15 confirmed dead so far in Oregon college shooting

Snickers Man

BoatMad wrote: »

there is no love affair with the gun in the US, there is a deeply held view that you have the right to defend yourself from harm. The gun is a tool to do that. In European societies , that view is the state has a duty to defend you from harm ( though a lot of rural farmers would disagree and have you looking down the barrel of a shotgun !!), IN Ireland we have the curious situation where it can be legal to defend yourself with a gun, but it isn't legal to own one to defend yourself in the first place !.

In Ireland we have a concept that Americans have real difficulty getting their heads around: we don't let our government or its officials kill us.

The first people we disarmed on achieving independence in the 1920s were the police. We had always had a paramilitary gun toting police force (The Royal Irish Constabulary) while Britain ruled. This was of course in stark contrast to the rest of the UK where the uniformed police on patrol were, and largely remain, unarmed.

Yes, we had the death penalty for much of the 20th century. So did most countries. But we haven't actually used it since the 1950s. Now it's unconstitutional to reintroduce it. We voted to write that into our constitution a few years ago. So now our government couldn't legislate to reintroduce capital punishment even if it wanted to. It would have to ask us for permission first.

By stark contrast, the American government is encouraged from most sides to kill more of its citizens. The death penalty was reintroduced, in many states which had outlawed it, in the 1970s. Now the Americans put dozens of their citizens down every year. Quite apart from the increasingly heavily armed security forces that it sets on its own people, primarily, it must be said, the poor, the immigrants and the darker coloured.

Right now there is an enquiry going on into whether the gardai exceeded their powers by killing an armed treasonous "dissident" who had attempted to rob a security van and had hijacked a private car from an elderly couple at gunpoint when the police arrived on the scene.

Most Irish people would sympathise with the Guards on this one but nonetheless, we have a right to demand that our police force respect our general wish that our government not bump us off, no matter how appallingly we behave.

Contrast this with America, where politicians deemed to be "soft" on sparing people from the gurney of death, are put under tremendous pressure to retain their seats. Local communities vote with their wallets to give their police departments every more powerful weapons in the form of high-powered automatic rifles, armoured cars and the like.

You've got to ask: how's that working for ya?

zeffabelli

Wompa1 wrote: »

Nice try! Like the father of the reporter that was killed. He said he would have to get a gun because of all the death threats and then gun nuts all freaked. DERP! SEE, HE'S A HYPOCRITE, HE WANTS A GUN FOR PROTECTION. DEERRRRRRRRRRRRP!

I need to get out of here, is what I need to do. I was talking about the Phoenix freeway shooter thing with a lady from California the night before this shooting. Just like most Californians, she dumped on the hicks and how backwards they are and encouraged me to move to the west coast. It's not as crazy....

I said, I don't know. Portland is full of wierdos and no offense but you're from California, which is the place where pretty much every infamous serial killer did their deed.

Also, like a typical Californian. She wasn't too pleased with her state being lumped in with the rest of America :pac:

California is also a crackpot state....they have those new consent laws.... Portland yeah is full of weirdos and Portlandia is pretty much the entire northwest.

Wompa1

BoatMad wrote: »

yes , thats an argument for general gun control , I would agree with that ( if it could be done, which it cant)

but none of that will stop the nut-jobs

It could if there was a will to do it but there is not. So, take away every argument against gun control. Up taxes across the board. Make healthcare free. Provide better opportunities for people, so they don't feel inclined to settle for a life of violence. Metal detectors in all schools. Psyche evaluations for all gun owners!?

Anybody who brandishes a weapon in a threatening manner should have their guns repossessed. Ditto, if they discharge their weapon inappropriately.

Of course, all of the above (bar the metal detectors, maybe) are also as impossible as stricter gun laws. Americans don't go for none of that fancy socialism. They also feel that Government should have no say on how they live their lives...

NoCrackHaving

zeffabelli wrote: »

California is also a crackpot state....they have those new consent laws.... Portland yeah is full of weirdos and Portlandia is pretty much the entire northwest.

Apart from pretty much everywhere outside of Portland and Seattle, places liek Spokane are more like Oklahoma or Wyoming than the cities.

