10 dead in Oregon College Shooting

[Gauthier]

Terrible news.

Then again, it will happen again, as long as the current policies and attitudes remain in place.

You really have to agree with Obama

"Somehow this has become routine...the reporting is routine, my response here at this podium ends up being routine, the conversation and aftermath of it, we've become...numb to this"

Like I said, it's going to reach a point where mass shootings are reported on news with the casualness of weather forecasts.

[Adventus Secundus]

Generally, mass murderers are cowards and unsportsmanlike: armed people who kill unarmed people generally are. Their weapons choice and the range that they employ said weapons at is simply reflective of their cowardice.

I'm interested to hear how you intend on carrying out a school shooting three hundred metres from said school.

I would argue that the Texas campus sniper was "more cowardly" than the likes of the Columbine shooter.
Not that it matters, since it's truly idiotic to try and compare.
It makes no sense.

Yeah. I'm done with this line of argument. The victims here deserve more respect than our respective political hobbyhorses. God have mercy.

[Kvatchdom]

I'm interested to hear how you intend on carrying out a school shooting three hundred metres from said school.

I would argue that the Texas campus sniper was "more cowardly" than the likes of the Columbine shooter.
Not that it matters, since it's truly idiotic to try and compare.
It makes no sense.

Yeah. I'm done with this line of argument. The victims here deserve more respect than our respective political hobbyhorses. God have mercy.

The victims did not deserve to die at all. The least you can do is prevent future shootings from happening.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Yeah. I'm done with this line of argument. The victims here deserve more respect than our respective political hobbyhorses. God have mercy.

The victims did not deserve to die at all. The least you can do is prevent future shootings from happening.

I can agree with that, it's a shame no one will ever try to fix the mental health system at this rate.

[The Four Taxmen of the Apocalypse]

The victims did not deserve to die at all. The least you can do is prevent future shootings from happening.

I can agree with that, it's a shame no one will ever try to fix the mental health system at this rate.

When you say "fix" it, you mean like free mental health care?

[Uxupox]

I can agree with that, it's a shame no one will ever try to fix the mental health system at this rate.

When you say "fix" it, you mean like free mental health care?

If it's needed then yes.

[Washington Resistance Army]

I can agree with that, it's a shame no one will ever try to fix the mental health system at this rate.

When you say "fix" it, you mean like free mental health care?

Literally anything would be better than the practically nonexistent and stigmatized all to hell nonsense that exists now.

[Sevvania]

New Zealand experienced mass shootings at a similar rate to Australia from 1980 to 1996. New Zealand hasn't had a mass shooting since 1996, despite continued availability of the semi-automatics Australia decided to crack down on.

Semi-Automatics have been tightly restricted in New Zealand since 1992.

As I understand it, that only applies to "military-style" semi-automatics.

Other things besides guns help too. We should probably ban those things too.

Name me a more efficient thing to kill, that is easily accessible to the general population, than guns and you might have a point.

But you won't, because there isn't.

In the United States, bare hands kill more than rifles and shotguns.

[Murovanka]

That would only lead to a society of paranoia.

I know you are joking but still.

Police should have Apache Gunships and Predator drones on 5 minute standby 24/7.

How about those lovely Davy Crockett rifles? The principle of MAD worked during the Cold War, I don't see why it wouldn't work in everyday life.

[Sevvania]

How about those lovely Davy Crockett rifles? The principle of MAD worked during the Cold War, I don't see why it wouldn't work in everyday life.

It always comes back to nukes.

