Umpqua, Oregon, Mass Public Killings, Oct 1st 2015.

We have now accepted that the regular breach of trust by fellow members of our society is normal.
Not unprecedented. Routine news.
That is the real tragedy.
As has been said, it might not be all that bad. If these acts are forgettable, they will probably be less attractive to attention seekers.

As far as gun control goes, I wonder what the chances are that people do something without waiting for the government. Doing something like coming up with preferable guidelines or funding that could go some ways toward preventing unsafe people from acquiring guns. Even with things as they are now, government isn't needed to enact change, and there are disadvantages in relying on it to change things. Cut out the middleman (politicians) and reward/support those that are as concerned as you are. An organization like the NRA might be a good place to get the ball rolling.
 
guncontrolcartoon.jpg


This cartoon would seem to imply the problem is something to do with technology, specifically the advanced technology of guns. Once again, my governor Jay Inslee seems to have it wrong that advanced technology, culture and US democracy are the reasons why mass shootings should not be happening.
 
It's being reported here that the gunman was part-British and had a strong interest in Republican terrorism, an evil ghost which I'd hoped we'd seen the back of. Republican motivation would seem to be at odds with his apparent targetting of Christians though unless there was some Caddy/Proddy agenda.
 
Quick question for our US cousins. I'll start by saying that I have absolutely no idea what the answer to the question is but it suddenly came into my mind and I can't believe I haven't wondered about it before. I assume most people want to own a gun as a tool for self defence, please correct me if I'm wrong. However, if I'm right how many innocent lives are saved each year by those weapons being used in self defence?
 
Quick question for our US cousins. I'll start by saying that I have absolutely no idea what the answer to the question is but it suddenly came into my mind and I can't believe I haven't wondered about it before. I assume most people want to own a gun as a tool for self defence, please correct me if I'm wrong. However, if I'm right how many innocent lives are saved each year by those weapons being used in self defence?


http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-ne...-rates-among-gun-using-crime-victims_06272013

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/18319/pr...reduce-the-threat-of-firearm-related-violence

Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year…



The estimate of 3 million defensive uses per year is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys. The former estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.

A different issue is whether defensive use of guns, however numerous or rare they may be, are effective in preventing injury to the gun wielding crime victim. Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was “used” by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self protective strategies.
 
You know what, there's a certain way to change an amendment, I don't know what it's called, but I believe it's an amendment act.

That is a lie. Get 3 quarters of the states on side and it is perfectly legal.

Which requires 2/3rds of Congress (both houses) and 3/4ths of the states under normal circumstances.

The only alternative which the Constitution can be amended is if the states themselves want to amend it without Congressional approval. That is an Article V convention. The requirements to call one are 2/3rds of the states, and anything passed by them requires 3/4ths of the states in ratification. Article V is being used as a weapon in trying to pass congressional term limits among other things.
 
I tried to read a little bit more about the shooting on NBC news's website, but of course they named the shooter. Thankfully, I have the attention span of a goldfish and immediately forgot it.
 
I have yet to hear about a massive strangling, massive beating with baseball bats, or massive knife killings...
Excellent observation, as such instruments of death are pretty much technologically ruled out of the question in massacres attributed to an individual. An Uyghur mass-stabbing did occur a few years ago, although it was an organized gang wielding long knives (swords?), and not the alienated, culturally misfit individual we are talking about here.

My point that "advanced" culture, technology and democracy enable and even promote such massacres is reinforced.
 
Last edited:
I have yet to hear about a massive strangling, massive beating with baseball bats, or massive knife killings...

I wonder if that has something to do with defenders sometimes having access to firearms? Pretty hard to do much with a knife at a gun fight.

Of course, I have heard of mass killings as the result of fertilizer and cars... as noted, the motive is the bigger issue rather than the tool.
 
I wonder if that has something to do with defenders sometimes having access to firearms?

Or the fact that it is much easier to stop a baseball bat than a bullet, maybe? Especially when it's four unarmed people against one.

Of course, I have heard of mass killings as the result of fertilizer and cars... as noted, the motive is the bigger issue rather than the tool.

And as we all know, people regularly appear in the news for mass killing people with their cars, right?

