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
Comments
-
Manic Moran wrote: »But how many is he going to take with him before he goes? Remember, he's likely trying to make a splash. Trying to kill as many people as possible, preferably those we care most about (children) to become as famous as possible. We've all heard of Cho at Virginia Tech in Virginia, but how many have heard of Odighizuwa at Appalachian School of Law in Virginia? He only shot three before being confronted by armed students and surrendering. Dylann Roof is a household name now, after shooting up a church in South Carolina and killing nine, how many have heard of Matt Murray, who was shot by a parishioner after he killed two at a church in Colorado? (After killing another three at another mission earlier that day). Perhaps we should be publicising such incidents more.
It's not the deterrance against getting shot, as you mention, they already are usually intending to not see the dusk. It's the deterrence against doing the act for publicity and, in the cases that it fails, it's the active counter to his or her killing as many people as they can until the police show up.
Do you think the media should make as big a stink about those other cases?0 -
Manic Moran wrote: »But how many is he going to take with him before he goes? Remember, he's likely trying to make a splash. Trying to kill as many people as possible, preferably those we care most about (children) to become as famous as possible. We've all heard of Cho at Virginia Tech in Virginia, but how many have heard of Odighizuwa at Appalachian School of Law in Virginia? He only shot three before being confronted by armed students and surrendering. Dylann Roof is a household name now, after shooting up a church in South Carolina and killing nine, how many have heard of Matt Murray, who was shot by a parishioner after he killed two at a church in Colorado? (After killing another three at another mission earlier that day). Perhaps we should be publicising such incidents more.
It's not the deterrance against getting shot, as you mention, they already are usually intending to not see the dusk. It's the deterrence against doing the act for publicity and, in the cases that it fails, it's the active counter to his or her killing as many people as they can until the police show up.
The idea of more guns equals more safety is just daft to me. In this situation it may have saved a few people the gunman killing them if everyone was armed but what about the one or two students that are caught in the crossfire by fellow students trying to kill the gunman, the student that is killed by the cops when they arrive as they think they’re the killer, the student who has PTSD and decides to go on his own gun spree a few months later, the guy who gets in a drunken argument with his girlfriend and shoots her, the sister of a student who takes one of the guns and shoots her younger brother.
Simply arming everyone does not make things safer.0 -
The idea of more guns equals more safety is just daft to me. In this situation it may have saved a few people the gunman killing them if everyone was armed but what about the one or two students that are caught in the crossfire by fellow students trying to kill the gunman, the student that is killed by the cops when they arrive as they think they’re the killer, the student who has PTSD and decides to go on his own gun spree a few months later, the guy who gets in a drunken argument with his girlfriend and shoots her, the sister of a student who takes one of the guns and shoots her younger brother.
Simply arming everyone does not make things safer.
Do you have any sources/evidence at all of this or is it all just incredibly specious whataboutery?0 -
That’s not logical to me at all. Knife crime happens in Ireland, should everyone be allowed carry knives in schools / bars?
On a larger scale do you believe it’s sensible to attempt to stop nations like North Korea, Iran, and Syria from obtaining nuclear weapons? Republicans are the first to want to bomb/invade these countries to stop them, as they don’t believe they can be trusted, but don’t dare think about trying to limit who can have a gun.
But the carrying of knifes in Ireland is not prevalent, in the US the ownership of guns is. Youre not comparing similar situations.
Why do you and others ignore the existence of the 2nd amendment. Any significant restriction of small arms is not possible - do you understand that0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Do you have any sources/evidence at all of this or is it all just incredibly specious whataboutery?
Are you questioning there are no cases of boyfriends shooting their girlfriends?
Are you questioning there are no cases of students carrying out copycat shootings?
Are you questioning there are no cases people being caught in the crossfire of would be gun toting heroes?
Are you questioning there are no cases of kids getting hold of firearms and shooting siblings?
