http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/01/us/oregon-college-shooting/index.html
Quote(CNN)Preliminary information indicates 10 people were killed and more than 20 others injured in a shooting at Oregon's Umpqua Community College on Thursday, said Oregon State Police spokesman Bill Fugate.
Douglas County Commissioner Chris Boice told CNN that the shooter is in custody. It was not immediately clear whether the shooter was injured.
ATF agents were on the scene and canine teams are en route to search for explosives, fire arms casings and ammunition, a spokesman said.
Earlier, authorities told had said they were responding to reports of an active shooter at the Roseburg college campus.
Roseburg is a city of about 22,000 people located about 70 miles south of Eugene, Oregon, and some 180 miles south of Portland.
A picturesque campus in the North Umpqua River Valley, the school prides itself on a "a peaceful, safe atmosphere, and year-round recreational activities," according to its website.
It's not a traditional institution of higher learning, as the average age of its 13,600 students was 38 during the 2013-2014 school year. Only 740 of those were full time, 2,437 were part time and more than 10,000 fell under the umbrella of "community education."
It first began teaching classes out of rented facilities in 1961. Elton and Ruth Jackson donated 98.5 acres to house the campus in 1965.
:(
Terrible. I assume no clue as to motive yet.
:(
Obligatory Onion article: http://www.theonion.com/article/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-this-36131
:(
Fuck. This just happens too often in the US, guys. It's not even unusual any more.
Quote from: Hamilcar on October 01, 2015, 02:29:05 PM
Obligatory Onion article: http://www.theonion.com/article/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-this-36131
Yup.
13 dead :(
Gunman was killed in a shootout with police, not sure if he's included in that count.
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/oregon-college-shooting/multiple-casualties-after-shooting-umpqua-community-college-n437051
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 01, 2015, 04:59:03 PM
13 dead :(
Gunman was killed in a shootout with police, not sure if he's included in that count.
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/oregon-college-shooting/multiple-casualties-after-shooting-umpqua-community-college-n437051
This is odd:
QuoteThe shooter told people to get on the ground and started asking them people to stand up and state their religion, Moore told the newspaper.
I wonder what was the "right answer".
Quote from: Malthus on October 01, 2015, 05:04:41 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 01, 2015, 04:59:03 PM
13 dead :(
Gunman was killed in a shootout with police, not sure if he's included in that count.
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/oregon-college-shooting/multiple-casualties-after-shooting-umpqua-community-college-n437051
This is odd:
QuoteThe shooter told people to get on the ground and started asking them people to stand up and state their religion, Moore told the newspaper.
I wonder what was the "right answer".
Huitzilopochtli?
Malthus would have been the perfect person to ask. By the time he had fully explained how his religious views should probably be characterized the police would have arrived on the scene and arrested the shooter.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 01, 2015, 06:38:56 PM
Malthus would have been the perfect person to ask. By the time he had fully explained how his religious views should probably be characterized the police would have arrived on the scene and arrested the shooter.
Does it really take that long to say "I'm a non-observant Jew"? Or are Malthus beliefs more complicated than I recall? :unsure:
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 01, 2015, 06:38:56 PM
Malthus would have been the perfect person to ask. By the time he had fully explained how his religious views should probably be characterized the police would have arrived on the scene and arrested the shooter.
:lol:
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 01, 2015, 06:38:56 PM
Malthus would have been the perfect person to ask. By the time he had fully explained how his religious views should probably be characterized the police would have arrived on the scene and arrested the shooter.
:D
Quote from: Malthus on October 01, 2015, 02:03:16 PM
Terrible. I assume no clue as to motive yet.
Just another emo, narcissistic wanker I expect..............with easy access to lethal hardware.
In Europe he would have had to make do with running about campus with a small penknife.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on October 02, 2015, 02:01:45 AM
Quote from: Malthus on October 01, 2015, 02:03:16 PM
Terrible. I assume no clue as to motive yet.
Just another emo, narcissistic wanker I expect..............with easy access to lethal hardware.
In Europe he would have had to make do with running about campus with a small penknife.
Depends on the country, doesn't it? E.g. in Switzerland he would likely have had an assault rifle at home. Though the mountain gnomes are a bit of an outlier on the continent in that regard.
Mass shootings like this were extremely rare before Columbine and there were plenty of semiautomatic weapons in circulation then. Not sure what change in the nation's psche brought the current state of affairs about.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on October 02, 2015, 02:01:45 AM
Quote from: Malthus on October 01, 2015, 02:03:16 PM
Terrible. I assume no clue as to motive yet.
Just another emo, narcissistic wanker I expect..............with easy access to lethal hardware.
In Europe he would have had to make do with running about campus with a small penknife.
I recall a certain tragedy in Norway.
Quote from: Martinus on October 01, 2015, 02:58:17 PM
Fuck. This just happens too often in the US, guys. It's not even unusual any more.
You don't say?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 02, 2015, 02:50:57 AM
Mass shootings like this were extremely rare before Columbine and there were plenty of semiautomatic weapons in circulation then. Not sure what change in the nation's psche brought the current state of affairs about.
We had a couple in Texas in the 90s before Columbine. They were not in schools though.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 02, 2015, 02:50:57 AM
Mass shootings like this were extremely rare before Columbine and there were plenty of semiautomatic weapons in circulation then. Not sure what change in the nation's psche brought the current state of affairs about.
24 hour news cycle and reality television. Now people are primed to grab their fifteen minutes.
Quote from: Malthus on October 01, 2015, 05:04:41 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 01, 2015, 04:59:03 PM
13 dead :(
Gunman was killed in a shootout with police, not sure if he's included in that count.
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/oregon-college-shooting/multiple-casualties-after-shooting-umpqua-community-college-n437051 (http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/oregon-college-shooting/multiple-casualties-after-shooting-umpqua-community-college-n437051)
This is odd:
QuoteThe shooter told people to get on the ground and started asking them people to stand up and state their religion, Moore told the newspaper.
I wonder what was the "right answer".
This was reported to have happened at Columbine. Probably a fucking copycat.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 01, 2015, 06:38:56 PM
Malthus would have been the perfect person to ask. By the time he had fully explained how his religious views should probably be characterized the police would have arrived on the scene and arrested the shooter.