No one is saying guns have to be banned, but further restrictions must be put in place. And the argument "knives kill too" is stupid considering the destructive power a firearm has over a knife or a baseball bat.

EDIT: Just noticed the comic itself didn't mention "ban the guns", but rather, "we've got to do something". Goes to show some people think the current restrictions on guns are perfectly okay and there's nothing else needed to be done.
 
I don't know if any of you guys know this but the shooter apparently made a website warning about the school that this was going to happen. Its from the deep web anyways *of course it would be in the deep web in the first place anyways* so im pretty sure not a lot of you guys would know about this.

If it wasn't for SomeOrdinaryGamers latest deep web browsing video, I don't think I would have knew about this. Plus I don't know if the news mention this. *I don't really watch the news BTW* Theres no way i'm going to post the link to the site because well... It's got some extreme NSFW stuff.
 
Last edited:
I have yet to hear about a massive strangling, massive beating with baseball bats, or massive knife killings...
Massive-knife killings are rare, & don't always result in death. But, they do seem to happen enough.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/01/world/asia/china-railway-attack/

Killed 29, injured 130 with a knife. That's quite a toll compared to most recent shootings.

http://time.com/55356/at-least-20-stabbed-at-pa-high-school/
This also happened stateside in a school with 21 injured & thankfully, no deaths.
 
I don't know if any of you guys know this but the shooter *Curse this sick bastard* apparently made a website warning about the school that this was going to happen. Its from the deep web anyways *of course it would be in the deep web in the first place anyways* so im pretty sure not a lot of you guys would know about this.

If it wasn't for SomeOrdinaryGamers latest deep web browsing video, I don't think I would have knew about this. Plus I don't know if the news mention this. *I don't really watch the news BTW* Theres no way i'm going to post the link to the site because well... It's got some extreme NSFW stuff.
Could you remove his name from your post? Having it there is not against the AUP, but I'd say we should all avoid giving the scum of the earth any free publicity by spreading their names around.
 
Could you remove his name from your post? Having it there is not against the AUP, but I'd say we should all avoid giving the scum of the earth any free publicity by spreading their names around.
Could you remove his name from your post? Having it there is not against the AUP, but I'd say we should all avoid giving the scum of the earth any free publicity by spreading their names around.
Better?
I don't know if any of you guys know this but the shooter apparently made a website warning about the school that this was going to happen. Its from the deep web anyways *of course it would be in the deep web in the first place anyways* so im pretty sure not a lot of you guys would know about this.

If it wasn't for SomeOrdinaryGamers latest deep web browsing video, I don't think I would have knew about this. Plus I don't know if the news mention this. *I don't really watch the news BTW* Theres no way i'm going to post the link to the site because well... It's got some extreme NSFW stuff.
 
Killed 29, injured 130 with a knife. That's quite a toll compared to most recent shootings.

From the article.

Twenty-nine people were killed and 130 were injured Saturday night when 10 men armed with long knives stormed the station in the southwest Chinese city of Kunming, the state news agency Xinhua reported.

So, not really comparable to a lone gun man.

Fact is, having a lead slinger makes killing a whole lot easier.
 
I don't know if any of you guys know this but the shooter apparently made a website warning about the school that this was going to happen. Its from the deep web anyways *of course it would be in the deep web in the first place anyways* so im pretty sure not a lot of you guys would know about this.

If it wasn't for SomeOrdinaryGamers latest deep web browsing video, I don't think I would have knew about this. Plus I don't know if the news mention this. *I don't really watch the news BTW* Theres no way i'm going to post the link to the site because well... It's got some extreme NSFW stuff.

I thought it was 4chan (according to Huff at least)? Hardly "deep web".

Here's the Huff report, mostly SFW but does contain a screencap of the 4Chan r9k post.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/oregon-shooter-plans-4chan_560da551e4b0768127016099
 
From the article.

Twenty-nine people were killed and 130 were injured Saturday night when 10 men armed with long knives stormed the station in the southwest Chinese city of Kunming, the state news agency Xinhua reported.

So, not really comparable to a lone gun man.

Fact is, having a lead slinger makes killing a whole lot easier.

You were ahead of me on this one.

Shall I add it is much easier to run away from a man with a knife than a man with a pistol?
 
Fact is, having a lead slinger makes killing a whole lot easier.

