Forums → WEPR → Mall shooting in Oregon
| 191 | 61390 |
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
no they havn't.
it's illegal... -.-'
Yes, they do. Obviously they do, because guns don't simply cease to exist because they're now illegal. People still commit crimes with illegal things. Assault rifles are illegal, how did that guy in Oregon get one? :O But they don't exist because they're illegal right?! No one has them! It's a conspiracy!
Seriously...
ive seen a reason of a pro-gun guy here that guns are oke because most people have had practice at some point.
Most people aren't going to accidentally shoot someone else because we've grown up learning what guns can do and have been taught how to handle them in a safe manner.
also you seem to think that all knife incidents are about the guy wanting to stabe. while most of the time it's just to scare people.
I'm laughing now. You do realize this is EXACTLY what we've been trying to tell you about guns? Not all gun incidents are about the guy wanting to shoot someone else. Most of the time it's just to scare people. :O
No different from knives! Just a different weapon! How many times do I have to say this for you to understand?
if you dont freeze you can take over or atleast remove the knife from his hands.
Again, I don't know how many times I need to say this. Not everyone can disarm an opponent like that even with self defense courses.
bullets go deeper and penetrate bones.
knifes themselve can keep you from bleeding dead and safe your life if they are not taken out. (a little more hope there)
Like the guy is just going to leave his knife in you and run away...You're going to bleed to death faster from a large gash than you would a single bullet wound. In the end, you're just being nitpicky on the how.
It doesn't matter if someone is killed by a bullet or a cut. They're still dead. You're ignoring the issue.
but when every house has multiple guns. it is easyer for... let say a teen getting mad over something or adult who lost it's job or watever reason might pop-up. to pick up a gun
1) Not every house has multiple guns.
2) FAR from every teen who gets mad is going to go to such extremes as shooting someone else. For those that do, THEY HAD ANOTHER PROBLEM TO BEGIN WITH AND WOULD HAVE TAKEN OUT THAT VIOLENCE IN ANOTHER WAY ANYWAYS.
What can you not understand about this? Murders aren't committed by your every average day person. Just because 100 people have guns doesn't mean 100 guns are going to be fired. It's the crazy people, who regardless of whether they have a gun or not, are going to cause trouble. Making them illegal does NOTHING to stop that except change the likelihood of what weapon was used.
then when he 1st has to find out where he could buy a gun. then seek contact whit the person. buy it and then go on a rampage.
by that time the rage he was in is over.
This is all a random hypothetical by you that has absolutely no bearing to begin with. If it was all a spur of the moment thing, there are plenty of other things available to cause harm with. Kitchen knife, chainsaw, car, homemade bomb, arson, etc. You're just arbitrarily deciding that guns are evil and completely ignoring reality.
other kinds of weapons are not so utterly easy to handle as a gun. they do not go as fast as a gun. they do not have the range of a gun.
Yes, a gun is different from a knife. So are any other number of weapons. Want to ban fire because it can burn down a hospital? A gun can't do that, thus fire must be worse than a gun right?
but they are easyer to find and identify. as all firearms are coming from the underground and nothing can be distributed by smuggling it along side the legal distribution. because that doesn't exist.
I already acknowledged that you can REDUCE the amount. You can't get rid of them entirely, and by making them illegal you AREN'T reducing crime/violence, you're just changing the means.
i was referring to a robbery.
I know you were. However, that was in response to my example which was basically the same thing as the title.
Thanks for admitting the red herring though, I guess.
never said they will be gone.
and i never said that shootings dont happen.
So please explain exactly what making guns illegal does other than reducing the amount of guns and changing what weapons criminals are more likely to have?
-lower medical costs.
Unless you're dead.
-less innocents hit by blind bullets.
More innocents getting assaulted because they aren't likely to have a way to defend themselves.
-less deaths by homicide.
Many more rapes/thefts/assaults and not too many less deaths from homicide.
-some extra income for the people when they could deliver their guns to the police and get some money for it back (economic stimulation)
Loss of money overall due to a partial reimbursement on investments.
for owning a gun you dont go to prison. they just take the gun away from you and you get a fine for it in return
The only valid point you've made this entire thread, and that was simply because I'm not well versed in the UKs policy in what happens to people found with guns.
just sell them to africa. thats what you government has always done.
I'm sorry, when did this turn from why guns shouldn't be legal because people kill others with them to "my real problem is I hate America and I am like a dog with a bone and can't let anything go that has anything to do with it?"
i would be dead now if my parents had a gun in house somewhere.