NoCrackHaving

Wompa1 wrote: »

It could if there was a will to do it but there is not. So, take away every argument against gun control. Up taxes across the board. Make healthcare free. Provide better opportunities for people, so they don't feel inclined to settle for a life of violence. Metal detectors in all schools. Psyche evaluations for all gun owners!?

Anybody who brandishes a weapon in a threatening manner should have their guns repossessed. Ditto, if they discharge their weapon inappropriately.

Of course, all of the above (bar the metal detectors, maybe) are also as impossible as stricter gun laws. Americans don't go for none of that fancy socialism. They also feel that Government should have no say on how they live their lives...

To be fair when you say how representatives of the American government at both state and federal level regularly behave you can't blame some American's for wanting nothing to do with them.

BoatMad

Snickers Man wrote: »

In Ireland we have a concept that Americans have real difficulty getting their heads around: we don't let our government or its officials kill us.

hmm, we seemed to throw that out the window in a very recent civil war.

The first people we disarmed on achieving independence in the 1920s were the police. We had always had a paramilitary gun toting police force (The Royal Irish Constabulary) while Britain ruled. This was of course in stark contrast to the rest of the UK where the uniformed police on patrol were, and largely remain, unarmed.

The RIC was a well respected force mainly comprised of local catholics. it found itself compromised at the turn of the century by the rise of IRA violence

Yes, we had the death penalty for much of the 20th century. So did most countries. But we haven't actually used it since the 1950s. Now it's unconstitutional to reintroduce it. We voted to write that into our constitution a few years ago. So now our government couldn't legislate to reintroduce capital punishment even if it wanted to. It would have to ask us for permission first.

what has the death penalty got to do with anything

By stark contrast, the American government is encouraged from most sides to kill more of its citizens. The death penalty was reintroduced, in many states which had outlawed it, in the 1970s. Now the Americans put dozens of their citizens down every year. Quite apart from the increasingly heavily armed security forces that it sets on its own people, primarily, it must be said, the poor, the immigrants and the darker coloured.

" security forces" you mean the police. well if all your assailants are armed .....

Right now there is an enquiry going on into whether the gardai exceeded their powers by killing an armed treasonous "dissident" who had attempted to rob a security van and had hijacked a private car from an elderly couple at gunpoint when the police arrived on the scene.

yah well we dont know whats right and wrong in this state

Most Irish people would sympathise with the Guards on this one but nonetheless, we have a right to demand that our police force respect our general wish that our government not bump us off, no matter how appallingly we behave.

some what far fetched

Contrast this with America, where politicians deemed to be "soft" on sparing people from the gurney of death, are put under tremendous pressure to retain their seats. Local communities vote with their wallets to give their police departments every more powerful weapons in the form of high-powered automatic rifles, armoured cars and the like.

and of course the myth of an unarmed Garda force !!!!!!

You've got to ask: how's that working for ya?

with rising crime, hows it working for us !! Id ask

Wompa1

BoatMad wrote: »

yes , thats an argument for general gun control , I would agree with that ( if it could be done, which it cant)

but none of that will stop the nut-jobs

Why do nut-jobs in the US revert to shootings? Why is not like that in pretty much any other civilized country in the world? What are the differentiating factors.

It doesn't matter because America is the greatest country in the world. So, why would we even want to do something any other country is doing.

The soundbyte from a Bernie Sanders interview that America should be more like Scandanavia gets negative play. The fact he's a socialist, gets negative play.

John Steinbeck wrote something along the lines of: "There's no appetite for socialism in this country. The homeless in America, feel they are just temporarily embarrassed millionaires."

I butchered that and could of Googled it but it's close to that.

Manic Moran

MadsL wrote: »

Switzerland restrict ammo, hence "restrictive".

No, they don't. At least, not significantly. I blame those two idiotic memes which went around Facebook about a month ago.

Here's the Swiss deal:
There are just under a quarter million government-issued assault rifles in general circulation in Switzerland. Until about ten years ago, fifty rounds were issued to be kept at home. This no longer is the case, the ammunition is now kept at central armories. Similarly, the government-subsidised ammunition which is used for practice at the range must be used at the range. The government wants to make sure the money it's spending is being used for the intended purpose: Proficiency with the service weapon.

That's as far as most people go, hence leading to the 'The Swiss restrict the ammo' claim.

The problem is the other three and three quarter million firearms in general Swiss circulation and which are privately owned. You can privately acquire ammunition for those (At full price), and store as much of it at home as you would like.


