Forums → WEPR → Mall shooting in Oregon
| 191 | 61409 |
3 people dead including the shooter. this is on the front page of CNN. i guess somebody went into the mall and started firing an assault rifle at people. multiple others were wounded. this happened literally like 5 minutes from my house. [url=http://www.katu.com/news/local/Shooting-Clackamas-Town-Center-183077691.html] link to news article
- 191 Replies
there are different classes of policemen in the uk.
some do have weapons.
Most don't. They can, but most don't, and the public supports that. They do use them in NI where it's much more dangerous though.
The net. The figures are from 2000 to 2011 I think.
Most don't.
some do. =)
anyway... the net?
i hope you dont mean the i-net.. =P (but a more specific url)
It's not just the guns, The culture of violence is a good part of it.
It's easier to reach for your gun during an argument situation, marital trouble, annoying neighbors, etc. Don't get me wrong, USA is a great country and I know lots of good people but I think it's seriously time to update some laws because the mentalities have changed, times are different, and the population is also different.
Not that long ago jobs were easy to find but not anymore so the priorities are more toward creating jobs so that people have their dignity back and some money spending power to make the economy roll.
Stig(SSTG), it's not a violence culture, that's just a wrong steriotype, most everyone I know has several guns or more or supports guns and I'd trust most of hem with my life. It's like with Pitbulls, we're being told that we're all violent criminals when we just want to have fun shooting or want to protect ourselves. Yes there will those who will abuse them, but they'd still be just as violent and maybe even more deadly without them (bombs of course). No it's not all that hard to believe that someone can make a bomb, it's been done before and it can be done again. Crazy as it may sound, as bad as these shootings have been, these insidences (for lack of a better word) could have potentially been many times worse if they didn't have guns and were forced to improvise.
Stig(SSTG), it's not a violence culture, that's just a wrong steriotype, most everyone I know has several guns or more or supports guns and I'd trust most of hem with my life. It's like with Pitbulls, we're being told that we're all violent criminals when we just want to have fun shooting or want to protect ourselves. Yes there will those who will abuse them, but they'd still be just as violent and maybe even more deadly without them (bombs of course). No it's not all that hard to believe that someone can make a bomb, it's been done before and it can be done again. Crazy as it may sound, as bad as these shootings have been, these insidences (for lack of a better word) could have potentially been many times worse if they didn't have guns and were forced to improvise.
No one pulled out a gun and shot him in this case. As in so many others.
doesn't seem to me that the government cares that they will by-pass the 17trillion mark. it will probably go up to 19 maybe 20 trillion
But the people are starting to care. Public opinion is starting to hold more weight.
there have only been 3 police fatalities due to gunshot wounds in the past ten years.
How many due to blades?
(dunno how big your "local" is))
Police are by town/city
Sheriff is by county
State Trooper is by state
US Marshall is federal
or can, lets say..... florida go bankrupt whitout the rest?
Technically yes, each state has it's own debts that it owes to the federal level or to other states, but the federal government currently claims the debt of the states to the foreign creditors. It's kind of like if your parents let you use their credit card, but you have to pay them back so they can pay it off.
No one pulled out a gun and shot him in this case. As in so many others.
Which case are you referring to? Mall or school? Or both? If you mean a legally carrying citizen didn't stop the shooters, guns are banned in elementary schools and malls. It wouldn't be legal for them to do so.
But the people are starting to care. Public opinion is starting to hold more weight.
Ask how many people would like to cut down on military spending (Reps), or welfare programs (Dems), and see the look of horror. If the people themselves can't even control their own spending (permanent trade deficit), it would be sheer hypocrisy. The country has been gushing money for decades, yet no one cared. No one cared during the wars, no one cared during the dot com bubble burst. People say they want a reduction on the budget, but they don't want a Europe style austerity drive. Choose.
Which case are you referring to? Mall or school? Or both? If you mean a legally carrying citizen didn't stop the shooters, guns are banned in elementary schools and malls. It wouldn't be legal for them to do so.
Which renders Manlyman's point about self defense null.
Which renders Manlyman's point about self defense null.
Not necessarily. If the location restrictions were lessened, CC/OC permitted citizens would be in the places where mass shootings occur. Laws don't restrict criminals, just the law-abiding citizens.
Not necessarily. If the location restrictions were lessened, CC/OC permitted citizens would be in the places where mass shootings occur. Laws don't restrict criminals, just the law-abiding citizens.