If your parents were responsible, they wouldn't keep it in a place you knew about and preferably you wouldn't even have known it was there to begin with. Moot point.
How bout we just get rid of guns altogether and go WAAAAY back to throwing stones at eachother? Guns make it extremely easy to kill someone, so you dont have to struggle with your concience as much. Actually picking up a stone and beating someone's brains out tests your morality a lot more. Anyone that can do that...oh my.
All in favor of going back to Stone Age weaponry say Aye. AYE!
Yes, they do
i thought you mend the common man whit "eople", not the criminals.
we've grown up learning what guns can do and have been taught how to handle them in a safe manner.
hahahaha xD good one.
we are talking about usa here remember. not switzerland or austria.
I'm laughing now. You do realize this is EXACTLY what we've been trying to tell you about guns? Not all gun incidents are about the guy wanting to shoot someone else. Most of the time it's just to scare people. :O
but your response is that everyone should have a gun to gun down these people.
my response is that we do nothing at that moment and go to the police who has the job to go after these people.
starting to see the difference now?
No different from knives! Just a different weapon!
if guns and knifes are the same. why don't you go to war whit swords anymore?
the different weapon makes it a different game.
I don't know how many times I need to say this. Not everyone can disarm an opponent like that even with self defense courses.
ignorens
You're ignoring the issue.
your issue is the crime.
ive grown over the crime (as you can't change that 1.2.3.) and issue the way it's done. (or better how the prevention of crime is done)
Not every house has multiple guns.
when everyone has a gun it has.
FAR from every teen who gets mad is going to go to such extremes as shooting someone else.
never said every. i just made up a example.
good job on over rating it.
Murders aren't committed by your every average day person. Just because 100 people have guns doesn't mean 100 guns are going to be fired.
and again have i never said that. plz. stop making conclusions that you think that i make. because your waaaayyyyy off.
and you seem to deny the fact that it does happen. even if it's just 1 out of 10.000. it would safe 1.
If it was all a spur of the moment thing, there are plenty of other things available to cause harm with.
yea, but non as fast and direct as a gun.
(home made bomb? that not a moment thing. if you have a bomb in house for the moment you might lose controle over yourself then you belong in the soft room of a institute allready)
Yes, a gun is different from a knife. So are any other number of weapons. Want to ban fire because it can burn down a hospital? A gun can't do that, thus fire must be worse than a gun right?
are you trying to be stupid now? i know you dont belong to that group but....
you AREN'T reducing crime/violence, you're just changing the means.
i'm not discussing this for the seem needs as you.
you want to reduce the crime/violence over night.
i gave up on that long ago. because wewill never.
i discuss this so that more people can get the opportunity to fight back or atleast give them a higher chanch of surviving when they become victim.
and a firefight is not on my list of fighting back whit the highest chanch of surviving.
So please explain exactly what making guns illegal does other than reducing the amount of guns and changing what weapons criminals are more likely to have?
that change is all.
but that is a change that will benefit the victims. in ways i have explained by now. and are not willing to say again.
Unless you're dead.
dead is dead. i think we can agree on that.
point was about those that do not die but survive.
More innocents getting assaulted because they aren't likely to have a way to defend themselves.
what? =S
because guns are illegal i go stick a knife into someone?
where is the logic in this assumption of yours?
remember, crime rate is primerly caused buy economical and politics.....
just look up that line you posted it makes more sense as what i just wrote...
Many more rapes/thefts/assaults
again a false assumption.
because guns are illegal doesn't make the population more violent. the violency is in your culture. that will need a longer time to get out. prohibiting guns wont change that instantly.
Loss of money overall
the money was lost when you bought the gun.
now it's illegal so be happy you can legally "sell" it to the government.
they could also take them away from you and give you a fine in return.
life is hard. everyone has to take it's losses sometime.
I'm sorry, when did this turn from why guns shouldn't be legal
the moment you wanted money back for the weapons. the whole world sells or give their old guns to africa. the usa is a big player in that. dont be so tip-toed.
If your parents were responsible
yea if everyone in the world was responsible then the world would be a much better place. and this whole discussion wouldn't have to be here
to bad tho that loads of people are not responsible. and that discussions like these are needed.
All in favor of going back to Stone Age weaponry say Aye. AYE!
aye...?
we are talking about usa here remember. not switzerland or austria.
Think what you want. Take almost any 8-9 year old and ask them what you should not do with a gun and I'll bet they can give pretty comprehensive answers.
but your response is that everyone should have a gun to gun down these people.
No, it's not. This is what I'm talking about with you either/or attitude. It's not a case of guns being illegal and no one having them and guns being legal and everyone having them.
