View Full Version : Another week, another mass shooting
Hooahguy
10-02-2015, 00:09
At least 13 are dead in Oregon after a 20 year old male shot up a community college. (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34419802)
RIP to all the victims. :bow:
Supposedly the shooter was on 4chan talking about the shooting beforehand, and of course the wonderful users on 4chan cheered him on. Wont link to the alleged thread because its pretty despicable.
So with the latest round of shootings and still nothing done about it from more background checks or expanding mental health care, I genuinely believe that its hopeless. As Telegraph writer Dan Hodges said back in June (https://twitter.com/dpjhodges/status/611943312401002496):
In retrospect Sandy Hook marked the end of the US gun control debate. Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over.
Note how most mass shootings occur in gun-free zones like schools and colleges. Not in bars or at rap concerts.
Hooahguy
10-02-2015, 00:18
It actually was not a gun free zone. (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/10/01/3708256/ucc-was-not-a-gun-free-zone-because-public-colleges-in-oregon-cant-ban-guns/)
a completely inoffensive name
10-02-2015, 01:39
It will happen again before Obama leaves.
Papewaio
10-02-2015, 02:28
And a year ago Sydney had a terrorist attack that resulted in three deaths...
Hooahguy
10-02-2015, 03:10
They identified (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/10/01/3708115/oregon-shooter-id/) the shooter as a 26 year old guy who seemed to be pretty fond of the IRA.
So with the latest round of shootings and still nothing done about it from more background checks or expanding mental health care, I genuinely believe that its hopeless. As Telegraph writer [URL="https://twitter.com/dpjhodges/status/611943312401002496"]Dan Hodges said back in June (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34419802):
I saw the headline while I was browsing the news during break and don't get me wrong, mass shootings are still a horrible tragedy, but hearing the news didn't affect me much, mass shootings have become so common I'm numb to them now. I think you and Hodges are absolutely right.
Veho Nex
10-02-2015, 04:20
He was singling out Christians. Asking people to state their religion and then shooting Christians in the head and others in the leg. Im just waiting for it to come out that he purchased the guns X months ago and by some miracle of Satan no one suspected a thing. Another blow against guns rights, even with a fantastic honorable mention to the one guy who was concealed carry on campus.
Hooahguy
10-02-2015, 04:39
Im not too familiar with the IRA and their ideology but I wonder if his seeming obsession with them had anything to do with it.
Also real props to CNN who did this wonder (http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/01/us/oregon-college-shooting/index.html):
Multiple law enforcement officials familiar with the investigation identified the gunman as 26-year-old Chris Harper Mercer. Investigators have interviewed members of his family and friends, they said.
"I will not name the shooter," Hanlin said. "I will not give him the credit he probably sought."
Shaka_Khan
10-02-2015, 06:03
I saw the headline while I was browsing the news during break and don't get me wrong, mass shootings are still a horrible tragedy, but hearing the news didn't affect me much, mass shootings have become so common I'm numb to them now. I think you and Hodges are absolutely right.
It probably almost happened last year to the elementary school that my sister's daughter went to. (They live not far from Houston). A would-be shooter was caught by police thanks to his friend who reported what was said in his facebook. So the mass shootings feel very close to home for me.
Rest in peace, to the victims. Why did he target the christians, if he was an IRA fan? Or did he target speicfically the protestants?
Anyway, have the republican candidates claimed that we would have avoided the tragedy, if every teacher and pupil carried a friendly-to-amateurs rifle or is it too early?
Maybe he was a fan of something else, sure looks like it.
Greyblades
10-02-2015, 10:58
What can you say at this point?
R.I.P
Anyway, have the republican candidates claimed that we would have avoided the tragedy, if every teacher and pupil carried a friendly-to-amateurs rifle or is it too early?
Not that I know of, but the customary twitter-feminist attempts to link shootings to "toxic masculinity" has started early this time.
Yes that actually happens.
Can't say nothing of course, but he did ask what religion they had to his victims, and he is repordely from Syria. Not saying anything more because I can't know how much is true. Looks like a valid gamble though.
a completely inoffensive name
10-02-2015, 11:05
What can you say at this point?
R.I.P
Not that I know of, but the customary twitter-feminist attempts to link shootings to "toxic masculinity" has started early this time.
Yes that actually happens.
Toxic masculinity is a real thing.
rory_20_uk
10-02-2015, 11:05
Diesel cars are probably killing more people annually due to the discrepancy between what the stated pollution is and the actual pollution. In the UK we basically trust the companies to provide the emission test results and ask few if any questions so failed to catch the cheat that has probably been used for ages and probably by several manufacturers.
Many Arab countries use cheap labour from abroad and ignore many health and safety rules we have in the West to get fast, cheap buildings up. A high death rate amongst the workers.
America likes guns and ensures that everyone can get hold of them with ease - since assuming one is mentally deranged enough to get to a gun fair even the basic gun checks can be avoided. More nutters gun down people.
The point is that choices by societies have costs. America made theirs so yeah. Another shooting. How about that?
~:smoking:
Greyblades
10-02-2015, 11:12
Toxic masculinity is a real thing.
Yes, it's called chauvinism.
Rhyfelwyr
10-02-2015, 11:25
RIP to all victims.
As someone without strong opinions on the gun control debate, is there some cultural reason this happens so much in the USA and not other countries with high gun ownership levels?
Strike For The South
10-02-2015, 11:42
Note how most mass shootings occur in gun-free zones like schools and colleges. Not in bars or at rap concerts.
Who the fuck carries a gun in a bar?
Also lol dogwhistle.
Good god.
I live in the most gun happy part of the most gun happy state and can garun-god-damn-tee you 99% of people don't carry in a bar.
At what point do you look in the mirror and admit to yourself that cognitive thought just isn't your bag?
Greyblades
10-02-2015, 11:50
Who the fuck carries a gun in a bar?
Cowboy wannabes? I think Johnny Cash wrote a song about it.
[edit]:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMMp_llzBT4
RIP to all victims.
As someone without strong opinions on the gun control debate, is there some cultural reason this happens so much in the USA and not other countries with high gun ownership levels?
Being bigger perhaps? This happens everywhere, look at Norway or Germany, it happened there as well, there are idiots everywhere and naturally more in a country with a bigger population,
Montmorency
10-02-2015, 12:23
Who the fuck carries a gun in a bar?
The barkeep. :grin:
Pannonian
10-02-2015, 13:34
Who the fuck carries a gun in a bar?
Shaun?
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
10-02-2015, 14:03
Im not too familiar with the IRA and their ideology but I wonder if his seeming obsession with them had anything to do with it.
Also real props to CNN who did this wonder (http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/01/us/oregon-college-shooting/index.html):
The IRA hate non-Catholics and the English.
Sounds like he thought he was sending the Christians to heaven.
Clearly a nut - if it turns out he bought his guns legally then it shows they aren't checking up on people who own guns to make sure they're safe.
If he asked without specifying, only asked who are christians, he was probably a convert. Will take total redicule for suggesting what seems pretty likely to me if that isn't the case.
Hooahguy
10-02-2015, 14:34
Well if the shooter really was on 4chan before the attack, he posted in the r9k section, which Ive read is more for the social recluses and the like so its probably not related to the IRA.
If he asked without specifying, only asked who are christians, he was probably a convert. Will take total redicule for suggesting what seems pretty likely to me if that isn't the case.
A convert would have likely changed his name from Chris to something else.
A convert would have likely changed his name from Chris to something else.
True that, but it's still odd that he was so unspecific, just 'who is christan'. Maybe he was a satanist or a radical atheist, but I would put my money on a convert, maybe he still had to earn his name.
Hooahguy
10-02-2015, 15:20
or a radical atheist
Considering the section of 4chan he was on, this is probably it.
Gilrandir
10-02-2015, 15:34
True that, but it's still odd that he was so unspecific, just 'who is christan'. Maybe he was a satanist or a radical atheist, but I would put my money on a convert, maybe he still had to earn his name.
Perhaps he was misheard. He asked "who is Chris?". Didn't want any of his namesakes around.
I hate these stories. It seems like there are a lot of them, but that's because the media goes rabid with 24/7 coverage for the next three months. I just did a quick count. In this century I think only* 239 people were killed in these mass shootings in the US.
Source: http://timelines.latimes.com/deadliest-shooting-rampages/
To put that in perspective, the number of homicides in Chicago for 2014 was 426. One year! Much of this is related to gangs. It's all but ignored by the news media. It also has one of the most restrictive gun laws in the country. Do these murders not matter? Some of these aren't just gang members, but also innocents caught in the crossfire. My point is that it seems like there are a lot, but statistically mass shootings are a drop in the bucket in the big scheme of things. And they have been happening for decades. These media jackals are just chasing market share. Schools shootings get eyeballs, which sells ads.
