15 confirmed dead so far in Oregon college shooting

Sparks · 06-10-2015 8:09pm

zeffabelli wrote: »

The numbers in the US are undeniable. NY Times reports more preschoolers killed by guns than policemen in the line of duty.

Unless the NY Times meant the number of preschoolers killed by guns was higher than the number of preschoolers killed by policemen, I think they've got their number wrong. Total killed in mass shootings, including school shootings since 1982 is 581, total killed in police shootings in one year is 1,104. The number of people the US police shoot and kill is really astoundingly scary (maybe issuing them with surplus military equipment like MRAPs wasn't the best idea in the world).
Total number of children shot and killed by accident in the US in 2010 was 98. And by "child" there, they mean under-18, which isn't preschool age.
The numbers are still deeply tragic; but making up numbers out of thin air isn't helping anyone.

Wompa1 · 06-10-2015 8:52pm

Sparks wrote: »

Unless the NY Times meant the number of preschoolers killed by guns was higher than the number of preschoolers killed by policemen, I think they've got their number wrong. Total killed in mass shootings, including school shootings since 1982 is 581, total killed in police shootings in one year is 1,104. The number of people the US police shoot and kill is really astoundingly scary (maybe issuing them with surplus military equipment like MRAPs wasn't the best idea in the world).
Total number of children shot and killed by accident in the US in 2010 was 98. And by "child" there, they mean under-18, which isn't preschool age.
The numbers are still deeply tragic; but making up numbers out of thin air isn't helping anyone.

The way I interpret it is the number of pre-schoolers shot dead. Not specifically shot in school or part of a mass shooting. Just shot.

Sparks · 06-10-2015 9:05pm

Wompa1 wrote: »

The way I interpret it is the number of pre-schoolers shot dead. Not specifically shot in school or part of a mass shooting. Just shot.

But there the numbers are even further away from the NYTimes' statement.

Wompa1 · 06-10-2015 9:08pm

Sparks wrote: »

But there the numbers are even further away from the NYTimes' statement.

The only data I can find is from pretty dubious looking sites.

Sparks · 06-10-2015 9:08pm

Try the CDC. Unless you think they're dubious.

justchecked · 06-10-2015 9:10pm

MadsL wrote: »

You seem to have a problem with firearms for recreational use or as "toys" as you insist on calling them. The use of firearms for recreational purposes is actually protected by my state's constitution.

Not so much an issue as an opinion.

I dont think they're toys.
However I think there are other people who do think they are toys.

People like the writer on the link I provided who actually not only refers to them as range-toys but also brings Barbie and lego into the context, interesting references.

Perhaps your constitution needs to change. Thats what I was suggesting.

Separately, its frankly idiotic to debate an issue by re-stating the current topic under debate as though it is a relevant point.

It would be like one person saying 'marijuana is illegal I think it should be legal because (x y z)' only to have their opponent saying ' i think you'll find marijuana is illegal, I rest my case'.

cycle helmets aren't mandatory I think they should be made mandatory because (x y z).
- ahhh yes, but cycle helmets aren't mandatory you see.

guns aren't restricted enough I think they need to be restricted.
- ahh yes, but guns aren't restricted you see.

my leg is on fire perhaps I should extinguish it so its no longer on fire.
- ah yes, but your leg is on fire you see.

Sparks · 06-10-2015 9:26pm

justchecked wrote: »

Perhaps your constitution needs to change. Thats what I was suggesting.

Just for fits and giggles, someone else who defended the idea of the recreational use of firearms was Minister for Justice Michael McDowell, during the passing of a near-total rewrite of the Firearms Act in 2006.

I suppose he looked at a sport with a perfect safety record 160 years long and thought "y'know, we have bigger problems to worry about".

justchecked · 06-10-2015 9:38pm

Sparks wrote: »

Just for fits and giggles, someone else who defended the idea of the recreational use of firearms was Minister for Justice Michael McDowell, during the passing of a near-total rewrite of the Firearms Act in 2006.

I suppose he looked at a sport with a perfect safety record 160 years long and thought "y'know, we have bigger problems to worry about".

ah yes congressman Michael McDowell (rep).

ex mayor of Baltimore I believe,.... or was it Miami.

MadsL · 06-10-2015 9:45pm

justchecked wrote:

Perhaps your constitution needs to change. Thats what I was suggesting.