Would you stop and shoot or flee if a crazed gun man comes at you? The law does restrict criminals, the minimal gun control laws prevent criminals from accessing even high calibre weapons.
The law does restrict criminals
I specifically meant the laws regarding locations. Do you really think a shooter with murderous intent stops at the door, sees the "No guns allowed" sign and decides that he shouldn't go in?
Would you stop and shoot or flee if a crazed gun man comes at you?
If it were legal and I had a permit and everything, and he's not wearing heavy body armor or something, I would fight. Granted, I would seek cover if I was blatantly out in the open, but I would still fight.
I specifically meant the laws regarding locations. Do you really think a shooter with murderous intent stops at the door, sees the "No guns allowed" sign and decides that he shouldn't go in?
If it were legal and I had a permit and everything, and he's not wearing heavy body armor or something, I would fight. Granted, I would seek cover if I was blatantly out in the open, but I would still fight.
No, but it is extremely easy to say you would in the safety of your room. If a person is faced with such a psychopath, guns blazing, would you really? The law prevents people from potentially defending themselves, but a gun culture which stems from militia movements that are outdated is a useless one. And if people claim that restricting gun ownership will merely allow illegal dealers to step into the void, why is the rest of the developed world largely free from such shootings and killings then? Where are the illegal dealers there? Isn't the argument that if criminals have the intention, they will go all way out to find the means to commit the crime often made? But where is the basis for that in the rest of the developed world?
I don't much feel like responding to what I've missed these last few pages so I'm just going to make some blanket statements.
The issue isn't guns being legal or not. The issue is people using guns as weapons of crime. Are we all in agreement with that?
If you agree with the first statement, hear me out. What we're arguing about is the methodology on what's best in terms of safety and personal freedoms. The rational behind making guns illegal is to prevent them from being used in crime through a series of measures.
However, most of these measures are very possible without making guns illegal (Increased regulations on guns, crackdown on people owning illegal guns, preventing unauthorized arms sales). Everyone is happy if guns aren't being used as tools for crime, but realistically even with the heaviest restrictions possible on them they still are used for crime.
For those of you arguing that everyone who likes guns is just a psychopathic idiot, you're wrong. Guns can be used for sport (not hunting, as there's really no good reason to even allow it nowadays) and are not misused by the vast majority of people out there.
In terms of self defense, I'm not advocating everyone walking around with a concealed firearm, far from it. I think that those who get properly checked and trained to do so might help in random situations (think a sort of reserved police force with no real power, but able to stand a chance at preventing these random killings which do happen regardless of legality). Non lethal means such as pepper spray work well anyways.
Long story short, making guns illegal isn't the best answer. It's basically writing off the issue as taken care of when in reality there's still gun crimes. However, just because guns aren't illegal doesn't mean any random person should be able to get their hands on any random gun either.
The problem is the same in 99% of gun incidents anyways, someone gets an illegally obtained gun and does some damage with it. Whether guns were legal or not in the country is irrelevant.
So please, let's drop the mindset that everyone who is against making guns illegal is some gun nut who lives in the south or is a rich person who sells them.
If a person is faced with such a psychopath, guns blazing, would you really?
If I had the propper training and all that, yes. Watching another person mow down innocents is quite a motivator. I'd sooner turn the gun on myself than run in fear.
Also here's the list of murder rates by state (click the show button). Vermont and New Hampshire, the states with what are considered the most lax gun laws, have the lowest murder rates of the contiguous US.
Non lethal means such as pepper spray work well anyways.
How does one get within pepper spray range of a guy with an assault rifle?
Long story short, making guns illegal isn't the best answer. It's basically writing off the issue as taken care of when in reality there's still gun crimes. However, just because guns aren't illegal doesn't mean any random person should be able to get their hands on any random gun either.
Yes, but it vastly reduces the amount of firearms obtainable when you turn the spigot off to a trickle. Almost no country bans guns wholly, but they impose very strict rules, something the USA has failed to do, which puzzles much of the world. England, Japan, Singapore, Malaysia, Australia, all enforce extremely harsh penalties. Result? Low gun homicide rates.
How does one get within pepper spray range of a guy with an assault rifle?
I was talking about general self defense. If some guy has a heavy duty weapon like that you should really just turn tail unless you're specifically trained to deal with that type of situation...
You must be logged in to post a reply!