Shooting in Oregon (Developing story)

16.5 said:
well, it seems he frequented websites that had vituperative anti-religion rhetoric which exacerbated his existing anti-social disorders.
Click to expand...
The Charleston gunman you referred to previously killed Christians, but the websites he seems to have frequented were of different orientation. He specifically targeted Black Christians.
Heidi Beirich, the director of the Intelligence Project for the Southern Poverty Law Center, a non-profit that maintains an online list of its designated American hate groups, said the gunman's reported self-declared motivation reflected a major topic on white supremacist websites, which are preoccupied with the idea that "whites are being hugely victimized by blacks and no one is paying attention." In particular, the shooter's reported claim that "you rape our women" ties into a long history of violence against blacks in the name of white womanhood ...​
 
Craig B said:
The Charleston gunman you referred to previously killed Christians, but the websites he seems to have frequented were of different orientation. He specifically targeted Black Christians.
Heidi Beirich, the director of the Intelligence Project for the Southern Poverty Law Center, a non-profit that maintains an online list of its designated American hate groups, said the gunman's reported self-declared motivation reflected a major topic on white supremacist websites, which are preoccupied with the idea that "whites are being hugely victimized by blacks and no one is paying attention." In particular, the shooter's reported claim that "you rape our women" ties into a long history of violence against blacks in the name of white womanhood ...​
Click to expand...

You liberals are the ones keeping racism alive!!!!![/conservative response]
 
We were warned early on that overpopulation would produce vast numbers of lunatics, which in turn would necessitate increasingly stringent restrictions on liberty. I first heard this warning approximately half a century ago.

What we have here is overpopulation and the attendant vast numbers of ludicrously well-armed loons, but without the restrictions on liberty, resulting in vast numbers of murders and various other acts of lunacy.

For example, 316,545 people killed by guns since Sandy Hook and the resultant talk storm.

I wonder how many people know a lungful of hot air can stir up a hurricane. It's a principle of chaos theory called the butterfly effect.

If we're going to risk stirring up hurricanes with our hot air, shouldn't we at least strive to imbue meaning to the hot air we emit?

I have no interest in proposing a remedy. I just wanted to point out that today was a long time coming. I've been watching it come for half a century.

Have a nice day.
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
BenBurch and Travis and others right here propose _very_ radical solutions to the problem. And yes, extremists on both sides prevent threads on this topic from being constructive.

See?
Click to expand...
I guess I make a distinction between people noting that non-gun fanatic countries have much fewer mass shootings and firearms deaths and what gun regulation promotion is actually being advocated.

There's a difference between fighting against any and every gun regulation proposed and proposing background checks and a short waiting period.

And saying this regulation wouldn't have stopped that shooting is nothing but an anecdotal approach. It's not the data we should be using.
 
thaiboxerken said:
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/10/arm...explaining-why-he-didnt-attack-oregon-killer/

There were good guys with guns in the area. It didn't really help.
Click to expand...
"in the area", that is a broad phrase.

“We were quite a distance away from the building where this was happening. And we could have opened ourselves up to be potential targets ourselves, and not knowing where SWAT was, their response time, they wouldn’t know who we were. And if we had our guns ready to shoot, they could think that we were bad guys.”

Parker noted that he was hustled into a classroom with other students by a professor who asked if anyone was armed. He said he raised his hand and said he would attempt to protect his fellow students if they came under attack.
Click to expand...

Ranb
 
Gawdzilla Sama said:
And if it wasn't in the Constitution the document would be irrelevant. I don't know anybody who is in a well-regulated militia.
Click to expand...
There is one, though, if not in the USA. I think the Founding Fathers had in mind something like this, in which nobody is prevented from serving on account of being prohibited to bear arms in the defence of the Confederation.
The structure of the Swiss militia system stipulates that the soldiers keep their own personal equipment, including all personally assigned weapons, at home (until 2007 this also included ammunition). Compulsory military service concerns all male Swiss citizens, with women serving voluntarily.​
I don't think they had in mind the insanity currently prevailing in the the United States.
 
Ranb said:
I don't think BenBurch knows what that word means.

Ranb
Click to expand...

Yeah, and I have built a .50 smoothbore myself.

But that simply is not something a criminal is going to do. A black powder weapon is not a mass killing weapon. When I was trying to see how quick I could reload and fire, it was at best like 45 seconds during which I was occupied and would have been vulnerable to being tackled.

Plus it misfired about 10% of the time. Then you need to worry about it hanging fire and that's annoying and could be fatal in a fight.

It is utterly not practical to build a gun for the commission of a crime because that gun you will build will not be very useful.

Not to mention making the black powder. I have done that and it wasn't very good black powder.
 
