Oregon college shooting

[TheVrolok]

It is far from logical.

Advocating limiting rights to millions to prevent a few guys from getting guns is insane.

Well, that's your opinion actually. One not shared universally by Americans, and almost universally opposed by the first world.

Why don't we just limit the rights to any inner city group suspected of being a gang member. How about they have to wear an ankle bracelet with a gunshot recording device so thst if they are around any gunshots it will report their location immediately so they can be arrested.

I'm all for cracking down on gang violence. Sounds good to me.

That alone will save many more lives than what you are proposing.

Do you have any evidence to back this up or is it purely speculation based on your infallible logic? Do you have data on regulatory restriction versus gunshot detecting ankle bracelets? Hell, data on gun violence itself is hotly disputed from both sides. Over what time period would it save more lives? Short term? Long term?

 

[John Connor]

every week we here about this...and yet you don't give a shit. go fuck yourself.

I didn't know you can call out like that. I even reported it and no one did a damn thing. So with that here's a big fat fuck yourself back!

 

[zinfamous]

I didn't know you can call out like that. I even reported it and no one did a damn thing. So with that here's a big fat fuck yourself back!

:thumbsup: :wub:

 

[IEC]

If you think infringing on the rights of people to self defense would work, you clearly haven't seen Crook County, Illinois aka Shitcago. Probably responsible for a fifth of homicides involving firearms in the country by itself.

Anyone against people having the ability to buy back their rights to self defense by getting a handgun permit is also a racist asshole.

Why? Because "gun control" laws were originally made by white supremacists to keep all of us "colored" folk unarmed. Nowadays of course that isn't politically correct, so they just make the fees exorbitant, change the legislation to let the permit be denied without specifying a reason why, have to jump through 87 hoops, etc. Which disproportionately keeps poor minorities disarmed. Exactly the way the people who wrote the legislation want it.

Never mind that being against the right to self defense also means you are bigoted against women and those with disabilities. Abe Lincoln may have freed all men, but Sam Colt made them equal. Carrying a firearm means a 5' tall 90 lb woman or someone who is wheelchair-bound can defend themselves against criminals who might otherwise see them as easy prey.

A firearm takes being forced against my will out of the equation. Without a firearm, I'm too small and weak to be able to defend myself against criminals and thugs with my bare hands. My bum leg means I can't outrun them either. What gun control proponents want leads to a world where the strong rule over the weak and might makes right. Which is exactly counter to the democratic principles this country was founded on.

 

[zinfamous]

If you think infringing on the rights of people to self defense would work, you clearly haven't seen Crook County, Illinois aka Shitcago. Probably responsible for a fifth of homicides involving firearms in the country by itself.

Anyone against people having the ability to buy back their rights to self defense by getting a handgun permit is also a racist asshole.

Why? Because "gun control" laws were originally made by white supremacists to keep all of us "colored" folk unarmed. Nowadays of course that isn't politically correct, so they just make the fees exorbitant, change the legislation to let the permit be denied without specifying a reason why, have to jump through 87 hoops, etc. Which disproportionately keeps poor minorities disarmed. Exactly the way the people who wrote the legislation want it.

Never mind that being against the right to self defense also means you are bigoted against women and those with disabilities. Abe Lincoln may have freed all men, but Sam Colt made them equal. Carrying a firearm means a 5' tall 90 lb woman or someone who is wheelchair-bound can defend themselves against criminals who might otherwise see them as easy prey.

A firearm takes being forced against my will out of the equation. Without a firearm, I'm too small and weak to be able to defend myself against criminals and thugs with my bare hands. My bum leg means I can't outrun them either. What gun control proponents want leads to a world where the strong rule over the weak and might makes right. Which is exactly counter to the democratic principles this country was founded on.

Have you ever been to Chicago? I doubt it.

I know I haven't talked about taking away your guns. Have others? It's rather clear that this is an impossibility in the US, and those who advocate such a thing are delusional; but these types of liberals are actually less delusional than the brainwashed simpletons that think that the NRA is actually serving their best interests.

