Oregon community college shooting

[Tsuga]

I am a pacifist, and I admit that I have mixed feelings about gun rights.  For non-Americans, the US Constitution states: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."  The reason for this is so that citizens will have the necessary arms and training to keep the government from instituting military law and oppressing citizens.  And looking around the world, both historically and in the present, there are places where citizens who don't have access to the most up-to-date weaponry are massacred by their tyrannical military-controlled governments.  So I get that argument, but I hate the gun culture.  Can't we just keep them all in local armories with restricted/limited access, controlled by local weapons councils?  Or something?  The other part of the problem is that in order to make changes like this the US Constitution would have to be changed, and the gun-lobby is too powerful for that to happen without major changes to campaign financing, which will only happen if the US Constitution is changed.  It's so complicated it just feels hopeless.

 

You know what the funny thing is? What makes this all so amusing?

 

You'd have to hoard *&%$ing B52s to have ANY HOPE of overcoming tyranny.

 

You'd have to be able to confiscate everyone's televisions and take over the airwaves.

 

It's so pathetic (sorry, I am emotional, I had quite a bit of vodka and our colleges here in WA also had their losses this week due to negligence, so tragic, so many young lives lost, and in Afghanistan and Syria as well, my heart is just breaking into a million pieces I feel) that what revolutionaries really need:

• Control of the opium supply chain, i.e. control of minds
• Large drone capability with energy sources, i.e. control of bodies
• Access to information systems that would allow them to control automatic systems and banking, i.e. control of minds
• Control of the Internet and of cable, i.e. control of minds
• Control of military bases that have technology I don't even know about... technology we can't even imagine because sci-fi writers get their ideas from the military's cutting edge that is seen but the reality is, there is the unseen... 

They don't have. They'll be less effective than the Taliban, who at least have opium (they can cut it off and grow it where they want it to keep their child soldiers).

 

I feel like our revolutionaries are such a joke. In some ways, if it weren't for the fact that I happen to know that war is a greater tyranny than anything but drug addiction, I would want to see a revolution in this country. But the people who actively are arming for a revolution have ALL THE WRONG WEAPONS.

 

They should be taking notes from ISIS and Al Qaeda, or rather, the military.

 

These damn fool NRA bumper stickers. Sell your guns, buy your guns. Go ahead. The revolution actually will be televised. The television is the revolution, fools. The Internet is the revolution. But go ahead, have your Uziel Gal semi-automatic from NINETEEN FIFTY FOUR. Have your AVTOMAT KALASHNIKOV FROM NINETEEN FORTY NINE. Congratulations. I'm sure you could hold a minor bronze-age city such as Kunduz, or at least one city block of Kunduz, for 10 minutes with your pathetic gun collection. Wow, I'm so impressed. How free you seem to me.

 

In fact, the ONLY thing those are good for any more, since war is so much more sophisticated than people who play video games imagine, is killing civilians.

 

Professional militaries have much more sophisticated weapons...

 

One of which is democracy, which actually held Kunduz for 2 years which is longer than the Soviets held it. And the Soviets left because of diplomacy, not because of insurgents. Because of us because of the United States of America the Soviets ceded Kunduz to the warlords to be captured by the Taliban.

 

TAKE THAT, pseudo-revolutionary gun activists. Our NGOs and democracy held that city, with our soldiers, drones, and diplomats, longer than you ever could. Your damn fool guns lost it with Massoud. Oh yeah that's right, from the first elections in Afghanistan in 2004, that city was held until 2015.

 

Tell me again how your freedom comes from guns.

 

Sorry everybody. I'm sorry. My former colleagues are facing an onward march of Taliban, my colleagues and students are dying, but everyone wants their precious guns. Their precious freedom. I WANT MY FRIENDS AND STUDENTS AND COLLEAGUES BACK.

[Tsuga]

Someone will inevitably post... how sorry Tsuga that you know people who died. But you don't get it, guns are actually my freedom.

 

Guns never mean freedom, not for the atheist, not for the Christian, not for the Muslim.

 

Because Roosevelt was right. The only thing we have to fear is fear itself. Everything else in life can be overcome. But fear... fear of your government, your neighbor, your local crazy, that will control you.

 

Nobody controls me because I'm not afraid, not of death, not of anything.