Elf Grinder 3000 said:
If you create gun free zones then you increase the likelihood of mass shootings which are very rare

The other issue is the left has no solution they just like to point fingers
Click to expand...

Great idea, this would have been better if armed amateurs had turned this into an orgy of fratricide by rushing in, not know who the shooter was (for all they knew it could have been another armed amateur) and the police not being able to tell which armed jackass to shoot. That's a great *********** plan.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
And saying this regulation wouldn't have stopped that shooting is nothing but an anecdotal approach. It's not the data we should be using.
Click to expand...

The anecdotal approach is the one being used by people that say shootings like these are the reason we need gun regulations. Refuting such anecdotes by saying the proposed gun regulations would have done nothing in this instance is simply being rational.
 
ThunderChunky said:
The anecdotal approach is the one being used by people that say shootings like these are the reason we need gun regulations. Refuting such anecdotes by saying the proposed gun regulations would have done nothing in this instance is simply being rational.
Click to expand...

I know, right? It's like pointing out that industry needs pollution regulation based on the fact that industries have polluted. Silly, right?
 
Tactical question: This guy was apparently shooting people up close in classrooms. He even stopped to reload at least once. If everybody rushed him at once, would they have a fair chance of overpowering him? I'd certainly cooperate with a gunman if I thought it would keep me alive, but once he started shooting I'd have to look for plan B.
 
thaiboxerken said:
I know, right? It's like pointing out that industry needs pollution regulation based on the fact that industries have polluted. Silly, right?
Click to expand...

It's nothing like that at all. LOL. But if we want to use the environmental analogy, it's like saying the BP oil spill is why we need more regulations on oil tankers.
 
Bob001 said:
Tactical question: This guy was apparently shooting people up close in classrooms. He even stopped to reload at least once. If everybody rushed him at once, would they have a fair chance of overpowering him? I'd certainly cooperate with a gunman if I thought it would keep me alive, but once he started shooting I'd have to look for plan B.
Click to expand...


Might work quite well if the group had drilled for it.

Otherwise someone's going to yell charge and just get shot in the head as everyone else hangs back not wanting to be first in.
 
Denver said:
Well, I guess the Onion can't be funny ALL the time.
Click to expand...
Gawdzilla Sama said:
I don't think they were even trying to be funny there, the subject isn't at all funny.
Click to expand...


I posted that article to Facebook yesterday, for the second time. I also commented on the satire in it being far less humorous than it is a simple commentary on a pathetic state of affairs.

ThunderChunky said:
If that guy had actually been at risk from the shooter, it seems he would have used his weapon to defend himself and others.
Click to expand...


How far away do potential victims have to be before the person carrying a weapon, partly to defend others, is no longer "obligated" to actually use it to defend others?

Regardless, the guy seems to believe that he was within a reasonable enough distance that he could have intervened if he had chosen to do so.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
I guess I make a distinction between people noting that non-gun fanatic countries have much fewer mass shootings and firearms deaths and what gun regulation promotion is actually being advocated.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that you or specific other people do it. I'm simply speaking of the general atmosphere of gun threads.
 
Those of us Gun Owners who favor things like more throough backgrounds checks and witing period,and who think right to carry laws are a bit silly, find convincing fellow gun owners is a lot more difficult because of all the rhetoric about totally banning guns,and/or rules on gun ownership that are so strict that it amounts to a de facto ban.
That is simply not going to happen.
I repeat, the tragedy is the discussion is dominating by the mlitants on both sides. It's all Diana Feinstein or the NRA,no middle positions seem to get any air time.
 
dudalb said:
Those of us Gun Owners who favor things like more throough backgrounds checks and witing period,and who think right to carry laws are a bit silly, find convincing fellow gun owners is a lot more difficult because of all the rhetoric about totally banning guns,and/or rules on gun ownership that are so strict that it amounts to a de facto ban.
That is simply not going to happen.
I repeat, the tragedy is the discussion is dominating by the mlitants on both sides. It's all Diana Feinstein or the NRA,no middle positions seem to get any air time.
Click to expand...
I've been and owner and a shooter for fifty years now. I don't think we need to get rid of all guns, I think we need to be rational about the guns we own. I just haven't seen a rational proposal from anybody yet.
 
Until politicians' families are affected directly, they have little motivation to do anything against the gun lobby. Obama has little to lose at this point in his presidency by speaking out.
 
Cl1mh4224rd said:
How far away do potential victims have to be before the person carrying a weapon, partly to defend others, is no longer "obligated" to actually use it to defend others?

Regardless, the guy seems to believe that he was within a reasonable enough distance that he could have intervened if he had chosen to do so.
Click to expand...

I haven't thought about it too much, but I don't think a person should be obligated to intervene in something like this unless they themselves believe it is the right thing to do at the time. My point is merely that this example doesn't dispel the argument about a good guy with a gun. Had circumstances been a little different the good guy with a gun here could have saved the day.