Your talking points humor me. They mean very little to those that haven't been inundated with a singular and inherently ignorant perspective of the world outside of their controlled bubble.

I imagine that you don't have much desire to travel; especially to places that you assume aren't "as free" as your beloved Texas? If that is the case, then you are the problem.

 

[IEC]

Have you ever been to Chicago? I doubt it.

I know I haven't talked about taking away your guns. Have others? It's rather clear that this is an impossibility in the US, and those who advocate such a thing are delusional; but these types of liberals are actually less delusional than the brainwashed simpletons that think that the NRA is actually serving their best interests.

Your talking points humor me. They mean very little to those that haven't been inundated with a singular and inherently ignorant perspective of the world outside of their controlled bubble.

I imagine that you don't have much desire to travel; especially to places that you assume aren't "as free" as your beloved Texas? If that is the case, then you are the problem.

Yeah, another bigot. Assumes everybody who lives in Texas is an ignorant cowboy, huh?

I've lived all over the country and been to most cities over 250K population in the U.S. I also happen to be a software consultant who travels for work. Hell, I've even been to Chicago. A dozen times. Of course, I stay out of the areas of that town where all the killings happen. The Navy Pier area is nice. I took a date there once.

You know what they say about ASSumptions. Makes an ass out of u and me.

 

[zinfamous]

Yeah, another bigot. Assumes everybody who lives in Texas is an ignorant cowboy, huh?

I've lived all over the country and been to most cities over 250K population in the U.S. I also happen to be a software consultant who travels for work. Hell, I've even been to Chicago. A dozen times. Of course, I stay out of the areas of that town where all the killings happen. The Navy Pier area is nice. I took a date there once.

You know what they say about ASSumptions. Makes an ass out of u and me.

Yeah, I lived in Chicago for 6 years, and that is exactly my point. You seem to be aware, to at least some small degree, that the problem areas of Chicago are a tiny confined area in the smallest, most isolated part of the city...so far south that it is barely part of the city. No one who knows anything about Chicago would consider it a dangerous place.

Yet, you still cling to this talking point which you probably know is completely false and misleading--but hey! It's great to use it against the entire city because "I see it as a stronghold for ebil libruls! and their evil gun-hating and freedom-hating ways!"

Again, you let your handlers cloud your better judgement, just because you want them to. I encourage you to lean more on your own experience and literacy before allowing interest groups to form your thoughts for you.

 

[John Connor]

 

[LegendKiller]

Well, that's your opinion actually. One not shared universally by Americans, and almost universally opposed by the first world.

Do you really think what I care about the "first world"? The first world doesn't have the "melting pot" we do. They don't have the gangs, nor the drugs, nor the social problems we do. By and large the rest of the "first world" is far more xenophobic and homogenous in their cultures, and it shows. People compare us to Japan, lol, how many inner city gangs in Japan do you see that constantly shoot up each other? How many do you see in Germany, or Britain, or France, or Sweden, or Austria? None. How many illegal aliens does Japan have? How many of them are allowed to work, practically unfettered? How many are allowed to start, or make gangs flourish (like MS-13)?

I'm all for cracking down on gang violence. Sounds good to me.

Do you have any evidence to back this up or is it purely speculation based on your infallible logic? Do you have data on regulatory restriction versus gunshot detecting ankle bracelets? Hell, data on gun violence itself is hotly disputed from both sides. Over what time period would it save more lives? Short term? Long term?

Here is some data from NOLA.

http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2012/01/nopd_release_of_murder_victims.html

Here is some from Chicago

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/29/chicago-homicide-rate-new-york_n_2378073.html

Here is Philly

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-08-31-criminal-target_N.htm


I have no idea if the ankle braclets would save lives, but, according to you, just trying anything is "good enough".

 

[zinfamous]

Obviously it's because Obama is an America-hating muslim.

what kind of idiot makes a useless gif like this?

 

[WelshBloke]

People compare us to Japan, lol, how many inner city gangs in Japan do you see that constantly shoot up each other? How many do you see in Germany, or Britain, or France, or Sweden, or Austria? None.