Is recreational use of firearms a problem? Perhaps you could describe the problem, I thought the issue was criminal acts committed with firearms?

What is your proposed change to said constitution? Remove the word recreation? To what effect?

The Black Oil · 06-10-2015 10:13pm

BoatMad wrote: »

armed police in the schools , just like europe have in airports and now on planes and trains

It would be a sad reflection on US society, imo, if this became standard for its schools. I can see why armed guards might act as some form of deterrent, but I think that's a short term view and it doesn't address the underlying the intent of the shooter. It might only deflect them to another target. In terms of schools specifically, are the shootings that are taking place now more frequently compared to a decade ago?

Here are one or two bits I've been looking at in the past few days.

A Skeptic's Guide to Media Coverage of Mass Shootings

Beware of primary sources
Beware of "multiple sources."
Beware the killer's “friends.”
Beware of "motives."
Everyone gets the facts wrong, even the governor.

Source

The New York Times has a piece up - How They Got Their Guns

Based on this, I'm not sure gun control may have made much difference. There are a few instances where it appears the system didn't appear to work as well as it should have.

FEBRUARY 2015
Mr. Roof was charged with a misdemeanor for possessing Suboxone, a prescription drug frequently sold in illegal street transactions.

APRIL 2015
He purchased a gun from a store in West Columbia, S.C. Mr. Roof should have been barred from buying a gun because he had admitted to possessing drugs, but the F.B.I. examiner conducting the required background check failed to obtain the police report from the February incident.

JUNE 17, 2015
Mr. Roof joined a Bible study group at Emanuel A.M.E. Church and opened fire with the gun he bought in April.

2002
Raymond Lee Fryberg Jr., Jaylen’s father, was the subject of a permanent domestic violence protection order, which should have been entered into the federal criminal background database.

2013
Mr. Fryberg applied to buy the Beretta from a gun shop on the Indian reservation where he lived with Jaylen. A background check failed to come up with the protection order because it was never entered into the system.

OCT. 24, 2014
Jaylen Fryberg texted five of his fellow students to come to the cafeteria, where he opened fire.

Had the paperwork been sorted out correctly could some of these been avoided? I don't know. Possibly, but there's a certain amount of planning that seems to have gone into these incidents and even with some restrictions they may have found alternate means. I don't think that's an excuse for doing nothing, though. Some of the individuals mentioned in the article were so intent on ending their own lives and at some level, that's the crux of it. Men are more likely to complete suicide and use more violent methods, generally speaking. Clearly some of these individuals are falling through the cracks within existing mental health and support systems.

justchecked · 06-10-2015 10:17pm

MadsL wrote: »

Is recreational use of firearms a problem? Perhaps you could describe the problem, I thought the issue was criminal acts committed with firearms?

What is your proposed change to said constitution? Remove the word recreation? To what effect?

Recreation isn't the problem, randomers freely heading home with certain varieties of weapon is the problem.
If you can drive home with a drum mag, folding stock, suppressed, high calibre, high fire rate weapon designed to replicate military specs then so can any lunatic.

The description of the problem is that said lunatic then folds up his 'totally-for-hunting-and-recreation' weapon, detaches his 100 round drum mag, and suppressor, sticks it under his trench coat and gets a one way ticket to the university/shopping center/public building.

I can't reword a constitution, even if I could I'm not that arsed to as Im far away from that level of madness.

See you in the next rampage shooting in the US thread.

BoatMad · 07-10-2015 12:37am

Recreation isn't the problem, randomers freely heading home with certain varieties of weapon is the problem.
If you can drive home with a drum mag, folding stock, suppressed, high calibre, high fire rate weapon designed to replicate military specs then so can any lunatic.

Oregon as carried out using ordinary handguns , what's your point.

justchecked · 07-10-2015 12:56am

BoatMad wrote: »

Oregon as carried out using ordinary handguns , what's your point.

cherrypicking one incident doesnt detract from the point, you cant stop the nutters you can only put hurdles in their way, what exactly do you need ...oh lets say this for.

http://www.armslist.com/posts/4638735/albuquerque-new-mexico-handguns-for-sale--sig-sauer-mpx-9mm-handgun

whats the actual need. is it hunting ... please lets not.

separately, id restrict all handguns too. want to hunt, fight the govt, or kill the famous burglar - use a bolt load rifle or breach load shotgun ... and maybe lock a door.

