Unconfirmed reports of 15-17 dead in shooting at Oregon community college

[Viligant_Warrior]

Why I have to trot out this information every time we have one of these tragedies would confound me, if I didn't know liberals have a selective memory when it comes to their agenda: They can't remember the mountains of research that suggests that agenda fails on almost every single issue it addresses.

As to gun control, the Small Government Times offers a summary of a Harvard study done about eight years ago suggesting gun control doesn't work. I want to emphasize, as someone who reads research all the time, making a blanket statement like the headline below is inaccurate. I'll explain that at the end. But that headline can be said, in lay terms, to support the results of the study.

Harvard: Gun control doesn't work

"The Harvard study attempts to answer the question of whether or not banning firearms would reduce murders and suicides. Researchers looked at crime data from several European countries and found that countries with higher gun ownership often had lower murder rates.

"Russia, for example, enforces very strict gun control on its people, but its murder rate remains quite high. In fact, the murder rate in Russia isfour times higherthan in the 'gun-ridden' United States, cites the study. 'Homicide results suggest that where guns are scarce other weapons are substituted in killings.' In other words, the elimination of guns does not eliminate murder, and in the case of gun-controlled Russia, murder rates are quite high.

"The study revealed several European countries with significant gun ownership, like Norway, Finland, Germany and France – had remarkably low murder rates. Contrast that with Luxembourg, 'where handguns are totally banned and ownership of any kind of gun is minimal,' had a murder rate nine times higherthan Germany in 2002.

"The study found no evidence to suggest that the availability of guns contributes to higher murder rates anywhere in the world. 'Of course, it may be speculated that murder rates around the world would be higher if guns were more available. But there is simply no evidence to support this.' ”

Research doesn't "prove" anything. It can give strong indication of the correctness or failure of the hypothesis of the study. The above-quoted study done by Kates and Mauser had the stated hypothesis that gun control impacted homicide rates worldwide, but they did not find the data to support that assumption.

 

[Omni]

The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution gives citizens the right to bear arms in order to establish and maintain a well regulated militia to protect the security of the free state. My argument is twofold:

1. The definition of "arms" is "weapons and armaments". Obviously, citizens can't buy tanks for their public militia, and I assume that's because tanks are really, really dangerous. If one type of armament can be restricted, so can the rest.

2. The more important argument: is allowing mentally unstable people free access to arms, protective? Is a public militia who kills the public, well-regulated? Is the security of the free state being protected when the civilians of that free state are being killed by the public militia?

I'd propose a system like the UK: You apply for a gun license, and part of the application's conditions are that you go to your doctor, undergo a short psychiatric evaluation and procure from your doctor a certificate of good mental health that you then give to the licensing body of your own volition. If the applicant does so, they will receive the license. And every license is subject to annual or biannual renewal.

Thereby, your privacy is not being violated; your militia is being well-regulated; and your guns aren't being given to psychos who want to shoot up schools.

 

[Abing]

Is it true that the shooter singled out the Christians and shot them in the head? While the non-Christians, he shot on the knee?

 

[Omni]

As for the statistics above: violent crime has a much broader definition in European countries than in the US. So, you'd expect higher violent crime rates. Last I checked, the USA defines violent crime as murder, bodily harm and forcible rape. The UK and most Western European countries on the other hand, define it as any type of unwanted physical contact, including murder, rape, GBH, common assault, even pushing, shoving, or physical sexual harassment like bum-pinching or slapping.

In the last census it was reported that just over 50% of violent crimes in the UK resulted in no physical injury to the victim, so if you're worried about being physically harmed in the UK and want to look at the overall violent crime stats, you can practically slash them in half and that'll give you the number of people who were actually physically harmed.

The facts are: There are about 2.8 times as many firearm murders per 100,000 people in the US, as there are total murders in the same number of people in the UK. You're just as likely to be stabbed in the UK as in the US, but you're nearly 30 times as likely to be shot dead in the US. You're just as likely to be robbed or burgled in both countries, but you're many times more likely to have your car stolen in the US. And in the US, you're also several times more likely to be raped. If you count prison rape statistics (which doesn't really happen in the UK) the number rockets.

 

[Siberian_Khatru]

[video=youtube;x5U_XD4kDJ4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5U_XD4kDJ4[/video]

...