Yeah. Not as many people carrying guns around in any of those countries.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Yeah. Not as many people carrying guns around in any of those countries.

and none of them with similar history, culture, and diversity as the US. and yes, all that matters.

 

[LegendKiller]

Yeah. Not as many people carrying guns around in any of those countries.

Yeah, and no major foreign gangs that there isn't an "understanding" with. Anybody who doesn't look like they belong is removed.

 

[WelshBloke]

and none of them with similar history, culture, and diversity as the US. and yes, all that matters.

Yes all that matters, also the shit ton of guns you have matters.

 

[LegendKiller]

Yes all that matters, also the shit ton of guns you have matters.

Criminals will always get guns. Just like those same gangs get/deal drugs despite them being illegal.

 

[Gryz]

how many inner city gangs in Japan do you see that constantly shoot up each other? How many do you see in Germany, or Britain, or France, or Sweden, or Austria? None.

Maybe, just maybe, just maybe maybe, the fact that gangs are a problem in the US, is caused by the fact that every Tom Dick and Harry can buy as many firearms as he likes ?

 

[Fenixgoon]

Yes all that matters, also the shit ton of guns you have matters.

indeed. but if you magically removed all firearms in the united states tomorrow, there would just be a lot more knifings and beatings. i imagine the homicide rate wouldn't drop nearly as much as you'd think, since a large chunk of violent crime is drug or gang related. yes, the "mass shooting" type events would probably stop, but that's ~1% of yearly homicides. would it help people in cook county, IL? if you want to address the other 99% of firearms homicides (which is what you really should be focusing on), that's the question you really want to answer.

suicide rates on the other hand, would probably plummet. self-inflicted gunshots are relatively quick and painless. everything else, not so much.

 

[WelshBloke]

Criminals will always get guns.

Yeah, because you have a shit ton of guns floating round.

 

[zinfamous]

indeed. but if you magically removed all firearms in the united states tomorrow, there would just be a lot more knifings and beatings. i imagine the homicide rate wouldn't drop nearly as much as you'd think, since a large chunk of violent crime is drug or gang related. yes, the "mass shooting" type events would probably stop, but that's ~1% of yearly homicides. would it help people in cook county, IL? if you want to address the other 99% of firearms homicides (which is what you really should be focusing on), that's the question you really want to answer.

suicide rates on the other hand, would probably plummet. self-inflicted gunshots are relatively quick and painless. everything else, not so much.

to be fair, swallowing a pale of pain pills is far more painless, and probably more effective than eating a bullet...just saying.

also, I'm sure the homicide rate would, indeed, plummet in the impossible magic world where the US has removed all guns from the streets. Gang bangers will still go about banging, but the numbers of by-stander deaths would, more or less, disappear. I imagine fatalities on targets would also drop.

I've still yet to find anyone that makes the tired, useless, and profoundly moronic argument: "Well, take away their guns, and they'll just use knives to kill everyone! take away their guns, and they'll just use a bow and arrow! or a bomb! or a car....etc" point to a single incident where a "drive-by knifing" resulted in the death of an innocent bystander.

Yes, I think removing guns is both impossible and stupid, so it really isn't worth addressing; but it's no less stupid than the illogical suggestion that other potential weapons are just as deadly, and would have no effect on the number of deaths. That's pure NRA horseshittery.

 

[LegendKiller]

Maybe, just maybe, just maybe maybe, the fact that gangs are a problem in the US, is caused by the fact that every Tom Dick and Harry can buy as many firearms as he likes ?

So you think the War On Drugs has been successful then?

 

[Printer Bandit]

everytime someone uses a gun for a good and legal purpose....that should be all over the news.

probably will never happen cause we all love chaos.

 

[Fenixgoon]

to be fair, swallowing a pale of pain pills is far more painless, and probably more effective than eating a bullet...just saying.

also, I'm sure the homicide rate would, indeed, plummet in the impossible magic world where the US has removed all guns from the streets. Gang bangers will still go about banging, but the numbers of by-stander deaths would, more or less, disappear. I imagine fatalities on targets would also drop.