 

When people feel guns protect their freedom, what they are really saying is, "I am afraid to die." Or worse, "I am afraid of not having a television." "I am afraid of not having a car." "I need to be able to kill to be free."

 

Not me. I am totally free because I am here and I do what I want. Not because I'm not going to die.

 

I'm gonna die.

 

Freedom is something you only have moment by moment. But moments gained by a gun are moments of fear, and those moments are not free.

 

Again, I'm sorry. If you knew how much I had lost this week, you would understand.

[SemiSweet]

Someone will inevitably post... how sorry Tsuga that you know people who died. But you don't get it, guns are actually my freedom.

 

Guns never mean freedom, not for the atheist, not for the Christian, not for the Muslim.

 

Because Roosevelt was right. The only thing we have to fear is fear itself. Everything else in life can be overcome. But fear... fear of your government, your neighbor, your local crazy, that will control you.

 

Nobody controls me because I'm not afraid, not of death, not of anything.

 

When people feel guns protect their freedom, what they are really saying is, "I am afraid to die." Or worse, "I am afraid of not having a television." "I am afraid of not having a car." "I need to be able to kill to be free."

 

Not me. I am totally free because I am here and I do what I want. Not because I'm not going to die.

 

I'm gonna die.

 

Freedom is something you only have moment by moment. But moments gained by a gun are moments of fear, and those moments are not free.

 

Again, I'm sorry. If you knew how much I had lost this week, you would understand.

Very well said.

 

:grouphug: I'm sorry for your losses.

[Jasperstone]

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2015/10/02/reports-multiple-casualties-after-shooting-sydney-police-station

 

Ahhh, we have had a small shooting here in Australia as well!

 

The world has gone mad!

[Chess Dad]

:grouphug:  praying for the victims and their families.

[abba12]

There were also people there that had their concealed carry licenses that didn't shoot the attacker because they didn't want the police to think they were the shooter.

 

But... isn't that the entire REASON for concealed carry? In self defense?! And then they didn't use it for self defense because they might get charged?! (or, were the police already on scene by now, and they were worried about the police shooting them? If so, wow, that's good police response time)

 

 

Again, I'm sorry. If you knew how much I had lost this week, you would understand.

 

I'm so sorry for your losses Tsuga. Regardless of the politics involved, this is just so, so wrong, and my heart breaks for the people who are losing, and continuing to lose, loved ones in these mass shootings. 

[MyThreeSons]

It happened on a gun-free campus.

 

Are you sure about this? Because it is my understanding that in OR, students may carry guns on campuses with a CWP. 

[MercyA]

Again, I'm sorry. If you knew how much I had lost this week, you would understand.

 

No need to apologize. I'm sorry for your losses.  :grouphug:

[MyThreeSons]

 

When people feel guns protect their freedom, what they are really saying is, "I am afraid to die." Or worse, "I am afraid of not having a television." "I am afraid of not having a car." "I need to be able to kill to be free."

 

Not me. I am totally free because I am here and I do what I want. Not because I'm not going to die.

 

I'm gonna die.

 

Freedom is something you only have moment by moment. But moments gained by a gun are moments of fear, and those moments are not free.

 

Again, I'm sorry. If you knew how much I had lost this week, you would understand.

 

This is what I have not been able to articulate when discussing with a friend who is all about his guns. Well, and his money. 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Culture changes. Laws and even the constitution are meant to be changed sometimes. Thus "can't" seems too strong.

 

Unlikely does seem realistic though.

My "can't" refers to currently. Thwt ship doesn't turn around easily.

[Word Nerd]

These shootings are horrible. It's like all of these lunatics want to be famous and go out in a blaze of glory or something.

 

 

He said as much in a recent online screed. 4chan may or may not have encouraged him directly (it's not clear whether that thread is about the same person, but I hope if it isn't the same person they take it seriously and prevent another rampage), but our media obsession that makes these young men infamous is also guilty of encouraging would-be killers to become actual ones.

[Laurie]

He said as much in a recent online screed. 4chan may or may not have encouraged him directly (it's not clear whether that thread is about the same person, but I hope if it isn't the same person they take it seriously and prevent another rampage), but our media obsession that makes these young men infamous is also guilty of encouraging would-be killers to become actual ones.

