View Full Version : Oregon mall shooting...
Kellydancer
12-15-2012, 11:20 AM
But those countries don't have the gangs we have. One one side it leads to the whole mental illness debate and how they are getting guns instead of mental health. On that case we need to improve our mental health system and really find out who is truly a danger before anything happens. On the other hand we need to change things when it comes to things like gangs. In this case the gang situation isn't in play but a mentally disturbed person.
Almost Jaded
12-15-2012, 06:42 PM
There are also countries with gun ownership laws very similar to ours and with far lower crime rates. Sweden comes to mind. Or how about a nation that completely banned civilian gun ownership, and as a result has one of the highest crime rates on earth, like Russia? The only people who have weapons are criminals and police - and there are a LOT more of the former than the latter.
The problem is not the guns. The problem is our society in 1,000 other ways that have nothing to do with guns.
Much of what has been said here about civilians not handling things well is very true! Given the percentage of our population that are complete morons in general, it probably would be a bad idea. All the more reason for the responsible ones to take the 2nd amendment that much more seriously. I believe anyone should be able to own a gun IN THEIR HOME. States with laws that REQUIRE you to FLEE FROM YOUR OWN HOME before defending yourself and your property simply blow my mind. The level of fucked up involved in that thinking is beyond my ability to comprehend. BUT - I absolutely agree that there should be much more required in the way of training before you can carry in public; many of us take it upon ourselves to be proficient and practiced; aware of our surroundings, your backdrop (what's behind the target should you miss or your round over-penetrate), practiced situational awareness, etc. That shouldn't be something you do on your own AFTER buying a firearm.
Other than that - your limited view of history is amazing, LMAO!
Bad people will find ways to do bad things. Limiting the law-abiding population's ability to defend against them serves no purpose. You guys talk like I and my friends are somehow part of the problem; you lump all "gun people" into this one category of violent wierdos. That's okay - we lump you into one category, too. "helpless victims".
There are also countries with gun ownership laws very similar to ours and with far lower crime rates. Sweden comes to mind. Or how about a nation that completely banned civilian gun ownership, and as a result has one of the highest crime rates on earth, like Russia? The only people who have weapons are criminals and police - and there are a LOT more of the former than the latter.
As usual, the facts are not convenient for people more interested in blaming the tool used vs the person using the tool:
Myth No. 3: The United States has such a high murder rate because Americans own so many guns.
"There is no international evidence backing this up. The Swiss, New Zealanders and Finns all own guns as frequently as Americans, yet in 1995 Switzerland had a murder rate 40 percent lower than Germany's, and New Zealand had one lower than Australia's. Finland and Sweden have very different gun ownership rates, but very similar murder rates. Israel, with a higher gun ownership rate than the U.S., has a murder rate 40 percent below Canada's. When one studies all countries rather than just a select few as is usually done, there is absolutely no relationship between gun ownership and murder."
- Dr. John Lott, Jr. is the John M. Olin law and economics fellow at the University of Chicago School of Law/
Bad people will find ways to do bad things. Limiting the law-abiding population's ability to defend against them serves no purpose. You guys talk like I and my friends are somehow part of the problem; you lump all "gun people" into this one category of violent wierdos. That's okay - we lump you into one category, too. "helpless victims".
To that, did you know a CCW holder confronted this shooter at the mall, and after seeing armed person killed himself? WHY does the media make essential NO mention of that fact? Because they have an agenda. That's why the death count was so low in this mall shooting. Why is the person not being pushed as an example of successful armed civilian keeping the death count FAR lower than it could have been?
See:
Media blackout: Oregon mall shooter was stopped by an armed citizen (http://www.examiner.com/article/media-blackout-oregon-mall-shooter-was-stopped-by-an-armed-citizen?cid=rss)
More examples very few people know about because the media REFUSES to cover that fact an armed response by a civilian can and will stop sch events and happens FAR more often than people realize:
A 1997 high school shooting in Pearl, Miss., was halted by the school's vice principal after he retrieved the Colt .45 he kept in his truck.
A 1998 middle school shooting ended when a man living next door heard gunfire and apprehended the shooter with his shotgun.
A 2002 terrorist attack at an Israeli school was quickly stopped by an armed teacher and a school guard.
A 2002 law school shooting in Grundy, Va., came to an abrupt conclusion when students carrying firearms confronted the shooter.
A 2007 mall shooting in Ogden, Utah, ended when an armed off-duty police officer intervened.
A 2009 workplace shooting in Houston, Texas, was halted by two coworkers who carried concealed handguns.
A 2012 church shooting in Aurora, Colo., was stopped by a member of the congregation carrying a gun.
At the recent mall shooting in Portland, Ore., the gunman took his own life minutes after being confronted by a shopper carrying a concealed weapon
Outrage matters, facts matter more :-\
Kellydancer
12-16-2012, 02:52 PM
Isn't Switzerland the country that has no gun control laws at all yet low crime? For some reason I think that is the case.
I still am annoyed that people want to ban guns no matter what. It's not the guns fault, but like AJ mentioned it's like when people blame fast food for making them fat. No, it's called personal responsibility and instead of blaming gun owners let's blame the real reasons here instead.
Isn't Switzerland the country that has no gun control laws at all yet low crime? For some reason I think that is the case.
See above Kelly.