That is the point though isn't it? I mean, grandma isn't going to do well protecting herself with a knife or baseball bat. The gun can allow her to take down a 6' 200 lb attacker.
 
That is the point though isn't it? I mean, grandma isn't going to do well protecting herself with a knife or baseball bat. The gun can allow her to take down a 6' 200 lb attacker.

No one is arguing that part of the debate. But this is also what makes regulations so difficult.
 
No one is arguing that part of the debate. But this is also what makes regulations so difficult.

Well, knives do have an advantage for the bad guys, they're quiet. You can walk the streets of a crowded city stabbing people and not be realized, something you just can't do with a gun. Silencers are often made out to be amazing technology in movies, but in reality guns are still crazy loud, even with silencers. Knives do benefit those who don't want to be caught - whereas guns are great for people who want the police to be called immediately.

On the flip side, knives are tough to use from your car at 2 mph when you want to indiscriminately shoot up someone's house.
 
I have yet to hear about a massive strangling, massive beating with baseball bats, or massive knife killings...

There have been mass stabbing in recent years. Just not as effective in killing a person as a gun it would seem. Though as can be seen here https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/threads/guns.33891/, there is a massive problem with murders by knife in the U.S. more so than rifles and shotgun separate or combined. The issue is handguns more than any other weapon, but even then it has been shown that owning one has a positive effect on defending/protecting ones life against a perpetrator with a gun as well or any other weapon.

The main issue I always have when this subject turns up (funny that people rather post a news snippet to get a rise, but not post in the proper thread to debate the issue) is that people only see the issue with mass violence at one given time. Even though the murder by handgun is far more common and likely than a mass shooting. So why does the mass shooting get center stage, but not the urban youth shot down at the corner and the many like that person each day in other urban centers?

Why isn't the 1500+ knife killings/murders also an issue? (2011 FBI figures)
 
FOX broadcasters decry Australians as "having no freedom" because of a lack of a right to gun ownership, even though we never actually had a right to gun ownership in the first place (which is weird because we gave you Rupert Murdoch):

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-06/fox-news-anchor-claims-australians-have-no-freedom/6831618

If I have no freedom and you do, why did I choose to stay here? A few years ago I was sought out by a teaching exchange program that wanted to place me in a British or American school, but I turned it down because of the prevalence of mass shootings in American schools (and I turned the British placement down because they recruit you to take the places their own teachers won't touch).

To be blunt, there was a shooting of a civilian police contractor by a radicalised teenager last week. When his name and picture were released, I recognised them - I taught at his school (and probably taught him, though I don't remember him) when I was working casually at his school a few years ago. But I still feel far safer here than I would in an American school.
 
FOX broadcasters decry Australians as "having no freedom" because of a lack of a right to gun ownership, even though we never actually had a right to gun ownership in the first place (which is weird because we gave you Rupert Murdoch):

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-06/fox-news-anchor-claims-australians-have-no-freedom/6831618

If I have no freedom and you do, why did I choose to stay here? A few years ago I was sought out by a teaching exchange program that wanted to place me in a British or American school, but I turned it down because of the prevalence of mass shootings in American schools (and I turned the British placement down because they recruit you to take the places their own teachers won't touch).

To be blunt, there was a shooting of a civilian police contractor by a radicalised teenager last week. When his name and picture were released, I recognised them - I taught at his school (and probably taught him, though I don't remember him) when I was working casually at his school a few years ago. But I still feel far safer here than I would in an American school.
Biased reporting is biased. He says, "that's not real freedom", not "Australians have no freedom".

Also, statistically speaking on a per capita basis, you are about as equally likely to have died being shot in a school setting in Australia this year as you are in the U.S. The U.S. can outpace australia in school shootings 15:1 and still be equal per capita. You are also at least twice as likely to be killed by a radical muslim with a gun in Australia (5 so far I can recall) as you are to be killed in a school in America in 2015 so far.
 
FOX broadcasters decry Australians as "having no freedom" because of a lack of a right to gun ownership

Oh yes, freedom. Reminds me of this particular video (strong language).

No one is free. The sooner people accept it, the better. Some countries have less regulations that others. And that necessarily isn't a good thing.