Killers will find a way no matter what. Was it Indonesia or Malaysia who coined the term to "run amok"? There, instead of shootings they just go nuts with a knife. Last year I believe there were about 30+ killed in western China by a group with knives. It didn't make the news much though.
Anywhere that has a lot of people in one place where it's very likely they are disarmed will be a target for these rampage killers, regardless of the tools used.
Here is a good example. I believe this is still the record holder for mass school killing in the United States, in 1927 no less: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster
44 killed and another 58 injured.
Now I'm not saying don't report on these incidents, but perhaps the media should find a means of reporting all about these evil, wicked (Can I say demonic?) murderers without making them somehow immortalized by like-minded individuals?
I do know this. No matter what we will never stop these incidents from happening. Humans have been killing each other since Cain picked up a stick or a rock, or whatever it was and whacked his own brother. Can they be minimized? Perhaps. That's a separate argument though.
*Not trying to make light of that number, it's still deplorable and sickening. I wouldn't see any innocent lives lost.
Veho Nex
10-02-2015, 16:33
Mass shootings sell. It's as simple as that. Over the next 30 days we will see a bunch of uneducated morans gathering conclusions without evidence. Some fool on twitter is gunna go #oreshooter knew him in 3rd grade he was bullied and BOOM for the next 6 hours that's all they'll discuss. Then some idiot in facebook is going to show a picture of them and the shooter when they were 12 fishing and how he was a normal guy, BOOM, 6 more hours of "if only we saw his pain". Our society needs work, more importantly our society's obsession with sensationalist journalism needs work.
Perhaps he was misheard. He asked "who is Chris?". Didn't want any of his namesakes around.
I'll take the whole weight of redicule if I am wrong, that's the risk of suggesting something, you can be totally wrong. Hooa is probably right, but how could I know
Hooahguy
10-02-2015, 20:00
Killers will find a way no matter what. Was it Indonesia or Malaysia who coined the term to "run amok"? There, instead of shootings they just go nuts with a knife. Last year I believe there were about 30+ killed in western China by a group with knives. It didn't make the news much though.
To be fair in that instance with the almost 30 dead in China from a knife attack, it was 10 perpetrators in a terror attack not a single deranged person. While I dont disagree that people will find a way to commit murders, Im sure there is something out there that can lessen them.
And a very relevant segment by Charlie Brooker:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PezlFNTGWv4
To be fair in that instance with the almost 30 dead in China from a knife attack, it was 10 perpetrators in a terror attack not a single deranged person. While I dont disagree that people will find a way to commit murders, Im sure there is something out there that can lessen them.
Yeah, I agree. There is a culture in the US regarding firearms I think is unhealthy. However don't take that to mean I believe we need more gun laws. My viewpoint is...complicated.
Meanwhile in other news, there is actually less: http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/10/02/umpqua-community-college-shooting-oregon-mass-shooting-fbi-statistics-column/73199052/
I don't have time to check the video out now, but I will. Thanks.
Veho Nex
10-02-2015, 20:40
You never hear about the shootings that were stopped by a law abiding citizen with a concealed or open carry firearm. My favorite reading material on the terlit at my dads house is his NRA magazines that do articles about so and so in such and such area who only fired one or two shots before someone took them down. Yeah NRA mags probably not the best source of unbiased information regarding firearms and those who use them buuut. The fact that those kind of stories exist and we never see them beyond local news points more towards our mainstream media being the huge push factor for mass shootings.
Like Risai said earlier, far more people die every year due to gang violence in our major cities than have died from all mass shootings in the last hundred and 20 years. Why isn't the sensationalist media jumping on Chicago's increase in murders this year? I think I've seen 4 separate articles since Jan each claiming the most violent(homicidal) week (or weekend) in city history.
Why are the thousands killed per year ignored for the (relative) handful killed in a tragic situation?
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
10-02-2015, 21:00
Do you want to live in a world where the reason there aren't more mass shootings is because it's normal to kill people to stop them?
Apparently, you do.
Hooahguy
10-02-2015, 21:24
You never hear about the shootings that were stopped by a law abiding citizen with a concealed or open carry firearm. My favorite reading material on the terlit at my dads house is his NRA magazines that do articles about so and so in such and such area who only fired one or two shots before someone took them down. Yeah NRA mags probably not the best source of unbiased information regarding firearms and those who use them buuut. The fact that those kind of stories exist and we never see them beyond local news points more towards our mainstream media being the huge push factor for mass shootings.
Yeah I dont really buy into the idea that more guns would solve anything. Fact is, if you look into most of the instances where a "law abiding citizen" took down a shooter, Im seeing a lot of cases where the citizen is also an off-duty police officer/security guard, or has a military background.
Like Risai said earlier, far more people die every year due to gang violence in our major cities than have died from all mass shootings in the last hundred and 20 years. Why isn't the sensationalist media jumping on Chicago's increase in murders this year? I think I've seen 4 separate articles since Jan each claiming the most violent(homicidal) week (or weekend) in city history.
Why are the thousands killed per year ignored for the (relative) handful killed in a tragic situation?
Gang violence is just as tragic, but also not anywhere near as much of an anomaly. As been said before, the media wont go nuts over one or two people being killed in a gang shootout. Its about the anomaly. Granted, mass shootings seem to be less of an anomaly nowadays but still an anomaly. Just like single fatality car crashes will barely make the local news anymore but if there is a multiple fatality or otherwise large car crash then the local papers are all over it.
Ironside
10-02-2015, 22:59
Gang violence is just as tragic, but also not anywhere near as much of an anomaly. As been said before, the media wont go nuts over one or two people being killed in a gang shootout. Its about the anomaly. Granted, mass shootings seem to be less of an anomaly nowadays but still an anomaly. Just like single fatality car crashes will barely make the local news anymore but if there is a multiple fatality or otherwise large car crash then the local papers are all over it.
I think this (http://www.forbes.com/sites/dandiamond/2015/06/18/charleston-deaths-are-an-american-tragedy-mass-shootings-are-rising/) is a good summary. Short version. Mass shootings are a lot more common than the population would indicate in the US. School mass shootings are vastly more common.
And the number of all mass shooting have tripled since 2011. And none knows why, because there's no obvious answer and since it's gun violence, research is forbidden.
Veho Nex
10-02-2015, 23:15
Do you want to live in a world where the reason there aren't more mass shootings is because it's normal to kill people to stop them?
Apparently, you do.
Yes I do. I would much rather read about one guy being shot after he opened fire than about 5, 10, 20, or more unarmed people being shot. I feel an armed society would be a safer society. Everyone who clamors for gun control and firearm buybacks and restrictive sales doesn't realize that closing the barn door after the horses are gone is not doing anything. I'm a strong believer in background checks and going in for a mental checkup every X years to just verify people. We won't see those things but taking our guns away is the wrong direction to go.
Yeah I dont really buy into the idea that more guns would solve anything. Fact is, if you look into most of the instances where a "law abiding citizen" took down a shooter, Im seeing a lot of cases where the citizen is also an off-duty police officer/security guard, or has a military background.
Does the fact they were off-duty, security, or ex military reduce what they did? They were an armed citizen at that point, they were not there for the express purpose of protecting the unarmed. The fact that we hear none of this on national channels is a sad state of events.
Papewaio
10-02-2015, 23:41
Yet somehow Australia did it and it has reduced gun crimes.
We had a potential yet to be determined terrorist/mentally ill attack on the NSW Police HQ yesterday. This attack made national news and is still being reviewed as to why.
The attacker killed one unarmed IT staff member as he walked out the building, the attacker went on to attack the occupants. Attacker died with no other casualties.
It is unusual enough to make national news. Double shooting fatality in Australia's largest city.
HopAlongBunny
10-03-2015, 01:08
SNAFU
Gun violence is neither rare, nor unique.
The US is consciously invested in gun violence through explicit policy choices.
The ritual of pretending to be surprised or shocked by predictable outcomes is theater in place of political will.
http://wonkette.com/594479/mass-shootings-hardly-a-problem-at-all-except-every-week
This just hit my radar. What the hell in a handbasket? Not to detract from this story, as it's not exactly the same, but 50+ dead in a mass killing in China: http://www.rfa.org/english/news/uyghur/attack-09302015174319.html
People are just plain nuts, or evil...