I think Switzerland kindof misses one of the points with respect to part of the US argument anyway. After all, the Swiss do not normally permit people to go around in public with a pistol under their jacket in case of confrontation. I think the Swiss get the attention for three reasons: Firstly, it's a Western country, secondly, images of people going down the road with an assault rifle casually slung over their shoulder are very dramatic, and thirdly, shooting is a very high-profile sport with no stigma, where the top shots in the country are national figures and pre-teens are encouraged to fire military-grade rifles.

Another European country worth checking out as a counterpoint is the Czech republic. They have a very permissive policy on the carriage of firearms. Indeed, more permissive than most places in the US. For example, dear Boardsies, did you know that as citizens of the EU, you cannot be denied a permit to carry a concealed pistol in the Czech Republic? Pass a few basic tests (Medical, marksmanship), and the license must be given. (Of course, you'll have to borrow the pistol off someone else as most Irishmen don't own one, but that's not Prague's problem). There are no 'gun free zones', you can carry your sidearm onto a school, or into bars and clubs. (Carrying while intoxicated, however, is very illegal). So, when you go clubbing in Prague for your Stag or Hen night, which seems to be a popular destination for such things, bear in mind that statistically one out of every thirty adults you encounter is licensed to legally carry a sidearm in the club.

The Czechs have had only two mass killings in the last 50 years. Both killed eight. One person used a gun. The other (The last woman to be executed in Czechoslovakia, incidentally) used a truck.

Grab All Association

Guns for all = School shootings

No guns for all = You'll still have school shootings. With millions (maybe billions) of firearms in circulation in the US they are not going to be able to destroy them all. The ones with the guns will be the criminals/psychopaths.

Catch 22

BoatMad

Why do nut-jobs in the US revert to shootings? Why is not like that in pretty much any other civilized country in the world? What are the differentiating factors.

I would first ask, why do the nut-jobs target schools, that in itself does not happen elsewhere , the acquisition of a lethal weapon is undoubtedly the next stage.

This was a core point, why in the US are schools in the firing line , literally

BoatMad

Manic Moran wrote: »

No, they don't. At least, not significantly. I blame those two idiotic memes which went around Facebook about a month ago.

Here's the Swiss deal:
There are just under a quarter million government-issued assault rifles in general circulation in Switzerland. Until about ten years ago, fifty rounds were issued to be kept at home. This no longer is the case, the ammunition is now kept at central armories. Similarly, the government-subsidised ammunition which is used for practice at the range must be used at the range. The government wants to make sure the money it's spending is being used for the intended purpose: Proficiency with the service weapon.

That's as far as most people go, hence leading to the 'The Swiss restrict the ammo' claim.

The problem is the other three and three quarter million firearms in general Swiss circulation and which are privately owned. You can privately acquire ammunition for those (At full price), and store as much of it at home as you would like.


I think Switzerland kindof misses one of the points with respect to part of the US argument anyway. After all, the Swiss do not normally permit people to go around in public with a pistol under their jacket in case of confrontation. I think the Swiss get the attention for three reasons: Firstly, it's a Western country, secondly, images of people going down the road with an assault rifle casually slung over their shoulder are very dramatic, and thirdly, shooting is a very high-profile sport with no stigma, where the top shots in the country are national figures and pre-teens are encouraged to fire military-grade rifles.

Another European country worth checking out as a counterpoint is the Czech republic. They have a very permissive policy on the carriage of firearms. Indeed, more permissive than most places in the US. For example, dear Boardsies, did you know that as citizens of the EU, you cannot be denied a permit to carry a concealed pistol in the Czech Republic? Pass a few basic tests (Medical, marksmanship), and the license must be given. (Of course, you'll have to borrow the pistol off someone else as most Irishmen don't own one, but that's not Prague's problem). There are no 'gun free zones', you can carry your sidearm onto a school, or into bars and clubs. (Carrying while intoxicated, however, is very illegal). So, when you go clubbing in Prague for your Stag or Hen night, which seems to be a popular destination for such things, bear in mind that statistically one out of every thirty adults you encounter is licensed to legally carry a sidearm in the club.