My stance is that more gun control would help, but making guns flat out illegal is going to cause as many problems as it could potentially fix. I'm not advocating everyone walking around with concealed firearms. I'm also saying that with the proper training and qualifications it can help in dire situations.
Making stuff illegal doesn't get rid of it. It just makes it so any law abiding citizen won't have one.
my response is that we do nothing at that moment and go to the police who has the job to go after these people.
starting to see the difference now?
My response is virtually the same, except I'm not naive. The police can't be everywhere at once, and if people want to go through what should be a strenuous background checks and proper training courses to own a gun then they should be allowed to.
Of course it should be left to the police when possible, but this isn't a perfect world.
the different weapon makes it a different game.
Yes, it does. Your point being? A crime is still a crime whether it's carried out with a gun or a knife. Obviously a gun is considered to be the more dangerous weapon. However, the point you're missing is that THE CRIMINAL DOESN'T CARE IF THE WEAPON THEY HAVE IS LEGAL OR NOT. They're going to use what they can get their hands on.
IF you were arguing that there should be more gun control in general, I would agree with you. You're not, however. You seem to think that labeling something as illegal will fix it. That might have worked, if it had been done 300 years ago before mass production was implemented.
ignorens
I'll assume you mean ignorance. How am I being ignorant? You seem to think that anyone who takes a self defense course or two can suddenly disarm any attacker barehanded. That's what is ignorant.
ive grown over the crime (as you can't change that 1.2.3.) and issue the way it's done. (or better how the prevention of crime is done)
So since baby crap green spray paint is a more hideous color that means that all spray paint that color should be banned because it can be used for more obnoxious graffiti? That's basically what you're arguing.
A crime is a crime. A murder is a murder. Whether it was done with a gun or knife does not change the fact that someone was robbed or killed.
Yes, a gun is more dangerous that a knife.
No, making guns illegal does not help anything.
and you seem to deny the fact that it does happen. even if it's just 1 out of 10.000. it would safe 1.
It would save one from a gunshot death, perhaps.
That doesn't mean that death wouldn't have happened in some other way.
Basically, all you're doing is arguing that a crime committed with a gun is somehow worse than a crime committed with any other type of weapon.
(home made bomb? that not a moment thing. if you have a bomb in house for the moment you might lose controle over yourself then you belong in the soft room of a institute allready)
It was just a list of other types of weapons. I'll grant that making a bomb isn't something you do on the spur of the moment.
are you trying to be stupid now?
I'm glad you think that reasoning is stupid.
Now if you could just pull out a mirror...because that's exactly what you're arguing. It doesn't matter if a murder is committed by a gun or a knife, there was still a murder.
Also, again, making guns illegal does not get rid of them.
you want to reduce the crime/violence over night.
Of course I want to, that doesn't mean I think that can happen.
Anyways, your solution of making guns illegal falls more into that category than what I think needs to be done.
i discuss this so that more people can get the opportunity to fight back or atleast give them a higher chanch of surviving when they become victim.
Yes, I get that's what you want. I'm telling you that making guns illegal doesn't change that.
The UK is an ENTIRELY different place than the USA. Guns are prevalent here. You want to shut the barn door after the horse, cows, chickens and even cockroaches have already run out. It won't change anything.
I've said this before, in a perfect world, no guns would be better. We do not live in that world.
I'm not arguing with you that guns are more dangerous. I'm not arguing with you that guns are often more lethal. I'm not arguing with you that less guns is better.
What I am arguing with you is that making guns illegal will fix nothing.
because guns are illegal i go stick a knife into someone?
where is the logic in this assumption of yours?
I didn't mean dead. If you know the other person is unarmed, you're more likely to get into a fight with them. Doesn't matter if you have a weapon or not, this is just a general thing. You don't mess with the guy who's armed.
[quote]because guns are illegal doesn't make the population more violent.
No, it doesn't. What it does do is lower inhibitions because there's less of a threat. A woman who -might- have a gun in her purse is much less of a target than a woman who is entirely unarmed.
the violency is in your culture. that will need a longer time to get out. prohibiting guns wont change that instantly.
It won't just not change it instantly, it won't affect it at all.
the moment you wanted money back for the weapons
Doesn't make any sense, since you started griping about America before I even said that.
the usa is a big player in that. dont be so tip-toed.
I'm not arguing that. That isn't what we're talking about though. You simply used it as yet another ad hominem and a red herring to boot.
The USA banned alcohol and that made the situation worse. But there are controls on alcohol, eg needing proof you are of legal age to buy, and alcohol awareness courses to educate about the dangers of drinking too much.