 

[Angela53510]

Why I have to trot out this information every time we have one of these tragedies would confound me, if I didn't know liberals have a selective memory when it comes to their agenda: They can't remember the mountains of research that suggests that agenda fails on almost every single issue it addresses.

As to gun control, the Small Government Times offers a summary of a Harvard study done about eight years ago suggesting gun control doesn't work. I want to emphasize, as someone who reads research all the time, making a blanket statement like the headline below is inaccurate. I'll explain that at the end. But that headline can be said, in lay terms, to support the results of the study.

Research doesn't "prove" anything. It can give strong indication of the correctness or failure of the hypothesis of the study. The above-quoted study done by Kates and Mauser had the stated hypothesis that gun control impacted homicide rates worldwide, but they did not find the data to support that assumption.

Gun control works in Canada, Australia, Japan, many countries in Europe, etc etc. I could put up the stats again. And suffice it to say, it is not something we even worry about here. No one carries a gun, and basically, no one worries about guns (except maybe gangs, which is out of the scope of my knowledge!)

Or are you saying that because of the gun culture mentality in the United States, it would be impossible to make people into law abiding citizens who respected the lives of their fellow citizens?

 

[PennEd]

Is it true that the shooter singled out the Christians and shot them in the head? While the non-Christians, he shot on the knee?

I have heard that is true. What a testimony to our Lord from these people. God can use tragedy to bring others to the saving Grace of His precious Son.

 

[Omni]

Gun control works in Canada, Australia, Japan, many countries in Europe, etc etc. I could put up the stats again. And suffice it to say, it is not something we even worry about here. No one carries a gun, and basically, no one worries about guns (except maybe gangs, which is out of the scope of my knowledge!)

Or are you saying that because of the gun culture mentality in the United States, it would be impossible to make people into law abiding citizens who respected the lives of their fellow citizens?

I think that a lot of the issue with the US mentality is "if we have no guns, how will we protect ourselves from criminals who have guns?" But people forget that creating laws to control guns isn't the same as banning them altogether. People would still be able to get guns with medical supporting evidence. All gun control would mean in the US is that the people who shouldn't have guns (unstable people, or people with records of violent crimes), won't be able to get guns legally. As for illegal weapons procurement, it's a problem that can be addressed by a national census on gun ownership and stricter border controls. Obviously it won't happen overnight, but it's possible to, eventually, have police records of every person who legally owns a gun, and to prosecute those who own guns illegally.

I would also strongly recommend demilitarizing the police force and making it part of the public domain, like the UK. Then, police officers cease to be agents of federal government and become agents of the people of the free state.

There's a lot of things I don't like about the UK, but its handling of firearms and policing is not one of them. I think the UK police force is one of the best maintained and operated in the world.

 

[Nautilus]

And yes if you restrict guns people might use other weaponsa...but i dont remember the last mass school stabbing...

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

Gun control works in Canada, Australia, Japan, many countries in Europe, etc etc. I could put up the stats again.

You don't have the "gun culture" there that we do ...

... and by that, I don't mean white, rural, non-college degree men over 30. I mean the young inner city high-school-dropout black men with gang affiliation, 17-24, who account for 77% of murder victims and who also represent 84% of perpetrators of homicide in the U.S., including white mass murderers like the one who surfaced in Roseburg, Oregon yesterday.

And suffice it to say, it is not something we even worry about here.

Neither do we. Not if we're not prone to come across that young black demographic I just cited. If you remove black-on-black crime from U.S. statistics, our homicide numbers look almost identical to your.

Now, I fully expect liberals to howl and screech like banshees when they read this post. Let 'em. I don't care. Facts are facts, and there's nothing the can do about them. Well actually, there is, but they won't dismantle the welfare and entitlement systems that have bred this generation of uncaring, irresponsible black fathers.

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

Gun control works in Canada, Australia, Japan, many countries in Europe, etc etc. I could put up the stats again.

Another thing: Chicago and Baltimore, despite having some of the toughest gun laws in the nation, have seen skyrocketing gun violence and record homicide rates -- yet again, in deaths of young, inner city, gang affiliated black men, perpetrated by young, inner city, gang affiliated black men. Gun control is not the reason homicide rates drop. In fact, it appears to have exactly the opposite effect. The NRA slogan is trite but true: When guns are outlawed, only outlaws have guns.

Baltimore shootings skyrocket despite strict gun control

If Chicago has such strict gun control, why are there so many shooting deaths?