The Czechs have had only two mass killings in the last 50 years. Both killed eight. One person used a gun. The other (The last woman to be executed in Czechoslovakia, incidentally) used a truck.

again , all this points to something funny in the US that makes nut-jobs target schools , we dont see pissed off swiss teenagers blowing kids away do we

Bobeagleburger

994 mass shootings since Obama started his 2nd term in 2012.

A mass shooting is 4 or more killed.

Manic Moran

zeffabelli wrote: »

No. If tehre are armed government officials in schools that is simply bananas.

About one in three schools in the US have armed officers. They're given the odd title of "School Resource Officers", the first one was employed in Flint, Michigan in 1953. Although their primary focus is the sort of crime kids ordinarily get up to, they've been more a focus of attention given recent school shootings.

There have been a number of incidents in recent years where SROs have intervened in school shootings. Most of them don't make the major news because, well, the SRO intervened before too much harm was done. Sometimes it's before anyone was killed, example, http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/gudger.asp , other times, response was quick enough to limit the damage. Example: http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_24724553/arapahoe-high-school-shooting-sheriffs-office-interview-hundreds

I can't say I'm a fan of them, but it's better than turning schools into fortresses, and they do work.

MadsL

rarnes1 wrote: »

A mass shooting is 4 or more killed.

Glad you settled that for us, we had quite a time with that last night.

zeffabelli

Manic Moran wrote: »

About one in three schools in the US have armed officers. They're given the odd title of "School Resource Officers", the first one was employed in Flint, Michigan in 1953. Although their primary focus is the sort of crime kids ordinarily get up to, they've been more a focus of attention given recent school shootings.

There have been a number of incidents in recent years where SROs have intervened in school shootings. Most of them don't make the major news because, well, the SRO intervened before too much harm was done. Sometimes it's before anyone was killed, example, http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/gudger.asp , other times, response was quick enough to limit the damage. Example: http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_24724553/arapahoe-high-school-shooting-sheriffs-office-interview-hundreds

I can't say I'm a fan of them, but it's better than turning schools into fortresses, and they do work.

Or just keep the doors locked after the bell rings like the French do.

BoatMad

Manic Moran wrote: »

About one in three schools in the US have armed officers. They're given the odd title of "School Resource Officers", the first one was employed in Flint, Michigan in 1953. Although their primary focus is the sort of crime kids ordinarily get up to, they've been more a focus of attention given recent school shootings.

There have been a number of incidents in recent years where SROs have intervened in school shootings. Most of them don't make the major news because, well, the SRO intervened before too much harm was done. Sometimes it's before anyone was killed, example, http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/gudger.asp , other times, response was quick enough to limit the damage. Example: http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_24724553/arapahoe-high-school-shooting-sheriffs-office-interview-hundreds

I can't say I'm a fan of them, but it's better than turning schools into fortresses, and they do work.

Canada, that bastion of European ideals on north america soil , also has them in places

BoatMad

zeffabelli wrote: »

Or just keep the doors locked after the bell rings like the French do.

dont primary schools do that here too now in ireland

Snickers Man

BoatMad wrote: »

hmm, we seemed to throw that out the window in a very recent civil war.

That was 90 years ago. And it was around that time that we disarmed our police force. They said it couldn't be done..........

BoatMad wrote: »

The RIC was a well respected force mainly comprised of local catholics. it found itself compromised at the turn of the century by the rise of IRA violence

Ancestors of mine (all Catholics) served in the RIC. I know the image of them as a sectarian collection of death squads is a complete exaggeration. But the point is, they were the enforcement arm of a state whose legitimacy was questioned, they were tarred with its brush and they were an ARMED body. My point is that we felt able to have a largely unarmed force, even as a civil war was raging.

BoatMad wrote: »

what has the death penalty got to do with anything

See my opening remark about not giving the state the right to kill its own citizens. And then bear in mind that a frequently quoted argument by "gun rights" people in America is that they have to be able to defend themselves against a corrupt government.

And shotguns are just not enough. "Hell, our government has an annual DEEfense budget of two thirds of a trillion dollars. They got drones, tanks, guided missiles, attack helicopters and cruise missiles. Against all that, you gotta have an AK or you have no chance."

BoatMad wrote: »

" security forces" you mean the police. well if all your assailants are armed .....

Follow that train of thought. You'll get there.

BoatMad wrote: »

yah well we dont know whats right and wrong in this state

Suggest you type "Quis custodiet custodies?" into Google translate.

