Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

15 confirmed dead so far in Oregon college shooting

Options
1…1617192122…31

Comments

  • Options
    #542
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,407 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Sparks wrote: »
    At best it's conflicting.
    You are correct to say that not all of the evidence says exactly the same thing. For example, when describing the incremental risk of gun injury or death when a gun is present in the house, versus when a gun is not in the house, some studies estimate that it's in the range of tens of percents, others in the hundreds of percents.

    What no reputable study does is disagree with the basic fact that having a gun in a house substantially increases the risk of suffering gun-related injury or death.

    To claim that this is "conflicting" constitutes open misrepresentation of research.


  • Options
    #543
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,285 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    robindch wrote: »
    What no reputable study does is disagree with the basic fact that having a gun in a house substantially increases the risk of suffering gun-related injury or death.

    To claim that this is "conflicting" constitutes open misrepresentation of research.

    But even that does not give a great picture. Without drilling down.

    Most homicides are criminal on criminal. They frequently have guns at home. They get killed in a shoutout on the street. Is it because they had a gun at home, or because of their lifestyle? Similarly, the figure includes suicides. Even if we work on the basis that a portion of those suicides were not going to find another way of offing themselves, what does the figure say then? And how much should I balance suicides when every study on the matter agrees that if you defend yourself with a gun, you are more likely to escape your encounter uninjured than if you defend yourself by any other method (to include hiding). i have a friend who flies in Alaska. Not having a gun in the home is considered to be a really, really bad idea. (Until recently it used to be mandatory for pilots in Alaska to have a gun. And a big one).

    All figures like these require context and application.


  • Options
    #544
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,407 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Manic Moran wrote: »
    All figures like these require context and application.
    If you have a gun in the house means that you have a (slightly or greatly) increased risk of suffering gun-related injury or death.

    No more "context and application" is needed.


  • Options
    #545
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,285 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    robindch wrote: »
    If you have a gun in the house means that you have a (slightly or greatly) increased risk of suffering gun-related injury or death.

    No more "context and application" is needed.

    Sure there is. I am far less worried about the tool (and holder of that tool) used to result in my injury or death as I am about the risk I have of my injury or death in general. (And the chances I have to do something about that injury or death, regardless of what caused it)

    Or is it just the word "gun" which you like to focus upon?

    Put it another way. having a car in the garage increases your chance of death in an automobile related collision. What do we infer from this? After all, you could be the safest driver in the world, does that make you immune from the actions of other car owners who you are more likely to encounter than non-car-owning people? What's the correlation between people murdered by knives in the UK (the most common tool) and knife owners?


  • Options
    #546
    MadsL
    Registered Users Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    To be honest these threads sicken me. For the obviously reason of the massacre and the gun lovers in the thread. Several threads on the exact sane topic and again and again a lot of the people who love guns get more upset about the prospect of increased gun control than the massacre and the fact it will happen again.

    About as relevant as calling the incidents of DWI deaths a result of loving alcohol.

    Do you drink? Oh, you must be an alcohol lover. Shame on you.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #547
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,407 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Manic Moran wrote: »
    Or is it just the word "gun" which you like to focus upon?
    This thread is discussing yet another massacre caused by guns.

    It seems quite reasonable, therefore, to focus upon guns.


  • Options
    #548
    zeffabelli
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,516 ✭✭✭zeffabelli


    MadsL wrote: »
    About as relevant as calling the incidents of DWI deaths a result of loving alcohol.

    Do you drink? Oh, you must be an alcohol lover. Shame on you.

    Well it is if it's in a culture that fetishises alcohol, has a national drunk driving problem. Then yeah.


  • Options
    #549
    BlaasForRafa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,020 ✭✭✭BlaasForRafa


    Manic Moran wrote: »
    Maybe I will be. But if I am, it won't be because I was left cowering helplessly and ineffectually until I met my attacker.

    So you'd shoot it out in the streets like the Earps and the Clantons?

    Sarcasm aside, given the fact that you live in the US and are au fait with the regulations is there any practical measure that can be carried out that minimises the chances of spree killings that doesn't include a "the solution is more guns" argument?


  • Options
    #550
    asherbassad
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,869 ✭✭✭asherbassad


    Manic Moran wrote: »
    But even that does not give a great picture. Without drilling down.