 

[Omni]

I recently discovered than in many places you can buy guns online in America without any background checks. Would it be fair of me to assume that's where all the black guys you talk about get their guns?

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

I recently discovered than in most places you can buy guns online in America without any background checks. Would it be fair of me to assume that's where all the black guys you talk about get their guns?

Perhaps a few. Most get them off the street for $50-$100 a pop from other young black men who stole them or are fencing for someone who did.

 

[Omni]

Perhaps a few. Most get them off the street for $50-$100 a pop from other young black men who stole them or are fencing for someone who did.

Don't you think it would be worth a shot to create laws that stop people being able to get any guns without background checks?

 

[Omni]

I'm no genius, but it seems to me that the reason that gun crime goes up in certain gun-strict states is not as simple as Vigilant lays out (less guns means more predatory behaviour): obviously, this is part of the problem, but I see a more fundamental one -- if a city creates strict legislations, there is nothing stopping a gang from going elsewhere to get their guns. I mean, it isn't like every city or state has a border round it, posted with guards who check every car going in and out. As well as that, if people can buy their guns online without restrictions or background checks, then of course there are going to be gun problems in various cities, even when they do have stricter gun controls.

The USA is a land mass full of roads between and throughout cities and states. It would be necessary to create fundamental federal laws that are enforced in every city in every state, before any significant change is seen from gun-controls. That much is obvious. The issue is passing such laws.

I mean, a good start would be to create national laws that mean people who try to buy guns at gun-shows, in shops, online, or anywhere else that's legally allowed to sell them, must undergo background checks. That alone would be a massive (and moderate, and rational, and common sense) step forwards.

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

Don't you think it would be worth a shot to create laws that stop people being able to get any guns without background checks?

No, because people who want to avoid background checks aren't going to acquire guns legally anyway.

I'm no genius, but it seems to me that the reason that gun crime goes up in certain gun-strict states is not as simple as Vigilant lays out (less guns means more predatory behaviour): obviously, this is part of the problem, but I see a more fundamental one -- if a city creates strict legislations, there is nothing stopping a gang from going elsewhere to get their guns.

They don't have "go elsewhere." They simply break into a house in an upper middle class neighborhood and steal anything they find of value, particularly guns, or they buy them from someone who saved them the trouble.

I mean, a good start would be to create national laws that mean people who try to buy guns at gun-shows, in shops, online, or anywhere else that's legally allowed to sell them, must undergo background checks. That alone would be a massive (and moderate, and rational, and common sense) step forwards.

I'm not against such laws. But they aren't going to stop the criminals from acquiring guns. Criminals don't buy their guns. They steal them, or buy them from people who already stole them.

 

[wisebeardman]

some people really are low information types around here.

restricting guns aka gun control will NEVER work PERIOD. if you believe gun control works then you really are a low information type individual.

 

[jsr1221]

Someone mentioned background checks for guns and I couldn't agree more.. We have them for employment. Why couldn't gun sellers do the same thing? Owning a gun is more life dependent than working at a business. You screw up at a business, okay. Worst case scenario, you go out of business. You screw up with a gun, you die... Which is worse? Would background checks eliminate all gun related deaths? No. But it'd certainly reduce them.

 

[JeniBean]

Full background checks are required in all the states i've lived in. The only way you can walk in a store or how about a reputable store and buy a gun and take home right then is if like me you have your concealed weapons permit. Hence forth you have had full extensive back ground done. Otherwise a back ground check is done...you wait 3 business days and if you are approved you get your gun.

 

[dcontroversal]

Gun control works in Canada, Australia, Japan, many countries in Europe, etc etc. I could put up the stats again. And suffice it to say, it is not something we even worry about here. No one carries a gun, and basically, no one worries about guns (except maybe gangs, which is out of the scope of my knowledge!)

Or are you saying that because of the gun culture mentality in the United States, it would be impossible to make people into law abiding citizens who respected the lives of their fellow citizens?

Yeah that is why two were shot outside rhe Parametta Police station yesterday in Australia...I have been there 5 times since November..spent three months there and there were shootings almost every day...so...it is bs that gun control and confiscation stops shootings as the criminals will always get guns....now..if someone in Sydney would have been legally packing the terrorist who took over the Lindt Cafe would have been dealt with without the cops having had to shoot the place up which resulted in even more deaths of innocents!