Another week, another mass shooting

At least 13 are dead in Oregon after a 20 year old male shot up a community college.

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:

Quote:

---

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.

It actually was not a gun free zone.

It will happen again before Obama leaves.

And a year ago Sydney had a terrorist attack that resulted in three deaths...

They identified the shooter as a 26 year old guy who seemed to be pretty fond of the IRA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hooahguy

[URL="http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34419802"]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:

---

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.

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.

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:

Quote:

---

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."

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tuuvi

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.

Horrible. RIP.

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.

What can you say at this point?

R.I.P

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

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.

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Toxic masculinity is a real thing.

---

Yes, it's called chauvinism.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

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?

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

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,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Who the fuck carries a gun in a bar?

---

The barkeep. :grin:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Who the fuck carries a gun in a bar?

---

Shaun?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hooahguy

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:

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

or a radical atheist

---

Considering the section of 4chan he was on, this is probably it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

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/deadlie...ting-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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Risasi

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hooahguy

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/opinio...lumn/73199052/

I don't have time to check the video out now, but I will. Thanks.

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?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Veho Nex

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hooahguy

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 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hooahguy

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.

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.

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-shoo...ept-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/uygh...015174319.html

People are just plain nuts, or evil...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hooahguy

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrossLOPER

/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?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Risasi

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/uygh...015174319.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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Veho Nex

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

Quote:

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wooly_mammoth

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…

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

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.

Could we drop the economics metaphor? This is gonna get confusing quick.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wooly_mammoth

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wooly_mammoth

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

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.

The legislated mandate against compiling and analyzing data re: gun control/use may be changing:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...ning-all-guns/

We will have to see how effective the inevitable NRA backlash is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Veho Nex

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"

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

Not to mention that he will be a free man before too long.

---

Probably not, his sentence can (and probably will) be extended.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Veho Nex

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.

In other news, having more guns around totally makes for a more polite society. Unless you like the wrong Football team of course.

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".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hooahguy

In other news, having more guns around totally makes for a more polite society. Unless you like the wrong Football team of course.

---

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.

I only root for teams that have fans two beers away from murder.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Veho Nex

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...