Why isn't the 1500+ knife killings/murders also an issue? (2011 FBI figures)

Probably because: A) How do you even regulate a household item? B) It's a lot harder to get away with mass killing of people using knives perpetrated by a single person than it is to mass kill people using a single gun.

The reason people go crazy over guns during these mass shootings is that guns could have been regulated better to prevent them from being in the hands of the wrong person. You just can't regulate the other items like knives and baseball bats, but you can regulate guns, and you should considering it has so much of a destructive potential over the rest.

I'm not saying guns should be banned. But better regulations should be put in place.
 
Last edited:
Biased reporting is biased. He says, "that's not real freedom", not "Australians have no freedom".

Also, statistically speaking on a per capita basis, you are about as equally likely to have died being shot in a school setting in Australia this year as you are in the U.S. The U.S. can outpace australia in school shootings 15:1 and still be equal per capita. You are also at least twice as likely to be killed by a radical muslim with a gun in Australia (5 so far I can recall) as you are to be killed in a school in America in 2015 so far.

FOX broadcasters decry Australians as "having no freedom" because of a lack of a right to gun ownership, even though we never actually had a right to gun ownership in the first place (which is weird because we gave you Rupert Murdoch):

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-06/fox-news-anchor-claims-australians-have-no-freedom/6831618

If I have no freedom and you do, why did I choose to stay here? A few years ago I was sought out by a teaching exchange program that wanted to place me in a British or American school, but I turned it down because of the prevalence of mass shootings in American schools (and I turned the British placement down because they recruit you to take the places their own teachers won't touch).

To be blunt, there was a shooting of a civilian police contractor by a radicalised teenager last week. When his name and picture were released, I recognised them - I taught at his school (and probably taught him, though I don't remember him) when I was working casually at his school a few years ago. But I still feel far safer here than I would in an American school.

Even you slanted the news article that you quoted. I watched the segment in question, and it was only one of the few FOX commentators that actually made that claim, Tucker Carlson. One man's opinion shouldn't reflect on the organization at large.
 
As has been said, it might not be all that bad. If these acts are forgettable, they will probably be less attractive to attention seekers.

Even assuming, @Exorcet, as amateur psychologists, that such individuals are only interested in posthumous vain-glory, history shows that such individuals now come and go - a flash in the pan.
Some end up in prison - and get a whole lot of other attention.
This thread is not about the individuals getting attention posthumously - it's about them getting attention when they are alive.

As far as gun control goes, I wonder what ........XsnipX.......

This thread is not about gun control. Or the control of any means. I thought my gentle hint was more than readable.
It is about the routine labelling. It is about the shoving the danger under clever, legal words, and the attendent guin talk - because it was a shooting.
It was also a killing.
Murder in broad daylight.
It was premeditated murder.
But we can't call this person a murderer till it has been proved. Like some others who did this but were caught alive and are now in prison.

So I'll call the situation' for what it is as legally as possible, now. That will be a change in perception, a first change about this situation.

Tghis is routinely called 'mass shooting'.

Now I will change the title of the thread to get the message across even more forcefully.


I wonder if that has something to do with defenders sometimes having access to firearms? Pretty hard to do much with a knife at a gun fight.

Of course, I have heard of mass killings as the result of fertilizer and cars... as noted, the motive is the bigger issue rather than the tool.


Yes. I have to wade through reams of words only remotely connected with this topic of routineness applied to these killings to find a post that actually pertains to the topic.

The motive. The decisions behind wanting the 'ends'
I see posts in here that mix up the connotations of 'means' and 'ends'

That is why we are so busy discussing the means than why the ends. The means are discussed in various other threads, too. With the same players on stage.
In fact a player may come on this stage to claim that this is 'all the same old nonsense' and yet remain on to take central stage with many posts.

Around and around we go.

Let's start changing things around here.

For a start lets look harder at what they mean by 'neutralising' the suspect.
Let's look at the definition of 'mass killing' and how it sanitizes the situation.

Let's see if we can beat the Media and call a spade a spade.
 
If I have no freedom and you do, why did I choose to stay here?
Because the limits placed on your freedoms vs. the limits placed on other people's freedoms meets or exceeds your personal standards for freedom or the maximum you're willing to compromise on freedom.

It has absolutely nothing to do with how free you actually are.
 
Back