:lol:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 02, 2015, 02:50:57 AM
Mass shootings like this were extremely rare before Columbine and there were plenty of semiautomatic weapons in circulation then. Not sure what change in the nation's psche brought the current state of affairs about.
I wouldn't say extremely rare:
http://timelines.latimes.com/deadliest-shooting-rampages/ (http://timelines.latimes.com/deadliest-shooting-rampages/)
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/mass-shootings-investigation (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/mass-shootings-investigation)
But guns aren't the only cause.
Accessibility to guns is the big matter. That just about anyone can get just about any type of weapon without any kind of justification/investigation is beyond silly. You give lots of people with mental health problems access to deadly weapons.
Then, there's the matter of American culture where many people still think they live in a far west movie and they have to solve their problems themselves. With guns.
And lastly, we attack the mental health problem. This goes to health care accessibility and the fact that you can't seem to commit depressive people against their will. This is the biggest issue, imho. Societal taboo that push some to keep schizophrenic family member at home without decent care and other problems related to lack of decent healthcare for low to average family income.
Quote from: viper37 on October 02, 2015, 08:58:26 AM
http://timelines.latimes.com/deadliest-shooting-rampages/ (http://timelines.latimes.com/deadliest-shooting-rampages/)
Yep there is the Killeen massacre and the Fort Worth church shooting. Both pre-Columbine.
QuoteAnd lastly, we attack the mental health problem. This goes to health care accessibility and the fact that you can't seem to commit depressive people against their will. This is the biggest issue, imho. Societal taboo that push some to keep schizophrenic family member at home without decent care and other problems related to lack of decent healthcare for low to average family income.
And even better the more fanatic 2nd Amendment types think any mental health check before selling a gun is a form of gun control.
Quote from: Valmy on October 02, 2015, 09:16:09 AM
And even better the more fanatic 2nd Amendment types think any mental health check before selling a gun is a form of gun control.
It does sound like gun control to me, but very reasonable and essential gun control.
Quote from: Monoriu on October 02, 2015, 09:17:41 AM
Quote from: Valmy on October 02, 2015, 09:16:09 AM
And even better the more fanatic 2nd Amendment types think any mental health check before selling a gun is a form of gun control.
It does sound like gun control to me, but very reasonable and essential gun control.
The 2A fanatics think any form of "control" on guns is unreasonable, even though 2A puts a precondition on the right to bear arms. Nutty is as nutty does.
Quote from: viper37 on October 02, 2015, 08:58:26 AM
And lastly, we attack the mental health problem. This goes to health care accessibility and the fact that you can't seem to commit depressive people against their will. This is the biggest issue, imho. Societal taboo that push some to keep schizophrenic family member at home without decent care and other problems related to lack of decent healthcare for low to average family income.
This is a legacy of our terrible experience with institutionalization in the 40s through the 70s. When people saw what was going on, particularly after
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, the backlash created a situation where people who needed help had a really hard time getting it because the resources weren't there anymore. It was still an "out of sight, out of mind" issue, but "out of sight" became people's homes or the streets instead of what were effectively minimum security prisons.
Quote from: Valmy on October 02, 2015, 09:16:09 AM
And even better the more fanatic 2nd Amendment types think any mental health check before selling a gun is a form of gun control.
Ok, there are probably fanatic 2nd Amendment types and fanatic anti-gun types - but wouldn't the moderates wishing to introduce some form of gun control (such as background checks and waiting periods, for example) whilst keeping the right to bear arms in principle, be the majority? It seems like this is one of these issues where politicians on both sides are more interested in keeping it as a wedge issue rather than a problem to be solved by compromise.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 02, 2015, 10:30:18 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on October 02, 2015, 09:17:41 AM
Quote from: Valmy on October 02, 2015, 09:16:09 AM
And even better the more fanatic 2nd Amendment types think any mental health check before selling a gun is a form of gun control.
It does sound like gun control to me, but very reasonable and essential gun control.
The 2A fanatics think any form of "control" on guns is unreasonable, even though 2A puts a precondition on the right to bear arms. Nutty is as nutty does.
Ok but clearly they are not the majority, right? Can't reasonable people on both sides of the aisle reach a compromise and simply outvote the fanatics?
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on October 02, 2015, 10:34:56 AM
Quote from: viper37 on October 02, 2015, 08:58:26 AM
And lastly, we attack the mental health problem. This goes to health care accessibility and the fact that you can't seem to commit depressive people against their will. This is the biggest issue, imho. Societal taboo that push some to keep schizophrenic family member at home without decent care and other problems related to lack of decent healthcare for low to average family income.
This is a legacy of our terrible experience with institutionalization in the 40s through the 70s. When people saw what was going on, particularly after One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, the backlash created a situation where people who needed help had a really hard time getting it because the resources weren't there anymore. It was still an "out of sight, out of mind" issue, but "out of sight" became people's homes or the streets instead of what were effectively minimum security prisons.
I agree. We had the same circumstance here. Community treatment became the prevailing model. Problem is it is impossible to provide community care to people who really should be receiving care within a medical institution. There seems to be a growing realization that we threw the baby out with the bathwater on this one. But now we face the problem that rebuilding the infrastructure for institutional care that had been abandoned will be very expensive. So now most of the people that had been institutionalized in mental care facilities are institutionalized in our criminal justice system.
It is a very difficult problem.
Quote from: Martinus on October 02, 2015, 10:51:09 AM
Ok but clearly they are not the majority, right? Can't reasonable people on both sides of the aisle reach a compromise and simply outvote the fanatics?
You just do not get how these things work Marty. But then, neither do I, so I cannot answer you.
Cue in some feminist writing an article about "insane-shaming". 3. 2. 1.
Quote from: Valmy on October 02, 2015, 10:55:21 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 02, 2015, 10:51:09 AM
Ok but clearly they are not the majority, right? Can't reasonable people on both sides of the aisle reach a compromise and simply outvote the fanatics?
You just do not get how these things work Marty. But then, neither do I, so I cannot answer you.
Yeah, well it's the same in Poland more or less. If one party supports something, the other is against it, no thoughs or buts. I wonder how we got to this and is there a way out.
Quote from: Martinus on October 02, 2015, 10:51:09 AM
Ok but clearly they are not the majority, right?
They are the majority who donate & vote based on the issue.
I recall that someone gave a very good analysis about the politics surrounding this issue after another of these tragic events but I cant seem to find it.