    Most homicides are criminal on criminal. They frequently have guns at home. They get killed in a shoutout on the street. Is it because they had a gun at home, or because of their lifestyle? Similarly, the figure includes suicides. Even if we work on the basis that a portion of those suicides were not going to find another way of offing themselves, what does the figure say then? And how much should I balance suicides when every study on the matter agrees that if you defend yourself with a gun, you are more likely to escape your encounter uninjured than if you defend yourself by any other method (to include hiding). i have a friend who flies in Alaska. Not having a gun in the home is considered to be a really, really bad idea. (Until recently it used to be mandatory for pilots in Alaska to have a gun. And a big one).

    All figures like these require context and application.

    Wait. What do you mean "criminal on criminal"? Could you explain?


  • Options
    #551
    InTheTrees
    Registered Users Posts: 9,900 ✭✭✭InTheTrees


    BlaasForRafa wrote: »
    Sarcasm aside, given the fact that you live in the US and are au fait with the regulations is there any practical measure that can be carried out that minimises the chances of spree killings that doesn't include a "the solution is more guns" argument?

    I dont think so.

    You've got fifty individual states that have very different levels of willingness to even entertain the notion of gun "control".


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #552
    Sparks
    Registered Users Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    robindch wrote: »
    This thread is discussing yet another massacre caused by guns.

    It seems quite reasonable, therefore, to focus upon guns.

    You know, I really get irked by this.
    This thread is discussing yet another massacre carried out by Americans.
    Can we not discuss banning Americans?
    Surely that would solve the problem too...


  • Options
    #553
    Sparks
    Registered Users Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    asherbassad wrote: »
    Wait. What do you mean "criminal on criminal"? Could you explain?

    FBI statistics basically state that the vast majority of all gun violence in the US are as a result of drug dealers and other criminals shooting at each other. Depending on the place and the year, you're looking at between 70% and 95% of all gun violence being down to people with prior criminal records engaging in crime and using gun violence to that end.

    In other words, Dublin, but on a massively larger scale.


  • Options
    #554
    justchecked
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 367 ✭✭justchecked


    Manic Moran wrote: »
    "Precedent" is a concept which has recognition in argument. Even in courts. While you are correct that there has to be a first for anything that gets implemented, there is also a presumption that if no other jurisdiction on the planet has gone this route, over the five or so centuries that firearms have been around, it's probably because it's not a good idea to be implemented in the first place.



    The Hoover Dam made practical sense for little detrement except initial capitol cost. It generates electricity. It retains water. It generally makes substantial benefits to the infrastructure. The Space Program advanced science. None of this is arguable under any objective standard. This central arms idea not only costs money, but comes with liabilities to balance out the benefits which I argue in practice won't stop a whole hell of a lot. Your suggestion comes with a number of more subjective standards, like "A slow firing weapon can be retained" (without expressing just how slow, or how this weapon will perform the intended role).



    Hey, someone has to be first, right? Despite the fact that it could be a bad idea.



    Two things here. Firstly, our resources are not unlimited. As you pointed out, we could send a man to the moon and float a huge navy. We also have issues with our transportation infrastructure, low-income assistance, healthcare, arguably education, and a whole suit of other things for us to spend our money on. I suspect that most voters in the Bay Area would rather see that if we retired a cruiser or two, the half-billion or whatever would be spent on the local commuter rail system than on armory facilities.

    The second is that not all firearms are toys, no matter how disparagingly you may feel about it. Certainly, yes, some of mine are owned purely for pleasure. I'm sure this is true for most firearms owners. Some are not. And I strongly suspect that you and I will differ as to where that line of 'practical' vs 'pleasure' lies. Indeed, I suspect that you would prefer that those used for 'pleasure' (such as target shooting) are not the slow-firing ones, the practical ones (eg defense) are not the rapid firing ones. Reality, of course, is the converse.



    OK, firstly, how does one define 'nice, slow fire rate'? Maybe you're thinking of a bolt action rifle? Sortof like the one that Charles Whitman used in the University bell tower shootings? One of my rifles is a Lee Enfield, another bolt action. I can repeatedly put one round into a 200 yard target every four seconds. (The record is one round every 1.3 seconds into a 12-inch target at 300 yards over a minute, but most people aren't that good).

    Secondly, again, part of the reason that rifles like the AR is so popular is because they are damned suitable for practical purposes, such as varminting, where rapid follow-on shots are deemed useful. Again, I suggest you go and look up the literature on the subject.



    Thinly veiled satire aside, I think you're leaving out a few things.



    Maybe I will be. But if I am, it won't be because I was left cowering helplessly and ineffectually until I met my attacker.

    You continue with the evasive detail level questions about a theoretical solution.
    Funnily enough I don't have detailed plans about how exactly it would be implemented, not that it ever will be - it simply won't, and I see that as a shame, but at least its not something I'll have to live with.