CrossLOPER
10-03-2015, 06:06
r9k section
/r9k/ is for complete wastes who have completely given up any effort to be constructive, and decided that they are hopeless victims and therefore can commit to the most vile modes of thinking without any compunctions. I have not been on 4chins that much in the past several months, but most of the other boards ridicule them. They are the only board that, rather than pursuing external pleasures such as video games, fitness, DIY, anime or porn, and instead focus inwardly towards their perceived self-worthlessness. Most of the more disturbing stuff is created by the things that inhabit that particular board. If you want to feel better about your mental state, I suggest you visit it sometime.
a completely inoffensive name
10-03-2015, 07:56
/r9k/ is for complete wastes who have completely given up any effort to be constructive, and decided that they are hopeless victims and therefore can commit to the most vile modes of thinking without any compunctions. I have not been on 4chins that much in the past several months, but most of the other boards ridicule them. They are the only board that, rather than pursuing external pleasures such as video games, fitness, DIY, anime or porn, and instead focus inwardly towards their perceived self-worthlessness. Most of the more disturbing stuff is created by the things that inhabit that particular board. If you want to feel better about your mental state, I suggest you visit it sometime.
Or maybe never visit that website. Because, you know, the whole culture is toxic and warps your view. Does /v/ even consider video games pleasure anymore, or is everyone and everything still autistic?
wooly_mammoth
10-03-2015, 08:23
What are we even talking about here? Children and students must not be mass-murdered in educational institutions by their own taffing colleagues with daddy's gun or a weapon they purchased with the ease with which I purchase peanuts at the supermarket. America is the only civilized country in the world where a troubled teenager/young adult grabs a gun and shoots everything that moves in his school/university on a regular basis, probably losing the first place for the number of such incidents to some third world disaster area in Africa that because of someone's twisted sense of humor is also called a "country" (and even then it's not another student, bur rather terrorist groups).
I find it deeply disgusting that a country which can't fix an issue as simple as preventing students from being shot to death by their own colleagues regularly, finds it appropriate to give others lessons in democracy. The US are about the same size of Europe and have half the population. Sort this crap out for taff's sake.
Ironside
10-03-2015, 09:03
This just hit my radar. What the hell in a handbasket? Not to detract from this story, as it's not exactly the same, but 50+ dead in a mass killing in China: http://www.rfa.org/english/news/uyghur/attack-09302015174319.html
People are just plain nuts, or evil...
Short version. You know that scare that the immigrants are coming for your jobs? That's true in those parts and to make it way worse, they will get all the good jobs. The central government will invest money into a project (like a mine) and import Han Chinese for almost all worker positions.
The US version would be 10-15 people armed with guns storming banks killing everyone inside, as a terrorist protest move.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
10-03-2015, 09:34
Yes I do. I would much rather read about one guy being shot after he opened fire than about 5, 10, 20, or more unarmed people being shot. I feel an armed society would be a safer society. Everyone who clamors for gun control and firearm buybacks and restrictive sales doesn't realize that closing the barn door after the horses are gone is not doing anything. I'm a strong believer in background checks and going in for a mental checkup every X years to just verify people. We won't see those things but taking our guns away is the wrong direction to go.
So - you want to live in fear? That's what you're doing, you fear the maniacs and you want guns to protect you.
Here's a titbit
"Dressed in a flak jacket, Chris Harper Mercer brought six guns to Umpqua Community College in Roseburg and opened fire on Thursday morning.He was killed by police in a gun battle and another seven weapons were found at his home. All 13 were bought legally."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34428410
Does the fact they were off-duty, security, or ex military reduce what they did? They were an armed citizen at that point, they were not there for the express purpose of protecting the unarmed. The fact that we hear none of this on national channels is a sad state of events.
No, it demonstrates that an actual civilian would be unlikely to do the same.
Fisherking
10-03-2015, 09:56
I have a different question.
Why are people unwilling or unable to look to their own self defence but seem to require third parties to look after them?
Do we see acts of resistance in these cases or almost quiet resignation to being murdered. Even though while the risk may be great, people can overpower such attackers.
wooly_mammoth
10-03-2015, 10:59
I have a different question.
Why are people unwilling or unable to look to their own self defence but seem to require third parties to look after them?
Do we see acts of resistance in these cases or almost quiet resignation to being murdered. Even though while the risk may be great, people can overpower such attackers.
I've read that a guy with military training that happened to be around did rush the gunman and took 5 shots in the process. He's in the hospital now but should make a full recovery. I remember another such incident from some years ago when a professor decided to block an entryway and get shredded in order to buy his students enough time to barricade themselves inside the classroom. I guess it is to be expected that most people completely lose themselves to fear in such a situation and are unable to mount any resistance, but it's not always the case.
Fisherking
10-03-2015, 11:16
I've read that a guy with military training that happened to be around did rush the gunman and took 5 shots in the process. He's in the hospital now but should make a full recovery. I remember another such incident from some years ago when a professor decided to block an entryway and get shredded in order to buy his students enough time to barricade themselves inside the classroom. I guess it is to be expected that most people completely lose themselves to fear in such a situation and are unable to mount any resistance, but it's not always the case.
The old “Fight or Flight” response. One might expect to see more Fight when Flight is lost as an option. Most of these people just seem to be lacking in a desire for self preservation…
Gilrandir
10-03-2015, 14:22
Why are people unwilling or unable to look to their own self defence but seem to require third parties to look after them?
Some time ago people (at least in Europe) agreed that there is only one "third party" that has the right to violence, and that is the state. It (and only it) is supposed to see to it that no other party is violent. The USA settled on a different choice enabling all and sundry to carry weapons and thus broke (or never adopted) the state's monopoly on violence. These choices ultimately determined what we are witnessing now.
Some time ago people (at least in Europe) agreed that there is only one "third party" that has the right to violence, and that is the state. It (and only it) is supposed to see to it that no other party is violent. The USA settled on a different choice enabling all and sundry to carry weapons and thus broke (or never adopted) the state's monopoly on violence. These choices ultimately determined what we are witnessing now.
State monopily doesn't count if they can't sustain it, than it's a false promisieve. Liquidations are pretty normal here by now, not that it pushess any stress but nobody is surprised if there is another one, happens almost every week, or day. Wouldn't be all too dismissive about questioning the monopoly of violence.
Greyblades
10-03-2015, 15:58
Could we drop the economics metaphor? This is gonna get confusing quick.
Gilrandir
10-03-2015, 16:07
State monopily doesn't count if they can't sustain it, than it's a false promisieve. Liquidations are pretty normal here by now, not that it pushess any stress but nobody is surprised if there is another one, happens almost every week, or day. Wouldn't be all too dismissive about questioning the monopoly of violence.
This is the main poblem - the ability of a state to sustain the monopoly. Of course there are breaches of the monopoly which allow you to advocate free access of citizens to fire arms. But there are no perfect states. No country has zero criminality. Yet no one denies that such shootouts are far more often in the USA than in Europe. But I think I'm right in believing that public opinion in Europe is still largely in favor of the state keeping that monopoly and protecting them.
Gilrandir
10-03-2015, 16:10
Could we drop the economics metaphor? This is gonna get confusing quick.
Here you go. Now metaphors are also to be avoided. Lakoff and Johnson (http://theliterarylink.com/metaphors.html) are weeping unashamedly.
Greyblades
10-03-2015, 16:20
I cant tell if fragony's use of "liquidation" meant murder or weapon seizure. My conscience is fine with letting two random men weep if I dont have to deal with such an enigma in every post.
Veho Nex
10-03-2015, 16:26
Yet somehow Australia did it and it has reduced gun crimes.
There are 300 million registered firearms in the United States. There are 23.13 million people in Australia. I'll let you do the math on why taking hundreds of billions of dollars and buying back guns for pennies on the dollar isn't going to work here.
So - you want to live in fear? That's what you're doing, you fear the maniacs and you want guns to protect you.
Does it come across as me being afraid? I'm sorry but as someone who educates people in firearm safety I don't find them to be this unknown scary thing a lot of people do. I understand they are deadly weapons when used with that intent. The only time I've ever been afraid from the unknown was taking a wrong turn down a street in Oakland at 11pm.
No, it demonstrates that an actual civilian would be unlikely to do the same.
I've never been in a situation like this but I do hope I would act with bravery and put myself between someone who intends harm and those who are to afraid to act. I'm not a cop, ex military, or anything like that.
What are we even talking about here? Children and students must not be mass-murdered in educational institutions by their own taffing colleagues with daddy's gun or a weapon they purchased with the ease with which I purchase peanuts at the supermarket.
I take it you've never tried to purchase a firearm. Places like California or Chicago have the country's strictest gun control laws but it's easier for me to purchase a firearm from the blackmarket, also cheaper, than it is to go into my local gun store or gun show and purchase a firearm.