Quote from: Martinus on October 02, 2015, 10:50:04 AM
Quote from: Valmy on October 02, 2015, 09:16:09 AM
And even better the more fanatic 2nd Amendment types think any mental health check before selling a gun is a form of gun control.
Ok, there are probably fanatic 2nd Amendment types and fanatic anti-gun types - but wouldn't the moderates wishing to introduce some form of gun control (such as background checks and waiting periods, for example) whilst keeping the right to bear arms in principle, be the majority? It seems like this is one of these issues where politicians on both sides are more interested in keeping it as a wedge issue rather than a problem to be solved by compromise.
It is actually an example of where a minority can hold a democracy hostage to their views, even while the majority thinks they are bonkers.
It is a third rail for the radical gun nuts. Any attempt to have any kind of gun control is an instant and total reversal of any support for a politician, regardless of other views. Your typical gun nut would vote for a no gun control ever Sarah Palin over any kind of sane gun control advocate even if they aligned with all other views and where clearly a superior choice.
Couple that with vesting all political capital in the gun control debate into an organization that has been completely taken over by the complete crazies (the NRA) and the problem is considerably worse than simply whether we can have rational gun control. The debate happening right now is whether the NRA and their ilk will even allow current laws on the books to be enforced, much less discuss new ones.
The one issue I agree with NRA on is that it really is a mental health problem much more than it is a gun problem. That said, we may differ somewhat on whose mental health is the issue.
Quote from: DGuller on October 02, 2015, 11:44:06 AM
The one issue I agree with NRA on is that it really is a mental health problem much more than it is a gun problem. That said, we may differ somewhat on whose mental health is the issue.
I will buy that once the NRA starts championing mental health services and working to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill. But this is just their excuse to justify doing nothing, rather than a call for action.
Quote from: Valmy on October 02, 2015, 11:45:52 AM
Quote from: DGuller on October 02, 2015, 11:44:06 AM
The one issue I agree with NRA on is that it really is a mental health problem much more than it is a gun problem. That said, we may differ somewhat on whose mental health is the issue.
I will buy that once the NRA starts championing mental health services and working to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill. But this is just their excuse to justify doing nothing, rather than a call for action.
Quote from: Wayne
The 2nd says nothing about only sane people being allowed to have a gun.
If the mentally ill don't have guns, how can they defend themselves against the mentally ill who have guns defending themselves against the mentally ill with guns?
Quote from: DGuller on October 02, 2015, 11:44:06 AM
The one issue I agree with NRA on is that it really is a mental health problem much more than it is a gun problem. That said, we may differ somewhat on whose mental health is the issue.
If you consider clinical paranoia a mental health issue, this isn't even really a joke.
Your typical gun nut isn't opposed to background checks and whatever on the merits, but rather because they truly believe that the end goal is US black helicopters coming to take away THEIR guns, and any control beyond what exists now is just a step in that direction.
You really cannot reason with them any longer.
So the problem is the mentally ill having guns...and we are in favor of that. To deal with all these mentally insane delusional people being heavily armed might we suggest getting some guns :P
Yeah that is typically how they think.
Quote from: Malthus on October 01, 2015, 05:04:41 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 01, 2015, 04:59:03 PM
13 dead :(
Gunman was killed in a shootout with police, not sure if he's included in that count.
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/oregon-college-shooting/multiple-casualties-after-shooting-umpqua-community-college-n437051
This is odd:
QuoteThe shooter told people to get on the ground and started asking them people to stand up and state their religion, Moore told the newspaper.
I wonder what was the "right answer".
Answering "christian" got you shot in the head. Other answers got you shot in the leg.
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/world/youre-going-to-see-god-oregon-shooter-asked-hostages-if-they-were-christians-witnesses-say
Quote from: Berkut on October 02, 2015, 11:30:30 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 02, 2015, 10:50:04 AM
Quote from: Valmy on October 02, 2015, 09:16:09 AM
And even better the more fanatic 2nd Amendment types think any mental health check before selling a gun is a form of gun control.
Ok, there are probably fanatic 2nd Amendment types and fanatic anti-gun types - but wouldn't the moderates wishing to introduce some form of gun control (such as background checks and waiting periods, for example) whilst keeping the right to bear arms in principle, be the majority? It seems like this is one of these issues where politicians on both sides are more interested in keeping it as a wedge issue rather than a problem to be solved by compromise.
It is actually an example of where a minority can hold a democracy hostage to their views, even while the majority thinks they are bonkers.
It is a third rail for the radical gun nuts. Any attempt to have any kind of gun control is an instant and total reversal of any support for a politician, regardless of other views. Your typical gun nut would vote for a no gun control ever Sarah Palin over any kind of sane gun control advocate even if they aligned with all other views and where clearly a superior choice.
Couple that with vesting all political capital in the gun control debate into an organization that has been completely taken over by the complete crazies (the NRA) and the problem is considerably worse than simply whether we can have rational gun control. The debate happening right now is whether the NRA and their ilk will even allow current laws on the books to be enforced, much less discuss new ones.
So I guess you guys just need to mobilise and change the system by electing people who are not hostage to the gun lobby - that is if you cared enough about it to do something instead of bitching on online forums. :D
Quote from: Barrister on October 02, 2015, 12:29:14 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 01, 2015, 05:04:41 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 01, 2015, 04:59:03 PM
13 dead :(
Gunman was killed in a shootout with police, not sure if he's included in that count.
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/oregon-college-shooting/multiple-casualties-after-shooting-umpqua-community-college-n437051
This is odd:
QuoteThe shooter told people to get on the ground and started asking them people to stand up and state their religion, Moore told the newspaper.
I wonder what was the "right answer".
Answering "christian" got you shot in the head. Other answers got you shot in the leg.
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/world/youre-going-to-see-god-oregon-shooter-asked-hostages-if-they-were-christians-witnesses-say
I wonder what you got for a Discordian Thelemite Jungian. :hmm:
Quote from: Martinus on October 02, 2015, 12:46:10 PM
So I guess you guys just need to mobilise and change the system by electing people who are not hostage to the gun lobby - that is if you cared enough about it to do something instead of bitching on online forums. :D
The problem is I am not sure what exactly I want beyond not being held hostage by the gun lobby.