    You may see that as a positive, good for you, but I think if you look at the objective facts of whats going on around you and think about balance of probabilities ....(i.e. a friend/family in a mass shooting vs all states simultaneously turning the army on the people) ...that one day you might change your opinion.

    One thing that I can breath some small sigh of relief over is that you were at least up front enough to say that some of the weapons you keep are for pleasure.
    There seems to be a lot of denial about this, and its because some people dont want to publicly admit that they prioritize the fun of making a piece of metal go bangbangbang far above the consequences their toys have on society (possibly including themselves).


    Charles Whitman was a marine. Most mass shooters are/were simple idiots.

    The idea of restricting weapons as tightly as possible within the confines of legitimate civil need is/was not presented as a solution to all gun murders, rather the idea is to make it as difficult as possible for mass shootings to take place.

    The benefits would far outweigh the costs, but you'll never have to worry about that.
    Guns of the pleasure variety, like other things that go bang pop or kapow, are just too much fun for a certain type of people.
    And theres a lot of those people in the US - so good luck.


  • Options
    #555
    Sparks
    Registered Users Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    justchecked wrote: »
    The idea of restricting weapons as tightly as possible within the confines of legitimate civil need is/was not presented as a solution to all gun murders, rather the idea is to make it as difficult as possible for mass shootings to take place.
    But we know that doesn't work.
    Seriously, we've tried it. In Australia, in the UK three times now, and even in Ireland (though we were more thinking of paramilitary mass shootings there; but still, didn't work).

    What we know does work, is to fund the police and direct them to enforce existing laws.

    Seriously. It works. We saw it work in Australia; it's what caused the drop in gun crime there, not the ban (because the rate started to fall when the police were tasked with tackling the drug gangs doing the shooting, which was before the ban happened). And in New Zealand, which was having the same crime problem with drugs as Australia, and the same kind of shootings, at the same time, they also pointed the police at the problem and they didn't use a gun ban. And their gun crime level dropped off as well. Then in the UK, they tried a gun ban without pointing the police at the problem and the gun crime level doubled over a period of about six years; then they pointed the police at the drug gangs and the gun crime level fell off.

    The active ingredient is not the ban; it's the police. Point them at the problem and fund them properly. That's what we know works. It's what we've seen work in several countries now.

    This is why I don't understand how people are so enthusiastic about the idea of simple gun bans. If you've tried option A, and it didn't work, and you tried option B and it did work; why would you keep trying option A?


  • Options
    #556
    AbusesToilets
    Registered Users Posts: 10,136 ✭✭✭✭AbusesToilets


    Deranged person commits atrocity. Ignore the continued under funding of mental health resources, impact of increased media exposure, the efforts being made (or not) to address the underlying social reasons for crime; instead, call to eradicate the tools used.


  • Options
    #557
    justchecked
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 367 ✭✭justchecked


    Sparks wrote: »
    But we know that doesn't work.
    Seriously, we've tried it. In Australia, in the UK three times now, and even in Ireland (though we were more thinking of paramilitary mass shootings there; but still, didn't work).

    What we know does work, is to fund the police and direct them to enforce existing laws.

    Seriously. It works. We saw it work in Australia; it's what caused the drop in gun crime there, not the ban (because the rate started to fall when the police were tasked with tackling the drug gangs doing the shooting, which was before the ban happened). And in New Zealand, which was having the same crime problem with drugs as Australia, and the same kind of shootings, at the same time, they also pointed the police at the problem and they didn't use a gun ban. And their gun crime level dropped off as well. Then in the UK, they tried a gun ban without pointing the police at the problem and the gun crime level doubled over a period of about six years; then they pointed the police at the drug gangs and the gun crime level fell off.

    The active ingredient is not the ban; it's the police. Point them at the problem and fund them properly. That's what we know works. It's what we've seen work in several countries now.

    This is why I don't understand how people are so enthusiastic about the idea of simple gun bans. If you've tried option A, and it didn't work, and you tried option B and it did work; why would you keep trying option A?

    But I didn't suggest a ban, just further restriction.

    There is no legitimate need in US (or other) society for certain types of weapons.

    Keeping something very basic at home will cover all legit uses.

    The toys can be kept somewhere else.


    If theres one consistent message that comes back from the pro gun side it seems to be 'any change which might impinge on our ability to play with our toys will most definitely not do any good so no lets not ever bother'.

    Personally if I was in their shoes I'd be very willing to say 'sure, if theres a chance it could save some lives lets give it a go'.