 

It's not just a media obsession.  http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2015/10/obama_on_oregon_school_shootin_1.html

 

When the President of the United States is speaking to the nation about your actions, just hours after the killings,  then you're really in a select group of killers and not just the run-of-the-mill type like they have in places like Chicago on a Saturday night.

 

[HRAAB]

I will have a dd going off to college in two years and one of the scariest things would be a campus that allowed guns. It boggles the freaking mind that anyone would think it a good idea to allow anyone in that environment to carry.

 

I'm okay with people owning guns (we own none) but I am also on board with more legislation to try and keep them out of the wrong hands. To try and keep them out of schools.

 

My heart goes out to those affected by this shooting.

 

Where I live a person can legally carry a concealed weapon on college campuses with an enhanced concealed carry permit. This is suppose to make me, as a mother of a college student, feel safer. Well, this mother was about having an anxiety attack yesterday with news of this latest shooting. I suppose a student with a concealed weapon could have taken out the attacker before 10 people died. Maybe. But no. More weapons on campus does not make me feel safer. It gives me more anxiety.

[HRAAB]

My "can't" refers to currently. Thwt ship doesn't turn around easily.

I don't usually accept can't, but with the current climate in this country, I agree.

[MarkW]

Gun rights aside (and I believe in sane, common sense regulations, which I don't think we have right now), what these continuing shootings make me more angry about (aside, obviously, from the shootings themselves) are the nonsense lockdown drills my kids have been put through in public school.

 

Clearly, they don't work. They haven't even made a dent. So let's stop traumatizing our kids.

 

In my opinion, they're fear-mongering propaganda. As useless and as culturally dangerous as Duck and Cover always was. Statistically you are FAR more likely to die in a lightning strike than in a school shooting, and that holds true even as they continue to happen. Why then, are we teaching our kids to lock themselves in darkened rooms and cower in the corner from "bad men" in their school that have a snowball's chance in Hell of ever actually materializing? It's teaching them that fear and panic trump likelihood, mathematics, and good sense. That's not even to get into the rabbit's hole of treating parents visiting the school like suspects, with man traps at the door, buzzers, cameras, a logbook, and so on. None of that went on when I was in school, and nobody died as a result.

 

My youngest was locked out during a lockdown last year with a suspected intruder in the building. When she tearfully banged on the door to her classroom, the teacher denied her entry because "policy". This put us nearly over the top and we almost pulled her out last year, but we weren't ready yet.

 

The "intruder" turned out to be the IT guy by the way. Good thing because had it been a crazed gunman, surely my daughter's panicked screaming would have led him right to her. Thank God for statistics.

[Miss Peregrine]

Just because someone has a permit doesn't mean they are a sharp shooter, or even a decent shot. It might be better that they didn't open fire, especially if they are inexperienced.

ETA: I would go so far to say that if you don't have the skill or confidence to use a gun when need arises, you probably don't have any business having a CCW.

[MarkW]

Just because someone has a permit doesn't mean they are a sharp shooter, or even a decent shot. It might be better that they didn't open fire, especially if they are inexperienced.

There was a recent case in the US, I want to say TX but I'm not certain, of a "good samaritan" shooting a carjacking victim in the head, and then running away. That was earlier this week or late last week.

 

I'm mostly with Tsuga in that guns aren't going to win back any government overreach, but then I think the French Revolution was pretty outmatched. At any rate, I think this country is so badly polarized and addled and cajoled by propaganda and slogan screaming that "the citizenry" at this point has no idea what they ought to be fighting FOR or AGAINST.

 

Or no sane idea, anyway.

[Mergath]

But... isn't that the entire REASON for concealed carry? In self defense?! And then they didn't use it for self defense because they might get charged?! (or, were the police already on scene by now, and they were worried about the police shooting them? If so, wow, that's good police response time)

 

 

I've brought this up before in gun control discussions here, and every time someone tells me how wrong I am and how well-trained all the responsible gun owners are, and how they would be like Rambo in a shooting an take the bad guy out. :001_rolleyes:  But most people seriously overestimate their ability to pull out a gun and shoot another human being, even if that human being is a threat. Unless you have law enforcement training, there's a good chance you're going to be running away with everyone else even if you have a handgun tucked in your purse. 

[Mergath]

Just because someone has a permit doesn't mean they are a sharp shooter, or even a decent shot. It might be better that they didn't open fire, especially if they are inexperienced.