Every human being has the right to defend themselves. If that right is removed and only the "elect few" have the right to defend the majority do we see corruption take place as those few realize no one can stop them. In Oakland the average police response time to a is 15 minutes. Those would be the longest and possibly last 15 minutes of someones life because they refuse to fight or cannot fight.
Fisherking
10-03-2015, 16:36
Some time ago people (at least in Europe) agreed that there is only one "third party" that has the right to violence, and that is the state. It (and only it) is supposed to see to it that no other party is violent. The USA settled on a different choice enabling all and sundry to carry weapons and thus broke (or never adopted) the state's monopoly on violence. These choices ultimately determined what we are witnessing now.
Mass murder is not that uncommon. What is uncommon is that this is the work of an individual. Usually it is carried out by groups and more often than not by governments.
Montmorency
10-03-2015, 17:33
The old “Fight or Flight” response. One might expect to see more Fight when Flight is lost as an option. Most of these people just seem to be lacking in a desire for self preservation…
The same is true of armed and trained soldiers, when caught off-guard. How many routs and fort captures have been carried out when large forces were confused by small parties and surrendered or fled thinking that they were in a hopeless situation against overwhelming force?
The main issue is confusion. If there are thousands of people, but they are sequestered into rooms in small groups, then someone shooting somewhere in the vicinity leads to panic and chaos. If someone were to walk into a crowded square with a bag full of guns, then pull them out and open fire, he would be neutralized relatively-quickly.
Ironside
10-03-2015, 17:43
Mass murder is not that uncommon. What is uncommon is that this is the work of an individual. Usually it is carried out by groups and more often than not by governments.
While the US police is unusually trigger happy, mass murders in the US is most commonly done by a single armed individual.
Why are you trusting the state about food regulations btw? If those get messed up, it can make you sick or kill you. But maybe you lack the desire for preservation...
wooly_mammoth
10-03-2015, 17:44
If someone were to walk into a crowded square with a bag full of guns, then pull them out and open fire, he would be neutralized relatively-quickly.
Don't be so sure. The crazy norwegian guy from some years back was surrounded by his victims when he started shooting, yet they all ran away instead of jumping him. And most of them died as a consequence.
Not to mention that he will be a free man before too long.
Montmorency
10-03-2015, 17:47
Don't be so sure. The crazy norwegian guy from some years back was surrounded by his victims when he started shooting, yet they all ran away instead of jumping him. And most of them died as a consequence.
They were spread out over an island, and he attacked from long range.
Gilrandir
10-03-2015, 17:52
Mass murder is not that uncommon. What is uncommon is that this is the work of an individual. Usually it is carried out by groups and more often than not by governments.
We kinda agreed that the latter case is the only one people (in Europe) are ready to accept (if the government acts within the legal framework).
wooly_mammoth
10-03-2015, 18:50
They were spread out over an island, and he attacked from long range.
Maybe I don't remember correctly, but I recall that he posed as a police officer, gathered them to him and then got his weapons out and started shooting.
Montmorency
10-03-2015, 19:12
Well, that's partly right.
It was a rocky, wooded island hosting a youth camp for a political party. There were more than 600 people there, and most of them were children or teenagers.
He was disguised as a police officer, and he did gather a small group to him before he started the spree (he killed 2 adults who were suspicious of him before he began), but that's not how he killed most of the 69 individuals who died as a result of the island rampage.
After he started shooting, the people on the island went to seek hiding places or tried to swim the several-hundred meters to another landmass. A few small groups gathered over the course of the event to try to subdue the shooter, but he fought them off, killing a few people in the process.
Ultimately, the people hiding, securing the safety of the younger children, and contacting emergency services proved wise: over 1.5 hours, only 10% of the people on the island were killed.
My point about the crowded square still stands. Denser concentration of people, most of the people are adults, and the shooter is in their midst rather than picking them off one-by-one.
CrossLOPER
10-03-2015, 21:02
Or maybe never visit that website. Because, you know, the whole culture is toxic and warps your view. Does /v/ even consider video games pleasure anymore, or is everyone and everything still autistic?
I keep hearing this type of thing everywhere about 4chan, and it seems to me that people who state things like this have never actually been there. To be frank, 4chan does attract major assholes, but the culture is pretty average for internet communities. Adopting a holier than thou attitude towards that site does not really reflect an understanding of the bigger picture. I could say that Facebook and Youtube have much shittier user bases, but people love those services and still have a positive opinion of them. If you really want to talk about toxic cultures online, I would say that stackexchange is far more toxic than /g/. At least the latter will give you advice other than "go google it" and then proceed to lock the discussion after berating the user for a question that could be answered in one sentence.
It's all about perspective.
Last time I checked, /v/ still hates video games, while /vg/ likes video games.
HopAlongBunny
10-03-2015, 21:32
The legislated mandate against compiling and analyzing data re: gun control/use may be changing:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-to-slow-firearm-death-without-banning-all-guns/
We will have to see how effective the inevitable NRA backlash is.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
10-03-2015, 22:51
Does it come across as me being afraid? I'm sorry but as someone who educates people in firearm safety I don't find them to be this unknown scary thing a lot of people do. I understand they are deadly weapons when used with that intent. The only time I've ever been afraid from the unknown was taking a wrong turn down a street in Oakland at 11pm.
You think you need lethal force to defend yourself against fellow countrymen - how can that not be fear?
Also - lets be clear - guns are always deadly weapons - they exist solely to kill people. When people talk about "using guns in self defence" what they mean is "using guns to kill in self defence"
I've never been in a situation like this but I do hope I would act with bravery and put myself between someone who intends harm and those who are to afraid to act. I'm not a cop, ex military, or anything like that.
The unarmed man who faces the man with the gun usually dies. It is unlikely, given your lack of military training, that you have the conditioning necessary to kill at will so even if you had a gun there's a good chance you wouldn't use it properly.
These people aren't "brave" they're trained and there's a difference.
Hooahguy
10-03-2015, 22:56
Not to mention that he will be a free man before too long.
Probably not, his sentence can (and probably will) be extended.
Papewaio
10-03-2015, 23:35
There are 300 million registered firearms in the United States. There are 23.13 million people in Australia. I'll let you do the math on why taking hundreds of billions of dollars and buying back guns for pennies on the dollar isn't going to work here.
Maybe you need to read up about the gun buyback.
Essentially three classes of weapons was established.
1) legal before and after the weapon restrictions. Keep them.
2) legal before, illegal after. These were bought back at market rates not pennies per dollar or whatever propaganda amount you've been lied to about. Check your sources if they are telling you that they are liars and then you have to ask yourself why?
3) illegal before and still illegal after the new rules. Amnesty was given to have those handed in.
=][=
U.S. Dead from terrorism since 1970: 3.5k. Go to war, invade two countries, spend trillions of dollars.
Dead from guns this year: 9k this year alone. Government legislates against gathering data or analysis how and why these deaths occur. Why?
I've seen BS stats put up on the net for the Australian gun buy back and for firearms killings in AUS since the buy back too.
All of course to advance an agenda to tell Americans it did not work here.
It did and is working here.
Note - I am a licensed firearms owner and agree with the measures here in AUS.
Hooahguy
10-04-2015, 02:48
In other news, having more guns around totally makes for a more polite society. Unless you like the wrong Football team of course. (http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/oct/03/priest-alleged-to-have-pulled-gun-on-boy-because-he-was-a-dallas-cowboys-fan)
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
10-04-2015, 02:58
Priests are not allowed weapons, he should be defrocked and handed to a monastic order for punishment.
Except maces, priests are allowed to use maces and a "Bishop's Knocker".
Veho Nex
10-04-2015, 07:23
You think you need lethal force to defend yourself against fellow countrymen - how can that not be fear?
Also - lets be clear - guns are always deadly weapons - they exist solely to kill people. When people talk about "using guns in self defence" what they mean is "using guns to kill in self defence"
The unarmed man who faces the man with the gun usually dies. It is unlikely, given your lack of military training, that you have the conditioning necessary to kill at will so even if you had a gun there's a good chance you wouldn't use it properly.
These people aren't "brave" they're trained and there's a difference.
Do I need lethal force to put myself between a gunman and someone I love? No, but I would much rather have it on my side. I have training with firearms, I train others in proper and safe firearm use (and have for 8 years now), and I believe I would be able to do something about a gunman if they tried to do something to me or the people around me.
How would you try to protect those around you? or is your instinct to "flight" instead? It's how people are wired. I believe I would fight in a situation like that. When something drastic happens I'm one of the first to run towards it to help. I was always taught that because of who I am and what I look like I have a duty to protect those smaller than me or those who can't/won't defend themselves.
