Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

College Shooting Massacre ++Breaking++ 15+ Dead..!


pl1

Recommended Posts

I don't know much about US gun law (neither do I especially care).

I would have thought the obvious answer would be areas where guns are banned and areas where they're not.

For example, I can't think of any real reason for having a gun in a city centre. Draw an area around densely populated areas and declare them gun free zones. Then let anyone in a rural area have them, no problem.

I imagine most people opposed to gun ownership live in cities anyway. Local folk who go hunting and have more closely knit communities could carry on with their past times and would probably live with the compromise.

Not that it's any of my business though.

the issue is that the numerous "gun free" zones are places where loons can go, kill and its like fish in a barrel. gun free = they wont shoot back here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 100
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I don't know much about US gun law (neither do I especially care).

I would have thought the obvious answer would be areas where guns are banned and areas where they're not.

For example, I can't think of any real reason for having a gun in a city centre. Draw an area around densely populated areas and declare them gun free zones. Then let anyone in a rural area have them, no problem.

I imagine most people opposed to gun ownership live in cities anyway. Local folk who go hunting and have more closely knit communities could carry on with their past times and would probably live with the compromise.

Not that it's any of my business though.

The problem with that argument is that reality begs to differ. Chicago has very tight gun laws and a high rate of gun homicides. Houston is similar in size, has concealed carry permits and a much lower rate of gun homicide.

en3HZ5T.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guns make killing easy, even for amateurs and physical weaklings. Without them it requires effort, muscle or skill which most of the population simply don't possess. How successful would most of these college shooters be if they had to take down their victims in hand to hand combat ? Even soldiers engaged in conflict try to avoid it wherever possible because it is hard and the results are uncertain for the attacker.

I think the question should not be how easy it is to kill, it`s more of a question of why this seems to happen so much in the US its obvious if no one had any guns there would be no incidents like this

One of the most striking stats/ anecdotal evidence/ anomaly i have seen came from the movie Bowling for Columbine ,where it stated Detroit had the highest rate of murders involving firearms in the USA yet if you cross the detroit river into Windsor Canada not much more than a mile gun crime is virtually non existent yet gun ownership is far higher in Windsor and Canada as a whole

Whether Michael Moore's conclusions are right i don't know but i`m pretty much convinced it`s not just about the availability of guns that's the problem ,yes remove them all and it would solve gun crime that's a given

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the question should be how easy it is to kill, it`s more of a question of why this seems to happen so much in the US its obvious if no one had any guns there would be no incidents like this

One of the most striking stats/ anecdotal evidence/ anomaly i have seen came from the movie Bowling for Columbine ,where it stated Detroit had the highest rate of murders involving firearms in the USA yet if you cross the detroit river into Windsor Canada not much more than a mile gun crime is virtually non existent yet gun ownership is far higher in Windsor and Canada as a whole

Whether Michael Moore's conclusions are right i don't know but i`m pretty much convinced it`s not just about the availability of guns that's the problem ,yes remove them all and it would solve gun crime that's a given

Can't you do a mass murder with gardening tools? The USA is quite big, and this is not a regular occurence, considering the size of the country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the question should not be how easy it is to kill, it`s more of a question of why this seems to happen so much in the US its obvious if no one had any guns there would be no incidents like this

One of the most striking stats/ anecdotal evidence/ anomaly i have seen came from the movie Bowling for Columbine ,where it stated Detroit had the highest rate of murders involving firearms in the USA yet if you cross the detroit river into Windsor Canada not much more than a mile gun crime is virtually non existent yet gun ownership is far higher in Windsor and Canada as a whole

Whether Michael Moore's conclusions are right i don't know but i`m pretty much convinced it`s not just about the availability of guns that's the problem ,yes remove them all and it would solve gun crime that's a given

Thats because in the USA, black lives dont matter...hence the current black lives matter campaign. Murders are most likely to be black on black.

The stats are, of course, racist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did anyone read the messages he'd put on 4chan and the responses, along with some encouragement, that he'd received?

No. you have a link?

The Oregon police chief has stated that he will not use the shooters name during media interviews and doesn't want to give any credence to the "shooters cause"

What was the shooters "cause"?

It has also been revealed that the shooter was a student in the same class that he attacked.