AbusesToilets · 07-10-2015 12:58am

justchecked wrote: »

Recreation isn't the problem, randomers freely heading home with certain varieties of weapon is the problem.
If you can drive home with a drum mag, folding stock, suppressed, high calibre, high fire rate weapon designed to replicate military specs then so can any lunatic.

The description of the problem is that said lunatic then folds up his 'totally-for-hunting-and-recreation' weapon, detaches his 100 round drum mag, and suppressor, sticks it under his trench coat and gets a one way ticket to the university/shopping center/public building.

I can't reword a constitution, even if I could I'm not that arsed to as Im far away from that level of madness.

See you in the next rampage shooting in the US thread.

Do the various accouterments increase the lethality of the round themselves? A drum mag is high capacity, but apt to jam. A limited capacity magazine, say 5 rds can be swapped out in a matter of seconds by someone with even a basic understanding of a gun's functions. Either way, the bullet will kill you just as dead.

A perfect example of ignorant fear mongering that has led to restrictions in places like CA on AR pattern rifles due their cosmetic features. A person decided on murder will use whatever tool they have to try and accomplish it.

MadsL · 07-10-2015 12:59am

BoatMad wrote: »

Oregon as carried out using ordinary handguns , what's your point.

Timothy McVeigh used fertiliser, racing fuel and a rented box truck. All three are still freely available.

AbusesToilets · 07-10-2015 1:00am

justchecked wrote: »

cherrypicking one incident doesnt detract from the point, you cant stop the nutters you can only put hurdles in their way, what exactly do you need ...oh lets say this for.

http://www.armslist.com/posts/4638735/albuquerque-new-mexico-handguns-for-sale--sig-sauer-mpx-9mm-handgun

whats the actual need. is it hunting ... please lets not.

separately, id restrict all handguns too. want to hunt, fight the govt, or kill the famous burglar - use a bolt load rifle or breach load shotgun ... and maybe lock a door.

Absolutely, all advantages should be given to the criminal. God forbid that a law abiding citizen be permitted to attempt to protect themselves.

MadsL · 07-10-2015 1:06am

justchecked wrote: »

cherrypicking one incident doesnt detract from the point, you cant stop the nutters you can only put hurdles in their way, what exactly do you need ...oh lets say this for.

http://www.armslist.com/posts/4638735/albuquerque-new-mexico-handguns-for-sale--sig-sauer-mpx-9mm-handgun

whats the actual need. is it hunting ... please lets not.

separately, id restrict all handguns too. want to hunt, fight the govt, or kill the famous burglar - use a bolt load rifle or breach load shotgun ... and maybe lock a door.

It's a platform handgun, so you can switch out barrel length and change caliber for dare I say it, hunting, or configure it as needed for say, home defence or private security.

It is black, bristly and scarely looking. But, no more powerful than any 9mm handgun, and fires one bullet per trigger squeeze at a time, just like any other handgun.

It's also $1400. Not exactly a Saturday Night Special.

justchecked · 07-10-2015 1:34am

MadsL wrote: »

It's a platform handgun, so you can switch out barrel length and change caliber for dare I say it, hunting, or configure it as needed for say, home defence or private security.

It is black, bristly and scarely looking. But, no more powerful than any 9mm handgun, and fires one bullet per trigger squeeze at a time, just like any other handgun.

It's also $1400. Not exactly a Saturday Night Special.

private security - thats a new one, but very well, exceptions could be made for established contractors in the absence of police resources.

1400 - so what, even nutters have money.

look you dont need a 30 round mag (?) compact weapon like that for hunting.

and we both know it. what do you think you're hunting with a 30 rd semi auto, it must be incredibly agile.

I think in your heart of hearts you must truly believe that it will never be you getting caught in the sights of such devices, or maybe that you'll save the day with your cat like reactions as per your fantasies.

The above weapon would be a dream for someone with a blown fuse, he could walk right by you with it under his coat without you noticing and then take out dozens of people very quickly.
Why make it easy for them ?

Is it because you need 30 rounds to hunt, are you that terrible a shot ?

Is it because you can't lock your house and bedroom at night and keep something that takes maybe 5 rounds ?