If you don't see the point to that then I don't think we'll meet at a middle ground for this. I view guns as a tool. Yes, a tool that is meant to kill but it doesn't need to be used as such.
Maybe you need to read up about the gun buyback.
Papewaio, we're talking America here. In LA 3 months ago they paid people $50 per operable gun. Those people got cheated and there's little proof that they helped the community by giving up their firearms.
The Australian gun buyback gathered somewhere betwen 1/5th to 1/3rd of guns. The majority of articles I'm seeing state the number to be roughly 650,000 guns and that being about 20% of firearms in Australia. If they paid market value for each gun, lets put that at $800 per gun just for simplicity, that means the Australian government spent $520,000,000 on 1/5th of guns that they required be sold to them.
If the United States were to buy back 1/5th of our guns that would be roughly 60,000,000 give or take a few. Let us again assume that they paid market value and for simplicity's sake that was $800 per. $48,000,000,000. 48 Billion... That money could be used to better our schools, better our mental healthcare, to improve our society instead it would remove a drop in the bucket of legally owned firearms. Now if we get real and realize that most common firearms, hunting rifles/shotguns/pistols, sell from anywhere between $450 to $3,000 (yes there are cheaper and far more expensive guns) that it's just not viable to buyback guns at market value.
U.S. Dead from terrorism since 1970: 3.5k. Go to war, invade two countries, spend trillions of dollars.
Dead from guns this year: 9k this year alone. Government legislates against gathering data or analysis how and why these deaths occur. Why?
I don't know where you got your statistics for the dead from guns this year. I have checked 12 different websites from slate.com to gunviolencearchive.org to forbes. They can't even agree on gun related deaths for 2010 let alone this year. The stats I'm looking at range anywhere from 11,000 dead in 2010 to a massive 32,000 dead. How much of this is gang related? How many suicides? How many police shootings?
The sources each website pulls from have widely separate numbers than those reported in the article. One website uses an article with studies from 1960-1985 that was published in 2002 as a fact for 2010 (smartgunlaws.org).
This fun little propaganda website: http://guns.periscopic.com/?year=2013 shows names and gives arbitrary lifetimes to people who were shot throughout 2013. Supposedly from the 11,419 people that were killed that year, which I can't confirm as I blatantly google my way through this, could have lived for a combined total of 502,025 years. Even in the sources and methods they say they got their statistics through twitter and the information may be incomplete or unreliable.
I really don't believe half the garbage pro-gun organizations put out either. Propaganda is not a reliable source of information and most everything found online is propaganda.
Also why terrorism? Why not choose a real killer. Drunk driving is somewhere around 13k per year for the last 10 years. Tobacco causes around 480,000 deaths per year. 16,060 people die per year from prescription drug over doses. Car crash related deaths, which most likely include the drunk driving deaths, have average 30,000 per year since 2009 and between '93 and 2007 averaged 40,000 per year.
In other news, having more guns around totally makes for a more polite society. Unless you like the wrong Football team of course. (http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/oct/03/priest-alleged-to-have-pulled-gun-on-boy-because-he-was-a-dallas-cowboys-fan)
In other news: it was a gun that most anti-gun people consider to be a perfectly fine gun to own, a civil-war style musket.
a completely inoffensive name
10-04-2015, 10:57
I only root for teams that have fans two beers away from murder.
CrossLOPER
10-04-2015, 19:20
In other news: it was a gun that most anti-gun people consider to be a perfectly fine gun to own, a civil-war style musket.
OK, so back to your original argument, the problem is that there are so many guns that it is impossible to confiscate them, and that the only solution is to make guns even more accessible and have armed militias everywhere, correct?
Instead to put bombs in USA streets and or flying planes in buildings, Al Quaida and others terrorists should have build a firearms Selling Chain, kind of "buy one get one free" or Dollarland for gun (all guns less than 1 dollar) they would have killed legally much more Americans than by terrorism.
It is their showing off that get them...
Strike For The South
10-05-2015, 05:35
Can we please stop referring to guns as a tool?
In any event, you will probably never use your gun in a real fight or flight situation. Unless your are George Zimmerman and goad a 17 year old boy into a fight.
Fisherking
10-05-2015, 11:48
You may find this enlightening: http://thefifthcolumnnews.com/2015/06/the-facts-that-neither-side-wants-to-admit-about-gun-control/
but most of you will ignore it anyway.
Hooahguy
10-05-2015, 12:32
You may find this enlightening: http://thefifthcolumnnews.com/2015/06/the-facts-that-neither-side-wants-to-admit-about-gun-control/
but most of you will ignore it anyway.
I read it. The author makes valid points but I think he neglects one fact: that most rational gun control advocates don't advocate banning guns outright. At least not the ones I've read anyways. Most of the more sane proposals I've read about were to expand the background checks and to include mental health checks so if a customer has any background with mental issues then it would be harder to get a gun. Banning guns outright would never work in the United States and I feel that most rational gun control advocates understand this. Yeah, they might not be able to stop the people from going to Home Depot and buying the materials but that's at least an obstacle. Plus warnings could be put in place for people buying those exact items like they have for fertilizer and stuff like that.
Montmorency
10-05-2015, 12:44
The "home construction" complaint is sort of like saying that there's no point keeping people from having ready access to wrecking balls since if they really wanted to destroy a building they could just use a shovel and pickaxe to tunnel under the foundation of a building and eventually cause it to collapse on itself.
Greyblades
10-05-2015, 12:52
You may find this enlightening: http://thefifthcolumnnews.com/2015/06/the-facts-that-neither-side-wants-to-admit-about-gun-control/
but most of you will ignore it anyway.
I read it, I also read the comments where this point came up from a member named jamie:
Interesting, but what I’d really like to know is not the effect of gun bans on murder, but it’s effect on mass murders…shootings like the recent one in Oregon. Really, the number of victims of mass shootings is a very small percentage of the total number of people murdered each year. So yes, while gun bans may have an insignificant effect on total murders, that’s really not the point. People are going to murder people – stopping that would be an impossible task. more But that’s not the same as cutting back on the frequency of mass murder/shootings.
I think this article is a red herring – a smokescreen – obscuring the truth by presenting statistics that are not relevant to the issue.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
10-05-2015, 15:14
Do I need lethal force to put myself between a gunman and someone I love? No, but I would much rather have it on my side. I have training with firearms, I train others in proper and safe firearm use (and have for 8 years now), and I believe I would be able to do something about a gunman if they tried to do something to me or the people around me.
It's nice that you believe that, but unless you've been de-sensitised and trained to ignore your flight or fight response then you'll likely lock up like most people.
"Few men are born brave. Many become so through training and force of discipline."
That was true for the Romans it's even more true today because, I think, your brain basically sees a gun as magic - you point it at someone and they die. That's why people lock up or hide, it's because your flight or fight response analyses the situation and determines you're screwed.
By the way "flight or fight" isn't a "brave vs coward" thing, it's a decision making process that your brain uses - it ways the options, fight or flight, and tries to choose between them based on which is most likely to lead to your survival.
How would you try to protect those around you? or is your instinct to "flight" instead? It's how people are wired. I believe I would fight in a situation like that. When something drastic happens I'm one of the first to run towards it to help. I was always taught that because of who I am and what I look like I have a duty to protect those smaller than me or those who can't/won't defend themselves.
See above - the majority of people will react the same in a given situation because the Flight/Fight" response is a logical decision making process, not a matter of bravery.
Brave people usually have an unrealistic estimation of their survival chances - they're basically borderline insane.
In a situation where there was a man with a gun, and I had a gun and a clear field of fire I'd put two bullets in him/her centre of mass and hope they go down. I decided that years ago and I keep telling myself that so that hopefully if I'm ever in such a situation I won't have to think about it, I'll just do it.
Likewise, if someone was threatening someone I love with a gun I'd place myself between them in the expectation I would die.
In other situations I have not thought of I confess I am less sure, it's likely I might lock up if there was someone with a gun pointed at me.
If you don't see the point to that then I don't think we'll meet at a middle ground for this. I view guns as a tool. Yes, a tool that is meant to kill but it doesn't need to be used as such.
A tool used to kill someone or something is a weapon - guns have no purpose other than to kill, they are therefore weapons. Calling them tools is like calling shell-shock "Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder"
CrossLOPER
10-05-2015, 15:15
I read it, I also read the comments where this point came up from a member named jamie:
So his problem is that gun control would not stop all the gun murders, only most of them?
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
10-05-2015, 15:23
You may find this enlightening: http://thefifthcolumnnews.com/2015/06/the-facts-that-neither-side-wants-to-admit-about-gun-control/
but most of you will ignore it anyway.