https://youtu.be/E2tLVPVS0Bc?t=27
"Of course everyone carrying a nuclear [device] would be asinine, but I also think it's asinine to throw this rebuttal out like it's some sort of game-changer. No one should even want to own a nuclear [device], because the risk/cost benefit ratio makes absolutely no sense. If someone has a negligent discharge with a gun, maybe you destroy a .... glass table .... or, God forbid, maybe a person. But the same gun may save your life or the lives of others one day, so the risk/cost benefit ratio is pretty level in favor of being a benefit. Now what happens if [someone] accidentally sets off a concealed carry nuclear [device]? Lemme give you a hint: Everyone dies. A nuclear [device] in day-to-day life is unbelievably counterproductive. The risk/cost benefit ratio is obliterated because it's overkill, and self-destructive. It makes no sense. Setting off a nuclear [device] because somebody is trying to break into your house is earth-shatteringly dumb. Sure, you killed the guy who was trying to kill you, but you also killed... guess who? Yeah, that guy. You killed you, your family, your friends, the bad guy. But because accidents do happen, no one should be allowed to carry a nuclear [device]. The consequences of an accidental or intentional detonation would be catastrophic, and accomplish the very thing you were trying to prevent: your death. "

[States of Peru]

you cant ban weapons in the U.S. it would only make things worse
mexican cartels will get richer and richer by mass smuggling weapons just like they do with drugs

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Semi-Automatics have been tightly restricted in New Zealand since 1992.

As I understand it, that only applies to "military-style" semi-automatics.

Name me a more efficient thing to kill, that is easily accessible to the general population, than guns and you might have a point.

But you won't, because there isn't.

In the United States, bare hands kill more than rifles and shotguns.

I did say efficient, not numerically effective.

Generally, it takes a long fucking while to kill someone with your bare hands than killing someone with a bullet would.

[Senkaku]

In the United States, bare hands kill more than rifles and shotguns.

Yes, but you can't just slice everyone's hand's off (even then they'd just use the stumps). Whereas with guns, there is a clear course of action that could be taken to stop those deaths- get rid of them. It is much harder to kill large numbers of people with your bare hands than with an AR-15 or a Glock.

[Zeinbrad]

Apparently the killer asked people if they were Christian and then shot them in the head if they said yes.

That is an actually hate crime against Christians, Pat.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

In the United States, bare hands kill more than rifles and shotguns.

Yes, but you can't just slice everyone's hand's off (even then they'd just use the stumps). Whereas with guns, there is a clear course of action that could be taken to stop those deaths- get rid of them. It is much harder to kill large numbers of people with your bare hands than with an AR-15 or a Glock.

I disagree with the notion that getting rid of the guns will solve crimes.

It's not because getting rid of them won't achieve its intended purpose, but that it would create a black market where people can purchase a gun anyways.

[Washington Resistance Army]

As I understand it, that only applies to "military-style" semi-automatics.


In the United States, bare hands kill more than rifles and shotguns.

I did say efficient, not numerically effective.

Generally, it takes a long fucking while to kill someone with your bare hands than killing someone with a bullet would.

Not really, a solid enough throat strike could cause someone to die. But I digress.

Apparently the killer asked people if they were Christian and then shot them in the head if they said yes.

That is an actually hate crime against Christians, Pat.

Yeah, apparently the shooter was one of those few actual militant atheists.

[Senkaku]

Yes, but you can't just slice everyone's hand's off (even then they'd just use the stumps). Whereas with guns, there is a clear course of action that could be taken to stop those deaths- get rid of them. It is much harder to kill large numbers of people with your bare hands than with an AR-15 or a Glock.

I disagree with the notion that getting rid of the guns will solve crimes.

It's not because getting rid of them won't achieve its intended purpose, but that it would create a black market where people can purchase a gun anyways.

You know, people do always say that. How has it gone in Australia?
http://www.ibtimes.com.au/cost-illegal-firearms-australia-has-skyrocketed-criminals-now-do-gun-sharing-1378871
If you have that much money, you don't need to be a criminal. Put it in a savings account.

[Sevvania]

As I understand it, that only applies to "military-style" semi-automatics.


In the United States, bare hands kill more than rifles and shotguns.

I did say efficient, not numerically effective.

Generally, it takes a long fucking while to kill someone with your bare hands than killing someone with a bullet would.

But despite this disparity in efficiency, their use in homicide is comparatively rare, which is why it seems odd to decide that they need legislated against when they don't even account for around a third as many victims as knives do.

Yes, but you can't just slice everyone's hand's off (even then they'd just use the stumps). Whereas with guns, there is a clear course of action that could be taken to stop those deaths- get rid of them. It is much harder to kill large numbers of people with your bare hands than with an AR-15 or a Glock.