Therefore banning guns would not work. But the state could do something about regulating the guns in the country. This would not mean the citizen losing the right to bear arms, but there could be checks on gun ownership.
I mean a gun club would be guilty of reckless endangerment if it stored its weapons where any criminal or emotionally fragile person could walk in and just get them. The armed forces are careful with their weapons.Why not the people they are defending.
The USA banned alcohol and that made the situation worse. But there are controls on alcohol, eg needing proof you are of legal age to buy, and alcohol awareness courses to educate about the dangers of drinking too much.
Therefore banning guns would not work. But the state could do something about regulating the guns in the country. This would not mean the citizen losing the right to bear arms, but there could be checks on gun ownership.
I mean a gun club would be guilty of reckless endangerment if it stored its weapons where any criminal or emotionally fragile person could walk in and just get them. The armed forces are careful with their weapons.Why not the people they are defending.
Give people a time limit to give up their fire arms voluntarily.
After that, start crackdowns on houses and impose fines where guns are found(along with destroying the guns)
then slowly keep increasing the punishment for keeping fire arms until the punishment is death.
If some one comes out on streets for his "right to arms" deal with him harshly.
When people see that govrn means business, they back off.(of course this does not mean govrn. should act douchy to people).
Take almost any 8-9 year old and ask them what you should not do with a gun and I'll bet they can give pretty comprehensive answers.
they can.
but it gets lost when they grow older.
My stance is that more gun control would help, but making guns flat out illegal is going to cause as many problems as it could potentially fix. I'm not advocating everyone walking around with concealed firearms. I'm also saying that with the proper training and qualifications it can help in dire situations.
then the switzerland option is your option.
guns are illegal. but everyone can keep it's weapons after 4 year military duty. (or for how long your military duty is. i dunno)
The police can't be everywhere at once,
there are cameras everywhere these days. they dont need to be there right away. you can go to the police a few hours latter and they still have the duty to find this person.
A crime is still a crime whether it's carried out with a gun or a knife. ...
and a knife is way easyer to dodge and survive then a bullet.
yes the criminal will keep a weapon anyway. but if he knows that his victim most likely does not have a weapon, then why would he use a gun? a knife is much cheaper and the small criminal don't want to spend the money on something expensive as a gun. rather on drugs or whatever they want.
making guns illegal wont change this the next day. it will take years befor this change happens.
IF you were arguing that there should be more gun control in general, I would agree with you.
dont think it came up in this topic. but in a previous one i agreed that under heavy control and bureaucracy, gun permissions should be allowed.
there are always out of the box cases where it will be helpful.
You seem to think that anyone who takes a self defense course or two can suddenly disarm any attacker barehanded.
apart from getting freezed what is a natural response when something like this happens. yes everyone can learn to defend himself against knifes.
it really isn't that hard. you dont need to be big or strong.
Yes, a gun is more dangerous that a knife.
No, making guns illegal does not help anything.
i c that different.
It would save one from a gunshot death, perhaps.
That doesn't mean that death wouldn't have happened in some other way.
Basically, all you're doing is arguing that a crime committed with a gun is somehow worse than a crime committed with any other type of weapon.
no i say a knife or any other type of weapon (except crossbows) are better survivable. and that you should try to make those the criminals fav. weapon and not guns.
i go past the crimes part and move on to the victims survival part. because that is what matters to me. i dont care about the crimes. i care for the victim of it.
It doesn't matter if a murder is committed by a gun or a knife, there was still a murder.
a murder is a murder. if someone really want to kill someone. he will. even if he used a spoon. in those cases it doesn't matter. but like we both stated befor. not all crimes are murder plans to begin whit. i'm talking about the other cases where the criminal is not out for murder. but out for money or whatever.
Of course I want to, that doesn't mean I think that can happen.
but steps in that direction have to be made. right?
your solution of making guns illegal falls more into that category than what I think needs to be done.
now i'm confused... did you just agree whit me. or do i read it wrong?
The UK is an ENTIRELY different place than the USA. Guns are prevalent here. You want to shut the barn door after the horse, cows, chickens and even cockroaches have already run out. It won't change anything.
so you agree whit my other statement that the usa can't be saved anymore?
What I am arguing with you is that making guns illegal will fix nothing.
for that you use crime rates. and i look past crime rates.
they wont change anyway. there are more imported things. like the people.
i know it might sounds wierd from some1 that calls 5 billion deaths tomorrow, a good thing. and for someone that doesn't care about deaths at all. but i like most of the living people.