That article ignores a number of factors that confound the statistics, it also ignores the fact that the UK ban was aimed specifically at preventing school massacres and has been successful in that, we never had a re-run of Dunblane and despite rising gang violence in London there has been only one spree-shooting since 1996, in Cumbria in 2010.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumbria_shootings
As it notes in the preamble there, the last shooting was in 1996, the one before that in 1989 and the one before that in 1987. Note that the 1987 and 1996 shootings all involved legally owned firearms.
I think one problem is perception.
USA views this issue completely different to the rest of the world, so whilst a school shooting is another week in the good ol' USA, to the rest of us, it is a sign of out of control gun violence epidemic. To the majority of the world, people shooting each other up in the US is viewed as being as common as an English man drinking tea.
The issue might be down to desensitization. In a lot of places, gun crime is so rare, that it hits the news big time. In the US, gun crime is so common, it only comes up when there is a political agenda or someone goes postal.
What makes this worse, in the USA there is a wide-spread cult of gun worshipping where people fight tooth and nail to oppose even the most sensible measures, even actively working to sabotage efforts to even provide proper statistics on the issue.
Papewaio
10-07-2015, 02:26
Exactly how dumb are TV hosts getting today?
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-06/fox-news-anchor-claims-australians-have-no-freedom/6831618
An American Fox News anchor has claimed Australians "have no freedom" while lambasting Australia's gun laws during a live discussion on the recent Oregon shooting
CrossLOPER
10-07-2015, 02:54
Exactly how dumb are TV hosts getting today?
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-06/fox-news-anchor-claims-australians-have-no-freedom/6831618
This is Fox News. They do that type of thing. Remember terrorist fist jab?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_vmQrTi3aM
Remember Fox News has the support of 50% of Americans, ie: Republicans.
Greyblades
10-07-2015, 08:24
Each party's hard line media have issues that they go stupid over, just to name one each: republican news have gun control while Democrat news have rape accusations. I only pay attention to the BBC these days.
Hooahguy
10-09-2015, 21:38
Two more school shootings today. (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34487997)
Montmorency
10-09-2015, 22:33
To be fair, those weren't mass shootings, downright run-of-the-mill.
Papewaio
10-09-2015, 23:26
One was a mass shooting just not mass fatalities.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
10-11-2015, 01:53
Gonna leave this here - from 1976.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWBoeY0AAec
Shaka_Khan
10-11-2015, 13:56
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TABgNerEro8
CrossLOPER
10-11-2015, 18:36
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TABgNerEro8
There are a lot of gun nuts in the US, but most of the people here just don't want to get shot.
Looks like San Bernardino is next in line.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34991855
a completely inoffensive name
12-04-2015, 00:06
Has been all over the news here in southern California. It was a man and woman who attacked a regional center for helping disabled individuals. Their house had 12 pipe bombs, seemingly ready to be used.
Greyblades
12-04-2015, 03:23
https://scontent-atl3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xtf1/v/t1.0-9/12346324_10203584808420948_4955139185041881479_n.jpg?oh=803c634af793be75f0c1ddbb165f644a&oe=56E57B39
Their house had 12 pipe bombs, seemingly ready to be used.
How many people were actually ever killed by pipe bombs?
You always hear the killers had pipe bombs in their home, but they probably don't kill a lot of people by lying around at home. How often did someone actually successfully use a pipe bomb to kill people?
Even the notable incidents on Wikipedia seem to include almost more people who blew themselves up than deaths of others:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pipe_bomb#Notable_incidents
The 1996 incident seems the worst, killed two and injured 111, but doesn't say how badly.
Not that I'm pro-pipe bomb, it's just the news that "pipe bombs were found" does not sound really scary, see also the 2010 Stockholm bombing...
I forgot what it's called but there is usually something else they use to kill far more people.
a completely inoffensive name
12-04-2015, 05:04
For a reason still being determined, it looks like the attack was accelerated and was not the original attack as planned but more spontaneous. Thus, why the bombs were not used. FYI, one of the deadliest terrorists attacks in the US was the Oklahoma City Bombing. 168 deaths, 680+ injuries. That's around 12 times worse than San Bernardino. So yeah, bombs are no joke if the terrorists have the patience to plan and deploy them properly.
Montmorency
12-04-2015, 05:06
?
If you walk into a mass shooter's house and find 100 different models of assault rifle, is that scary?
None of those weapons will have been used, since, you know, they're still stacked up at home. Unless this is the Matrix, or the individual is some kind of Lakshmi-Rambo hybrid, then any number of weapons left behind at their home is not 'scary" unless it signifies accomplices or a larger network.
For now, the takeaway from the pipe-bombs is that this was something they had been planning for a while, but probably without much or any outside assistance or training.
For a reason still being determined, it looks like the attack was accelerated and was not the original attack as planned but more spontaneous. Thus, why the bombs were not used. FYI, one of the deadliest terrorists attacks in the US was the Oklahoma City Bombing. 168 deaths, 680+ injuries. That's around 12 times worse than San Bernardino. So yeah, bombs are no joke if the terrorists have the patience to plan and deploy them properly.
A truck bomb is not a pipe bomb. I'm sure a pipe bomb also has the potential to be dangerous in theory, I just haven't heard of many cases where they were in practice.
If you walk into a mass shooter's house and find 100 different models of assault rifle, is that scary?
If they are neatly lined up in velvet cases, no, if they lie in between human body parts that he used to make soup, yes.
None of those weapons will have been used, since, you know, they're still stacked up at home. Unless this is the Matrix, or the individual is some kind of Lakshmi-Rambo hybrid, then any number of weapons left behind at their home is not 'scary" unless it signifies accomplices or a larger network.
Indeed, what does that tell us about the actual success rate of killing people with pipe bombs? I linked to the wikipedia lising of cases where they were used, and apart from one or two cases, even then they did not seem all that deadly. It lists two or three cases where only the perpetrator died, either at home or even during the attempt to kill others. If those are among the most noteworthy cases of use, well...
For now, the takeaway from the pipe-bombs is that this was something they had been planning for a while, but probably without much or any outside assistance or training.
Yes, in a way I just found it interesting that so many people planned something with pipe bombs but so few people were actually ever killed by one. Which is a good thing I guess, maybe more pipe bomb recipes on the internet could drown out the actually dangerous ones.
a completely inoffensive name
12-04-2015, 05:53
12 pipe bombs depending on the context could kill as many as a single truck bomb.
Montmorency
12-04-2015, 06:26
The best thing you can say about pipe bombs is that the people making pipe bombs usually don't make good ones.
a completely inoffensive name
12-04-2015, 06:41
Basically, yeah. The two pressure cooker bombs used in Boston killed 3 but injured over 260 and I believe it's because the bombs were not even that sophisticated.
The best thing you can say about pipe bombs is that the people making pipe bombs usually don't make good ones.
You say that as though I were happy that they exist, but yes, maybe what you say is correct, doesn't change the reality that they usually don't seem to do much. Of course I'd hope it stays that way. What a bomb expert could do with one was not my point. I observed that in most of their uses, they did not do all that much damage, which I assume is usually a better thing than if they did. :dizzy2:
And maybe I assumed that they are often mentioned to increase the scare factor a bit, but if you disagree that's okay, no hard feelings, please don't hit me...
Montmorency
12-04-2015, 08:05
But what exactly are you referring to then, how the media represents pipe bombs, how people in general perceive pipe bombs, or the actual lethality or safety risk from pipe bomb detonations? None of these are particular interesting, useful, or even relevant angles to explore. :shrug:
But if I must: pipe bombs do not cause much damage precisely because they are usually made or planned for by amateurs, who make a poor bomb that detonates feebly or not at all, never get a chance to use the bomb, or - most commonly and importantly - get the attention of the FBI during the process of procuring supplies or doing research toward the construction of pipe bombs.
Successful bombers - whether serial killers or terrorists - tend to use more sophisticated devices with better preparation and delivery.
Republicans shamed for offering Prayers and rejecting legislation.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-34992061
Greyblades
12-04-2015, 09:51
Wow. The New York Daily News have become the #Blacklivesmatter of gun control.
Greyblades
12-05-2015, 16:19
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvUiHmazZKY
CrossLOPER
12-05-2015, 17:57
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvUiHmazZKY
You need to stop listening to 4channer /pol/ and/or far right levels political discourse. You might start believing it and do something crazy.
Here is an interesting read regarding the matter:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/mass-shootings-in-america/
There you have it, this is how they operate.
Europe is sent to war while the strong and proud citizens of the US are neutered.
Once the entire world is in chaos and subjugated, they will kill most of us and enslave the rest.