 

ETA: I would go so far to say that if you don't have the skill or confidence to use a gun when need arises, you probably don't have any business having a CCW.

 

Yup. And statistically, if you carry a gun and are attacked, you're more likely to have it taken and used against you than you are to shoot your attacker. 

[Butter]

He said as much in a recent online screed. 4chan may or may not have encouraged him directly (it's not clear whether that thread is about the same person, but I hope if it isn't the same person they take it seriously and prevent another rampage), but our media obsession that makes these young men infamous is also guilty of encouraging would-be killers to become actual ones.

 

Did you see what the police chief said on Facebook? (bolding mine)

 

 

 

Douglas County Sheriff's Office

Police investigating Umpqua school shooting

 Â· 13 hrs Â· 

Update from Sheriff John Hanlin - 7:15 PM - Again, our focus tonight is on the victims and their families. We have paired up deputies and victim specialists with each family as we work through the process of identifying all of the victims.

As we talked about previously - this is considered a mass casualty incident and those protocols mean that we likely will not release any names before tomorrow at the very earliest.

Obviously, notifications of the families is our priority, and we would ask that media respect the victims and their families as they manage these most difficult hours.

Again, any family members who have questions... or those with tips ... are encouraged to call 1-800 CALL FBI - option 7.

We have information that leads us to believe we know who the shooter is. The official ID will come from the medical examiner's office.

Let me be very clear: I will not name the shooter. I will not give him credit for this horrific act of cowardice. Media will get the name confirmed in time... but you will never hear us use it.

We would encourage media and the community to avoid using it, repeating it, or engaging in any glorification and sensationalization of him. He in no way deserves it. Focus your attention on the victims and their families and helping them to recover.

We do know that we have at least two heroic officers who responded into the building within minutes and exchanged gunfire with shooter.

OSP is handling that aspect of the investigation and will release any information about that officer-involved shooting at some point in the future.

Tactical teams and bomb technicians have cleared all of the buildings on campus, and officers are now working to clear the hundreds of vehicles still parked on campus.

Evidence teams from FBI and OSP are working to process the crime scene.

Again, I want to thank the hundreds of law enforcement officers, mental health counselors, victim specialists and others from all over the state who have responded.

We continue to use the â€ª#‎UCCShooting‬ on our twitter account at DouglasCoSO

Further written updates will be posted to our website and toFlashAlertEugene.net

 

I applaud him.

[Butter]

There was a recent case in the US, I want to say TX but I'm not certain, of a "good samaritan" shooting a carjacking victim in the head, and then running away. That was earlier this week or late last week.

 

http://www.khou.com/story/news/2015/09/27/one-man-injured-after-carjacking-shooting-at-gas-station/72923278/

 

Houston, two weeks ago tomorrow.  The witness was pretty much an idiot.  He just shot at the car possibly without even really being able to see what he was shooting at.

 

Thankfully, the carjacking victim is okay even after being hit in the head by the carjackers and then shot in the head by the witness.

[Word Nerd]

Did you see what the police chief said on Facebook? (bolding mine)

 

I applaud him.

 

Yes, I saw that and appreciate his comments. I'm also seeing a lot more in my news feed today about Chris Mintz than about the gunman.

 

ETA: I do agree with this piece on Poynter and don't think it would be reasonable to expect him not to be named at all.

[Stacia]

There are lots of people to blame for the Oregon massacre but only one that thinks it’s actually good for business – take a bow the deviants at the NRA  

 

I think the man tells it like it is. I just wish the US as a whole would agree.

[SporkUK]

I applaud that Sheriff, and sickened how many media groups have completely ignores his great example. We have research going back decades showing strong evidence that the more media attention a mass killer gets, the more copycats and subsequent mass killings we get. Some research has it down the details what footage to not use (don't show flashing police lights, not the ever popular person with weapons shot or smiling one of the killer, don't show large groups affected outside, so on) and what details can and should not be included for the goal of avoiding encouraging others - we've had this for decades, I've seen research from the '70s - and the media only seems to be getting worse. 

 

The strong evidence from Australia, Japan, UK, and elsewhere shows how gun control laws can be put in which doesn't take away all guns but does significantly drop mass killings and accidental deaths by firearms. I think some think all guns are just going to go poof rather than having to prove themselves before having a gun to ensure they aren't a danger [and since they are all awesome Rambo-types, they could pass easily, right ;) ]

 

The argument that annoys me the most that I'm already seeing a lot around elsewhere is how criminals will break the gun control laws anyways so why bother. Surely one could make that argument about most laws?

[Pam in CT]

It's so heartbreaking it's hard to talk.

 

 

But we have to...

A sobering list: School Shootings in America since Sandy Hook

 

... it's not even the only one today.

 

When are policymakers going to wake up?

:iagree: , except... I think it's important not to kick the can... In a representative system, imperfect though it is, over the long haul we have the government we deserve. We can't blame policymakers or Congressional stalemate or anything else. We the people have to wake up, and find some way through to a better balance between our existing Constitution, the real differences within our society in how we view guns, the patchwork of quite different state-specific legislative environments, and a clear public health issue.  There is no them, there is only us.

 

 

 

 

It feels so hopeless.

There is a huge sect of the U.S. that has decided that 40k some odd gun related deaths per year are the price we pay for freedom and if you aren't will to pay it then you hate God and the Constitution.

Some guy said it best when he said, "once America decided it was ok to shoot a room full of kindergarteners, the conversation was over".

I have zero hope of this problem ever being dealt with in his country.

My heart is breaking, yet again, today.

I'm discouraged too.

 

But shooting kindergarteners (or college students) is not OK, and the conversation is not over (though it is very, very difficult... with a lot of one step forward/two steps back).

 

After Sandy Hook/Newtown, houses of worship and community centers and libraries all across Connecticut hosted town meetings and similar venues, first to process the grief and talk about how to talk to our own kids about what had happened, and later -- once an organization of Sandy Hook parents emerged and started a process within the state legislature -- to discuss legislative responses.  

 

Yes, NRA howled.  But a bill -- banning assault weapons like the one used in the SH massacre and stepping up background checks -- passed (the support of a local group of hunters, who focused on gun safety, safe storage and training, and who were prepared to allow that assault weapons were not hunting weapons, was key to the political compromise process).

 

Of course, the new law was challenged on Constitutional grounds.  Last year it was upheld at the district level; I believe an appeal is still working its way through the system, but for now, the law stands.

 

And of course, not all the massacres in Stacia's list above were perpetrated with assault weapons.  Such weapons do cover more ground faster, though.  It's a start.

 

And of course, in practice anyone in CT who wants an assault weapon or has an obstacle that would derail the security check can just cross state lines.  That's the limitation of doing it patchwork and piecemeal.

 

 

But these massacres are NOT OK, and the conversation ISN'T over.  Unless we let the issue drop.  'Cuz all there is here, is us.

 

 

 

This is just simply incomprehensible to me, and the fact so many American's don't seem to realize the number is that high makes it even worse. In my country, if a gun is fired it's front page news. An american friend of mine comments on how he is scared of coming to visit me because of the snakes and spiders, but I told him he has more chance of dying in a mass shooting than dying of spiders or snakes in Australia. I'm the one afraid to travel over there!

 

 

I think it's hard for us to see ourselves like we look from the other side.

 

For the record, I'm afraid of Australian snakes and spiders too.   :laugh:   But even more, your undertows and fatal jellyfish and seawater crocs!  All that gorgeous beach, and you can't even swim!!!  Very very scary.  Just sayin'.

 

 

[DesertBlossom]

I've brought this up before in gun control discussions here, and every time someone tells me how wrong I am and how well-trained all the responsible gun owners are, and how they would be like Rambo in a shooting an take the bad guy out. :001_rolleyes:  But most people seriously overestimate their ability to pull out a gun and shoot another human being, even if that human being is a threat. Unless you have law enforcement training, there's a good chance you're going to be running away with everyone else even if you have a handgun tucked in your purse. 

 

Most people definitely should not conceal carry.  However, I have no problem with off-duty officers, military personnel or other well-trained people carrying.  

 

I know some people feel better when they see "gun free zone" signs outside schools and libraries and stores. To me I think it's idiotic. Someone hell-bent on killing people is not going to see a sign like that and say "oops, I guess I'll have to go shoot people up elsewhere."  All it tells them is that everyone inside is unarmed.

[Chess Dad]

Here's an interesting study.

 

http://crimeresearch.org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/

 

The study found that banning guns, England did in January 1997, did not lower the murder/manslaughter rate in the country.  In fact, the study found that the murder rate went up, then bounced around but is still higher than when the ban took place..  

 

I believe the U.S. Constitution should have the final say on this issue.   :patriot:

 

[SKL]

Since gun control has not been radically liberalized since Sandy Hook, what really explains the increase in reports of these incidents?

 

I do think it is the amount of sensational attention given to the perps.

 

I'm not sure what is the right thing to do about that.

 

I guess if we scale back the 2nd amendment, we might as well scale back the freedom of the press in the 1st amendment that allows the media to encourage so much mayhem.  It's a thought anyway.

[SemiSweet]

Most people definitely should not conceal carry. However, I have no problem with off-duty officers, military personnel or other well-trained people carrying.

 

I know some people feel better when they see "gun free zone" signs outside schools and libraries and stores. To me I think it's idiotic. Someone hell-bent on killing people is not going to see a sign like that and say "oops, I guess I'll have to go shoot people up elsewhere." All it tells them is that everyone inside is unarmed.

This isn't exactly on-topic but it's moderately relevant, VERY few military people are well trained on guns. I'm a veteran, I qualified during basic training and never touched another weapon, I forecasted weather. You do not want this weather girl protecting you and yours with a gun. All of the military people I know, pretty much the same thing applies. My husband works on computers, he's shot guns fewer times than I have.

 

I do, however, agree that actual well-trained people should be able to carry, there should be an intense training. Some family members of mine recently went for conceal carry course, one day, no actual gun handling, just legal and safety talk. That's it.

[Word Nerd]

There are lots of people to blame for the Oregon massacre but only one that thinks it’s actually good for business – take a bow the deviants at the NRA  

 

I think the man tells it like it is. I just wish the US as a whole would agree.

 

Couldn't you find something more political to post?

[MarkW]

Since gun control has not been radically liberalized since Sandy Hook, what really explains the increase in reports of these incidents?

 

I do think it is the amount of sensational attention given to the perps.

 

I'm not sure what is the right thing to do about that.

 

I guess if we scale back the 2nd amendment, we might as well scale back the freedom of the press in the 1st amendment that allows the media to encourage so much mayhem.  It's a thought anyway.

 

Statistically I don't think there really is much of an increase in these incidents outside a reasonable margin of error. Reports? Maybe more reporting.

 

The Bath School Massacre was worse and it was in 1927.

[Carol in Cal.]

This was, among other things, a hate crime against Christians, explicitly and specifically.  

 

It is disturbing to me that that is not being remarked on and identified as unacceptable by our government officials.

[MarkW]

Many will tell you that hate crimes require the attacked party to be a minority. I'm not saying whether I agree with this or not, but the original intention of even creating the "hate crime" designation (which typically confers more severe legal penalties and so on) was to protect minority groups from violent hate and reprisal. Otherwise, generally, it's just a "crime".

[Carol in Cal.]

Many will tell you that hate crimes require the attacked party to be a minority. I'm not saying whether I agree with this or not, but the original intention of even creating the "hate crime" designation (which typically confers more severe legal penalties and so on) was to protect minority groups from violent hate and reprisal. Otherwise, generally, it's just a "crime".

 

The FBI disagrees with this.  Source, FBI.gov:

 

Defining a Hate Crime

A hate crime is a traditional offense like murder, arson, or vandalism with an added element of bias. For the purposes of collecting statistics, Congress has defined a hate crime as a “criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.†Hate itself is not a crime—and the FBI is mindful of protecting freedom of speech and other civil liberties.

[Corraleno]

Here's an interesting study.

 

http://crimeresearch.org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/

 

The study found that banning guns, England did in January 1997, did not lower the murder/manslaughter rate in the country.  In fact, the study found that the murder rate went up, then bounced around but is still higher than when the ban took place..  

 

I believe the U.S. Constitution should have the final say on this issue.   :patriot:

 

In 2011, there were fewer gun-related homicides in all of England and Wales (59) than there were just in Washington DC alone (77). As for mass shootings:

 

 

From the Washington Post:

 

"Britain has seen one mass shooting since its most onerous gun ban went through in 1997, with criminologists arguing that a 2010 rampage in the British countryside could have been worse had the perpetrator had access to stronger firepower. Today, law enforcement officials say ballistic tests indicate that most gun crime in Britain can be traced back to fewer than 1,000 illegal weapons still in circulation."

 

​That's ONE mass shooting in 18 YEARS. How many mass shootings has the US had just this year???

[DesertBlossom]

Statistically I don't think there really is much of an increase in these incidents outside a reasonable margin of error. Reports? Maybe more reporting.

 

The Bath School Massacre was worse and it was in 1927.

 

Oh wow. I just read a little bit about that. Horrible, horrible, horrible. And he spent months planning, buying and preparing.  So sad.

[SKL]

In 2011, there were fewer gun-related homicides in all of England and Wales (59) than there were just in Washington DC alone (77).

 

DC has had very strict gun control for decades.

 

There are lots of other places in the US that have much more lax gun laws and far fewer firearm murders.

 

It's not about the guns.  It's about the heart of a person willing to kill someone, whether out of fear of other evil hearts (violent gangs) or just to get someone's wallet.

 

[Spryte]

DC has had very strict gun control for decades.

 

There are lots of other places in the US that have much more lax gun laws and far fewer firearm murders.

 

It's not about the guns. It's about the heart of a person willing to kill someone, whether out of fear of other evil hearts (violent gangs) or just to get someone's wallet.

 

So do you think that citizens of countries without as many mass shootings or murders per capita have better hearts? Why would that be?

[Corraleno]

DC has had very strict gun control for decades.

 

And VA has some of the most lax laws in the country. Localized gun control laws are pointless when guns are easily available and uncontrolled just a few minutes away.

 

It's not about the guns.  It's about the heart of a person willing to kill someone, whether out of fear of other evil hearts (violent gangs) or just to get someone's wallet.

 

 

So the problem isn't access to guns, it's that in the US far more people have "evil hearts" compared to countries like the UK???? 

[SKL]

So do you think that citizens of countries without as many mass shootings or murders per capita have better hearts? Why would that be?

 

Better hearts than a mass murderer?  Yes, on average.

 

We clearly have something serious going on here regardless of guns.  It's still (and will always be) in a small part of the population, but it's still very concerning.  Maybe it does happen more in the USA than other countries, I don't know.  Who will trace it to its roots so it can be stopped?  Do the people with the power to find the causes want it to stop?  I don't know the answers.

[SKL]

So the problem isn't access to guns, it's that in the US far more people have "evil hearts" compared to countries like the UK???? 

 

I think someone pointed out that the violent crime rate in the UK is higher than that in the USA.

 

But who knows, it's possible that we have a sub-population that contains more evil than the world average.  Anything is possible.

 

[Corraleno]

I think someone pointed out that the violent crime rate in the UK is higher than that in the USA.

 

But who knows, it's possible that we have a sub-population that contains more evil than the world average.  Anything is possible.

 

 

The meme that was circulating on social media claiming that violent crime was much higher in the UK than the US was comparing all UK crime statistics, including simple assault without injury and all forms of "sexual offense," with US crime statistics that included only murder, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault.

 

Let's compare homicide rates: in 2012 the homicide rate in the US was 4.7 per 100,000 people (14,827 killed); in the UK it was 1.0 (653 killed). So the murder rate in the US is nearly 5 times higher than in the UK. 

 

Intentional homicide rates for other developed countries (2012):

Belgium &  Finland, 1.6

Ireland, 1.2

Australia, 1.1

France, 1.0

Italy, Austria, Netherlands, & NZ, 0.9

Denmark, Spain, Germany, Luxemburg, 0.8

Japan 0.3

[MarkW]

Just as selectively comparing crime categories doesn't tell us much, neither does comparing two very different (even if both Western) cultures with very different political landscapes.

 

I bet wealth disparity in the UK is way lower than the US, which would also correlate with these crime rates every bit as well as gun laws, with "correlate" being the important word, for example.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Many will tell you that hate crimes require the attacked party to be a minority. I'm not saying whether I agree with this or not, but the original intention of even creating the "hate crime" designation (which typically confers more severe legal penalties and so on) was to protect minority groups from violent hate and reprisal. Otherwise, generally, it's just a "crime".