I can find multiple sources of each if you want but if you require specific examples to believe these things happen in the States your head is well and truly in the sand.0 -
But the carrying of knifes in Ireland is not prevalent, in the US the ownership of guns is. Youre not comparing similar situations.
Why do you and others ignore the existence of the 2nd amendment. Any significant restriction of small arms is not possible - do you understand that
Everyone is free to own knives in Ireland so restricting it is not possible (bar maybe certain ones to under 18s) and the number of knives per capita in Ireland is greater than the number of guns in the States (I have several in the top drawer in the kitchen that could do a lot of damage).
Any other reasons why we can’t use this comparison?0 -
None at all, but knives are not restricted in the US either. I always have one on my belt, as I find I use it routinely for situations I encounter throughout the day. I wear it now, as I'm sitting in the office, and only take it off for airports or similar places with metal detectors. Many people have them, nobody bats an eyelid. And I've never had any issues down the bar or at my daughter's school with knife confrontations. Not that stabbings never happen around here, but find me any place where they don't.
In either case, it's availability vs carriage. Whether one is -allowed- to carry a knife or firearm is not a particular restriction to someone who has access to one and feels like misusing it.0 -
Do you work as MacGyver?Manic Moran wrote: »None at all, but knives are not restricted in the US either. I always have one on my belt, as I find I use it routinely for situations I encounter throughout the day. I wear it now, as I'm sitting in the office, and only take it off for airports or similar places with metal detectors. Many people have them, nobody bats an eyelid. And I've never had any issues down the bar or at my daughter's school with knife confrontations. Not that stabbings never happen around here, but find me any place where they don't.
In either case, it's availability vs carriage. Whether one is -allowed- to carry a knife or firearm is not a particular restriction to someone who has access to one and feels like misusing it.0 -
I'm questioning whether there is any case where there was crossfire from defensive shooters during a school shooting, who then suffered onset PTSD, went crazy, and shot up their girlfriends, or were shot by the cops in error at the scene, which is the supposition you introduced.Are you questioning there are no cases of boyfriends shooting their girlfriends?
Are you questioning there are no cases of students carrying out copycat shootings?
Are you questioning there are no cases people being caught in the crossfire of would be gun toting heroes?
Are you questioning there are no cases of kids getting hold of firearms and shooting siblings?
I can find multiple sources of each if you want but if you require specific examples to believe these things happen in the States your head is well and truly in the sand.Do you work as MacGyver?
You've never had to open a box/parcel or anything at the office?0 -
Advertisement
-
Manic Moran wrote: »None at all, but knives are not restricted in the US either. I always have one on my belt, as I find I use it routinely for situations I encounter throughout the day. I wear it now, as I'm sitting in the office, and only take it off for airports or similar places with metal detectors. Many people have them, nobody bats an eyelid. And I've never had any issues down the bar or at my daughter's school with knife confrontations. Not that stabbings never happen around here, but find me any place where they don't.
In either case, it's availability vs carriage. Whether one is -allowed- to carry a knife or firearm is not a particular restriction to someone who has access to one and feels like misusing it.
Im not clear where you stand on the discussion we're having, do you think other people's carriage of firearms or a knife would restrict others misusing theirs?0 -
Everyone is free to own knives in Ireland so restricting it is not possible (bar maybe certain ones to under 18s) and the number of knives per capita in Ireland is greater than the number of guns in the States (I have several in the top drawer in the kitchen that could do a lot of damage).
Any other reasons why we can’t use this comparison?
There are quite a number of restrictions on knives in Ireland. Carrying them in plain view etc etc
Knives require skill and close combat and are never a primary choice for self defense.
It's not the same. Guns in the us are carried for self defence, because it's simple to operate , requires little specialist skill and can project force from a distance0 -
I'm questioning whether there is any case where there was crossfire from defensive shooters during a school shooting, who then suffered onset PTSD, went crazy, and shot up their girlfriends, or were shot by the cops in error at the scene, which is the supposition you introduced.