Edit: Story on the 4chan messages from sydney morning herald some mention of manosphere terminology: "Beta uprising"

http://m.smh.com.au/world/oregon-shooting-chilling-message-on-4chan-warned-of-college-massacre-20151001-gjzjri.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. you have a link?

The Oregon police chief has stated that he will not use the shooters name during media interviews and doesn't want to give any credence to the "shooters cause"

What was the shooters "cause"?

It has also been revealed that the shooter was a student in the same class that he attacked.

Why is everybody suddenly saying 'shooter' instead of 'gunman'? Haven't heard it before.

Just wondering...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with that argument is that reality begs to differ. Chicago has very tight gun laws and a high rate of gun homicides. Houston is similar in size, has concealed carry permits and a much lower rate of gun homicide.

en3HZ5T.jpg

debunked 2 years ago

http://namelesscynic.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/debunking-tale-of-two-cities.html

(One of the problems with social media is that biased nonesense like this gets passed around endlessley and hardly anyone bother to fact check anything, its why I gave up on Facebook.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with that, but tend to think that anyone who has a mind to kill someone and actually carries it out isn't going to stop because of a little detail like that.

Did the UK murder rate drop anything significantly after they banned hand guns here?

I don't know the answer by the way, but I don't imagine there was much difference.

The 'UK' never banned handguns as such...Great Britain did, but handguns are still legal in Northern Ireland. I cant find any stats so far, but it would be interesting to compare if gun crimes in ulster have deviated from those in the rest of the union since 1998. I certainly havent noticed any handgun apocalypse on the news in northern ireland...

Adjust gun crime rates for race and class in the US, and I doubt its much safer in Europe than the US if you are white and middle class. I recall reading that british family who lost a kid in sandy hook said they were coming back to the UK because it was so dangerous because of guns in the US...except if you are white and live in Conneticut, you're actually less likely to be shot than if you live in the UK...

I suppose the school shootings appeal on an emotional level, but perhaps arent that common, even in the US. Between 2000-2010 there were 48 deadly school shootings in the US, 5 in Germany. I guess there are maybe 5 times as many americans between 15-30 as there are germans in that age group. The US is higher clearly, but perhaps not shockingly so, given the rate at which young americans are drugged up.

I guess its nice to think of a gun free US, but as thats not going to happen, why not stop the slew of blacks shooting each other by legalizing drugs and thus getting rid of the gang problems (im pretty sure italian, jewish and irish gangs were shooting each other quite a bit during alcohol prohibition) and stop kids of all races from shooting each other by being a bit more meticulous when prescribing anti-depressants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't really like the tone of that article. Any ideology has its nutters. About ten years ago animal rights activists were going round and beating up (quite nastily, could have ended in death) people working at Huntingdon like sciences...the guy who murdered Pym fortuyn was of that ilk too...we don't view animal rights types as all future killers despite the fact a lot of their ranting is pretty extreme.

Given the fact the far right and the far left both have their share of bloodshed, it speaks more about the author than it does the topic. I doubt they would finger Islam in the same way despite Islamic ideology being explicity murderous.

There's certainly a psychology issue worth discussing...the Elliot Rodger, Adam Lanza types...the introverts, the 'betas', the 'loners' or 'quiet, nice boys' is certainly a clearly established trend...they typically (though not always) 'explode' after months or years of planning and resentment builds up, and target people they don't know (i guess just lashing out at society in general) often there is no deep ideology behind it, just a hatred of society...i suspect in former times they would probably blame 'the rich' or'the jews' instead of 'feminists'...however, most betas are, by their nature, not violent people and can control their frustrations and live peaceful lives.

But on the other side there are the Raoul Moats, the extroverts, the 'alphas' who probably kill more people on aggregate due to their greater prevalence in society, but don't get as much news attention because their explosion isnt as extreme. They tend to target people they know, people they think have harmed them in some way or people they kill purely out of a kind of perverted 'if they are dead, they wont be able to judge me'. Usually they kill fewer people, because its not as planned as the introvert killers and the police get there quicker. Often they are drunk and its a spur of moment thing when they just snap. Think of all these property developers who end up with cash flow problems and then kill their families. I think they kill their families purely out of some deranged 'if I cant succeed at life, neither should those close to me' thought process.

All in all, I dont think there is a single profile for future murderers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This graphic shows that many countries, including Russia, Brazil and Mexico have higher rates of death caused by firearms than the USA.

http://www.juancole.com/images/2012/12/global-gun-deaths-map.gif

But the USA has the highest rate of gun ownership.