Quote from: Martinus on October 02, 2015, 12:46:10 PM
So I guess you guys just need to mobilise and change the system by electing people who are not hostage to the gun lobby - that is if you cared enough about it to do something instead of bitching on online forums. :D
It doesn't work that way - we don't get options between those who are willing to enact more gun restrictions and those who are not, since the system weeds out those who are willing before they are ever a choice for most.
Quote from: Barrister on October 02, 2015, 12:29:14 PM
Answering "christian" got you shot in the head. Other answers got you shot in the leg.
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/world/youre-going-to-see-god-oregon-shooter-asked-hostages-if-they-were-christians-witnesses-say
I wonder what "militant atheist" would have gotten...
There has been a call to not glorify the shooter or mention his name or background.
Unsurprisingly, I've read a lot of comments from people who filled in the void by making him a Muslim terrorist with ties to ISIS here to execute Christians.
Ah so withholding the name of the shooter to rob him of his 15 minutes triggers conspiracy theories? Shocking.
Quote from: Martinus on October 02, 2015, 12:46:10 PM
So I guess you guys just need to mobilise and change the system by electing people who are not hostage to the gun lobby - that is if you cared enough about it to do something instead of bitching on online forums. :D
You seem to be operating under the assumption that America is a democracy or a republic, rather than a plutocracy. :hmm:
Quote from: Martinus on October 02, 2015, 12:46:10 PM
So I guess you guys just need to mobilise and change the system by electing people who are not hostage to the gun lobby - that is if you cared enough about it to do something instead of bitching on online forums. :D
This is the kind of empty statement that is easy to make in online debates about individual issues, but not easy to do. This is but one of many important positions a representative will have. What am I supposed to do if all the potential candidates have a position I don't like on at least key issue?
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on October 02, 2015, 01:55:21 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 02, 2015, 12:46:10 PM
So I guess you guys just need to mobilise and change the system by electing people who are not hostage to the gun lobby - that is if you cared enough about it to do something instead of bitching on online forums. :D
This is the kind of empty statement that is easy to make in online debates about individual issues, but not easy to do. This is but one of many important positions a representative will have. What am I supposed to do if all the potential candidates have a position I don't like on at least key issue?
Run!
Quote from: Jaron on October 02, 2015, 01:26:45 PM
There has been a call to not glorify the shooter or mention his name or background.
Yeah, there is a bit of that in this story: http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/02/us/oregon-school-shooting-hero/
QuoteSome on social media hailed Mintz's courage and encouraged people to remember him rather than the killer.
I'm not hearing a great deal of thought put into the regulatory specifics. In other words, what type of gun control is supposed to keep guns out of the hands of mass shooters?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 02, 2015, 02:26:57 PM
I'm not hearing a great deal of thought put into the regulatory specifics. In other words, what type of gun control is supposed to keep guns out of the hands of mass shooters?
Indeed. That is the thing. I am not sure what regulation is required. But somehow I don't think continuing to put more guns out there is the solution either.
Edit: As in the calls to make carry legal everywhere.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 02, 2015, 02:26:57 PM
I'm not hearing a great deal of thought put into the regulatory specifics. In other words, what type of gun control is supposed to keep guns out of the hands of mass shooters?
Mandatory licensing in order to own firearms, requiring safety courses and background checks.
Bans on assault rifles and large capacity magazines.
Bans on carrying weapons in public places, open or concealed.
Ban private ownership of handguns.
Run afoul of the second amendment? Probably.
Yeah I was about to say assault weapons are usually not the issue, handguns are...but you had that covered :P
Quote from: Berkut on October 02, 2015, 01:12:50 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 02, 2015, 12:29:14 PM
Answering "christian" got you shot in the head. Other answers got you shot in the leg.
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/world/youre-going-to-see-god-oregon-shooter-asked-hostages-if-they-were-christians-witnesses-say (http://news.nationalpost.com/news/world/youre-going-to-see-god-oregon-shooter-asked-hostages-if-they-were-christians-witnesses-say)
I wonder what "militant atheist" would have gotten...
Kiss on the cheek and a pat on the ass.
Quote from: Barrister on October 02, 2015, 02:35:37 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 02, 2015, 02:26:57 PM
I'm not hearing a great deal of thought put into the regulatory specifics. In other words, what type of gun control is supposed to keep guns out of the hands of mass shooters?
Mandatory licensing in order to own firearms, requiring safety courses and background checks.
Bans on assault rifles and large capacity magazines.
Bans on carrying weapons in public places, open or concealed.
Ban private ownership of handguns.
Run afoul of the second amendment? Probably.
That's not feasible in the US legal system.
I think background checks and waiting periods should, at least, deal with "spur of the moment" nutcases who, I would intuitively guess, account for most of the cases. Europe has the same problem with "long term planners" so you can't real eliminate that in any case.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 02, 2015, 02:54:12 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 02, 2015, 01:12:50 PM
I wonder what "militant atheist" would have gotten...
Kiss on the cheek and a pat on the ass.
Not if the killer really was ISIS. :unsure:
I don't see what good background checks would do. Most of the shooters in recent years have not been convicted of prior felonies and have not been diagnosed with a mental illness. Unless we're going to deny gun licenses to people who dress kind of weird and are loners.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 02, 2015, 03:23:06 PM
I don't see what good background checks would do. Most of the shooters in recent years have not been convicted of prior felonies and have not been diagnosed with a mental illness. Unless we're going to deny gun licenses to people who dress kind of weird and are loners.
Exactly. I do not know what should be done about this. I don't know if the opposite, relaxing everything and allowing carry everywhere, is really the right answer either.
I like people that open carry...
...they become the first target and that allows the conceled carry people to respond to the situation. ;)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 02, 2015, 03:23:06 PM
I don't see what good background checks would do. Most of the shooters in recent years have not been convicted of prior felonies and have not been diagnosed with a mental illness. Unless we're going to deny gun licenses to people who dress kind of weird and are loners.
:hmm: Gun licenses?
Quote from: Berkut on October 02, 2015, 01:12:50 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 02, 2015, 12:29:14 PM
Answering "christian" got you shot in the head. Other answers got you shot in the leg.
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/world/youre-going-to-see-god-oregon-shooter-asked-hostages-if-they-were-christians-witnesses-say
I wonder what "militant atheist" would have gotten...
I thought Stalin disbanded that group :huh: :P.
What does a militant atheist do?