Stop drinking their kool eight people.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/12/02/alex-jones-san-bernardino-mass-shooting-appears/207201
Wake up and realize that they are fooling you...
Greyblades
12-05-2015, 18:19
You need to stop listening to 4channer /pol/ and/or far right levels political discourse. You might start believing it and do something crazy.
Here is an interesting read regarding the matter:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/mass-shootings-in-america/
Believe what? That the gun control debate has become so shameless that the left wing politicians and media jump at the chance to turn every tragedy into a platform to preach, to the point where they show themselves as slackjawed idiots incapable of letting go of a narrative until the bitter end.
Incidentally, nice kneejerk there pal, dismissing any critiscism as just another /pol/ delusion, not adressing the points made and posting a link to a tabliod as if it was a grand retort, really makes you seem like you actually watched more than 5 seconds.
AE Bravo
12-05-2015, 18:27
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvUiHmazZKY
That guy sounds like he's getting ready to shoot up a school.
...But not all of those people.
I can't stop to think: What if in Paris, the fanatic murderers would have been able to buy as much good weapons, as much ammo they could and body protection, all this legally? No need to smuggle, no need to hind, just buy and shoot... How the guard would have been able to stop the three bombers to go in the stadium?
Pannonian
12-05-2015, 22:13
I can't stop to think: What if in Paris, the fanatic murderers would have been able to buy as much good weapons, as much ammo they could and body protection, all this legally? No need to smuggle, no need to hind, just buy and shoot... How the guard would have been able to stop the three bombers to go in the stadium?
I'm thankful that they need to go further with their plans to effect the same level of carnage that's ordinarily available in the US. But, in Europe at least, while we don't have the ubiquity of firearms to deal with, we do have the mentality. AFAIK most of the Paris attackers fitted this profile, and troublemakers in the UK certainly fit this profile. Muslims who stay in their European host countries all their lives aren't usually a problem. Muslims who pursue their identity and go to Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and other radicalisation hotspots often return with a drastically different mindset, one which no longer tolerates the western society that they return to. In the case of the San Bernardino attackers, the man's colleagues noticed that he was extremely different when he returned from Saudi Arabia. "I think he's married a terrorist", quotes one.
CrossLOPER
12-05-2015, 23:52
Believe what? That the gun control debate has become so shameless that the left wing politicians and media jump at the chance to turn every tragedy into a platform to preach, to the point where they show themselves as slackjawed idiots incapable of letting go of a narrative until the bitter end.
Incidentally, nice kneejerk there pal, dismissing any critiscism as just another /pol/ delusion, not adressing the points made and posting a link to a tabliod as if it was a grand retort, really makes you seem like you actually watched more than 5 seconds.
I find it hilarious that you feel the need to label WP as a tabloid, when you are posting drivel made by basement dwellers on youtube like it is a grand "wake up sheeple" moment.
Greyblades
12-06-2015, 04:51
Huh, I wasnt even serious when I said you hadnt given it even a cursory glance, but here you are still attacking what it is and not what it says.
To be fair, I should have figured it out when you pulled an anti-gun standard statistic as a retort to a critique of the news media plugging an agenda beyond reason.
You know the senior members like to occasionally moan over the lowering in quality this forum has suffered compared to some halcyon days of the 00's, but posts like these from the vetrans makes me wonder if it was so great to begin with.
a completely inoffensive name
12-06-2015, 05:26
Huh, I wasnt even serious when I said you hadnt given it even a cursory glance, but here you are still attacking what it is and not what it says.
You know the senior members like to occasionally moan over the lowering in quality this forum has suffered compared to some halcyon days of the 00's, but posts like these from the vetrans makes me wonder if it was so great to begin with.
You remind me of those redditors that tried to "find the boston bombers" before the FBI and got so defensive when people questioned their qualifications.
Greyblades
12-06-2015, 06:13
If you says so. This is the first ive ever heard of such an occurance.
a completely inoffensive name
12-06-2015, 06:43
You don't remember the subreddit?
Greyblades
12-06-2015, 15:29
No.... should I?
CrossLOPER
12-06-2015, 21:09
Huh, I wasnt even serious when I said you hadnt given it even a cursory glance, but here you are still attacking what it is and not what it says.
To be fair, I should have figured it out when you pulled an anti-gun standard statistic as a retort to a critique of the news media plugging an agenda beyond reason.
You know the senior members like to occasionally moan over the lowering in quality this forum has suffered compared to some halcyon days of the 00's, but posts like these from the vetrans makes me wonder if it was so great to begin with.
I admit that I did not watch all of it. I instead decided to skim because there was nothing in that video that I did not hear prior on conservative radio (Hannity, Limbaugh) every morning prior to that day. However, since you seem to place a lot of faith in the video that you posted, I decided to listen to all of it. Needless to say, it was just as I suspected. The following is my state of mind and thoughts as I read.
The speaker begins to complain about some things that he saw on twitter or facebook. I found it odd that he would complain about sources that are simply outlets for public speech, but I ignored this as this was a theme I was familiar with. He then began talking about mainstream media doing the same thing. He mentioned quite a few specific examples of transgressions committed by "mainstream media" (a common phrase in the conservative radio type that I mentioned), but really skimped on direct links. He mentioned the Young Turks channel where a commentator was angry about at the NRA's influence on government. Here is the video that he failed to provide (the still in your video is in this one):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTmQ_hom9e4
He then stated that his tone changed after the terrorists' names were dropped. This is odd, considering how the commentator indirectly mentioned Islamic terrorists in that very video. He then went on to talk about white victimization. He then went on a tangent about a conspiracy that the NRA stands for No Retards Allowed and that the shooting was part of a plan to kill handicapped people. I found nothing on this.
He then talked about how one of the shooters was an immigrant from Saudi Arabia. He mentioned how this fact changed the narrative. He mentioned how the stories evolved regarding the motives of the shooters. He talked a lot about the workplace violence angle. I was familiar with a single statement made by Obama regarding workplace violence when the story was breaking and there was not a lot of information coming in. The media types that I mentioned before zeroed in on this issue, and this is where the narrative conspiracy theory really gets its roots.
At this point, the video devolves mainly into Obama bashing because he is crying a lot when kids get murdered by heavily armed psychopaths and how apparently all Muslims need to be reported for any suspicious activity because someone apparently failed to report the terrorist couple for "suspicious activity" such as "do a lot of work out in the garage" and "receiving a lot of packages" during the holidays.
As I said before, it is drivel. I spent a lot more time processing this video than you did. I hope you appreciate this.
The link that I posted wasn't really aimed at you, it was just a contribution to the thread. I suspect that you found it to be a threat to your own narrative, whatever it may be.
As for The Org's past, people were more civil because this place wasn't filled with conspiracy theorists and people who thought they had figured out religion all by themselves. It was also filled with Russophobes, but that is not unusual for a forum with Europeans.
Greyblades
12-06-2015, 22:49
He mentioned the Young Turks channel where a commentator was angry about at the NRA's influence on government. Here is the video that he failed to provide (the still in your video is in this one):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTmQ_hom9e4
He then stated that his tone changed after the terrorists' names were dropped. This is odd, considering how the commentator indirectly mentioned Islamic terrorists in that very video. Did he? I cant seem to find it unless you are talking about the bit where Cenk says:
"We have met the terrorist, it is us. You've got all this nonsense debates about syrian refugees here- what syrian refugees do we have in the country? What terrorist attacks have they done here? None, none."
He is correct that neither of the perpetrators were syrian refugees but the outright rant that followed was indeed of the "this is another american on american gun massacre like all the others" vein, as emphasised by his next few lines:
"When is it going to be in your neighbourhood. I guarentee it's coming. Ok, you want to be scared of something, be scared of something rational: the mass shooters they're everywhere [...] We are the terrorists, we're terrorising ourselves."
Personally an issue I would take with Metokur's video is that, going by the channel's videos since this one, they havent changed their tone that much:
https://s11.postimg.org/x0r7mauld/Untitled.png
He then went on to talk about white victimization. Which despite your lable is a real thing; the common double standard that criticism, degeration or outright predjudice of anything western/white is almost never met with the same kneejerk backlash doled out against criticism of any other culture, race and creed. But that is somewhat irrelevent to the topic.
He then went on a tangent about a conspiracy that the NRA stands for No Retards Allowed and that the shooting was part of a plan to kill handicapped people. I found nothing on this. That was mockery on the video maker's part, taking the opponant's rhetoric and amplifying it beyond absurdity. You couldnt tell from his tone?