Get real. We know why people want weapons with such specs, and you can see why on youtube or on websites that call them range toys.

Is it really worth the risk to schoolkids and yourself.

justchecked · 07-10-2015 1:36am

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Absolutely, all advantages should be given to the criminal. God forbid that a law abiding citizen be permitted to attempt to protect themselves.

ask a corner shop owner or taxi driver who had a compact weapon pulled on them by what had looked like an ordinary punter.

Who exactly is siding with the criminal ?

justchecked · 07-10-2015 1:41am

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Do the various accouterments increase the lethality of the round themselves? A drum mag is high capacity, but apt to jam. A limited capacity magazine, say 5 rds can be swapped out in a matter of seconds by someone with even a basic understanding of a gun's functions. Either way, the bullet will kill you just as dead.

A perfect example of ignorant fear mongering that has led to restrictions in places like CA on AR pattern rifles due their cosmetic features. A person decided on murder will use whatever tool they have to try and accomplish it.

you seem very certain.

so it must be an obvious truth beyond doubt.

that being the case its strange that the nra wouldn't encourage states to experiment with restriction, as a means to disprove the flawed assumptions.

that way they could settle the whole debate.

nothing to fear from such a certainty.

AbusesToilets · 07-10-2015 1:48am

And what positive impact has the restriction had? Are the weapons themselves somehow less lethal?

As ever, the only people impacted by guns laws are those who are law abiding. Criminals will do whatever they want, and more poorly thought out and implemented laws aren't going to change that.

As to your analogy of the shop keeper and taxi driver, they would be capable of protecting themselves with a concealed weapon of their own, the potential possession of which would be a potentially strong deterrent to the criminal in the first place.

justchecked · 07-10-2015 2:18am

AbusesToilets wrote: »

And what positive impact has the restriction had? Are the weapons themselves somehow less lethal?

As ever, the only people impacted by guns laws are those who are law abiding. Criminals will do whatever they want, and more poorly thought out and implemented laws aren't going to change that.

As to your analogy of the shop keeper and taxi driver, they would be capable of protecting themselves with a concealed weapon of their own, the potential possession of which would be a potentially strong deterrent to the criminal in the first place.

maybe ...just possibly they could do that if at all points throughout their work week they were waiting prepared and expecting such an incident.
You know if they didn't have their hands and minds full with work related tasks.

Even you must believe in some form of restriction, would you really want to live somewhere where you could get a full auto mac-10 on the spot, or where a belt fed m50 being carried around in public was quite normal.
You must know what would happen next.

Well good news - implementing some restriction has reduced that inevitable body count down to an acceptable level of 'only occasional mass murders'.

I'm leaving it here, for real now - the rest can go in next weeks rampage shooting in the US thread.

Remember to sit near an exit.

AbusesToilets · 07-10-2015 2:34am

justchecked wrote: »

maybe ...just possibly they could do that if at all points throughout their work week they were waiting prepared and expecting such an incident.
You know if they didn't have their hands and minds full with work related tasks.

Even you must believe in some form of restriction, would you really want to live somewhere where you could get a full auto mac-10 on the spot, or where a belt fed m50 being carried around in public was quite normal.
You must know what would happen next.

Well good news - implementing some restriction has reduced that inevitable body count down to an acceptable level of 'only occasional mass murders'.

I'm leaving it here, for real now - the rest can go in next weeks rampage shooting in the US thread.

Remember to sit near an exit.

Fully automatic weapons are already restricted. You can still get them, heck you can get artillery if you really want to. It is a long and involved process, with plenty of checks via law enforcement. Can you point to a rash of crimes involving automatic weapons, legally purchased or not?

If someone goes through all that, why not let them have the item? They have to be legally upstanding citizens to begin with, not to mention quite wealthy to afford the guns. Sports cars aren't restricted, they serve little practical purpose and kill far more people than automatic weapons do annually.

Overheal · 07-10-2015 4:36am

Let's nip this point in the bud: about 72% of mass killings involved handguns, not rifles, shotguns, etc. - 9.5% involved single shot rifles.

http://www.gannett-cdn.com/GDContent/mass-killings/index.html#weapons

MadsL · 07-10-2015 5:27am

justchecked wrote: »

private security - thats a new one, but very well, exceptions could be made for established contractors in the absence of police resources.