Apologies I was writing it quickly and forgot to include 'or'. Having re-read the post I would have thought it would be pretty clear to anyone who wasn't being pedantic that this is what I meant rather than someone facing all of those situations.
Now that I've cleared that up do you want to respond to the point I was making about how idiotic the logic of 'more guns means a safer place' is or were you just being pedantic?0 -
Apologies I was writing it quickly and forgot to include 'or'. Having re-read the post I would have thought it would be pretty clear to anyone who wasn't being pedantic that this is what I meant rather than someone facing all of those situations.
Now that I've cleared that up do you want to respond to the point I was making about how idiotic the logic of 'more guns means a safer place' is or were you just being pedantic?
Whether you or I like it or not , the US will trend towards the default that everybody is armed. So ideological debates have little meaning0 -
There are quite a number of restrictions on knives in Ireland. Carrying them in plain view etc etc
Knives require skill and close combat and are never a primary choice for self defense.
It's not the same. Guns in the us are carried for self defence, because it's simple to operate , requires little specialist skill and can project force from a distance
Any laws that are more restrictive than gun laws in states in the US?
Stabbing someone is as basic as pointing and shooting.
People don't carry around knives in Ireland because they aren't brainwashed / fear mongered into believing that carrying one will protect them.0 -
Whether you or I like it or not , the US will trend towards the default that everybody is armed. So ideological debates have little meaning
If they do trend that way then there should be no gun crime / burglaries / whatever boogie man that more guns are supposed to protect them from as they'd be scared off by the thoughts of everyone already carrying.0 -
Finally, it's my time to shine! I live in Arizona. The gun free zone argument is not solid here. Every Tom, Dick and Harry carries a weapon on them. I have been to that University. There's no metal detectors. The gunman got his gun in....and other students who have a hard on for guns also bring them.
That argument is f'cking stupid. Now with that said MOST sane people don't go walking around with their gun on them at all time over here. Even people who do own guns, tend to leave that at home or at the very least in their car. You can be your @ss that others did have guns in that University.
It's a shame. Flagstaff, Arizona is beautiful. It's typically a pretty quite place and Northern Arizona is mostly made up of peace loving hippy types.0 -
If they do trend that way then there should be no gun crime / burglaries / whatever boogie man that more guns are supposed to protect them from as they'd be scared off by the thoughts of everyone already carrying.
Micro vs macro.
Over the last 30 years or so, there are substantially more people who carry a weapon on a daily basis. There is no reason to believe that this has made matters any better or any worse to the overall crime rates. (They have generally gone down, though if it is a consequence of more weapons on the streets is unlikely).
However, in the event that a crime occurs to any specific individual, there is evidence to show that that individual is more likely to come out uninjured if he or she is armed than not. So, you are in the position where it makes little difference to society at large, but does make a difference to the people who choose to be armed.
The only thing to show if there is any effect at the macro scale, to my knowledge, is the fact that burglary/home invasion rates have a marked decrease in the U.S. in terms of the ratio that homeowners are present. (I.e., a U.S. Burglar is going to be more likely to ensure that nobody is home before burglarizing than his British counterpart). Survey of prisoners indicate that the reason for this is that they don't want to get shot. Ironically, this makes things safer for everybody, as it reduces the chance of confrontation of any sort from occurring in the first place.0 -
Manic Moran wrote: »Micro vs macro.
Over the last 30 years or so, there are substantially more people who carry a weapon on a daily basis. There is no reason to believe that this has made matters any better or any worse to the overall crime rates. (They have generally gone down, though if it is a consequence of more weapons on the streets is unlikely).
This. It's amazing how the media tries to portray America as spiraling out of control with mass shootings etc., when in fact it has been getting safer - while simultaneously this was happening, whatever the cause.However, in the event that a crime occurs to any specific individual, there is evidence to show that that individual is more likely to come out uninjured if he or she is armed than not. So, you are in the position where it makes little difference to society at large, but does make a difference to the people who choose to be armed.