Simply "getting rid" of 300 million guns is not a simple or logical course of action, and even if it were, it's not particularly difficult to make a gun. Australia has had issues with biker gangs manufacturing fully-automatic submachine guns.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I did say efficient, not numerically effective.

Generally, it takes a long fucking while to kill someone with your bare hands than killing someone with a bullet would.

Not really, a solid enough throat strike could cause someone to die. But I digress.

Apparently the killer asked people if they were Christian and then shot them in the head if they said yes.

That is an actually hate crime against Christians, Pat.

Yeah, apparently the shooter was one of those few actual militant atheists.

A solid enough throat strike is pretty fucking hard to manage when, in a fight, the very first thing most people do is try to cover their throats. Unless you are shitfaced drunk then it really doesn't matter.

[Luziyca]

This is awful. Just terrible.

This. Hopefully, the USA will do something sensible and institute gun control for civilians.

[Senkaku]

I did say efficient, not numerically effective.

Generally, it takes a long fucking while to kill someone with your bare hands than killing someone with a bullet would.

Not really, a solid enough throat strike could cause someone to die. But I digress.

Are you seriously trying to say that you can effectively, efficiently kill large numbers of people with your bare hands just as fast as bullets would? If so, I am extremely impressed. I doubt even a Shaolin master could do that.

See, bullets are nice, because you can literally blow parts off of many people from hundreds of feet away, almost instantly. I don't think you can do that with your fist.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I did say efficient, not numerically effective.

Generally, it takes a long fucking while to kill someone with your bare hands than killing someone with a bullet would.

But despite this disparity in efficiency, their use in homicide is comparatively rare, which is why it seems odd to decide that they need legislated against when they don't even account for around a third as many victims as knives do.

Yes, but you can't just slice everyone's hand's off (even then they'd just use the stumps). Whereas with guns, there is a clear course of action that could be taken to stop those deaths- get rid of them. It is much harder to kill large numbers of people with your bare hands than with an AR-15 or a Glock.

Simply "getting rid" of 300 million guns is not a simple or logical course of action, and even if it were, it's not particularly difficult to make a gun. Australia has had issues with biker gangs manufacturing fully-automatic submachine guns.

I am not supportive of a ban on guns, mostly because of the gun culture in the United States and the effects of prohibition being present.

I am, however, not comfortable with the fact any maniac can get a gun, go to a college or any place where a crowd congregates, and mass murder people and being able to terrorize and kill students or other civilians.

[Zeinbrad]

I did say efficient, not numerically effective.

Generally, it takes a long fucking while to kill someone with your bare hands than killing someone with a bullet would.

Not really, a solid enough throat strike could cause someone to die. But I digress.

Apparently the killer asked people if they were Christian and then shot them in the head if they said yes.

That is an actually hate crime against Christians, Pat.

Yeah, apparently the shooter was one of those few actual militant atheists.

Washington, your knowledge on how to kill people scares me.

[Imperializt Russia]

Not really, a solid enough throat strike could cause someone to die. But I digress.

Are you seriously trying to say that you can effectively, efficiently kill large numbers of people with your bare hands just as fast as bullets would? If so, I am extremely impressed. I doubt even a Shaolin master could do that.

See, bullets are nice, because you can literally blow parts off of many people from hundreds of feet away, almost instantly. I don't think you can do that with your fist.

The speed argument is pretty irrelevant since very few mass shootings in the US have found a use for the possible rate of fire a semi-automatic weapon offers. The only one that immediately springs to mind was the Loughner shooting and less so the Aurora shooting. The Newtown shooting could be quite easily replicated with a pump-action shotgun or bolt-action rifle.

[BK117B2]

what would be the requirements for obtaining a license?

Well, for starters, people who have a violent criminal history and/or have been diagnosed with a mental illness shouldn't be able to obtain a gun license. Of course not everyone who has committed a mass shooting had a violent criminal history or was mentally ill, but it'll surely cut back on some of it.

A violent criminal history or major (harmful) mental illness already are exclusionary factors for legal firearm ownership and purchase.