BoatMad wrote: »

and of course the myth of an unarmed Garda force !!!!!!

Well of course they have access to guns. They have to. But only specialist units. And you know what? It's better for all of us that that should be the case. In fact it's the biggest backhanded compliment we ever paid our British neighbours. Imitating their policy of an unarmed police force despite not having inherited it.

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

Now consider this. Look how many countries in the western world, and beyond, imitate so much of American culture. From TV and Cinema to business methods, to clothes sense to fast food culture. And then ask yourself: why does virtually no normal democracy allow its citizens to walk around bearing loaded firearms? Sure: you can keep a gun for hunting, or target practice, or even, like Switzerland, for national defence.

But you can't pop down to the local spaghetti joint with a loaded magnum on your hip as you can by default in most of America.

They've got that wrong. Very wrong.

In fact, why bother arguing the toss? Just follow the adage: never mind what these Euroweenies say, just look at what they do.

Billy86

rarnes1 wrote: »

994 mass shootings since Obama started his 2nd term in 2012.

A mass shooting is 4 or more killed.

Actually that is the definition for mass killings, though you have cited the number of mass shootings. The number of mass killings would be lower, but still incredibly high - on a per capita basis or otherwise.

MadsL wrote: »

Glad you settled that for us, we had quite a time with that last night.

Well given that you disagreed with even your own sources on the matter, that was hardly surprising.

retro:electro

Nothing will be done. More of the same. Public figures will come out "this is unacceptable, something needs to change", but nothing will. It will remain the same trigger happy country it has always been.

Harry Palmr

Just under 250,000 have been shot to death in the United States in the years 2007-13

BoatMad

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Just under 250,000 have been shot to death in the United States in the years 2007-13

last time I was there I didnt notice it was that short of people !

MadsL

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Just under 250,000 have been shot to death in the United States in the years 2007-13

Which other OECD country has an active drug war running at it's 1900 mile border? Number of people killed in Mexico's drug war since 2006: 100,000+

Harry Palmr

BoatMad wrote: »

last time I was there I didnt notice it was that short of people !

Are you being particularly facile or advocating more shootings?

BoatMad

Now consider this. Look how many countries in the western world, and beyond, imitate so much of American culture. From TV and Cinema to business methods, to clothes sense to fast food culture. And then ask yourself: why does virtually no normal democracy allow its citizens to walk around bearing loaded firearms? Sure: you can keep a gun for hunting, or target practice, or even, like Switzerland, for national defence.

But you can't pop down to the local spaghetti joint with a loaded magnum on your hip as you can by default in most of America.

They've got that wrong. Very wrong.

In fact, why bother arguing the toss? Just follow the adage: never mind what these Euroweenies say, just look at what they do.

Im not defending US society in general, there are lots of things you can do in the states that I dont agree with , equally we can do lots of things in Europe that is forbidden in america, in general its a very rule and police bound society

nor am I defending carry laws, they are a recent issues, many spurred on by the SCOTUS 2008 decisions.

what I am saying is that within the current constitutional arrangement, there is very little room to implement any serious gun control , hence you have to look at alternatives like More armed police ( school resource officers ) etc

BoatMad

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Are you being particularly facile or advocating more shootings?

particularly facile :P

Billy86

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Just under 250,000 have been shot to death in the United States in the years 2007-13

For a per capita comparison, that would be about 3,500 if it were Ireland (Republic only); our population is 1.43% the size of the USAs.

BoatMad

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Just under 250,000 have been shot to death in the United States in the years 2007-13

dont know where you are getting that data

The homicide rate has run from about 17,000 per year in 2007 to 13,716 in 2013 falling all the time

nothing like 250,000


my source is the FBI which maintains plenty of statistics

my data is purely homicides are excludes suicides and accidental shootings

zeffabelli

MadsL wrote: »

Which other OECD country has an active drug war running at it's 1900 mile border? Number of people killed in Mexico's drug war since 2006: 100,000+

Well that's their first mistake...they will never win that war.... stupid to make it one. Just let people have drugs in the first place.

zeffabelli

BoatMad wrote: »

dont primary schools do that here too now in ireland

Not all of them. THe US ones don't...it;s 'public property" so they have securoty and 800 hidden cameras instead,