1400 - so what, even nutters have money.

look you dont need a 30 round mag (?) compact weapon like that for hunting.

and we both know it. what do you think you're hunting with a 30 rd semi auto, it must be incredibly agile.

I think in your heart of hearts you must truly believe that it will never be you getting caught in the sights of such devices, or maybe that you'll save the day with your cat like reactions as per your fantasies.

The above weapon would be a dream for someone with a blown fuse, he could walk right by you with it under his coat without you noticing and then take out dozens of people very quickly.
Why make it easy for them ?

Is it because you need 30 rounds to hunt, are you that terrible a shot ?

Is it because you can't lock your house and bedroom at night and keep something that takes maybe 5 rounds ?

Get real. We know why people want weapons with such specs, and you can see why on youtube or on websites that call them range toys.

Is it really worth the risk to schoolkids and yourself.

Oh for heavens sake - it's a platform rifle - one you can add componants to in order take it from a hunting rifle with a long barrel and 10 round mag, to a home defence pistol. Try not to lose the run of yourself, this is simply an all in one frearm. It can't be made into anything that isn't currently already available. If anything these customisables reduce the number of firearms one person has.

pmasterson95 · 07-10-2015 6:53am

Excellent. Just heard of an 11 year old who blasted his 9 year old neighbour with a shotgun when she didn't show him her puppy. Can anyone guess what country this happened in?

Answer

Murica of course! That kids gotta protect his freedom and do some recreation target practice. Its his right after all! Modern day hero. Aint that right guys?

gobsh!te · 07-10-2015 6:59am

What is the difference between Switzerland and the US in gun laws?

This is a genuine question not a wind up.

The US should just follow whatever the Swiss does. No issues with guns there and half the people have one.

BoatMad · 07-10-2015 7:12am

gobsh!te wrote: »

What is the difference between Switzerland and the US in gun laws?

This is a genuine question not a wind up.

The US should just follow whatever the Swiss does. No issues with guns there and half the people have one.

The Us Has constitutional protection for the right to bear arms for the purposes of personal defense. It can never be like Switzerland.

That's the starting point

zeffabelli · 07-10-2015 7:21am

BattleCorp wrote: »

Here in Ireland we have a lot of regulations regarding firearms too. Some sensible and some downright stupid.

Actually, as a gun owner I don't 100% agree with the American system. I like some of their freedoms but I don't believe that everybody should have access to firearms. Some people just aren't of stable enough character or don't have the right attitude to be allowed access to them.

But then again, it's their law so it's their business. I can't see that law being changed any time soon either as the gun is so ingrained in their culture, there's not the will for change.

Yep, if those figures are correct, then that's scandalous. I'll agree with you on that point. There's a lot of carelessness over there that doesn't happen as often here. And they have a serious cultural problem with their propensity to resort to violence at the earliest opportunity to settle scores.

I've a gun for target shooting, several in fact. Does that make me a Clint Eastwood wannabe? Or Sparks with his air pistol, is he a Clint Eastwood wannabe?

Yesterday there was a report in the Irish times about an 11 year old boy who shot and killed an 8 year old girl.

We all get alarmed by these mass shootings.... Which imp are about lone cowboy alienation.... Something amiss with American men right now...

But the over all square root of these tragedies is looking to violence as a first response solution.

Right now, this threatens Americsn lives ... They are terrorists to themselves.

When teachers have to cram 30 six year oldsvin a closet for a rehearsal in case some lunatic is going to shoot them... What are they creating for the future? An entire generation or two will grow up thinking this is a possibility ...

Hollywood does more to promote the gun than the NRA could ever do.

Gun laws will be about as effective as drug laws or alcohol laws for the under 21s. You're right it is too ingrained in. The psyche .

You could have the same exact laws in the US as you do here and we still won't see it happen here. It's a mentality.

zeffabelli · 07-10-2015 7:24am

gobsh!te wrote: »

What is the difference between Switzerland and the US in gun laws?

This is a genuine question not a wind up.

The US should just follow whatever the Swiss does. No issues with guns there and half the people have one.

The Swiss don't have a lone cowboy myth or Hollywood and a government that promotes violence as a first response solution to all your problems.

The US is a power obsessed culture from top to bottom.... From government to personal relationships (egalitarianism...) for example.

15 confirmed dead so far in Oregon college shooting

Comments