At this point, the video devolves mainly into Obama bashing because he is crying a lot when kids get murdered by heavily armed psychopaths He was reffering to this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3odT3PZ5Vc
A fairly reasonable response followed up by this after the details of the attackers were shown:
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/03/politics/san-bernadino-shooting-political-reaction/
Likely a fairly standard non-comittal political base-covering. A bit of spineless reluctance to call a spade a spade but hardly damning, though it makes a rather unfortunate image when made alongside several media avenue's dogged insistance that "it could still be a workplace shooting guys!" Long past the realm of reason.
and how apparently all Muslims need to be reported for any suspicious activity because someone apparently failed to report the terrorist couple for "suspicious activity" such as "do a lot of work out in the garage" and "receiving a lot of packages" during the holidays.
Cute, Ignoring that what he said was that the neighbours would have reported them for suspicious activity but didnt for fear of being called a racist. Less "all Muslims need to be reported for any suspicious activity" and more "fear of being called racist kept this attack from being prevented." Something that has happened before (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/lawmaker-report-shows-fbi-ignored-accused-fort-hood-shooter-nidal-hasan-out-of-political-correctness/)
Plus it wasnt just "working a lot in the garage" it was doing it frequently in the middle of the night.
As I said before, it is drivel. I spent a lot more time processing this video than you did. I hope you appreciate this. No, you really didnt.
As for The Org's past, people were more civil because this place wasn't filled with conspiracy theorists and people who thought they had figured out religion all by themselves. It was also filled with Russophobes, but that is not unusual for a forum with Europeans.
Thank you for exhibiting my point that you think it is acceptable say things about europeans that you wouldnt dare say about jews africans or muslims.
CrossLOPER
12-07-2015, 00:17
Did he? I cant seem to find it unless you are talking about the bit where Cenk says:
"We have met the terrorist, it is us. You've got all this nonsense debates about syrian refugees here- what syrian refugees do we have in the country? What terrorist attacks have they done here? None, none."
He is correct that neither of the perpetrators were syrian refugees but the outright rant that followed was indeed of the "this is another american on american gun massacre like all the others" vein, as emphasised by his next few lines:
"When is it going to be in your neighbourhood. I guarentee it's coming. Ok, you want to be scared of something, be scared of something rational: the mass shooters they're everywhere [...] We are the terrorists, we're terrorising ourselves."
Personally an issue I would take with Metokur's video is that, going by the channel's videos since this one, they havent changed their tone that much:
https://s11.postimg.org/x0r7mauld/Untitled.png
He mentioned the terror watch list.
Last few mass shootings were by white dudes with inane agendas. It would have been reasonable to assume that this mass shooter was white, since it fit the profile. He didn't actually say white, and he was absolutely right. The guy was a homegrown. Then some people went nuts because they want to go off on how Islam is dangerous and Syran refugees are terrorist sleepers, when pretty much anyone can shoot up any one at any time for any reason. This is what reclusive gun loving hillbillies fail to understand.
Which despite your lable is a real thing;
It is part of the culture of victimization(micro-aggressions or whatever), which is what the author of the video ironically complains about in some of his other videos.
the common double standard that criticism, degeration or outright predjudice of anything western/white is almost never met with the same kneejerk backlash doled out against criticism of any other culture, race and creed. But that is somewhat irrelevent to the topic.
And yet the very first thing typical conservative media talks about every morning is how Muslims, Mexicans, Russians or Chinese or whatever are coming to get you. It goes both ways.
That was mockery on the video maker's part, taking the opponant's rhetoric and amplifying it beyond absurdity. You couldnt tell from his tone?
His tone was very smug throughout the entire presentation, so it was hard to tell if he was talking about a specific event, or just failing at sarcasm.
He was reffering to this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3odT3PZ5Vc
A fairly reasonable response followed up by this after the details of the attackers were shown:
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/03/politics/san-bernadino-shooting-political-reaction/
Likely a fairly standard non-comittal political base-covering. A bit of spineless reluctance to call a spade a spade but hardly damning, though it makes a rather unfortunate image when made alongside several media avenue's dogged insistance that "it could still be a workplace shooting guys!" Long past the realm of reason.
I was aware of what he was talking about. His response to the ongoing event was restrained, as it should have been. Also, again, it cuts both ways. The issue, however, is that the right wingers began pushing that they knew all along that the terrorists were Muslims and that all Muslims want to do this.
Cute, Ignoring that what he said was that the neighbours would have reported them for suspicious activity but didnt for fear of being called a racist. Less "all Muslims need to be reported for any suspicious activity" and more "fear of being called racist kept this attack from being prevented." Something that has happened before (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/lawmaker-report-shows-fbi-ignored-accused-fort-hood-shooter-nidal-hasan-out-of-political-correctness/)
Please tell me how doing stuff in your garage and getting packages is suspicious. I will report my entire neighborhood.
Plus it wasnt just "working a lot in the garage" it was doing it frequently in the middle of the night.
Yeah, it's like he has a job or responsibilities in the daytime or something. Really odd.
No, you really didnt.
OK.
Thank you for exhibiting my point that you think it is acceptable say things about europeans that you wouldnt dare say about jews africans or muslims.
wat
I saw this article today.
"Why are Americans so obsessed with guns?" (http://www.bbc.co.uk/guides/z3t2hv4?intc_type=singletheme&intc_location=news&intc_campaign=iwonder&intc_linkname=guide_guns_contentcard21)
Had this image on it:
https://i.imgur.com/9maa4Wv.png
Why did they exclude Northern Ireland for only the deaths?
The source didn't include those statistics and this happens often with many things not including Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is kind of its own autonomous entity within the Union, I guess kind of like Puerto Rico is to the United States missing out on things.
Then why include the NI population and estimated gun ownership numbers in the other stats? The last statistic is the important one, yet it only covers Great Britain. :inquisitive:
Then why include the NI population and estimated gun ownership numbers in the other stats? The last statistic is the important one, yet it only covers Great Britain. :inquisitive:
Different sources of information, not that it matters much.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
12-12-2015, 03:10
Why did they exclude Northern Ireland for only the deaths?
It would likely skew the results for one thing, and since the troubles stats on anything violence-related in NI have been either difficult to verify or politically charged.
The source didn't include those statistics and this happens often with many things not including Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is kind of its own autonomous entity within the Union, I guess kind of like Puerto Rico is to the United States missing out on things.
This is complete nonsense - NI is only about as autonomous as Wales - Scotland has far more autonomy. It has to gdo with the government facing non-co-operation and therefore having trouble getting stats that are accurate.
Then why include the NI population and estimated gun ownership numbers in the other stats? The last statistic is the important one, yet it only covers Great Britain. :inquisitive:
Same reason - bad stats. Likely they don't have an easy way to separate NI from those stats and no easy way to include them in the others.
This is complete nonsense - NI is only about as autonomous as Wales - Scotland has far more autonomy. It has to gdo with the government facing non-co-operation and therefore having trouble getting stats that are accurate
Not really...
Many goods and services don't include Northern Ireland, always thought it was weird they slapped "Excludes Northern Ireland" on them because there is some water separating the border, but it is just how things are.
They have their own electoral parties separated to the traditional British ones. Whilst Wales and Scotland has a +1, they have their own unique ones.
In many matters, they pretty much have their own little corner and keep to themselves separate from the rest of Britain.
The first 3 stats on that graphic should be easy to exclude NI. Wiki says that NI has 1.8+ million people. Legally owned firearms I assume mean they are registered, even with the stereotypical rep of large scale British government IT projects it should be easy to get a stat for Great Britain alone. It's just lazy and disingenuous. "The Yanks are just uncivilized gun nuts intent on killing each other, we are so superior (just ignore that little corner over there...)."
Even with NI gun violence added in I'm sure the US stats still crush it, but it reeks of piling on.
Sarmatian
12-12-2015, 08:46
Not so long ago, NI had many qualities of a war zone, which means statistics like that go out of the window.
USA and Great Britain are comparable in that regard (similar level of development, many years of peace and so on...). One couldn't compare gun violence in UK and Syria and come to any meaningful conclusion.
Not so long ago, NI had many qualities of a war zone, which means statistics like that go out of the window.
Then just remove the NI population and legal firearms from the stats. Like I said, lazy and disingenuous. I'm sure we could pick a few small regions in the US that would improve our kill ratio tremendously.
Shaka_Khan
12-12-2015, 17:08
Or we could compare the United States with countries like Japan and South Korea.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
12-12-2015, 23:09
Not really...
Many goods and services don't include Northern Ireland, always thought it was weird they slapped "Excludes Northern Ireland" on them because there is some water separating the border, but it is just how things are.
It was historically more expensive to do business in NI.
As Sarmation said, it was a Balkanised Warzone.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.