through title records, and every car must be registered with the state, and you have to renew it periodically.
You must have liability insurance in order to drive.
Your car must meet certain safety requirements.

None of these things are serious impediments to owning and operating a car. They may not do much to prevent cars from being used in a crime, but they do make it easier to identify and catch the criminals, and they've made cars safer for everyone.

But it's impossible to even study solutions to gun crime (to the regret of the Republican who wrote that law), much less pass any laws that would help. Any discussion of gun laws, no matter how benign, results in conservatives accusing the other side of wanting to ban all guns, as has happened in this thread.

[mrswdk]

So which factors are responsible for European cities having significantly lower murder rates than American ones?

And why do Americans with guns fail to protect themselves where Europeans without guns succeed?

Who could possibly say with any certainty? There are many factors that vary one way or the other. How could we know which victims were armed or unarmed? There are plenty of examples where an American with a gun did protect themselves successfully, but of course not every successful survival is caught on video and certainly do not make news headlines.

i.e. you saw security cam footage of a guy shooting a burglar, which means that guns are great and you don't have to bother thinking about why America is so much more dangerous than its peers despite having so many awesome guns to protect itself with

No, I did not state my point in the extreme, nor was an extreme assumption based on one anecdotal example.

I said there is plenty of evidence to overturn the statement that 'Americans with guns fail to protect themselves'. Americans with guns succeed in protecting themselves every single day. An American carrying a gun has even preventing a mass shooting from time to time, and more than once an American with a gun has stopped mass murderers cold in their tracks before they got to reload 1 of 6 more clips the murderer probably would have been able to fire off before an American police officer with a gun could even arrive at the scene.

So why are Americans killed with 4-5 times the frequency of their counterparts in Europe? I mean, if having lots of guns makes Americans more safe, then what factors are at play which make America so incredibly dangerous that even guns can't protect people?

[mrswdk]

I deleted the info from my last post because it was difficult to present it in a clear format, but if you remove gun homicides from American and European crime stats then America has a homicide rate which is roughly equivalent to the homicide rate in the UK, France or Germany. The reason the American homicide rate is significantly higher is almost entirely due to the prevalence of gun homicide.

[mrswdk]

Yeah, right. Even in America if someone throws a punch at you and you shoot them dead then in most states, under most circumstances, you will end up in jail.

Responding with an inappropriate amount of force is still illegal and legislation pertaining to such is justified. If I get in a bar fight and break some guy's neck, I'm still guilty of manslaughter. In scenarios of self-defense, I'm not absolving defenders from culpability. The right to self-defense is a burden of responsibility.

And in the majority of scenarios, shooting someone is going to be considered unreasonable force.

And in the event that someone actually comes at you trying to kill you, most likely by the time you've realized and are trying to go for your gun, they'll be close enough to stop you.

That's a poor arguement. I said before that whether or not, in a realistic situation, if guns increase your chances, it's still your right to utilize such a measure.

Leaving aside the question of just how many 'realistic situations' there are in which your life could end up in mortal peril, my point is that - in the majority of situations - the gun won't increase your chances. You won't have a chance to draw your gun before the situation gets violent, at which point you're running a 50:50 chance that if you take out a gun, the other person will take it off you and shoot you.

You live in America, gun capital of the world. How many people do you know who have ever used a gun to defend themselves?

Without treading into thornheart territory, my mother, my father, and myself have all had cause to brandish a gun to deter assailants on separate occasions. I woke up one night at my first house after moving away from home to some jackass trying to shimmy my lock with a screwdriver. I opened the door on him with a handgun in hand, he saw, and ran off.

-TG

That wasn't an assailant, that was a burglar.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

And in the majority of scenarios, shooting someone is going to be considered unreasonable force

Okay. If I deem it necessary to kill somebody because I believe my life to be in danger, I'd rather sort out the bullshit later. Dead is dead.

Leaving aside the question of just how many 'realistic situations' there are in which your life could end up in mortal peril, my point is that - in the majority of situations - the gun won't increase your chances. You won't have a chance to draw your gun before the situation gets violent, at which point you're running a 50:50 chance that if you take out a gun, the other person will take it off you and shoot you.

You keep bringing this up, and I keep responding the same way. Even if what you say is true (I'm not so sure it is--the very threat of a weapon is itself a deterrent), I don't really care and it's not relevant. I'll just refer you to the rape scenario. How likely is it that a 130 pound woman can fight off a 250 pound man? It isn't, yet you can't say she shouldn't try.