Almost Jaded
12-16-2012, 03:44 PM
Switzerland has strict registration laws and real limits on weapon types. Still, between 2/3 and 3/4 of all the guns in the nation are illegal - and they still have a murder rate barely higher than Canada.
The mass shootings that "succeed" get all the attention, but the fact is that in the last 15 years, there have been more of these tragic events stopped by armed citizens than there have been ones that resulted in mass killings or stopped by law enforcement. The police are a reactive institution - they can't do anything until they're alerted that there's something to be done. Unless you want the government up your ass for a false sense of security - the old "he who gives up liberty for security deserves to have neither" adage - noting is going to change that. Armed citizens on the scene react before law enforcement can arrive, and make everyone safer. Anyone who says otherwise is delusional, period. Statistics prove that cities that dramatically increase carrying citizens have a reduction in crime. Studies that show otherwise are including illegally armed citizens in the numbers WHO WOULD BE ARMED ANYWAY, because they aren't law-abiding in the first place. Again - the people calling "us" crazy may have the backing of the media and the liberal institutions, but hard facts can't be denied. There are case studies in NV, GA, CA, VA, both Carolina's, TX, and WA for cities that handed out CCW's or passed open-carry in troubled neighborhoods and saw violent crime drop through the floor - up to 90% in under a year in some cases. The media won't report those, and neither will the liberal colleges that promote slanted studies to back the media's position. Well known "researches" have been caught manipulating statistics in many ways, such as including underage gang member deaths in accidental child death by firearm studies, including gang-on-gang violence in statistics for studies of private citizens' danger in owning a gun, etc. When you discount the people who are going to own guns illegally and use them illegally NO MATTER WHAT, you're left with a very different picture than what the gun control morons paint. A picture that makes it very clear that the simplest way to combat violent crimes is to put weapons in the hands of intelligent, responsible citizens. There is only ONE possible reason to be against that - ONLY ONE. That reason is that you don't want intelligent, responsible people to have weapons, because you don't want intelligent, responsible people to be able to defend themselves from something other than criminals. Occam's Razor is a really handy tool. Today's left (in general) should use it more.
Switzerland has strict registration laws and real limits on weapon types. Still, between 2/3 and 3/4 of all the guns in the nation are illegal - and they still have a murder rate barely higher than Canada.
The mass shootings that "succeed" get all the attention, but the fact is that in the last 15 years, there have been more of these tragic events stopped by armed citizens than there have been ones that resulted in mass killings or stopped by law enforcement. The police are a reactive institution - they can't do anything until they're alerted that there's something to be done. Unless you want the government up your ass for a false sense of security - the old "he who gives up liberty for security deserves to have neither" adage - noting is going to change that. Armed citizens on the scene react before law enforcement can arrive, and make everyone safer. Anyone who says otherwise is delusional, period. Statistics prove that cities that dramatically increase carrying citizens have a reduction in crime. Studies that show otherwise are including illegally armed citizens in the numbers WHO WOULD BE ARMED ANYWAY, because they aren't law-abiding in the first place. Again - the people calling "us" crazy may have the backing of the media and the liberal institutions, but hard facts can't be denied. There are case studies in NV, GA, CA, VA, both Carolina's, TX, and WA for cities that handed out CCW's or passed open-carry in troubled neighborhoods and saw violent crime drop through the floor - up to 90% in under a year in some cases. The media won't report those, and neither will the liberal colleges that promote slanted studies to back the media's position. Well known "researches" have been caught manipulating statistics in many ways, such as including underage gang member deaths in accidental child death by firearm studies, including gang-on-gang violence in statistics for studies of private citizens' danger in owning a gun, etc. When you discount the people who are going to own guns illegally and use them illegally NO MATTER WHAT, you're left with a very different picture than what the gun control morons paint. A picture that makes it very clear that the simplest way to combat violent crimes is to put weapons in the hands of intelligent, responsible citizens. There is only ONE possible reason to be against that - ONLY ONE. That reason is that you don't want intelligent, respo
nsible people to have weapons, because you don't want intelligent, responsible people to be able to defend themselves from something other than criminals. Occam's Razor is a really handy tool. Liberals should use it more.
You had me 'till that last part :)
Personally, I try not to view it as a "liberal" vs "conservative" issue per se and think by throwing terms like that out you divide/polarize people vs looking specifically at the issue at hand. I have what's considered Liberal positions and Conservative. I'm pro choice, pro gay rights, and pro Human Rights, of which the right to defend yourself, be it from tyrannical government or criminal falls under.
Those who do not view armed self defense as a basic human right, ignore the mass graves of those who died at the hands of tyrants.
Almost Jaded
12-16-2012, 04:55 PM
Changed it, and good point. Because until recently I considered myself a liberal. Hell - I'd still like too, LMAO!! Ask my actual right-wing, extremely conservative family and friends, and I'm waaayy too far left. But by todays standards, I'm one rung above Jerry fucked Falwell because I think the constitution still means something. :rolleyes:
Kellydancer
12-16-2012, 04:57 PM
I don't consider it a liberal/conservative issue either, but more of a freedom issue. I am a Libertarian mostly and strongly believe in the idea that one should be allowed to do whatever they want. I feel the same about abortion and gay marriage and almost everything though I don't support taxpayer money going to support social issues really 9as in have an abortion but don't expect tax payers to pay).