 

Who is this alleged "many"?  The law doesn't say that and there are arrest/convictions for those who have committed hate crimes against majority groups.

Example: 21.2% of all victims of racially motivated hate crimes in 2013 were victims of anti-White bias.

24.3% of offenders were black/African American.

 

http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2015/01/fbi_hate_crime_statistics.html

 

You are correct that the legislation was pushed forth to help protect minority communities, but all communities are afforded the same protections.

[SKL]

The meme that was circulating on social media claiming that violent crime was much higher in the UK than the US was comparing all UK crime statistics, including simple assault without injury and all forms of "sexual offense," with US crime statistics that included only murder, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault.

 

Let's compare homicide rates: in 2012 the homicide rate in the US was 4.7 per 100,000 people (14,827 killed); in the UK it was 1.0 (653 killed). So the murder rate in the US is nearly 5 times higher than in the UK. 

 

Intentional homicide rates for other developed countries (2012):

Belgium &  Finland, 1.6

Ireland, 1.2

Australia, 1.1

France, 1.0

Italy, Austria, Netherlands, & NZ, 0.9

Denmark, Spain, Germany, Luxemburg, 0.8

Japan 0.3

 

If the non-firearm murder rate in the US is also high, clearly the issue isn't firearms.  Which is what I've been saying.

 

I did some research about a year ago about how the murder rate varies within the USA.  The variations by geography are extreme.  And the places with high murder rates are often the ones with the strictest gun control.  I am not saying gun control causes murder, but neither do reasonable gun rights cause murder.  The reasons behind those high murder rates in concentrated areas have nothing to do with our nation's gun laws.  If we banned all private gun ownership, there would still be murders all day long (in some places), and then what would the politicians blame?

 

[MarkW]

There's very little doubt that it's too easy to get a firearm in this country. There's also very little doubt that people who should probably have their firearms confiscated, do not.

 

There's a happy medium between a total firearm ban, and no firearm regulation. I don't think we're there yet.

[MarkW]

Who is this alleged "many"?  The law doesn't say that and there are arrest/convictions for those who have committed hate crimes against majority groups.

Example: 21.2% of all victims of racially motivated hate crimes in 2013 were victims of anti-White bias.

24.3% of offenders were black/African American.

 

http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2015/01/fbi_hate_crime_statistics.html

 

You are correct that the legislation was pushed forth to help protect minority communities, but all communities are afforded the same protections.

 

The entire basis of the hate crime distinction was to impose a harsher penalty on crimes against minority groups because minorities were disproportionately victims of violent crime. One can argue that they very much still are.

 

I don't know what you want as documentation of the "alleged" many, but I'm sure I could find a survey for you if I had the time. I'm certainly not arguing that everyone should not receive equal protection under the law, I'm arguing that they don't, or else we wouldn't need the concept of a "hate" crime vs any other sort of crime.

 

I don't doubt that there's been some anti-white crime perpetrated by blacks, and probably other groups as well. The extent to which the corporate owned media encourages polarization via wedge issues including race, religion, foreign policy, and so on is pretty extreme. We're more polarized now than at any other time in our nation's history when it comes to wedge issues. It serves political ends but it destroys our culture.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

The entire basis of the hate crime distinction was to impose a harsher penalty on crimes against minority groups because minorities were disproportionately victims of violent crime. One can argue that they very much still are.

 

I don't know what you want as documentation of the "alleged" many, but I'm sure I could find a survey for you if I had the time. I'm certainly not arguing that everyone should not receive equal protection under the law, I'm arguing that they don't, or else we wouldn't need the concept of a "hate" crime vs any other sort of crime.

 

I don't doubt that there's been some anti-white crime perpetrated by blacks, and probably other groups as well. The extent to which the corporate owned media encourages polarization via wedge issues including race, religion, foreign policy, and so on is pretty extreme. We're more polarized now than at any other time in our nation's history when it comes to wedge issues. It serves political ends but it destroys our culture.

 

The reality is that hate crimes against all groups are identified and prosecuted.

[MarkW]

I wasn't arguing that. 

[poppy]

 

 

And the places with high murder rates are often the ones with the strictest gun control.

 

 

More guns mean more homicide. 

 

" Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the US, where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide."

 

And

 

"We found that across developed countries, where guns are more available, there are more homicides. These results often hold even when the United States is excluded."