10 dead in Oregon College Shooting

[Salus Maior]

What I want to see is reparations from the gun lobbyists & related groups that have exploded the amount of weapons and ammo easily available in the US over the last 100 years...

You want reparations for something that is actively untrue?
That's not really how reparations work.

Occupied Deutschland, I demand reparations from you. Because I don't like the fact that you occupied Deutschland ;P

[Kelinfort]

http://www.theverge.com/2015/10/1/94375 ... e-shooting
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ore ... 8127016099


Shooter may have been an edge meister.

[Hydesland]

What I want to see is reparations from the gun lobbyists & related groups that have exploded the amount of weapons and ammo easily available in the US over the last 100 years...

You want reparations for something that is actively untrue?
That's not really how reparations work.

That's not actively untrue. The availability of weapons has exploded to ridiculous proportions, one gun for every individual in the US. And it's happened because every single attempt over the last century to control the amount of weaponry in the US has been struck down by gun lobbyists who've duped the public and backed politicians that back their interests. But you've been past the point of no return for decades now.

[Washington Resistance Army]

You want reparations for something that is actively untrue?
That's not really how reparations work.

That's not actively untrue. The availability of weapons has exploded to ridiculous proportions, one gun for every individual in the US. And it's happened because every single attempt over the last century to control the amount of weaponry in the US has been struck down by gun lobbyists who've duped the public and backed politicians that back their interests. But you've been past the point of no return for decades now.

What's wrong with owning multiple weapons?

[Jute]

This is awful. Just terrible.

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

At least change anything for the better. And I tried to make the first reply not a controversial post, but something hopefully everyone can agree on.

[Cartagine]

Obviously these "regulations" or "laws" what you call it aren't enforced properly or at all as you claim yourself.

They tend to be fairly well enforced, though there are some areas that could use improvement. But the US has an almost nonexistent mental healthcare system that is heavily stigmatized, so that whole bit about not letting people who are crazy own guns doesn't really work because we don't really have a way to tell who is unfit to own one. That's why we should focus more on the mental healthcare than guns. You're also ignoring the fact that 99.99% of American gun owners are law abiding citizens.

And you think that such downward trend is going to continue forever? Its coming back at some point and at that time i'm sure you'll have another excuse waiting to spit out.
Aside from that though, even if its on a downward trend, are you seriously saying that there's no need to stop killing becouse less people are getting killed?

Yes actually I am. There's a pretty long list of things that kill more people than guns every year. The US has a population of 300+ million with just as many if not more guns. Last year 12,562 people died from being shot. That number includes self defense, accidental discharges, officer involved shootings and murders. Self defense (justifiable homicide) and accidents total up at about 3,000, so we take that off and the number drops to 9,500. In a nation of 320,000,000 or so, I'm not seeing that as a massive problem.

That's not really an excuse. You see, in my nation you, as the one who wants to own a gun, must proof to the government that you're mentally healthy enough to own a gun. Its pretty simple and easy to enforce.
I'm sure most people that own a gun aren't going to shoot at people with it, but the more guns there are the higher the chance of people getting shot. Its just the way it is, Always has been and Always will be.

Not a massive problem? Is owning a gun really more important to you than saving human lives? It certainly seems not.

I am only a threat to your safety if I intend to harm you. EDIt: Or am incompetent. Which I am not <insert argument for competency training of gun owners here>.
The existence of a weapon does not automatically equal the existence of a threat. Do you cringe walking past peace officers?

That you say you're not going to harm me isn't saying anything. I can't tell wether or not you are going to harm me and with barely any regulations on guns the chances only increase when it comes to wether or not you would harm me.
Pretty much everybdoy claims that their weapons are for self defense and that they aren't a threat, yet we see thousends of shootings each year in the US. Now how would i know that you're not one of those people lying about their reasons for a gun? how would i know that you aren't going to walk into a school tomorrow and shoot a dozen people there? Again, you may know that of yourself, but nobody knows that of you and we both know that alot of people have been going crazy with their guns even though they wouldn't admit it beforehand.
So again, yes you would be a risk to my safety and the safety of those around me.

[BK117B2]

You want reparations for something that is actively untrue?
That's not really how reparations work.