    At least don't be ashamed of the truth of who you are, don't lie to stay in other people's good books, look them in the eye and let it be known you value cool badass guns more than the lives of some random schoolkids you dont know.


  • Options
    #558
    BlaasForRafa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,020 ✭✭✭BlaasForRafa


    Sparks wrote: »
    This is why I don't understand how people are so enthusiastic about the idea of simple gun bans. If you've tried option A, and it didn't work, and you tried option B and it did work; why would you keep trying option A?

    I can't recall any Dunblane's or Hungerford's after the last UK gun ban, can you?


  • Options
    #559
    Witcher
    Registered Users Posts: 14,640 ✭✭✭✭Witcher


    BlaasForRafa wrote: »
    I can't recall any Dunblane's or Hungerford's after the last UK gun ban, can you?

    Cumbria?


  • Options
    #560
    BlaasForRafa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,020 ✭✭✭BlaasForRafa


    Strider wrote: »
    Cumbria?

    I forgot about that one, thanks for the correction.


  • Options
    #561
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,407 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Sparks wrote: »
    robindch wrote: »
    This thread is discussing yet another massacre caused by guns. It seems quite reasonable, therefore, to focus upon guns.
    You know, I really get irked by this. This thread is discussing yet another massacre carried out by Americans.
    Can we not discuss banning Americans?
    I'm sorry to hear that you find it irksome that weaponry designed to kill people was used to kill people.

    Perhaps the shooter who carries out the next schoolyard or cinema massacre might want to be a little more considerate of the feelings of his fellow gun enthusiasts.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #562
    asherbassad
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,869 ✭✭✭asherbassad


    MadsL wrote: »
    About as relevant as calling the incidents of DWI deaths a result of loving alcohol.

    Do you drink? Oh, you must be an alcohol lover. Shame on you.

    That kind of inane analogy just show the logic of those who worship firearms. Alcohol's sole purpose is not a weapon to kill people for fcuks sake.


  • Options
    #563
    pmasterson95
    Registered Users Posts: 3,074 ✭✭✭pmasterson95


    asherbassad wrote: »
    That kind of inane analogy just show the logic of those who worship firearms. Alcohol's sole purpose is not a weapon to kill people for fcuks sake.

    Then they accuse others of being inable to "debate" while talking utter ****.


  • Options
    #564
    MadsL
    Registered Users Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    asherbassad wrote: »
    That kind of inane analogy just show the logic of those who worship firearms. Alcohol's sole purpose is not a weapon to kill people for fcuks sake.

    Worship now? Must have levelled up from "gun lovers".

    I see you totally missed the point; I'll spell it out for you since you seem to be having trouble.

    1 in 10 deaths in the US within the age group 20-64 are attributed to alcohol. Now, many of us enjoy a drink. It would be totally absurd to describe casual drinkers as "alcohol lovers" or "alcohol nuts" unless you have one serious temperance fixation, yet throughout this thread you have been incapable of posting without throwing in "gun nuts" "gun lovers" and the like. The analogy is simple, there are plenty of leading causes of death but you chose to label those who are absolutely law-abiding with some pretty grotesque language. I wonder why you cannot discuss the issue wihout throwing out insults in every post?
    pmasterson95 wrote: »
    Then they accuse others of being inable to "debate" while talking utter ****.

    Here's the sum total of your debate in this thread..mostly personal attacks.


  • Options
    #565
    zeffabelli
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,516 ✭✭✭zeffabelli


    If killing children in Newtown didn't change anything , and people are so densitized them nothing will.


  • Options
    #566
    MadsL
    Registered Users Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    zeffabelli wrote: »
    If killing children in Newtown didn't change anything , and people are so densitized them nothing will.

    What do you propose? Apart from outing every gun owner's address in the US?
    Any concrete suggestions?


  • Options
    #567
    donegal.
    Registered Users Posts: 4,635 ✭✭✭donegal.


    Sparks wrote: »
    But we know that doesn't work.
    Seriously, we've tried it. In Australia, in the UK three times now, and even in Ireland (though we were more thinking of paramilitary mass shootings there; but still, didn't work).

    What we know does work, is to fund the police and direct them to enforce existing laws.

    Seriously. It works. We saw it work in Australia; it's what caused the drop in gun crime there, not the ban (because the rate started to fall when the police were tasked with tackling the drug gangs doing the shooting, which was before the ban happened). And in New Zealand, which was having the same crime problem with drugs as Australia, and the same kind of shootings, at the same time, they also pointed the police at the problem and they didn't use a gun ban. And their gun crime level dropped off as well. Then in the UK, they tried a gun ban without pointing the police at the problem and the gun crime level doubled over a period of about six years; then they pointed the police at the drug gangs and the gun crime level fell off.