Again, well said. In my opinion, underpinning calls for disarming people is a basic contempt for individual rights. If people hear I have a gun, they get all bent out of shape. But if I turned up in the corner of the newspaper as another murder statistic, they wouldn't give a ****.0 -
Manic Moran wrote: »Micro vs macro.
Over the last 30 years or so, there are substantially more people who carry a weapon on a daily basis. There is no reason to believe that this has made matters any better or any worse to the overall crime rates. (They have generally gone down, though if it is a consequence of more weapons on the streets is unlikely).
However, in the event that a crime occurs to any specific individual, there is evidence to show that that individual is more likely to come out uninjured if he or she is armed than not. So, you are in the position where it makes little difference to society at large, but does make a difference to the people who choose to be armed.
The only thing to show if there is any effect at the macro scale, to my knowledge, is the fact that burglary/home invasion rates have a marked decrease in the U.S. in terms of the ratio that homeowners are present. (I.e., a U.S. Burglar is going to be more likely to ensure that nobody is home before burglarizing than his British counterpart). Survey of prisoners indicate that the reason for this is that they don't want to get shot. Ironically, this makes things safer for everybody, as it reduces the chance of confrontation of any sort from occurring in the first place.
I'm not sure what the evidence is for coming out uninjured but I have seen evidence that someone carrying a gun is more likely to be shot than someone not.
That's not even taking into account the higher rate of death by gun for an entire household when one is owned in the home.
It's actually amazing the leaps in logic people make when it comes to guns. If you didn't know what a gun was and you spoke to many gun supporters you could be excused for thinking they were describing a shield rather than a tool designed to hurt/kill.0 -
Advertisement
-
the point I was making about how idiotic the logic of 'more guns means a safer place' is
At another time I would have agreed, but we're seeing an increasing number of mass shootings in 'gun-free' zones, and in areas/states where carry is also illegal. The reality is we're forced to acquiesce that guns will appear, in those areas, carried by people who intend to use them maliciously, and the answer to that is unfortunately 'more guns' not in the sense we need to manufacture millions more, but allow people to carry wherever.0 -
Manic Moran wrote: »Micro vs macro.
Over the last 30 years or so, there are substantially more people who carry a weapon on a daily basis. There is no reason to believe that this has made matters any better or any worse to the overall crime rates. (They have generally gone down, though if it is a consequence of more weapons on the streets is unlikely).
However, in the event that a crime occurs to any specific individual, there is evidence to show that that individual is more likely to come out uninjured if he or she is armed than not. So, you are in the position where it makes little difference to society at large, but does make a difference to the people who choose to be armed.
The only thing to show if there is any effect at the macro scale, to my knowledge, is the fact that burglary/home invasion rates have a marked decrease in the U.S. in terms of the ratio that homeowners are present. (I.e., a U.S. Burglar is going to be more likely to ensure that nobody is home before burglarizing than his British counterpart). Survey of prisoners indicate that the reason for this is that they don't want to get shot. Ironically, this makes things safer for everybody, as it reduces the chance of confrontation of any sort from occurring in the first place.
One has to be incredibly careful when comparing crime statistics , because countries have remarkably different standards and statistical methods. Often crime statistics are an indication of a trust in the police and a willingness to report a crime , then actual prevalence of that type of crime. Only very specific crimes have sort of direct comparison. , homicide being one of the few. , assault and burglary statistics are notoriously different to compare
One thing is certain homicides involving firearms are 700 ( yes 700 ) times greater in the USA. burglaries are approx 10-15% greater in the USA , ie broadly similar , ( which again is strange with all those guns in the us ) fear of crime is slightly greater in the uk then the us.
Assaults are where there is a significant difference , with the figures indicating twice as many assaults in the uk. Again this category is notoriously difficult to directly compare
However , with 26 tines as many people locked up as the uk, and virtually every indicator , drugs , fraud , theft , homicides , corruption , dislike of the police , well ahead in the USA.