That's not actively untrue. The availability of weapons has exploded to ridiculous proportions, one gun for every individual in the US. And it's happened because every single attempt over the last century to control the amount of weaponry in the US has been struck down by gun lobbyists who've duped the public and backed politicians that back their interests. But you've been past the point of no return for decades now.

So people have provided money to those who back their interests...which seems much more reasonable than providing it to people who oppose their interests.

You still haven't shown why you should be owed any reparations from them

[Alyakia]

"guns are bad"
"well other countries have them fine"
"well, by your own logic, clearly america has a problem with guns"
"america is so fucked with guns there is really no hope of fixing it"

this is the pro-gun argument

it really is a routine

[BK117B2]

Is owning a gun really more important to you than saving human lives?

Saving human lives is a good reason to own a firearm

[Hydesland]

You still haven't shown why you should be owed any reparations from them

I didn't say I should be owed any reparations from them.

[BK117B2]

"guns are bad"
"well other countries have them fine"
"well, by your own logic, clearly america has a problem with guns"
"america is so fucked with guns there is really no hope of fixing it"

this is the pro-gun argument

it really is a routine

No, that's you going at it with a straw man.

Firearms are a very effective tool for self and collective defense.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Not a massive problem? Is owning a gun really more important to you than saving human lives? It certainly seems not.

Gun ownership has a lot of plus sides, including saving lives.

[BK117B2]

You still haven't shown why you should be owed any reparations from them

I didn't say I should be owed any reparations from them.

You've also yet to show that anyone is owed reparations from them.

[Occupied Deutschland]

You want reparations for something that is actively untrue?
That's not really how reparations work.

That's not actively untrue.

Yes it is, actually. Primarily because of three-four gun regulation bills which have banned and limited the legality of certain firearms. The National Firearms Act of 1935 (which banned or limited automatic weapons, short-barreled rifles and shotguns, suppressed firearms, and any firearm with a bore >.50 inches), the Gun Control Act of 1968 (which created the requirement for firearms to have 'sporting purpose' as determined by the ATF) are good starting points for your informational self-enhancement, and you should take careful note of their broad support by the gun lobbyists and related groups. We could also get a bit deeper into the weeds with generalized ATF regulations that have since arisen on the topic (922(r) compliance requirements, 'armor-piercing' ammunition bans, etc.) but I'll let you have fun with those doozies all by your lonesome.

The availability of weapons has exploded to ridiculous proportions, one gun for every individual in the US.

This isn't 'availability' as you were using it, this is 'ownership'.

And it's happened because every single attempt over the last century to control the amount of weaponry in the US has been struck down by gun lobbyists...

You just don't get tired of being actively incorrect, do you?

[Hydesland]

"guns are bad"
"well other countries have them fine"
"well, by your own logic, clearly america has a problem with guns"
"america is so fucked with guns there is really no hope of fixing it"

this is the pro-gun argument

it really is a routine

No, that's you going at it with a straw man.

Firearms are a very effective tool for self and collective defense.

Because the crime statistics clearly show how much safer the US is thanks to mass gun ownership. Oh wait.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I am only a threat to your safety if I intend to harm you. EDIt: Or am incompetent. Which I am not <insert argument for competency training of gun owners here>.
The existence of a weapon does not automatically equal the existence of a threat. Do you cringe walking past peace officers?

I don't really give a crap about how well trained you are in the current gun culture.

See, your training is diminished by the fact there's people who can easily get a gun with no training and no licensing out there. So any arguments based on how competent people are with their guns falls flat because you can get a gun at a gun show or a private purchase and it really makes no difference.

The existence of a weapon does not automatically equal the existence of a threat, but it damn well is if the person who has the weapon isn't trained in how to use it. And whether or not you are really trained with your gun is the question here, and given the fact of the ease of availability of guns to just anyone, he's actually right in being skeptical of your training or your motives in carrying a gun.

If you want this to stop then make sure your training is something that we can point at and say "well they have a point"; not something you can just claim you have and expect us to have faith in you.