It's my right to do all sorts of things which endanger my survival. The only difference between a fist and a gun is its degree of efficiency. And this brings me back to my original point-- if I have the right to punch somebody attacking me, I can use a gun as well. You can't grant one and ban the other. Intent is intent.

That wasn't an assailant, that was a burglar.

Perhaps, though my car was in the driveway and I had fallen asleep with the tv on. Maybe he was the world's dumbest burglar, who knows. I still look both ways before crossing the road.

-TG

[mrswdk]

Leaving aside the question of just how many 'realistic situations' there are in which your life could end up in mortal peril, my point is that - in the majority of situations - the gun won't increase your chances. You won't have a chance to draw your gun before the situation gets violent, at which point you're running a 50:50 chance that if you take out a gun, the other person will take it off you and shoot you.

You keep bringing this up, and I keep responding the same way. Even if what you say is true (I'm not so sure it is--the very threat of a weapon is itself a deterrent), I don't really care and it's not relevant.

In judo I got taught how to disarm someone who has come up behind you and put a gun in your back, and it's pretty easy. Taking a gun off someone at close quarters isn't hard in general: check out this case of a guy who pulled a gun to try and kill a hooker, only for her to turn it back on him and shoot him dead.

If it's that straightforward to disarm someone when you are on the back foot being attacked, how easy do you think it is to disarm someone when you have the advantage of being the attacker?

I'll just refer you to the rape scenario. How likely is it that a 130 pound woman can fight off a 250 pound man? It isn't, yet you can't say she shouldn't try.

I never said she shouldn't. I ignored your scenario because it's a strawman.

If I have the right to punch somebody attacking me, I can use a gun as well.

Think you'll find the law says something different, even in America.

In any case, I'm still interested in seeing what examples you can come up with of realistic situations in which your life is put in danger and it is useful for you to have a gun to defend yourself with.

[Phatscotty]

wow, okay. Let's pick a random day and get the details of these shootings which didn't seem to make the news as far as I can tell. September 28th. What states did that happen in?

Meh, chances are that the mass shooting on sept 28 was in Chicago. People getting killed there every freaking day it seems. Chicago is the worst for mass shootings. Luckily, Chicago has the most strict gun laws in the country so that should start slowing the shootings there at some point...

Lucky guess, or did you google it?

Yeah, Chicago. Not a biggie as shootings go, but I'm sure at least 5 people will never be the same again.
http://fox6now.com/2015/09/28/11-month-old-baby-among-five-victims-in-shooting-on-chicagos-south-side/

Coming home from a family outing. My guess is that one member of the family pissed off some gangster, and the other four were probably completely innocent. Of course we'll never know. Nobody is in custody, and the cops have already moved on to more pressing business.

Yes, I know it's small potatoes compared to shit that goes on in Mexico or Brazil. Still, big or small, it's something that shouldn't be so routine that it passes by with this little comment.

okay, I think we are on to something. A couple of my black friends have noted how virtually all mass shooters are white males. I was curious what the racial breakdown might be of these 994 mass shootings. I might guess white males are the minority when it comes to the 994 mass shootings. just curious

[warmonger1981]

America has no right to kill whome it deems a terrorist. I support no president in the last 40 years. Fox news = neoconservative war baiters. America is trying to kill the cancer. The same cancer it created in some areas. Treaty means nothing. Americad other countries violate human rights all the time. I have no solution as I'm not granted all information to make a sound judgment. I advocate nothing. The 2nd amendment does that. No I don't support war on terror. It's a scam and a lie. Anyone can be deemed a terrorist. I also don't support FISA court or the Patriot Act. So even if a car is taxed,titled,licensed its not possible for a criminal to steal that legal vehicle to go commit crime? I think your argument is weak as you do with mine.

[patches70]

wow, okay. Let's pick a random day and get the details of these shootings which didn't seem to make the news as far as I can tell. September 28th. What states did that happen in?

Meh, chances are that the mass shooting on sept 28 was in Chicago. People getting killed there every freaking day it seems. Chicago is the worst for mass shootings. Luckily, Chicago has the most strict gun laws in the country so that should start slowing the shootings there at some point...

Lucky guess, or did you google it?