I've still yet to find anyone that makes the tired, useless, and profoundly moronic argument: "Well, take away their guns, and they'll just use knives to kill everyone! take away their guns, and they'll just use a bow and arrow! or a bomb! or a car....etc" point to a single incident where a "drive-by knifing" resulted in the death of an innocent bystander.

Yes, I think removing guns is both impossible and stupid, so it really isn't worth addressing; but it's no less stupid than the illogical suggestion that other potential weapons are just as deadly, and would have no effect on the number of deaths. That's pure NRA horseshittery.

definitely right on both accounts - bystander deaths would be essentially, if not actually, 0. successful homicide would also drop on account of 1) people not doing a "good" job 2) modern medicine is unbelievable (WaPo or Baltimore Sun ran an article on a guy being saved who had 23 stab wounds )

i wasn't suggesting that knives are just as deadly as guns - they aren't. just pointing out that even if firearms were to completely disappear, there would still be plenty of homicides because the underlying cause (drug/gang violence) isn't addressed. it's not like removing firearms would be some magic panacea.

 

[OverVolt]

No Notoriety

http://money.cnn.com/2015/10/02/med...howing-killers/index.html?iid=surge-stack-dom

I like this. They should name mass shooters like they name hurricanes.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Maybe, just maybe, just maybe maybe, the fact that gangs are a problem in the US, is caused by the fact that every Tom Dick and Harry can buy as many firearms as he likes ?

If guns cause gang activity, why don't you see a universal trend towards gang activity among all demographics rather than a few narrow ones? How are NRA members represented among all gang members? Guns alone aren't much a tool for making money unless your gang operates purely through robbery and kidnapping (which isn't really the case in the USA). It's linked more to sale of narcotics, and poor people without much to live for that will take the risk if it means making $$$. Western Europe doesn't have a war on drugs.

 

[John Connor]

to be fair, swallowing a pale of pain pills is far more painless, and probably more effective than eating a bullet...just saying.

also, I'm sure the homicide rate would, indeed, plummet in the impossible magic world where the US has removed all guns from the streets. Gang bangers will still go about banging, but the numbers of by-stander deaths would, more or less, disappear. I imagine fatalities on targets would also drop.

I've still yet to find anyone that makes the tired, useless, and profoundly moronic argument: "Well, take away their guns, and they'll just use knives to kill everyone! take away their guns, and they'll just use a bow and arrow! or a bomb! or a car....etc" point to a single incident where a "drive-by knifing" resulted in the death of an innocent bystander.

Yes, I think removing guns is both impossible and stupid, so it really isn't worth addressing; but it's no less stupid than the illogical suggestion that other potential weapons are just as deadly, and would have no effect on the number of deaths. That's pure NRA horseshittery.

Take away guns and the problem goes away? LMAO! You think criminals can't get a gun, and then what? To use your analogy, a knife? I'm not that smart, but taking a knife to a gun fight isn't a really good idea.

Let me point out what I said early on already to make it crystal clear: Schools need armed teachers or security. To alleviate gun deaths in the inner city enforce common sense stop and frisk.


Now here's a thought experiment. What if, I mean what if a gun killed this perp? And what if that gun carrying dirt bag was a cop? Oh wait! It was a cop with a gun that shot the perp!

Nazi Germany practiced taking guns from its citizens. How be DAMNED that will happen here. There was a reason why this happened. It's called socialism and control. Just like making sure slaves can't read. Without the 2nd the 1st is shit!

All the gun laws in the world won't stop another school shooting. That's liberal fairytale horse shit. There are solutions and those solutions are common sense solutions like armed security. But the school already said they will not have armed security. I'd expect nothing less coming from liberal dumb ass Oregon.

Honduras has a shit load of gun related crime and they have strict gun regulation, yet Switzerland mandates everyone to own a gun and theirs hardly any gun related deaths. Go figure.