[Occupied Deutschland]

"guns are bad"
"well other countries have them fine"
"well, by your own logic, clearly america has a problem with guns"
"america is so fucked with guns there is really no hope of fixing it"

this is the pro-gun argument

it really is a routine

Yes, when you don't bother listening to the pro-gun argument, I imagine that is a possible one you might come up with.

[BK117B2]

No, that's you going at it with a straw man.

Firearms are a very effective tool for self and collective defense.

Because the crime statistics clearly show how much safer the US is thanks to mass gun ownership. Oh wait.

The statistics have shown that a firearm with which to defend yourself increases your likelihood of surviving an attack.

[Washington Resistance Army]

No, that's you going at it with a straw man.

Firearms are a very effective tool for self and collective defense.

Because the crime statistics clearly show how much safer the US is thanks to mass gun ownership. Oh wait.

Defensive Gun Uses are a thing, it's a shame the vast majority are probably never reported.

[Uxupox]

"guns are bad"
"well other countries have them fine"
"well, by your own logic, clearly america has a problem with guns"
"america is so fucked with guns there is really no hope of fixing it"

this is the pro-gun argument

it really is a routine

Straw man is straw.

[Hydesland]

Yes it is, actually. Primarily because of three-four gun regulation bills which have banned and limited the legality of certain firearms.

I'm actively incorrect that the US has failed to control the quantity of guns because of three-to-four demonstrably ineffective (enough) bills to do so? Or are you just knocking down a strawman, because I didn't say guns were completely unregulated.

This isn't 'availability' as you were using it, this is 'ownership'.

I'm talking about sheer quantity.

You just don't get tired of being actively incorrect, do you?

You don't get tried of being actively naive, do you? Do you actually know what lobbying is, do you understand what the entire purpose of lobbying is?

[Alyakia]

"guns are bad"
"well other countries have them fine"
"well, by your own logic, clearly america has a problem with guns"
"america is so fucked with guns there is really no hope of fixing it"

this is the pro-gun argument

it really is a routine

Straw man is straw.

it's not a strawman, it's a summary of an argument i've had to have at least 15 times this year not counting random gun debates that pop up and i've seen the last statement being made on this very page. if anyone cannot recognize the pattern it speaks to their own inexperience.

[L Ron Cupboard]

Defensive Gun Uses are a thing, it's a shame the vast majority are probably never reported.

So how do you know they are a thing?

[Washington Resistance Army]

Defensive Gun Uses are a thing, it's a shame the vast majority are probably never reported.

So how do you know they are a thing?

Because justifiable homicides also count as DGU's, and some instances of non-lethal DGU's get reported (I pulled out a gun and he ran etc) but at least to me it seems like the majority of people wouldn't bother reporting anything. The numbers I've seen on DGU's range anywhere from like 50 or 60,000 to upwards of a million a year, Jim had a good source on it.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Yes it is, actually. Primarily because of three-four gun regulation bills which have banned and limited the legality of certain firearms.

I'm actively incorrect that the US has failed to control the quantity of guns because of three-to-four demonstrably ineffective (enough) bills to do so? Or are you just knocking down a strawman, because I didn't say guns were completely unregulated.

I'm knocking down your incorrect assertion that gun lobbyist and related groups have 'exploded' the amount of easily available guns and ammo by pointing you to two major laws passed with their support that restricted the supply of guns and ammo.
That your argument needs adjustment, redefinition, and additional verbiage isn't my 'strawmanning' it, it's your not having made a good argument.

This isn't 'availability' as you were using it, this is 'ownership'.

I'm talking about sheer quantity.

Then you should have said such instead of what you said. You also would need to clarify why exactly the quantity restricted is irrelevant, should you wish to go with your original argument instead of this amorphous blob of changing meaning you are creating to hide behind now.

You just don't get tired of being actively incorrect, do you?

You don't get tried of being actively naive, do you? Do you actually know what lobbying is, do you understand what the entire purpose of lobbying is?

Sure do.
I also know that, at multiple times in the last hundred years you so lament, the lobbies and groups you decry have compromised or given up their demands and accepted (even cooperated with passing on a number of occasions) rules and regulations which limit the supply of firearms and ammunition.
If you want to argue that's not enough, you have to actually make that argument not the one you were making.