Yeah, Chicago. Not a biggie as shootings go, but I'm sure at least 5 people will never be the same again.
http://fox6now.com/2015/09/28/11-month-old-baby-among-five-victims-in-shooting-on-chicagos-south-side/

Coming home from a family outing. My guess is that one member of the family pissed off some gangster, and the other four were probably completely innocent. Of course we'll never know. Nobody is in custody, and the cops have already moved on to more pressing business.

Yes, I know it's small potatoes compared to shit that goes on in Mexico or Brazil. Still, big or small, it's something that shouldn't be so routine that it passes by with this little comment.

okay, I think we are on to something. A couple of my black friends have noted how virtually all mass shooters are white males. I was curious what the racial breakdown might be of these 994 mass shootings. I might guess white males are the minority when it comes to the 994 mass shootings. just curious

Chicago is horrible, so start there. PS, you will love this site-
http://heyjackass.com/

It is a site that keeps a running tab on the shootings in Chicago. You will be dumbfounded when you see how bad it is. Full breakdowns on who gets shot, who does the shooting, how many killed, how many injured and even placement of where bullets have hit victims. Very few of these shootings, many of them mass shootings, ever make the national headlines.

IN fact, so far just this year in the category of mass shootings, up until 9/29/15 thus far there has been-
one involving 7 victims (one killed)
7 with 5 victims (6 total killed)
9 with 4 victims (5 total killed)
62 with 3 victims (26 total killed)
250 with 2 victims (73 total killed)

Right there that's 328 mass shootings so far this year to date.

Yeah, that's Chicago. But you don't hear anything about it because....

[patches70]

America has no right to kill whome it deems a terrorist. I support no president in the last 40 years. Fox news = neoconservative war baiters. America is trying to kill the cancer. The same cancer it created in some areas. Treaty means nothing. Americad other countries violate human rights all the time. I have no solution as I'm not granted all information to make a sound judgment. I advocate nothing. The 2nd amendment does that. No I don't support war on terror. It's a scam and a lie. Anyone can be deemed a terrorist. I also don't support FISA court or the Patriot Act. So even if a car is taxed,titled,licensed its not possible for a criminal to steal that legal vehicle to go commit crime? I think your argument is weak as you do with mine.

The last straw is when we murdered a US citizen via drone attack and no one batted an eye. That is absolutely illegal. Guy was said to be a "terrorist", hell he might have been, but that is why we have trials, to determine if that's true. The US government doesn't have the right to murder US citizens without a trial. I don't give a shit what he/she has allegedly done, a US citizen is entitled to a trial, period. Just because a US citizen is abroad doesn't mean the US government can ignore that person's constitutional rights.
It is insane how easily people just forget the Constitution when someone is labeled "terrorist". Franklin was not only a genius, he was a prophet...


To the OP-
If people want guns banned, there is a simple, easy way to get rid of all the guns in the US-

[mrswdk]

America has no right to kill whome it deems a terrorist. I support no president in the last 40 years. Fox news = neoconservative war baiters. America is trying to kill the cancer. The same cancer it created in some areas. Treaty means nothing. Americad other countries violate human rights all the time. I have no solution as I'm not granted all information to make a sound judgment. I advocate nothing. The 2nd amendment does that. No I don't support war on terror. It's a scam and a lie. Anyone can be deemed a terrorist. I also don't support FISA court or the Patriot Act. So even if a car is taxed,titled,licensed its not possible for a criminal to steal that legal vehicle to go commit crime? I think your argument is weak as you do with mine.

The last straw is when we murdered a US citizen via drone attack and no one batted an eye. That is absolutely illegal. Guy was said to be a "terrorist", hell he might have been, but that is why we have trials, to determine if that's true. The US government doesn't have the right to murder US citizens without a trial. I don't give a shit what he/she has allegedly done, a US citizen is entitled to a trial, period. Just because a US citizen is abroad doesn't mean the US government can ignore that person's constitutional rights.
It is insane how easily people just forget the Constitution when someone is labeled "terrorist". Franklin was not only a genius, he was a prophet...

Meh. Over the past decade or so the US Government has taken it upon itself to murder thousands of people with drones without due process. That one of them was American is hardly the most pressing issue.