The abiding fact remains. The USA is not a particularly safer place to live in with all those guns. Gun crime is horrendous and with 2 million prisoners , and zillions of guns , well draw your own conclusion
Mine is , America is a very violent society that requires lots of guns to try and contain it and in that it has failed.
source f my stats http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/United-Kingdom/United-States/Crime0 -
At another time I would have agreed, but we're seeing an increasing number of mass shootings in 'gun-free' zones, and in areas/states where carry is also illegal. The reality is we're forced to acquiesce that guns will appear, in those areas, carried by people who intend to use them maliciously, and the answer to that is unfortunately 'more guns' not in the sense we need to manufacture millions more, but allow people to carry wherever.
In a once off situation (like possibly a mass shooting) you may be better off but again the facts are that you're more likely to be shot if you are carrying a gun for protection and your family in your home are more likely to die if you own a gun.0 -
I'm not sure what the evidence is for coming out uninjured but I have seen evidence that someone carrying a gun is more likely to be shot than someone not.
The CDC-sponsored assessment I linked to a few pages ago cited four studies showing this, and none countering.
I suspect you are referring to the University of Pennsylvania study a couple of years ago which concluded that you were 4.5 times likely to get shot if you had a gun than if you did not. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090930121512.htm
Their methodology was to look at cases where someone was killed, ask people who were not involved in the shooting but were nearby "Did you have a gun?" and use them as a control group. They then used these figures to conclude that having a gun made you more likely to get shot.
This was apparently absent any other form of context questions such as "Were you by any chance involved in a drug distribution turf war, when you were not getting shot?"
Suffice to say, the study is somewhat flawed.That's not even taking into account the higher rate of death by gun for an entire household when one is owned in the home.
This is a different issue, and the primary two causes for this are suicide and, to a much lesser extent, stupidity. There are better ways of reducing suicide than removing guns, and if someone is stupid with their gun, it's no different than being stupid with their car, nail gun, bandsaw, or any other tool which can be dangerous and lethal if misused.It's actually amazing the leaps in logic people make when it comes to guns. If you didn't know what a gun was and you spoke to many gun supporters you could be excused for thinking they were describing a shield rather than a tool designed to hurt/kill.
You make it seem that killing must of necessity be a bad thing. It is always an unfortunate thing, but is not always inappropriate.0 -
In a once off situation (like possibly a mass shooting) you may be better off but again the facts are that you're more likely to be shot if you are carrying a gun for protection and your family in your home are more likely to die if you own a gun.
There are definitely things like that that come up as critical issues I thin others have said it better that it's a culture/education thing there. I also agree you can't trust high schoolers with weapons. At the same time you can't completely eliminate guns, such is the quagmire.0 -
Manic Moran wrote: »The CDC-sponsored assessment I linked to a few pages ago cited four studies showing this, and none coutering.
I suspect you are referring to the University of Pennsylvania study a couple of years ago which concluded that you were 4.5 times likely to get shot if you had a gun than if you did not. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090930121512.htm
Their methodology was to look at cases where someone was killed, ask people who were not involved in the shooting but were nearby "Did you have a gun?" and use them as a control group. They then used these figures to conclude that having a gun made you more likely to get shot.
This was apparently absent any other form of context questions such as "Were you by any chance involved in a drug distribution turf war, when you were not getting shot?"
Suffice to say, the study is somewhat flawed.
You could say it's somewhat flawed but you could also argue that if those were not carrying guns (be it in situations of drug dealing or the others) they may not have acted the same way. Studies show that guns make people more paranoid and act in a more aggressive manner than those not carrying.This is a different issue, and the primary two causes for this are suicide and, to a much lesser extent, stupidity. There are better ways of reducing suicide than removing guns, and if someone is stupid with their gun, it's no different than being stupid with their car, nail gun, bandsaw, or any other tool which can be dangerous and lethal if misused.
I disagree that it's a different issue. You can't (or at least shouldn't) look at the pros of people carrying more guns in a given situation and ignore what the effects more guns will have on the individual and society.
I don't think you should discount suicides or accidents as the gun lobby and many gun supporters strongly resist mandatory stringent background checks, registration, training, and inspections as it would disrupt their 'freedom'. All of those would reduce deaths.
You glaringly left out homicides in your analysis. The fact is the majority of murders are committed by people you know, many times family members, rather than total strangers. This is how guns in the house often end in tragedy for the families. I cant find any statistics that find against this.You make it seem that killing must of necessity be a bad thing. It is always an unfortunate thing, but is not always inappropriate.
I'm not saying it's not always inappropriate but that the idea of having a gun lead many to believe it's protecting them when in fact for many it's just heightening their own and their family's risk of death.
It's like the saying the best defense is a good offense. It's a nice sentiment in sport, when all you're doing is possibly conceding a goal, not when it comes to you life and death.0 -
There are definitely things like that that come up as critical issues I thin others have said it better that it's a culture/education thing there. I also agree you can't trust high schoolers with weapons. At the same time you can't completely eliminate guns, such is the quagmire.
You'll never eliminate guns, that horse has bolted.
In my opinion what they should do is:
- Mandatory registration of all guns which involves every person who registers going through:- a thorough background check (not just the box ticking exercise in many states)- sit through training (with refresher course every 3-5 years)- Random house inspections of those who hold guns to ensure they're being held securely
- Harsh fines for anyone carrying a gun that is not registered
- Harsh fines and jail time for someone who uses a gun that is not registered (even in legitimate circumstances)
- Matching sentences for parents if their children take their gun and use it in a shooting (exceptions for if the kid overpowers their parent)
- blanket ban on high powered automatic weapons
I obviously don't think the above will happen but even some would be a step in the right direction.
I actually don't think that owning a gun is always a bad thing but the freedom for practically anyone to own one and the idea that it's safer if everyone on the street can carry one around is sheer lunacy.0 -
Yes, you could, but you might as well be reading tarot cards at that stage because you've left scientific study far behind.You could say it's somewhat flawed but you could also argue that...
You had to ask as you were doing the study. You can't just make up what you think would be reasonable answers later on, because that's not studying something; that's imagining what you think the answer would be.0 -
Accidents you have a solid point in.I don't think you should discount suicides or accidents
Suicides you really don't for a few reasons, from the point that people often substitute means to commit suicide so just taking one means away from them doesn't help; to the more pertinent point that when you do an apples-to-apples comparison and compare the US to the EU (as a whole), the US has the lower suicide rate and not by a negligible margin. The EU has a more diverse range of methods used so we don't see so many suicides by firearm as the US does; but we see more suicides overall so we can't exactly say the US is doing it wrong here, oddly enough.
That may or may not be true when it comes to firearms homicides; but what is far more relevant is that the FBI and US DoJ statistics state categorically that the vast, vast majority of firearms homicides are linked to people with preexisting criminal records, rather than "ordinary people" who buy guns and kill people out of the blue after an argument over who ate the last roast potato at dinner.You glaringly left out homicides in your analysis. The fact is the majority of murders are committed by people you know, many times family members, rather than total strangers.
It varies from place to place, but the estimates of how much gun homicide in the US is down to long-term criminals don't fall below 70% and are often above 90%. In some statistics, someone convicted of gun homicide is 22 times more likely to have had a criminal record leading up to the murder than to be someone who had a domestic argument and went for the gun (and honestly, we have those people too, it's why we have such a massive rate of sexual and physical violence in this country).0 -
Advertisement
-
Yes, you could, but you might as well be reading tarot cards at that stage because you've left scientific study far behind.
You had to ask as you were doing the study. You can't just make up what you think would be reasonable answers later on, because that's not studying something; that's imagining what you think the answer would be.
Just because some of the respondents may have been involved in drug dealing does not make the findings invalid. Other research has shown that people are more aggressive and more paranoid when carrying a gun, which regularly escalates situations.0
Advertisement