If you know the other person is unarmed, you're more likely to get into a fight with them.
why fight? you have a knife. and he doesn't.
if you go fight him whit your knife. then it's attempted murder.
coming back to. stabbing someone just because you can.
wich is more then just a robbery.
A woman who -might- have a gun in her purse is much less of a target than a woman who is entirely unarmed
paper spray. non lethal defense FTW!
there are more options to defend yourself then a gun.
Doesn't make any sense
well it does.
in the case the government had allot of guns, befor owned by the public.
instead of making costs for disposal you can sell them. a few million guns can make a nice amount of money. and countries like congo can keep going whit their civil war. just like old times sake.... no?
handlerfan
alcohol and guns are the same now?
the alcohol reason is a good reason for marijuana legalization.
but guns? i never saw someone killing a other guy whit alcohol (well once but that was pure alcohol. not a beer.)
they can.
but it gets lost when they grow older.
...no, it doesn't.
there are cameras everywhere these days. they dont need to be there right away. you can go to the police a few hours latter and they still have the duty to find this person.
That doesn't really help in cases of ****/murder.
yes everyone can learn to defend himself against knifes.
it really isn't that hard. you dont need to be big or strong.
Not everyone, but given enough training most could yes. They don't learn in a few classes though, like you've implied previously.
now i'm confused... did you just agree whit me. or do i read it wrong?
I agree with you on an idealistic level. I don't agree with your stance of making guns illegal though.
so you agree whit my other statement that the usa can't be saved anymore?
No, I think that a solution that worked for the UK isn't going to work for the USA because of how prevalent guns are here. It's an entirely different thing to ban something before everyone has it and to ban something after everyone has it.
pepper spray. non lethal defense FTW!
Yes, there is that too.
there are more options to defend yourself then a gun.
I never said there weren't.
the alcohol reason is a good reason for marijuana legalization.
but guns? i never saw someone killing a other guy whit alcohol (well once but that was pure alcohol. not a beer.)
The prohibition thing doesn't carry over well to guns. You don't consume guns and you can't produce guns in your basement. Alcohol and marijuana are fundamentally almost the same thing,
I think that alcohol and guns are different things. I think that the prohibition of alcohol and firearms are similar. There's even a government department, the ATF [alcohol, tobacco, and firearms] which deals with the regulation of all three.
...no, it doesn't.seems so
That doesn't really help in cases of ****/murder.
****: whit guns you also dont see **** in the middle of the road.
murder: well they are dead. nothing to be done about it anyway.
however if they find the person it keeps him from doing it again. in these 2 cases nothing changes really.
They don't learn in a few classes though, like you've implied previously.
3 or 4 lessons of 2 hours for most.
i think you see self defense lessons as the whole pack whit assertive lessons and hand fights.
i mean solely the training defense against weapons (probably not the correct naming, but you get the point i hope)
It's an entirely different thing to ban something before everyone has it and to ban something after everyone has it.
i'm not sure here. (and not in the position to search for it atm) but if i got the country right then they already had guns when guns were prohibited in the uk.
if it wasn't uk then i dont remember the country. but i know there was 1 where it worked because the government gave everyone a year to "sell" their guns to the government.
I never said there weren't.
then why do you still need a gun to defend yourself?
PS We can make very basic guns in our basement [work]shops [like what Gibbs has got] if we have the right metal work skills, but I think that producing such guns would be against the law in the majority of jurisdictions.
Eating ones gun is a euphemism for something else. Those young men in Columbine would have been better to eat their guns before using them on others.
I think this is just sad. x_X Right after the Aurora movie theater one :O But anyways I think it's good the dude killed himself. Deserves it after that. -.-
Right after the Aurora movie theater one
Ummm... that was half a year ago.
but I think that producing such guns would be against the law in the majority of jurisdictions.
In the US (in some states) it's legal to make your own rifle/pistol (not machine guns or full-auto) for personal use without a license, but you'd need a license to sell/give it to other people if it was made for the purpose of distribution.
hollywood judo is fake keep that in mind.
Well duh, Austin Power's JUDO CHOP is totally fake. Taekwondo, kimpo karate, jujitsu-not fake. And in real life, Judo can be used to kill someone. There's a special class that specifically teaches how to beat someone to death. I read it in an encyclopedia. Very scary stuff. Atawagaza or something like that.
judo doesn't kill it's predecessor jujutsu does.
it comes from the samurai.
hollywood judo is fake keep that in mind.
how is this relative to the topic?
hollywood is all fake anyway.
You must be logged in to post a reply!