[patches70]

Oh, I'm highly critical of the drone war as well. The US strategy is to fly over a target looking for one guy, drop and bomb and kill that one guy along with anyone else that one guy may be in close proximity to. Mothers, fathers, children, old people, it's insane. Each bomb that kills that one guy ends up creating ten more guys we end up having to hunt down with a drone because all those mothers, fathers, children and old people have relatives who get pissed of when we killed their mothers, fathers and children.

The murdering of a US citizen (and his son, collateral damage who was only 14 years old had been guilty of no crime) is troubling for me as well because I'm a US citizen. The laws that were supposed to protect that 14 year old are the same laws that are supposed to protect me.

The drone war are acts of war. There has been no declaration of war from Congress, we, the US is engaging in illegal wars without consent from Congress in violation of the Constitution. If the US government can ignore the law, then pray tell why should anyone else bother following the law?

Someone here said one of the accomplishments of Obama was keeping the US out of wars for the last seven years. That's bullshit, because the US hasn't fought a war sine WWII apparently. The US has been engaged in acts of war daily for over a decade. Its worse actually to commit acts of war without declarations of war IMO. Things have turned to the surreal it seems.
When certain elements say that the US is acting the terrorist, they have a point, don't they?
Thus it comes to be that we are all a bunch of terrorists in one way or another. Except that when brown people blow something up they are evil, when the US bombs a hospital its called an "accident".
And the US thinks she has the right to school anyone else about morality?
Seems a bit of a stretch to me.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

Leaving aside the question of just how many 'realistic situations' there are in which your life could end up in mortal peril, my point is that - in the majority of situations - the gun won't increase your chances. You won't have a chance to draw your gun before the situation gets violent, at which point you're running a 50:50 chance that if you take out a gun, the other person will take it off you and shoot you.

You keep bringing this up, and I keep responding the same way. Even if what you say is true (I'm not so sure it is--the very threat of a weapon is itself a deterrent), I don't really care and it's not relevant.

In judo I got taught how to disarm someone who has come up behind you and put a gun in your back, and it's pretty easy. Taking a gun off someone at close quarters isn't hard in general: check out this case of a guy who pulled a gun to try and kill a hooker, only for her to turn it back on him and shoot him dead.

If it's that straightforward to disarm someone when you are on the back foot being attacked, how easy do you think it is to disarm someone when you have the advantage of being the attacker?

I'll just refer you to the rape scenario. How likely is it that a 130 pound woman can fight off a 250 pound man? It isn't, yet you can't say she shouldn't try.

I never said she shouldn't. I ignored your scenario because it's a strawman.

If I have the right to punch somebody attacking me, I can use a gun as well.

Think you'll find the law says something different, even in America.

In any case, I'm still interested in seeing what examples you can come up with of realistic situations in which your life is put in danger and it is useful for you to have a gun to defend yourself with.

It's not a straw man, you just refuse to acknowledge its validity. There's no consistency to saying you can fight back in certain situations, but shouldn't in others because your chances are slim.

As for realistic situations, there're plenty. Home invasions come to mind. You seem to have this idea that people can move fast enough to jump to you, do some judo reversal stuff, and will completely overpower you, all with you unable to do anything about it. It just isn't realistic itself.

-TG

[WingCmdr Ginkapo]

Okay. If I deem it necessary to kill somebody because I believe my life to be in danger, I'd rather sort out the bullshit later. Dead is dead.

This right here is the problem. Its not the guns. Zero value for other peoples lives. Its similar to the extreme philosophy of American Capitalism.

[mrswdk]

It's not a straw man, you just refuse to acknowledge its validity. There's no consistency to saying you can fight back in certain situations, but shouldn't in others because your chances are slim.

I never said anyone shouldn't fight back. I just questioned the need for and usefulness of a gun.

As for realistic situations, there're plenty. Home invasions come to mind. You seem to have this idea that people can move fast enough to jump to you, do some judo reversal stuff, and will completely overpower you, all with you unable to do anything about it. It just isn't realistic itself.

I don't know anyone who's been at home when burglars have tried to break in, but from what I've heard they're far more likely to run away when they see you than rush at you and try to kill you.

[riskllama]

home invasions are pretty common in NA, you stupid chinese...

[riskllama]

also, 2 more shootings today???

[riskllama]

i had a buddy who preferred to rob people instea of working. he broke into a house and the wife/woman had come home from work for lunch. when she asked him what he was gonna do with her, his reply was" can you make me a sandwich?". He got 2 years less a day for his crime. we all laughed...