Does he strap a bomb vest on, walk into a church and blow it up. All in the name of Logic and Reason. :lol:
Shoots Muslims over a parking dispute.
:o A PAGAN. ONE OF THE WICKER PEOPLE.
QuotePhotos from MySpace The Oregon gunman who lined up his victims and asked specifically which ones were Christians before shooting them execution style, had a special interest in "magick" and "spiritualism" and had joined a dating website called "Spiritual Passion." On the site, Christopher Harper Mercer, 26, who killed 10 people and injured seven at Umpqua...
http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2015/10/oregon-shooter-into-occult-wiccan-dating-website-shutters-public-access-to-killers-profile-3223138.html
I thought the IRA was mainly catholic
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wnd.com%2Ffiles%2F2015%2F10%2Fmercer.jpg&hash=1ea6b2daedfe6d54ae3b9a028c6c91deac1ffb8c)
Quote
He also made clear that he had a disdain for organized religion. Using the handle "IronCross45," Mercer describes himself as a "not religious," man who lives with his parents. He belonged to a group on the site who shared common interests in "magick and the occult." Under the category of "Religious Views," Mercer wrote that he is not religious but is "spiritual" and was interested in "pagan" and "wiccan."
He listed "vampire, piercings, psychic, tattoos" under the category of "Individuality."
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/10/oregon-shooter-into-occult-wiccan/#SuZQt2QY9rJ9rLt8.99
Quote from: Valmy on October 02, 2015, 03:25:09 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 02, 2015, 03:23:06 PM
I don't see what good background checks would do. Most of the shooters in recent years have not been convicted of prior felonies and have not been diagnosed with a mental illness. Unless we're going to deny gun licenses to people who dress kind of weird and are loners.
Exactly. I do not know what should be done about this. I don't know if the opposite, relaxing everything and allowing carry everywhere, is really the right answer either.
Shit no.
How about Obamaguns? Everybody gets a gun!
Quote from: Ideologue on October 02, 2015, 06:55:50 PM
How about Obamaguns? Everybody gets a gun!
I don't want Raz to have a gun. Nothing personal, however.
Quote from: 11B4V on October 02, 2015, 07:08:53 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 02, 2015, 06:55:50 PM
How about Obamaguns? Everybody gets a gun!
I don't want Raz to have a gun. Nothing personal, however.
I had a gun. Gave it up. I didn't think was right for me to have. :)
Quote from: Razgovory on October 02, 2015, 07:48:48 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on October 02, 2015, 07:08:53 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 02, 2015, 06:55:50 PM
How about Obamaguns? Everybody gets a gun!
I don't want Raz to have a gun. Nothing personal, however.
I had a gun. Gave it up. I didn't think was right for me to have. :)
You know I'm messing with ya. :)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 02, 2015, 02:26:57 PM
I'm not hearing a great deal of thought put into the regulatory specifics. In other words, what type of gun control is supposed to keep guns out of the hands of mass shooters?
I think our system is basically only police, the military, athletes, and a very exclusive gun club are allowed to own guns. Everybody who owns a gun and every gun are registered. There are very strict rules on storing and transporting guns. Even the majority of off duty police officers are not allowed to take their guns home. Anybody found with so much as an unregistered bullet on them gets 10 years in prison, or more. The regulatory regime is so successful that even the triads don't really use guns anymore.
Quote from: Monoriu on October 02, 2015, 10:22:14 PM
The regulatory regime is so successful that even the triads don't really use guns anymore.
I've watched enough kung fu movies to know they aren't very useful anyway. ;)
I think the HK gun club president, who is really crazy about guns, illegally bought more guns than his licence allowed. He put all his guns in his home, but one day accidentally shot himself in the leg. He agonised for many hours before his family sent him to the hospital. He had a licence, never used his guns for any purpose other than as a hobby etc but still got many years in prison. I think he is still inside.
Quote from: 11B4V on October 02, 2015, 06:25:47 PM
:o A PAGAN. ONE OF THE WICKER PEOPLE.
QuotePhotos from MySpace The Oregon gunman who lined up his victims and asked specifically which ones were Christians before shooting them execution style, had a special interest in "magick" and "spiritualism" and had joined a dating website called "Spiritual Passion." On the site, Christopher Harper Mercer, 26, who killed 10 people and injured seven at Umpqua...
http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2015/10/oregon-shooter-into-occult-wiccan-dating-website-shutters-public-access-to-killers-profile-3223138.html
So my Discordian Thelemite Jungian line would have probably been a safe pick. :hmm:
Quote from: Martinus on October 03, 2015, 12:27:16 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on October 02, 2015, 06:25:47 PM
:o A PAGAN. ONE OF THE WICKER PEOPLE.
QuotePhotos from MySpace The Oregon gunman who lined up his victims and asked specifically which ones were Christians before shooting them execution style, had a special interest in "magick" and "spiritualism" and had joined a dating website called "Spiritual Passion." On the site, Christopher Harper Mercer, 26, who killed 10 people and injured seven at Umpqua...
http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2015/10/oregon-shooter-into-occult-wiccan-dating-website-shutters-public-access-to-killers-profile-3223138.html
So my Discordian Thelemite Jungian line would have probably been a safe pick. :hmm:
Probably. Had he have been a militant atheist, he would have shot everybody in the head.
Had they been Hindus, he would have said "Prepare to meet Kali...in HELL"
Quote from: 11B4V on October 03, 2015, 12:40:23 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 03, 2015, 12:27:16 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on October 02, 2015, 06:25:47 PM
:o A PAGAN. ONE OF THE WICKER PEOPLE.
QuotePhotos from MySpace The Oregon gunman who lined up his victims and asked specifically which ones were Christians before shooting them execution style, had a special interest in "magick" and "spiritualism" and had joined a dating website called "Spiritual Passion." On the site, Christopher Harper Mercer, 26, who killed 10 people and injured seven at Umpqua...
http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2015/10/oregon-shooter-into-occult-wiccan-dating-website-shutters-public-access-to-killers-profile-3223138.html
So my Discordian Thelemite Jungian line would have probably been a safe pick. :hmm:
Probably. Had he have been a militant atheist, he would have shot everybody in the head.
Actually a Discordian Thelemite Jungian can also pass for an atheist. It is a very universal hoi-polloi.