I don't think this guy was in a reasonable distance to be a hero. He would have had to approach the building with the shooter that was quite a distance away, find the shooter, and then shoot him. That's far from a simple task especially when you have no idea about the police response. It would be quite different if he saw the shooter and actually had a clean shot but chose not to take it because of some reason. The guy was ready to defend himself with his gun if the shooter had made his way over to him. That said, I don't buy the good guy with a gun argument anyways, it's just hat this is not in any way a counter example to that argument.

ETA: Also it appears there was a hero that charged the shooter and ended up being shot 7 times. Could have been different had this hero had a gun.
 
Last edited:
dudalb said:
Those of us Gun Owners who favor things like more throough backgrounds checks and witing period,and who think right to carry laws are a bit silly, find convincing fellow gun owners is a lot more difficult because of all the rhetoric about totally banning guns,and/or rules on gun ownership that are so strict that it amounts to a de facto ban.
That is simply not going to happen.
I repeat, the tragedy is the discussion is dominating by the mlitants on both sides. It's all Diana Feinstein or the NRA,no middle positions seem to get any air time.
Click to expand...

I'm a gun owner and I've long advocated a mandatory system of training for gun owners, and been called racist on this very forum for it.
 
3point14 said:
Might work quite well if the group had drilled for it.

Otherwise someone's going to yell charge and just get shot in the head as everyone else hangs back not wanting to be first in.
Click to expand...

Well, it could also work if they had time to plan.

Then again, I recall some kids successfully charging a shooter & stabbing him with a pencil with little to no planning.

I'd say its more about reacting in the correct way in a high stress situation. Nobody really knows how they'll react.
 
Last edited:
"The gunman who cut a deadly path through a college campus appeared armed for an extended siege according to investigators who were probing more deeply into suspicions the shooter may have been driven by religious rage and a fascination with the twisted notoriety of high-profile killers."

Anti-religious rage
 
332nd said:
Well, it could also work if they had time to plan.

Then again, I recall some kids successfully charging a shooter & stabbing him with a pistol with little to no planning.

I'd say its more about reacting in the correct way in a high stress situation. Nobody really knows how they'll react.
Click to expand...

That's...impressive!
 
16.5 said:
Sad, but two of the most recent mass casualty attacks in the US have been specifically directed against Christians
Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church and the Oregon shooter singled out Christians for killing in ‘horrific act of cowardice.'

JE SUIS CHRISTIAN
Click to expand...

BS. As far as we can tell, Dylann Roof's motivations were entirely racial. Christians are mentioned nowhere in his manifesto. Emanuel was chosen because it is in Charleston and, most likely, because of it's history.


I chose Charleston because it is most historic city in my state, and at one time had the highest ratio of blacks to Whites in the country. We have no skinheads, no real KKK, no one doing anything but talking on the internet. Well someone has to have the bravery to take it to the real world, and I guess that has to be me.
Click to expand...
 
ThunderChunky said:
The anecdotal approach is the one being used by people that say shootings like these are the reason we need gun regulations. Refuting such anecdotes by saying the proposed gun regulations would have done nothing in this instance is simply being rational.
Click to expand...
No, there is data that supports the assertion.

First, the increase in mass shootings in the last decade.

Second, the dozens of studies comparing the rate of gun related homicide in the US compared to similar cities and countries where guns are more heavily regulated.

Third: The Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence tracks important studies proving that smart laws can and do work to prevent gun violence. Our publications offer in-depth analysis of significant trends in firearms laws and policies nationwide.


Show me something besides anecdotes that gun regulations don't work. The studies I've seen are mostly comparing a gun reg in an area where guns are freely available nearby.

The common approach of the gun lobby is to say, look the regulations wouldn't have prevented this shooting. Or they trot out an incident where there was a good guy with a gun that stopped the shooter.

Show me good research that trumps all the 'regulations decrease shootings' studies.
 
Jrrarglblarg said:
I'm a gun owner and I've long advocated a mandatory system of training for gun owners, and been called racist on this very forum for it.
Click to expand...

Well, that would be consistent with the liberal tendency to ascribe racist intent to any policy that has disparate impact on racial minorities. For example, voter ID laws are called racist because they are claimed (without any actual evidence that I've seen) that they disproportionately make it more difficult for blacks to exercise their voting rights than whites. If a mandatory system of firearm training would present similar obstacles to people who were poor or had less reliable means of transportation, then there would probably be a disparate impact. Such a requirement would make it disproportionately more difficult for blacks to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights than whites.

Historically, there have been many gun control laws which were racist in intent. Southern white racists certainly did not want blacks to be allowed to own firearms.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom