15 confirmed dead so far in Oregon college shooting

inforfun

The shooter apparently.

Amazingfun

inforfun wrote: »

The shooter apparently.

Interesting, his Dad is white, but he posted this about "white racist pigs" on a Black Lives Matter thread:

Streetwalker

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

they share some culpability. If this nutter was in any way encouraged by these gob****es, they should be held to some form of account.

And I never argued otherwise. I was responding to the claim that they are AS responsible as the shooter himself.

BoatMad

Personally , I dont think this is about gun control at all. I mean mass shooting have happened in jurisdictions that have very tight gun control , like the Uk and Norway , Finland. In addition , nearly all forms of firearms are lethal , so unless the US is going to ban all firearms. I don't see what thinkering with control of certain types of firearms would do. I mean a shooter could still walk through a school with a deer rifle and murder similar numbers.

What you have to ask , is why the US seems to throw up these madmen, who undertake mass shootings , especially in schools, again and again. When , after the fact, these peoples lives are examined, they always seems like nut-jobs.

In the absence of answers to that question, placing armed police in all schools would seem to be the only way to protect children from such incidents, it seems . To me the US needs to examine why it throws up , repeatedly , people, that target schools , my own view , is that it is one of the few places left in the US , where the attackers know they will not face armed response from the inhabitants. You would think that shopping malls etc would be a more logical choice if you wished to target large numbers of people , but in the US , especially with concealed carry laws. An assailant in a shopping mall, would meet significant armed opposition.

Kev W

Amazingfun wrote: »

Interesting, his Dad is white, but he posted this about "white racist pigs" on a Black Lives Matter thread:

You say that as if there's a contradiction of some kind.

Billy86

MadsL wrote: »

Feel free to update it then - off you go, clearly you should publish the updated table, but much of your source is 0 killed 4 injured etc which would not rank in that table so I don't expect much change.

Update it why, exactly? As per my source AND yours, a mass SHOOTING does not have to involve any deaths. Because SHOOTING something does not automatically kill it. This is extremely straightforward.

You still haven't conceded that the massive population of the US skews absolute numbers when a per capita basis is a much more accurate representation of the scale of the problem.

1,000 incidents in under 3 years. You feel free to crunch down some numbers on that if you wish, to compare it with other countries. But if you want to see that data, you will have to source or compile it yourself using sources that have been properly researched.

The fact is the FBI have identified only 160 incidents as 'active shooter' incidents from 2000-2013, far cry from your 300+ this year.

Again, I am discussing mass shooting incidents and not active shooters. The FBI has no set definition, and as per both your source and mine, almost if not all incidents shown by my source qualify as such.

Amazingfun

Squeeonline

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

The ****wits who encouraged him should get done for it, accessory to murder sounds about right.

http://i3.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/016/379/1409873479189.gif

The whole point of 4chan is to be anonymous. You'll never "catch" anyone who posted anything on it.

Also 4chan links are only live for a short amount of time. If the link to an image/whatever goes dead then the thread is gone.

whisky_galore

BoatMad wrote: »

Personally , I dont think this is about gun control at all. I mean mass shooting have happened in jurisdictions that have very tight gun control , like the Uk and Norway , Finland.

Yes, but they don't happen anything like the frequency these things occur in the States. Obviously you won't stop each and every nutjob with gun control laws, but you will be doing something to deny X number of nutjobs access to a gun.

I don't believe anything will ever come of this though.

Snickers Man

BoatMad wrote: »

Personally , I dont think this is about gun control at all. I mean mass shooting have happened in jurisdictions that have very tight gun control , like the Uk and Norway , Finland. In addition , nearly all forms of firearms are lethal , so unless the US is going to ban all firearms. I don't see what thinkering with control of certain types of firearms would do. I mean a shooter could still walk through a school with a deer rifle and murder similar numbers.

What you have to ask , is why the US seems to throw up these madmen, who undertake mass shootings , especially in schools, again and again. When , after the fact, these peoples lives are examined, they always seems like nut-jobs.

In the absence of answers to that question, placing armed police in all schools would seem to be the only way to protect children from such incidents, it seems . To me the US needs to examine why it throws up , repeatedly , people, that target schools , my own view , is that it is one of the few places left in the US , where the attackers know they will not face armed response from the inhabitants. You would think that shopping malls etc would be a more logical choice if you wished to target large numbers of people , but in the US , especially with concealed carry laws. An assailant in a shopping mall, would meet significant armed opposition.

So in a nutshell, the answer is "More guns makes us safer"?

BoatMad

Snickers Man wrote: »

So in a nutshell, the answer is "More guns makes us safer"?

no

" less nut jobs make us safer "

again , mass shootings have happened else where, the ability to acquire weapons is not in doubt ( as the TGV nut job shows). People with the determination to undertake a mass killing will acquire suitable weapons, legally or illegally

so , you are faced with two solutions

(a ) somehow find , pre-screen and lock up potential nut-jobs, aka " minority report"

(b ) increase the protection for groups of people congregating together ( how you do that is another matter entirely ) , This is as much about passengers on a train as it is kids in a school.

if the french are quite happy to place armed police on trains and in stations, the Brits are happy to have armed police in plain view in airports , I see no reason that the USA cant be happy with armed police in schools

strelok

BoatMad wrote: »

if the french are quite happy to place armed police on trains and in stations, the Brits are happy to have armed police in plain view in airports , I see no reason that the USA cant be happy with armed police in schools

aside from the fact that it's as much of a ridiculous over reaction as the 'ban all guns now' crowd

Bunch of people are dead because someone with such hate and/or a mental illness was able to get a large collection of guns way too easily and people here spend ages discussing exactly what a mass shooting is.

Yup.

BoatMad

strelok wrote: »

aside from the fact that it's as much of a ridiculous over reaction as the 'ban all guns now' crowd

How, Im being serious

We are faced with unprecedented attacks on civilians in the " west " today. Hence as a result we have " accepted" armed police in many nations in our airports, our shopping malls, our train stations etc

given the preponderance of attacks on schools in the US, it seems entirely appropriate ( but also entirely unfortunate) that the presence of armed police will be required also in the US nations schools

I suspect in time with increasing terrorist attacks we may see the same in Europe,

The issue isn't legally held firearms, ( you can tinker with that all you like) The issue is stopping the nut-jobs that are mentally prepared to murder groups of totally innocent bystanders

Ush1

Deleted User wrote: »

Bunch of people are dead because someone with such hate and/or a mental illness was able to get a large collection of guns way too easily and people here spend ages discussing exactly what a mass shooting is.

Yup.

Or the merits of calling him an "asshole loser".

BoatMad

Deleted User wrote: »

Bunch of people are dead because someone with such hate and/or a mental illness was able to get a large collection of guns way too easily and people here spend ages discussing exactly what a mass shooting is.

Yup.

a nut job will get the guns one way or the other, Norway, France TGV etc shows that. The key is how you protect innocents from them

and " large collection of guns " isn't the issue, he could have done similar damage with a magazine loading bolt action deer rifle or a shotgun with a bunch of cartridges in his pocket . Just like the TGV the issue is protecting a vulnerable group of people collected together in a single place that they cant easily hide or escape from ( a classroom). The issue is (a ) finding the nut jobs, and (b) protecting people from nut-jobs

osarusan

BoatMad wrote: »

The issue is stopping the nut-jobs that are mentally prepared to murder groups of totally innocent bystanders

Agreed.

But why people dismiss gun regulation as having any part to play in this effort is beyond me and many others.

osarusan

BoatMad wrote: »

a nut job will get the guns one way or the other, Norway, France TGV etc shows that.

No they won't always get guns. Akihabara nut job in Japan shows that.

One of the victims, a 30 year old army vet, ran at the shooter to save other people, getting shot 5 times. Hopefully he's expected to make a recovery, but will need to learn to walk again.

The serious amount of courage that is required to do that is immense.

How about we change the record? Does anyone else have any details about other fatalities and people injured? We constantly talk about the shooters, the gun laws, and the same topics over and over, but rarely the victims, the people that should matter.

Links234

BoatMad wrote: »

The issue isn't legally held firearms, ( you can tinker with that all you like) The issue is stopping the nut-jobs that are mentally prepared to murder groups of totally innocent bystanders

And some form of regulating who can get a gun might be an appropriate response, background checks and mental health screenings. They license people to drive, but not to purchase a firearm. Don't pretend that this wouldn't curtail what you call nut-jobs from accessing weaponry so easily, at least to some degree.

VisibleGorilla

Nearly 300 already this year alone.

This is now a normal part of American society and will continue to be so, they are never going to give up their guns.

You are at risk of being shot no matter where you are, work, school, cinema, kindergarden, etc..

ItsChecoTime

Watching the video grab of the 4chan thread is truly disturbing. Initially they give the probable shooter tips of how to carry out his attack and some try goad him into doing it. One or two say if you are serious don't do it but they are very much in the minority.

Then after the shooting has occurred I thought the thread would be full of oh crap what have we done but there is none of that, they celebrate what he has done with the likes of 'one of us' as well as sickening comments on his 'score' - the amount of people he killed.

It's very worrying the amount of people in that thread with a pure hatred for what they call normies, and a stronger hate for Chad and Stacey's, I'm not sure who they are, maybe popular people? They seem to idolise these mass killers like Elliot Rodgers and this latest guy, it's shocking.

deaddonkey15

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The National Guard is the Militia period. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903

See also this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792 for how far back congress had complete control of previous militias


The US has a Navy bigger than the next 17 combined. So the only threat from invasion would be go through Canada or Mexico and you'd still have to travel across an ocean to get to them (yes Canada did burn down the White House back in 1814 but that was only because the US invaded first). There is no need for a private citizens paramilitary group.

I think they are more paranoid about a tyrannical government than foreign invasion. It's absolutely mental that people from a supposedly developed and progressive country actually think this way.

BoatMad

Links234 wrote: »

And some form of regulating who can get a gun might be an appropriate response, background checks and mental health screenings. They license people to drive, but not to purchase a firearm. Don't pretend that this wouldn't curtail what you call nut-jobs from accessing weaponry so easily, at least to some degree.

no country in the world undertakes active mental screening of potential firearms owners. It would be an incredible invasion of privacy.

in addition, most of these people have no history of mental illness, no manifestations, other then seem internet ramblings . They would probably pass clean through such screening if it existed

its got nothing to do with licensing. you are licensed to drive a car , because the license is there to show that you understand the rules and manage the car to a minim standard as car driving requires you to interact with other cars in a public space.

A driving license in no way screens a driver that suddenly formed a view that he should plough in a group of bystanders etc

Hence the gun licensing argument is not doing to do ANYTHING to prevent this. It didn't prevent the TGV incident, the Dunblaine, the Norwegian incident etc

Im not arguing about licensing , merely that it isn't the thing that will make any difference

BoatMad

VisibleGorilla wrote: »

Nearly 300 already this year alone.

This is now a normal part of American society and will continue to be so, they are never going to give up their guns.

You are at risk of being shot no matter where you are, work, school, cinema, kindergarden, etc..

again , its nothing to do with legally held firearms. its to do with the amount of nut-jobs US society seems to generate

Streetwalker

When you look the amount of people who die very year in the US due to international terrorism (very few 9/11 aside) and compare it with the amount of people killed by guns plain old murder style you really get a grasp on how fcuked up that particular nation is.

The Black Oil

MadsL wrote: »

As horrifying as these incidents are, violent crime in the US is lower than it has ever been in the past 40 years, and gun ownership is on the decline..

OK, but how about distinguishing responsible ownership from access, or rather, problematic access? Is that an issue which needs to be resolved, are background checks as tight as they can be even considering they're not going to be foolproof?

Manic Moran wrote: »

Guns are not new in the US. These repeated school shootings, however, have only been occurring with any regularity in the last few decades. Why? And why are they usually schools?

I'm not sure what the common thread is, but obviously the people doing this aren't heading down to the local supermarket to carry out murder. There appears to be a couple of factors. Generally young men in their late teens/20s. A lack of empathy, they have experienced bullying, are not-integrated into their peer group/are very isolated, are sitting on a lot of anger, in some cases have long rants/manifestos, have poor social skills, etc, etc. For the school aspect, it could be an element of revenge - the way this has built up in their heads is about blaming others (combined with self-hatred) and hence reaching for a gun. I think we're seeing some copycat element as well, because other school shootings have been carried out so, er, successfully. Also, a school population is relatively easy to target, clusters of people in buildings that are easy to get around and there's a personal dimension to why the shootings are being carried out, by the sounds of it.

There'll be the usual "it's not guns, it's mental health". However, what does this even mean? I've rarely seen this conversation fully develop in the US context. Are there calls to train more psychologists, to ensure more access to therapists, to implement stigma reduction measures? If people with history of mental health problems have access to guns, is that going to change at the background check level?

Manic Moran wrote: »

When that reporter was shot on air last month, I was impressed that the news broadcast I was watching specifically stated that they would not be talking about the shooter, but instead the victims. We'll see if that policy continues, or if that sensible policy only applies to the media when the victims are one of their own.

iirc, after the cinema shooting the studios agreed not to release their box office figures for that week. It was a small gesture, but it was at least a unified one. In terms of the broadcast media, they're all over this like moths to a flame. It would be great if they all agreed some internal memo to not have blanket coverage. Sadly, they won't and the notoriety of the perpetrators will continue.

Sheriff Hanlin said at a news conference that he would not speak the gunman’s name.

“Let me be very clear, I will not name the shooter,” he said. “I will not give him the credit he probably sought prior to this horrific and cowardly act.”

He also encouraged reporters “not to glorify and create sensationalism for him. He in no way deserves it.”

New York Times

If only others would follow his lead.

briany

There's a comedian who has a (somewhat macabre) joke about how, in America, serial killers don't generally make the front page any more unless they do something clever with the heads. I think that's probably the way it's going to go with these shooting sprees. In order to achieve the level of infamy the perpetrators seem to want, they'll take to carrying out their crimes in a diversifying range of places and a diversifying range of manners. Each will seek to top the last and each will be (tacitly) deemed a necessary sacrifice by the media and general public for the right to bear arms in the United States.

BoatMad

BoatMad wrote: »

again , its nothing to do with legally held firearms. its to do with the amount of nut-jobs US society seems to generate

But surely you see that these nut-jobs shouldn't get access to legally held firearms, right?

You're going to reply that it has nothing to do with gun laws, or someone else will, and it will continue in this fashion for another few days until people get bored and forget that this happened. Until another shooting happens next week or a few weeks or a few months, because of the current state of laws in America and nothing will change.

I'm either psychic or this just happens constantly.

BoatMad

There'll be the usual "it's not guns, it's mental health".

unfortunately , the uncomfortable truth for America is that is the problem.

You could clamp down tighter then say European gun laws ( which actually do very little in the way of " background" checks ). but that still leaves these individuals , full of hate and with the mental capacity to carry out such an atrocity. They'll find a weapon in which to carry out such attacks one way or the other