Quote from: Caliga on October 02, 2015, 01:43:29 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 02, 2015, 12:46:10 PM
So I guess you guys just need to mobilise and change the system by electing people who are not hostage to the gun lobby - that is if you cared enough about it to do something instead of bitching on online forums. :D
You seem to be operating under the assumption that America is a democracy or a republic, rather than a plutocracy. :hmm:
You all also seem to be operating under the assumption that a majority of the electorate would actually be in favor of more stringent gun control, which isn't obvious.
Personally, I don't have any problem at all with requiring all firearms to be registered, but I don't think that would stop any shootings, just make it easier to figure out who committed them if they weren't caught in the act (which mass shooters almost always are).
And I don't have any problem with building a lot of new mental hospitals and making it easier to involuntarily commit people to them. It would be a better use of tax money than some of the things we spend it on instead.
Quote from: Jaron on October 03, 2015, 01:04:41 AM
Had they been Hindus, he would have said "Prepare to meet Kali...in HELL"
Nice. :lol:
Quote from: Berkut on October 02, 2015, 11:30:30 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 02, 2015, 10:50:04 AM
Quote from: Valmy on October 02, 2015, 09:16:09 AM
And even better the more fanatic 2nd Amendment types think any mental health check before selling a gun is a form of gun control.
Ok, there are probably fanatic 2nd Amendment types and fanatic anti-gun types - but wouldn't the moderates wishing to introduce some form of gun control (such as background checks and waiting periods, for example) whilst keeping the right to bear arms in principle, be the majority? It seems like this is one of these issues where politicians on both sides are more interested in keeping it as a wedge issue rather than a problem to be solved by compromise.
It is actually an example of where a minority can hold a democracy hostage to their views, even while the majority thinks they are bonkers.
It is a third rail for the radical gun nuts. Any attempt to have any kind of gun control is an instant and total reversal of any support for a politician, regardless of other views. Your typical gun nut would vote for a no gun control ever Sarah Palin over any kind of sane gun control advocate even if they aligned with all other views and where clearly a superior choice.
Couple that with vesting all political capital in the gun control debate into an organization that has been completely taken over by the complete crazies (the NRA) and the problem is considerably worse than simply whether we can have rational gun control. The debate happening right now is whether the NRA and their ilk will even allow current laws on the books to be enforced, much less discuss new ones.
then the majority should start attacking the NRA.
Quote from: viper37 on October 03, 2015, 08:25:36 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 02, 2015, 11:30:30 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 02, 2015, 10:50:04 AM
Quote from: Valmy on October 02, 2015, 09:16:09 AM
And even better the more fanatic 2nd Amendment types think any mental health check before selling a gun is a form of gun control.
Ok, there are probably fanatic 2nd Amendment types and fanatic anti-gun types - but wouldn't the moderates wishing to introduce some form of gun control (such as background checks and waiting periods, for example) whilst keeping the right to bear arms in principle, be the majority? It seems like this is one of these issues where politicians on both sides are more interested in keeping it as a wedge issue rather than a problem to be solved by compromise.
It is actually an example of where a minority can hold a democracy hostage to their views, even while the majority thinks they are bonkers.
It is a third rail for the radical gun nuts. Any attempt to have any kind of gun control is an instant and total reversal of any support for a politician, regardless of other views. Your typical gun nut would vote for a no gun control ever Sarah Palin over any kind of sane gun control advocate even if they aligned with all other views and where clearly a superior choice.
Couple that with vesting all political capital in the gun control debate into an organization that has been completely taken over by the complete crazies (the NRA) and the problem is considerably worse than simply whether we can have rational gun control. The debate happening right now is whether the NRA and their ilk will even allow current laws on the books to be enforced, much less discuss new ones.
then the majority should start attacking the NRA.
with guns...right? :lol:
That would show them
Quote from: Martinus on October 02, 2015, 03:01:57 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 02, 2015, 02:35:37 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 02, 2015, 02:26:57 PM
I'm not hearing a great deal of thought put into the regulatory specifics. In other words, what type of gun control is supposed to keep guns out of the hands of mass shooters?
Mandatory licensing in order to own firearms, requiring safety courses and background checks.
Bans on assault rifles and large capacity magazines.
Bans on carrying weapons in public places, open or concealed.
Ban private ownership of handguns.
Run afoul of the second amendment? Probably.
That's not feasible in the US legal system.
The US political system is so fucking hijacked by the gun nuts, there is actually a ban in place that prevents the CDC from investigating gun violence, since if you consider the problem.
Let's all think about that for a moment.
The NRA crazy fucks have actually gotten us to a place where an objective, fact based scientific investigation by the government into gun violence is seen as an attack on gun rahts.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/08/opinion/halpern-gun-research/
QuoteThe scientific literature regarding violence prevention is considerable. Yet important research that focuses on gun violence has been shut down for political purposes. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention once considered gun violence a public health issue. The science agency had the freedom to ask important questions: Does having a gun in the home make a family safer? Do concealed carry laws increase or reduce gun fatalities?
But in 1996, the National Rifle Association pressured its many supporters in Congress to put the squeeze on the CDC by cutting funding that went to gun research, with the stipulation: "None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control." Gun-related research ground to a halt.
In 2009, scientists funded by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism looked into whether carrying a gun increases or decreases the risk of being shot in an assault. In 2011, Montana Rep. Denny Rehberg inserted a provision into a funding bill that extended the CDC restrictions to the rest of the Department of Health and Human Services, ending that similar research. Even Obamacare has been touched by the NRA: The new health care law restricts doctors' ability to collect data about patients' gun use.
For all its faults, NRA isn't stupid enough to believe that guns save lives, even if that's what it conditions its members and sympathizers to believe.
All of it comes down to the lack of desire to have an honest debate. There is some value to argument that having guns around is cultural preference, and cultural preferences sometimes come with a human toll that we're okay with. But as with many political issues, there is a desire to pass off a preference as the only reasonable thing to do, to turn the balance of pluses and minuses into a balance of pluses and bigger pluses. Guns not only give you freedom, but they save lives too. How can anyone who's not a total moron or a totalitarian be against that?
And let's be clear, every single argument in favor of guns that claims that they save lives in aggregate is based on either an obvious lie or an obvious fallacy. Every. Single. One. Lies or stupidities, all of them.
Dguller and Berkut in alliance. The world shudders!
Quote from: Razgovory on October 05, 2015, 04:09:35 PM
Dguller and Berkut in alliance. The world shudders!
I don't know if we are, and in any case, Berkut and I often agree on the issues, he just doesn't give me credit for getting there the correct way.
For the record, I'm neither for nor against gun ownership. I'm against sophistry, and gun nuts are in a league of their own in that department. Not for lack of competition by any means, they're just so good at what they do.
Quote from: DGuller on October 05, 2015, 04:07:17 PM
And let's be clear, every single argument in favor of guns that claims that they save lives in aggregate is based on either an obvious lie or an obvious fallacy. Every. Single. One. Lies or stupidities, all of them.
Seems to me the more relevant question is whether guns save the lives of innocent victims. The fact that a lot of people off themselves with guns is really neither here nor there.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 05, 2015, 04:28:45 PM
Quote from: DGuller on October 05, 2015, 04:07:17 PM
And let's be clear, every single argument in favor of guns that claims that they save lives in aggregate is based on either an obvious lie or an obvious fallacy. Every. Single. One. Lies or stupidities, all of them.
Seems to me the more relevant question is whether guns save the lives of innocent victims. The fact that a lot of people off themselves with guns is really neither here nor there.
This isn't the only consideration, but in any case, I disagree. Suicide is a result of an illness, and guns in the vicinity make that illness much more fatal. It should definitely be one of the factors considered in the relationship of numbers of guns to numbers of deaths.
Quote from: DGuller on October 05, 2015, 04:36:25 PM
This isn't the only consideration, but in any case, I disagree. Suicide is a result of an illness, and guns in the vicinity make that illness much more fatal. It should definitely be one of the factors considered in the relationship of numbers of guns to numbers of deaths.
People are outraged at the moment about the epidemic of mass shootings and we are having this discussion in the context of proposed solutions. If we're analyzing the effectiveness of an armed populace in deterring future Columbines, the fact that people kill themselves with guns is totally irrelevant.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 05, 2015, 05:54:05 PM
Quote from: DGuller on October 05, 2015, 04:36:25 PM
This isn't the only consideration, but in any case, I disagree. Suicide is a result of an illness, and guns in the vicinity make that illness much more fatal. It should definitely be one of the factors considered in the relationship of numbers of guns to numbers of deaths.
People are outraged at the moment about the epidemic of mass shootings and we are having this discussion in the context of proposed solutions. If we're analyzing the effectiveness of an armed populace in deterring future Columbines, the fact that people kill themselves with guns is totally irrelevant.
Disagree. This
was a suicide. The shooter chose to murder people as a part of it.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 05, 2015, 05:54:05 PM
People are outraged at the moment about the epidemic of mass shootings and we are having this discussion in the context of proposed solutions. If we're analyzing the effectiveness of an armed populace in deterring future Columbines, the fact that people kill themselves with guns is totally irrelevant.
I'm not sure we're limiting ourselves to just that kind of analysis. But, for the sake of the argument, let's limit ourselves to this analysis.
You don't think cost/benefit analysis is appropriate here? if the cost of saving 1 life from mass shooting is 100 extra suicides that would have otherwise not happened or succeeded, that's a successful policy?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 05, 2015, 05:54:05 PM
Quote from: DGuller on October 05, 2015, 04:36:25 PM
This isn't the only consideration, but in any case, I disagree. Suicide is a result of an illness, and guns in the vicinity make that illness much more fatal. It should definitely be one of the factors considered in the relationship of numbers of guns to numbers of deaths.
People are outraged at the moment about the epidemic of mass shootings and we are having this discussion in the context of proposed solutions. If we're analyzing the effectiveness of an armed populace in deterring future Columbines, the fact that people kill themselves with guns is totally irrelevant.
The percentage of the population of the US who owns guns is high. The number of shootings is high. There seems to be a relationship there even if you want to ignore the number of other deaths (eg suicide and accidental discharges) that are also gun related.
Quote from: DGuller on October 05, 2015, 06:31:26 PM
I'm not sure we're limiting ourselves to just that kind of analysis. But, for the sake of the argument, let's limit ourselves to this analysis.
You don't think cost/benefit analysis is appropriate here? if the cost of saving 1 life from mass shooting is 100 extra suicides that would have otherwise not happened or succeeded, that's a successful policy?
I don't think suicide is a totally terrible thing.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 05, 2015, 06:59:55 PM
Quote from: DGuller on October 05, 2015, 06:31:26 PM
I'm not sure we're limiting ourselves to just that kind of analysis. But, for the sake of the argument, let's limit ourselves to this analysis.
You don't think cost/benefit analysis is appropriate here? if the cost of saving 1 life from mass shooting is 100 extra suicides that would have otherwise not happened or succeeded, that's a successful policy?
I don't think suicide is a totally terrible thing.
So should it go to the benefit column?
Quote from: dps on October 03, 2015, 03:07:11 AM
Quote from: Caliga on October 02, 2015, 01:43:29 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 02, 2015, 12:46:10 PM
So I guess you guys just need to mobilise and change the system by electing people who are not hostage to the gun lobby - that is if you cared enough about it to do something instead of bitching on online forums. :D
You seem to be operating under the assumption that America is a democracy or a republic, rather than a plutocracy. :hmm:
You all also seem to be operating under the assumption that a majority of the electorate would actually be in favor of more stringent gun control, which isn't obvious.
Personally, I don't have any problem at all with requiring all firearms to be registered, but I don't think that would stop any shootings, just make it easier to figure out who committed them if they weren't caught in the act (which mass shooters almost always are).
And I don't have any problem with building a lot of new mental hospitals and making it easier to involuntarily commit people to them. It would be a better use of tax money than some of the things we spend it on instead.
Yeah, the "problem" seems as much cultural as legal.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 05, 2015, 04:28:45 PM
Seems to me the more relevant question is whether guns save the lives of innocent victims. The fact that a lot of people off themselves with guns is really neither here nor there.
You aggregate all guns together. In all kind of situation.
If you have an assault rifle locked down in your basement and you are woken up in the middle of the night by someone entering your house, how is it of any help?
If you have an handgun but you never received any training and just leave it hanging around for anyone to pick up, you are a threat to just about anyone.
There is an argument for having a well trained militia. There is an argument for letting hunters practice their sports. There is an argument for having people train in the use of handguns, being screened for its possession and then having it at home or on themselves.
But I just can't see how a 11 year old shooting is an 8 year old is a demonstration that a live would have been saved if the little girl had had her own handgun.
And in the case of mass shooting, having untrained civilians prone to panic armed to the teeth will only make things worst. As we have seen with many cases in the US over the years, most notably the Zimmerman case.
Besides, if terrorists where to invade a public building and start shooting, by the time anyone with a gun could even thing of pulling it, they'd likely be dead.
I'm all for softening canadian gun laws, but I'd never want the US system where anybody can own nearly anything. I am undecided if some guns should simply be totally banned or if they offer some value to reasonable people, but I wouldn't feel safe knowing that just about anybody in town could own a fully automatic assault rifle.
Quote from: 11B4V on October 03, 2015, 09:06:28 PM
with guns...right? :lol:
that'd be nice to see :lol:
But no, I was thinking attack ads, ad hom, deformation of truths, anonymous conspiracy theories about the NRA, the stuff they basically do themselves.
Quote from: DGuller on October 05, 2015, 07:16:03 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 05, 2015, 06:59:55 PM
Quote from: DGuller on October 05, 2015, 06:31:26 PM
I'm not sure we're limiting ourselves to just that kind of analysis. But, for the sake of the argument, let's limit ourselves to this analysis.
You don't think cost/benefit analysis is appropriate here? if the cost of saving 1 life from mass shooting is 100 extra suicides that would have otherwise not happened or succeeded, that's a successful policy?
I don't think suicide is a totally terrible thing.
So should it go to the benefit column?
Given the urgent need for human dieback, the least we could do is treat the people who opt out of consuming and polluting as the heroes they are. :)
Even so, guns are a pretty bad vehicle for suicide. Those who fail to complete tend to be all fucked up.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 05, 2015, 08:57:48 PM
Even so, guns are a pretty bad vehicle for suicide. Those who fail to complete tend to be all fucked up.
The same could be said for most readily available methods.
Indeed.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 05, 2015, 09:23:10 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 05, 2015, 08:57:48 PM
Even so, guns are a pretty bad vehicle for suicide. Those who fail to complete tend to be all fucked up.
The same could be said for most readily available methods.
jumping off a bridge usually does the trick. Well, in the St-Lawrence, at least. During winter.
The NRA and Yi, fighting global climate change one suicide at a time :lol:
Quote from: Barrister on October 02, 2015, 02:35:37 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 02, 2015, 02:26:57 PM
I'm not hearing a great deal of thought put into the regulatory specifics. In other words, what type of gun control is supposed to keep guns out of the hands of mass shooters?
Mandatory licensing in order to own firearms, requiring safety courses and background checks.
Bans on assault rifles and large capacity magazines.
Bans on carrying weapons in public places, open or concealed.
Ban private ownership of handguns.
Run afoul of the second amendment? Probably.
Banning private ownership outright would certainly run afoul of the 2nd amendment.
The rest not necessarily.
To elaborate on above, many NE states have mandatory licensing, bans on certain weapon or mag types, and/or carry bans; Supreme Court has not struck those laws down.
Fucking 4chan <_<
http://wehuntedthemammoth.com/2015/10/05/4channers-now-threatening-to-shoot-up-every-school-they-can-think-of-as-well-as-whoville-and-the-moon/
Beta uprising? Nobody uses video tapes anymore.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 06, 2015, 10:53:18 PM
Fucking 4chan <_<
http://wehuntedthemammoth.com/2015/10/05/4channers-now-threatening-to-shoot-up-every-school-they-can-think-of-as-well-as-whoville-and-the-moon/
sounds like a guy with a stick up his ass re: 4chan. his whole site is devoted to hunting down internet misogyny. given gamersgate originated on 4chan, i'm sure he's been attacked / has attacked some people on 4chan in the past. 4chan is... interesting in a lot of ways, but none of those posts are threats. they're jokes.
Whatever happened to the idea of funny jokes? :(
Quote from: viper37 on October 05, 2015, 08:49:42 PM
...
I am undecided if some guns should simply be totally banned or if they offer some value to reasonable people, but I wouldn't feel safe knowing that just about anybody in town could own a fully automatic assault rifle.
The citizenry doesn't need guns - there are professionals trained in their use that exist for that.
G.
Quote from: garbon on October 07, 2015, 06:07:10 AM
Whatever happened to the idea of funny jokes? :(
it's 4chan, what do you expect :P
I have a shotgun licence for my musketeering activities. The application process takes at least six weeks and includes a reference from a GP or other professional who has known you for five years or more, and a home visit by a police firearms officer. If you keep a weapon at your property, it has to be securely bolted to a structural outside wall. None of my walls are strong enough, as witnessed by the inspecting officer pulling my gun mounting off the wall, so I can't keep one at home.
Firearms licenses for rifles etc. are even stricter, and most types of handguns were banned in the aftermath of the Dunblane Primary School massacre in March 1996.
The laws are so strictly enforced that even the GB pistol team had to prepare abroad for the London 2012 Olympics and Home Secretary Charles Clarke had to give special permission for Olympic pistol events to be staged in the UK.
Quote from: Brazen on October 07, 2015, 07:35:28 AM
I have a shotgun licence for my musketeering activities. The application process takes at least six weeks and includes a reference from a GP or other professional who has known you for five years or more, and a home visit by a police firearms officer. If you keep a weapon at your property, it has to be securely bolted to a structural outside wall. None of my walls are strong enough, as witnessed by the inspecting officer pulling my gun mounting off the wall, so I can't keep one at home.
Firearms licenses for rifles etc. are even stricter, and most types of handguns were banned in the aftermath of the Dunblane Primary School massacre in March 1996.
The laws are so strictly enforced that even the GB pistol team had to prepare abroad for the London 2012 Olympics and Home Secretary Charles Clarke had to give special permission for Olympic pistol events to be staged in the UK.
Well no wonder all the bad guys are running around shooting everyone up over there.
Quote from: LaCroix on October 07, 2015, 07:08:54 AM
it's 4chan, what do you expect :P
Honestly? No idea. Any particular reason I should know what to expect from 4chan?
They are the boogey man of the Internet.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 07, 2015, 01:11:33 PM
They are the boogey man of the Internet.
Aren't they anime fans? I mean granted I never thought much of anime before learning a gentleman and scholar like Mono is a fan.