    The active ingredient is not the ban; it's the police. Point them at the problem and fund them properly. That's what we know works. It's what we've seen work in several countries now.

    This is why I don't understand how people are so enthusiastic about the idea of simple gun bans. If you've tried option A, and it didn't work, and you tried option B and it did work; why would you keep trying option A?

    don't like reading long posts heres a brief tl/dr:

    properly fund the police to tackle drug/gang crime - this will stop a lone nutter shooting up a school.
    do not make it more difficult for a lone nutter to amass an arsenal - this won't help at all.


  • Options
    #568
    BoatMad
    Registered Users Posts: 13,702 ✭✭✭✭BoatMad


    justchecked wrote: »
    But I didn't suggest a ban, just further restriction.

    I have covered this before, merely tampering with the " kind" of firearms a nut-job can get hold off, does not stop the nut-job.


    There is no legitimate need in US (or other) society for certain types of weapons.

    The firearms most commonly held are not dissimilar to other countries including shotguns, rifles ( semi auto included) , handguns etc, typically these are " simple " firearms.

    The US constitution conveys a legitimate right that you can own such simple arms to defend yourself . Legitimacy is a legal concept.

    "Legitimacy is the popular acceptance of an authority, usually a governing law"
    Keeping something very basic at home will cover all legit uses.

    The toys can be kept somewhere else.

    Doesn't matter , massive damage can be done with " basic" handguns or reloading rifles
    If theres one consistent message that comes back from the pro gun side it seems to be 'any change which might impinge on our ability to play with our toys will most definitely not do any good so no lets not ever bother'.

    No its not, its that tinkering with banning this firearm or that firearm is nonsense , you have to either catch the nut-job before he commits an atrocity or stop him dead in his tracks when his intentions are clear
    Personally if I was in their shoes I'd be very willing to say 'sure, if theres a chance it could save some lives lets give it a go'.

    various controls have been tried, very ineffective
    At least don't be ashamed of the truth of who you are, don't lie to stay in other people's good books, look them in the eye and let it be known you value cool badass guns more than the lives of some random schoolkids you dont know.

    are you deliberately trying to insult people, so do you think if we put nice mahogany handles on a Glock , and painted it blue, its incapable of killing children , in the hands of a nut-job

    You like many others, simply target the " obvious " solution not the right one.

    ( in the same way VW is removing software from its cars in Europe that has no effect to begin with , i.e. public outcries )


  • Options
    #569
    listermint
    Registered Users Posts: 33,860 ✭✭✭✭listermint


    If there was money to be made from taking away guns you can be dam sure big business would be all over it.

    But since they have gone from what 5 Million guns sold per annum not 6 years ago to 12 Million per annum. There will be people here giving it large about how guns are a necessity.

    Big Business, nothing more nothing less. The perception of safety came from an advertisers pen ink.


  • Options
    #570
    BoatMad
    Registered Users Posts: 13,702 ✭✭✭✭BoatMad


    If there was money to be made from taking away guns you can be dam sure big business would be all over it.

    But since they have gone from what 5 Million guns sold per annum not 6 years ago to 12 Million per annum. There will be people here giving it large about how guns are a necessity.

    Big Business, nothing more nothing less. The perception of safety came from an advertisers pen ink.

    its a good soundbite statement , but meaningless

    the presence of firearms in the US is a complex issue, but has been clearly shown to be supported by the US constitution. The right to self defense, the " self help mentality " in the US, etc etc all play a part in the mentality.

    But arguing about this is like trying to make white people in Ireland change to black. What is present in the US is present under the law of the land and the constitution

    the issue is what stops nut-jobs shooting up schools, given the legal situation that pertains in the US. The rest of the arguments are just rants at windmills


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #571
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,285 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    asherbassad wrote: »
    That kind of inane analogy just show the logic of those who worship firearms. Alcohol's sole purpose is not a weapon to kill people for fcuks sake.

    In addition to Madsl's response, I'd make another observation. Your counter argument is based on the theory that killing is always bad and provides no good to society.

    If there were no good reason for a gun to kill, why do the Gardai have them? Why were Cosmonauts, of all people, armed with a handgun? Why do thousands of farmers in Ireland have them? It is putting one's head in the sand to focus on the evil which can be done with firearms without considering the positive. Other than the dubious benefit of giving you a buzz and tasting good, what is the practical benefit to society of alcoholic beverages?


Advertisement