[jonesthecurl]

Hope it was a good sandwich.

[ConfederateSS]

It's not a straw man, you just refuse to acknowledge its validity. There's no consistency to saying you can fight back in certain situations, but shouldn't in others because your chances are slim.

I never said anyone shouldn't fight back. I just questioned the need for and usefulness of a gun.

As for realistic situations, there're plenty. Home invasions come to mind. You seem to have this idea that people can move fast enough to jump to you, do some judo reversal stuff, and will completely overpower you, all with you unable to do anything about it. It just isn't realistic itself.

I don't know anyone who's been at home when burglars have tried to break in, but from what I've heard they're far more likely to run away when they see you than rush at you and try to kill you.

------About 10 years ago. Nobody was home but me. I thought I heard knocking at the front door. As I was getting up. I heard my rod-iron side gate open. I grabbed my 38 ,as I heard people coming up my back steps. I stood right inline with my back door. One of them kicked the door open. I saw two guys. In their 20's. They saw my gun pointed at them. The second one ran,ran down the alley. The one that kicked in my door approached me. I fired a shot just off to the right of him over his head. He turned ran down my back steps. As he was running to the alley I shot him in the ass. He kept limping and going. I shot 3 more times into the ground. Later I told the police I shot the wall behind the person. It bounced back and hit him in the ass. The police never found either of them.
------Never the less my house has never been bothered since. I guess some people were scared straight that day,hopefully. ConfederateSS.out!(The Blue and Silver Rebellion)....

[warmonger1981]

My friend actually got caught robbing one of his friends house and the homeowner pulled a gun on him and held him there until the cops showed up. The homeowner was nice enough to let him flush his meth down the toilet so he didn't get an extra charge. He did 8 months for the robbery with 5 years probation. My friend then seen in a guns and ammo magazine a small article about the incident. He cut it out and posted it on his bedroom wall.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

Okay. If I deem it necessary to kill somebody because I believe my life to be in danger, I'd rather sort out the bullshit later. Dead is dead.

This right here is the problem. Its not the guns. Zero value for other peoples lives. Its similar to the extreme philosophy of American Capitalism.

Zero value of others' lives? You don't know me well, so I'll let that slide. I have the utmost regard for human life, but I'm not a turn-the-cheek kind of person if my life is threatened. If someone attacks you, you could trip over your own feet and smash your had on a rock. Do realize just how easily you can die or be severely injured? In any situation where one person attacks another, niceties no longer exist.

If you honestly believe that lethal force isn't a necessary evil on occasion, I urge you to seriously boycott any military or police entity, because you cannnot with any measure of rationality argue that the local cannot use necessary force when the collective can. Militaries (yours and mine) engage and kill others all the time when they pose no realistic threat to you, yet I have yet to see any Brit here argue for the disarmament of their military.

I never said anyone shouldn't fight back. I just questioned the need for and usefulness of a gun.

What's the difference between a gun and say, a knife or brick? Your "attacker will wrest the gun away from you" still applies to those, I assume. Maybe you've never seen what a knife can do, but I think I'd rather be gunshot. A weapon is a weapon.

I don't know anyone who's been at home when burglars have tried to break in, but from what I've heard they're far more likely to run away when they see you than rush at you and try to kill you.

There's more to home invasions than simple burglary. Rape, murder, etc. If I could be guaranteed that the guy trying to break into my home is only there to nab my awesome Iron Maiden collection, I'd say fine, go ahead, it's not worth violence.

-TG

[mrswdk]

I shot him in the ass. He kept limping and going. I shot 3 more times into the ground. Later I told the police I shot the wall behind the person. It bounced back and hit him in the ass.

And what happened when the police said 'there is no mark on your wall'?

Or are American police stupid/complicit?

[warmonger1981]

Let's ban knives. Looks like the crazy Chinese don't need guns when you can kill 50 with a knife.It also looks like trucks were used in the attack. Let's ban trucks.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/o ... s-xinjiang

http://www.rfa.org/english/news/uyghur/ ... 74319.html

I wonder what mrswdk has to say about this. There is no way something like this can happen in such a new age country of love.

[mrswdk]

Let's ban knives. Looks like the Chinese don't need guns when [a group of nine assailants] can kill 50 [mostly sleeping workers] with knives.

Fixed that for you.

In any case: strawman.