Surely, the USA should have the highest rate of deaths by firearms?

NB: graphic comes from here: http://www.juancole.com/2012/12/deaths-firearms-america.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This graphic shows that many countries, including Russia, Brazil and Mexico have higher rates of death caused by firearms than the USA.

http://www.juancole.com/images/2012/12/global-gun-deaths-map.gif

But the USA has the highest rate of gun ownership.

Surely, the USA should have the highest rate of deaths by firearms?

Or the americans are just really bad shots?!

We've all heard the one about more British soldiers dying in Afghanistan from american friendly fire than from the taliban, right? :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This graphic shows that many countries, including Russia, Brazil and Mexico have higher rates of death caused by firearms than the USA.

http://www.juancole.com/images/2012/12/global-gun-deaths-map.gif

But the USA has the highest rate of gun ownership.

Surely, the USA should have the highest rate of deaths by firearms?

The devil is in the detail in the link you supply

the usa is in the range medium 1-5 and russia is above 5 (so could be 6) and usa could be 5 (i very much doubt it's 1) - I think what this thread is discussing is the nature of the gun deaths. I bet most of the gun deaths in russia are drunken hunting/gun cleaning accidents/kids playing dare (you only have to look on youtube to see how utterly mental russians are with regard to their own safety) but I very much doubt there is a higher incidence of gangbanging ghetto shooting and people going postal in schools and workplaces as they do in america.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

debunked 2 years ago

http://namelesscynic.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/debunking-tale-of-two-cities.html

(One of the problems with social media is that biased nonesense like this gets passed around endlessley and hardly anyone bother to fact check anything, its why I gave up on Facebook.)

I was just looking at the figures. The 'debunker' states that Chicago had 500 murders and not the 1,806 stated. The 'debunker' links to a newspaper article that makes the 500 claim. But when you look at the source of that number, it turns out Chicago record their murders differently, and when you look into it, the 500 refers to first degree murders only, leaving out second degree murder, reckless homicide and involuntary manslaughter - all of which count as homicide in Chicago.

Also, the 'debunker' states that in New York city where gun laws are at least as strict as Chicago but homicides and shootings have decreased, but fails to mention the huge stop and frisk program that New York had. About 684,000 people were stopped in 2011.

I've posted that graphic myself.

I often post stuff to see if someone is able to debunk it so I'm interested in this blokes attempt.

I haven't got the other numbers yet and will have to pack it in soon.

Thanks for posting it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The devil is in the detail in the link you supply

the usa is in the range medium 1-5 and russia is above 5 (so could be 6) and usa could be 5 (i very much doubt it's 1) - I think what this thread is discussing is the nature of the gun deaths. I bet most of the gun deaths in russia are drunken hunting/gun cleaning accidents/kids playing dare (you only have to look on youtube to see how utterly mental russians are with regard to their own safety) but I very much doubt there is a higher incidence of gangbanging ghetto shooting and people going postal in schools and workplaces as they do in america.

I got them from here, where as always there is a good discussion of this stuff:

http://www.unz.com/jman/guns-atheists-lunatics-and-more/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. you have a link?

The Oregon police chief has stated that he will not use the shooters name during media interviews and doesn't want to give any credence to the "shooters cause"

What was the shooters "cause"?

It has also been revealed that the shooter was a student in the same class that he attacked.

Edit: Story on the 4chan messages from sydney morning herald some mention of manosphere terminology: "Beta uprising" http://m.smh.com.au/world/oregon-shooting-chilling-message-on-4chan-warned-of-college-massacre-20151001-gjzjri.html

Try this.

https://archive.is/KJ1LD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got them from here, where as always there is a good discussion of this stuff:

http://www.unz.com/jman/guns-atheists-lunatics-and-more/

I wasn't questioning of the quality of your evidence - I did check who produced your graph and they seem bona fide - I was just remarking that this thread seemed to be going in the direction of "why are americans so likely to kill strangers in premeditated massacres?" and as usual, gun ownership comes into the debate. I'm ambivalent about gun ownership, but I'll posit the theory that access to guns facilitates the trigger-happy to be, well, trigger-happy. The question impo is why are americans more trigger-happy than say israeli or swiss citizenry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.